Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #35 Fri, 15 Jun 01 06:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Ayende Rahien) Re: Here's a switch for a change (Ayende Rahien) Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Ayende Rahien) Re: Getting used to Linux (Edward Rosten) Re: Getting used to Linux (Edward Rosten) Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? (Edward Rosten) Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags (Edward Rosten) Re: More micro$oft customer service (Edward Rosten) Re: More micro$oft customer service (Edward Rosten) Re: IBM Goes Gay (Edward Rosten) Re: IBM Goes Gay (Edward Rosten) Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and (Thaddius Maximus) Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...) (Edward Rosten) Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...) (Edward Rosten) Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...) (Edward Rosten) Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance andignorance...) (Edward Rosten) Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...) (Edward Rosten) Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...) (Edward Rosten) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Edward Rosten) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (Edward Rosten) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Edward Rosten) Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS (Edward Rosten) From: Ayende Rahien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop. Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:08:10 +0200 GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Except my wifes HP 8175... 48Mb ram, 6Gb harddrive winmodem... cd-rom PII-mmx it runs too slow with win98se on it as it is. Doubt that it would do any better under XP. Get more RAM, 48Mb is not really adeque even for Win98. -- From: Ayende Rahien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:13:14 +0200 GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien wrote: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... No. It had become a moot point anyway... MS says I don't qualify. I'll go to Metrowerks compiler. They make compilers for a lot of different platforms. What do you mean, you don't qualify? You mean that you can't get the SP? That is correct. They won't give me one. I understand that you are on 28.8 I suggest that you would get Go!zilla or download accelerator and download it. Shouldn't take more than a week, at most. :-) -- From: Ayende Rahien [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop. Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:11:05 +0200 B. P. Uecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Bob Hauck wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:37:43 -0500, B. P. Uecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob Hauck wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, I'm a dumbass and you are superior. Do you feel better now? No, we're really back to square one. But I am appalled that she couldn't come up with the answer. But why do you care? She's not _your_ IT person. I am not her boss either, so telling me that she's worthless is, well, worthless. I care because people like her cause people like you to say Windows sucks, it can't do ___. I can't tell you how many times I've seen poorly configured boxes blamed on a software company. True, I don't work with her, but it's like seeing someone turn off their computer by unplugging it, you just have a reflexive desire to make them STOP doing that. Perhaps it's altruistic. I've once met someone who did something like that. He had a extention cord with a switch, so you can turn on/off the power, and that is how they turn their computer on/off. I'd to come by to see why his computer kept losing files, and nearly beat him up when I saw him do it. When I asked him why he did it, he said Well, it's the power button, duh! -- From: Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:39:04 +0100 um... the religous war is simple, much like the vi/emacs war. VI and proud of it. -Ed I find I use vi or vim a lot. Vi loads up faster than xemacs. One of these days I'll buy O'reilleys little book on vi. Its a good book. There are loads of things I didn't know about vi, never mind
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #34Sun, 6 May 01 14:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Yet another IIS security bug (Mart van de Wege) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Les Mikesell) Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons (Mike) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: where's the linux performance? (Mike) Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) (Steve Sheldon) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons (Flacco) Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) (Steve Sheldon) Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Steve Sheldon) From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 12:54:18 -0400 Daniel Johnson wrote: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson wrote: Brad Silverberg:What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable and when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and buy MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for in the office. They didn't actually do it, though. Windows 3.x ran on DR-DOS. They did do it. The AARD code was active in the betas. C'mon. Even you don't take this line of argument seriously, do you? Silverberg does not say otherwise, but if he did I would point out that his saying it doesn't make it so. So, he's lying. A Microsft exec is lying about how to kill off the