Linux-Advocacy Digest #723, Volume #26 Sat, 27 May 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Wally Bass)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Carl Fink)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails (Bill Sharrock)
Re: Linux Losers ("Junior")
Re: Linux Losers ("Junior")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Linux, Is it good? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Eric Bennett)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (tholenbot)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
LINUX help file for WINDOWS (Brian E Boothe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wallyb6@nospam (Wally Bass)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 01:12:11 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 02:19:58 GMT, "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The article is at:
>http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/oswars2000.html
I browsed this document, and found it far too superficial, mostly
stating the obvious.
Rather than focus how the OS looks two or three days out of
the box, I would much prefer some insights as to how you are
likely to get burned by each OS. Serious OS design problems,
like Windows non-management of DLL's (at least prior to W2K,
don't know about W2K) and associated "DLL Hell" problems
come to mind.
The bulk of the stuff in your comparison is the same stuff that
is in the shiny brouchures (or equivalent). The "gotcha's"
which occur after some use seem to me to be a much
more useful and less covered kind of topic.
Wally Bass
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:57:10 -0700
Cool down, cool down. I sure don't read Arclight as saying there is never
anything wrong with MS software. Obviously there would never be Service
Pacs 1, 2, 3, etc. and the multitude of random fixes and patches. On the
whole, the crappy MS stuff does well but they never get anything smoothed
until at least Version 3 of whatever ...this is shown time and time again
and likely is the result "we gotta keep up with the market" syndrome.
Remember IE 1 and IE 2 and IE 3? Money in its early versions? Failed
debris is all over the place. This is where Gates is completely lieing
when he claims to be the market innovator. What MS ignores is its
cause for over hyping its claims and causing pain and frustration
by admins and users along the way. Eventually they get it right which
is a small miracle in itself.
End of rant, Geo
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> Arclight wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 26 May 2000 10:15:10 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > What? I ain't no troll, just someone who is fed up of people whinging
> > at microsofts software when there isn't anything wrong with it.
> >
> > TTFN
> > Arclight
>
> Well, let's get straight to the point.
> If you take Windows by a technical point of view is shit. A supposedly
> multitasking system, designed for x86 processors, which doesn't use the
> protection mechanism existing since 80386 (1987), and therefore doesn't
> guarantee that an application cannot crash another application or the
> system, is simply crap. There is much more, but that's enough.
> If you take it by a user point of view, if a pre-installed system, with
> pre-installed Office crashes frequently, (and I may bring you quite a
> number of similar experiences, but one is already one too much) then
> this system is shit.
>
> If you can't find anything wrong with microsoft software, then there is
> certainly something seriously wrong with you.
>
> --
> Ing. Giuliano Colla
> Direttore Tecnico
> Copeca srl
> Via del Fonditore 3/E
> 40139 Bologna (Italy)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Fink)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 28 May 2000 00:06:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not enough of a programmer to contribute to technical aspects of
this discussion, but in the current LINUX JOURNAL they interview all
the contributors to the 1.0 kernel they could locate. One of them,
Warner Losh (contributor to some early non-x86 ports) says, "Linux
doesn't live up to its hype" and is now important in the freeBSD
project. His criticism is mainly that Linux's development model is
flawed, and he prefers the freeBSD single source tree.
Just thought people might be interested.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:00:27 -0500
From: Bill Sharrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "concedes the IT unit shied away from using some open-source apps, because
> they weren't convinced that the [OSS] software was capable of running a
> world-class services organization. "When we got here, [the tech
> infrastructure] was a total mess. All this spaghetti code patching
> everything together ... It's all we saw," says the source"
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2573035-1,00.html
>
> Read the whole thing...
>
> Linuxcare itself was using Lotus Notes and other properitary software,
> completely avoiding any open source software. I mean, if they couldn't trust
> OSS for themselves, how could they be the #1 support source for Linux? Can't
> find the right software, can't find the people to write it right.
Well, I did read the whole thing and once again I find myself taking
task over your unwarranted spin. This assertion of yours that OSS has
failed is positively nowhere in this article and I have no qualms in
saying you purposefully misrepresented it just to support your hang-up
over OSS.
