Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 16:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (kosh) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Todd) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL) Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (pip) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=) Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (spicerun) Re: Win 9x is horrid (spicerun) Re: Linux in Retail Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Jon Johansan) Re: IE (Michael Pye) Re: Linux in Retail Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Neil Cerutti) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Jeffrey L. Cooper) Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (spicerun) Re: Win 9x is horrid (Craig Kelley) Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.) Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Matan Ziv-Av) Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (.) Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (pip) Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! (Ben Gerber) From: kosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 11:22:10 -0600 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pip wrote: kosh wrote: From what I have seen it was because of some breaking points in the 2.0 and 2.2 kernels that were fixed in 2.4. BSD used to have faster TCP/IP performance. Which is more stable right now is unknown since 2.4 has not been tested enough yet. I would argue that 2.4 *has* been tested quite well. This is why the release of 2.4 was delayed for so long. Another factor is that there are more Linux users than BSD users, therefore the Linux kernel gets tested far more on real systems. So, even if the Linux kernel is not as conservative, this tends to balance out with the greater user feedback. Not really the number but for how long it has been tested. Until it has been out for more then a year it won't really have good uptime numbers to show of things and there won't be enough long term stability information. Short term stability stuff gets hammered with testing and that is the solution that tends to improve the fastest. I have never had a 2.4 system crash and I have about 5 of them around so it seems to work nicely. 2.4 also has better SMP support then current BSD boxes. I suspect that the vm subsystem is also better. There are many new improvements that are being worked on now that should also improve this margin. I am not sure if the VM system is better then BSD however it is a hell of a lot better then any previous version and more fixes are still coming for it. If you need more then 2cpus linux is a better bet on x86 hardware. Yes, that is one of the main issues that 2.4 addressed. -- From: Todd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:34:33 +0800 Reply-To: Todd toddremove[EMAIL PROTECTED] Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I have gracefully moved from using StarOffice 5.2, and purchase Wordperfect Suite 2000 for Linux. I constantly hear the mantra that Until MS Office comes to Linux, it (linux) will never grace the harddrives of large corporate desktops. If that is the case, what is Wordperfect Suite 2000 missing? Wordprocessor: Wordperfect 9 Database: Paradox 9 Spreadsheet:Quattro Pro 9 Presentations: Presentations 9 Calender/Scheduler/Address Book/Memo's: Corel Central 9 Browser/Email: Netscape 4.76, I have only had it crash once on me, in the 2 months I have owned this copy of SuSE Linux 7.1. So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and MS Office Pro? The applications within the suite do not have the same functionality as the ones in Office. Also, MS Office applications are far more refined, and they interoperate with each other very nicely thanks to COM. And if you think Netscape doesn't crash, you just lost your credibility with those that use IE under W2k... Netscape sucks compared to IE. (I am running IE 6 prelease - and it hasn't crashed once - not bad for beta software). I applaud Netscape for the 6.x release for its compliance with the W3C, but its stability is worse than 4.x. Applications under Linux have a *long* ways to go before they even begin to compare to Office 97, much less Office XP which is out right now. -Todd Matthew Gardiner -- From: JS PL hi everybody! Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 13:53:16 -0400 T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said JS
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #33 Wed, 11 Apr 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Randall Parker)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: make config (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS and ISP's (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: Randall Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:09:57 GMT
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:04:36 -0600 esteemed Dave Martel did'st hold forth thusly:
Under Borland's version it depends on where you are. The first Home
takes you to the start of the line if you're not already there, but if
you are then it takes you to the top of the page. Similarly the second
home takes you to the top of the page if you're not already there,
else it takes you to the top of the document. So you have to stop and
think, which is to say stop thinking about your source and start
thinking about what your editor's going to do.
Yes, exactly. Their macro playback didn't work quite right either because not
everything
you could do got recorded in macros. They had different rules about the use of the
paste
buffer with macros too.
The window-splitting
isn't anything like the same either, and for marking blocks you have
to remember to toggle between columnar and line-oriented marked blocks
whereas under Brief each has its own unique command.
Yep.
There are lots of differences like that. Individually they seem small
but put them all together and they make the difference between an
editor that lets you think entirely about your code, and one that
fights you.
Yes, if you know the Brief commands and you are used to flying thru them and then you
try BCW or some other Borland IDE you constantly find wrong things happening.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:14:09 GMT
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:29:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, silverback
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:08:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
take a good look around. The republiCONs are the fascists, they have
the same agenda.
