Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jim binarynut@comcast.net wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
Yes.
Use gmail.
I've lost so many hours and emails to linux email clients that I have just given up.
If I had no other choice, I'd use the mail client in SeaMonkey.
Robert.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Robert Myers rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jim binarynut@comcast.net wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
Yes.
Use gmail.
I have to add a +100 here. The conversation threading is hard to beat and without it I don't know how I would keep up with several large volume mailing lists.
Richard
On 21 January 2011 22:23, Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com wrote
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Robert Myers rbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jim binarynut@comcast.net wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
Yes.
Use gmail.
I have to add a +100 here. The conversation threading is hard to beat and without it I don't know how I would keep up with several large volume mailing lists.
+1000
I work for a hosting company and see people struggling with mail all day. The reason I moved my mail to Gmail is because I don't *want* to be dealing with that kind of stuff at home ;o)
Plus it's free - so even the price is right!
Richard Shaw wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Robert Myersrbmyersusa@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Jimbinarynut@comcast.net wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
Yes.
Use gmail.
I have to add a +100 here. The conversation threading is hard to beat and without it I don't know how I would keep up with several large volume mailing lists.
Seamonkey mail is great,and you can integrate news (NNTP) and POP/IMAP accounts, handle RSS (even Twitter feeds), etc.
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
Try Claws Mail. It's faster than any other email client and very reliable.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:14:08 -0500 jack wallen wrote:
Try Claws Mail. It's faster than any other email client and very reliable.
Yes, claws works best for me. My favorite feature is that it won't display html mail unless I configure the plugin that I'll never configure :-).
And other very interesting thing - claws mail can add contacts to LDAP abook. Is sick that Mozilla mail clients do not know it - when Netscape had LDAP server very early.
Franta Hanzlík
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Tom Horsley horsley1953@gmail.com wrote:
Try Claws Mail. It's faster than any other email client and very reliable.
Yes, claws works best for me. My favorite feature is that it won't display html mail unless I configure the plugin that I'll never configure :-).
Claws is by far the best email client I have ever used. Amazing search functionalities, its very fast even over imap going through 1000s of emails! As for the best combination, I prefer GMail (for filtering and search) + claws-mail (for all the other things, as well as search).
On 21/01/11 17:08, Jim wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
I just compacted 3100+ messages in less than ten seconds in Thunderbird-3.1.7/F-14.
Bob
On 01/21/2011 02:08 PM, Jim wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
Have you tried the suggestions here: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Compacting_folders#Problems_when_compacting
On 01/21/2011 10:25 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote: <>
Have you tried the suggestions here: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Compacting_folders#Problems_when_compacting
*be aware*
that page has instructions that tell you to delete '.msf' file, which does clear some problems.
one thing that all should be aware of, anytime a 'folder file' is edited, the '.msf' file must be deleted.
*anytime* a 'folder file' is edited, *or* a '.msf' file is deleted, the 'panacea.dat' file in 'profile' directory *must* be deleted also.
when 'panacea.dat' file is deleted, thunderbird will take extra time opening and folder pane to left will be displayed unexpanded.
open 'account' or 'Local Folder' branch to see see folders.
what ever folder you were working with will be shown as empty. simply click that folder and it will be reread.
/*notes:*
anytime you edit a 'folder file' or delete a '.msf' file, you should do so with thunderbird *closed*. to do otherwise can/may/will corrupt a 'folder file'.
anytime you edit a 'folder file', if you do so with and editor set to remove end of line spaces and they are in header, header can/may/will become broken.
to find these broken headers, click on 'Subject' column bar and move scroll bar to top. any columns you see with a blank in 'Recipient' and 'Sender' columns indicate a broken header.
highlight the row and press <ctrl+u> to show source of header. open an editor window, then 'drag and drop' full "X-UIDL: " line to editor.
after collecting "X-UIDL: " lines, close thunderbird, open file browser, open directory with 'folder file', open 'folder file' in a new editor window.
with both editor windows open, in editor window of saved "X-UIDL: " lines, drag "X-UIDL: " line to highlight, press <ctrl+c> to copy, press <alt+tab> to move to editor window with 'folder file'. press <ctrl+f> to open 'Find text' window, press <ctrl+v> to enter "X-UIDL: " line into 'Text to find' bar, press <enter>.
when "X-UIDL: " line is highlighted, look thru header for a line space, move cursor to line space to remove line space. look thru rest of header for any more line spaces, and delete them.
if you are looking at source of an email that is multi-part, or is pgp/enigmail, do not remove line space.
if you are looking at source of an email that has 'DKIM-Signature:' or other header lines that are titled with a label followed by a ': ", and there is a line space within them, do not remove line space, as it may be caused by line wraps.
/*seton*
i know this is a bit of [OT] for 'Subject:', but it is intended to help.
hth.
On 02/03/2011 03:05 PM, g wrote:
*anytime* a 'folder file' is edited, *or* a '.msf' file is deleted, the 'panacea.dat' file in 'profile' directory *must* be deleted also.
Huh, didn't know that.. I've deleted .msf files a few times in the past without touching panacea.dat and so far it worked out okay When the folder is opened, Thunderbird takes some time to rebuild the index (how long depends on number of messages in the folder)
-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Konstantin Svist Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 15:33 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Is there a better Alternative to Thunderbird ?
On 02/03/2011 03:05 PM, g wrote:
*anytime* a 'folder file' is edited, *or* a '.msf' file is deleted, the 'panacea.dat' file in 'profile' directory *must* be deleted also.
Huh, didn't know that.. I've deleted .msf files a few times in the past without touching panacea.dat and so far it worked out okay When the folder is opened, Thunderbird takes some time to rebuild the index (how long depends on number of messages in the folder)
On 02/03/2011 11:44 PM, Michael Miles wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Konstantin Svist Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 15:33 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Is there a better Alternative to Thunderbird ?
On 02/03/2011 03:05 PM, g wrote:
*anytime* a 'folder file' is edited, *or* a '.msf' file is deleted, the 'panacea.dat' file in 'profile' directory *must* be deleted also.
Huh, didn't know that.. I've deleted .msf files a few times in the past without touching panacea.dat and so far it worked out okay When the folder is opened, Thunderbird takes some time to rebuild the index (how long depends on number of messages in the folder)
michael,
do not enter a reply to an email below a "-- ". that is a line with 2 dashes followed by a space.
this is known as a 'delimiter' and when replying to your post, what you wrote gets cut off and all that is in reply is what you see above.
you opinion about 'sea monkey' is your opinion. some will agree with you. many will not.
myself, i tried it and i prefer to stay with thunderbird.
mozilla wrote 'seamonkey' for a reason. your desires are one of those reasons.
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 08:11 +0000, g wrote:
do not enter a reply to an email below a "-- ". that is a line with 2 dashes followed by a space.
this is known as a 'delimiter' and when replying to your post, what you wrote gets cut off and all that is in reply is what you see above.
Despite talking about Seamonkey, he's using Outlook to post, which may have something to do with it (not to mention the wierd quoting style).
poc
On 02/04/2011 11:40 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: <>
Despite talking about Seamonkey, he's using Outlook to post, which may have something to do with it (not to mention the wierd quoting style).
yes. i looked at his header before replying because i was curious as to what email client he was using in that it did not trim "-- " and all there after.
so i just figured he was 'bipolar' and one of him used linux.
either way, both of them need to be aware of "-- ".
-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Patrick O'Callaghan Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 3:40 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Is there a better Alternative to Thunderbird ?
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 08:11 +0000, g wrote:
do not enter a reply to an email below a "-- ". that is a line with 2 dashes followed by a space.
this is known as a 'delimiter' and when replying to your post, what you wrote gets cut off and all that is in reply is what you see above.
Despite talking about Seamonkey, he's using Outlook to post, which may have something to do with it (not to mention the wierd quoting style).
poc
You all caught me using Windoze again...
The problem is I got a nice 460 gtx and it does not function correctly with Linux at this time. I use Seti at home to crunch data and between me and ten other guys we have a betting pool to see who can get the highest RAC It's worth quite a bit of $$$ so I run Seti full blast and the 460 gtx has given me an added 804 gigaflops on top of my Phenom 2 965
Overclocking is a big issue with the 460 and Fedora. I almost blew this card because fan control is very poor under Linux. The drivers are just not there yet.
