Linux-Advocacy Digest #348, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Electric Ninja")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Chad Everett)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (GreyCloud)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Chad Everett)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Chad Everett)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Dave Martel)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (GreyCloud)
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chad Everett)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Brent R)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Brent R)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:13:36 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Well, things get dicey when the updates have such a well-deserved
> reputation for trashing systems. Nobody with any brains, for instance,
> runs SP6 at all, and many refuse to move beyond SP4, because SP5 screws
> things up in their installations. Linux, of course, doesn't have this
> problem.
Nobody with any brains right now would run anything but SP6a.
Linux of course doesn't have these problems because it's a given any upgrade
is going to whack your existing installation.
> >Should all discussion regarding why Linux sucks be relegated to the
version
> >1.3 kernel? That 1.3 kernel really has crappy SMP, and it sure doesn't
> >handle large network loads well at all.
>
> I'm just guessing, but the 1.3 kernel was, what, FIVE years ago? And it
> had good SMP, and handled large network loads very well. It's just that
> the current kernel is much better at both. :-)
Actually no, it did not.
> >I highly doubt you know what heavy utilization is.
>
> We're well aware that Microsoft doesn't understand the concept at all.
I was talking about you.
> >I don't know, the ability to lie and make stuff up seems to be endemic of
> >the Linux advocate. It has some psychological basis in wanting to
justify
> >to one self that you made a good decision, even though you have severe
> >doubts.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha! When in doubt, lie, huh? Just like Microsoft, and all
> its advocates.
I was referring to Linux fanatics.
> >I know, I used to be one, along with an OS/2 advocate and an Amiga
zealot.
>
> Funny, I used to be a Windows advocate, but I wasn't a liar then, and
> I'm not a liar now. Perhaps I just have more integrity and a healthier
> personality than you do.
Then why do you keep lying? That makes no sense.
> Win 3.0 was a drastic improvement, of course, over the previous full
> version, Windows 2.0, but was only a minor improvement over the actual
> previous version, Windows 386. This was where Windows as we know it
> really started. Win 3.1 was the last version that was an overall
> improvement over the previous one; they've gone rapidly down-hill since
> then. Sure, they're "more stable", but that's a measure of how utterly
WTF?
> bug-ridden the previous code was, not something that could be called an
> improvement in the product itself. Win3.1 was definitely better than
> 3.0 in both features and functions, but most of the changes after that
> were just bolting different or more applications into the platform, not
> an improvement either in interface or in the operating system.
Oh christ, you are ignorant.
> Ironic that you would admit to being "Linux free" for more than four
> years, considering your earlier comments about referencing NT SP6.
> Guffaw!
This must be some sort of inside joke.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:11:05 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > That's all well and good, and commendable as well, but will the answer
> > still be the same when others are cashing in on their work?
>
> In my case, according to GPL, you can't do that with my code. So... how can
> anyone 'cash in'?
>
> Unless of course, someone simply ignores the GPL.
>
> --
> Pete
I think all of GPLed code is free to use or change... I think it was
primarily done to keep MSes mitts off of linux.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 03:09:21 GMT
> > I switch 'em on, and every Windows desktop is still faster than Linux.
> >
>
> No, not NT4. *That* one is clearly not as fast as XFree4
Seriously, Linux GUI's tend to be a lot slower than Win32 systems, even on
faster hardware. It's because the window management is done in user mode
with X-Windows, not because of poor programming on anyone's behalf.
Josh S.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 21:39:04 -0500
On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:08:36 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Martel wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:42:23 GMT, Pete Goodwin
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Terry Porter wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why ?
>> >>
>> >> One is not a hypocrit for using Windows and advocating Linux imho.
>> >
>> >But in the same breathe trashes Windows, yet they're using it to post?
>> >Puh-lease!
>>
>> Haven't you ever known someone who drove a Yugo, but had nothing good
>> to say about them?
>
>HEHEHE... I bought a Ford a while back and never had a kind word about
>it either.
>:-)
The worst piece of junk I ever drive was an 1980 Oldmobile Omega.