competiton. Whats ti going to take with you. He's *lying*? He's your exhibit A! You are a waste of time. Got me there, though. :D [snip] They didn't do this either. Even the bug didn't prevent you from running on DR-DOS. it wasnt a bug you idiot. It was puposely placed code. The evidence is in the Micorsoft memso. Oh, I forgot. you say the Microsoft execs were lying. If it were deliberately placed, it would have *worked*; DR-DOS would not have run. [snip] What other OS vendor participated in forced bundling ? IBM. IBM forced you to take their interner browser with OS/2. The rapscallions. But that's not what I meant. Microsoft would bundle weak programs with strong ones; that's the idea behind an office suite. Office didn't depend on Windows for sales, but PowerPoint sure depended on Word. The other companies did this too, of course. What compaies and apps were those? You know, like Lotus SmartSuite. I think there was also a WordPerfect Office, too. They still do it. -- Rick -- From: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 12:58:41 -0400 Daniel Johnson wrote: Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Daniel Johnson wrote: Brad Silverberg:What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable and when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and buy MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for in the office. They didn't actually do it, though. Windows 3.x ran on DR-DOS. They did do it. The AARD code was active in the betas. C'mon. Even you don't take this line of argument seriously, do you? Once again. what is it going to take with you? Internal memos have been posted. Quotes from M$ execs have been posted. All describing a way to sabotage DR-DOS. The code was active in the betas. It threw up bogus error messages. The messages were meant to scare of beta testers, as stated in the memos. But -YOU- dont believe it. Silverberg does not say otherwise, but if he did I would point out that his saying it doesn't make it so. So, he's lying. A Microsft exec is lying about how to kill off the competiton. Whats ti going to take with you. He's *lying*? He's your exhibit A! You are a waste of time. Got me there, though. :D [snip] They didn't do this either. Even the bug didn't prevent you from running on DR-DOS. it wasnt a bug you idiot. It was puposely placed code. The evidence
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #33Sun, 1 Apr 01 15:13:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Paul Holloway)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Communism (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism, and Communist propaganda agents in the USA*STILL* (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism ("Brian Turner")
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Wilbert Kruithof)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Holloway)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:19:08 GMT
On 1 Apr 2001 00:27:08 GMT, "Joseph T. Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul Holloway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: If you don't have a viable solution, then you're part of the problem.
There is a great solution. It's called the Constitution. It is the
highest law of the land, and anything contrary to it is null and void.
I'm sworn to defend it, and that is why I oppose those who have
knowingly and actively violated it for their own personal gain.
Most of those who get labeled as "anti-government" actually favor
lawful, Constitutional government. What they oppose is the current
oligarchy masquerading as a democracy, most of whose actions are
obviously and blatantly unlawful. And on that point at least I'm with
them 100%.
Joe
Ok, troll boy, I'll give you have a chance here.
What major Constitutional violations are currently being perpetrated?
How do we currently have an "oligarchy".
By the way, the US is not a democracy, it's a republic. Maybe you
meant "..masquerading as a republic?".
"May you always have fair winds and following seas.."
--
From: "billh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:24:31 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
So, in other words, I have done *NOTHING* to disqualify myself
as officer material.
Your the travails in court could. Also your lack of an ability to earn a
degree would quickly catch up to you. Since you're afraid of PLDC you must
be terrified of OCS.
--
From: "billh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:31:04 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
How many months have you drawn hostile fire pay, KuKuNut? I'll
guarantee
not as many as me.
Tell us about it.
Just did, dolt.
Kinda short on specifics, aren't you, liar.
Yup. Deliberately so too.
Too bad you weren't a little more grown up when you posted about your
counter-terror "expertise" helping your unit to be awarded the Presidential
Unit Citation or your clas ops in Iraq or your insinuation that you are a
qualified infantryman or any other of your numerous lies. You remind me of
Michael Jackson...you're so unhappy with yourself you had to "reinvent"
yourself. You can post or think whatever you want about me, but the sad
fact remains. You are a pathetic lying wannabe "war-hero" of little
importatnce to anyone. I've not been afraid to advance in the Army. Too
bad you can't say the same.
--
From: "billh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:31:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
Tell us again about your belief that German, Japanese, North Korean,
Chinese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese soldiers never ever ever shot
at well-marked American medical personnel and facilities.
