Linux-Advocacy Digest #251, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 12:13:40 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Terry
Porter)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Terry
Porter)
Re: Linux Goes MLM (Terry Porter)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Aaron
Kulkis)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 25 Apr 2000 15:34:14 +0800
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 06:17:05 GMT, sea_Dragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2000 12:14:41 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>He can't be specific, becuase he has no clue what he is talking
>>>about. He is just repeating what looks like a technical terms
>>>so he sounds like he knows something.
>>>
>>>One can do asych IO very easily on Unix. Any basic Unix
>>>programming book will show him how to do it. Do not know what
>>>he mean by 'nice' model here. 'nice' model does not seem
>>>to mean anything.
>>>
>>>pete
>>>
>>
>>Oh I know its nonsense terms , as I've writen Linux i/o code for my Micro
>>burner design (working and released GPL).
>>
>>The whole project was easy, Linux i/o is very "nice" ;-)
>
>Do you have ANY CLUE AT ALL, Terry Porter, what asychronous I/O means?
Sure, do you ?
Do you know anything other than "Async I/O", its beginning to sound
like a tired story ?
Next you'll be imploring me to define DCOM, SYNC I/O, or whatever buz word you
happen to have read about.
> I
>don't believe you do. I CHALLENGE YOU TO DEFINE IT: RIGHT HERE, RIGHT
>NOW. First, you falsely claimed that asychronous I/O was a vague term -
>it is not; it is an extremely specific term, and to those with a clue no
>further explananion is needed. Second, you used it in conjuction which a
>microburner design
Wrong, please look up the meaning of "conjunction"
>>Oh I know its nonsense terms , as I've writen Linux i/o code for my Micro
>>burner design (working and released GPL).
which is perhaps the LAST application where asychronous
>I/O would be useful over Linux's tired application of synchrnonous
>I/O.
Have you ever designed a Microprocessor burner, I assume
from your statement you know this field well ?
Your general scientific persona is not furthered by your constant
use of emotive terms.
> Therefore, I do not believe that you have any clue at all, what the
>term asynchronous I/O refers to.
I have many clues what it means.
> Feel free to prove me wrong and post a
>definition.
You haven't made any statements worth proving "wrong".
As before, your terms lack detail.
> Please include copious details about the programming model,
Please get a clue.
>how it is implemented on systems which do have it, and what applications
>it is useful for. Your solution will be checked against the major search
>engines in order to establish that you did not plagiarize the answer.
Class is out, do your own homework first.
> If
>you do not post within 24 hours, I will take that as an admission of
>ignorance,
Hey you can take it as you like, your conclusions, based on your own
assumptions, mean less than zero to me.
> and will happily continue to follow up to all of your future
>posts in this forum (those to me and not), publically ridiculing you
>for total lack of self-procliamed technical superiority.
EXCELLENT!!, I'll look forward to it.
When you do, please try and find add *some* substance to your posts ?
Posts to COLA, should contain some humour, some wit, and some knowledge
of Linux. Until you can demonstrate at least ONE of these qualities,
you're just another WinTroll to me, and will be treated as such.
To obtain *any* credibility, you'll also need to use a *real* address. Until
you do you're a anonymous Wintroll, and theyre a dime a dozen on COLA atm.
When you find that real email address:-
Explain why you believe "async i/o" is better than
the Linux i/o design, be specific (if you can).
The burden of proof remains with you.
>
I'm not going to waste time with an anonymous Wintroll, I'm sure you understand.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 14 hours 35 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 25 Apr 2000 15:53:17 +0800
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 06:36:42 GMT, sea_Dragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2000 13:36:00 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Why not add more memory, Wintroll ?
>
>Actually, the machine is maxed out of RAM.
Meaningless, it could be a 386sx, with four 32 pin sim slots.
>
>>What do you expect?
>
>For the machine to handle out of memory errors gracefully (i.e. not
>require a reboot every time).
How ? its out of memory ?
>
>>Was it Swap, or Ram, do you know the difference ?
>
>You're dumb.
Impressive answer, your true colors show at last.
>
>>Least it told you, it had no more resources. Odd that ftp.cdrom.com
>>runs a 200 Gigabyte, 3200 user FreeBsd machine, without having *your* problem ?
