Linux-Advocacy Digest #238, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 20:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows98 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows98 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows98 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Tim Palmer)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:48:53 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:18:27 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yup, kill all Linux critics. I must be a WinTroll and FUD-mongerer!
>Long live Linux.
This much is certain: you have no clue how a Bughat installer
reacts to an all USB system.
This is somewhat peculiar given you whining about a USB printer
and scanner. As bleeding edge and trendy as you seem to be, you
don't have a USB mouse or keyboard on this mythical system of yours.
I do BTW.
The "X fonts are ugly" is also somewhat of a giveaway to.
...runs "CAD" but can't be bothered to try printing from
anything besides Netscrape or configuring it properly for
screen display.
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:50:02 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Cihl,
>> >
>> >Don't take this as personal. Linux critics - even Steve (if you can
>believe
>> >that) - serve to point out shortcomings, that the Linux community respond
>> >to. In the end it adds value to the Linux development effort. I
>sincerely
>> >look forward to the day that Linux is an excellent desktop OS.
>>
>> Who are you trying to kid? You are mostly recycling bad FUD and
>> exploiting the fact that Linux is not the "market leader" in your
>> litany. Your "experience" with linux printing is limited to
>> Netscape and your application requirements include an odd exclusion
>> of both a SERIOUS vertical application (CAD) and the very latest
>> version of the Monopolists Vendorlock-ware office suite.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> I'm surprised you didn't throw in a some problems with a
>> SoundBlaster Live card for good measure...
>>
>> --
>> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
>> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
>> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
>> |||
>> / | \
>>
>> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
>
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:49:49 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:37:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm having server problems here, but I can't wait to see the responses
>to this one...............................
Wolf, Wolf!
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:06:02 GMT
Charles Philip Chan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Terry" == Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > To all concerned, "Steve/Amy/Keys88/Heather/Simon" etc, is a
> > unbalanced, or paid Microsoft Wintroll, do yourself a favor, and
> > save some valuable time.
>
> No he is not paid by Microsoft. I have come to the conclusion that he
> is actually a B1FF filter written for our amusement ;-).
>
> Charles
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> =====================================================
> One Net to rule them all, One Net to find them,
> One Net to bring them all, and with Linux bind them.
> =====================================================
No no no.. He's another freaked out Microsoft stock holder.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 21 Jun 2000 18:01:11 -0500
In article <39512955$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yup, it is the engineer in me that draws me to Linux, but the businessman
>that sees the weaknesses. I install each new version with excitement,
>rejoice at the improvements, but is always brought back to reality when I
>realise that I cannot perform my job using this system (however, I am sure
>many persons in different, probably non-corp environments, can).
Have you tried your autocad under VMWare? Give the 30-day demo
a whirl.
How about StarOffice 5.2 (free download from Sun) that claims
to be even more compatible with all the MSoffice formats?
Other than the autocad, what specific job can't you do?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:10:01 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:08:16 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:20:43 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You had better post that ditty to the setup groups because you would
>> >> not believe how many people ask the question:
>> >>
>> >> I just installed Wordperfect, now how do I start it?
>> >
>> >So, what you are saying is, a lot of people are asking this:
>> >
>> >
>> >"I just installed a program, what is the name of the command?"
>> >
>> >Yeah, right. Try again liar.
>>
>> They don't want to tipe stuped DOS command they'd rather click an Icon that's why
>Windows is
>> still #1.
>
>So, you are saying that windows is popular because the typical user
>is a moron, and windows is popular with morons.
The typical user doesn't want to spend all their time lerning how to program the
commputer. They just
want to use itThey just want to use it.
>
>And you like windows because..... you're a moron too.
>
>Thank you for making that all clear now.
Whattever.
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
>C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
>D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
>E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
>G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:10:10 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:44:23 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:53:11 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:51:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>>>>ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>>>
>>> This is just your own fantasy.
>>>
>>> X can be quite fast, and more responsive than WinDOS due to the
>>> fact that all windows are managed by a central executive (don't
>>> you just hate it when IE5 hangs and clutters your desktop) and
>>> there is more than enough eye candy and good fonts for X.
