Linux-Advocacy Digest #513, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (kosh)
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? ("David Coto")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Richard
Thrippleton)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (pip)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Karel Jansens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:51:00 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> So I guess you're just being lame.
>>
>>You trying to fit me into a square hole again? You still trying to fit me
>>into your dogma again?
>
> I'm telling you you're lame because you're lame. Going off on how I'm
> trying to pigeon-hole you is just being lame, I'm afraid.
Telling me I'm lame does not make me lame. Using Windows and criticising it
makes you a hypocrit.
>>I don't see the connection between my understanding what monopoly crapware
>>means and why you insist on using it, despite calling it "monopoly
>>crapware".
>
> Now I "insist on using it"? Because I don't spend time and effort
> migrating all my habits and data, to satisfy your stupid and obviously
> ridiculous notion that I've no right to criticize monopoly crapware if
> I'm using it, now I'm "insisting on using it"?
So why are you still using it? Surely Linux would be better for you, after
all you are "promoting crapware" by still using it!
> You invent new levels of lame, man.
Your labels are meaningless.
> Shame will get you nowhere, meathead. I don't get insulted in general;
> I certainly don't feel shame on any random lamer's say-so.
Here we go. When the going gets tough, insult the opposition! Yeah that
works every time!
You're still a hypocrit!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:53:46 GMT
On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:45:00 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>He's using Agent on Linux. He said as much himself. Or did I miss
>>>something here?
>>
>> Did I? I don't recall "saying as much", or even hinting at it, really.
>> I am using Agent on Win95b, currently. Before that, I was using it on
>> NT4.
>
>OK, then I missed something here. Somehow I thought you were using Linux.
>
>Why are you using Windows 95 B?
>
>Hypocrit!
So did I?
Isn't T-Max the guy who bought that Linux Pre-Load system a couple of
months ago?
Funny thing that we have never heard how great it is, or anything like
that. No questions, advice requested, comments or anything.
Wonder why that is?
flatfish
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:52:34 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Then it can hardly be "monopolistic crapware" now can it!
>
> The term is "monopoly crapware", and whether I use it certainly has
> nothing more than a trivial impact on that.
Your using it means you support it. Either it is monopoly crapware (and
therefore you won't use it) or it's not (and you use it).
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>My assertion stands. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise.
>
> You claim you're blind, when anyone looking at you can clearly see that
> you just refusing to open your eyes.
Open your eyes, baby, and smell the coffee.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:52:56 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>We did, in another thread. "DirectX sucks". Boy did I lead you to water!
>>You fell for it, too!
>
> Take your bruised ego somewhere else, Pete. Neither your delusions nor
> your feigned ridicule are of interest.
Wiggle! Wiggle! Wiggle!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:55:40 GMT
On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:45:54 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>More trash form T-Max.....
>>>I don't imagine getting my work done. It is only a pipe dream under
>>>Linux.
>>>So tell me T-max, what do you, the Linux community have in the way of
>>>applications I mentioned?
>>>I'm all ears...
>>>Facts please, and don't try and diffuse the topic to some political
>>>statement like you usually do...
>>
>> You seem to be misreading my words, nimrod. :-D
>
>A typically evasive reply.
T-Max uses more words to say less than anyone I have ever seen. The
only one close is jedi and his rhymes and riddles (jedi-speak if you
will) but even jedi makes useful points.
T-Max is just babbling about nothing. He should stick to the political
threads because he does a bit better there.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:54:33 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>> At
>> least Pete backs up his claims with facts,
>> or the steps he used to
>> create whatever problem he is having at the moment.
> Thats true, but then Pete ignores the advice of people
> who tell him how to *fix* the problems.
> ie DCHP.
I tried some of the fixes, and they didn't work. I can't help it if you
don't believe me.
>> What do you do?
> Max is no Wintroll, or fake identity like you.
He's another kind of troll and a hypocrit to boot.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:59:41 GMT
On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:38:33 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Why did you ask, if you already know? Do you not realize that publicly
>> declaring that you are being disingenuous and dishonest in public is
>> "making a fool of yourself"?