So give me some specifics? I'm curious.
Hitler cut the taxes of the rich so did raygun.
Hitler raised the taxes of the poor so did raygun
Hitler cut corporate taxes so did raygun.
Hitler cut welfare programs so did raygun.
Hitler lowered unemployment payments so did raygun.
Hitler outlawed unions so did raygun.
Hitler privitized large portions of the government so did raygun.
Hitler ran on a racist program so did raygun.
and theres more
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:17h:19m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
***
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:15:09 GMT
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:22:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam A. Kersh)
wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 22:35:21 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mathew wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Sam A. Kersh wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 01:24:34 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goldhammer wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400,
Rob Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. Fascism is chara
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #32 Tue, 27 Feb 01 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (J Sloan)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (J Sloan)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Trevor Zion Bauknight)
Re: Is this odd security behaviour by MS? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] .sig (Craig Kelley)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Windows guy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Tim Hanson)
Redhat's CEO wants the Open Source Comm. to address the US Senate ("Adam Warner")
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:51:19 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
There are 3 single-tasking graphic servers that run a web server called
"boa" under single-user mode FreeBSD. This gives them the ability to
simply
server HTTP graphic files (which are completely static and don't require
any
multitasking) very fast.
Although, it appears that they're starting to phase even these out.
Check
out:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=64.4.18.24submit.x=72submit.y=11
Then look at the history, you'll see it wobbles between Win2k and
FreeBSD.
They may have even completely replaced it with Win2k, since the last
record
of a change was a few weeks ago.
OS, Web Server and Hosting History for 64.4.18.24
OS Server Last changed IP address
Netblock
Owner
Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0 13-Feb-200164.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSDBoa/0.93.17.3 12-Feb-200164.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSDMicrosoft-IIS/5.0 11-Feb-200164.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSDBoa/0.93.17.3 10-Feb-200164.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSDMicrosoft-IIS/5.09-Feb-200164.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.07-Feb-200164.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
FreeBSDBoa/0.93.17.35-Feb-200164.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
Windows 2000 Boa/0.93.17.34-Feb-200164.4.18.24
MS Hotmail
It looks to me like Netcraft can't tell what the hell this address is
running.
No, it was load balanced between FreeBSD and Win2k systems. It now appears
to be fully Win2k.
--
From: J Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:42:58 GMT
Jon Johanson wrote:
"Rex Ballard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Microsoft will not publish industry standard benchmarks between
comparably equipped
Microsoft Windows systems and Linux systems.
Perhaps because there are none And why hasn't any linux distributor ever
done the same? Hmmm? You'd think Red Hat would send their systems out to be
independantly tested and then tout these impressive wins to everyone.
Actually, IBM and Dell have done so, it's called the
specweb benchmarks - also, SAP has done some
similar testing in fact a Linux/Solaris combination holds
the new SAP benchmark record IIRC.
However, 2.4-based distros are just now beginning to
ship, so give it a few months.
Gee, and IBM has the money and has done TPC before and yet they don't have a
benchmark using linux. In fact, they use windows 2K even when running their
own database.
Yes, IBM supports the windows pc line, it is one of their
supported OSes, but I think you are somewhat deceived
if you think windows is their only concern, Yes, IBM wants
to see windows pcs, there's money in it. However, they
also want to sell mainframes, RS/6000s and AS/400s,
none of which have anything to do with ms windows.
Cheers,
jjs
--
From: Amphetamine Bob [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:52:34 -0800
jjs wrote:
Jon Johanson wrote:
Gee, and IBM has the money and has done TPC before and yet they
don't have a
benchmark using linux. In fact, they use windows 2K even when running their
own database.
No, actually IBM has banned Windows 2000 for all internal use! Yes,
it is true!
Yes, IBM supports the windows pc
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Mig)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Robert Browder)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: The Linux Show! (.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes itdoes) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes itdoes) )
(.)
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes itdoes) )
("ono")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("ono")
Re: More Linux woes (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: The Linux Show! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: Mig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:05:46 +0100
. wrote:
Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark wrote:
I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
I don't believe 45 minutes to configure a network on a Windows PC. What
kind of network is that? TCP/IP takes all of a few minutes, if that.
