Linux-Advocacy Digest #189, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Jay Maynard)
Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch! (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (Loren Petrich)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 22:00:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 16:19:10 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I find it humorous that even amongst technologically inclined people
>there is no respect shown to others that are technologically inclined.
>Wierdos, geeks, nerds, dorks, space-case, freaks, etc.
I'm a geek and proud of it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:11:55 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Steve Wilbur wrote:
> The laws of physics (entropy) dictate there is no such thing as a free
> lunch. For there to be one, the perpetual motion machine would have to
> be a reality, and it is not.
>
> Even if the people using the software get it for free, get tech support
> for free, and even get people to use it on their behalf for free -
> there is still a cost - borne by SOMEONE. it's not free.
>
> There is no such thing as a free lunch
So who's claiming that digesting lunch does not involve consuming some
energy?
IanP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 22:07:48 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:00:28 -0400,
Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote:
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You do understand the difference between an APPLICATION and an
>>>>>>>OPERATING SYSTEM, do you not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do. Microsoft doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe the above question is still open. :-)
>>>>
>>>>Really? Then why did MS try to make IE part of the OS??
>>>
>>>They didn't. They made IE part of *WINDOWS*, which has always been a
>>>product consisting of *BOTH* an OS and a bunch of applications.
>>
>>Which they inseparably glue together. Poor design, and only done for
>>purposes of extending a monopoly.
>>
>
>What in Windows is "inseparably glued together"? Certainly not IE and
>the OS.
Well that's not what they said in the DOJ trail is it? And how do I
run win98 without running explorer.exe??
And since when has Windows always been a product consisting of both OS and
applications. They don't market it as such, and was Windows 1.0 that
way
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:15:45 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m9g2k$1ani$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8m7d0n$1rvd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > it's "web search" is handled either by inktomi or Fast
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How do you know this?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -Chad
> >> >>
> >> >> Because I worked at FAST and was a technical contact for Lycos.
> >> >
> >> > Do you work there now? I'm certain the answer is no because you would
> > know
> >> > that that relationship was dissolved over dissatisfaction with the
> >> > reliability and performance of that "solution."
> >> >
> >> > Lycos switch to Wintel to improve performance and reliability. Think
> > what
> >> > that says about what they were using before...
> >>
> >> That actually has nothing to do with why they switched to wintel,
despite
> >> what your lying-ass has to say about it.
> >
> >
> > oh really? and pray tell what is your crack induced version of reality
> > suggest their reason was?
>
> "I refuse to do your homework for you."
>
> > (this outta be good)
>
> How was that?
about as good as expected from a plagurizing idiot like yourself. Lycos
themselves provided the reasons for their switch: performance, relability
and scalability. Their unix boxes couldn't/can't do what W2K can so they
upgraded. Read about it from the horses mouth.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:15:46 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > it's "web search" is handled either by inktomi or Fast
> > > >
> > > > How do you know this?
> > > >
> > > > -Chad
> > >
> > > Because I worked at FAST and was a technical contact for Lycos.
> >
> > Do you work there now? I'm certain the answer is no because you would
know
> > that that relationship was dissolved over dissatisfaction with the
> > reliability and performance of that "solution."
> >
> > Lycos switch to Wintel to improve performance and reliability. Think
what
> > that says about what they were using before...
>
> That's like claiming the US Army is switching from the M-16 to
> black powder muskets for performance and reliability.
I quote the source, Lycos, themselves. Take it up with them. You are denying
what is their own claim. How ignorant...
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:22:55 -0300
Tim Palmer escribi�:
>
> Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I alreaddy told you its a DOS box on LIE-nux.
> >
> >You can't spell "already," and xterm doesn't have a command line.
> >It requires a shell for that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >C/
>
> What happen's when you open an xterm? A DOS box pops up, compleat with a COMMAND
>prompt.
xterm -e vi
No command line there.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:17:42 -0500
"matts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Lycos switch to Wintel to improve performance and reliability. Think
what
> > that says about what they were using before...
>
> Jesus. What's next. Windows runs for 3 months without a boot? And Intel
> being a good processor? My god. You need to understand technology and
get
> your head outta your ass before you talk.
>
excuse me fucking idiot but lycos themselves cite those two things (and
scalability) as their reasons for upgrading from unix to W2K - I'm only
telling you what they have told the world is their reasons. Take it up with
them if you disagree...
