Linux-Advocacy Digest #240, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux kernel 2.4 (Donald West)
Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux (Mig Mig)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (mlw)
Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux (Doug Mast)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (mlw)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story) ("Marc Schlensog")
mime types (mlw)
Re: Linux kernel 2.4 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: templates and g++ (Thomas Boggs)
Re: which OS is best? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linus Torvalds (Mike Esler)
Re: LILO saves the day (The Cat)
Re: which OS is best? (Perry Pip)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:53:28 GMT
S4eaDra4gon wrote:
> OK - to begin with, why is Unix's I/O model preferable to a nice
> asynchronous I/O model offerred in other systems?
I just realized I have a great example of how robust Linux is and at the same
time an argument about some of the shortcomings of the x86 architechture
(doesn't answer your question above per se, but it does consider some I/O).
As I changed channels on my TV.. I realize my Tivo says some things about Linux:
how robust it is and how well it performs. Here we have a device that needs to
be on 24/7, i.e. it needs a rock solid OS. Tivo choose Linux over other OSes.
I wonder why? I'm sure the GPL license was part of it, but I'll bet FreeBSD
could've done the job just as well. One wonders why they didn't choose a
windows variant?
The system needs to stream a constantly high amount of I/O as it can encode and
record one program while you read, decode and display another at the same time.
Also, with regards to the x86 architechture argument that's been going on...
they chose to use a PPC-based box instead of x86.
Anyone know the specs of the Replay units? i.e. OS and hardware? I don't see
those facts listed on the replay site like they are at Tivo.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Let's face it, we're all sailboats and money is the wind. And with enough of
it you can just about get blown anywhere."
--Dennis Miller
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: 24 Apr 2000 01:22:01 -0700
>>OK - to begin with, why is Unix's I/O model preferable to a nice
>>asynchronous I/O model offerred in other systems?
>Please don't waste my time with such vague terms.
>
>Be specific.
>
He can't be specific, becuase he has no clue what he is talking
about. He is just repeating what looks like a technical terms
so he sounds like he knows something.
One can do asych IO very easily on Unix. Any basic Unix
programming book will show him how to do it. Do not know what
he mean by 'nice' model here. 'nice' model does not seem
to mean anything.
pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 03:04:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Donald West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux kernel 2.4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
Anyone know when this kernel is being released? Has it
been put back?
_____________________________________________________________
Want a new web-based email account ? ---> http://www.firstlinux.net
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:29:23 +0200
Doug Mast wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:30:07 +1000, Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <8dsbgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, pete@x wrote:
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David says...
> > >
> > >>From what I can see there are only a
> > >>couple of things that one cannot do on linux that one might want to do.
> > >>Create PDF's is one
> > >
> > >all these years I've been creating pdf's on linux with
> > >simple commands must have been a dream.
> > >
> > >ps2pfd
> > >pdflatex
>
> Yup. And there's more: Adobe Acrobat Distiller (version 3 for Windoze)
> works perfectly under Wine on linux. I was even able to *install*
> Distiller using Wine, which was a pleasant surprise to me.
Hmmm... how to do that? Just starting the install program??
> Doug.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:00:58 -0400
Mike Marion wrote:
>
> Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> > It is possible to keep NT working under very controlled conditions,
> > but as an experiment, try installing and testing 3 random new
> > programs a day on both an NT and Linux box in active production.
> > My experience say the NT box will have to be rebooted in less
> > than a week and is fairly likely to end up needing production
> > programs reinstalled due to dll conflicts. The Linux box is
> > unlikely to have any problems.
>
> Hell, I installed Easy CD-Creator v3 on a W2k box two weeks ago. I figured it
> wouldn't work, but thought it was worth a try. It installed without
> complaining, but gave the "this program won't work properly under windows
> 2000..." message when I tried to run it. I canceled, then rebooted the box into
> Linux to use my burner. When I went back into w2k (which had been up for over a
> week.. it's definately a much more stable OS then win9x) it BSOD'd. It was so
> hosed that I couldn't boot it _at all_. Not even into safe mode. I tried every
> single boot option on the menu for the hell of it... they all either BS'd or
> hung hard.
>
> I've _never_ seen a Unix box that bad. Even when they get hosed to where you
> can't even boot into single user, you can either boot off the net, or a CD and
> edit/delete the file(s) that have screwed the system. I couldn't find a way to
> do that with w2k. I tried booting of the CD, and a floppy, but they didn't let
> me in. Though I admit I didn't look super hard outside of that.. it was easier
> to just reinstall it the next day.
When I set up Windows NT, I always install twice. Once in C:\WINNT and
once in C:\WINNTBAK. I put put both directories in boot.ini, and make
C:\WINNT the default. As a device driver developer, I am always
rendering systems "unbootable" with any combination of SoftIce/KDB
problems, flakey hardware, (;-) bad code.