Idiot, if youd ever worked in a company that employed techies like this
and understood that they let them loose on the field after a maximum
of a couple of hours of training (with no other computer experience at
all), you would understand that this scenerio is quite plausable.
This is not at all correct... You must remenber the reboot and possibly a
remove and reinstall of componets (at least two extra reboots with win 9x)
and especilly if there is somekind of PPP dialup involved - it is not so
uncommon with broadband connectionsx. 45 min is quite realistic if you
encounter problems.
--
Cheers
--
From: Robert Browder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:13:28 GMT
I had the exact same experience. My cable provider told me their
service would NOT work with a Linux PC. 30 minutes after the installer
had left it was working fine.
In article 3a646c23.341957648@news,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark) wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to offer a small story to illustrate how some things are much
easier using Linux.
I recently subscribed to a cable modem service. When I spoke to the
customer service drone on the telephone, I asked if they supported
Linux. They said absolutely not, the modem probably won't work with
Linux, and they offer no support even if it does.
I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
As soon as he left, I unplugged the modem from the Windows PC and
plugged it into the Linux PC. In Linux I simply ran dhcpcd and named,
et voila, it was connected. Less that a minute and no reboots.
It took another half hour or so to configure the Windows PCs to route
through the Linux server to the internet (and both had to be
rebooted).
It took maybe as much as 30 minutes to write a quick ipchains script
to firewall the system.
With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point blank
to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption that
'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
--
From: "Kyle Jacobs" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:18:4
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Bennetts family")
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... ("the_blur")
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... ("the_blur")
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... ("the_blur")
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... ("the_blur")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... (Robert Kiesling)
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... (Robert Kiesling)
Re: Whistler review. ("Bennetts family")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
From: "Bennetts family" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:10:32 +1100
"kiwiunixman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
SO, conrade, by you so-called definition of an advanced OS, anything CLI
is shyte!, yeah right, how come SGI super computers run UNIX? Howcome
IBM's Deep Blue runs AIX (an IBM UNIX variant)? How come most financial
institutions (such as the National Bank of New Zealand) rely on UNIX?
because it has 30-35 years of proven reliability, NT4 was meant to be
the big UNIX busting OShello!UNIX is still here.stronger
than ever.
Come on, Unix is only about 30 years old, certainly not 35. Although Multics
might reach back that far, possibly...
--Chris
--
From: "the_blur" the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:00:38 -0500
Not a problem, Fred. And thanks for the penguin logos. :)
Hehe, I knew the peace pipe would be the end all =)
Have fun with them and tell me if you need more.
--
From: Giuliano Colla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:16:29 GMT
Tim Smith wrote:
Before speculating about how the Registry might or might not be
implemented, go to www.wotsit.org and poke around. They've got documents
there describing the on disk format of the Registry, for both 9x and
NT/2K. Knowing how the data is stored on disk should give valuable
clues to how it is accessed.
--Tim Smith
Thank you for the tip.
--
From: "the_blur" the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:02:09 -0500
Scary stuff baby! Explains a lot =)
--
From: "the_blur" the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:02:45 -0500
ok.
--
From: "the_blur" the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:04:40 -0500
Go to http://www.mainmatter.com to see the first few actual uses of my
little pinguinos.
--
From: Chris Ahlstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:26:30 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
I learned, after that, that Microsoft modifies the addresses in DLL's
any time they want to, without warning.
WHAT! Do you mean that you must use addresses instead of
symbolic references (resolved at load time) to access stuff
in a DLL?
No, Giu, you can also write your code to look up the address
using names or ID codes. Obviously, though, the
routines in MFC were coded to use addresses. Or, it just
occurs to me, my use of static linking was not planned
for by the MFC developers.
Back in 1969 I selected HP2116 minicomputer instead of PDP
8, because (among other things) the link to system calls
through absolute addresses seemed to me quite archaic!
Of all the crappy MS things I heard this is really great!
Well, of course it's faster, but it's from stone age
computing!
Well, I'm not sure that this is real crap from MS.
However, there's still plenty of other shit in the MS
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #29Sat, 7 Oct 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("James Stutts")
Re: Migration -- NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Drestin Black")
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Drestin Black")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Mark Hall)
Re: Migration -- NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: To all you WinTrolls (JoeX1029)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
From: "James Stutts" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 21:40:12 -0500
"Osugi Sakae" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8rojno$ef0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 8rnmj2$jki$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "James Stutts"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Yep. The government is a troublesome servant and fearsome master.
