Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David T. Blake)
Re: w2k beats unix ("Drestin Black")
Re: Slashdot is down ("Drestin Black")
Re: Here is the solution (Jim Richardson)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
The future... (mlw)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the (Marty)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (John Hasler)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Matt Soltysiak)
Re: Here is the solution (Christopher Browne)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: w2k beats unix (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
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: 19 May 2000 00:09:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Basically, a simple editor that doesn't need a 300-page tutorial.
> >I can't find any of those in linux. Not for console anyway.
>
> I'd second this, even Nedit doesn't fit the bill, what we want is just
> Pico with the ability to copy and paste and cut with shift and arrow
> keys, and F keys to do simple things like save, save as and exit etc.
Try microemacs and redefine the function keys to be
the functions you want.
http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake/programs/
89k binary
However, I would recommend learning the readline key bindings
anyway. They are ubiquitious in linux/Unix systems.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: w2k beats unix
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:23:30 -0400
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Serge J.Luca" wrote:
> >
> > www.tpc.org
> >
> > Any comment ?
>
> yea, even the tpc guys are starting to think that their benchmarks are
> worthless.
ah ha
haha
ahhahahahahhhahaaaaahahahhahahhahahhahaha
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:28:12 -0400
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 11 May 2000 13:41:39 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > :Slashdot is down.
> > :
> > :They always have had their share of technical problems,
> > :which is quite embarrassing for a technology forum.
> > :
> > :Maybe they should reconsider their set-up and let go
> > :of the hobbyist software.
> >
> > It's great reading comments on slashdot about how unreliable non-Linux
> > software is and then having the very site that houses such comments
> > (and runs Linux) be down for hours.
>
> Must make you happy.
>
> I'm sure if they were running ASP under IIS, they wouldn't have those
> same DDOS problems, eh?
Of course not. Have you heard of a single IIS5/W2K server ANYWHERE taken
down by any DDOS (or anything else for that matter)?? To date, has ANY W2K
server been broken into or down? None that I'm aware of.
Choke on that.
Slashdot is down, AGAIN, nothing unusual, they just don't document their
down time and no one keeps track cause then it would look bad for the "good
guys"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:53:07 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:53:29 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> The notion that the machines or software is cheap or free is only
>> true so long as the only people going after these machines are a
>> small population of "daft tinkerers." (Parallelling the "daft
>> tinkerers" that want to port Linux to NeXT cubes, Vaxes, and such.
>> It's not just VMS folk that are daft...)
>
>And that is largely what I am advocating VMS for. Linux is supposed to
>be for hobbyists, people who are interested in programming and in
>computer hardware. When some Linux user tells me VMS is crap because
>his favorite video game is not available for it (as a parent poster
>did), well, that kind of puts into the light what Linux people are
>really all about. I'm a daft tinkerer with VMS, but I'm practical too.
>
>> If 50,000 would-be home users started looking for Vaxen to run VMS
>> clusters at home, you'd see the prices of used machines move back up.
>> At Ebay, there appears to be _one_ VAX for sale, that one being
>> one that was originally priced at around $900K, for use aboard a
>> military aircraft, bidding at about $500. With marketplaces like
>> that, if people wanted 'em, the prices would rise. (Probably not to
>> $900K, admittedly!)
>
>As for the eBay thing: You need to search for "MicroVAX"
>and "VAXstation" instead of just "VAX". Some of these are among the
>best machines ever built. It is not at all unreasonable for a home user
>to have a VAXstation 4000 or a MicroVAX 3100 in his home. Some of the
>larger MicroVAX'es, VAX'es, and Alpha's, only an enthusiant would want.
>
>But, more importantly, VMS is also available for Alpha. Things like DEC
>3000's are a dime a dozen these days (and have the added feature that
>they are incapable of running Linux, which, sadly, devalues them a
>bit). Multia's are also capable of running VMS. These are small,
>inexpensive machines.
>
>> The years of the "Microsoft Hegemony" have been about as bad as the
>> times of the "IBM Hegemony." Unfortunately, in despising Microsoft,
>> seeing UNIX as the only persistent alternative leaves the risk of
>> abandoning one tyranny for another. All of the following options
>> are pretty bad:
>> a) A world where there are only IBM computers, IBM compilers,
>> IBM peripherals, ...
