Linux-Advocacy Digest #254, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Linux internal books ("bmeson")
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(James Lee)
Re: X can't be that slow (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Usage Surveys (was: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't
accept the future. (James Lee)
Re: Wintrolls in panic! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: X can't be that slow (OSguy)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (Jacques Guy)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Connors)
Re: X can't be that slow (OSguy)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Pete Goodwin)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. ("John
Hughes")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:56:28 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> 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
Actually dude, I think you missed the real point of Billy resigning as
CEO. He's made himself what, Chief Applications something or other, or
Chief Software architect or something. What he is really doing is far
more insidious than it at first appeared. He is stepping down from
being head of everything to put himself into position to be head of
Applications. Why do this? Well, it's pretty simple, if a little
lengthy to explain.
Bill knew that eventually Microsoft is going to lose the court battle.
This means that Microsoft will eventually be split up. Now, in this
case Bill had two choices. Either he stays in charge of the Windows
division (which I'm sure he would love to do) and makes a trusted ally
(Ballmer?) be in charge of the Apps division, or he puts himself in
charge of the Apps division, and leaves a trusted ally in charge of
Windows. If he were to leave the Apps to someone else, he was not
garaunteed what he really wanted. His goal (stated many times over) is
to see Windows on every computer, top to bottom. If he trusted that
apps division to someone else, they may not be in line with that goal.
They in fact, may actually try to make the apps division stronger. They
would do this by porting apps to other platforms, therebye creating
larger revenue streams for the apps division. But, if Bill himself is
in charge of the apps division, he can steer them in the "proper"
direction to keep Windows in the dominant position. Making sure that
the Apps division doesn't really make more than token efforts to port
apps to other platforms (making sure Mac gets older versions of Office
apps and other little moves here and there) he can still make sure the
apps division concentrates on creating stronger apps on the Windows
platforms. This will keep promoting Windows. He can trust the Windows
division head to do what is "right" to keep Windows in a dominant
position, and he trusts himself to do what is right for the apps
division to still leverage whatever they can to keep Windows in a
dominant position. His move to chief software architect (or whatever
the hell it is) was set up to make it look like this is what he was
headed for all along. However, the timing of it is extremely
suspicious. If the government does succeed in breaking up Microsoft it
will do absolutely nothing to help the industry if the Apps division has
Bill in charge of it. This is what Bill is working towards. If this
plan succeeds, don't expect to see Office on anything other than Windows
(and older versions on Macs).
I say that the government needs to stipulate that Bill should not be in
charge of the Apps division, if they need to break them up. I'm not
sure I completely agree that MS should be broken up right now. I would
much rather see them slowly dwindle away as people start using other
systems. But the process would definitely be sped up if they were
split. But then, for the rest of our lives we Linux people will hear
that Linux couldn't have succeeded if Microsoft wasn't split up to help
us. Even though we know that isn't necissarily the truth, it would
still be just as old as the crap we hear today about how Linux isn't
ready for (insert catchword of the day here). But, only time will tell
what happens.
It's kind of scary the kind of power that MS seems to have in the
industry (and hence in the world at large as PCs and computing becomes
more important in general). But we will just have to wait and see what
comes of all of this.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "bmeson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux internal books
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:02:09 -0400
Hi, I'm interested in Linux and I have certain experience in UNIX (as a
user, not system administrator). Is there a good book which explains Linux
internal codes? I have already got the classic 'design of UNIX operating
system'. Is it good helping reading Linux source code? Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:27:24 -0500
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:13:51 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Soon that best deal with be HP Linux or Gateway Linux. Just think, take
> >away M$ software and you can sell the computer for, at least, $100 less.
>
> Proof please? Provide a component-by-compenent breakdown of the parts
> (including Windows) in both Gateway's and HP's cheapest Windows PC's, and
> demonstrate that Windows adds "at least" $100 to the cost of production.
>
> If you cannot do this, then retract your statement.