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:26:21 -0300
Tim Palmer escribi�:
>
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have graphics, and I haven't compiled a framebuffer SVGA kernel.
>
> You must have one of the holy graffix cards that Lie-nux actulley SUPPORT'S.
Or has a kernel precompiled with framebuffer support. I know I do.
> >> >> Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
> >> >> world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
> >> >> business people.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >And what revolutions has Microsoft made?
> >>
> >> Window's 98.
> >>
> >
> >It's a somewhat improved Windows 95, but it's hardly a revolution.
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
>
> It wa a hell of an emprovement over DOS.
Well, Linux is one hell of an improvement over CP/M. So what?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 2 Aug 2000 22:23:08 GMT
On 2 Aug 2000 16:15:45 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>Slava Pestov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I don't have to ty[e anything on Linux, either. In fact, I can't
>>remember the last time I ty[ed anything, on any OS.
>
>Lier. You tipe every time you log in.
No, he doesn't "tipe". He doesn't "ty[e" either. BTW, what is a
"lier" ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:24:00 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Bob Hauck wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 29 Jul 2000 11:57:44 -0500, Drestin Black
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Remember how we always laughed at people when they'd stay
> > stupid
> > > > things
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm laughing now, at the advocate who does not think before
> > posting.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >well, it turns out that Linux onces again "innovates" -
it's
> > now
> > > > > > possible to
> > > > > > > > >actually, physically destroy your hard drive using some
simple
> > code
> > > > > > (link
> > > > > > > > >provided)...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But not by accident, and not unless you are root, and not
just
> > on
> > > > > > > > Linux. This being a problem with the IDE _hardware_, it
would
> > > > affect
> > > > > > > > all other systems that support IDE. Some of _them_ do not
have
> > any
> > > > > > > > security at all so any user can do this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And...of course...who keeps promoting IDE instead of the far
> > > > > > > superior SCSI....Microsoft, of course.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No fuckhead - I promote SCSI, always have always will, don't
even
> > have
> > > > an
> > > > > > IDE drive. MS promotes SCSI, only a confused trolling fudster
like
> > > > yourself
> > > > > > would think otherwise. How pathetic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh really, then why does MS always spearhead the drive to "update"
> > > > > IDE protocols every time they become obsolete.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > and why shouldn't they? That has nothing to do with their prefered
HD
> > > > interface....
> > >
> > > You really are fucking dense.
> >
> > "The wise man is mocked by fools!"
>
> And YOU are the fucking dense fool.
<childish> no, YOU are. I'm rubber and you're glue, everything you say
bounces off me and sticks to you. na na na na naaaaa na</childish> maybe NOW
you'll understand me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: 2 Aug 2000 22:27:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
>and what laws are not. If there is still any confusion, then the
>authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
>"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
There isn't anything in the Constitution that specifies the use
of the Federalist Papers for clarification of its contents.
Even so, I think that the Constitution, the FP's, etc. have had
the fate of many sacred books, of being more waved around than seriously
studied.
In the Soviet Union, for instance, it was considered a bit
dangerous to know too much Lenin, because one will likely know more than
many Party bosses, and they don't like getting embarrassed.
>> Dreeeaaamm, dream dream dream, dreeeeeeaaaaaammmmmm.
>Apparently, CompleteDolt is incapable of imagining a system
>which doesn't depend upon violence.
Let's protect property rights on the honor system, shall we?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 22:28:29 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:43:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8m9a77$4dp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) wrote:
>> In article <8m6lmj$r17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The final result is that the functionality can not be moved away
>from
>> > the toolkit except by doing massive reingeneering of all current
>> > toolkits. Which will not happen.
>>
>> The closest you can (reasonably) get is to have a common protocol "on
>> the wire" so that different toolkits can talk to each other. This is
>> what Xdnd represents, and in doing so it is a great improvement on
>> what went before (speaking from experience!)
>
>Indeed, and Xdnd, and having toolkits that support it, is good
>because of that. Xdnd is "just" a nice specification.
Not quite.
The previous standard was Motif DnD.
[deletia]
It just didn't catch on amongst the free-lunch crowd.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:31:10 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8m411b$i2a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <uveh5.11098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest,
most
> > > > > > heaviest tasks.
> > > > >
> > > > > The PC bus architecture has the I/O throughput for that sort of
stuff?