You truly are childish, KuKuNut. Truth hurts you and you break out the
old
broken record. Pathetic, truly pathetic.
Speaking of lies, tell us how nobody ever shoots at American medical
personnel.
Twice in a single post. Sad.
You're the one who goes around claiming that the Germans, Japanese,
North Koreans, Chinese, Viet Cong and North Vietnames *NEVER* shot
at American medics.
Really? Where? You lie yet again. Try again.
--
From: "billh" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 18:32:43
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Feb 01 02:13:04 EST Contents: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Aaron Kulkis) Re: ReiserFS (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Interesting article (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Interesting article (Charlie Ebert) Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else) (Aaron Kulkis) Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Interesting article (J Sloan) From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:39:41 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Flacco wrote: The market will speak on this. MS can't force people. ...unless they manage to outlaw open source software. That's impossible in the US. First Amendment. McCarthy hearings. Not only is it possible, but it has happened, is happening, and will happen again. McCarthy never abridged free speech. No he didnt. But if you associated with people who were known to talk about communism in public, your career was over, and very often you were sent to prison. Good. Communism is the most EVIL philosophy ever conjured up in history. Worldwide, Communist governments have slaughtered over 120 MILLION of their own citizens (that we know of) in a mere 8 decades. No other political philosophy comes close to this level of barbarism. So you could SAY what you wanted, you would simply be imprisoned for it. Anybody advocating the overthrow of the US constitution should be locked upAnd if it's wartime, I fully support death by being drawn and quartered for such slime. By the way...not only was McCarthy right about communist infiltration of the State Departmenthe under-stated the problem by nearly an order of magnitude. Really? Did he have to kill the careers of 800 hollywood personalities who did nothing more than TALK to communists to do it? Fascism is ugly whether its american or not. FALSE DICHOTOMY. TYPICAL COMMUNIST BULLSHIT...anybody who opposed the radical left must be a fascist. This is like saying that anything that isn't on fire must be freezing in liquid nitrogen. The lesser of two evils is still EVIL... Pull your goddamned head out of your ass and quit supporting evil of ANY sort. There *ARE* alternatives between fascism and communism. One of them is called FREEDOM...which, if you and your socialist asshole friends would shut upwould flourish once again in America. -. -- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer DNRC Minister of all I survey ICQ # 3056642 H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because you are lazy, stupid people" I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the challenge to describe even one philosophical difference between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact, Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4, The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle), also known as old hags who've hit the wall A: The wise man is mocked by fools. B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction that she doesn't like. C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me. D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup ...despite (C) above. E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until her behavior improves. F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn. G: Knackos...you're a retard. -- From: Aaron Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ReiserFS Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:40:27 -0500 Tim wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:49:12 -0500, mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I tried it. It is interesting, but no thanks. It seems slower than ext2 for most everything I do. Duh! http://www.moelabs.com/jfs_faq.html [...] Q: How fast is JFS compared to ext2? A: Folks, there is no way around it: journaling is slower inherently compared to non-journaling file systems. Some code has to make for the added security and that code slows down I/O operations. The good news is that not even ext2fs is as fast as it could be theoretically, so JFS tries to improve things by being fast at basic I/O operations, be they for journaling or for data. [...] Plus additional disk activity to maintain the journal. -- Aaron R. Kulkis Unix Systems Engineer DNR
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #31Fri, 5 Jan 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why NT? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers. (Donn Miller)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Linux, it is great. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows 2000 (Pete Goodwin)
RPM Hell (BradyBear)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("kiwiunixman")
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:45:04 +
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
I've told this story a few times, but here it is again.
When I was working at Computer Consoles back in 1983, we purchased
some VAX 11/7x0 Minicomputers because we wanted to run Berkely 4.0
on it (BSD had just released).
Unfortunately, the DEC reps got almost NO commission on BSD and
HUGE commissions on VMS, not to mention huge commissions on VMS
applications. The DEC rep saw 4 huge vaxen in our computer rooms
but no $2 million bonus and commission checks.
