Linux-Advocacy Digest #586, Volume #25 Fri, 10 Mar 00 19:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. (Mig Mig)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Giving up on NT (Eric Remy)
Re: Disproving the lies. (Matthew Gibbins)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Mike Trettel)
Re: Giving up on NT (Jason S.)
Re: Giving up on NT (Jason S.)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JoeX1029)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: BSOD and Penis Problems (JoeX1029)
Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!! (JoeX1029)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Craig Kelley)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:22:51 +0100
Alan Sugar fix my mind wrote:
> > I did the hours-long X benchmarks for XF86 3.3.3 vs the 3.9.15
> > pre-release a few months back, and found a whopping 40% speedup with the
> > new version. That and some of the new features in this version add up to
> > make this a very important release.
>
> So, as linvocates claimed till now that X11 was better than Windows GUI,
> now, perhaps it is closer the moment when X11 is usable. 40% faster ? What
> shit code was X11 till now ? And that as supposed to beat Windows 2000 ?
X11 is not the GUI... RTFM before posting!
40% faster juste means that XFree 4.0 is now 3 times faster than Windows
NT/2000 (but how the heck can i measure that :-).
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:22:21 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
> > useless,
> > > : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
> > > : on two screens really provide?
> > >
> > > Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system except
for
> > > a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and whistles
> > > vs. Linux functionality.
> > >
> >
> > ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
>
> Linux has been doing multiple monitors LONG before Microsoft
> "invented" it.
>
you make it sound like linux actually invented something at all... linux is
just another unix clone... anything it's got it took from someone else, just
like the gui's - trying to look more like windows and less like what spawned
them...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:28:12 -0500
*looks at person who'll publically admit he can't install windows and keep
it running for over a day* What an idiot.
"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : Because you can't get a different, better OS for free :).
>
> *looks at his linux box* Hasn't crashed in four months, free OS, very few
> bugs, easy to configure.
>
> *looks at his Win box* Crashes about once a day, expensive OS, bugs in
> some programs, especially Microsoft ones, would have to pay an arm and a
> leg to get source code for.
>
> <sarcasm>
> *thinks* wow, I guess I really can't get a good OS for free, huh?
> </sarcasm>
>
> --
> Matt Gaia, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> University Webmaster, Youngstown State University
> Vice President, YSUWeb
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:27:25 -0500
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sdYx4.70996$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> >> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> >> http://www.open4success.com
> >> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> >> and growing at over 1%/week!
> >
> >holy shit - what is this? a *** 5 0 % *** drop in linux growth?! DAMN!
Looks
> >like a HUGE slow down has occured in Linux growth. What happened? Run out
of
> >computer users in the US to count cause they at one time or another
visited
> >a website that mentioned the word "linux" so you counted them? And still,
> >you dare to claim that there are 6,000,000 new linux users every week?
> >6,600,000 the next week? Where DO you find these people? Cause they sure
> >ain't on any map that anyone else can document...
>
> 1% of 60 million is 600,000.
>
> You're off (of what I'd certainly admit is a flimsy estimate in the
> first place) by a full order of magnitude.
>
> Did you flunk math?
oops - hehehe - my boo boo, but the point still stands, 600,000 new users
this week eh? I don't think so.
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:33:33 -0500
In article <8abscc$8t3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Mike Timbol) wrote:
>>Yes I think Planetscape would make more money on a console.
>
>Then maybe you should tell that to Black Isle. Obviously you think you
>know more about the gaming market than they do.
Having just finished Planetscape Torment, I can easily predict it would
be a miserable port to any console, and would sell about 20 copies.
Why? Ever read text on a TV screen? Ever read a *lot* of it? PsT is
more of an interactive novel than a RPG- combat is part of the game, but
a minimal one compared to interacting with the NPCs. Most of these NPCs
have conversation trees 20-30 text screens long. Some of the more
important ones have many more than that. You probably spend close to
50% of your time reading text. TV screens are just miserable for text.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gibbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:29:24 +1100
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know percentages, but I do know that one of the largest implementers
> of 911 systems is Intergraph Public Safety and they only sell NT based
> systems.
Oh them that were involved in a monumental cockup in Australia...:)
To put it simply Intergraph promised a great deal and failed to deliver. The
result is they are subject to a governmental enquiry.
The implementation resulted in a number of avoidable deaths.
In a few cases the emergency services resorted to the old reliable system of
noteboard and phone.
--
Matthew G.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Trettel)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Reply-To: Y'all have to fix this@nowhere
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:57:37 GMT
On 10 Mar 2000 00:36:24 -0800, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>There's a cool app called ``appsfilter'' which will set up your
>>/etc/printcap and print filters automagically.