Page after page, this article deals with poor management. From shoddy
development methodologies, foolish spending, wasting resources,
ineffective conflict resolution, poor communication, and some bad
morale, I tripled dare you to name a single company that would flourish
in such an environment. Even Microsoft could not sustain itself with
this much baggage let alone a startup banking on fast IPO money. Open
Source could no more cure those ills than could replacing all the
hardware they use. No paragraph in the article summarizes its focus
better than:
"Indeed, sources say Linuxcare was undermined by warring internal
factions, out-of-control spending and a management team hell-bent on a
speedy IPO. The result: Linuxcare's ship is taking on water, with
surviving executives scrambling to keep the company afloat."
And where do you get "completely avoiding any open source software?"
Even your verbatum quote from the article doesn't support this
assertion. Oh and I'll tell you this little secret. If I enter a support
contract with this company it will not freak me out if they have a bunch
of Windows PC's about or if they use a few Oracle databases or even if
they use Notes. As long as they can deliver the goods and give the tech
support I need on the OSS products I use I won't complain if it takes
them a while to completely live off their own dog food. It's the same
slack I cut MS when it comes to Hotmail. Or should I take a stance
similiar to yours and say Hotmail is more proof on how MS products fail
to get the job done?
You also must have missed the end of the article which pretty much
states the company isn't quite dead yet and that there is still some
good morale to build upon. And again, if you read those last few
paragraphs, turning Linuxcare around is going to fall completely on
management's shoulders and not upon OSS.
--
I know life's a bummer baby
But that's got nothing at all to do with me - Monster Magnet
------------------------------
From: "Junior" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Losers
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 22:09:27 -0400
Shoo....go away...
The Truth wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>You people are a bunch of losers.
>
>Each day millions of people use Microsoft product and are glad to do
>so. They send e-mails to their friends and lovers with happy messages
>and delightful attachments.
>
>You Linux losers preach that all this should be stopped because one of
>your low life counterparts writes a stupid virus. I'm sure these
>individuals do this from within the solitude of their lives driven
>only by spite. Much akin to the sad individuals who advocate Linux.
>
>Only pathetic computer geeks use Linux. Ugly stupid people who are
>shunned by society use Linux.
>
>Trendy happy people who laugh with their friends at popular
>restaurants use Microsoft products.
>
>Sad, poxy-faced perpetually virgin males use Linux.
>
>These are the facts. And you sad embittered individuals know this.
>
>The only way you pathetic people can gain any self-esteem is to force
>yourselves to use a system that most people who have better ways to
>spend their time regard as an esoteric oddity.
>
>Crawl back into you isolated holes and stop bothering those of us who
>are happy to have lives that don't revolve around building kernels and
>waiting for patches.
>
------------------------------
From: "Junior" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Losers
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 22:13:37 -0400
And...btw, just in case, yes...I am using Outlook Express, kill me, sue
me....whatever. I know you little MS junkies love to point things like
that out. Instead of wasting your breath insulting others who prefer
alternatives to Microsoft, why don't you open up that little mind of yours
and kinda take a peak at the other things happening in the world. The
world of computers does not revolve around Microsoft.
Julian
The Truth wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>You people are a bunch of losers.
>
>Each day millions of people use Microsoft product and are glad to do
>so. They send e-mails to their friends and lovers with happy messages
>and delightful attachments.
>
>You Linux losers preach that all this should be stopped because one of
>your low life counterparts writes a stupid virus. I'm sure these
>individuals do this from within the solitude of their lives driven
>only by spite. Much akin to the sad individuals who advocate Linux.
>
>Only pathetic computer geeks use Linux. Ugly stupid people who are
>shunned by society use Linux.
>
>Trendy happy people who laugh with their friends at popular
>restaurants use Microsoft products.
>
>Sad, poxy-faced perpetually virgin males use Linux.
>
>These are the facts. And you sad embittered individuals know this.
>
>The only way you pathetic people can gain any self-esteem is to force
>yourselves to use a system that most people who have better ways to
>spend their time regard as an esoteric oddity.
>
>Crawl back into you isolated holes and stop bothering those of us who
>are happy to have lives that don't revolve around building kernels and
>waiting for patches.
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 21:26:46 -0500
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The so called "faked" evidence wasn't
> > faked, but dramatized. MS proved that the evidence put forth in the
tape
> > was correct, even if the tape itself was scripted.
>
> This does not wash with me.
Who cares if it washes with you. It washed with the judge, and he accepted
the revised evidence.
> If you want to mince words, "Dramatize" is not the one to use and is
> even worse. "Fake" (meaning deception by Merriam Webster and friends)
> is the correct word and the fact that it was the prosecution and not
> the defense who revealed the true nature of the tape is the proof.