>> b) A world where there are only Microsoft operating systems,
>> Microsoft applications, Microsoft certifications, ...
>> c) A world where all OSes are modelled after UNIX.
>
>Thank you. Next time I'm in Dallas I'll buy you a beer. I didn't
>realize that you understood this. And this is really what I've been
>trying to get at all along.
>
>> I _can't_ see VMS making a serious comeback; too many pieces have
>> flown away, between RDB, David Cutler, and various Digital downsizings
>> between then and now.
>
>VMS sales, in Europe, grew 69% last year.
>
>> To an extent, tsm is a bit _foolish_ to suggest that VMS should
>> be reasonably suggested for home use. There are a variety of
>> reasons why it would be hard to make that work:
>> - Users have to search for cast-off equipment, which is hardly a
>> general solution;
>
>On your website you have a page dedicated to the Multia, and you give
>it a half-positive review. This machine runs VMS just fine (and, in
>fact, is one of the VMS machines I have at home). These things are a
>dime a dozen, and are easily accessible and very well-supported in the
>secondary market.
>
>> - Training, "user-friendly WIMP software," and Helpful Experts
>> may prove a mite difficult to come by;
>
>I have the gray wall for VMS 5 in my home computer room, which probably
>has 100x as much information as all of the Linux HOWTO's combined.
>There is userfriendly software with CDE; the command line system
>management tools in VMS are far friendlier than in Linux.
>
>> - The electrical and cooling bills would be horrendous.
>
>Only for the big VAX'es and Alpha's. The small machines such as
>Multia's do not have big power and heat requirements, obviously.
>
>> - DCL sucks (I guess that's two "bashes")
>
>Perhaps, but it is still considerably better than the Unix shells and
>the Windows shells. Certainly more powerful and more user-friendly, at
>least.
>
I'd be tempted to try vms, just for fun, but once having gotten the HW,
where do you get the OS? (assuming that it didn't come with the system.)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:46:08 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ax wrote:
> > The cooling down of Linux hype is the current event already
> > happened, not the predicted future event. Such cooling down
> > is considered by many as healthy "correction".
> >
>
> IBM unloading Redhat stock is not a cooling down in my opinion!
>
> Microsoft is loosing it's shirt on the market as well!
>
> It seems to me that the entire market, including IBM are taking
> some corrections.
Linux stocks made the deepest correction. See the numbers:
CORL (Corel): today's closing @$4 3/16, dropped 22%
just one day today.
It's been nose-diving from its peak @ $44
1/2.
44 - 4 = ?
RHAT (Red Hat): today's closing @ $20 1/4
It's been nose-diving from its peak @
$151 5/15
151 - 20 = ?
LNUX (VA Linux): today's closing @$50
It's been nose-diving from its peak $320
320 - 50 = ?
Neither IBM nor MSFT can match Linux stock correction.
> You could NOT make an honest observation that Linux is COOLING it's
> heels
> based on market observations anyway.
Ok.
Linux is heating up.
Linux market hype is cooling down.
What does that tell us?
>
> Linux DOES NOT run on the market! Redhat might.
Linux has gone commercial. Its position in the market
becomes part of the picture.
>
> But LINUX DON'T.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:49:14 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman) writes:
>
> > Lars Tr�ger wrote:
> > >Next we'll have people advocating a compiler because it compiles
> > >programs with syntax errors.
> >
> > The two most commonly used compilers by developers - gcc and visual
> > c - both compile programs with syntax errors without complaint, even
> > with do-whizz options enabled. Some people advocate them.
>
> Name a syntax error that gcc *ignores* while using
>
> gcc -Wall -pedantic
I'd be interested in hearing some evidence for that seemingly absurd claim
too.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The future...
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:57:59 -0400
Looking over the landscape of the computer industry, here are some
observations.....
The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone. Desktop PCs
will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients, or be
indistinguishable from servers.
I think the NOS market is gone. Novel and whom ever is pursuing it is
wasting their time. All real OS's will just do it right.