Unfortunately Windows 7 x64 is what I have to run to get SAFE control of this card. I overclock this to 925 Mhz from 675 so that is quite an overclock at a nice 45 degree C
I still run Fedora but it is through a virtual machine.
Virusville is where I am again. Coming from fedora I am stunned about these darn viruses again.
I do miss running Fedora, the safety of Fedora is really missed.
Until the driver issue is fixed Windoze is where I sit as a steady and Fedora is my secondary
Have a good day Michael
On 02/03/2011 11:33 PM, Konstantin Svist wrote:
On 02/03/2011 03:05 PM, g wrote:
*anytime* a 'folder file' is edited, *or* a '.msf' file is deleted, the 'panacea.dat' file in 'profile' directory *must* be deleted also.
Huh, didn't know that.. I've deleted .msf files a few times in the past without touching panacea.dat and so far it worked out okay
just why are you deleting a '.msf' file?
have you gone back and looked thru old emails in those folders?
i admit, you *may not* have problems, if nothing has been done to 'folder file'. but you are taking a chance.
if a '.msf' file gets corrupt, 'panacea.dat' will also get corrupted.
the "*must*" is to help prevent corruption of the 'folder file'.
a tip to find one of the corruptions that can happen, select sort order, in turn, on the 'Subject', 'Recipient', 'From', 'Date' columns. move scroll bar to top row. do you have blanks?
when you select 'Subject' column and all that shows is the 'Date' column, you have a header that may well have a line space just after the "X-Mozilla-Keys:" label that needs to be removed.
opening such emails will show you line after where the line space is.
this does not apply to emails with a blank/missing 'Subject:' label. if such emails do not have a line space in header, 'Recipient' and 'From' entries will show.
using <ctrl+u> will show you source of email and you will see if there are line spaces in header. do be aware of line wrap spacing.
When the folder is opened, Thunderbird takes some time to rebuild the index (how long depends on number of messages in the folder)
this is true. thunderbird is rebuilding the '.mst' file and updating the 'panacea.dat' file.
On 21Jan2011 17:08, Jim binarynut@comcast.net wrote: | Fedora 14 / KDE | Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the | Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other | things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser. | In Fedora is there a better email Browser ? | I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
I use mutt for my email. It's text only, but plenty fast and flexible. And WAY better remotely. Happy to go into detail...
On 01/21/2011 02:25 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 21Jan2011 17:08, Jim binarynut@comcast.net wrote: | Fedora 14 / KDE | Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the | Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other | things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser. | In Fedora is there a better email Browser ? | I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
I use mutt for my email. It's text only, but plenty fast and flexible. And WAY better remotely. Happy to go into detail...
Over time, I've found that alot of software works very well for certain configurations, but if you use some features or configure things too far from the default, they don't seem to work at all. It sounds like you are using local folders.
I use thunderbird with a dovecot imap server with maybe 50-60 folders and several years of messages in the fedora, centos, ubuntu, postfix mailing lists and it is amazingly fast. Instead of compacting all the folders at once (file->compact folders), I've found that if you right click the folder and compact only the current folder things work much better. I generally only need to manipulate 1 folder at a time.
I believe thunderbird uses mbox format for local mail files, which is not the fastest, i.e. all messages in a folder are stored in one file, so it has to go through and rewrite the entire folder.
If you have alot of large folders turning off the mail indexing feature will also speed things up alot. I'm not sure if this affects compact folders or not.
I haven't used evolution for several years, but it used to crash on me all the time when I last used it.
Nataraj
On 01/21/2011 02:59 PM, Nataraj wrote:
On 01/21/2011 02:25 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 21Jan2011 17:08, Jimbinarynut@comcast.net wrote: | Fedora 14 / KDE | Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the | Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other | things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser. | In Fedora is there a better email Browser ? | I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
I use mutt for my email. It's text only, but plenty fast and flexible. And WAY better remotely. Happy to go into detail...
Over time, I've found that alot of software works very well for certain configurations, but if you use some features or configure things too far from the default, they don't seem to work at all. It sounds like you are using local folders.
I use thunderbird with a dovecot imap server with maybe 50-60 folders and several years of messages in the fedora, centos, ubuntu, postfix mailing lists and it is amazingly fast. Instead of compacting all the folders at once (file->compact folders), I've found that if you right click the folder and compact only the current folder things work much better. I generally only need to manipulate 1 folder at a time.
Yes. What do you need to compress Archive folders for if all you do is add mail to them? Typically only In and Junk need compression. Oh, and Sent. When you empty Trash, it gets naturally compressed.
I believe thunderbird uses mbox format for local mail files, which is not the fastest, i.e. all messages in a folder are stored in one file, so it has to go through and rewrite the entire folder.
If you have alot of large folders turning off the mail indexing feature will also speed things up alot. I'm not sure if this affects compact folders or not.
I haven't used evolution for several years, but it used to crash on me all the time when I last used it.
Nataraj
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 17:08 -0500, Jim wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
Evolution works well for me but it is a Gnome application. What did not work well for you in Evolution.
On 01/21/2011 02:08 PM, Jim wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
I run FOUR copies of Thunderbird at one time, each with its own directory structure. Each has multiple mail addresses to download.
I start them with command lines like:
export MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1 thunderbird -profile ~/data/htt/Mail & export -n MOZ_NO_REMOTE
A typical mail 'system' will have 5Gb of archived mail in a 100+ nested folders. 1000+ emails per mail copy per day is typical. Compacting <in> and <junk> goes fast and thank g-d, never a crash from that. My system has crashed from running hot during a 3000+ mail download after being offline for a weekend and Thunderbird just 'reached' out and downloaded the mail, but given I am using POP (I could use IMAP but don't) it had to start from the beginning.
If Trash gets above 50K messages I will start consider emptying it. I sometimes have to scan all my message folders when trying to remember where I stuffed something and if it is a header search still only takes a couple minutes. (I have learned to limit body searches to specific folders!)
Oh, my mail server is running Courier Mail for POP and IMAP on a Fedora 12 Amahi.org server.
I do have SquirrelMail available on my server and have used it at times.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
On 01/21/2011 02:08 PM, Jim wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
I run FOUR copies of Thunderbird at one time, each with its own directory structure. Each has multiple mail addresses to download.
I start them with command lines like:
export MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1 thunderbird -profile ~/data/htt/Mail & export -n MOZ_NO_REMOTE
A typical mail 'system' will have 5Gb of archived mail in a 100+ nested folders. 1000+ emails per mail copy per day is typical. Compacting <in> and <junk> goes fast and thank g-d, never a crash from that. My system has crashed from running hot during a 3000+ mail download after being offline for a weekend and Thunderbird just 'reached' out and downloaded the mail, but given I am using POP (I could use IMAP but don't) it had to start from the beginning.
If Trash gets above 50K messages I will start consider emptying it. I sometimes have to scan all my message folders when trying to remember where I stuffed something and if it is a header search still only takes a couple minutes. (I have learned to limit body searches to specific folders!)
Oh, my mail server is running Courier Mail for POP and IMAP on a Fedora 12 Amahi.org server.
I do have SquirrelMail available on my server and have used it at times.
There is probably a bullet-proof way to do just about anything in Linux. Unfortunately, you often do not discover the correct formula for body armor until your body is already riddled with bullets.
I have a complicated system, as non-enterprise systems go, and I have plenty of administrative chores just to keep the various real and virtual instances up-to-date and well-behaved.
Everyone has to set his or her own priorities. Mine do not include being smart about email clients.
I use the command-line to be smart about lots of things. I'm glad I don't have to do it with email.
Robert.
Robert.
On 01/21/2011 02:55 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Robert Moskowitzrgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
On 01/21/2011 02:08 PM, Jim wrote:
Fedora 14 / KDE
Today my Thunderbird-3.1.7 crashed and sent all my 1500 emails to the Trash Can. Thunderbird was taking so long to compact and other things it had to do and locking up my desktop and Web Browser.
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I tried Evolution but it just does not seem to work very good in Fedora 14.
I run FOUR copies of Thunderbird at one time, each with its own directory structure. Each has multiple mail addresses to download.
I start them with command lines like:
export MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1 thunderbird -profile ~/data/htt/Mail& export -n MOZ_NO_REMOTE
Well this is really in a script...