>>
>>
>>That doesn't happen to me. IE is very stable in general but I have had
>
> ...the "it never happened to me" Lemming Mantra.
>
So if you run Windows and it doesn't crash and bern wile your installing
it and trash your hard
drive once you get it installed, y'our a "lemming"?
>>it crash once or twice over the last year or so (counting the Win2k
>>beats) I just kill iexplore.exe and that's that. My other IE windows
>>remian open and I just go back to where ever I was.
>
> That I find highly doubtful. Typically when one IE5 window
> tank they all tank. This can be quite annoying.
>
More Linnux FUD.
>--
> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:10:20 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:22 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 19 Jun 2000 06:03:04 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:18:06 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>or even a good LOGO interporator.
>>>> >
>>>> >Oh yeah, I want Win2K just to allow kids to program in LOGO!
>>>> >
>>>> >Brilliant!
>>>> >
>>>> >(IMO, one would be better off buying a used Amiga for that sort
>>>> >of thing, or perhaps an old Mac II.
>>>>
>>>> But not UNIX beacause LOGO is far too advanced for UNIX!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Logo is available for Linux. I have ucblogo-4.6-2. Now, MicroWorlds
>>>might be a problem.
>>
>>Photoshop is avallable for Windows.
>
> When we feel like spending that much for an image
> manipulation program it might be relevant...
>
>[deletia]
>>>> of us want an OS that supports the hardware we alreaddy have. Linux doesn't even
>come cloase
>>>> in hardwair support. Windows beats _any_ UNIX hands down.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Almost any external modem is supported. In fact, all I had to do for mine
>>>was plug it in and use modemtool to set the symlink for /dev/modem.
>>
>>EXTERNAL? Did Linux not suppoart the inntermal modem that came with your PC?
>
> Did Windows 3.1?
It supported the modams that came with it preinstalled.
>
>[deletia]
>
>--
> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:10:54 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:10:45 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> So now we have this Charlie Ebert person, who has YET to back up any
> >> of his wild ass claims with any proof.
> <snip of wasted bandwith>
>
> Yeah life is hard Simple Simon aka "Steve/Heather/Amy/Keys88".
>
> Charlie always backs up his posts with facts, and experience, something you
> have NONE of, being a lying anonymous Wintroll.
>
> This Wintroll, (simon777) has ZERO credibility, save your valuable
> time and killfile him.
>
> >
> >And as I said before Simon777.
> >Just pick up any computer magazine from your office or Grocery store.
> >
> >Now, is that so hard.
> >
> >That's a BIG BOY.
> >
> >Charlie
> Forgive me for answering this moron in your post Charlie, but hes been
> KILL-FILED here for a while now.
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 1 week 19 hours 53 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Terry,
He's just a Microsoft Stock Holder. Just a Microsoft Stock Holder!
That's all. Nothing to worry about.
He's scared because he's going to loose all his retirement money he
has in Microsoft Stock.
What he doesn't realize is Linux didn't do that damage to Microsoft.
Linux did not cause the Microsoft stock to fall!
IT was Bill Gates! Bill Gates caused your stock to drop.
There is something to be said about the a situation where by
the MOST SUCESSFUL SOFTWARE COMPANY IN THE WORLD HAS IT'S OWN
LEADER RESIGN FROM IT DUE TO HIS OWN ACTIONS.....
And let's not forget that the whole Windows thing is Bill's Idea
from the beginning.
DOS was Bill's idea from the beginning.
NOW, Bill is telling us that he's wrong and he's resigned....
Now, that's a company I would just love to have ton's of stock in .
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:10:30 -0500
On 19 Jun 2000 10:24:39 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Sorry, install shield doesn't come close to RPM in terms of its functionality.
>>>
>>>Nice try.
>>
>>Its' easy to use, unnlike RMP.
>
>You mean easy to overwrite system dlls without regard to other
>programs that still need the existing version? Yes installshield
>does make that easier than RPM.
It upgraids your DLLs for you instead of printing "dependensy error".