It really saved me when I went from SP2-SP3, I had to install some WinCE
packages, and it rebooted my machine before I could re-install service
pack 3, so, of course, the machine BSOD on boot in the IP stack. I
booted into my backup version, moved the IP componnets into a saved dir,
rebooted into my main version, moved them back and reinstalled the
service pack.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Mast)
Subject: Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:08:55 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:29:23 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yup. And there's more: Adobe Acrobat Distiller (version 3 for Windoze)
> > works perfectly under Wine on linux. I was even able to *install*
> > Distiller using Wine, which was a pleasant surprise to me.
>
> Hmmm... how to do that? Just starting the install program??
That worked for me. I only did something like
mount /cdrom
wine /cdrom/SETUP.EXE
and installshield ran without trouble. I installed the program in
a subdirectory of my home directory (on an ext2 partition, of course)
and that worked too. Wine has come a long way!
FWIW, this was on a Caldera 2.3 box with a fairly recent Wine
(one of the precompiled binaries from late 1999, IIRC).
Doug.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:07:35 -0400
S4eaDra4gon wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 05:55:11 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well in the case of slashdot... while it is frequented by many pro-linux
> >people, they try to post stories about anything "nerds" might like. It's not
> >a pure Linux site.
>
> Whatever. The only Microsoft news posted on that site are negative (e.g.
> the unfolding court drama), which the readers cheer. Positive Microsoft
> stories are literally ignored. For example, that site made absolutely no
> mention of the Windows 2000 release, even though it was the top
> computer story everywhere else.
There was little point. It wasn't "news."
>
> >Wouldn't mean a thing to most people. You could post the same for qcom
> >stock... our stock is way down right now, but it doesn't mean the company
> >is doing bad. Right now the stock market just isn't following much common
> >sense. Hell, we posted great Q1 earnings again and while the stock went up
> >for a day, it's down again... sucks! :/
>
> QCOM is still over half of its 52-week high, but LNUX is about 1/8 of its
> 52-week high (and barely above its IPO price). There's a difference in
> magnitude here.
The stock market, currently, has no basis in reality.
>
> >It's not the whole community, it's just a vocal group of rabid pro-Linux
> >people. There are people like that for all the OSes it seems. The most
> >annoying people tend to be heard the most.
>
> I have never heard a Windows user say "Windows is better than _____, but
> you do not have the technical competency to understand why". I hear Linux
> people say this all the time.
This is just a reflection on Windows users. Besides, no one really
thinks Windows is better than anything. Perhaps NT or Win2K might be
used in that sentence, but certainly not Windows.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:57:30 +0200
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> bullshit
^^^^^^
Sophisticated answer...
Drestin, your are so cool, you just know everything.
How can you be so sure, that MS products don�t have backdoors in them?
Did you revise the code? Do you even have *access* to the code?
How old are you anyway? You sometimes seem to me like a teen who
needs attention.
Greetz, Marc
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story)
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:23:21 +0200
I know, I�m late on this one, but I was missing WinTroll (TM) No. 1:
Drestin Black (isn�t that spellt wrong? Shouldn�t that be dressed in
black?),
since he�s always complaining about how much Linux sucks and Windows
is so much more stable and secure and easier to use (I agree with this one
up to one point) and which has a better TCO, blablabla...
Come on, Dres, defend yourself.
(Oh, I forgot, you don�t read C.O.L.A., do you?)
Greetz, Marc
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mime types
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 08:47:27 -0400
Mime types are starting to bug me. Why does every application have a
separate and distinct method for dealing with them?
I mean, really, why does gnome and kde have separate mime directories?
What we need is a global mime-type directory that has a standardized
mime description and default application which can be used by multiple
systems.
There are two ways way to accomplish this, one, make a standard and make
everyone use it. (Yea, right! just kidding.) Or two, make a standard,
well documented file layout and format, and make plug-ins that produce
the correct mime-type info for the various systems.
So something like: /etc/std.mime
/application/zip.mdat
/audio/midi.mdat
as well as
$HOME/.stdmime
/application/zip.mdat
/audio/midi.mdat
The mdat files can contain magic numbers, mime description, extensions,
and even default applications for the system.
Then a plug in scans this information and produces the correct
zip.kdelnk, gnome.mime, preferences.js, and so on.
This project can be done without intervention or input from either kde,
gnome, netscape, or anyone. Then if it takes hold, they may be
interested in just using it, as it will become the standard.
What do you think? Would you Linux users want this, or find it one more
trouble than it would be worth.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux kernel 2.4
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:32:21 GMT
In the land of open-source the code is released when it is ready.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Anyone know when this kernel is being released? Has it
> been put back?