> .
> .
> .
>>I don't know how Linux would handle this, because I use the FreeBSD
>>ports system.
>
> I believe a port of apsfilter is out there for at least one Linux.
> I'm not certain, of course, because I'm the maintainer of yet
> another printer filter -- magicfilter -- and believe strongly
> in sleeping in the beds I built myself. There are two or three
> printing filters for Linux, in varying states of repair, so
> there's no shortage of solutions for this non-problem that our
> increasingly irrational friend is whining about.
>
It's in Slackware. It's not as if it's difficult to grab the source
tarball and set it up in the first place, anyway.
--
===========
Mike Trettel trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net
I don't buy from spammers. No exceptions. Fix the reply line to mail me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason S.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:34:22 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lance Togar posted the following first-level quoted material to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>ROFLOL!!! I hope this "pearl of wisdom" makes the CSMA dunce of the month
>award. I'm going to leave all the cross-posting intact. For those who don't
>know, Joe's a rabid Mac user who learned about Linux via macaddict and still
>hasn't gotten it running - mostly because he's confused about the lack of a
>smiling penguin on the startup screen.
How little you know, Prozac boy! Any PowerPC Linux setup will have
a penguin (it looks like it is smiling) on the startup screen, since
all PowerPC Linux setups use the framebuffer device! (The old version
had the penguin holding a beer, but the PC forces -- no, not PeeCee:
politically correct -- changed that). You can even get it on your PeeCee
Linux, especially if you have an ATI or Matrox card (it's pretty useless
with other cards, IMO). You get nicer console fonts with it than the
icky BIOS screen, too.
Maybe you should learn something about Linux, Mike!
--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
-- Ho You Kong
Marge Simpson: That's a pretty lousy lesson.
Bill Clinton: Hey -- I'm a pretty lousy President.
-- The Simpsons
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason S.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:44:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eric Remy posted the following first-level quoted material to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>>But Linux will beat NT when running with less than 64mb of ram and *BSD
>>will beat NT when running with more than 64mb of ram.
>Which is why Intel runs SPEC benchmarks under Linux and *BSD to show off
>how well its chips perform.
>Oh, wait, they don't? They use NT? Gee, why would Intel handicap
>itself so much?
Get that Intel Reference Compiler running on Linux and we'll see what
they do. ;)
--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
-- Ho You Kong
Marge Simpson: That's a pretty lousy lesson.
Bill Clinton: Hey -- I'm a pretty lousy President.
-- The Simpsons
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:56:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:26:13 GMT,
ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You remind me of another reason why the business owner I met
> refused to upgrade to Linux. He was not happy with Microsoft
> solutions due to the frequent crashing. But he was sort of pushed
> by the situation his upline suppliers were upgrading to newer
> Microsoft products and the e-transaction software from his
> suppliers were not backward compatible.
That's called 'vendor lock-in' and is a well known Microsoft
technique[1]. And another reason to think thrice before going
down that path. And what will you do if your app vendor goes
tits-up and dies ... and law changes or circumstances need you to
get an upgrade? Your data's locked, the binary is somewhat hard
to maintain and the source code not aviable for good words or
money.
-Wolfgang
[1] Even worse: Every newer Word tries hard to autoconvert
(hopefully OKish) older dokuments to the newer format. Of
course the older versions cannot read the newer format (and
neither can competitors. Upgrade treadmill, anyone?
Before you complain: Yes, Linux (the (stable) kernel) breaks
stuff from time to time, too. Usually the APIs are still
supported for a complete stable kernel cycle, even if
depreciated. Usually there's a good reason for that, too, and
yes, 2.0.x is *still* maintained. And if you really needed
to maintain it yourself: You got the code.
And yes, doing that somewhat depreciates binary-only stuff.
This is a good thing, IMHO, as it gets old cruft out of the
kernel. Part of Win9x problem is it's downward compatibility
with DOS (after all, it's running on DOS 7), come hell or high
water. YMMV.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 22:57:51 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}slc{dot}codem{dot}com
On 10 Mar 2000 20:16:09 GMT, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not to defend RH, but you know that KDE and Gnome are related in
>the same way as X and a window manager? Gnome != WM. KDE == WM.
KDE includes a window manager, but is certainly not only a window manager.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:05:19 +1000
"Sascha Bohnenkamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Can someone explain how they do this?? I thought that a 32 bit OS on a
> > 32 bit chip was limited to 32 bit addresses which corresponds to 2^32 =
> > 4.3 billion bytes, or 4 gigs of RAM.