Windows is going to die. Not because of MS, exactly, but because the
world is going towards standards. While UNIX is not a majority player,
it is a standards based multi-vendor platform. MS will bluster about
being the "defacto-standard" but more and more IT people are realizing
that public standards are better than ubiquitous proprietary standards.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 02:06:04 GMT
Gerban Bergmen wrote:
>
> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> | > I'm aware of Bennett's attribution problems, Myrat, like I'm aware of yours.
> |
> | What alleged "attribution problems"?
>
> The ones you're suffering from, Eric.
Having specificity problems, Gerban?
> | > Evidence, please.
> |
> | He has already provided the evidence.
>
> Balderdash, Eric.
Typically unnecessary hyperbole.
> He's done nothing of the sort.
More evidence of your evidence comprehension problems
> | Predictably, you failed to comprehend its significance.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that he has provided the evidence, Eric.
Not at all, Pascal. Still taking evidence denial lessons from Dave "Java 1.2"
Tholen?
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: 19 May 2000 02:13:40 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On 18 May 2000 00:44:19 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
: >
: >: On 16 May 2000 23:40:20 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: >: wrote:
: >
: >: >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
: >: >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
: >
: >: Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
: >
: >I'm sure it is. I'm not arguing the technical validity of Linux here,
: But you are here:
: Message-ID: <8fmlur$i7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623294410
: __It's true, that X has been battered and beaten around
: __very much, and now it is very stable under most conditions,
: __but Linux has not had the same go around, and it's quite
: __possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees.
: You are making a claim here. Then you immediately follow with:
: __This
: __has happened to me several times, and no, it wasn't a
: __hardware problem.
: You are basing your claim on anecdotal evidence. Wait a minute, that's
: nearly 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
*sigh* Perry, you just don't comprehend very well, I'm afraid. No, that
wasn't an insult... it was an observation.
Let's analyze what I've said:
"...it's quite possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees."
This statement is true. It's true, because such occurrences have been
documented, and presented. The reason why this has happened is because
The X Window System runs as a privelged root process. If an X server
suddenly decides to misbehave, X can lock up. As others pointed out, this
does not necessarily lock Linux up, but it can make it impossible to get
to Linux locally.
Also notice that I said "it's quite possible". I didn't say "it will".
You are taking what I am saying, inflating it into something it's not, and
then claiming that I'm using the same arguing tactics as Charlie. In
effect, you are arguing much like politicians argue. You're looking for
deep semantic relationships that aren't there from common sense
viewpoints, but that can be drawn by an irrational need to win an
argument, it would seem.
In short, you keep taking what I say out of context. That is your
problem, not mine. If you'd stop trying to see what isn't there, you
wouldn't need to be wasting so much time typing.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: 19 May 2000 02:14:30 GMT
Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > >: >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
: > >: >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
: Those were Slackware 96 times, when Windows 95 seemed
: at light years from GNU/Linux. Take a look now, laugh and
: see :-)
When I said "Do you still wish to debate with me?", I was responding to
Charlie's claim that I have never used Linux, and therefore, I have no
right to debate its merits.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:04:42 GMT
mikey writes:
> Merely *advocating* violence against the government is not illegal.
Which is why I mentioned an "overt act". Accumulating weaponry might
qualify.
> But an organization that has specific plans for violence and which has
> accumulated manpower and weaponry for carrying out those plans would
> certainly be in big trouble.
No, those individual members who the government could show had knowledge of
those plans and weapons would be in big trouble. While being on the
membership list of such an organization would certainly bring you under
suspicion, that in and of itself would not get you convicted of anything.
Of course, being in the building when the BATF agents attack with guns
blazing could be construed as "in big trouble" by itself...
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 02:21:08 GMT
Ok, I think you're not understanding the whole picture. First off, why does
Windows inhabit 80% of all modern computers in the world? That one is pretty
easy. It's because Windows makes computers so damn accessible and easy, even
to those who are hopeless in learning computers or understanding them
half-way. Linux, like Unix, has never been good at making the computer user
friendly - period. Don't refute that statement because you know it's true (or
maybe not). Thus, it's only natural that Windows would dominate the PC
market.
Now, don't misunderstand me! I love Linux. I've been using it for 4 or 5
years now. Great OS. I use mainly for programming and as a file ftp server.