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Want a new web-based email account ? ---> http://www.firstlinux.net
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Thomas Boggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: templates and g++
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:47:44 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> Does anyone here know how to get templates working with g++ ?
> For example, I have a file graph.cpp and graph.h, and main.cpp.
> It refuses to link unless I use #include "graph.cpp" in the file
> main.cpp
>
> excerpt from graph.h:
> ....
>
> template<class DATA>
> class Graph
> {
> public:
> Graph();
>
> ......
> }
>
> excerpt from graph.cpp
>
> template< class DATA >
> Graph< DATA >::Graph ( )
> {
> ...
> }
>
> from main.cpp:
>
> #include "graph.h"
>
> // If I uncomment this, I can't link because I get a complaint that
> // Graph<int>::Graph(void) is "undefined"
> // #include "graph.cpp"
> //
>
> int main()
> {
> Graph<int> G;
> }
Here's the short answer: remove the code from graph.cpp and put it at
the end of graph.hpp. If you just compile the Graph<> member functions
into graph.o as you did, then when main.cpp is compiled, the compiler
doesn't know how to generate the member function definitions for
Graph<int>. The template member functions must be visible to any source
file that uses the template.
-thomas
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:56:04 GMT
In article <8e0k4d$1bbc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie
Mikesell) wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>A typical Linux user would find out for himself...
> >
> >Exactly. And that mentality is part of the reason Linux as still seen
> >as a "for geeks only" OS.
>
> There is nothing wrong with knowing how to reach under the
> hood and check your own oil. Linux distributions just include
> the whole toolbox. Users of other systems may get the idea
> that there are no user-servicable parts inside.
There is also nothing wrong with not wanting to reach under the hood and
check your oil.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: Mike Esler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:32:10 -0500
Please don't feed the trolls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Johnathan Talley wrote:
> This guy is lost and programmed by hype. He's a pitiful example of a
> misguided human being. But I don't take kindly to people saying others
> should be physically harmed because they excerise their freedom of choice.
> Dude sucks ass with a crazy-straw.
>
> Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe that the operation system create by Linus Torvalds, Linux, is
> the downfall of the software industry. People who use such a dreaful program
> should be shot. How dare they take money from hardworking companies like
> microsoft and driving down my shares.
> > >
> > > ==================================
> > > Posted via http://nodevice.com
> > > Linux Programmer's Site
> >
> > Crossposted to the proper usenet-group. Let's see the
> > reactions, shall we?
> > (What an asshole!)
> >
> > --
> > % make fire
> > Don't know how to make fire
> > % Why not?
> > No match
--
Mike Esler
Sverdrup Technology
System Administrator
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LILO saves the day
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:51:48 GMT
Oh I know, I was speaking of otherwise good drives that refused to
format under DOS. Occasionally I would get one whose part. table was
so scrambled DOS would choke on it. Warp's install disks always seemed
to be able to bring the drive back to life. Data was gone either way,
the point was to not have to throw the drive away.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 07:14:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>I'd bet hard disks against floppy drives that your disks could have been
>>>resurrected just fine by booting from a linux boot floppy and typing
>>>"dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda".
>
>>I just filed that one away for future reference :)
>
>>FWIW I used to use an OS/2 Warp install/startup diskette to resurrect
>>sick Windows/DOS formatted hard drives. This was prior to Fat32
>>however.
>
>Uhm, just so you don't get a nasty surprise: "Resurrected" up there means
>"purged of any silly disk managers, boot managers and/or broken partition
>tables". In other words, afterwards your disk will be empty, completely
>empty. DON'T DO THIS IF YOU HAVE DATA ON THAT DISK THAT YOU WANT TO KEEP!
>
>Bernie
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:51:31 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:56:04 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8e0k4d$1bbc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie
>Mikesell) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>A typical Linux user would find out for himself...
>> >
>> >Exactly. And that mentality is part of the reason Linux as still seen
>> >as a "for geeks only" OS.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with knowing how to reach under the
>> hood and check your own oil. Linux distributions just include
>> the whole toolbox. Users of other systems may get the idea
>> that there are no user-servicable parts inside.
>
>There is also nothing wrong with not wanting to reach under the hood and
>check your oil.
But there is something wrong when there isn't even a dipstick so that the
oil can't be checked at all.
>--
>Regards,
>
>Joe Ragosta
>
>Get $10 free:
>https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
>
>Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
>http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
--
Show the code....or hit the road.
Perry Piplani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: 24 Apr 2000 10:08:25 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>lets talk a little about the broken way of installing software on linux.
>>
>>it is most certinaly is a broken system now.
>>
>>a simple example. I wanted to install some rpm package
>>to try some application. ok, i do
>>
>> rpm -Uhv foo.rpm
>>
>>it tells me it needs 5 others packages that are missing or not
>>to the right level.