>
>I did nothing of the sort! I asked _you_ why DirectX sucks. I neither said
>it sucks or not!
He's using a classic attempt at covering up his stupid statements.
Pat Buchanan used the same thing on MSNBC the other night while
debating Phil Donohue.
Donohue: Why are so many minorities on death row?
Buchanan: Do you not believe a capital crime should be punished by
death?
Notice the question was not answered.
and so forth....
>> Look; it doesn't matter to me whether you want to be known as a lamer or
>> a troll, Pete; I'll spank your rosy cheeks either way. But try to
>> maintain some dignity. I look like I'm bullying an ignorant child if
>> you don't at least try to pretend you aren't both lame and a troll.
>
>Dream on baby!
>
>You just had yo' cheeks warmed and yo' don' like do' ya!
He's the one with the dream. If he wants to troll he needs to learn an
awful lot about how it works.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:48:58 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
. wrote:
> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "." wrote:
>>>
>>> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian 3-D
>>> games.
>>>
>>> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
>
>> And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what about
>> the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
>
> I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm
> saying
> that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the FreeBSD kernel
> to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98, ME, XP, and also
> Solaris
> 7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel doesnt mean its a piece of
> shit, it only means that I could get it to do something that you
> insinuated might not
> be possible. :)
>
There is not a damn thing the kernel can do since you loaded a binary only
module into it. I have an nvidia card to and don't use nvidias driver
because they couldn't program themselves out of a wet paper bag. Their
driver is horribly unstable compared to everything else on my system. When
I used their driver before the system would crash once a week or so and it
was that damn driver every time. As soon as I removed it all the crashes
went away.
In all my years of using linux I have only had the os crash for 2 reasons.
I the nvidia driver, 2 failed hardware. Kind of hard for the os to keep
running if the cpu fails etc.
>>>
>>> > 2.4 also has better SMP
>>> > support then current BSD boxes. If you need more then 2cpus linux is a
>>> > better bet on x86 hardware.
>>>
>>> This will only be true for about 6 more months. Version 5.0 of FreeBSD
>>> has SMP re-built from the ground up, and already seems to be far
>>> superior.
>
>> We shall see. Where are the benchmarks ?
>
> In the ports collection. Download 5.0 and see for yourself.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: 14 May 2001 16:07:03 -0500
As I said - that is a fable but...
If I were the rich man I wouldn't agree to something like that so your
anology fails, sorry.
"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jon Johansan posted:
> >"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ever heard the fable of the rice and the chess board?
> >
> >Right - it's a FABLE
>
> There are several lead-ins to the tale, but in the end, a poor
> beggar defeats a rich land-ownder in a game of chess. The rich
> land-owner is so impressed he allows the beggar to ask for
> anything in return. The beggar's small request: enough rice to
> cover one chess board in the following fashion: one kernel of
> rice on the first square, two on the second, four on the third, 8
> on the fourth, and so on.
>
> The greedy land-ownder agrees, thinking he is getting off easy
> with just a few bags of rice to pay.
>
> However, the land-ownder is astonished and humbled when he learns
> from his wise men's calculations that there is not enough rice in
> the entire kingdom to fulfil the beggar's request.
>
> I.e., A faster growth rate for Linux will allow it to easily
> catch up and surpass Microsoft's market share, not matter how
> great Microsoft's lead.
>
> But you can sit around being foolish, like the rich land-ownder, if
> you really must.
>
> --
> Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *** The museum bought your antique personal computer for $300. ***
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: 14 May 2001 16:11:05 -0500
"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien posted:
> >
> >"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> I.e., A faster growth rate for Linux will allow it to easily
> >> catch up and surpass Microsoft's market share, not matter how
> >> great Microsoft's lead.
> >
> >Faster and *sustained* growth rate.
>
> Then you're left to argue that Linux's growth rate will not
> sustain; you risk being humbled like the rich land-owner by
> thinking that a higher growth rate is meaningless in the face of
> Microsoft's huge market share.
Remember - growing from 100 users to 1000 users is a 1000% growth rate - but
what does that mean when your competitor ONLY grows 1% from 100,000,000
users to 101,000,000 users?