A typical mail 'system' will have 5Gb of archived mail in a 100+ nested folders. 1000+ emails per mail copy per day is typical. Compacting <in> and<junk> goes fast and thank g-d, never a crash from that. My system has crashed from running hot during a 3000+ mail download after being offline for a weekend and Thunderbird just 'reached' out and downloaded the mail, but given I am using POP (I could use IMAP but don't) it had to start from the beginning.
If Trash gets above 50K messages I will start consider emptying it. I sometimes have to scan all my message folders when trying to remember where I stuffed something and if it is a header search still only takes a couple minutes. (I have learned to limit body searches to specific folders!)
Oh, my mail server is running Courier Mail for POP and IMAP on a Fedora 12 Amahi.org server.
I do have SquirrelMail available on my server and have used it at times.
There is probably a bullet-proof way to do just about anything in Linux. Unfortunately, you often do not discover the correct formula for body armor until your body is already riddled with bullets.
I have a complicated system, as non-enterprise systems go, and I have plenty of administrative chores just to keep the various real and virtual instances up-to-date and well-behaved.
Everyone has to set his or her own priorities. Mine do not include being smart about email clients.
I use the command-line to be smart about lots of things. I'm glad I don't have to do it with email.
Robert.
Robert.
On 21Jan2011 14:43, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote: | I run FOUR copies of Thunderbird at one time, each with its own | directory structure. Each has multiple mail addresses to download. | | I start them with command lines like: | | export MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1 | thunderbird -profile ~/data/htt/Mail & | export -n MOZ_NO_REMOTE [...snip...]
This is cleaner:
MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1 thunderbird -profile ~/data/htt/Mail &
A per-command envvar setting, no need to undo it.
Cheers,
On 01/21/2011 03:19 PM, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 21Jan2011 14:43, Robert Moskowitzrgm@htt-consult.com wrote: | I run FOUR copies of Thunderbird at one time, each with its own | directory structure. Each has multiple mail addresses to download. | | I start them with command lines like: | | export MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1 | thunderbird -profile ~/data/htt/Mail& | export -n MOZ_NO_REMOTE [...snip...]
This is cleaner:
MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1 thunderbird -profile ~/data/htt/Mail&
A per-command envvar setting, no need to undo it.
Ohhh, I like this!
This I can put into a Gnome panel command.
I got mine from Mozilla support years ago...
On 22.01.2011, Jim wrote:
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I've been using mutt all my life, and never lost a single email. However, it's text only.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Petrus de Calguarium pgueckel@gmail.com wrote:
Heinz Diehl wrote:
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
Kmail. I've been using it for over 10 years, and it has never failed me yet.
Having all of KDE and Gnome is one way to increase the chances that you will have at least one version of more or less everything that works for desktop applications. This comment is not particularly helpful for email, but it is a comment that reflects why Linux will never be a significant factor on the desktop. Oops... the Gnome terminal isn't working with x-forwarding because of something the Fedora/Gnome "team" has done. Better switch to KDE for that app until they get it fixed. Typical Fedora user sighs and plows ahead. Most of the world just won't put up with that kind of nonsense.
Robert.
On 02/03/2011 11:20 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
Oops... the Gnome terminal isn't working with x-forwarding because of something the Fedora/Gnome "team" has done. Better switch to KDE for that app until they get it fixed.
Either that, or simply run the KDE app under Gnome and ignore the FUD.
On 02/03/2011 11:20 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Petrus de Calguariumpgueckel@gmail.com wrote:
Heinz Diehl wrote:
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
Kmail. I've been using it for over 10 years, and it has never failed me yet.
Having all of KDE and Gnome is one way to increase the chances that you will have at least one version of more or less everything that works for desktop applications. This comment is not particularly helpful for email, but it is a comment that reflects why Linux will never be a significant factor on the desktop. Oops... the Gnome terminal isn't working with x-forwarding because of something the Fedora/Gnome "team" has done. Better switch to KDE for that app until they get it fixed. Typical Fedora user sighs and plows ahead. Most of the world just won't put up with that kind of nonsense.
You can't say Linux won't be a factor on the desktop. I have a number of relatively unsophisticated users running CentOS as their desktop and they're quite happy. Oh, they look at my stuff and "ooh" and "aah" at some of the niftiness, but they'll get it when it's stable.
<soap> MacOS doesn't release often and Macs are very controlled environments and don't have to cater to millions of different hardware combos unlike most Linux environments. Windows hasn't had a major release since Windows 7, just bug and security fixes (lots of those). Windows stability? Remember the travesty that was Vista?
Fedora is, by definition, experimental. If one wishes stability, then use CentOS or RHEL or another "stable" release. I can't name another OS with a 6-month (more or less) lifetime. We are on the bleeding edge with Fedora. It's called that because you must expect to be wounded occasionally when playing with sharp objects. </soap> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, C2 Hosting ricks@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - Fear is finding a ".vbs" script in your Inbox - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 02/03/2011 11:20 AM, Robert Myers wrote: You can't say Linux won't be a factor on the desktop. I have a number of relatively unsophisticated users running CentOS as their desktop and they're quite happy. Oh, they look at my stuff and "ooh" and "aah" at some of the niftiness, but they'll get it when it's stable.
<Major Soapbox entered the room, set down and I jumped on it> If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move back to Linux. I would have to go find an external DVD player.
I use a Mac because it 'works'. There is not a major program out there that I cannot find a Mac equivilent for that 'works'. Not so for Linux. You cannot find a program with the functionality and flexibility of AutoCad. All of the third party programs are missing some essential function that AutoCad has.
If I buy a Dell, it will NOT come with Linux (it is an option) as I work in a Windows environment and I still feel that Linux is NOT ready to be a prime-time desktop OS (WAY to many quirks and hoops.) It will come with Windows7. It is very MacOSX like and does not have a crash a day problem.
I switched to using a Mac after LOTS of investigation and watching the Windows98SE/ME disaster (Microsoft usually screws it up once before getting it right.) I was using RH 9/FC 1, 2, 3, 4 and I did not like the new release every six months. However, as you, I and others have pointed out, Fedora is an experimental OS, for RH to try and 'get it right'. That was after IBM dropped support for OS/2 on the SOHO desktop.
Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I've been playing around with 'PCs' before such a term existed. I've run various versions of Linux/UNIX since the mid 1990s and was a great fanboy of OS/2 (too bad IBM dropped the ball on that one.) I would love to say that Linux is a great OS, and in many cases it is. However, for Joe Windows Fanboy it is not ready. Many Windows programs do not and will not have a fully functional Linux one. Linux remains a niche product in many ways.
Gnome/KDE 'wars' and others aside, if you watch the folks in Redmond work, you would know why Linux is going to win the Server wars, and Windows has such a great grip on the Desktop. Until Linux can support 99% of all hardware OUT OF THE BOX, with no tweaking and other non-sense, then it will not even have a fighting chance. Folks are loathe to sell/give away their old hardware and Apple still supports the G-3 Graphite that my SO owns. I cannot say that for ANY PC company (Dell, Gateway, IBM, and a few others).
Sad to say, but I may have to become a Windows Fanboy to get what I need done, without having to beat on a system all day long.
When Linux gets to that level, it will be a winner. Otherwise, it will continue to be an operating system for servers and cell phones.
<Jim leaves the room, taking his soapbox with him.>
<soap> MacOS doesn't release often and Macs are very controlled environments and don't have to cater to millions of different hardware combos unlike most Linux environments. Windows hasn't had a major release since Windows 7, just bug and security fixes (lots of those).
</soap>
And so did Solaris and other operating systems. This is called quality control. If the IBM versus Tandy case had gone the other way, we would all be using IBM hardware/software. We would still be running ATs with a green screen. That is called innovation...
Windows stability? Remember the travesty that was Vista?
No but I remember ME, which was MUCH worse.
Fedora is, by definition, experimental. If one wishes stability, then use CentOS or RHEL or another "stable" release. I can't name another OS with a 6-month (more or less) lifetime. We are on the bleeding edge with Fedora. It's called that because you must expect to be wounded occasionally when playing with sharp objects.
Yes, it is and you have good advice for anyone wanting to run Linux. I don't dispise Linux, I think it is very 'neat'. I just don't want to have to go through the hoops to get it to work anymore.