>
>Red Hat <> Linux. On my Debian system, to install Mutt, I just type
>"apt-get install mutt". It fetches and installs any depends. automatically.
But do you expect your Debian system to install RedHat-built rpms?
That is the situation here - a non-RedHat system that breaks
the expected name conventions trying to install a RedHat rpm.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:38:24 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:40:24 GMT, Sea1Dragon2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 23 Apr 2000 19:38:31 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>There is a certain "elite snobbery" that goes hand in hand with a
>>command-line environment, be it UNIX, or VMS, or even DOS.
>
>Correct. Most users of CLI's think that they are Really Smart(tm)
>because they know how to operate a CLI. What is funny is that conceptually
>deleting a file is the same thing whether you drag it to a trash can, type
>in rm, or whatever, but CLI users believe that typing in the commands is
>actually somehow closer to the computer (as if the GUI's are interacting
>with the CLI's and not directly with the system).
>
>>IMHO, Linux was born out of a sheer dislike of Microsoft, unlike its BSD
>>cousins, who seemed to originate from a need for a BSD-like OS.
>
>The very early development of Linux was decidedly for hobbyist purposes,
>but it is clear that the Linux _movement_ is primarily anti-Microsoft
>and has minimal technical basis. I am still trying to figure out why
...it's primarily consumer. It and it's founder were sick and tired
of being restricted to one crappy option. No one else (except Apple)
was willing or able to even and attempt to cater to the 'non-drone'
consumer computing market.
To this end, as long as the net effect is superior to the other options
available on the same calibre of consumer machines: the underlying
technical details don't matter. They're less relevant just as if a
particular brand TV or VCR or even microprocessor did things in a less
'sophisticated way'.
>redhat.com feels the need to post news about Microsoft on their site, and
>why slashdot.org regularly posts articles about Microsoft. If Linux were
Slashdot actually has readership that aren't Linux Zealots believe
it or not.
[deletia]
>
>>Out of curiosity, what is it about WindowsNT that makes you believe that
>>it's the "shittiest"? Often, people make judgements about products based
>>solely on their own line of work, without regard to other venues of
>>productivity.
>
>I do not believe that Windows NT is any more shitty than Linux. It does
...it certainly has it's moments.
Mind you, many Linux Zealots don't find the need to use as the
proverbial hammer to pound everything (percieved as a nail).
>have a lot of the same problems Linux does (e.g. bad UI design), and
>lacks a lot of the same features Linux does. My point above was that
>something like Windows 98 is an easy target, but it is Linux's primary
>target. I would like to challenge Linux users to argue on a _technical_
>basis that their OS is better than the one's which Unix replaced. Any 12
>year old can understand a few technical advantages Linux has over
>Windows 98, and I question why Linux users harp on these so much.
That's what's pervasive in the marketplace. That is what a novice
end user is likely to be subjected to. Infact, Microsoft marketing
would rather steer you to '98 (as a consumer) rather than NT.
[deletia]
Besides, if you push NT hard enough it has the same exact faults.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 24 Apr 2000 10:30:35 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>A typical Linux user would find out for himself...
>> >
>> >Exactly. And that mentality is part of the reason Linux as still seen
>> >as a "for geeks only" OS.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with knowing how to reach under the
>> hood and check your own oil. Linux distributions just include
>> the whole toolbox. Users of other systems may get the idea
>> that there are no user-servicable parts inside.
>
>There is also nothing wrong with not wanting to reach under the hood and
>check your oil.
Correct, but there is certainly something wrong with considering
the people that do it as a lower class.
More to the point, locking yourself into a system that only a
single vendor can service and support has proven to be a bad
idea in many cases. Sometimes you only lack competitive
pricing with this approach, other times it becomes a disaster.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:45:20 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 06:41:09 GMT, S4eaDra4gon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Apr 2000 12:48:47 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:40:24 GMT, Sea1Dragon2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>> I would like to challenge Linux users to argue on a _technical_
>>>basis
>>Anytime :)
>>Lets hear something of technical merrit *first* ?
>>Your whole post lacks any technical substance inho.
>>
>>How about remote admin ?
>>
>>Under Linux I can remotely admin a remote Linux box, using a GUI app
>>running on the remote box. Please explain how NT can do this. Your not allowed
>>to spend over $10 to obtain this facility either so the comparison remains
>>fair.
>
>Nice, but :
>
>1) You chopped off my sentence. My challenge was to hear Linux supporters
>demonstrate that Linux is superior to the OS'es _which Unix wiped out_.
>Note that this set does not include Windows.
This is a big fat red herring as most of us (Zealous Unix Users)
don't have this 'DOS gloaters' attitude when it comes to the other
(older) big iron OSes.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