Never crashed on me once, unlike my win2k ftp box (stupid shit). But, there
are times that even I get frustrated in Linux, to do the most simple things.
It's awful. What takes a few clicks in Windows takes forever in Unix. It's a
fact. But, oh well.
You should see the amout of software available for Windows: the most
powerful CAD/CAM/CAE software (Protel, ORcad, Cadence); 3d, video editing,
picture editing, motion editing, special effects (Like SoftIMAGE, Mia,
Hudini); engineering tools/graphics (Pro/Engineer); programming IDE's all
exist for the Windows market. And all of them are easy to use, easy to
install. Why are they for Windows and not Unix? Because Windows is user
friendly; 80% of the computer world understands Windows. That's why all the
BEST corporate software exists in Windows, and always will for quite a long
time.
Unix does look ugly on the desktop compared to Windows for ppl using Windows:
it's not user friendly, intuitive, or shrink wrapped. It's ugly. :)
So there you have it... I hope you get the picture a little.
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> I have to agree with JT and the other messages I've read so far in
> support
> of Linux.
>
> This kind man must have a brain tumor the size of an orange to make the
> statements he's made.
>
> Which get's us to another part of Microsoft which is a pantload from the
> past via IBM. Customer loyalty.
>
> Because it turned the average street bumb into an
> administrator/operator,
> Microsoft has made a tremendous following in the last 20 years.
>
> People are proud of their operating system, despite the fact it's a blue
> screening mess, which has been proven NOT to have an ability to handle a
> load, which can't multitask equally, which appears that it's very own
> users and supporters have voluntarily cut it off from the internet in
> an effort to stop viruses!
>
> The Microsoft cult is a very strange one.
> This man is but one example of the Microcrap generation.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 02:23:06 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>As for the eBay thing: You need to search for "MicroVAX"
>and "VAXstation" instead of just "VAX". Some of these are among the
>best machines ever built. It is not at all unreasonable for a home user
>to have a VAXstation 4000 or a MicroVAX 3100 in his home. Some of the
>larger MicroVAX'es, VAX'es, and Alpha's, only an enthusiant would want.
I don't see _vastly_ more selection when I look to the more particular
models, granted that a $100 MicroVax 3500 _does_ show up...
<http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=335137577>
>But, more importantly, VMS is also available for Alpha. Things like DEC
>3000's are a dime a dozen these days (and have the added feature that
>they are incapable of running Linux, which, sadly, devalues them a
>bit). Multia's are also capable of running VMS. These are small,
>inexpensive machines.
My Multia recently died :-(. A very nicely engineered little machine,
albeit being rather wimpy I/O and memory-bandwidth-wise...
>> The years of the "Microsoft Hegemony" have been about as bad as the
>> times of the "IBM Hegemony." Unfortunately, in despising Microsoft,
>> seeing UNIX as the only persistent alternative leaves the risk of
>> abandoning one tyranny for another. All of the following options
>> are pretty bad:
>> a) A world where there are only IBM computers, IBM compilers,
>> IBM peripherals, ...
>> b) A world where there are only Microsoft operating systems,
>> Microsoft applications, Microsoft certifications, ...
>> c) A world where all OSes are modelled after UNIX.
>
>Thank you. Next time I'm in Dallas I'll buy you a beer. I didn't
>realize that you understood this. And this is really what I've been
>trying to get at all along.
<http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/oses.html> isn't there just to make fun
of Hurd and MVS and such; I most certainly _do_ approve of the notion
of there being some diversity in OSes.
>> I _can't_ see VMS making a serious comeback; too many pieces have
>> flown away, between RDB, David Cutler, and various Digital downsizings
>> between then and now.
>
>VMS sales, in Europe, grew 69% last year.
And the net product line effects were? If they had some growth in
Europe, but watched overall sales decline, I'd still consider that a
decline. I know a _little_ statistics; I'm not happy about claims
based only on one figure...
>> To an extent, tsm is a bit _foolish_ to suggest that VMS should
>> be reasonably suggested for home use. There are a variety of
>> reasons why it would be hard to make that work:
>> - Users have to search for cast-off equipment, which is hardly a
>> general solution;
>
>On your website you have a page dedicated to the Multia, and you give
>it a half-positive review. This machine runs VMS just fine (and, in
>fact, is one of the VMS machines I have at home). These things are a
>dime a dozen, and are easily accessible and very well-supported in the
>secondary market.
