Linux-Advocacy Digest #556, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 08:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why do I need Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Hell (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (Thomas Phipps)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (Martijn Bruns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why do I need Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:18:37 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 04:11:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <M11U4.86394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Furthermore, almost all the computer systems you likely encounter are,
> >> under the covers, becoming "more like UNIX" over time.
> >
> >It appears that since Unix is perceived by non-technical people as
> >being a stable system, so most vendors use this as a marketing point
> >and want to put as many Unix features into their systems as possible
> >(as if adding fork() takes out all of the bugs in your OS).
> >
> >In many systems this has dramatically hindered technical progress of
> >the OS. For example, until about 10 years ago or so, VMS could handle
> >dates through the year 9999. Since the introduction of Unix-like
> >concepts (particularly TCP/IP and DECwindows, which were ported from
> >Unix and written in C), VMS is now only certified through 2038 (or
> >2106, actually).
>
> If VMS is genuinely suffering from 'Unixims' then it's
> time representations should certainly be certifiable for
> far beyond 9999 actually.
>
> VAXen and Alphas are supposed to be 64bit machines afterall.
>
> [deletia]
>
> If DEC or Compaq have gotten sloppy as of late, that's another
> matter entirely.
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
You don't need Linux. You could sell your computer and knit.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:22:45 GMT
Full Name wrote:
>
> 10. You can't afford a real Unix system such as Solaris.
>
> 9. You have no friends and no life, so spending all day building
> kernels is actually a step up.
>
> 8. The Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so who cares
> if I can't connect to my ISP.
>
> 7. You have a weird sexual fetish for pot bellied penguins.
>
> 6. Your father committed suicide during the 80's stock market crash
> by leaping form the 15'Th story and the mere mention of the word
> "window" causes you to break down and cry.
>
> 5. You secretly hate your friends and family for not recognising your
> obvious genius and recommending Linux to them is your way of
> extracting revenge.
>
> 4. You hate yourself and as a child you hated your mother.
>
> 3. Your one and only girlfriend became infatuated with Bill Gates and
> ran away to Redmond.
>
> 2. The school bully who gave you a wedgy while you were making eyes at
> the only female computer geek in your class is an avid Windows user.
>
> And the number one reason for using Linux...
>
> 1. You actually enjoy having a pineapple shoved up your arse.
Humm,
I can see why you didn't want to post this to the other newsgroups.
I see they got tired of throwing 16 year olds at me.
If this is the best the Windows crowd has to offer then I think
Microsoft is at an end.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:27:46 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Stephen, You have already shown yourself to be a liar:
>
> : http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
>
> Your reply was not worth responding to. I stated very clearly that the
> majority of the problems I've ever witnessed, or experienced with
> WindowsNT were fixed by changing out hardware. As for my own problems
> that I encountered, yes, _all_ of them were attributed to hardware.
>
> Your lack of English comprehension validates no reasons to call me a liar.
>
> I find that you argue much like Charlie. You offer nothing but anecdotal
> rambling, and you never seem to offer hard factual data to prove your
> claims, or the claims of others which you seem to agree with.
I think you mean speak from experience.
Just what exerience do you have Steven?
Are you writing that Artificial intelligence on a NT box?
How about a W2K box.
Tell us all about it.
>
> : You have also shown yourself to be somewhat unreasonably prejudicial:
>
> : http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624188730
>
> Perhaps. I can easily say the exact same thing about you.
>
> : You didn't reply to either of those posts.
>
> As I said, your post wasn't worth replying to. The other post actually
> made some good points, and I felt no reason to rebute.
>
> : I never said Charlie proved anything. I don't know where you got that
> : idea. All I said was that Paul hasn't proved anything either.
I suppose acting like a worm proves something in the Microsoft world.
OR running a video game.
>
> I got that idea from the fact that you've been supporting everything he's
> been saying.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
BTW,
Quake II runs much better on a Linux box. Had my daughter show me!
And it runs native also!
I think that's cool.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:28:38 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> Stephen, You have already shown yourself to be a liar:
>
> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
>
> You have also shown yourself to be somewhat unreasonably prejudicial:
>
> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624188730
>
> You didn't reply to either of those posts.