BTW, Windows XP SP3 runs on the hardware I have, slowly. Linux cannot even bring up X. That is a sad case.
James McKenzie
-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of James McKenzie Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:10 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Is there a better Alternative to Thunderbird ? <Why I use a Mac>
On 02/03/2011 11:20 AM, Robert Myers wrote: You can't say Linux won't be a factor on the desktop. I have a number of relatively unsophisticated users running CentOS as their desktop and they're quite happy. Oh, they look at my stuff and "ooh" and "aah" at some of the niftiness, but they'll get it when it's stable.
<Major Soapbox entered the room, set down and I jumped on it> If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move back to Linux. I would have to go find an external DVD player.
I use a Mac because it 'works'. There is not a major program out there that I cannot find a Mac equivilent for that 'works'. Not so for Linux. You cannot find a program with the functionality and flexibility of AutoCad. All of the third party programs are missing some essential function that AutoCad has.
If I buy a Dell, it will NOT come with Linux (it is an option) as I work in a Windows environment and I still feel that Linux is NOT ready to be a prime-time desktop OS (WAY to many quirks and hoops.) It will come with Windows7. It is very MacOSX like and does not have a crash a day problem.
I switched to using a Mac after LOTS of investigation and watching the Windows98SE/ME disaster (Microsoft usually screws it up once before getting it right.) I was using RH 9/FC 1, 2, 3, 4 and I did not like the new release every six months. However, as you, I and others have pointed out, Fedora is an experimental OS, for RH to try and 'get it right'. That was after IBM dropped support for OS/2 on the SOHO desktop.
Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I've been playing around with 'PCs' before such a term existed. I've run various versions of Linux/UNIX since the mid 1990s and was a great fanboy of OS/2 (too bad IBM dropped the ball on that one.) I would love to say that Linux is a great OS, and in many cases it is. However, for Joe Windows Fanboy it is not ready. Many Windows programs do not and will not have a fully functional Linux one. Linux remains a niche product in many ways.
Gnome/KDE 'wars' and others aside, if you watch the folks in Redmond work, you would know why Linux is going to win the Server wars, and Windows has such a great grip on the Desktop. Until Linux can support 99% of all hardware OUT OF THE BOX, with no tweaking and other non-sense, then it will not even have a fighting chance. Folks are loathe to sell/give away their old hardware and Apple still supports the G-3 Graphite that my SO owns. I cannot say that for ANY PC company (Dell, Gateway, IBM, and a few others).
Sad to say, but I may have to become a Windows Fanboy to get what I need done, without having to beat on a system all day long.
When Linux gets to that level, it will be a winner. Otherwise, it will continue to be an operating system for servers and cell phones.
<Jim leaves the room, taking his soapbox with him.>
<soap> MacOS doesn't release often and Macs are very controlled environments and don't have to cater to millions of different hardware combos unlike most Linux environments. Windows hasn't had a major release since Windows 7, just bug and security fixes (lots of those).
</soap>
And so did Solaris and other operating systems. This is called quality control. If the IBM versus Tandy case had gone the other way, we would all be using IBM hardware/software. We would still be running ATs with a green screen. That is called innovation...
Windows stability? Remember the travesty that was Vista?
No but I remember ME, which was MUCH worse.
Fedora is, by definition, experimental. If one wishes stability, then use CentOS or RHEL or another "stable" release. I can't name another OS with a 6-month (more or less) lifetime. We are on the bleeding edge with Fedora. It's called that because you must expect to be wounded occasionally when playing with sharp objects.
Yes, it is and you have good advice for anyone wanting to run Linux. I don't dispise Linux, I think it is very 'neat'. I just don't want to have to go through the hoops to get it to work anymore.
BTW, Windows XP SP3 runs on the hardware I have, slowly. Linux cannot even bring up X. That is a sad case.
James McKenzie
Very well said....
Michael
2011/2/4 Michael Miles mmamiga6@gmail.com
-----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of James McKenzie Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:10 To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Is there a better Alternative to Thunderbird ? <Why I use a Mac>
On 02/03/2011 11:20 AM, Robert Myers wrote: You can't say Linux won't be a factor on the desktop. I have a number of relatively unsophisticated users running CentOS as their desktop and they're quite happy. Oh, they look at my stuff and "ooh" and "aah" at some of the niftiness, but they'll get it when it's stable.
<Major Soapbox entered the room, set down and I jumped on it> If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move back to Linux. I would have to go find an external DVD player.
I use a Mac because it 'works'. There is not a major program out there that I cannot find a Mac equivilent for that 'works'. Not so for Linux. You cannot find a program with the functionality and flexibility of AutoCad. All of the third party programs are missing some essential function that AutoCad has.
If I buy a Dell, it will NOT come with Linux (it is an option) as I work in a Windows environment and I still feel that Linux is NOT ready to be a prime-time desktop OS (WAY to many quirks and hoops.) It will come with Windows7. It is very MacOSX like and does not have a crash a day problem.
I switched to using a Mac after LOTS of investigation and watching the Windows98SE/ME disaster (Microsoft usually screws it up once before getting it right.) I was using RH 9/FC 1, 2, 3, 4 and I did not like the new release every six months. However, as you, I and others have pointed out, Fedora is an experimental OS, for RH to try and 'get it right'. That was after IBM dropped support for OS/2 on the SOHO desktop.
Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I've been playing around with 'PCs' before such a term existed. I've run various versions of Linux/UNIX since the mid 1990s and was a great fanboy of OS/2 (too bad IBM dropped the ball on that one.) I would love to say that Linux is a great OS, and in many cases it is. However, for Joe Windows Fanboy it is not ready. Many Windows programs do not and will not have a fully functional Linux one. Linux remains a niche product in many ways.
Gnome/KDE 'wars' and others aside, if you watch the folks in Redmond work, you would know why Linux is going to win the Server wars, and Windows has such a great grip on the Desktop. Until Linux can support 99% of all hardware OUT OF THE BOX, with no tweaking and other non-sense, then it will not even have a fighting chance. Folks are loathe to sell/give away their old hardware and Apple still supports the G-3 Graphite that my SO owns. I cannot say that for ANY PC company (Dell, Gateway, IBM, and a few others).
Sad to say, but I may have to become a Windows Fanboy to get what I need done, without having to beat on a system all day long.
When Linux gets to that level, it will be a winner. Otherwise, it will continue to be an operating system for servers and cell phones.
<Jim leaves the room, taking his soapbox with him.>
<soap> MacOS doesn't release often and Macs are very controlled environments and don't have to cater to millions of different hardware combos unlike most Linux environments. Windows hasn't had a major release since Windows 7, just bug and security fixes (lots of those).
</soap>
And so did Solaris and other operating systems. This is called quality control. If the IBM versus Tandy case had gone the other way, we would all be using IBM hardware/software. We would still be running ATs with a green screen. That is called innovation...
Windows stability? Remember the travesty that was Vista?
No but I remember ME, which was MUCH worse.
Fedora is, by definition, experimental. If one wishes stability, then use CentOS or RHEL or another "stable" release. I can't name another OS with a 6-month (more or less) lifetime. We are on the bleeding edge with Fedora. It's called that because you must expect to be wounded occasionally when playing with sharp objects.
Yes, it is and you have good advice for anyone wanting to run Linux. I don't dispise Linux, I think it is very 'neat'. I just don't want to have to go through the hoops to get it to work anymore.
BTW, Windows XP SP3 runs on the hardware I have, slowly. Linux cannot even bring up X. That is a sad case.
James McKenzie
Very well said....
Michael
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Hummm, All that paragraph that James Mackenzie wrote is really mistaken, I will only give my opinion on that ok? I don't believe I have the reason or something like that, but I think this way:
Reading between Lines:
"If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move back to Linux. I would have to go find an external DVD player..."
¿How many RAM does your computer has? You can Run Fedora + LXDE with at least 128MB in RAM and it will run better than XP or others... Also, why you need an external unit? We have USB's and you can install the O.S. from there...
"I use a Mac because it 'works'... Not so for Linux"
Humm... We have an equivalent for almost everything and they run just fine, I believe any Linux alternative for any program has very much power as the Windows/Mac original program has. For example, to raplace AutoCAD we have Archimedes and gCAD3D. Also, for some other programs you have PlayOnLinux/Wine as an alternative and you have also the possibility of Running a Virtual Machine via VMWare Player/Virtualbox (if you have a strong enough machine) to run Windows and some programs of it's own.