I hated that car with a passion.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:16:57 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 May 2001 12:07:20 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Chad Everett wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08 May 2001 08:03:33 GMT, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 07 May 2001 06:24:26 GMT,
> >> > Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> Edward Rosten wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Could it be that there's a bug in Linux? Or in the drivers? Not in the
> >> >>>> drivel you post?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Shut up and stop whinging. Just do what any one of the helpful people
> >> >>> have suggested and put a script in rc.local. If you couldn't be arsed to
> >> >>> either do that or fix the bug, then you shouldn't be arsed to post
> >> >>> either.
> >> >>
> >> >> Shut up period. I tried various suggestions. None of them worked.
> >> >
> >> >I'm confused now, really confused.
> >> >
> >> >Pete Goodwin is not an idiot, in fact hes a degreed coder, who has
> >> >posted under the GPL.
> >> >
> >> >So whats wrong here, why cant Pete fix this problem, or at least email
> >> >those maintaining the DHCP stuff and work with them to fix it ?
> >>
> >> I suspect he's really stubborn and pigheaded. I have two degrees too,
> >> and work with PHD mathematicians and engineers. Many highly educated
> >> people are very myopic and some have trouble thinking outside "their
> >> box".
> >>
> >> You're right though. Something is not right. Either Goodwin is
> >> a degreed programmer who can't tie his own shoes, or he's
> >> purposely being stubborn for some unknown reason.
> >
> >I knew a Boeing engineer that tried to change his spark plugs in his
> >ford with a pair of pliers! He broke half of the plugs in the process.
>
> Not to pick on Boeing or anything but my neighbor who is a retired
> Boeing engineer was cutting off a tree limb last year while he was
> sitting on it. Not really a problem, except for the fact that he was
> sitting on the end of the branch that fell to the ground.
>
> He also tried to repair the manual transmission in his Honda Accord.
>
> They had to come with a flatbed and cart it away, with the tranny in a
> million pieces in a milk crate. It was hysterical with gears, springs,
> pawls,shafts, ball bearings and c-clips all over the place.
>
> Other beauties include installing his own very large oval above ground
> pool and not following the directions concerning leveling the ground.
>
> The water was 6 inches higher on one end of the pool.
>
> Pool collapsed on 4th of July weekend 2 years ago and sent a tidal
> wave down through the yards of the other houses on the street.
>
> It looked like something out of the Ten Commandments Movie.
>
> Every time I fly on a Boeing plane I think of him and I pray :)
>
> Flatfish
ROFLMAO!!
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 21:52:58 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 02:21:09 +0100, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote :
>
>[snip, thread drift and pointless 'pissing contest']
>
>>>The games are merely one very good example of this Linux problem.
>>>
>>
>>games are the only thing you even have a hope of approaching a clue
>>on, and you're a long way off on that too.
>
>I can't think of a single person or survey or iota of evidence that
>suggests people use Linux because it offers a quality games platform.
>
Same can be said for Solaris, Irix, AIX, and Linux....but so what? It
doesn't mean that Irix on a modern SGI box, for example, couldn't kick
Windows' butt as a gaming machine. It's just that the game creators
are writing for what the kiddies have and that's Windows.
>It doesn't.
>
>Many Linux advocates find it difficult to concede the fact that Linux
>is not a gaming OS.
I don't. But what you've said is a far cry from using games as
"one very good example of this 'Linux problem'".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 21:54:19 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 02:31:15 +0100, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
>comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>
>>>>You've actually got the nads to tell us that bundling software with
>>>>the OS is worse for the consumer than forcing them to pay for it?
>>>
>>>I've got the nads to acknowledge that Linux is not *yet* a gaming OS.
>>>
>>Must be pretty small nads. Using your logic, you could say the same
>>about Solaris and SGI systems, but you'd be way wrong. Just because
>>lame game writers can't or won't produce games for an OS, doesn't
>>mean it can't actually do it better.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Is this comp.os.linux.theoretical.advocacy ?
>
>Can we please stick to the facts at hand : Linux is not a gaming OS.
>
That wasn't the issue. Go back and read.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:24:44 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001
> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 7 May 2001 13:56:28 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Mon, 7 May 2001 05:11:24 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You're forgetting. I already offered that it would be quite
possible
> >to
> >> >> >device an encoding scheme where the same sequence of characters are
> >not
> >> >> >encoded the same way twice. Thus, all your occurances of A and O
> >would
> >> >be
> >> >> >different for each time they occured. Suppose I used the 4 bit key
as
> >an
> >> >> >index into a completely arbitrarily chosen letter translation
table.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you distribute the translation table?