I take it you think you are assuming that Microsoft just gives away
thier software? The software cost is about $100, or at least that's the
amount of money the OEM will usually nock off of your purchase if you
tell them you don't need Windows. But typically they will fight you on
it, not believing that you might install something else. They will
believe you are a software pirate, not an alternative OS user. For a
time OEMs wouldn't sell you a hard drive with a system if it didn't come
with software pre-loaded (hence the Microsoft tax). I'm not sure if
that still happens with WinOEMs or not.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 16:04:49 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong. Printing through ghostscript means a conversion from GDI calls
> to postscript and then running a postscript interpreter (ghostscript)
> to create printer commands. Printing to a winprinter is just a
> different conversion from GDI to printer commands instead of
> postscript. Sure it is more resource intensive but not to the extent
> you describe. Running ghostscript is actually going to be a lot more
> expensive though strangely enough it is exactly what Unix systems do
> as a general rule.
The advent of postscript was very impt to the *nix world. It allowed a
common page description language even if there are different printers.
It allowed sharing of output files, even if you have different printers.
It allows you to actually edit it.
In much the same way that Tex/Latex uses a device independent file
format. It is another layer, but it does abstracts away from the actual
printer codes. From the dvi files, you can create postscript or pdf.
The same can be said of file formats. Office products can't really be
shared. StarOffice, Corel, etc had to reverse engineer the file formats
in order to interoperate. On the other hand, if it were all in rtf or
html, xml, then people can share common things.
> Not for the printer, unless you plan on printing continuously. The
> modem - maybe. Given the CPU is 99% idle most of the time, using 30%
> or so for the modem doesn't seem like too bad a tradeoff to me.
The CPU may be 99% idle, but normally when it is printing something,
that is also the time that you are doing something useful. That is the
time when the printer takes away the cycle that you want. When you are
not doing anything useful, the printer is also often not being used,
unless you press print, and then walk away for coffee.
> What evidence do you have that indicates a Winmodem or Winprinter blow
> out the CPU ability of your machine?
The winmodem, yes. I don't have a winprinter, so I don't know.
But under Win98, every time the modem connects, my mouse cursor freeze
for about 2 seconds before moving. I have a 380MHz processor.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: X can't be that slow
Date: 22 Jun 2000 16:06:53 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:31:32 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I have tried running windowed games like quake under both windows and
>linux, and they were both absoloutly appauling, so I never tried it
>again.
THere's an enormous difference in the performance of the nVidia drivers
if you use XFree86 4.0. I've downloaded the Heretic 2 demo and I was
quite surprised and impressed with the performance. ( XFree86 4.0,
the latest nVidia drivers, pentium 350 and TNT video card. )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Usage Surveys (was: High School is out...here come the trolls...who
can't accept the future.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 16:10:08 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But do all web browsers accurately specify the OS they're
> running under? Does Websnapshot count all Netscape hits
> where the OS is not specified as coming from MS-Windows?
No. I use junkbuster as a filter, and it purposely sends out the
description as a MacOS, even though I use an x86 Solaris. Now, of
course, I am in the minority of minorities.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:07:52 GMT
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not a wintroll. It's called sarcasam... :-)
Sarcasm is so nineties. I don't know what sarcasam is.
This is so much more fun than reading alt.test.
--
Bob Bernstein | When they took the 4th Amendment, I was
at | quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When
Esmond, R.I., USA | they took the 6th Amendment, I was
www.ruptured-duck.com | quiet because I am innocent. When they
| took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet
| because I don't own a gun. Now they
| have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X can't be that slow
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:37:16 -0500
"Robert L." wrote:
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > can anyone awnser my question, what is everyone doing to X to make it so
> > slow???
> >
> > -Ed
>
> Misconfigured. If you put the SVGA server instead of the S3 server when you
> have a S3 video card.
> Bad drivers, it happen too in windows.
>
> When i need speed, i don't use X. My root don't have a windows manager ready
> ( just the one that is set automaticly by RH 5.2 setup.
Does this mean you come up in console text mode without X? Or do you mean you
get X up without a window manager (can be done, but it is a pain since your
apps probably don't know how to resize or move the window around without a
window manager)?