> > > > > The usual tactic is to get a proper mainframe or Sun Enterprise or
> > > > > what-have-you[*], and I've never heard of a port of NT to that
size of
> > > > > iron...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, actually, it does. This is proven all the time. Benchmarks head
to
> > head
> > > > against the biggest iron Sun can muster is defeated by Compaq and
Dell
> > boxes
> > > > using Wintel.
> > >
> > > Only on machines that cost as much or more than similarly equipped Sun
> > > boxes.
> > >
> >
> > wrong wrong wrong wrong - again and again and again you are wrong and
proven
> > wrong and demonsrated pathetically stupid and did I mention wrong?
> >
>
> Really?
> Show me an NT box with 80 GB/sec bandwidth
> Show me an NT box with 700 GB/sec bandwidth.
who gives a shit if I could or could not - what does that have to do with
the topic at hand? Who cares if a single nt box could do this or not. You
miss the point COMPLETELY, again.
>
>
> > Sun is beaten by 3 times the performance on hardware that costs 1/2 the
> > price! Over and over it's proven that sun hardware costs too much and
> > delivers squat. The pierced masterbaters who worship sun hardware have
> > failed to recognize their idol has been left behind...
>
> Crack addict....
oh really? I've got the facts - you don't .
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:32:24 -0500
"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2mUh5.1$Tj2.146@client...
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:0AEh5.1878$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8m411b$i2a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <uveh5.11098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest, most
> > > > heaviest tasks.
> > >
> > > The PC bus architecture has the I/O throughput for that sort of stuff?
> > > The usual tactic is to get a proper mainframe or Sun Enterprise or
> > > what-have-you[*], and I've never heard of a port of NT to that size of
> > > iron...
> > >
> >
> > Yes, actually, it does. This is proven all the time. Benchmarks head to
> head
> > against the biggest iron Sun can muster is defeated by Compaq and Dell
> boxes
> > using Wintel.
> >
> Hold on a moment there Drestin, the best single box numbers for the x86
> architecture are in the 50K range for TPC/C from the ProFusion 8-ways,
> that's handily beaten by single box numbers for hi-end UNIX boxes. It will
> be interesting to see what can be got from the Unisys 32-way which has the
> memory and I/O bandwidth to compete with the hi-end UNIX boxes. But right
> now, the single box x86 systems are not in the same league, and the
> multi-box TPC/C numbers are not directly comparable.
I was not aware at all that we were talking about single box versus single
box. I didn't see that mentioned. I will be interested to see how 32 way
boxes from Compaq, unisys and others perform again these *nix boxes...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:33:04 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m76pd$1rvd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >
> >> > > If Microsoft has such a good platform, then why are the servers
> >> > > that come under the heaviest usage Unix machines?
> >> > >
> >> > > How come no Lose2000 machines?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> >> >
> >> > Now that's a compelling argument! Also completely false.
> >> >
> >> > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest, most
> >> > heaviest tasks.
> >>
> >> EVERY Fortune 500 company I have worked at keeps their most
> >> important databases on AS/400's and Unix machines.
> >
> > which demonstrates exactly what we've been saying all along. You are
full of
> > it! And, besides, so what if 1 or 2 F500 companies keep "most" of their
> > "important" databases on AS/400s and Unix machines according to
ex-employee
> > kookis. All the rest run on less expensive, easier to maintain/operate
and
> > more productive Windows/Intel boxes.
> >
> >
>
> And everyone is supposed to believe you why, exactly?
>
> You have shown yourself over and over to be a lying, self-important moron.
oh give me a break - this is from the gay poster child of self-mutilation?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:35:39 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If Microsoft has such a good platform, then why are the
servers
> > > > > > > that come under the heaviest usage Unix machines?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How come no Lose2000 machines?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that's a compelling argument! Also completely false.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest,
most
> > > > > > heaviest tasks.
> > > > >
> > > > > EVERY Fortune 500 company I have worked at keeps their most
> > > > > important databases on AS/400's and Unix machines.
> > > >
> > > > which demonstrates exactly what we've been saying all along. You are
> > full of
> > > > it! And, besides, so what if 1 or 2 F500 companies keep "most" of
their
> > > > "important" databases on AS/400s and Unix machines according to
> > ex-employee
> > > > kookis. All the rest run on less expensive, easier to
maintain/operate
> > and
> > > > more productive Windows/Intel boxes.