>
> On 16 May 2000 23:32:51 GMT,
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[snipped]
> I never said Charlie proved anything. I don't know where you got that
> idea. All I said was that Paul hasn't proved anything either.
>
> Perry
Oh shit Perry,
all you have to do is put a Scan for Charlie Ebert and look at the
national magazines which pop up.
For Stephen you just put your thumb up your ass and blow.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:30:00 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Roger <roger@.> writes:
>
> : On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:35:03 GMT, someone claiming to be Charlie Ebert
> : wrote:
>
> : >It seems Microsoft has thrown in their hat with HOTMAIL, once again
> : >attempting
> : >to replace FreeBSD servers with W2K.
>
> : Proof?
>
> I'd like to see proof of this as well. Of course, considering Charlie's
> precedent, I doubt if we'll see anything of the sort.
>
> [SNIP]
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
You mean you can't fucking read either!
Go up to the Hot Mail site moron and read it!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:30:49 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : In article <8fslr3$ckg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : >Just because something is someone else's "experience" doesn't
> : >automatically make it true. For example, in my experience, WindowsNT is a
> : >very stable and reliable platform. So why isn't my experience true?
>
> : Because you didn't do any of the many things that force you to
> : reboot, or run any of the apps that make the OS crash.
>
> I must ask, Leslie... exactly how do you know that I have never done any
> of those things? Are you aware that I was an NT adminstrator for about
> 3-4 years? To make the assumptions you have is not only arrogant, it is
> presumtuous, and plainly a completely fallible way to establish a point.
>
> I know that WindowsNT v4.0 needs to be rebooted for many changes. I never
> stated otherwise. Windows2000 does not have to be rebooted, so I'm told,
> for as many changes as WindowsNT v4.0 does.
>
> I have never run any applications that could crash WindowsNT. I've seen
> many applications die under WindowsNT, including Internet Explorer,
> Netscape, Lightwave, Adobe Photoshop, Lotus Approach, QuarkXPress, Rhino
> 3D, etc. In a few of those instances, the constant dying of applications
> was due to problems with local directories using older versions of dynamic
> libs in conjunction with newer dynamic libs in the C:\WINNT4\SYSTEM32
> directory.
>
> I have also ran into a number of BSODs in my time. In nearly every
> instance, the problem was fixed by replacing cheaper hardware with more
> reliable hardware (ie: replacing LinkSys network adapters with NetGear
> adapters, replacing SIIG SCSI controllers with Adaptec, etc.), and as a
> positive result, also using more proper drivers. In a few other
> instances, the problem seemed to be linked with certain motherboards (I
> don't recall the specific brand, unfortunately).
>
> Leslie, you seem like a relatively sharp fellow... please, don't argue
> in the same manner that Charlie does. :-)
What he's saying is don't tell him he's full of shit.
>
> : >Because it doesn't agree with your experience? So, why should I believe
> : >that your experience is true, since it doesn't agree with mine? Do you
> : >see where I'm getting at?
>
> : Try something simple, like loading the IP address via DHCP. Change
> : the netmask for the DHCP range on the server. DHCP should take care
> : if it on the client side, right? The D is for dynamic, as in
> : expecting changes...
>
> Hmmm... I've done this quite a few times, with no problems. Could you
> describe your problems in a little more detail? Are the machines you're
> referring to COMPAQ boxen, by any chance?
>
> : >What it boils down to, Perry, is that you cannot argue anecdotal evidence
> : >as fact, because it can never be a fact. The only thing that can be a
> : >fact is something which can be proven. I cannot prove that WindowsNT is
> : >stable and reliable, just as neither you, nor Charlie can prove that it
> : >isn't.
>
> : How about if everyone who knows reproducable ways to make it
> : crash posts them? Well, maybe we don't have time for that.
>
> But if people would be willing to post scenarios (as you have done in your
> post), I'd be more than happy to review them (though I must admit, there
> are many who would be much more qualified to review such material than
> I. After all, first and foremost, I'm a 3D graphics man. :-).
>
> : >I think Paul's point is the same as mine. You cannot prove nor disprove
> : >an _opinion_, and opinions are all that Charlie is offering. In other
> : >words, what he's offering is useless blithering.
>
> : If you have a pair of machines, try the DHCP setting business - a
> : perfectly normal thing to expect for a changing network. Try
>
> I have, as I stated, already done this several times. Could you perhaps
> elaborate on how you approached it? I'd be interested to see if your
> approach was different from mine (which is mostly by the book).