> Some people may think that X is kde or gnome, and they are saying that X is
> slow.
They are desktops, where kwm is the Window Manager for KDE, and sawfish or
Enlightenment seems to be the default window manager put with Gnome in the
distros. (I think gnome.org has adopted sawfish for the Window Manager under
Gnome).
> I use only games from both, i use qvwm instead, not for the windows look,
> but for the speed. Take 1/5 of the time that kde take to start.
> ( my Linux box have 16 Meg )
Hmm.....I don't think you understand what X is. If you're using any type of
window manager, you're using X (or MetroX or Berlin if you replaced X). The
only time I know that you aren't using X is when you are in console text mode
(ie - no X started), and you wouldn't be able to run qvwm until you started X.
Now, are you really saying you don't use Window Managers other than qvwm
because they're slower? I can buy that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 22 Jun 2000 16:31:22 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:40:33 GMT, MK wrote:
>I'd say there isn't such difference, if you think about it for a moment.
>That's simply paying this vendor for a privilege, or hiring the vendor. If
The problem comes when the company in question has a monopoly and the
resources to hire every major vendor. This is in some sense an "expansion
by stealth". Obviously, MS would not be allowed to merge with the
company in question. But this is a sneakier method of achieving much
the same effect ( in fact it's better for MS )
>company A hires company B to do the hardware for them, it is all OK. E.g. the
>Sun has separate companies for software and for hardware. I do not see any
Does it ? I thought there was only "Sun Microsystems" and they did both.
Stock symbol SUNW.
BTW, there are also clone builders.
>difference really between Sun hardware company producing only the hardware for
>operating systems produced by Sun software company and the deals between
>MS and hardware vendors.
"Sun hardware company" ( if it indeed exists ) are not allowed to expand
themselves arbitrarily by buying out every major hardware company.
And neither are Microsoft.
>Also, you could charge lots and lots of companies that they obstruct
>trade this way, too --
Yes, but these companies do not have monopoly power.
>E.g. my company has exclusive deal with certain intl corporation for technical
>translation jobs done in my country. Nobody else in Poland will get the
>job from that corporation, we're their exclusive subcontractor. Why?
>Bc it simplifies matters and delivers certain mutual benefits and duties. In
Yes, but you're not buying out every single Polish language translation
company on the planet and telling them they can only work for you.
>such deal. I don't see that as "obstruction of trade". Everything here is
It isn't unless you have monopoly power.
>done in conditions of informed consent. Everybody knows what they get
>and what they don't get. That makes deal fair.
If I point a gun at your head and say "give me your money and I won't shoot",
then you could also call that "informed consent"; in this circumstance
everybody also knows what they get and don't get. But there is some
strong-arming going on.
This is also the case with MS and OEMs. MS can say "only ship our product
or we'll put you at a disadvantage to your competitors by giving you
a worse price on our product". The OEM really has little choice.
>>That is OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE and it is ILLEGAL.
>
>I don't think that is obstruction of trade -- the other competitor
>is perfectly free to outbid the previous competitor. Which is
Outbidding a monopoly is kind of difficult.
>what e.g. BeOS maker tried to do. Explain to me please, how
>can what MS does be obstruction of trade and the same
>thing practiced to even higher extreme by BeOS -- 100%
>DISCOUNT -- not be obstruction of trade? Either both are
BeOS are not a monopoly. BeOSs "obstruction of trade" is unlikely
in practice to have a sizeable impact on the market.
>I disagree. The informed consent of anybody is not violated in such
>deals -- while violation of informed consent is certainly involved
>in a bribe.
In some instances it borders on blackmail. In this case, it's not
really "informed consent", it's "informed coercion".
> Everybody knows to what they agree. And customers
Just like you "know" that you "agree" to hand over your wallet
because it's better than having your head blown off.
>only gain on such deals --
What, by having Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft to chose from ?
> if many hardware vendors compete
>and many hardware vendors get OS with discount, that certainly
>lowers prices for consumers.
The end result is that the deck is stacked in favour of MS, because
the hardware vendors need to bust their asses to please MS. The end result
is that MS have a gun at their heads -- they can tell the OEMs "do exactly
what I say or else I'll blow your head off".