I don't really understand your remark. But I'll tell you, I'll take the US
government over the Japanese one anyday. At least the US thinks that part
of its job is protecting the citizens from the occassional excesses of
When you use the government against someone within your industry, you set
a precedent for their involvement.
greedy businesses. (Firestone tires, anyone?) The Japanese government
seems to think that citizens exist to be fleeced by large (Japanese)
corporations.
Even if I believed that, what has that got to do with the willingness
of a court to listen to a case involving the "bundling" of third party
free (as in GPL) software? Exactly zero, far as I can tell.
download the whole thing for free anyhow, or easily switch to
caldera, corel, slackware, etc.
It isn't quite so easy, unless you enjoy reinstalling your operating
system.
Isn't reinstalling the os one of Micro~1's favorite trouble-shooting
techniques? And a major source of income for the company?
Why would reinstalling something you already have cause you to buy more?
How could that be a source of income?
I was refering to upgrades - from 3.1 to 95 to 98 to 98se to me, etc. They
may not qualify as "full reinstalls" but it is still a lot of effort and
expense.
That's not a "reinstall" and isn't required. I used Win3.1 until NT 4.0 was
out for a year.
Keeping up with the latest release isn't required.
Maybe you are unaware of this, but switching from one linux distro to
another is simple - much easier than switching from Windows to Linux or
Mac. It may even be easier than switching from Win98 to WinNT. Unlike
Well, the switch to a Mac requires a hardware change.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Do you agree then that switching from
one linux distro to another is easier than switching from windows to
non-windows?
Provided it runs on the same hardware.
Windows, Linux usually has (or should have) /home on a separate
partition.
You can (I do) have your work files on a seperate partition if you want.
Just like Unix.
Yes, you can. If you go to the trouble to do it. See the above about
No trouble at all.
installing various Linux distros. But I'll repeat part - Linux distros
come with software to help you partition the drive(s) when you install
the os. Windows does not - it requires the use of third party software
after the os is installed.
Partition Magic is still the preferred software, no matter the OS.
Also, I have heard many semi-advanced Windows users say that they don't
partition their C:\ drive because then it gets too full when you add
Get a bigger drive.
programs later. Also, the swap file defaults to the C drive. Certainly,
linux systems can be poorly partitioned - resulting in a full /usr
You can put the swap file anywhere you want in either case.
snip long problem that about not having enough hard drive space
No problem at all. Unless you really f**ck things up, you won't even
have to touch your backups.
You have to merge the /etc, among other things. There's far more too it
than you seem to think. I've been using Unix-based systems for ten
years. I used Slackware at kernel revision 0.99. I've been there
before.
Again, see above about reinstalls. I have installed several distros and
have never had to "merge the /etc" whatever that it.
You don't know what the /etc directory is? That's where most configuration
files are
for such things as DHCP and your networking settings. Do you even USE Linux
(beyond the pretty gui)? Those settings files are in different locations,
depending
on the distro. Not to mention, what moron came up with "user/linux".
That's
almost as bad as "usr/people" from IRIX.
snip
Whether you accept them as fact or not is totally irrelevant. They
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #28 Sun, 20 Aug 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate (Tim Hanson)
Re: Whats a usenet troll? (Tim Hanson)
Re: refrigerator using Linux? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Windows blows (Tim Hanson)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
From: "Mike Byrns" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:33:18 GMT
"Craig Kelley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Mike Byrns" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Craig Kelley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Mike Byrns" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip]
Not suprisingly, those points that cannot be rebutted were snipped.
I'll
declare victory on those. :-) Not trying to be an ass but there were
alot
of advantages there that were not answered...
If it makes you feel better, by all means. :) This isn't a war after
all.
Agree. Thank you. Claim of victory retracted. You are a gentleman and a
scholar. I apologize.
In many cases programmers forgo implementing memory protection
between
threads but that's not the fault of the OS. It's the fault of the
programmer. It's there if you want to take advantage of it.
Yes, but we have a choice under Linux of whether we want to
significantly add to our program's bulk, or to just use the one-line
fork() call.
CreateThread is a one line call. Once you wrap the VirtualProtect et.
al.
functions in accessor functions they are one line calls. It's personal
choice.
Well, all calls are one line; it's the _number_ of one-line calls that
you have to make that is a bother.