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 14 May 2001 16:12:08 -0500
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:dnXL6.12464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon 14 May 2001 07:01, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >
> > One BIG advantage of Linux is that SMP code can be inlined, by setting
> > a compiler switch and rebuilding.
> >
> > In proprietary binary operating systems (PBOS), SMP support is provided
> > by libraries. The kernel has to jump to the proper library function.
> > This function call is necessary so that the PBOS can support both
> > uni-processor and SMP machines. However, note that the function call
> > is overhead that the open-source kernel can simply compile out of
> > existence.
> >
> > Examples of PBOS's: Windows, Windows, Windows, Windows.....
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> I believe that this is wrong: NT/2K ships with two versions of the kernel
> (and a few core libraries) pre-compiled on the CD, one with SMP support
and
> one for uniprocessor systems. However, due to the welded-hood approach of
> Microsoft products, one must reinstall the OS from scratch to switch
> between the two kernels. Yech.
That is wrong. There is a simple utility to run to switch between the uni
processor kernel and mutiprocessor kernel for NT4. W2K does not have this
problem and you can change motherboard and CPU counts under it no problem,
it reconfigures itself automatically when you come back up. I recently went
from a uniprocessor m/b to a dual board and just shut down, changed hardware
and came back up; had to reboot once more after it detected the changes.
------------------------------
From: "David Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:16:13 +0200
Thanks everyone for all your comments, I think I've
learnt a lot about both OS's.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 14 May 2001 16:24:05 -0500
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all
> > recorded in
> >> > a
> >> > > >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers -
> >> > > >you
> >> > don't
> >> > > >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters
> >> > lately?
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse
to
> > run
> >> > if
> >> > > I make improvements to it.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > So don't buy licensed software who's terms you don't agree with.
> >> > Simple.
> >>
> >> I don't.
> >
> > Good for you! There, not much of a monopoly MS has got there now is it?
> >
>
> A friend of mine recently wanted to buy a new computer in a store. She did
> not need the Windows 98 operating system or the applications that came
with
> it, so she asked if she could buy a computer without operating system or
> any applications installed (after all, she already had a decent operating
> system linux - and all the software she was ever going to need - SuSE).
>
> The sales droid told her that this was impossible, as all computers came
> with Windows software preinstalled.
>
> So she asked if she could get a refund if she did not buy the software;
> after all, all the programs that were installed on the computer were also
> for sale as separate items in the store.
>
> This, the shopinator told her, was also impossible, but when asked why,
the
> drone went into maintenance mode.
>
> Indeed, this MS monopoly is nothing but a giant fata morgana. It does not
> exist. People make it up as they go.
>
I can walk into a computer store and buy all the parts needed to build a
computer. It will have whatever OS I choose to put on it.
They should bitch to that particular OEM about the deal it signed with MS
and why it chose to. I think I know the answer but the fault doesn't lay
with MS. MS offers OEMs a choice. Sign a deal that says you'll only use our
software preloaded and we'll sell you copies of our software cheaper. You
don't have to sign but you'll pay regular pricing for the software. We won't
stop you selling computers but obviously you'll be at a price disadvantage.
Try walking into a car dealership and order a car without a motor. You
intend to drop custom motor of your own design into it. What? They won't?
Why not? You don't need it, don't want it.... they are forcing you to do
it!! bastards! Try to buy a new 42" TV without a remote. You've got a
universal remote, you don't need a remote. It's free? No, you say, the price
is included so it's not. Hmmm... ok, those bastard monopolizers are at it
again. Can't buy a CD with the jewel case? The list of examples goes on and
on.
No one forces the OEMs to buy MS - there are obvious advantages and
disadvantages to the choice which the market place caused to occur but these
are not the "fault" of MS. Do you blame someone for being successful? Now,
as we've said, you can buy a computer without Windows installed - what you
meant to say was that your friend went to a store where only computers with
Windows preinstalled were sold. That's like complaining that you went to a
ford dealership and were pissed because they refused to sell you a brand new
chevy!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:27:33 +0000
In article <3afebc17$0$82825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Attachments? No, just more Outlook crap. And no, my newsreader
doesn't require me to restart the system....