>BTW, even if other competitors don't want to enter the bid,
>they can still get their niche hardware vendors. You can
The problem is that they are "niche". This makes it easier for MS to
marginalise their competitors by perpetuating s situation where the
"mainstream" hardware vendors don't offer competitors products.
>buy the hardware with Linux preloaded, can't you? Everybody
Yes, thanks to the suit. Microsoft seem to have quietened down during
the suit.
Before then, it was quite difficult to buy Linux hardware. You had to
mail order it.
>gets their niche vendors. Instead of hardware vendors A and
>B both selling Windows preloaded machines and Linux preloaded
>machines, you get vendor A selling Windows preloaded machines
>and vendor B selling Linux preloaded machines. That's specialization,
>not obstruction of trade.
If hardware vendor A wants to preload Linux but can not due to the threats
of MS, then that is "obstruction of trade". To have someone tell you
"exclusively sell our product or lose your status as a mainstream
( as opposed to niche ) hardware vendor" sounds a lot like "restraint of
trade" to me.
>If you know somebody at RH or other Linux company, try
>to persuade them to make the same deal as MS did.
That's hilarious. Unfortunately, Redhat are not in the position to make
the same kind of threats that MS has been making.
>If you want REAL obstruction of free trade, why don't you look at
>what Apple was doing. That's obstruction. Which, BTW, backfired
>on Apple, so intervention of anti-trust was not even necessary.
I agree -- Apple also obstructed free trade.
>Leave it to the market. It really does the job best.
Even your favourite sacred cow, "the market" needs to have rules. That's
why we have things like SEC regulations and corporate law.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:35:07 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
> won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
It's more like 90% of the hardware won't run Linux: the keyboard, the
mouse, the monitor, the disk drives, the mouse mat... in fact
the only thing that will run Linux in those machines is a
piddling wee silicon chip the name of which escapes me right
now. Why, even the power supply won't run Linux! Make that
98% then.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 15:54:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not that I care to defend him for Trolling, but Linux without a GUI is
> > even harder to use
> > that Linux with KDE.
>
> Thats a matter of opinion.
Sigh. Man, take a stance and whatever comes along shoot it down at whim,
that way, your strawman looks like the most beautiful strawman in the
whole world. Problem is, you have NO idea where I'm coming from (which
will be adressed).
Okay. Lets say you wanted, oh I don't know, create an XML document.
Now, you have two choices, a command line (that is using your favorite
text editor and hard coding it yourself), or using the Graphically based
XML editor of your choice. Which is easier? In the MAJORITY of home
uses, GUI's are easier to deal with. Command line params are not for home
users. I know my Mom can barely use AOL much less parse:
#!/bin/sh
let x=0
while [ ${x} -le 360 ]; do
(
cat model.in1
echo ' by rotation x ' ${x} ';'
cat ./model.in2
)>model_temp.in
set -e
bobscript -r < model_temp.in > ${x}.r3d
nawk ' NR == 5 { print "1 1 1 RGB background \
colour; black"; next; } { print }'<${x}.r3d>${x}_2.r3d
render -tiff < ${x}_2.r3d
if [ ${x} -lt 10 ]; then
mv render.rgb files/000${x}.tiff
elif [ ${x} -gt 9 -a ${x} -lt 100 ]; then\
mv render.rgb files/00${x}.tiff
elif [ ${x} -gt 99 -a ${x} -lt 1000 ]; then
mv render.rgb files/0${x}.tiff
else
mv render.rgb files/${x}.tiff
fi
rm -f ${x}.r3d
rm -f ${x}_2.r3d
let x=x+5
done
To anyone who uses bash and knows how to use Molscript and Raster3d
this is trivial to parse and its obvious why it exists. To someone who
doesn't give a poo about shell scripting or programming, this ranges from
somewhare parseable to Sanscrit.
Power. Sort of.
Extendable. Definitely.
Easy. No.
> > Second, Linux may be a kernel, but it is most
> > often distributed for use
> > at home with a GUI and most people refer to this
> > hybrid as still being Linux.
