Linux-Advocacy Digest #164, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Bob Germer)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: OS choice (Tim Hanson)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chad Irby)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chad Irby)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:54:08 GMT
On 09/17/2000 at 02:18 PM,
"Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible. You
> > >have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what causes the
> > >changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the PGA tour did
> > >it.
> >
> > Well hell you can't provide proof of other claims you make so you drop
> > those threads so to a new one you go. You know an asshole like yourself
> > wouldn't know cursorary evidence if it hit you in the face. The pga tour
> > doesn't produce cfc's, ergo it isn't at fault. The are a by product of
> > aerosols though and guess what, they have only existed in the last
> > century. Care to try again? So why do you not like having the truth in
> > front of you?
No one has provided any irrefutable scientific proof which is universally
accepted that CFC's have cause any climatic changes. There are theories
put forth by some scientists which are not accepted by others with equal
prominence.
You on the other hand are too stupid to recognize valid analogy when you
read it. Sad, sad, sad. About what one expects from liberals like you.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 17 Sep 2000 23:05:05 GMT
In article <39c54bdd$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/17/2000 at 02:18 PM,
> "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> > >The PGA Tour didn't exist until this century. Maybe it's responsible. You
>> > >have not proof that CFC's caused the change. No one knows what causes the
>> > >changes, and your theory is as full of holes as claiming the PGA tour did
>> > >it.
>> >
>> > Well hell you can't provide proof of other claims you make so you drop
>> > those threads so to a new one you go. You know an asshole like yourself
>> > wouldn't know cursorary evidence if it hit you in the face. The pga tour
>> > doesn't produce cfc's, ergo it isn't at fault. The are a by product of
>> > aerosols though and guess what, they have only existed in the last
>> > century. Care to try again? So why do you not like having the truth in
>> > front of you?
>
>No one has provided any irrefutable scientific proof which is universally
>accepted that CFC's have cause any climatic changes. There are theories
>put forth by some scientists which are not accepted by others with equal
>prominence.
Which is why things are called theories and studied. Dismissing something
because there is a disagreement is the sign of stupidity.
>
>You on the other hand are too stupid to recognize valid analogy when you
>read it. Sad, sad, sad. About what one expects from liberals like you.
You're analogy was very poor. There is proof that CFC's are by-products
of certain aerosols, simple chemistry shows that. CFS's also destroy O3,
plenty of proof for that. I don't know about Joe, but I am no liberal,
pretty conservative actually. I just am not facist and know not to
dismiss something that might hurt one of my beliefs. You are too small of
a person to do such a thing and are more of a facist than a conservative.
Too bad you are too fucking stupid to provide real proof for your beliefs.
> > >--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
>MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
>Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:56:48 -0500
"OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > You seem to be confused on what "fully compatible with Win95 and Win98"
> > means. It doesn't mean fully compatible with DOS.
>
> Then why is Windows ME using a DOS only install? Why doesn't it just boot
up
> into its own system, then install itself? The Linux distros do this.
Less
> surprise for the installer to install this way.
It's not a DOS only install. NT does the same thing. It uses DOS only to
copy the files to the hard disk, then it reboots into a protected mode
installation program. At this point, the CD isn't needed anymore since the
files have been copied to the hard drive.
> > It means fully
>
> > compatible with Win95 and Win98 applications.
>
> So now you're trying to tell me that my CD being compatible with DOS may
not be
> compatible with Win98 or WinME? What a crock! Hardware is hardware
(AFAIK
> there aren't any WinCDs out there.). I don't care if it has legacy code
or
> not, WinME should have the drivers to run it just like Win98 did.
Actually
> WinMe, it turns out does have the drivers, but WinME doesn't understand
> additional IDE ports. I think it is really strange that WinME Install
disk
> does have the drivers to understand a 3rd ide port (It says something is
wrong
> if the underlying DOS system -- which MS is trying to hide -- has drivers
that
> aren't implemented for the WinME System). Linux has no trouble with 3 or
4 ide
> ports, but I'm sure you'll now tell me that Linux is still behind in the
> Hardware support.
The IDE card probably has BIOS hooks to install itself into DOS (int 13h).
Since Windows ME doesn't use the BIOS to control hardware, it needs to have
a specific protected mode driver to access the hardware. This is the same
as NT as well.
You are implying way too much. Since the IDE controller was built to wedge
itself into DOS, the fact that it doesn't wedge itself into Windows (if that
were even possible) says nothing about Windows. DOS doesn't have drivers
for the card. The card simply plays bios tricks to pretend that it's a
native device.
There are probably Win9x drivers available for the card. You just have to
install them.
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:38:25 -0500
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:27:33 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
>> >I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
>> >the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
>> >some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
>> Your lack of knowledge is apalling.