What I wanted to say with that, is that you pick one or other enviroment not based exactly on their programs but in many other things... For example, I use Linux because I was tired of viruses and HDD errors that made me wipe the computer once every 2/3 months, it's more secure that windows, it's more reliable, it's the best out there.
Mac it's just expensive, a Mac Computer costs 3 times more it's real value, and they're only PC's!!! Hardware, Software... if I want an OS that can run any hardware only by plugging it, without viruses and with an alternative for every program out there, I'll use Linux buying a powerful PC and putting a Linux Distro inside of it, also I like the "lastest things" so, for example, fedora is the best O.S. for me, Don't like to have something for many many long time...
"Fedora is an experimental OS for RH to try and get it right"
And that's a myth buddy :) Fedora was born as an opportunity of keep giving a free O.S. always very updated to the final user because Red Hat decided to move it's developing path to focus into more stable software that could be mantained for large periods of time without the need for radical changes, They wasn't able to provide the lastest technology and that kind of service in only one distro, so they splitted up in two paths: For servers (that are those that need to be mantained without very much changes over the years) and for Desktops: (these are the ones for normal users, the market of everyday's person who likes to get the lastest technologies and innovations quite soon). Okey, maybe the company analizes the different features developed in fedora in order to decide if get them into RHEL or not, They're also awared about all the new features and technologies that appear in the Linux world, just like any other company that offers systems with large maintenance periods (in this case for servers) does. If that myth was actually the truth, we will be saying that all the Desktop Operating Systems are just BETAS for Server's ones and we will be fooling ourselves.
"Linux remains a niche product in many ways"
I don't think so... I've been installing linux in many PC's for some time ago and I have to say, my users can't be more happy with it, they even say things like: "Wow! How it's possible I'm meeting this right now!" and that's because, with every installation I do, I also prepare the computer for almost everything without "bloating" it... Linux isn't the problem... The people around Linux is the problem...
For example, every new user has to follow a "Post-Installation" guide in order to get all of the things right in it's Linux, and that stands also for Mac and Windows user. Every O.S. Need you to follow some steps to "tweak it" as you like or need just after installing it. I never seen a O.S. that has almost everything without bloating itself.. THE ONLY O.S. that can almost successfully accomplish this goal (And this is just my opinion) is PARDUS LINUX.
"Sad to say, but I may have to become a Windows Fanboy to get what I need done, without having to beat on a system all day long."
So tell me, What do you have to "get done" in Linux that makes you "fight with the system" in order to get it? If you need a windows instance, use VMware or VirtualBox, as I see it, if Linux has more advantages, I'll use it for my real PC, and if I have to use Windows for some forced reason, Instead of compromising my computer's integrity, I'll run it inside Vbox...
"I just don't want to have to go through the hoops to get it to work anymore."
Then, DON'T USE FEDORA!! fedora isn't for a person Like you, if you want a "FULLY FUNCTIONAL" linux without doing anything, then try with Linux Mint, Mandriva or Pardus, but keep away from Fedora, OpenSUSE and even ubuntu maybe...
"BTW, Windows XP SP3 runs on the hardware I have, slowly. Linux cannot even bring up X. That is a sad case."
And, just Remarking my point, if you want to run Linux in very old hardware, forget about gnome or KDE, use LXDE instead, it's "very windows like" desktop and very much Lighter than WinXP
On 2/4/11 1:56 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote:
2011/2/4 Michael Miles <mmamiga6@gmail.com mailto:mmamiga6@gmail.com>
James McKenzie Very well said.... Michael -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelinesHummm, All that paragraph that James Mackenzie wrote is really mistaken, I will only give my opinion on that ok? I don't believe I have the reason or something like that, but I think this way:
Reading between Lines:
"If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move back to Linux. I would have to go find an external DVD player..."
¿How many RAM does your computer has? You can Run Fedora + LXDE with at least 128MB in RAM and it will run better than XP or others... Also, why you need an external unit? We have USB's and you can install the O.S. from there...
Again, this is said from the viewpoint of Joe User, who does not have the time to tweak. S/he wants a system that works OUT OF THE BOX, with the hardware they have. It may be 1, 2, 5 or even 10 years old. I know about all of the fun stuff you can to with Linux. BTW, most of the older hardware CANNOT boot off of USB and some even have 4x CD drives. This is what I'm talking about. Not the guy with the shiny new computer that wants to replace what came from Redmond on the box.
" I use a Mac because it 'works'... Not so for Linux"
Humm... We have an equivalent for almost everything and they run just fine, I believe any Linux alternative for any program has very much power as the Windows/Mac original program has. For example, to raplace AutoCAD we have Archimedes and gCAD3D. Also, for some other programs you have PlayOnLinux/Wine as an alternative and you have also the possibility of Running a Virtual Machine via VMWare Player/Virtualbox (if you have a strong enough machine) to run Windows and some programs of it's own.
I can run VirtualBox on my Mac, and I work in a shop where we do that everyday. However, I will dispute POL/Wine. It is really NOT ready for primetime and does NOT support some of the programs I work with (they have software that does wonderful things like check the system to insure that it is not running on hacked Windows, will NEVER work on Wine, ever.)
What I wanted to say with that, is that you pick one or other enviroment not based exactly on their programs but in many other things... For example, I use Linux because I was tired of viruses and HDD errors that made me wipe the computer once every 2/3 months, it's more secure that windows, it's more reliable, it's the best out there.
So is Solaris. I don't run that either. And Solaris is REAL UNIX, with REAL SUPPORT. If you were getting hit by viruses you were not practicing best security practices. The ONLY time I was hit was because I thought the other party had virus protection turned on. Turns out they did not and I did not scan the disk before using it. I don't do that anymore.
Mac it's just expensive, a Mac Computer costs 3 times more it's real value, and they're only PC's!!! Hardware, Software... if I want an OS that can run any hardware only by plugging it, without viruses and with an alternative for every program out there, I'll use Linux buying a powerful PC and putting a Linux Distro inside of it, also I like the "lastest things" so, for example, fedora is the best O.S. for me, Don't like to have something for many many long time...
I won't disagree with the 3x price. But if you go out and BUY a decent DVD authoring software package and the remaining software, you end up spending more for your PC. This was proven by the folks at PC Magazine a year and a half ago.
"Fedora is an experimental OS for RH to try and get it right"
And that's a myth buddy :)
No, it is experimental. Even RH says so. CentOS is the 'free' Linux. I'll run that in production any day. FC, no. It is a beta, nothing more nothing less. It is where RH 'tries things out' And that came from RH themselves. And I work for a company that holds a very large RH contract.
Fedora was born as an opportunity of keep giving a free O.S. always very updated to the final user because Red Hat decided to move it's developing path to focus into more stable software that could be mantained for large periods of time without the need for radical changes, They wasn't able to provide the lastest technology and that kind of service in only one distro, so they splitted up in two paths: For servers (that are those that need to be mantained without very much changes over the years) and for Desktops: (these are the ones for normal users, the market of everyday's person who likes to get the lastest technologies and innovations quite soon).
No. You missed the part where I said that RH is NOT interested in the Desktop. They were up until RH8 or so. Then they learned the hard way that they were not going to win the desktop and moved on. FC is where they test what does and does not work.
Okey, maybe the company analizes the different features developed in fedora in order to decide if get them into RHEL or not, They're also awared about all the new features and technologies that appear in the Linux world, just like any other company that offers systems with large maintenance periods (in this case for servers) does. If that myth was actually the truth, we will be saying that all the Desktop Operating Systems are just BETAS for Server's ones and we will be fooling ourselves.
RH is very interested in the server market and are doing very well there. They are actually doing well.
"Linux remains a niche product in many ways"
I don't think so... I've been installing linux in many PC's for some time ago and I have to say, my users can't be more happy with it, they even say things like: "Wow! How it's possible I'm meeting this right now!" and that's because, with every installation I do, I also prepare the computer for almost everything without "bloating" it... Linux isn't the problem... The people around Linux is the problem...
Maybe so. However, I bet you have a 'standard' installation.
