More about getting an address book to dial the phone. 4714

(Moe Trin) opined: This is very Windows-like, and one of the things that I like least when I see Windows on my neighbor's machine. It seems fair to ask why is Linux trying to be like Windows? And Linux is only suitable for most people. That's very disappointing. One would have thought that configurability would be important. Why it should want to hide technical details from me, when I might have a good reason for wanting to know them, and even to set them, is beyond reason. LOL. Very funny. "Messing with hardware" must mean getting the dialer to dial. I did, in a line which you appear to have omitted. It is a USR sportsman. Are you telling me above that a modem on a PCI card is non-standard, and cannot be expected to work? I now see that the inability to accomodate a second modem is a consequence of trying to use a separare dialler, instead of embodying a dialler in the program that needs one. Personally, I do not think this is a wise approach; it is certainly not a liberating approach for users. Where have you seem me fumbling around clicking on icons? Why do you buttume that this is what I do? Aren't you fortunate. I need an address book, and I need it to dial the telephone. I do not need it to be a "Windows Wannabee". It is interesting to learn of your needs. I am not sure that your case needs to define the needs of others. You seem to be provincial. See, we do not all live in the US, which is still, even at this late globalized date, largely a self-contained society. Some of us live in more connected societies, and smaller ones, so we find outselves dialing out of the country more (not only to a different area code); my existing address book contains hundreds of entries that are not in this country. To dismiss this need by saying "This seems to be standard", is equivalent to "You will do things our way, or not at all", a very Gatesian approach which I find repugnant. I think I need more freedom than that. I need two modems in the machine, and I'm sorry that Linux thinks it knows better and won't let me have it. Linux seems, then, to be quite narrowminded. I believe that you are right. I thought Linux would broaden my possibilities, not limit them, as you have told me in quite definite terms it is doing. It is fortunate that I have very little money tied up in it. Why do you keep mentioning Windows? Have I ever indicated that I want it to be like Windows? Part of the problem is that, in some respects, it is trying to emulate Windows, and I don't like that. Michael Heimings pointed out a while ago that SUSE discourages the user from using the CLI, which is quite true. I like to use the CLI, and I find the limitation confining. Why too do you keep telling me that Linux is not OS-2? If I wanted it to be like OS-2, I wouldn't have tried it at all; I already have OS-2. SUSE will stay on this machine and be my secondary OS, for it has some software capabilities not available to me otherwise. For most tasks (certainly for newsreaders), I am far better served there than here, and will continue to use what I have. The documentation available within the OS is deplorable. You are correct in seeing that there is a limit to the amount of time I am able to devote to chasing external documentation. I don't go for merit badges anymore. Several people have been very generous in offering their help to me, and I am most grateful to them. As for others, who have talked down to me condescendingly (a special Linux phenomenon which I haven't experienced elsewhere in technical or other online forums, and which I shall not miss), well..... -- Stan Goodman Qiryat Tiv'on Israel