>Ah yes. I know that DNS for a home LAN supporting a dozen nodes is an
>expensive task - since I am running Unix. I better upgrade the machines
>to 200 gigabytes - since it is running Unix, it will use everything it
>can get!
Bzzzzzt 1/10, please mark your scorecard accordingly.
>
>>What a contrived example!
>>Hahahahah, "my gun ran out of bullets, better get a new gun"
>
>Yep, that's what Unix told me. Wouldn't run ANY OTHER PROGRAMS, not
>even kill. Perhaps that'll teach the mindless bastards who wrote the
>thing not to create a new process for each image running? Nah, it's
>Unix - they've been doing it that way for 30 years.
The internets been using it quite successfully, but *you* have a better way,
please forgive me if I'm *underwhelmed* ?
>
>>Bullshit, you have no idea what you're doing. It couldnt *find* the root
>>partition, hence the kernel panic.
>
>No shit sherlock?
No shit at all.
>
>>man rdev.
>
>You must be extremely new to Linux. rdev is an Intel-specific tool
>for booting Intel kernels. I am running on an Alpha so that tool does
>not work with my computer.
Thanks for telling us, late info is not admissible, sorry, 0/10.
> I did it the proper way for my architecture
>(the same way I have dozens of times before, and it didn't work)
If you say so, anonymous wintroll.
>
>>More bullshit.
>>Reinstall *what* ????
>
>Uh - Linux? I know - I should have gotten a clue, taken a lesson, and
>replaced it with FreeBSD, but the only FreeBSD CD I have in the i386
>version. I'll put in an order for the Alpha version.
FreeBsd is great, put in a order for a clue while your at it ?
>
>>This Wintroll is a joke, how many partitions did he have ? was it his root
>>partition that was "corrupted" ?
>
>It was my root partition. "VFS kernel panic: Could not mount root filesystem"
>or some such cruft.
Ahh you didnt write it down, and don't remember, I guess to a wintroll
*any* Linux error will do ?
>
>>Methinks hes replaced "Windows" with "Linux" in his post.
>
>Incorrect. I had to reinstall Linux because my root partition became
>corrupted randomly.
Bullshit.
>
>>Or get a clue how to install a new kernel ?
>
>Been doing it 6.5 years. Never a hitch before.
Doing what?
>
>>You're a sad case mate, someone like you shouldnt be allowed within 50 metres
>>of a production Linux box.
>
>Trust me - I wish I wasn't.
With your lack of knowledge, your wishes may come true.
> But it is hard to avoid, and the Grand
>Linuxification continues reaching influence in to literally every corner
>of the industry.
Really ?
Maybe the DOJ has Linux in its sights now ?
>
>>Anyone with 1/2 a clue would make a boot floppy and test it, I have several
>>with different kernels, and different facilities.
>
>Ah yes - the Linux way. It is so risky to install a new kernel and has such
>a high probability of wiping out your hard drive that you are recommended
>to install from a floppy, a media with is 100x slower. Nice.
Nope, you're as clueless as ever.
Floppies allow different configs and kernels to be tried easily, and quickly.
The floppy only needs to boot once, most linux boxes stay up long term, its
*not* Windows you know ?
>
>My kernel is 1.5 MB compressed and wouldn't even fit on a conventional
>floppy.
What kernel ?
What are the features ?
Please dont expect me to *believe* you.
> You are aware that Alpha code is much more spacious than i386
>code, correct?
Another incorrect assumption, I don't have an alpha, and unlike yourself,
I limit myself to debates concerning my prior experience.
> Does Linux support booting from a ZIP drive yet?
I dont know.
>
>>Good for you, have you actually any apps on it ?
>
>Oh yeah. My main workstation for 60 hrs/week of work.
Hahahahahah then you're full of it mate!
>
This wintroll claims he has a NT workstation, he uses 60+ hrs a week
thats been up since last November (iirc).
What apps run on this "Workstation" ?
Send us a list of processes and apps (unedited) ? I'm sure that I'm not the
only one whos interested to see it.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 14 hours 35 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Goes MLM
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 25 Apr 2000 15:58:35 +0800
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:10:43 -0700, G. O. Heist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Linux Goes MLM
>
>Introducing the most exciting oppurtunity in the Linux
>revolution today! Multi-Level Marketing is ideally
>suited for the grass-roots type of distribution that
>is required by Linux.