DEC published a fix tape for VMS and the DEC rep decided to come
up and "FIX" the CCI vaxen. He came unannounced, managed to get
upstairs and into the computer room, and proceeded to format
the RM80 drive (which had root and /usr partitions on it) and
installed VMS and applied the service pack.
Of course, there were 200 users plugged into these machines (not
much more powerful 80386/4 with 2 500 meg drives) who were suddenly
all over the sysadmin because the computer was down.
The sales rep looked so happy and proud. He said "I came here to
fix up your VMS system and realized some hacker had been playing
with the disk drive, so I reinstalled VMS and applied that bug fix.
That's an interesting story. Did you report this guy to Digital? What was
the outcome? You see, I find it hard to believe someone from Digital could
be as dishonest as you say he is.
The sysadmin smiled, walked the rep down to the guard's desk,
and gently tugged the man's shoulder as he got the guard's attention.
He then said to the guard; "Get to know this man's face very well.
If he attempts to leave this desk without me present - shoot him!
Anyone I know at Digital would have reacted to this threat. Your story
starts to sound more and more like an "urban legend" than actual fact.
Eventually, the Rep would make an appointment to come, after hours,
at which time, the sysadmin would remove the UNIX drive from the RM80
and install a "dummy VMS pack" that couldn't even see the 6 300 meg
CDC "washing-machine" drives sitting next to each processor.
For that to occur the guy from Digital would have to be unbelievably thick.
Thousands of VMS people? There weren't
that many working at Spitbrook.
A few hundred maybe. The rest of us (the thousands
you mention) with VMS skills moved on - in my case,
UNIX and Windows.
According to the press releases DEC reduce the VMS staffing by over
3000 people. I believe the entire series of staffing cuts was nearly
5000 of 8000 from 1990 to the time of their merger with Compaq. This
included sales, marketing, manufacturing, and field support.
I did say Spitbrook, where OpenVMS was developed. The rest of Engineering
was heavily cut, that covers the rest of the world.
And yes, many of them did learn UNIX.
Yes, I learnt it before this reduction in staffing.
Your comments come across as insulting propoganda, BTW.
I think UNIX lovers and VMS lovers have a mutual respect
for each other, but they get frustrated with each other's machines.
I loved BLISS and RDB, but RMS and DCL were a PAIN!!!
BLISS!!! Blimey, talk about a non-standard language. You do realise the
usage of BLISS was phased out slowly, that everything started to switch to
C over time!
As for DCL being a pain, it made more sense to me than the peculiarities of
each individual shell on UNIX.
Yes. Very nice system. RDB was one of the best
parts of VMS. The overruns I was talking about
were the NT projects which were based on estimates
that were competitive with UNIX bids.
You think RDB was one of the better parts of VMS... 8)
The problem was that X11 for Windows 3.1 was horribly buggy
(windows DLLs would crash), Windows 95 was only slightly
better, and NT 4.0 had traffic limits. One of the earliest
successes of Linux desktops was a site that used X11 for
monitoring network traffic. Win95 on a large desktop machine
failed. Windows NT on a huge desktop machine (128 meg RAM, 4 gig
drive, 100/T LAN...) also crashed every few hours.
The project I worked on used ODBC to
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #30 Wed, 15 Nov 00 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linux INstability Netscape : Insights? (Donn Miller)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux INstability Netscape : Insights? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux INstability Netscape : Insights? (tom)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
From: sfcybear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:55:14 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 04:09:22 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK.
A lot of people care what I *do*. You may dismiss my comments on COLA
as inconesquential. I wouldn't fault you for doing so, but I would
point
out that
(1) The same could be said for your incoherent ramblings.
I address the topic at hand. Which you have not even though I have asked
you to stay with the topic. and drop the insults.
(2) Deeds speak louder than words. And all those Linux users who
keep sending me thank you letters certainly care what I do.