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:10:41 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:19:21 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 19 Jun 2000 06:01:22 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 18 Jun 2000 07:18:42 GMT, Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM.
>>>
>>>True. It doesn't matter what it can run on DIRECTLY, but the indirect effect
>>>of this is important. Something small enough to run on a 2M system won't take
>>>up too much overhead on a 160M system in all likelihood, and I'd rather run
>>>apps in my RAM than operating systems.
>>>
>>>>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user
>>>
>>>One computer for a family. Life is simplified by giving each family member his
>>>own directory to organize files, and his own user configuration. Even Win9x
>>>offers primitive multiuser support for that reason.
>>
>>But moast peopel don't USE it, and it can be turned off.
>
> You can also make passwords in Unix blank if you like, if you
> or your family members are unable to remember a simple password.
Thanks for the tip. I woant need it because I'm running Windows 98SE..
I woant need the
Blank-Password-HOWTO for it either.
>
>[deletia]
>>>That doesn't follow. How is Windows, which provides no over-network feature,
>>>winning?
>>
>>Nobody neads an over-network feeture. Windows wins without it.
>
> Then how come you keep bringing up the equivalent windows hacks?
>
>[deletia]
>
>--
> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:11:01 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:23:11 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:03:19 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Jeff Szarka wrote:
>> >
>> >> Agreed. The lie here is that if you run KDE and Netscape on that 386
>> >> and you're not gonna have much fun.
>> >
>> >It's only a lie if someone actually says it. I've never heard anyone pushing 386s
>for KDE and
>> >Netscape, have you?
>>
>> Well, when you say Linux can run on a 386 most people expect it to be
>> just like it would be on a P3-550.
>
>Only a fool would think so. People that recommend Linux on old machines generally
>recommend them
>for very specific kinds of service, such as file servers.
>
>Oddly enough, the only people that conclude that Linux should scream on a 386 is the
>anti-Linux
>crowd, how can't find enough valid criticisms, and therefore have to resort to
>fantasies.
>
>Oh, yeah. You still haven't pointed out the lie.
>
>
>> After all, Windows 98 will run on a
>> 386 too. Boot to dos mode and you can actually do something useful.
>
>Mmmm. Most people, including WinTrolls, don't confuse DOS with Windows. Yeah, we
>all know that
>Bill was lying when he said Windows didn't run on DOS anymore, but we still don't say
>we're
>running Windows when we boot to DOS.
>
>You're really having to stretch it today. You should take a break until you think of
>something
>challenging.
>
>
>
>> >> Linux is more flexibbal than Windows but most people hardly ever learn
>> >> how to use all of Windows so they're never going to care about
>> >> removing parts they don't use or adding other things.
>> >
>> >That's true. But is it a reason to cripple the power users?
>>
>> I don't think Microsoft has. Lets assume a power user wants access to
>> decent command line tools... cmd.exe plus a ton off freeware tools
>> works very well. Lets assume a power user wants a customized UI, there
>> are many free shell replacements for Windows... some are quite good.
>> There are countless tweaks for the basic UI as well.
>
>Yeah, if you download enough GNUware you can turn your Windows into a pseudo-Linux,
>the only
>differences being that it's slower, less portable, more expensive, and you still have
>to reboot
>and reinstall regularly.
>
>If you want a pseudo-Linux, why not go for the real thing?
>
Then you half to put up with a pseudo-Windows, that is slower, harder to
use, incompattable with you're
hardware, incompattable with your imbedded scripts, and inconsistant.
>
>> I consider myself a power user and there are very few things I can't
>> do with NT.
>
>Recompiled the kernel to free up the resources from any unneeded features lately?
I have better things to do than recompial kernals.
>
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:10:51 -0500
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:59:04 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Let us know when you have a mainframe in your living room.
>>
>> Better let your wife know first though :)
>
>I suppose you just are not aware of the fact that you can get a P390 card that
>plugs into your PC and supports the full S/390 instruction set. You can run
>OS/390, VM/ESA and Linux on it.
Wasent aware, but I don't think it'll change what users think.