>
> Before now I was going to have you show how one could prove this
> dramatization was correct. If it was correct, why did it have to be
> dramatized? But this is not necessary because it was being presented
> as evidence in court without first revealing its scripted nature. I
> hope I don't have to explain the gravity of that.
You should really look at the actual transcripts. This is a non-issue, and
the judge has completely accepted the MS testimony.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: 28 May 2000 02:19:24 GMT
>
>Are you saying that it's faster under Linux?
No, I'm saying the Win98 print mechanism seems to bog down other uses of the
system. If you start printing, at least in IE5 (don't recall printing
elsewhere-- I don't use 9x for productivity), and go to another window to type
something, the characters will appear in spurts.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, Is it good?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:39:03 -0500
Sandi Taylor wrote:
> I am looking for Linux programmers. We will pay $1000 referral fees if we
> hire any person you refer to us. Let me know.
I hereby refer every living soul to you. You owe me $1K for everyone you
hire!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
p.s. -- Yes, Linux is good.
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 22:54:15 -0400
In article <EvSX4.6432$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brad"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <ihGX4.6337$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brad"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Windows 98:
> > > Well, this has to get covered as it's the most widely used desktop OS
> > > in
> > > the
> > > world sadly enough. The Big Mac is probably the world's best selling
> > > hamburger but probably not the world's best burger <grin>. Win98 is
> > > the
> > > big
> > > mac of OSes. It gets the job done for most people but not much else.
> >
> >
> > I don't know much of what the OS/2 and Linux folks see, but as for what
> > goes on in comp.sys.mac.advocacy, it seems all the Microsoft advocates
> > have pretty much given up trying to make arguments that Windows 98 is
> > worth using. All we really heard about in csma, for a fairly long
> > period before W2K came out, was NT. And now all we really here about
> > from the Windows folks is Win2k.
> >
> > Maybe Windows ME will change that? ;-)
>
> Windows 2000 IS NT.
People who post about it no longer call it NT, because that's not what
its name is anymore. Of course, it can be hard to break old habits. I
still say "Digital Unix" instead of Tru64.
> Why is someone who advocates MacOS a Mac advocate but if someone likes
> Windows NT they're a "Microsoft" advocate. I don't consider myself an
> advocate of either one and if anything, I think I would be firmly in the
> "Microsoft detractor" area.
I wasn't calling you a "Microsoft advocate". I was referring to certain
csma posters. You rarely post to csma.
I suppose Microsoft advocate isn't fair any more even for most of those
folks, though. They used to defend Microsoft to the death, but now a
lot of them seem to agree MS broke the law.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
"They should commence by beating their employees."
-Microsoft Spokesman Adam Sohn, in a failed attempt to be funny, after being
asked how companies should respond to the Love Bug threat
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:53:31 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> Sorry, but sometimes my patience with the "Anything but Linux is pure
> shit, and the people that use it are scum" crowd wears a little thin.
Actually, you'll find that lots of us like lots of other things. The only thing we're
approximately unanimous on is that *Windows* is pure.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:51:37 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> I realize that no book will completely cover my fears, but
> at least I might learn a little more about why Windows is puking up the
> last three days work I did, or maybe I'll even be able to prevent it
> from puking at all.
I found that formatting the disk and installing Linux provided more anti-puke
protection than reading a whole stack of books.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 23:03:38 -0400
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > Spelling Camp. ;)
> >>
> >> How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote: "Now it's
> >> time for Microsoft to puck blood."
> >
> >"puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
>
> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Eric?
Jumping into discussions again, Andrew?
> I wonder what Cornell
> would think of this use of their network resources?
How ironic.
> > He spelled it correctly.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
If you read the FAQ, you might recognize the proof.
--
On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:57:00 -0500
Lurch wrote:
> I'm evaluating a move to Linux & I wold like to learn more about
> the memory architecture and workings of the kernel etc. Anyone
> know where I can find this. I had a quick look in kernel.org but
> this is mostly (? all) just posts between the developers about
> what they are doing.
I vaguely remember seeing a big thick book on the Linux kernel last time I was
a Border's Books. Mayhap you'll find what you're looking for in a bookstore.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Subject: LINUX help file for WINDOWS
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Boothe)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 03:01:38 GMT
ive compiled a linux help file for windows and its currently available to
ALL just email me and i can send it to ya THANKS
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