For example, every new user has to follow a "Post-Installation" guide in order to get all of the things right in it's Linux, and that stands also for Mac and Windows user. Every O.S. Need you to follow some steps to "tweak it" as you like or need just after installing it. I never seen a O.S. that has almost everything without bloating itself.. THE ONLY O.S. that can almost successfully accomplish this goal (And this is just my opinion) is PARDUS LINUX.
Yep, I thought so. And what do I have to do 'post Install' on my Mac? Create accounts. Not so with Linux.
"Sad to say, but I may have to become a Windows Fanboy to get what I need done, without having to beat on a system all day long."
So tell me, What do you have to "get done" in Linux that makes you "fight with the system" in order to get it? If you need a windows instance, use VMware or VirtualBox, as I see it,
I don't. Why would I load up software that makes my system slow as molasses in Boston in January. Just load up Windows, dual boot and get it over with. And I have full access to the hardware so any program that needs to do specific things can. Also, why would I want to or need to use a second product to use a simple program? I don't. I can install Windows7 on my Mac, after blowing away MacOSX. I know several people who have. They don't miss MacOSX, they never used it. Ask them about the only Linux known to run with Macs, Ubuntu and they laugh and go back to work.
"I just don't want to have to go through the hoops to get it to work anymore."
Then, DON'T USE FEDORA!! fedora isn't for a person Like you, if you want a "FULLY FUNCTIONAL" linux without doing anything, then try with Linux Mint, Mandriva or Pardus, but keep away from Fedora, OpenSUSE and even ubuntu maybe...
Nice suggestion. I like it. Too bad there are not more like you that know the difference between FC and a stable Linux distribution. I've seen the skid marks left when a user received 300 MB of updates that almost trashed their system. They spent about 1/2 hour formatting their hard drive and installing Windows. They said "I'll NEVER, EVER use anything but Windows." Even with the bloat from AntiVirus programs and GB of backups, they will never come back.
I have tried CentOS 5.5. This is the non-commercial RHEL. I have a 'thing' for RH and I like them. However, someone has to say the money is not made in the shiny new computers but in supporting those who have supported you....
"BTW, Windows XP SP3 runs on the hardware I have, slowly. Linux cannot even bring up X. That is a sad case."
And, just Remarking my point, if you want to run Linux in very old hardware, forget about gnome or KDE, use LXDE instead, it's "very windows like" desktop and very much Lighter than WinXP
Why? Most software is designed to work with Gnome/KDE.
But the problem here is why do I have to 'lighten up' Linux? Because it has become what its competitors have: Bloatware. And I don't feel like building kernels. I've been there, done that....
As I said, Linux on the desktop is niche. It is for folks who for some reason don't like the folks in Redmond. Even the major distributors know this.
Oh, I'm not knocking the concept behind FC, it is great. Folks have to know what they are getting into.
James McKenzie
On 02/04/2011 10:21 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
On 2/4/11 1:56 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote:
2011/2/4 Michael Miles <mmamiga6@gmail.com mailto:mmamiga6@gmail.com>
<>
james,
would you please put a blank line, or two between what you are quoting and what you are writing.
not doing so makes it difficult to tell what might be 'line wrap' in your quotes and what you are writing.
also, if you quote something and there is 'line wrap' causing a quoted to appear with out a quote symbol, ie ">", because you are using thunderbird, if you press keys "<alt+e>,<w>", thunderbird will rewrap lines to proper quoting.
thank you.
other than that, i have no comment to your opinions, other a little bit of trimming would be nice.
On 2/4/11 3:44 PM, g wrote:
On 02/04/2011 10:21 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
On 2/4/11 1:56 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote:
2011/2/4 Michael Miles<mmamiga6@gmail.commailto:mmamiga6@gmail.com>
<>
james,
would you please put a blank line, or two between what you are quoting and what you are writing.
not doing so makes it difficult to tell what might be 'line wrap' in your quotes and what you are writing.
also, if you quote something and there is 'line wrap' causing a quoted to appear with out a quote symbol, ie ">", because you are using thunderbird, if you press keys "<alt+e>,<w>", thunderbird will rewrap lines to proper quoting.
thank you.
other than that, i have no comment to your opinions, other a little bit of trimming would be nice.
Thank you for the comments on my quotes. I'll keep this for a reference.
James McKenzie
On 02/04/2011 10:55 PM, James McKenzie wrote: <>
Thank you for the comments on my quotes. I'll keep this for a reference.
welcome.
not being a mac user, i did not feel that i could make comment to what you wrote.
it was an interesting read. a little difficult to follow, but interesting. ;)
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 15:21 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Again, this is said from the viewpoint of Joe User, who does not have the time to tweak. S/he wants a system that works OUT OF THE BOX, with the hardware they have.
Then Windows isn't for them, either. I don't know of a single home user who doesn't either, endlessly fiddle with it trying to make it do what they want, or endlessly have grief because it doesn't do what they want, and they're not able to do anything about it.
Windows cesspit.
On 2/5/2011 5:00 AM, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 15:21 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Again, this is said from the viewpoint of Joe User, who does not have the time to tweak. S/he wants a system that works OUT OF THE BOX, with the hardware they have.
Then Windows isn't for them, either. I don't know of a single home user who doesn't either, endlessly fiddle with it trying to make it do what they want, or endlessly have grief because it doesn't do what they want, and they're not able to do anything about it.
Windows cesspit.
Is this were we don the funny clothes, chant the funny words, and sacrifice the lamb on the sacred Alter of Linux?
:-)
On 2/5/11 8:26 AM, David wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:00 AM, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 15:21 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Again, this is said from the viewpoint of Joe User, who does not have the time to tweak. S/he wants a system that works OUT OF THE BOX, with the hardware they have.
Then Windows isn't for them, either. I don't know of a single home user who doesn't either, endlessly fiddle with it trying to make it do what they want, or endlessly have grief because it doesn't do what they want, and they're not able to do anything about it.
Windows cesspit.
Is this were we don the funny clothes, chant the funny words, and sacrifice the lamb on the sacred Alter of Linux?
:-)
Yep. There is more than one way to run a computer.
However, I will try to get the old CentOS disks out this weekend and see if I can get a good install. Doc Savage watch out....
James McKenzie
On 2/5/2011 11:06 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
On 2/5/11 8:26 AM, David wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:00 AM, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 15:21 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Again, this is said from the viewpoint of Joe User, who does not have the time to tweak. S/he wants a system that works OUT OF THE BOX, with the hardware they have.
Then Windows isn't for them, either. I don't know of a single home user who doesn't either, endlessly fiddle with it trying to make it do what they want, or endlessly have grief because it doesn't do what they want, and they're not able to do anything about it.
Windows cesspit.
Is this were we don the funny clothes, chant the funny words, and sacrifice the lamb on the sacred Alter of Linux?
:-)
Yep. There is more than one way to run a computer.
However, I will try to get the old CentOS disks out this weekend and see if I can get a good install. Doc Savage watch out....
If you would care to hear my humble suggestion. Ignore the pundits and the zealots. Use what works for you.
Tim:
Windows cesspit.
David:
Is this were we don the funny clothes, chant the funny words, and sacrifice the lamb on the sacred Alter of Linux?
Not yet... The thread hasn't gone off-topic enough.
On 2/5/2011 9:49 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Windows cesspit.
David:
Is this were we don the funny clothes, chant the funny words, and sacrifice the lamb on the sacred Alter of Linux?
Not yet... The thread hasn't gone off-topic enough.
Good. Then I did not miss the ceremony. I have the lamb and the sacred daggers cleansed and prepared. Just let me know were to take them when the time arrives.
A little levity, from time to time, does help don't you think? :-)
On 2/5/11 8:27 PM, David wrote:
On 2/5/2011 9:49 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Windows cesspit.
David:
Is this were we don the funny clothes, chant the funny words, and sacrifice the lamb on the sacred Alter of Linux?
Not yet... The thread hasn't gone off-topic enough.
Good. Then I did not miss the ceremony. I have the lamb and the sacred daggers cleansed and prepared. Just let me know were to take them when the time arrives.
A little levity, from time to time, does help don't you think? :-)
Not at all. Now for the 'real fun'. I got a NEW Mac today. I am going to look at what Linux distributions can be installed on it. Then the fun really starts.
I don't think there is an FC build that will install on it, but if anyone can help, off list if you want. It definitely DOES NOT belong in this thread.