Welll it certanly helped make you an egotitical jerk. Linux supporter,
programer or not.
--
Donovan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: Giuliano Colla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:13:39 GMT
Stuart Fox wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Giuliano Colla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you, I can do it myself. What I noted is that on a NT4
server version it is not provided. Which I find suspicious.
Indeed. Very suspicious that they didn't include a utility that was
only released last year in a product that they released in 1996. I
think you might be on something here. Or not.
Looking with a cold mind to my remark and your reply, they make me think
of a couple of guys in a burning building, with flames coming out from
each window, fire brigade working frantically around, windows crashing
and so on, which say one another "Don't you smell smoke somewhere?"
--
From: "Quantum Leaper" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:14:46 GMT
"Marc Richter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:52:24 GMT, Quantum Leaper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"Milton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:51:04 +1000, "steve erntner"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how hard is it to get drivers for aztech sound cards???
In Linux, it's relatively simple.
http://lhd.zdnet.com/db/searchproduct.cgi?_catid=12
Linux does seem to support alot of discontinued products.
all i want are win2k drivers for em...but do they exist?
no
im about to break down and cry
Don't use second-rate OS's and you won't be easily disappointed.
He shouldn't have bought from a second rate sound card company, Aztech
went
out of business over a year ago.
* alert! alert! Double-standard detected! *
You know, one of the points about Windows *.* that is always harped upon
is how great driver support happens to be for peripherals. That
vendors make Windows drivers first and everyone else gets sloppy
seconds, if anything at all.
If you want a good legacy driver support than use Win9x not Win2K. Also if
you read my other message I give him a suggestion on a driver to TRY, which
was a Sound Blaster 16 driver. NT or 2K doesn't have the greatest driver
support but it a hell of alot more stable than Win9x.
I'm got an ATI Rage Fury Pro that's less than a year old. Still doesn't
have non-beta 3D Win2k drivers. And the beta level drivers are very buggy.
Who fault is that? Microsofts or ATI (who writes the driver)?
So what is it? Does the driver support for Windows only count as a benefit
when it's good? Or when the driver is non-existent or crashes the system,
then driver support or lack thereof is not a Windows issue? Because that's
the game Wintrolls seem to want to play. If so, Linux as a whole can't be
blamed for bad or non-existent drivers. Same game, same rules.
Legacy driver support is a pot luck sometimes, when a company goes under
who should su
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #29 Fri, 22 Sep 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: what to do when ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: GPL freedom (Raffael Cavallaro)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jason Bowen)
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Osugi)
Re: GPL freedom (Grega Bremec)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Mike Byrns)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Chad Myers")
From: Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 03:59:49 GMT
Tristan Wibberley wrote:
You were describing what the filesystem provides. And it provides
information for the kernel in the data found in the inodes (the executable
bit that you described), and information for user-space in the data refered
to by the inodes. Any scheme can be implemented on top of this. It's silly
And the cost of reimplementing the same functionality at a higher layer is?
forall x such that x is a task for which I need a computer, forall y where y
is an operating system for a computer which is available to me : "The set of
combinations of software which can be usefully applied to x does not include
any combination of software for y" - "I should not use y for x"
IOW, human beings should not use Unix since the task of providing
functionality at all levels that is comprehensible to human beings is
not implementable in Unix.
Yeah, when you can get away with it. I have a file *named*
'slutdoesitbackwards.jpeg' but it is a text file containing my email
address. The correct approach to use is the mathematical approach of
That, of course, is not the correct approach. Nor is exclusion any
more "mathematical" than inclusion (give me a fucking break!).
Since,
1) not all relevant processes are equally relevant for any given object
2) users cannot handle a list of relevant processes of arbitrary size
3) it takes non-zero time and energy for a user to generate an include
or exclude
4) the cardinality of the set of relevant programs is VASTLY closer
to the cardinality of the empty set than to the cardinality of the set
of all existing processes
we must conclude (for /nearly all/ real situations) that
5) including only those processes which are known to be relevant
(*as provided by the user*) is vastly superior to excluding those
processes known to be irrelevant.
