Aqua-Soft ForumsFor Those That Live For Lnix
Well, I know I have not heard of it, ever.
There is one problem with it though, this belongs in the Other Customization forum in my opinion.
Ya. nice post for people who like linux.
But if you live for linux, and you haven't heard of evolution like years ago, then you need to quit using RH 5.0. Evolution is a very nice mail client, and it's been around quite a while.
Looks just like the Calender from Mozilla.
I've been using the Mozilla Calender for a year. It works w/ iCal calenders just fine, and pretty too.
i wish i had ical... i am not fond of lookalikes unles they actually work (i HATE Alcal) and when i had linux i had evolution and i don't know why but i just didn't like it. btw evolution is a very good but pretty old email client (from 2000 or so if i'm not mistaken) and is not meant to be a copy of ical. if it was meant to be one it wouldn't look so well........ linuxy.
That screenshot is from the latest version of evolution, which came out TODAY.
xunil xus, if you know what i mean. 
Originally posted by nrzero@Dec 9 2003, 09:26 PMxunil xus, if you know what i mean.
That was uncalled for. <_<
Originally posted by wizard@Dec 9 2003, 10:47 PMThat was uncalled for. <_<
:rant: :rant: :rant: yep. it was. don't be saying stuff like that or all of the linux lovers like me and contra will attack! (maybe even mods will suspend you) do you realize that linux is a version of unix and so if you insult it you are insulting unix and if you're insulting unix you're insulting osx! :rant: :rant:
Do you have any "evidence" that proves that linux sucks? Because it does not suck, just because you cant use it you know.. Please, come with reasons why you think it sucks..
Allright, wonderful, we have people that don't think linux sucks, like nrzero seems to believe.
He's gotten all the attention he deserves on this topic, so hey, let's ignore him now. Cool? Cool.
Originally posted by TheBigB@Dec 10 2003, 03:07 AM:rant: :rant: :rant: yep. it was. don't be saying stuff like that or all of the linux lovers like me and contra will attack! (maybe even mods will suspend you) do you realize that linux is a version of unix and so if you insult it you are insulting unix and if you're insulting unix you're insulting osx! :rant: :rant:
Actually, Linux is not a version of Unix. Linux is a completely different operating system that works almost exactly like Unix, runs Unix programs, and has the same commands as Unix. It looks, smells, tastes, and acts like Unix, but it is not Unix.
Not that this is relevant to the conversation. Linux does not suck, but it is not a very good desktop operating system. It is, however, and excellent server solution.
/karp
That is why he said
do you realize that linux is a version of unix
And yes Linux is based off of Unix (Linus' Unix ~ Linux) so technically it is a version of Unix.
lol, I just realized what that said. 
Seriously nrzero, you're on your way to becoming another caser.
Originally posted by jrkarp@Dec 10 2003, 10:02 PMit is not a very good desktop operating system. It is, however, and excellent server solution.
/karp
fissy chokes on his pretzel
Nrzero: go and play with your 17 inches
@wizard: Not really. It was independently written to emulate Unix. If you read what I said, I said it acts just like Unix. All Unix varients have a common ancestor. Linux does not share that common ancestor.
@Fissy: When I say it's not a very good desktop operating system, I mean for the average user. Sure, you, me, contra, and others with advanced skills can make it do what we want. But it is not as user friendly as Windows or OSX, supports much less hardware than Windows, takes a lot more skill to maintain than Windows or OSX, and has much less software available. In fact a leading figure in the Linux community (and I can't remember who) recently publicly said that the vast majority of people without advanced computer skills would be better with a Windows PC than with a Linux desktop. I'll post the link if I can find it.
/karp
Originally posted by jrkarp@Dec 11 2003, 03:16 AMsupports much less hardware than Windows
ohhh contras gunna have fuuunnnn proving that statement wrong
linux actually supports loooaadds of hardwars and "ranges" of hardware.. not just intel.. but many processor types!
and linux is trying hard and i think its pretty good for a desktopoperating system to an extent.. i got parents using linux, parents friends using linux and they know hardly anything about computers.. i jsut went set up an easy distro for them to learn.. and they can use it easily! no problems at all
-bolero
Intel
PPC/Power4
MIPS
Alpha
SGI
Spark
m68k
arm
opteron/amd64
Risc
PS2
Xbox
Gamecube
Cell Phones
Routers
The list goes on and on and on. Keep in mind, basically everything I listed above is BUILT INTO THE KERNEL! That means you dont need any special "driver", its already in there.
Linux supports over 128 processors, and with a new SGI patch, over 512. Can Windows do that? Oh, it can only do 8 before it falls apart. 
I have only ever had to install ONE driver for Linux, and thats the Nvidia one. I didnt even need to really, I just wanted 3D. Keep in mind, Ive installed linux on close to 50 machines.
How far can you get on Xp without a driver disc? Yeah, thats what I thought.
Linux has been embedded into so many things, you're probably running it now.
:banging:
But you are right, Linux is not UNIX. It was based off of minix, which was a free clone.
Now though, linux contains a bunch of unix code. UNIX pre-Sys7 was open sourced by Caldera a few years ago, and some snippits have made its way into the code.
Not to mention that linux uses some BSD code, which is unix derived.
see! good old contra! i knew he;d have fun with that one!
*pats him on the back*
also he's right if your running it now, my cloths are running on linux, now i know for sure they wont crash and power down on me.. i had bad bad windows powerd cloths days ill tell you... thank god im using(wearing) linux right now
-bolero
When I mentioned hardware, I did not mean processors... The array of processor architectures that Linux supports is, of course, nothing short of spectacular.
And I may have been hasty in what I said about the hardware. What I should have said was that more hardware manufacturers support Windows than Linux.
I like Linux as much as the rest of you, and I use it everyday on two mail servers and a NAT box. However, in refuting my statements you have ignored my main point: Linux is not a viable competitor to Windows in the desktop market. Period. It will be some day, I have no doubt. But it's just not there yet.
/karp
Originally posted by contrasutra@Dec 11 2003, 04:36 AMLinux supports over 128 processors, and with a new SGI patch, over 512. Can Windows do that? Oh, it can only do 8 before it falls apart.
Not with Server 2003 it doesn't... :6
Server 2003-64 can support effectively as many as the architecture it's running on (unless you intend to install 1Tprocesors on a custom made machine).
But your point does still hold true - I always need drivers for Windows, and different versions of Windows are required for pretty much any architecture...