<snop>
>
>G.O. Heist, President
>
Get lost, I make $100 a install now, and when Linux is preloaded
more commonly, it will not be necessary.
Go and scam elswhere.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 15 hours 35 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:05:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 13:13:31 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : >Boy are you out in left field. From a technology perspective, Windows is
> : >a disaster. I will argue any technical position you may take, debate the
> : >pros and cons on an aggregate basis. The single thing that NT does
> : >better than Linux, is processor affinity linking to I/O devices with
> : >SMP. This one feature has little effect in 99.9% of the applications
> : >which one would deploy using x86 hardware.
>
> : I never claimed in any post that Windows was superior to Linux. My only
> : point is that Linux sucks, technically. I am not interested in comparisons
> : to Windows but to the more serious operating systems.
>
> If I may ask, what constitutes a "serious" operating system? I use my
> WindowsNT workstation for tasks which I consider "serious" every day, not
> the least of which is producing 3D animation.
>
> : >So, you made the erroneous remark that UNIX is technically inferior to
> : >UNIX, so I will let you frame the debate. You put out some facts, you
> : >have some right?
>
> : Facts why Linux sucks? How about a complete lack of asynchronous I/O
> : for starters. A completely lack of application-level exception handling.
> : A horrbibly inefficeint and slow string implementation. A window system
> : which requires a context switch (!) whenever you move the mouse. A
> : programming model which fixes resolves memory management through process
> : destruction. WHy don't the superior, more robust systems have these
> : problems?
>
> I'm not so sure that they don't. SCO OpenServer, for example makes use of
> X11R5, which I'm sure has much of the same drawbacks (likely more) that
> X11R6 suffers from.
>
> But as I stated, I'm not sure what you mean by "serious", or "superior",
> in the context of operating systems.
>
> : >This is very untrue. Most Linux users have a great deal with computers.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> : protetction). In my experience, most Linux users are compiler jocks
> : who think they are god's gift to programming because they know how to
> : unpack a tar.gz file and compile it into a binary (a task, of course,
> : which has nothing to do with programming, and is completely non-technical).
>
> I have to say that I completely concur with SeaDragon's observations.
> There is a certain "elite snobbery" that goes hand in hand with a
> command-line environment, be it UNIX, or VMS, or even DOS. People who
> often argue that "typing requires thinking" often overlook the existence
> of USENET, as an example of a counterpoint.
>
> : I find that most Linux advocates are completeley technically ignorant of
> : any serious technical issues, but instead harp on on legal and economic
> : issues. Most of these are obssessed with comparisons to Microsoft (and
>
> IMHO, Linux was born out of a sheer dislike of Microsoft, unlike its BSD
> cousins, who seemed to originate from a need for a BSD-like OS.
BSD was a Defense Department project (most of the funding came from
DARPA... Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency).
>
> : not serious, robust operating systems), and cannot say anything intelligent
> : except vague, cliched generalizations about stability, security, and
> : scalability, and in most cases they do not understand the real technical
> : issues which bnenefit these areas.
>
> I don't pretend to be a "technically informed" person, but it's quite easy
> to understand what you're saying here. Most of the gripes that Linux
> users have about Windows in general is the same, regurgitated nonsense
> that has been around since the days of Windows v3.1.
>
> : >Different types of UNIX are different operating systems.
>
> [Directed at Mark...]
>
> While the actual code varies, I'd be reluctant to agree with that
> statement on any level. UNIX operating systems are, for the most part,
> based on full or partial POSIX implementations. They may be coded a bit
> differently, but they all perform tasks in a very similar manner.
>
> : Phooey. All of the Unix operating systems do things the same. FOr
> : every interesting technical issue, all Unix's address the problem
> : in same (usually, wrong) way. See the above list and tell me which
> : Unix fixes the abive problems.
>
> : >This does not say that NT is not also an operating system, however
> : >something like Windows is debatable because the OS is really DOS and
> : >Windows is an extension, so it is debatable. But like a tomato can be
> : >called a vegetable, I guess Windows 9x can be called an OS.
>
> [Directed at Mark...]
>
> Windows95, or Windows98 are not anything at all. They are merely bundling
> names. Windows95 is merely the bundling name for Windows v4, and DOS v7.