>
> : upgrading IE, Netscape, or Office without rebooting and disrupting
> : service to others.
>
> I never denied that WindowsNT needs to be rebooted after making certain
> changes. However, I will say that once all of the changes are in place,
> there is no need to reboot anymore. That is, unless you are indecisive
> about hardware, and keep changing things around.
>
> : >Using anecdotal evidence, and opinionated statements is no way to prove
> : >anything. The only thing it can be used for is to try to sway other
> : >people's opinions.
>
> : All you have to do is try some of the things and see for yourself.
>
> Again, as I stated, I've already successfully implemented DHCP assigning
> on other systems.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:32:17 GMT
Roger wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2000 15:30:10 GMT, someone claiming to be JEDIDIAH
> wrote:
>
> >On 16 May 2000 05:56:31 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>My point was, it's up to the system administrator to know and understand
> >>the OS, and that most of the problems that I've encountered, and witnessed
> >>other having, were due to thoughtless hardware purchases, and reflexively,
> >>poorly written drivers.
>
> > So, by your argumentation: my burden as a user would INCREASE
> > if I were to suddenly dump Linux for NT.
>
> If you, personally, with your knowledge of Linux and lack of same for
> NT, switched: yes.
>
> Of course the same can be said of someone with little to no Linux
> knowledge making the switch from an NT box they knew.
>
> Your point was?
And your POCKET BOOK would suddenly get much lighter and thinnner!
MORE SO THAN AT ANY OTHER DECADE!
Yet your screen is just as blue.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:33:16 GMT
Roger wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:35:03 GMT, someone claiming to be Charlie Ebert
> wrote:
>
> >It seems Microsoft has thrown in their hat with HOTMAIL, once again
> >attempting
> >to replace FreeBSD servers with W2K.
>
> Proof?
>
> >If you recall, the last attempt was made just a couple of years ago with
> >NT and it failed due to blue screens, and the need for MASSIVE HARDWARE!
>
> No, I recall that no such attempt was ever made, and was specifically
> disclaimed by all involved.
>
> Doesn't seem to have stopped the ABM crowd.
>
> >Since W2K is actually slower than NT, we can assume some special
> >hardware
> >has been put in place for this test.
>
> Proof that W2K is slower than NT4.0?
>
> >Also, keep in mind that during the last test, they had NT up for several
> >weeks
> >before they decided to pull the plug.
>
> Proof?
Oh sure.
http:\\www.freebsd.org
You can read all about it up there.
The FreeBSD crowd fully documented the entire episode.
It's hillarious.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:34:29 GMT
Richard Gill wrote:
> =
> U can think about a New WindowManager, with a good interface, and toolk=
it
> independant, but with possibly rely to Gnome component (I mean bonobo f=
or
> example). I'm already beginning on that project (alone for the moment, =
and
> only on paper) so we could help together ;-)
> =
> bye.
> =
> Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Hello,
> > I am attempting to start a college project and have two of my
> > ideas already being worked on. So I wanted to know what other people
> > had for suggestions for linux projects? I was thinking of something
> > along the lines of a project that would help promote the use of linux=
=2E
> > What is something that most people could use? Something that could
> > make a good 1 year R&D project?
How about a mandatory requirment that everyone use Linux.
See if an entire university can funcition using nothing but Linux.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hell
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:37:40 GMT
Raul Valero wrote:
>
> Hell ! GNU/Linux is a big OS, but am I the only one that would
> like for dekstop user to have browser autocompleting URL's,
KDE does.
> standard inter-windowmanagers copy and paste,
KDE does.
unified recent used
> documents and consistent window manager and X11 applications ?
Yip, that's the KDE.
> That should be easy to implement to Linux hackers, and no one can
> say are not useful or insecure at all. Come on, keep on the way, but
> give desktop users a try, not only with stupid installations. Being a
> desktop user doesn't mean having no idea about is being done, just
> wanting to be productive, quick, reliable ... Linux has the base, now
> just fixing things will turn it into a great desktop OS.
Oh crap. Try Mandrake 7.0 or Suse 6.4.
Everyone I know who's tried either one say's it's better then Windows
98.