(Why is it that people assume OSes should have strong typing
of user objects? That is so fucking ludicrously absurd! Just what
the hell have you been smoking??)
narrowing down the set of software which is not known to be unable to help
the user to use the file in the way that they would like. There are many
Don't try to get conceptual in an advocacy newsgroup like this one,
conceptual is for academia - it does not apply well to engineering problems
(which choosing an OS is).
Good. Because the thread isn't about choosing an OS. It's about why Unix
sucks and how this hellish nightmare of Unix dominance came about.
And you might have mentioned that getting all the concepts right is a
necessary first step in any engineering solution, and that design work
*vastly* simplifies implementation. OTOH, one can't expect people
who work in an antedeluvian, neanderthal "me know how to program,
me no care about design" mindset to have ever stumbled across the
fact that high-level design, which the hacker mindset has nothing but
contempt for, actually facilitates programming.
resident where? In memory??? That's only the broken Unix paradigm!
Computers only have memory for keeping information. Even if it is in a code
segment - you can keep it in logic space if you want, but I don't think that
helps anyone.
Surprisingly, it does. But I wasn't talking about logic space. I should be able
to run a process that resides on any hard disk of the network using the *same*
mechanism as I use to run processes off the local hard disk. There should be
*complete* network transparency; the programmer shouldn't even be able
to tell where the process is. (and note that process != program)
Great argument. Includes expletives and all.
Anyone who claims that Unix is "uncomplicated" deserves that.
If programmers were held to the standards of *any* engineering discipline,
mass executions would swiftly follow. We've all heard this umteenth
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #28Sun, 6 Aug 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 (Courageous)
Re: Linux or Windows 2000 (Jacques Guy)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (Christopher Browne)
Napsterwear.com bring new linux edition ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Jim Richardson)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Jim Richardson)
Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake? (Jim Richardson)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Jim Richardson)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Jim Richardson)
Re: maximum (?) linux (David M. Cook)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (T. Max Devlin)
From: Courageous [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 04:13:50 GMT
That's the reason a lot of people are moving away from VB and Windows
to Java and Linux. Honestly, I don't believe that Windows will die
away. But one cannot deny the fact that Linux has been gathering a lot
of momentum lately.
But so is the market itself. Is there any real evidence
(or even inklings of evidence) that Linux is actually
attacking Window's market share on the desktop? I'd
be surprised. I wouldn't be so suprised to see Linux
win a back-office battle with anything from M.S. of
course.
If W2K is really a good OS, the splitting up of MS will not affect its
sales.
It is, and I don't think it will.
C//
--
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 04:35:49 +
From: Jacques Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux or Windows 2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article 8mcnt6$ego$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, how could anyone fall into such a troll-net as
people calling themselves (Stan) Laurel and (Oliver) Hardy?
Are those two really forgotten history? Is Buster
Keaton forgotten? And Charlie Chaplin? ("Charlot"
with us).
What software am I going to run on it ??? All the world class software
is written for Windows. Hardly anything is ported to Linux.
But much of it runs under WINE
I can create a great application using Visual Basic
It seems that VB runs under WINE (viz http://www.winehq.com)
I did a search on WINE because I have had my fill of Windows.
The wretched thing had destroyed my FAT twice over the past
four/five years, and that is two times too many. Back up,
back up, back up! My fundamental derriere. I don't store
my furniture away every I leave home. I don't "back up"
my car seats and boot contents every time I fill up. If
I hadn't had Linux, I would have had to do a low-level
formatting of my hard disk. Cago en Microsoft!
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 05:03:32 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when fred would say:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 02:18:14 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Rex has recalibrated his Linux counter again.
It's kind of interesting how his counter is a bit well, optimistic.