> >> >
> >> >You don't need to. Both sides have the table. We're not talking
about
> >PKI
> >> >here, we're talking about two sides (say the Pentagon and some foreign
> >> >embassy). You can have totally unique algorithms for each embassy, so
> >that
> >> >should one become compromised, your other embassies aren't. It's only
> >> >purpose is encryption between point a and point b, never point c, d,
or
> >e,
> >> >etc...
> >> >
> >>
> >> If that's the case then the translation table AND your 4-bit index are
> >> "the key" and you're not really talking about a 4-bit key anymore.
> >
> >If a key unlocks a door, it's still the key that unlocks it, regardless
of
> >whether it's a 100 year old warded lock or state of the art medico lock.
> >The complexity is irrelevant.
>
> The complexity actually gets very relevant very quickly, in terms of how
> easy it is to pick the lock, whether you have the key or not.
> Translation to Navajo worked because Navajo is a natural language, not
> simply because it was an unknown type of mathematical encoding scheme.
> Natural language is not, in any analytic respect, a simple encoding
> scheme.
Who said anything about simple? The fact of the matter is, Navajo was just
another encryption mechanism which was uncrackable because the crackers
didn't know the language or the language constructs.
You're making my point, in that the size of the the key is irrelevant when
the actual encoding and decoding methods are completely unknown and
unguessable.
> Again, all of your ideas about codes and encryption are quite valid,
> Erik, up until the computer was invented. Computers can munge through
> ANY possible type of substitution/mangling encryption, with consummate
> ease. It is ONLY the mathematically based encryption schemes using
> large primes as factors which are in any way 'secure' these days.
Until someone figures out a mathematical way to solve it. If Navajo were a
lost language that no records existed for, it would be impossible to crack
unless you had ways to guess at data. For instance, ancient egyptian was
able to be guessed at based on the huge amounts of pictures and other items
that accompanied it.
> They still would have had trouble with Navajo, actually, but then they
> still have trouble with any natural language, don't they? Yet more
> proof that natural language is not simply an encoding scheme. You'll
> note that, even though it was successful, using unknown languages for
> security was abandoned. It isn't really very effective, except as a
> temporary trick of misdirection. It is simply more 'security through
> obfuscation', but you can only fool humans; you can't fool computers.
A computer is only as good as the data it has to work with (and the
programmers that program it).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 22:03:08 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 02:31:15 +0100, Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Can we please stick to the facts at hand : Linux is not a gaming OS.
>
I think the problem is: what is heck is a "gaming OS"? Please tell us.
Is a modern day Irix on a multi-processor SGI a "gaming OS" cause it sure
can kick the pants off a Windows machine and far a computing power and
graphics capabilities....but you don't see gamers using it. Does that
mean it's not a "gaming OS".
Please tell us the requirements for a "gaming OS".
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 21:30:33 -0600
On 8 May 2001 21:39:04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
Everett) wrote:
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:08:36 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Dave Martel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:42:23 GMT, Pete Goodwin
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Terry Porter wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Why ?
>>> >>
>>> >> One is not a hypocrit for using Windows and advocating Linux imho.
>>> >
>>> >But in the same breathe trashes Windows, yet they're using it to post?
>>> >Puh-lease!
>>>
>>> Haven't you ever known someone who drove a Yugo, but had nothing good
>>> to say about them?
>>
>>HEHEHE... I bought a Ford a while back and never had a kind word about
>>it either.
>>:-)
>
>The worst piece of junk I ever drive was an 1980 Oldmobile Omega.
>I hated that car with a passion.
My worst was a Pontiac Catalina that I talked my folks out of when
they were going to scrap it. It was your typical gas-guzzling
smoke-belching oversized tank with a hood large enough to land a
helicopter on.
I called it "the pontoon" because that's what it felt like.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:44:28 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001
> > [...]
> > >COM existed before SOM as well.
> > >
> > >SOM was first introduced with OS/2 2.0, which came out in early 1992,
> just
> > >weeks before COM was officially launched in Windows 3.1. They were
> > >contemporaries, created independantly at about the same time.
> >
> > Which is it? First you say that COM 'existed before SOM', and then you
> > say they were 'created at about the same time'. What besides the donuts
> > at the sock puppet briefings leads you to believe that MS didn't do what
> > they typically do, and just "steal IBM's ideas", implementing their own
> > technology more as vaporware than anything else, to scare off the
> > competition? You know, like the way they stole pen computing from Go?