[...other criteria eliminated...]
I'll have to agree that cast-off VMS hardware (dunno about "bookware")
appears _reasonably_ available for the purposes of "the _most_ daft
hobbyists." (I gotta trademark "daft hobbyists," otherwise someone
else is sure to!)
I don't think there's enough of it out there in my area to, for
instance, provide enough to support the number of folks that are using
Linux. The local LUG has a couple thousand members. To the extent to
which that is bloated by the ease of getting on a mailing list,
there's still often a couple hundred that come to meetings, which
seems likely to me to seriously challenge the "cast-off-VAX supply."
>> - DCL sucks (I guess that's two "bashes")
>
>Perhaps, but it is still considerably better than the Unix shells and
>the Windows shells. Certainly more powerful and more user-friendly, at
>least.
Has DCL changed much in the last few years? The last
(more-or-less-only) DCL script I wrote (1996) was _severely_ hampered
by the fact that DCL didn't offer any kind of lexical scoping.
I am with Tom Christiansen in considering csh scripting harmful, and
am not entirely thrilled with Bash (blaming anything on Bourne shell
with a 25 year legacy seems not sporting; _sure_ it sucks...). Korn
Shell seems pretty decent, as is zsh, particular for command line work
involving sophisticated globbing...
--
If we were meant to fly, we wouldn't keep losing our luggage.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 02:23:55 GMT
ax wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ax wrote:
> > > The cooling down of Linux hype is the current event already
> > > happened, not the predicted future event. Such cooling down
> > > is considered by many as healthy "correction".
> > >
> >
> > IBM unloading Redhat stock is not a cooling down in my opinion!
> >
> > Microsoft is loosing it's shirt on the market as well!
> >
> > It seems to me that the entire market, including IBM are taking
> > some corrections.
>
> Linux stocks made the deepest correction. See the numbers:
>
> CORL (Corel): today's closing @$4 3/16, dropped 22%
> just one day today.
>
> It's been nose-diving from its peak @ $44
> 1/2.
>
> 44 - 4 = ?
>
> RHAT (Red Hat): today's closing @ $20 1/4
>
> It's been nose-diving from its peak @
> $151 5/15
>
> 151 - 20 = ?
>
> LNUX (VA Linux): today's closing @$50
>
> It's been nose-diving from its peak $320
>
> 320 - 50 = ?
>
> Neither IBM nor MSFT can match Linux stock correction.
>
> > You could NOT make an honest observation that Linux is COOLING it's
> > heels
> > based on market observations anyway.
>
> Ok.
> Linux is heating up.
> Linux market hype is cooling down.
>
> What does that tell us?
>
> >
> > Linux DOES NOT run on the market! Redhat might.
>
> Linux has gone commercial. Its position in the market
> becomes part of the picture.
>
> >
> > But LINUX DON'T.
> >
> > Charlie
Okay,
Then we can take it that your opinion is Linux is going to meet certain
doom within what time period?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 19 May 2000 02:24:45 GMT
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > So when a zealot of one cause changes to another cause, or
: > even the exact opposite cause, he tends to remain a zealot.
: I'm afraid I haven't seen this to be true in Stephen's case. Although
: again, I'm sure you'd be happy to provide examples.
I find it odd that people like Perry are so willing spend so much time to
try to prove someone else's credibility to be lacking. I mean, Jesus,
it's just *.advocacy, and moreover, these things are just bloody operating
systems! Winning an argument in these forums is easy. Simply think
rationally, and without heavy bias. If I can learn this, anyone can.
Keep drinking that milk, Perry! :-D
Furrfu!
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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]>
Subject: Re: w2k beats unix
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 02:25:21 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Serge J.Luca" wrote:
> > >
> > > www.tpc.org
> > >
> > > Any comment ?
> >
> > yea, even the tpc guys are starting to think that their benchmarks are
> > worthless.
>
> ah ha
>
> haha
>
> ahhahahahahhhahaaaaahahahhahahhahahhahaha
W2K can't be NT. How will it ever touch the heels of Unix?
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