In 8/99 it was 44 million growing at 3% a week
in 10/99 it was 50 million growing at 3% a week
In 12/99 it was 60 million growing at 3% a week
In 04/00 it was 60 million growing at 1% a week
In 06/00 it was 90 million growing at 5% a month
And now as of his August 3, 2000 post it is a mere 42 million growing
at 5% a month.
I just wish deja.com had those old posts back online. ;(
Never could figure out where that 90 million number came from, glad to
see Rex is willing to correct his mistakes.
Now if only he'd realize that the reality is probably half what he's
claiming, i.e. around 20 million. :)
Mind you, if reality is around 20 million, that's still none too shabby.
Or if he'd finally admit to making up the Microsoft/Unix story.
But that might lead to bigger and worse things.
He might have to admit to not having invented the Internet, just like
Al Gore. And that association with Democratic presidential figures might
be unacceptable. (Yes, there could be other reasons; this is
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256
Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Connors)
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (Mark
S. Bilk)
A contrived strstream performance test. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? ("Chris Harshman")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting realityor
fantasy? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Sam Morris")
Re: Wintrolls in panic! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: 22 Jun 2000 14:05:17 -0500
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*EVERY* operating system does this! (For God's sake, no OS will
schedule a process to run when it is sleeping on a resource!)
If you are doing non-blocking I/O on Linux, the process will not go to
sleep even if the resource it needs is not available. Other systems have
more sophisticated means of dealing with this (such as asynch), but Linux
is so primitive that it likes to hog the CPU excessively. Does Linux
support non-busywaiting barriers yet or is it still playing catchup?
Non-blocking i/o is defined not to wait, so what you are describing
is the correct behaviour. If that isn't what the programmer intended
he should use normal blocking i/o (if only one descriptor is being
watched), or select() or poll() for many or to return after
a specified interval so the program can have a small timeslice in
a loop even with no i/o, or fork off a process that can do
blocking i/o for this resource, perhaps multiplexing it through
a FIFO for the master process.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:10:45 -0400
From: Gary Hallock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
abraxas wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
"Half the hardware", eh simon?
Tell me, which half would that be?
And what, specifically?
Shouldnt be too hard for a 42 year old who knows what a punchcard reader
is, eh?
-yttrx
I suppose tek (aka simon) wants to connect his card reader and 1403 printer
to Linux. Of course, for someone so knowledgeable with this ancient
hardware, he should be able to write the necessary drivers in a couple of
hours :-). After all, I managed to boot up Linux for S/390 on my PC
running the hercules S/390 emulator with virtual 3505 card reader, 3525
card punch, and 1403 printer.
Gary
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 19:02:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
Gary Connors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip a bunch of text that is in previous post, all of it mine
So what youre saying is that the average person who uses KDE because its
'easier than the command line' when it comes to XML parsing.
I see.
Man, your strawman is getting ugly. No. XML was an EXAMPLE. KDE is
easier to use than a command line because, in theory anyhow, a user won't
need to learn how to use it. That is why GUI's are used (that and
Photohsop without a GUI would require a LOT of training to use)
What im saying is that KDE is one of dozens of choices. Some are better
than others. None of them are LINUX; rather, they are all program/script
combinations that run UNDER linux. So if you're going to bash linux for
being slow/difficult to understand by only using KDE as an example, you're
not actually bashing linux, but KDE specifically.
Never claimed "Linux is slow/difficlt to understand by only using KDE as
example". The claim is 1) Gui is easier to understand than CGI, which I
used KDE as a demonstration point. (this is uncontestable) and 2) Most
people refer to Linux as being the entire contents of the CD they can get
at the store, GUI, Tools, Kernel and scripts. (this is also uncontestable)
and 3) By the very fact that this is a LINUX.adv group and the merits of
KDE and Gnome are discussed when discussing the merits of Linux, many
people unofficially recgnize that Linux is more than a Kernel.
If you cannot understand this, you really should probably give up now.
Strawman. Watch it fall.
Youve missed the point. The point is that since
KDE *isnt* linux, if you dont like it you can use something
else without tossing the entire operating system.