>
> I can no longer find the reference, but the basic workings of COM were
> developed in 1988, however, they didn't at the time know what to do with it.
> In 1990, when they began work on Windows 3.1, that work was put to use to
> make OLE 2. In other words, COM existed before OLE 2, it had to, since OLE
> was based on COM.
>
Why did they develop COM if they didn't know what to do with it??
I have the Windows Software Development kit and docs. Copyrighted
1987-1992.
No where do I find any mention of COM.
> What I meant was that OLE and SOM were contemporaries. COM came first.
>
> > >SOM and DSOM are almost entirely different technologies. SOM/DSOM do not
> > >provide location transparency like COM/DCOM does. You can't take a SOM
> > >object and make it a DCOM object without completely rewriting the code,
> > >since the implementations are totally different.
> >
> > You cannot use DMTF DMO's for SNMP MIBs, either, but that doesn't make
> > them "entirely different technologies"; they are both almost exactly the
> > same thing, but non-interoperable. Just two different versions of the
> > same idea, implemented somewhat differently because they focused on
> > different sub-domains of the problem.
>
> If they are based on the same work, they're the same technology. Clearly
> DCOM and COM have entirely different implementations and work very
> differently.
>
> > >SOM had a few advantages over COM, but COM also had advantages over SOM.
> > >OpenDoc was something that IBM never really fully supported even in its
> own
> > >software. Apple was the only company to fully embrace it, and even they
> > >they saw the writing on the wall pretty quickly.
> > >
> > >Frankly, except for language binding mechanism of SOM, it sucked and
> > >deserved to die. Hell, it didn't become CORBA compliant until about OS/2
> > >3.0 IIRC.
> >
> > Kind of amusing watching you flail around like this. You are THE sock
> > puppet, Erik. You ought to get a bonus at the next briefing.
>
> Were you born this retarded?
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:47:50 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> If you were to translate the amount of man hours spent on Linux and the
> various programs, you'd also get billions of dollars, it's just that people
> usually donate their time. A few lucky ones get to be paid, but the vast
> majority aren't.
>
> So, with all those billions of dollars, why are stack overflows occuring on
> Linux as well?
>
> "Mad.Scientist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:#dsktIp1AHA.274@cpmsnbbsa07...
> > I just wonder why they spend billions on their products, but cannot stop a
> > stack from overflowing (a source of many "Illegal Operations").
> >
> > "jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested,
> > > then why do problems like this still exist
> > > in Windows?
> > >
> > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5815298.html?tag=lh
> > >
> > > From CNET:
> > >
> > > Flaw found in common Internet standard
> > > By Robert Lemos
> > > Special to CNET News.com
> > > May 3, 2001, 2:30 p.m. PT
> > >
> > > The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) warned companies this
> > week of security problems
> > > caused by a fundamental flaw in the way PCs and servers talk to
> each
> > other across the Internet.
> > > ..
> > > ..
> > > ..
> > >
> > > According to the analysis completed by BindView, operating systems such
> as
> > the Linux 2.2 kernel and the
> > > most recent version of OpenBSD create strong ISNs, while operating
> > systems such as Windows 95,
> > > Windows 98, older versions of Windows NT, AIX and HPUX have
> > relatively weak procedures for generating
> > > ISNs.
> > >
> > > The latter operating systems could be exploited by an attack using
> > the new vulnerability.
> >
> >
There aren't.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 22:11:51 -0500
On Tue, 8 May 2001 22:09:58 -0500, Steve Sheldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Yes, crashing out of X-Windows back to a console is pretty routine.
>
Not true. How would you know if you've been "linux free since 1996".
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 03:53:37 GMT
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
> On Mon 07 May 2001 08:10, Mad.Scientist wrote:
>
> > This topic is about why you made the switch to Linux.
> >
> > I made the switch mostly because of what I learned about recent M$
> > practices. I really resented their paranoia, and their need to control
> > everything. Their statements against Open Source were very fraudulent,
> > especially as I read upon it. I believed in the OS model, and that made
> > me think about what M$ really did. So I became skeptical of them, and
> > decided to research Linux and M$. The more I read upon it, the more I
> > was interest. I am a geek to the core, so I really wanted to try it.