James McKenzie
On 2/5/2011 10:59 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
On 2/5/11 8:27 PM, David wrote:
On 2/5/2011 9:49 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Windows cesspit.
David:
Is this were we don the funny clothes, chant the funny words, and sacrifice the lamb on the sacred Alter of Linux?
Not yet... The thread hasn't gone off-topic enough.
Good. Then I did not miss the ceremony. I have the lamb and the sacred daggers cleansed and prepared. Just let me know were to take them when the time arrives.
A little levity, from time to time, does help don't you think? :-)
Not at all. Now for the 'real fun'. I got a NEW Mac today. I am going to look at what Linux distributions can be installed on it. Then the fun really starts.
I don't think there is an FC build that will install on it, but if anyone can help, off list if you want. It definitely DOES NOT belong in this thread.
That is an interesting idea James. A true Mac with Linux.
Honestly i have no experience with this but the last that I recall Linux, the major distributions, no longer support a 'true - old time' Mac. Only those Macs that now are PCs.
Good luck with this. I wish you - Fair winds and following seas.
On 2/5/11 9:35 PM, David wrote:
On 2/5/2011 10:59 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
On 2/5/11 8:27 PM, David wrote:
On 2/5/2011 9:49 PM, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Windows cesspit.
David:
Is this were we don the funny clothes, chant the funny words, and sacrifice the lamb on the sacred Alter of Linux?
Not yet... The thread hasn't gone off-topic enough.
Good. Then I did not miss the ceremony. I have the lamb and the sacred daggers cleansed and prepared. Just let me know were to take them when the time arrives.
A little levity, from time to time, does help don't you think? :-)
Not at all. Now for the 'real fun'. I got a NEW Mac today. I am going to look at what Linux distributions can be installed on it. Then the fun really starts.
I don't think there is an FC build that will install on it, but if anyone can help, off list if you want. It definitely DOES NOT belong in this thread.
That is an interesting idea James. A true Mac with Linux.
Honestly i have no experience with this but the last that I recall Linux, the major distributions, no longer support a 'true - old time' Mac. Only those Macs that now are PCs.
That is what I'm looking into. I was hoping that CentOS/FC would support this. I want to minimize the number of 'PCs' I have around. One PC and only one would be a good thing.
I'll start a new thread with this as the subject.
James McKenzie
Good luck with this. I wish you - Fair winds and following seas.
Tim:
Not yet... The thread hasn't gone off-topic enough.
David:
Good. Then I did not miss the ceremony. I have the lamb and the sacred daggers cleansed and prepared. Just let me know were to take them when the time arrives.
Are your sure that you're not mixing the gnomes up with druids?
A little levity, from time to time, does help don't you think? :-)
Definitely.
Hi ho.......
I switched to using a Mac after LOTS of investigation and watching the
Windows98SE/ME disaster (Microsoft usually screws it up once before getting it right.)
98SE was a stable OS as used in the business world: easy to repair, easy to install, and easy to upgrade hardware for on existing systems - you could easily replace the motherboard, for instance.
But it booted dos to launch itself, and so, depended heavily on dos and its config files. Dos's useful life was over at this point, and it was holding back the OS.
Windows ME was an attempt to extend the life of the 98 code base, but with some changes: ME didn't boot dos anymore. It booted directly to the ME OS. This, and other things caused stuff to break.
However, I've worked on computers that came with ME installed, and they ran great. These were sold to the masses by companies like HP.
The kind of users who don't upgrade their systems bought them, and used them reliably for years.
Flame off!
:)
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 14:35 -0700, compdoc wrote:
98SE was a stable OS
Don't make me laugh!
James McKenzie wrote:
<Major Soapbox entered the room, set down and I jumped on it> If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move back to Linux. I would have to go find an external DVD player.
And MacOS just works on that? Wow, who knew? I bet you installed it from the firewire port.
The only Linux you might get going on small memory machines is DSL (Damn Small Linux), although there are at least two other tiny distros out I haven't tried. Old Slackware using a.out format binaries also work, I ran for some years on a 16MB laptop, but those days are gone. Don't use my S100 systems much, either.
I use a Mac because it 'works'. There is not a major program out there that I cannot find a Mac equivilent for that 'works'. Not so for Linux. You cannot find a program with the functionality and flexibility of AutoCad. All of the third party programs are missing some essential function that AutoCad has.
My Blue-Ray player just works, too. If you freeze the hardware you can avoid surprises. And defining the problem so there is only one solution avoids having to choose between several, like the bids which allow any OS but "must run Microsoft Word on that OS," which I saw in a bid. I lost a bid because my servers "weren't esthetically pleasing," so requiring AutoCad certainly makes the choice clear.
On 02/05/2011 06:43 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The only Linux you might get going on small memory machines is DSL (Damn Small Linux), although there are at least two other tiny distros out I haven't tried.
Puppy will work with as little as (I think) 32 Meg. I know it works Just Fine on one of my old laptops with 96 Meg.
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 10:30 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/05/2011 06:43 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The only Linux you might get going on small memory machines is DSL (Damn Small Linux), although there are at least two other tiny distros out I haven't tried.
Puppy will work with as little as (I think) 32 Meg. I know it works Just Fine on one of my old laptops with 96 Meg.
If you go to:
http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net
You can download unetbootin a program which will let you download about 50 versions of Linux and BSD Unix onto a usb drive, Damn Small Linux is one of them. Actually there are multiple versions of about 25 unixes and Linuxs.. Very easy to use. You must also install p7zip which is in the Fedora repos.
On 2/5/11 5:31 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 10:30 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/05/2011 06:43 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The only Linux you might get going on small memory machines is DSL (Damn Small Linux), although there are at least two other tiny distros out I haven't tried.
Puppy will work with as little as (I think) 32 Meg. I know it works Just Fine on one of my old laptops with 96 Meg.
If you go to:
http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net
You can download unetbootin a program which will let you download about 50 versions of Linux and BSD Unix onto a usb drive, Damn Small Linux is one of them. Actually there are multiple versions of about 25 unixes and Linuxs.. Very easy to use. You must also install p7zip which is in the Fedora repos.
Will this work with a system that cannot boot off of the USB device or do I need to build out a CD that will fire up the internal USB 1.1 hub and then boot off of the USB device?
James McKenzie
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 21:01 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
On 2/5/11 5:31 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 10:30 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/05/2011 06:43 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The only Linux you might get going on small memory machines is DSL (Damn Small Linux), although there are at least two other tiny distros out I haven't tried.
Puppy will work with as little as (I think) 32 Meg. I know it works Just Fine on one of my old laptops with 96 Meg.
If you go to:
http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net
You can download unetbootin a program which will let you download about 50 versions of Linux and BSD Unix onto a usb drive, Damn Small Linux is one of them. Actually there are multiple versions of about 25 unixes and Linuxs.. Very easy to use. You must also install p7zip which is in the Fedora repos.
Will this work with a system that cannot boot off of the USB device or do I need to build out a CD that will fire up the internal USB 1.1 hub and then boot off of the USB device?
James McKenzie
I suspect you would have to use the second method for booting.
On 2/6/11 7:04 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 21:01 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
On 2/5/11 5:31 PM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 10:30 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/05/2011 06:43 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The only Linux you might get going on small memory machines is DSL (Damn Small Linux), although there are at least two other tiny distros out I haven't tried.
Puppy will work with as little as (I think) 32 Meg. I know it works Just Fine on one of my old laptops with 96 Meg.
If you go to:
http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net
You can download unetbootin a program which will let you download about 50 versions of Linux and BSD Unix onto a usb drive, Damn Small Linux is one of them. Actually there are multiple versions of about 25 unixes and Linuxs.. Very easy to use. You must also install p7zip which is in the Fedora repos.
Will this work with a system that cannot boot off of the USB device or do I need to build out a CD that will fire up the internal USB 1.1 hub and then boot off of the USB device?
James McKenzie
I suspect you would have to use the second method for booting.
It is time to start up that new thread...
James McKenzie
On 2/5/11 11:30 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/05/2011 06:43 AM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
The only Linux you might get going on small memory machines is DSL (Damn Small Linux), although there are at least two other tiny distros out I haven't tried.
Puppy will work with as little as (I think) 32 Meg. I know it works Just Fine on one of my old laptops with 96 Meg.