> Youve missed the point. The point is that since
> KDE *isnt* linux, if you dont like it you can use something
> else without tossing the entire operating system.
KDE isn't that much different from Gnome, which are the main GUI's for
Linux distrib. Most of the changes are cosmetic. It's like replacing one
WinClone for another WinClone. Personally, on an astetic level I like
Gnome more for some reason.
Usually Gnome/KDE replacements are little more than Gnome/KDE with
different colors and buttons or a copy of the GUI of someone elses OS's.
I've personally never really been impressed.
Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
its absolutely useless. A kernel without init, cp, mv, ls...you get the
point...is usless (unless you put kernel level firewall on it, then it
might be the best firewall in the whole world). Most people, including
those who respond to drool like "Linux blows cause i can't use office on
it" (when in fact you can with Wine) still call the combination of kernel
(aka Linux) with its tools and a GUI...well Linux.
> I understand that its incredibly difficult for windows users to
> understand a GUI that is not so intrinsically built into the operating
> system as to be impossibleto replace.
I'm not a Windows users. In fact I have NEVER used Office (any version,
which is the main app for windows). I'm not a "Linux User" either. I do
have a old P100 sitting around that I turned into a mp3 streamer for my
home network. In fact if you want to be technical, Im a "Unix User",
since I sit in front of Unix Boxes all day at work.
Keep building that strawman.
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1
GAT d? s: a- C UI+$ U- P+ L- E- W+ N++ o++ K w---
O- M+$ V V-- !PS Y+ PGP t+ 5 X+ R- tv b+ DI+++
D G e++ h-- r++ z+
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X can't be that slow
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:04:26 -0500
OSguy wrote:
Never mind...Read Robert's post crosseyed and misunderstood. Am trying to cancel
my reply.
Sorry.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 22 Jun 2000 08:14:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>We never did hear if you took any of the suggestions on tuning and
>retried your tests. Or is this one of those Mindcraft type of
>examples? Tune windows perfectly and let Linux sit with non-optimized
>settings.
I never tuned Windows, just as I never tuned Linux. I keep on saying this,
but both are 'out of the box' installations - in that I never tinkered with
any settings.
>I don't agree that Linux is tree times faster than Windows, but for most
>things it is somewhat faster. I'm not a benchmarking person, so I don't
>have solid numbers, but I am interested in if you ever re-ran your test
>with any of the suggestions that were given to you. This to me would be
>the equivalent of running your test under Windows without loading the
>proper drivers to your motherboard/IDE controller/vide card/etc. Tuning
>and driver loading are essential to get a well optimized system.
What tuning on Windows? Are you talking about fixing the page file to a
specific size - I didn't do that. Are you talking about fiddling with
parameters in SYSTEM.INI - I didn't do that either.
If you're talking about installing correct drivers, how is that tuning? I
let both systems detect the driver. In Windows case, I replaced the NVidia
driver because I wanted UT to work better. In Linux case, it is not running
with X Windows therefore the video driver tuning is not relevant (unless
console mode is _particularly_ slow!).
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:10:21 +0100
I think thats WEB SERVER share.
Here is another IDC stat.
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/reed/990802sr.htm
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8itahu$fuc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> well, linvocates claim linux is 'better' than other os-es, but they also
> claim linux has 30% desktop share, so...
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>LINUX IS HERE TO STAY, AND AT THE RATE THAT IT IS GROWING/DEVELOPING,
> > >>>IT WILL BE THE MAJOR OS OF THE FUTURE.
> > >>
> > >>As long as .3 percent of total market share is what you are looking
> > >>for, I would say you are right on track.
> > >
> > >In the business world, Linux market share is probably 30% --
> > >one hundred times the .3% figure repeatedly posted by our
> > >resident liar, Steve/Mike/Simon (for which he never gives
> > >a reference).
> >
> > 30 PERCENT!!!! ???
> >
> > What kind of drugs are you on? You'd be hard pressed to find a single
> > secratary in NYC that is running Linux on her desktop.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