>------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DBAB.BDE843E0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So useful....
>=20
>Management Summary
>
>Despite popular belief in the retail and hospitality markets, the Linux =
>operating system is not free. The Linux kernel itself may be free, but =
>there are many other costs associated with the total cost of ownership =
>of a system. There are significant costs associated with =
>"retail-hardening" Linux. Even Linux executives admit that Linux isn't =
>free, but that you just pay in different ways. Linux especially has a =
>long way to go in retail, and someone is going to bear these costs.
>
>When investigating Linux for your retail enterprise, you should =
>investigate and calculate these ten factors into your total cost of =
>ownership (TCO) model:
You can't be more specific? If you're talking about labour costs
(almost always the most significant), then yes, I will conceed that a
trained Unix guru costs more to hire than a chimpanzee for the equivalent NT
system. But most health inspectors would consider that worth paying for.....
>=8C Limited Device Driver Support
>
>Very few device drivers are available for Linux today, especially those =
>used in retail environments. The JavaPOS standard is still in the early =
>stages and has not been proven like the OPOS standard. In fact, most =
>JavaPOS installations today run on Windows with OPOS and a Java OPOS =
>wrapper. JavaPOS has a long way to go before it can provide the same =
>device driver support as OPOS provides. The cost of developing retail =
>device drivers is a huge consideration in total cost of ownership. =
>Someone is going to have to pay to develop them for retail. The =
>Microsoft platform is years ahead of Linux in meeting the retail =
>industry's needs and provides an extensive set of device drivers.
Let's rephrase that; hardware manufacturers are supporting solely
the Microsoft platform. But as long as you don't always need the latest
video/sound/tv/cd-burner support (server!!) you'll be fine. Give it a little
time and hardware developers will find it in their best interests to make
Linux drivers, or at least open source them so someone else can port them.
>=8D Support / Maintenance Costs
>
> Support and maintenance for Linux is not free. Most Linux =
>distributors make their money by selling their services. Support =
>options vary by vendor and can get quite expensive for the enterprise. =
>You will have to pay for support when you need it. However, before you =
>can even receive support, you have to meet certain requirements. Most =
>Linux distributors will only support un-modified versions of their =
>software. Some of them also require you to meet certain hardware =
>requirements before they will support you. Microsoft has a much more =
>advanced support system in place to aid you when you need help.
In all fairness to distro providers, they have to make money
somehow, and all the support anyone other than a retard would need in a
lifetime will be cheaper than the equivalent NT setup.
>=8E Numerous Installation Versions
>
> There are over 188 different distributions of Linux available =
>today, with the number growing all the time. You have to first decide =
>which distribution and graphical user interface to use. Next, you have =
>to deal with the limitations you will be faced with. For example, there =
>is no guarantee that any software you develop on one distribution will =
>run under another distribution. Nor is it guaranteed, or even likely, =
>that an application you develop for one GUI will run under a different =
>GUI, even on the same distribution. You do not have this problem with =
>Microsoft's platform, since there are only a few different versions, all =
>with a common user interface.
Writing distro/window manager portable code is trivial. A developer
would have to make an actual effort to break this. But by and large, the
immense choice you have is a bad thing. That's why the western world is so
unhappy, and those jolly people in the old USSR so loved to only be
able to buy one kind of car.....
Choice means you don't have to stick with crap. You don't get choice
in a monopoly/communist state.
>=8F Lack Of Available Software
>
> Software for the Linux operating system has a long way to go. =
>There are not very many well-known or enterprise-wide software packages =
>available for Linux today, especially for POS. There is also a huge =
>void on the Linux platform in server side software, like database, =
>message queuing services, and transaction servers. The present =
>limitations of software for the front end, middle tier, and server on =
>Linux represent additional costs you need to factor into your TCO model. =
Straight crap that would be wasteful to refute.
> You do not face this limitation with the Microsoft platform, which has =
>thousands of products available to create a complete end-to-end =
>solution.
End to end; "And our web server plugs into our seperate mail server,
here we have our database server, and plugged into it even further along we
have the duplicate backups for all three". Then the chimpanzee realises he
knows sodall about network architecture.....