> > >
> > > Refresh my memory....
> > >
> > > Exactly how is re-installing the operating system, re-installing all
of
> > > the applications, and then having to tweak all of the settings through
> > > a gui every couple of months "easier to maintain and operate"
> > >
> > > In EXCEEDINGLY RARE the event of catastrophic failure on a Unix
machine,
> > > all you have to do is
> > >
> > > a) reload the absolute minimal base operating system (30 min max.)
> > > b) recover from last night's backup tapes.
> > >
> > > ta-daaaaaaaaaaaaah, perfect restoration.
> > >
> > > Unix engineer goes back to desk, relaxes, posts to Usenet,
> > >
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, drestin adress will be working overtime on his LoseNT box,
> > > long into the night...going home when he has achieved the mere goal
> > > of "getting it running"...and then will resume working on this ONE
> > > BOX for the next two day.
> >
> > No - you miss the scenario completely. When the rare even of a Wintel
box
>
> rare = 15 times/year.
plucking bullshit outta thin air again? Who knows where this number comes
from - who cares - it's full of crap. I don't even reboot 15 times a year on
purpose let alone 'crash' - hahahahaah - sounds like your unix failure rate
is creeping into your rants again...
>
> > failure occurs, my clients simply... continue onwards as if nothing
happened
>
> .............Because....nobody uses that NT shit anyways.....
hahahahaahhaahhahahahahahahhahahhahaha oh god you slay me... guess I better
lay off some sales people and techs cause we must be only dreaming of all
the W2K jobs were doing.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 2 Aug 2000 17:35:41 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Refresh my memory....
> > >
> > > Exactly how is re-installing the operating system, re-installing all
of
> > > the applications, and then having to tweak all of the settings through
> > > a gui every couple of months "easier to maintain and operate"
> >
> > Is that what you have to do when you run NT? I certainly don't.
> > >
> > > In EXCEEDINGLY RARE the event of catastrophic failure on a Unix
machine,
> > > all you have to do is
> > >
> > > a) reload the absolute minimal base operating system (30 min max.)
> > > b) recover from last night's backup tapes.
> >
> > As with NT.
>
> Have fun with that registry crap
>
no, YOU have fun with it - *I* never worry about it. Ever. at all. period.
hahahaah - kookus, everyone in here except your gay lover abracadabra have
put you in your place and pointed out your lies and fud and trolling but you
continue to try... you really crack us up...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 22:43:19 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:26:06 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CompleteDolt wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:58:54 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribi�:
>> >> What do you propose as an alternative to democracy?
>> >
>> >A Constitutionally-limited Republic.
>>
>> That _is_ a democracy. A republic is one form of democracy.
>>
>> >
>> >We have one in the US. Now if we could only imprison those
>> >legislators who insist upon passing unconstitutional laws.
>> >(Lets say, each federal legislator who voted for an unconstitutional
>> >law spends one day in jail for every day which said unconstitutional
>> >law was in effect. This will only have to be enforced 2, maybe
>> >3 times before they all get the message that unconstitutional laws
>> >at the Federal level will no longer be tolerated.)
>>
>> Who decides which laws are unconstitutional?
>
>The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
>and what laws are not.
<guffaw> Right - that's why there are so many different opinions
about those things - and that's why all Supreme Court decisions about
the constitutionality of a particular law are unanimous. Yeah,
right.
>If there is still any confusion, then the
>authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
>"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
Bzzzzt. Sorry, that is incorrect. The answer: the Supreme Court
decides, and has the last word. Thanks for playing, and please enjoy
the home version of our game...
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> What are the means you intend to use, or support using, to impose
>> >> your alternative way of government?
>> >>
>> >> Do those means involve violence?
>> >
>> >Of course not.
>>
>> Dreeeaaamm, dream dream dream, dreeeeeeaaaaaammmmmm.
>
>Apparently, CompleteDolt is incapable of imagining a system
>which doesn't depend upon violence.
Imagining? Sure, I can do science fiction. But there is no reason to
believe that such a thing could ever actually exist on any meaningful
scale. It certainly never has.
>
>How childish.
<chuckle> You dream up fantasy worlds, and yet call others
"childish"? <snort>
- SemiScholar
[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
******************************