>
> : Why the fuck are you so obssessed with Windows? DOes it make you feel
> : really good that you are the second shittiest operating system in the
> : world instead of the shittiest? Why don't you try comparising your OS
> : to something serious such as TOPS-20 or MVS for a change?
>
> Hmmm... according to Ken Thompson, Linux _is_ the shittiest operating
> system out there. :-)
>
> Out of curiosity, what is it about WindowsNT that makes you believe that
> it's the "shittiest"? Often, people make judgements about products based
> solely on their own line of work, without regard to other venues of
> productivity.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 67E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:04:56 GMT
On 25 Apr 2000 15:34:14 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Do you have ANY CLUE AT ALL, Terry Porter, what asychronous I/O means?
>Sure, do you ?
Yes.
>Next you'll be imploring me to define DCOM, SYNC I/O, or whatever buz word you
>happen to have read about.
Last I check "asynchronous I/O" is not a buzzword. For starters it was
no less than six syllables making it rather hard to buzz around. Maybe
25 years ago, but not today.
>Have you ever designed a Microprocessor burner, I assume
>from your statement you know this field well ?
No I have never programmed a burner. But I do know that in this task
you will be using only two I/O devices, the file to read, and the port
to the burner, which makes the use of asynchronous I/O rather dubious.
>Your general scientific persona is not furthered by your constant
>use of emotive terms.
Uh huh.
>> Therefore, I do not believe that you have any clue at all, what the
>>term asynchronous I/O refers to.
>I have many clues what it means.
You still have provided much proof to the contrary given your
insistentce that a burner is a good application of asychronous I/O.
>> Feel free to prove me wrong and post a
>>definition.
>You haven't made any statements worth proving "wrong".
My original proposition was for you to tell me why it is better to
not have asynchronous I/O than to have it. I asked the question first,
so you answer first.
>As before, your terms lack detail.
Which term? Ansychronous I/O is an unambiguous term.
>> Please include copious details about the programming model,
>Please get a clue.
I know what the answer is already; I'm not asking you in order to
inform myself, I am asking to quiz you. I do not believe that you
know what asychronous I/O is. The sooner you fess up and admit it,
the less public humiliation you will encounter. It's one thing to
make an outrageous technical claim, but its quite another to
pretend that you have an idea of what you are talking about when
you do not.
>>for total lack of self-procliamed technical superiority.
>
>EXCELLENT!!, I'll look forward to it.
>
>When you do, please try and find add *some* substance to your posts ?
>Posts to COLA, should contain some humour, some wit, and some knowledge
>of Linux. Until you can demonstrate at least ONE of these qualities,
>you're just another WinTroll to me, and will be treated as such.
I'll take advice about substance from the Linux advocates with a clue
such as Rex Ballard or Christopher Browne. You're at the level of the
WinTrolls, as far as I am concerned.
> Explain why you believe "async i/o" is better than
>the Linux i/o design, be specific (if you can).
Asynchronous I/O is better than the Linux I/O model because (a) you can
actually do work while you are waiting for I/O and (b) it is considerably
more scalable for a large number of I/O inputs.
>The burden of proof remains with you.
It is above.
Now it is your turn. Why do you think that programmers should not be
allowed to use this model, and must be forced to do synchronous I/O?
>I'm not going to waste time with an anonymous Wintroll, I'm sure you
>understand.
Sure - I understand that you have given up because you are not technically
competent enough to debate in this forum.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:18:14 GMT
sea_Dragon wrote:
> I'm not fooling the spammers but the cancel-bots. After I post a few
> anti-(anti-Microsoft) messages in this forum, the cancel-bots get me,
> and any message I post to any newsgroup on Usenet is immediately
> cancelled. I'm surprised you are not aware of the problem? Being
> anti-(anti-Microsoft) is so counterculture and so revolutionary that the
> only way to stop those of us who hold the opinion is to silence us. Most
> of the mainstream public may not be aware, but the primary reason why
> you don't see any anti-(anti-Microsoft) literature anywhere is because
> it is censored, not because there are not millions of people who hold
> anti-(anti-Microsoft) views. Usenet is particularly susceptible since
> it is so easy to forge cancel messages (it was designed on Unix - why
> would you expect it to be secure?)