>=91 Lack Of Formal Development Schedule, Research, and Standards
>
> With Linux, no formal development schedule or set of standards =
>exists. There are thousands of developers contributing to it from all =
>over the world, with no accountability to the retail industry. Linus =
>Torvalds makes the final decision about what gets included in the latest =
>Linux release, and he has no accountability to the retail industry. =
>There is no formal research and development process with Linux. =
>Microsoft plans to spend over $4 billion in R&D in 2001 and listens to =
>the retail industry. =20
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. It's not the process that
counts, it's the end result; solid stable software over the sort of wobbly
crap that M$ push out.
>=92 Less Secure
>
> "Open source" means that anyone can get a copy of the source code. =
>Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The =
>same is not true with Microsoft Windows.
"Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux"
Shit, you're right! They might be able to fix them. Well blow me, I hadn't
thought of that catastrophe!
<snip; your HTML sucks>
Richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 14 May 2001 21:41:00 GMT
kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . wrote:
>> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "." wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have. NVIDIA drivers w/ gforce2 and kernel 2.4-20 with certian 3-D
>>>> games.
>>>>
>>>> Kernel panic, unrecoverable, hard lock.
>>
>>> And so you use binary proprietary drivers - and this proves what about
>>> the quality of 2.4 exactly ?
>>
>> I'm not saying that the 2.4 kernel sucks, you bitchass nutslap. I'm
>> saying
>> that I can get it to lock consistently. I can also get the FreeBSD kernel
>> to lock, the BeOS kernel, windows NT 4.0, 2000, 98, ME, XP, and also
>> Solaris
>> 7 and 8, HP/UX and SCO. A lockable kernel doesnt mean its a piece of
>> shit, it only means that I could get it to do something that you
>> insinuated might not
>> be possible. :)
>>
> There is not a damn thing the kernel can do since you loaded a binary only
> module into it. I have an nvidia card to and don't use nvidias driver
> because they couldn't program themselves out of a wet paper bag.
So you're wasting your nvidia card on crappy 2d bullshit. What a knowledgable
user you are...
> Their
> driver is horribly unstable compared to everything else on my system. When
> I used their driver before the system would crash once a week or so and it
> was that damn driver every time. As soon as I removed it all the crashes
> went away.
Actually a new version was released last week specifically for the 2.4 kernel.
> In all my years of using linux I have only had the os crash for 2 reasons.
> I the nvidia driver, 2 failed hardware. Kind of hard for the os to keep
> running if the cpu fails etc.
Then you havent been running it *nearly* hard enough. Ive crashed just about
every unix still in existance except AIX.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:01:06 +0100
"." wrote:
>
> Then you havent been running it *nearly* hard enough. Ive crashed just about
> every unix still in existance except AIX.
OK, I see, so you AIX Kernel boys are pissed that a few hackers can put
together better code aye? I bet you study the sources well :)
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:33:53 +0000
Claus Sørensen - Formand for KLID wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 14:38:05 -0400, "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Claus Sørensen - Formand
>>for KLID" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Linux is missing a not too heavy office package (StarOffice is too heavy
>>> for systems with 64MB or less).
>>
>>and exactly when was the last time you saw an office PC with less than 64
>>megs of RAM? Computers being sold today come standard with 128(and
>>memory is cheap if you already have PCs) so i don't see the RAM problem
>>as a valid argument.
>
> Most of the schools and public institutions have computer equiptment
> with 64MB or less for each workstation.
>
> You're right when it comes to new pc but lot of the old ones are
> running Microsoft Office 95 on 32MB pc and the speed is doable.
>
> The most enjoyable greetings
Applix Office runs fine on 32 MB. It even runs acceptably on a P75 with 16
MB (BTDT, obviously not with KDE or Gnome under it, but IceWM makes for an
enjoyable alternative).
Of course, Applix costs money.
You could also try to hold your breath for just a while longer and wait for
OpenOffice to hit the main streets: without the "integrated desktop"
abomination, this StarOffice offspring might be a little less heavy on the
old peecee.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb - No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!"
===============================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