>
>Gary
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:11:11 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:05:27 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:57:36 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:25:46 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>wrote on Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:45:08 GMT
>> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:43:51 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>>>wrote on 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>[snip for brevity]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX
>> >>>>>is "easy" and then you come back and say you half to type some
>> >>>>>cryptic-as-hell command to do something simpal.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Unix is not easy. Unix is in fact quite difficult.
>> >>>
>> >>> The simple is harder, however the complicated is at least possible.
>> >>
>> >>Very true; Unix also likes to combine many small tools in various
>> >>well-defined ways. The tricky part is to know all the small tools. :-)
>> >
>> > Nah, the tricky part is figuring out how a particular task
>> > decomposes into many smaller ones...
>>
>> In other words "wright it yoursealf".
>
>As opposed to "hope someone writes it for you, some year" in Microsoft
>land...
As opposed to "go to the softwhare store and find it alreaddy theare."
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > This is why I don't think a "GUI as powerful as any Unix shell"
>> > will ever come about except as an oddity thrown together by some
>> > avid Unix Shell hacker.
>> >
>> >--
>> > If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
>> > tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
>> > the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
>> > |||
>> > / | \
>> >
>> > Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
>C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
>D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
>E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
>F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
>G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:11:21 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:55:06 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:25:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>>I think I have. Linux runs about as well on a 386 as DOS does. The lie
>>>is that Linux is going to somehow bring your old machines back to
>>>life.
>>
>> ANY Unix on a 386 is considerably more useful than DOS on a 386.
>> It will likely be useful for something. You lie if you claim
>> that people such as my self are claiming that it would be useful as
>> a conventional desktop machine.
>
>
>You know as well as I do that if you say Linux runs on a 386 users
>expect it to run just like the pretty (minus the uglyness of KDE)
>little picture on the back of the box looks like.
Minus the uglyness of almost every other useless app that runs on Linux.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:11:31 -0500
On 17 Jun 2000 07:22:43 GMT, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 16 Jun 2000 09:31:56 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:12:59 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Actually, generally speaking, Linux does a better job at scaling than
>> >does NT. The one thing that NT does better is to assign processor
>> >affinity to devices. Other than that, Linux handles process scheduling
>> >and memory management much better.
>>
>> NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one
>network card
>> ought to be enough for anybody!"
>
>A lie.
>
>> >One can name the modem anything they want. Most distributions create the
>> >symlink "modem" to ttySn.
>>
>> And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the
>shortcut.
>
>A lie.
>
>> >I have yet to use a Postscript printer under Linux, I have not idea what
>> >you're smoking.
>> >Actually these 10K one function programs build one hell of a lot of
>> >functionality. This is a different, and arguably better, method of doing
>> >things than the Windows way.
>>
>> Yeah, if you like wrighting a shell script everytime you nead the computer
>> to do something that
>> would be simpal under Windows.
>
>Such as?
>
>> Oh realy? Then what ealse does Linsux do becides shuffal text and suck in genneral?
>
>A troll.
Then maybe youd care to anser my questchin.
>
>> >What part of X is bloated when compared to something like the GUI
>> >components in NT?
>>
>> Its 6 compleatly different "visuals" and the need to write 6
>> different versions of every drawing
>> function in order to be compatibbal with all of them. Most of this blote
>> ends up in the libearies
>> like KDE or even GTK. For this reason, the programs that only use
>> Xlib are usually use monochrome.
>
>Most of that is a lie.
Its' treu and you no it
>
>> >
>> >> >Microsoft's terminal server is a resource hog.
>> >>
>> >> X is a resource hog.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, and I disagree, comparatively speaking, however for the sake of
>> >argument, there is an important distinction. The X Server, whose purpose
>> >is analogous to Windows NT miniport and display driver,
>>
>> The purpoe of the X server is analogous to the WIN.COM of the Win3.11 days. It gets
>you from
>> "DOS mode" to "Windows mode".
>
>And what about Win9x's version?
>
>> But if it crashes your console its' just as uesless as if it crashed the
>> kernal so you mite as
>> weal reboot.
>
>No, you can usually recover from Telnet or ssh.
Its faster to just reboot.
>
>--
>Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
>Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
>DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
>This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