Thank you. I just don't want to go down the Ubuntu 'crap' route.
Puppy also supports Wine, right?
James McKenzie
On 02/05/2011 07:59 PM, James McKenzie wrote:
Puppy also supports Wine, right?
I don't know; I've never tried, but it should. Check with http://puppylinux.org/ to be sure.
On 02/05/2011 02:43 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: <>
Don't use my S100 systems much, either.
what system and what cpu?
ria, i have 4 cromemco s100 systems with z80 and m68k that i am wanting to convert to linux.
i have posted to linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, but as yet not had any responses from cromemco users.
On 2/5/11 5:45 PM, g wrote:
On 02/05/2011 02:43 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote: <>
Don't use my S100 systems much, either.
what system and what cpu?
ria, i have 4 cromemco s100 systems with z80 and m68k that i am wanting to convert to linux.
i have posted to linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, but as yet not had any responses from cromemco users.
AND I thought I was old!
Maybe if I can find a TRS-80 MOD III somewhere?
James McKenzie
On 02/06/2011 04:02 AM, James McKenzie wrote: <>
AND I thought I was old!
old is a state of mind and mine has not reached it yet.
Maybe if I can find a TRS-80 MOD III somewhere?
i got ride of a mod 3 about 20 years back.
how about a mod 2?
On 2/5/11 9:07 PM, g wrote:
On 02/06/2011 04:02 AM, James McKenzie wrote: <>
AND I thought I was old!
old is a state of mind and mine has not reached it yet.
Maybe if I can find a TRS-80 MOD III somewhere?
i got ride of a mod 3 about 20 years back.
how about a mod 2?
No. They appeared to be junk when Tandy introduced them. However they were 8086 based.
I gave away my ModIII in 1991 when I bought a 'real PC' which turned out to be a POS and I should have waited about a month and I would have been able to buy a 486 for the same price.
It came with Windows3.1 and MS DOS 5.0. I junked it and moved to a 486 machine that I built.
James McKenzie
On 02/06/2011 04:11 AM, James McKenzie wrote: <>
how about a mod 2?
No. They appeared to be junk when Tandy introduced them. However they were 8086 based.
incorrect on both counts and they where z80.
later the z80 system design was upgraded to mod 12 with z80 and m6800 or m6810.
i have one, but do not recall which motorola chip it was.
I gave away my ModIII in 1991 when I bought a 'real PC' which turned out to be a POS and I should have waited about a month and I would have been able to buy a 486 for the same price. It came with Windows3.1 and MS DOS 5.0. I junked it and moved to a 486 machine that I built.
a lot of people got burned by 286 and 386 systems. but intel had regain their development money some how.
On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 21:02 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Maybe if I can find a TRS-80 MOD III somewhere?
I've still got a Z80 based personal computer in the spare room. A VZ300.
ria, i have 4 cromemco s100 systems with z80 and m68k that i am wanting to convert to linux.
i have posted to linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, but as yet not had any responses from cromemco users.
Yeah that may be a slightly obscure configuration ;) and probably about a hundred times faster to emulate than for real.
On the Z80 side you can in theory run UZI of course, or if you have banked RAM then UZIX (which has a minimal TCP/IP even)
On 02/06/2011 11:44 AM, Alan Cox wrote: <>
Yeah that may be a slightly obscure configuration ;) and probably about a hundred times faster to emulate than for real.
not really obscure. there where several s100 system that started out as z80, then updated as z80/m68k.
most would boot up z80 and then transfer to m68k.
1] there where also z80/m68k cpu that could pass off to z80 any task that work i/o.
2] within these, z80/m68k, i/o cards had their own z80 w/memory and z80 family i/o chips.
3] when making i/o transfers, z80 could grab main memory and pull in data while m68k was working internal operations and using on board memory.
using these structures made for some fast data handling. plus, considering their clock speed, they could hold their own in today's standards.
On the Z80 side you can in theory run UZI of course, or if you have banked RAM then UZIX (which has a minimal TCP/IP even)
?uzi? | ?uzix? sounds strangle familiar, but recall does not bring it up.
what i am familiar with is the machine pistol made in israel and a very fine peace to fire.
i never had one, no 'class a', but i have some friends who own them.
not really obscure. there where several s100 system that started out as z80, then updated as z80/m68k.
Very obscure. Yes it was common for S100 setups (and also appeared with some other systems even early Unix ones) but in the big picture of things its drowned out by the world of mainstream 68K hardware of the kind you'll find on the m68k lists.
On the Z80 side you can in theory run UZI of course, or if you have banked RAM then UZIX (which has a minimal TCP/IP even)
?uzi? | ?uzix? sounds strangle familiar, but recall does not bring it up.
UZI is a V7 Unix clone for Z80
Alan
On 02/06/2011 03:11 PM, Alan Cox wrote: <>
?uzi? | ?uzix? sounds strangle familiar, but recall does not bring it up.
UZI is a V7 Unix clone for Z80
ok. as i wrote, strangle familiar.
and i should have written, ?uzi | uzix?. better yet, ?uzi or uzix?.
uzi was not familiar. uzix i knew, but lost in gray matter archives.
btw, excuse delay, sb xlv sunday. partay.
From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of g Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 6:55 To: fedora users Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Is there a better Alternative to Thunderbird ? <Why I use a Mac>
On 02/06/2011 11:44 AM, Alan Cox wrote: <>
Yeah that may be a slightly obscure configuration ;) and probably about a hundred times faster to emulate than for real.
not really obscure. there where several s100 system that started out as z80, then updated as z80/m68k.
most would boot up z80 and then transfer to m68k.
1] there where also z80/m68k cpu that could pass off to z80 any task that work i/o.
2] within these, z80/m68k, i/o cards had their own z80 w/memory and z80 family i/o chips.
3] when making i/o transfers, z80 could grab main memory and pull in data while m68k was working internal operations and using on board memory.
using these structures made for some fast data handling. plus, considering their clock speed, they could hold their own in today's standards.
On the Z80 side you can in theory run UZI of course, or if you have banked RAM then UZIX (which has a minimal TCP/IP even)
?uzi? | ?uzix? sounds strangle familiar, but recall does not bring it up.
what i am familiar with is the machine pistol made in israel and a very fine peace to fire.
i never had one, no 'class a', but i have some friends who own them.
How much more off topic can we get here?
This has gone from an alternative email client to Thunderbird to Ancient computers.
Shall I add my Commodore Vic -20 to the discussion?
How about my very old PET which is worth quite a bit right now.
More than it was when new that's for sure
Michael
On 02/06/2011 12:13 PM, Michael Miles wrote:
Shall I add my Commodore Vic -20 to the discussion?
How about my very old PET which is worth quite a bit right now.
How about the first computer I ever owned: a TI 99/4A, or, for that matter, the first one I programmed, an IBM 1620 Mod 2, complete with card reader/punch and typewriter.
2011-02-07 03:08, Joe Zeff skrev:
On 02/06/2011 12:13 PM, Michael Miles wrote:
Shall I add my Commodore Vic -20 to the discussion?
How about my very old PET which is worth quite a bit right now.
How about the first computer I ever owned: a TI 99/4A, or, for that matter, the first one I programmed, an IBM 1620 Mod 2, complete with card reader/punch and typewriter.
Oh, IBM 1620! It was also the first computer I programmed :-)
Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 22.01.2011, Jim wrote:
In Fedora is there a better email Browser ?
I've been using mutt all my life, and never lost a single email. However, it's text only.
I think if I wanted text only (and I do for some accounts) I will stick to alpine. Allows piping messages into processes, multiple select criteria for a group of messages, and generally access to low level tools. And also it allows display of the full message headers and content should that be needed. Like the Seamonkey ^U shortcut.
-
Aaron Konstam -
Alan Cox -
Bill Davidsen -
Bob Goodwin -
Cameron Simpson -
compdoc -
David -
Franta Hanzlík -
g -
Heinz Diehl -
Jack Wallen -
James McKenzie -
Joe Zeff -
Jon Ingason -
Konstantin Svist -
Manuel Escudero -
Michael Miles -
Mickey -
Nataraj -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Peter G. -
Richard Shaw -
Rick Stevens -
Robert Moskowitz -
Robert Myers -
Sam Sharpe -
Suvayu Ali -
Tim -
Tom Horsley