Well, your first posts, I respected. I didn't agree with a lot of what you
said, but I did respect your opinion. Over the next few rounds, you slipped a
little each time making some odd claims.. but now; conspiracies against you and
your views?!? Come on... get real. You just lost _all_ credibility IMO.
What's that sound? Oh no! The black helicopters are outside... they're after
you, look out!
> But I want a __TECHNICAL__ reason why Terminal Server is not an adequate
> solution. I am an engineer, not an accountant or a marketer, so I do
> not care about cost, how it is packaged. I am only interested in its
> __FUNCTIONALITY__.
So the fact that it's less robust, not as useful and not as capable isn't enough
for you?
That's all that matters to 99.9% of the people in the world. The most
technically advanced technology (which WTS isn't) doesn't always win anyway...
just look at MS' market share.
> BTW, did you know that Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson (and Linus Torvalds
> and Ted T'so and Alan Cox and Theo de Raddt and ... ) did not invent X,
> right? The claim belongs to DEC and MIT. Unix was not even the first OS
> which X ran on. Proof that Unix doesn't have a remote tool because it was
> invented elsewhere!
Uh, I said nothing of the sort. You were just pushing WTS so I thought I'd
mention that MS didn't make it. And yes, I did know all of what you say about
X.
> Again, I am an engineer, not a historian. I don't give a flying fuck who
> invented what. I am interested in the __PRODUCT__. Give me a __TECHNICAL__
> reason why you think Windows does not have remote capabilities. Clue:
> packaging, marketing, price et al are not technical reasons.
I didn't say that NT didn't have "remote capabilities" but it's remote
capabilities are severly limited compared to Unix. If an NT server is having
problems, and the GUI isn't responding (or WTS isn't running, or the TCP/IP
stack is dead) you can't admin it... period. Whereas with a decent Sun box, or
a properly configured PC with a serial console I can. There's a technical
advantage for unix boxes: Serial console as a way to connect and admin/fix the
box if there's a problem.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! - Ken
Thompson
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:21:07 GMT
sea_Dragon wrote:
> Nope, when I tried to run kill, it gave me a malloc() failure. No useful
> command work, not even shutdown.
Someone else mentioned the known leaks on some nameds.. might want to look into
that.
> But root is running named.
You can still set ulimits on root's processes.
> Kernel 2.2.5-16. I didn't try booting off of a floppy, as I didn't have
> one, but I booted from my old kernel in MILO and got the same results. The
> FS got randomly corrupted, probably a long time ago, since the machine was
> up for 5-6 weeks.
So you didn't bother booting off a floppy or CD (something not on the disk that
was having issues) to try to fsck it. i.e. you didn't bother to fix what was
most likely fixable.
> Sure just terminal server in. I am not a Windows expert so I do not know
> if there is an su tool to do so in your current session.
Yeah, on a stock NT workstation you have WTS services running... I buy that.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. That's from
Trek. Pretty cool, huh? -- Dennis Miller
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 04:26:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Jensen wrote:
>
> JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On 21 Apr 2000 13:54:28 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : >"tastes" is a wonderful catch-all. I may say that I want to get away from
> : >[whatever] simply becuase I've been using [whatever] for for ten years and
> : >am getting bored. It may just be a change in taste.
>
> : ...or alternately: I used to use [something else] quite happily.
> : However, I've used [whatever] for a few years and found myself
> : completely disatisfied with it. I would very much like to be able
> : to use [another something else] and not be excluded arbitrarily
> : from doing any particular thing that one might want to do with a
> : [sort of product].
>
> : At any point in time, for any task, I've always viewed the M$ option
> : as second best when compared to something else in the market.
>
> I think it is often a case of choosing your own poison. No OS has every
> benefit of all others, and each OS has its own unique inconveniences.
>
> I get a big kick out of Linux right now, partly because a parade like this
> doesn't come through town every day. (This five year window isn't going
> to happen for another OS anytime soon.) Some grumpy old men say "baah,
> who needs a parade", but I think it is worth some inconvenience.
Being how this parade is already 30 years old, and is CONTINUING to
rise in popularity against all of the marketing money of Microsoft...
what does that tell you?
Especially when practically every corporate database server runs on
either mainframes or Unix...and practically every CAD/CAM/CAE
workstation
runs Unix..
What does this tell you?
The REAL work in this country is done on Unix.
>
> John
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