I use my wrapped calls constantly. They are in MSBThreadUtils.lib. It's
copyrighted :-) I know that goes against the GPL but I make enough from it
to take a cruise every couple years. You can license it, ah well
nevermind...
I find the advantages of easy interthread local procedure calls,
thread pooling and functional encapsulation to result in much less
bloated
code. I also like using structured exception handling to catch
unhandled
thread exceptions in a manager thread instead of in the OS. I guess
it's
really all in how you learned it. I've been a Win32 programmer since
the
first beta SDK shipped on a single 1.2MB (5 1/4 inch remember those :-)
floppy. Before that I did gasp DOS and Windows API (as it was called
then). I've had threads as long as I've had pre-emptive multitasking.
It's
just a natural choice for me.
That's great; everyone has their own comfort zone when it comes to
programming. I try to push mine, but It's always easier to fall back
on what I know. I started programming on the Commodore Pet, of all
things :)
And I on the C64. Welcome brother! I did assembler with HESMon and FORTH
as well as the nasty standard BASIC. I had a my Dad's stock photo service
running on a C64 with 3 1541s as storage. I've even contributed code to
KMail to fix their leave mail on server bugs. I've programmed for Windows,
SUN, PL/SQL Oracle and Macintosh. I always came back to Windows because it
was a richer environment.
Forking is fairly scalable, but not as scalable as
threads in most situations.
I'll say. Windows thread stacks exist in the apps virtual address space
so
you can have over 2000 per app at the default stack size. You should
never
need to though. Optimal design on Windows warrants optimized code in a
pool
of worker threads equal in number to the number of CPUs on the server.
Plus
whatever manager or UI threads you might need. Since I can accept and
schedule multiple incoming TCP/IP connections on a single thread and
dispatch them to a worker thread as the queue allows, I can clear
connections faster than with the overhead of the standard UNIX way of
forking for every connection.
Perhaps, depending on the machine's architecture. A Linux forking
daemon can outperform an NT threadded daemon quite easily on a
single-processor machine. The threaded daemons start wiping the floor
when more processors are added, though.
That's called scalability. Linux beats the pants off Windows 2000 on a 386.
So what? :-) OK... I concede that too :-)
So, if you're writing a quick app to do some network connections, it
really isn't worth coding in m
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #27Fri, 7 Jul 00 02:13:07 EDT Contents: Re: Linux is just plain awful (jbarntt) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell) Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Steve Mading) Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Leslie Mikesell) Re: Growing dependence on Java (Ian Pulsford) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading) Re: VM Ware looks cool. (Ian Pulsford) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Graham Murray) Re: C# is a copy of java (Leslie Mikesell) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Steve Mading) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson) Re: VM Ware looks cool. (Ian Pulsford) Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux (Atanas Kolev) Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson) From: jbarntt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 05:33:44 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Woofbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Joel Barnett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped the unimportant parts Schools out for the Summer, eh ? Pretty unimaginative as trolls go, i.e., obviously bogus storyline, stock Linux complaints, Oh, yes, there can't be anything to the story at all, especially considering that it only rehashes the same complaints you're already familiar with... Now is it just me or does that make no sense? Doesn't it seem as though someone ought to actually look into these complaints and try to fix the problem? Think about it, a law firm with 14 pc's - why would one of these lawyers attempt to upgrade them to Linux, w/o backing up the data ? First, the law firm would probably have a consultant who would not be so stupid as to forget to do backup's before installing a new OS. Also, let's assume that of the 14 pc's 2 are servers, say one for file/print service and one as a proxy server. You might wish to upgrade the servers to Linux, but probably not the workstations. There is no problem here, just a lame troll. From my own experience with Linux, Windows, and Macintosh, I can see how the complaints would make sense. The herd is stampeding to follow a new leader ... only Linux isn't as polished as Windows. As a workstation, Linux is not as polished as Windows. I doubt a bunch of lawyers are being stampeded by the Linux "maelstrom". If some goofball lawyer decided to revamp the firms network on a whim, without any real knowledge, then he got what he deserved. He would have similar problems with NT or Netware. For development machines, servers, embedded apps, and tinker-toys, Linux is great. But is it really ready for commercial software? Don't know, don't care. Linux is ready to be a reliable server OS. Like any server OS, you should know something about the OS and sys admin in general. Like backing up important data on systems before installing a new OS. This isn't rocket science. etc. But keep trying, you might get better. Oh, in order to make a good troll, it helps to know something more about Linux than what you pickup in COLA. By the way, why did the lawyer lose data ?? JBarntt -- Woofbert woofbert at infernosoft dot com, Datadroid, Infernosoft Putting the No in Innovation. www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com "It doesn't matter what I think." -- "Dr." Laura -- jbarntt Chocolate Watchband Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! Date: 7 Jul 2000 00:34:36 -0500 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Holden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the GPL fulfills is goals well enough then. It provides free software from the perspective of the end-user. It also prevents a lot of potential useful combinations of GPL and less restricted software from being distributed as free software. It doesn't matter that some developer somewhere can't use the code in their non-GPL compatible work, since the goal wasn't to give them code, but to give the end-user freedom. Or prevent the end-user from getting something that doesn't exactly match the FSF philosophy. The secondary goal was to stop the software from being used in a non-free product. It succeeded reasonably well there too, an unfortunate casualty of friendly fire are those that want to use GPL code in non-GPL compatable free software. But that is necessary to prevent the obvious loop hole. Yes it succeeds in stopping the software in being used in many ways. But why is that a goal at all? And finally a pool of free software is built up, since developers have to releas
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511
Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #26 Mon, 15 May 00 08:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this (2:1)
Re: You people are full of shit (2:1)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Big Daddy)
Linux lacks ("David Cueto")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Jacques Guy)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (mlw)
Re: You people are full of shit ("David Cueto")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Cyberia Internet Cafe)
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Jacques Guy)
From: 2:1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:04:50 +0100
. wrote:
Canoscan scanner parallel port attached.
Try running the scanner identification program that Sane uses.
Kills Linux completely...No other terminals to log into. Can't kill X
server. Completely dead...Red Switch Time
I've got several more involving SVGA utilities.
Admittedly, most of these actually kill the machine, but they render it
useless without a terminal or network.
Try running SVGATextMode from X.
Write an SVGALib forgram that disables VC switching, goes in to raw
keyboard access then have a stupid bug that leads to an infinite loop
Do something nasty to the VGA card (I've no idea what i did) that seems
to make it never release the bus (or something wierd).
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
--
From: 2:1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:21:13 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use Windows 98se everyday running a graphics workshop business and I
never get BSOD's nor do I seem to have all of the troubles you Linux
nuts seem to have.
I used to run windows. I (repeatedly) had to install after the BSODs got
worse and worse until it wouldn't boot. You probably won't believe me,
claiming that I am a `nut'. If you do not believe what I say, why shoult
I trust what you say.
If you do believe what I say, thwn how can you call linux a joke when my
Windows kept falling over, but my Linux doesn't.
However, the current crop is quite good and is used by millions every
day to make money.
It may be used by millions, but that doesn't mean it's good. And
remember, 10,000 lemmings *can't* be wrong.
We are not anti-Linux at all, in fact we are looking forward to the
day that we can stop paying ridiculous prices for software.
If you think that you software is really good, you shouldn't mind
paying.
However we
have all tried various forms of Linux and quite frankly it is a
complete joke. One guy spent nearly a week trying to get a Samba
server going. This is completely idiotic since it is so simple to do
under Windows.
I see. Samba seems to work out of the box with most distros. And he took
a week to get it going?
Networking? Simple under Windows. A nightmare under Linux.
One person tried to set up a Linux server and gave up. Reading 3 weeks
of How TOs was a complete waste of time.
Have you any idea how long it took me to get 2 windows machines talking
to each other over a crossover cable. I ended up spending hours
tinkering with settings and eventually it worked, but I've no idea what
I did. And another time over a parallel cable: you could share files,
but no TCP/IP settings (I have had this working properly before) would
allow a program on one computer to connect to a program on the other
one. And you claim that networking under windows is easy.
Call him stupid if you will but ya'll are listening to his latest
creation every day on the radio.
I will, and I'm probably not.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
--
From: Big Daddy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:28:24 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also the gapping security holes!!!
Roger wrote:
On 5 May 2000 07:29:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Loren Petrich
wrote:
In article UkqQ4.77847$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Otto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why don't you teach them how to prevent viruses on their machine? Had you
done it at the first time
Why should that be necessary in the first place?
Because the popularity of the platform makes it a attractive target
for the folks who write such?
--
From: "David Cueto" [E