>
>So is yours.
How so?
>You're using the damned thing and *still* don't know what's
>new in W2K.
I don't? What's your reasoning behind that?
>Go read Paul 'Z' Ewande's reply to my post and maybe you'll
>learn a thing or two yourself.
Why? It's common knowledge.
>One might think you didn't know any more
>than I do on W2K.
Why? Because you aren't paying me to educate you?
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:41:50 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool had pity:
> >Roberto Alsina whined:
> >>Rev. Don Kool had the patience to explain:
> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> Rev. Don Kool explained:
> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >> Rev. Don Kool pointed out:
> >> >> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
[...snip...
> >Good move on your part as LINUX will obviously will never pass
> >certification as a UNIX systems.
> Prove it. Or at least give a little evidence. Since it is "obvious", it should
> be a piece of cake.
Find another PC kernel that has been certified as a UNIX system.
Since you erroneously belive that LINUX would pass with flying
colors, this should be a piece of cake for you, my malodorous
italian friend.
> >> You said Linux would not pass. You are the one making judgement
> >> without facts, I am the one witholding judgement.
> > You are the one confusing a kernel with an OS Bob.
> Oh, sorry, I meant "Conectiva Linux 5.0" which I have in my desk right
> here. Linux for short.
LINUX consists of a kernel. Hardly a UNIX operating system, my
pasta eating friend.
> >> >> >> You said Linux can not pass.
> >> >> > I certainly did state that fact, Bob.
> >> >> My name is not Bob, if you don't mind. And if you say that's a fact,
> >> >> again, you should provide *some* proof.
> >> > Submit it and watch it fail. You'll have all the proof you want,
> >> > Bob.
> >> That F in logic I gave you is starting to look like a gift!
> >>
> >> As I said: "you should provide *some* proof". Notice that when I say "you"
> >> It means Rev. Don Kool, not Roberto Alsina. I am not saying it would pass,
> >> (or not) so I need not prove anything.
> > You choose to erroneously call a PC kernel a UNIX system. You are
> >the one with plenty to prove, my child.
> I have made no statements of fact regarding Linux in this thread, so I have
> nothing to prove, my logically impaired reverend.
You have much to prove, my child. Manhood, maturity, personal
hygeine, respect for your elder, knowledge of UNIX systems, etc....
Yours in Christ,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:42:27 -0400
"Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> You're analogy was very poor. There is proof that CFC's are by-products
> of certain aerosols, simple chemistry shows that. CFS's also destroy O3,
> plenty of proof for that.
How long does it take for the cfc's to even reach the ozone? I've heard as
high as 50 years. In which case you might as well consider it destroyed no
matter what fix gets implemented now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 18 Sep 2000 00:00:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> You're analogy was very poor. There is proof that CFC's are by-products
>> of certain aerosols, simple chemistry shows that. CFS's also destroy O3,
>> plenty of proof for that.
>
>How long does it take for the cfc's to even reach the ozone? I've heard as
>high as 50 years. In which case you might as well consider it destroyed no
>matter what fix gets implemented now.
whoa, wait a minute, you mean you have read on this and don't just spout
your belief system?!?! ;-). There are a couple of naturally occuring
sources of Chlorine based gases, CH3Cl and HCL. Marine plankton produces
a lot but only accounts for 0.6ppb and the current stratospheric
concentration is 3.3ppb so obviously there is another source. Volcanoes
provide a lot of HCL but most of this is scrubbed from the air by the
rain, hence the reason why even major eruptions only affect climate for 1
to 2 years and that is from ash and Sulfur based emissions. Little HCL
from eruptions makes it to the stratosphere. So most of the CFC's are
anthropogenic with lifespans of 60-120 years. The levels have been steady
though since Freon-11 and Freon-12, both CFC's, have been banned. Now
only if we could take the extra ozone that makes the city air so damn
dirty and ship it to Anartica, then we'd have a solution to 2 problems.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS choice
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:14:58 GMT
Greenwood Packing wrote:
>
> Why is it necessary for people who favor Linux or any UNIX like OS to
> fight with those who use Windows? More over why is it necessary to warp
> Linux into something that everyone can use? Wouldn't it be better for both
> to exist and for those who want more from their computer to use *NIX?
That would be ideal, but indications are that Microsoft does not share
this "live and let live" attitude, to the point where Gates has said in
email he wants to exterminate *nix, brought out in the Bristol
testimony.
>I
> happen to feel that Linux isn't for everyone. I would like to see maybe one
> or two distributions that allow for a nice easy install, this will give
> people who honestly want to try it out a chance. But I don't like the idea
> of dumbing the system down so everyone can use it.
I know of many who are making Linux dumber. If anything it is becoming
more complex, reaching new classes of applications (from clusters to
embedded devices). Who is presently advocating takin something away
from Linux?