> > The final straw came when I learned of M$ plans for WinXP, such as the
> > uses of .NET, I lost all hope for them. Then came the news of their
> > crackdown of casual copying. And then accusing Open Source as being
> > "un-American". So I installed Linux. Now, M$ has fucked AOL over,
> > starting a war, and the industry is turning against M$.
> >
> > My reason for switching is more ideological, as my WinME runs well, but
> > does crash every few days still.
> >
> > What are your reasons?
> >
>
> My first introduction to non-toy computers came when my parents bought a
> Packrat Bell for Christmas in 1993. It took quite a bit of scraping
> together of cash, but they felt it would be useful for education and
> schoolwork. No Internet access, since that hadn't come into fashion yet.
> Even though I had no idea how to use it, I gravitated toward it. My mother
> bought a book called _DOS 6 Secrets_, and I absorbed every page. I
> stumbled quite a bit (I still remember the epiphany when I finally realized
> why the "CTTY NUL" command from an example of a .BAT virus would lock up
> the computer when typed at the command line), but I quickly became a fairly
> proficient batch file writer. QBasic would have blown my mind had I known
> how to use it.
>
> I signed up for computer programming classes in high school as soon as they
> were offered, and quickly snapped up both QBasic and Turbo Pascal.
> Entranced by programming, I decided to leave behind my previous plan to
> learn electronics. I read Windows Magazine (sadly, it only exists today in
> online form at www.winmag.com), savoring every issue, and learned enough
> about PC hardware to start doing my own upgrades. I asked my parents to
> buy me a copy of Visual C++ for my birthday, then set about learning C/C++
> over the summer.
>
> As I became aware of Microsoft and their position in the PC industry, I
> realized that they were the 800 lb gorilla of the industry and prone to
> abuse their position; however, their products seemed, if not the best, at
> least passable. It wasn't until I left for college that I began to hear
> about Linux. Linux, the PC clone of UNIX, the OS that the _Secrets_ book
> had called "The only operating system that makes MS-DOS look warm and
> fuzzy," the OS that my computer teacher had spoken of in hushed and
> reverent tones. It intrigued me. Within months of learning the PC, I had
> been drawn away from the pretty pictures to the command-line interface of
> DOS, and now the idea of something even more powerful was entrancing.
>
> Toward the end of my freshman year, I picked up a book on programming for
> Linux, but the experience was disappointing. A badly outdated copy of
> Slackware 2.0 came with the book, and it couldn't recognize most of my
> hardware or my FAT32 partition. Discouraged, I put it aside since I still
> had schoolwork to do. That summer, I mail-ordered a copy of Slackware 4.0
> from Walnut Creek CDROM, and never looked back except for the occasional
> game of Duke Nukem, Populous: The Beginning, or StarCraft. I spent all
> summer geeking out as I learned the ropes of the POSIX C API, Perl, and
> Apache. I began to see all the little nuances of incompatibility and
> brokenness in Windows and other Microsoft products, and the gilded and
> sacharrin-sweet words Microsoft used to sell their overpriced and overhyped
> products. I swore off Windows for my own computer, and purged my hard
> drive of all Microsoft products. It means I have to do without StarCraft,
> but it's a small price to pay to be rid of their lies and FUD.
It has never ceased to astound me that people would do away with their
favorite apps just for a moderate increase in OS quality. That's one
thing I've never really understood about this movement I guess.
To me, I like Linux but Windows has so many great apps that I cannot do
without it.
> --
> Chronos Tachyon
> Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
> Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
> [Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 03:59:22 GMT
Dave Martel wrote:
> However.... I'm going to give FreeBSD a try as soon as the v4.3
> packages hit the store shelves. Why? Believe it or not, because of
> that stupid d*mn linux penguin logo. Tux looks like a Fisher-Price
> toddler toy. I'd feel like an idiot wearing a Tux T-shirt, or
> interviewing for a job with a Tux pin on my lapel or driving around
> town with a Tux bumper sticker.
>
> But the BSD Demon is really neat!
Anyone (besides Linux, BG, Ritchie/Thompson, etc.) wearing any
OS-related propaganda should be shot on sight on principal. Just like
the 40 year old guys wearing Darth Maul T-shirts at computer shows.
Almost as bad as trekkies...
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