And you have your CHOICE of 4 major office suites.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux!
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:38:57 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Aakre) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >We need to bring the familiarity of windows to linux... lets have a
> >daemon that automatically crashes linux every 10-15 minutes!! Then it
> >will be more familiar for all you ex-windowers, so you won't get scared
> >when you linux box stays online for weeks, even months! I'm sure this
> >will go along well with all you ex-microsoft dron^H^H^H^H^H users.
>
> Every 10 to 15 minutes? Got a hardware problem have we? You might want to
> increase the interval to a day or two... oh yeah, I switch my machine off
> every night.
>
> My Windows 98 SE system rarely crashes these days. Except when I'm fooling
> around with 'hooks' or device drivers. Then I switch to Windows 2000.
>
> --
> ------------
> Pete Goodwin
Run Suse 6.4 or Mandrake 7.0 and leave your computer on all day as I do.
I never re-boot except for power outages.
With Microsoft you have to re-boot.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Phipps)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:45:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Full Name wrote:
>10. You can't afford a real Unix system such as Solaris.
>
>9. You have no friends and no life, so spending all day building
>kernels is actually a step up.
all days? I havn't rebuilt my kernel in a long time ...
besides ... all my friends dont' seem to care if
what Operating system I use
>
>8. The Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so who cares
>if I can't connect to my ISP.
can't connect to my ISP? ... the only ISPs I can't connect
to is MSN NetZero and AOL/Compuserver ... and to tell the truth
thease arn't really that great of ISP's
I remeber a freind havinga MSN accoutn ... kept getting dissconnected
with out being prompted ... sometimes only a minute after connecting
>
>7. You have a weird sexual fetish for pot bellied penguins.
I guess thats better then a weird sexaul fetish for a plane
of glass
>6. Your father committed suicide during the 80's stock market crash
>by leaping form the 15'Th story and the mere mention of the word
>"window" causes you to break down and cry.
my father is alive and well ... and eating his words about linux
won't ever be considered a decent operating system byh any company
>
>5. You secretly hate your friends and family for not recognising your
>obvious genius and recommending Linux to them is your way of
>extracting revenge.
humm ... my friends and family often come to me for computer advice
hell I ushal get calls twice a day about her win box ...
>
>4. You hate yourself and as a child you hated your mother.
I love my mom thanx ... so I give her free advice
>
>3. Your one and only girlfriend became infatuated with Bill Gates and
>ran away to Redmond.
one and only??? hell I"Ve moved all over this country to be with women
can even say I"Ve turn almost all of them to the linux side of the force
>
>2. The school bully who gave you a wedgy while you were making eyes at
>the only female computer geek in your class is an avid Windows user.
I was the school bully
>
>And the number one reason for using Linux...
>
>1. You actually enjoy having a pineapple shoved up your arse.
>
pineapple? arse? wouldn't fit ... then again ... I once heard
that you couldn't pull a greased pin out of bill gates arse with a
bulldozer
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:51:35 +0200
Full Name schreef:
>
> 10. You can't afford a real Unix system such as Solaris.
>
> 9. You have no friends and no life, so spending all day building
> kernels is actually a step up.
>
> 8. The Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so who cares
> if I can't connect to my ISP.
>
> 7. You have a weird sexual fetish for pot bellied penguins.
>
> 6. Your father committed suicide during the 80's stock market crash
> by leaping form the 15'Th story and the mere mention of the word
> "window" causes you to break down and cry.
>
> 5. You secretly hate your friends and family for not recognising your
> obvious genius and recommending Linux to them is your way of
> extracting revenge.
>
> 4. You hate yourself and as a child you hated your mother.
>
> 3. Your one and only girlfriend became infatuated with Bill Gates and
> ran away to Redmond.
>
> 2. The school bully who gave you a wedgy while you were making eyes at
> the only female computer geek in your class is an avid Windows user.
>
> And the number one reason for using Linux...
>
> 1. You actually enjoy having a pineapple shoved up your arse.
HAHAHA!! Really funny! Amusing! :-))
I really do love Linux, but i can take a joke. :-)
Oh by the way, i recently saw something funny on the Late Show:
-- MICROSOFT --
WE MAKE THINGS THAT 'SPLODE!!
I thought it was pretty funny! :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