> the newer pentia allow larger segments what makes it possible to address
> 56GB (imho)
PPro based CPUs use 36 bits to address memory, so up to 64GB.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 23:22:14 GMT
You're just a stupidass thats all. It's really quite simple to use Linux.
Have you ever read any books on it?? Not everything is as simple as Win (or as
shitty). The next project you try keep in mind you might need to use a little
more mental elbow grease.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 23:24:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:09:48 GMT,
Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And in as far does that constitute a proof for a library problem
> > instead of a proof for shoddy coding which happens to work
> > sometimes under some libraries? There are binary packages out
> > there that manage ...
[RH 6.1 -> asimov]
> [asimov] [/tmp] ./ls
> Segmentation fault
/bin/ls of an RH 5.2 (2.0.38) works well on a new SuSE 6.3, but
not vice versa. But your point stands.
> >> All of this makes the TCO(MT) of Linux boxes significantly higher.
> > man source_code
> Huh?
If in doubt, you can always recompile (or get someone to do it)
if you have the source code, which should make most of the
problem a non-problem. Which is one more reason why I think
having the source is a _good_ thing.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: BSOD and Penis Problems
Date: 10 Mar 2000 23:27:04 GMT
Well yes Linux will help your boyfriends penis problem. Also a little bit of
"exercise" coulldn't hurt either (i hear it *really* helps if done by a woman)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: 10 Mar 2000 23:28:45 GMT
Theres the spirit!! Dis M$!! Winblowz is crap, good job!!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 16:47:34 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > > Oh yes, I agree, I really hate the Linux "interactive makefile"
> > > approach... it reminds me of building an RSX-11 system image. Still,
> > > I could deal with that. It'd only have me imagining unusual
> > > tortures for $DISTRIBUTION developers once in a long while instead
> > > of every day.
>
> > So.... don't use it.
> > Use vi or joe or ed or pico or NOTEPAD.EXE under Wine. You could even
> > be a Real BSD Man(tm) and pipe together some head and tail.
>
> Use it on what file? The dotfile the makefile creates?
cp arch/$MY_ARCH/defconfig .config
$EDITOR .config
make dep && make clean && make bzImage && make modules && make modules_install
Of course, `make menuconfig` is nice and quick, but if you are a
masochist...
> Is that guaranteed to be even semi-sane when you upgrade the kernel?
I would qualify it as almost-always-sane, as long as you aren't
jumping major kernel versions.
> > > Personally I don't trust modules, and I had a hell of a lot of
> > > trouble getting Red Hat 4.1 installed because their SCSI module
> > > stuff didn't actually work on a number of Adaptec controllers... you
> > > needed a kernel with the Adaptec drivers compiled in to get it
> > > installed.
>
> > The 2.0.x Linux kernels all had problems with Adaptec controllers,
> > especially with the aic7xxx chipset.
>
> It was just fine with the driver compiled in.
Yes, but this wasn't a fault in the modularity of the kernel, it was a
bug in the aic7xxx driver.
The atalk compiled-in driver had a bug in early 2.0 as well. The
modularized atalk.o worked just fine. What does that say about
compiled-in drivers?
Nothing, of course.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:46:47 +0100
however, even your best C++ tool does not have the support of the biggest
3rd party component market. or you don't have something like vb, delphi,
office, intenet explorer. these are all very powerfull development
platforms.
The Unbeliever <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:H39y4.764$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > this will never happen, because the linux community already perceives
> > that linux is the best development platform. this is off course far
> > from the truth, but truth is not important. what is important is what
> > people think, not what actually is. so, there would be no push to
> > improve something which is already 'best'.
>
> Interesting point of view. I feel part of the Linux community and KNOW
> that Builder is the best C++ development tool, and I know several persons
> that feel like me.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 17:01:05 -0700
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
> > > useless,
> > > > : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
> > > > : on two screens really provide?
> > > >
> > > > Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system except
> for
> > > > a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and whistles
> > > > vs. Linux functionality.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
> >
> > Linux has been doing multiple monitors LONG before Microsoft
> > "invented" it.
>
> you make it sound like linux actually invented something at all... linux is
> just another unix clone... anything it's got it took from someone else, just
> like the gui's - trying to look more like windows and less like what spawned
> them...
Ahh, but that recursive game can be played all day.
After all, what did Microsoft innovate in the GUI department?
Linux doesn't innovate much on a technical level.
On a political/philosophical level, it does.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