Now for the inevitable rhetorical questions:
> Shouldn't Linux people
> be promoting awareness not only of the OS they use but for the computer it
> runs on?
Who proposes to dictate what Linux advocates should or should not be
promoting? You?
> Isn't separating the user from the computer with a GUI and doing
> all the configuration work for him/her a bad idea for *NIX?
Why? Who is promoting this practice for all Linux users?
> I was once a
> newbie although I didn't have a nice fancy GUI install, and everyone needs
> to start somewhere but if you start and have everything spoon fed to you do
> you get anywhere?
Depends on where you want to get. Would you lock out all potential
users who use computers to accomplish non-programming and non-sysadmin
tasks, like typing correspondence, playing games, or doing non-computer
specific calculations?
Any input on these subjects would be greatly appreciated
> but please post your replies to this NG.
>
> Thank you all for your honesty.
>
> LR
--
At any given moment, an arrow must be either where it is or where it is
not. But obviously it cannot be where it is not. And if it is where
it is, that is equivalent to saying that it is at rest.
-- Zeno's paradox of the moving (still?) arrow
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:48:23 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, Win2K is simply WinNT 5 -- same kernel, save overall
> > features, the works.
>
> Not only isn't it the same kernel, but the overall features have been
> enhanced with some new features added.
Look at that again. He didn't say NT 4... he said NT 5. "Windows 2000"
is merely the release name for the fifth version of WIndows NT.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:49:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Irby
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There was a Microsoft Developers Conference a while back, and when they
> > asked their developers what major change Microsoft should make in their
> > software, the number one answer was "kill off that damned paperclip."
>
> So W2K is W98 minus the paperclip? ;)
If they'd get rid of the papervlip, it would be a sign that they were
actually listening to their customers.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:57:47 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > You seem to be confused on what "fully compatible with Win95 and Win98"
> > > means. It doesn't mean fully compatible with DOS.
> >
> > Then why is Windows ME using a DOS only install? Why doesn't it just boot
> up
> > into its own system, then install itself? The Linux distros do this.
> Less
> > surprise for the installer to install this way.
>
> It's not a DOS only install. NT does the same thing. It uses DOS only to
> copy the files to the hard disk, then it reboots into a protected mode
> installation program. At this point, the CD isn't needed anymore since the
> files have been copied to the hard drive.
>
> > > It means fully
> >
> > > compatible with Win95 and Win98 applications.
> >
> > So now you're trying to tell me that my CD being compatible with DOS may
> not be
> > compatible with Win98 or WinME? What a crock! Hardware is hardware
> (AFAIK
> > there aren't any WinCDs out there.). I don't care if it has legacy code
> or
> > not, WinME should have the drivers to run it just like Win98 did.
> Actually
> > WinMe, it turns out does have the drivers, but WinME doesn't understand
> > additional IDE ports. I think it is really strange that WinME Install
> disk
> > does have the drivers to understand a 3rd ide port (It says something is
> wrong
> > if the underlying DOS system -- which MS is trying to hide -- has drivers
> that
> > aren't implemented for the WinME System). Linux has no trouble with 3 or
> 4 ide
> > ports, but I'm sure you'll now tell me that Linux is still behind in the
> > Hardware support.
>
> The IDE card probably has BIOS hooks to install itself into DOS (int 13h).
> Since Windows ME doesn't use the BIOS to control hardware, it needs to have
> a specific protected mode driver to access the hardware. This is the same
> as NT as well.
>
> You are implying way too much. Since the IDE controller was built to wedge
> itself into DOS, the fact that it doesn't wedge itself into Windows (if that
> were even possible) says nothing about Windows. DOS doesn't have drivers
> for the card. The card simply plays bios tricks to pretend that it's a
> native device.
Oh gee, now we've gone from just needing DOS drivers to now the card wedges
itself into the bios. If that was the case, I'm sure WinME would have seen it
as an active ide port just like it identifies the other two ide ports on my
machine (except that WinME probably isn't programmed to look beyond 2 ide
ports). Therefore it is Windows fault for not seeing the card. However, the
card I had does not have bios routines, it relies on drivers. Check out an old
FC040 card .... BTW a common card used with tape backups. It is still Windows
fault for not seeing a very common ide card that is not yet obsoleted (but
getting close to obsolescence).
I also know that if the tables were turned and you were installing Linux, you'd
be screaming bloody murder if Linux didn't recognize your CD or a 3rd ide port
card. Should I say it's not Linux's fault as well since it uses its own bios
disregarding whatever bios is on the motherboard?
Enough now!....I have the system running fully....13 hours after installation.
That sucks! Especially since it has taken me a maximum of 3 hours to bring a
Linux box fully up from installation in the past.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
