Linux-Advocacy Digest #211, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom
Re: GPL & freedom ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Ingemar
Lundin")
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: GPL & freedom
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
Re: The Linux Experience (Jacques Guy)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("JS/PL")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (David M. Butler)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: GPL & freedom (.)
Re: New Linux Install (Josef Oswald)
Re: GPL & freedom
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Erio
Michelangelo C.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:28:06 -0000
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:40:14 -0000, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>:> Except that it doesn't even meet that goal. Sure, it gives you the
>:> freedom to run the software, copy it, distribute it. You cannot study
>:> it, change it, or improve it for any reason other than personal use
>:> without having your actions dictated to you by the GPL.
>:
>: Sigh. The goeal is to gurantee that any changes are given back to the
>: community fo furthur study/change. Again your trying to change what is
>: meant by "free".
>
> Sigh. That's most likely because 'what is meant by "free"' simply
> isn't, regardless of whatever deceptive spin RMS puts on the
> semantics.
No, he just has a less simplistic notion of what "free" constitutes.
>
>:> Now, the first three items are guaranteed by other, less restrictive
>:> licenses as well, and the last three are not more free than other
>:> licenses. So I fail to see how it cain be claimed that it is.
>:
>: Please name another license that gurantees that all derived works are
>: given back for further study/change.
>
> That's just it; this aspect is about as far from "free" as one can
> get.
Not at all. Any real liberty requires the "rule of law" to keep
robber barons and warlords in check. That is simply a side effect
of human nature at this point in our history.
>
> If this is your goal, by all means use the GPL; just don't lie to us
> that it's in any way "free" and expect us to actually swallow it,
> because it simply isn't so.
[deletia]
--
Hurewitz's Memory Principle:
The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional
to... to... uh.....
Such a foolish notion, that war is called devotion, when the greatest
warriors are the ones who stand for peace.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:44:55 -0500
"James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's a license; get over it. All licenses restrict your rights and/or
> access to code in some fashion.
No. Neither the BSD license or the X license restrict your rights in any
way.
> It's the price you pay for having some entity take stewardship over a
> code base.
Nope.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 10:14:21 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q844a$bqm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:u0Mx5.237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Run setup on a blank disk, and choose to format as NTFS. It takes
about
> > 20
> > > seconds max to format. Try it and see, you might be surprised.
> > >
> >
> > let me get this straight Stuart...?
> >
> > i have installed Windows 2000 on at least 25 machines so far, with
cd-rom
> > boot of course, but about tree times using the four boot disketts,
> > so -exactly *when* and *how* -using these diskettes, are you presented
> with
> > the option of doing a *quick* format?
> >
> It just does it. Unlike the old NT 4 setup which did a slow format to
FAT,
> then ran convert on the next boot, it just does a quick NTFS format. On
all
> the machines I've done so far it doesn't grind away like NT 4 used to
doing
> a slow FAT format, it takes about 20 seconds to do the NTFS format.
You are not really talking about formatting the disk are you, you are just
talking about installing the file system on an already formatted disk.
Correct?
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:34:16 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:8q87pb$chg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8q844a$bqm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:u0Mx5.237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Run setup on a blank disk, and choose to format as NTFS. It takes
> about
> > > 20
> > > > seconds max to format. Try it and see, you might be surprised.
> > > >
> > >
> > > let me get this straight Stuart...?
> > >
> > > i have installed Windows 2000 on at least 25 machines so far, with
> cd-rom
> > > boot of course, but about tree times using the four boot disketts,
> > > so -exactly *when* and *how* -using these diskettes, are you
presented
> > with
> > > the option of doing a *quick* format?
> > >
> > It just does it. Unlike the old NT 4 setup which did a slow format to
> FAT,
> > then ran convert on the next boot, it just does a quick NTFS format. On
> all
> > the machines I've done so far it doesn't grind away like NT 4 used to
> doing
> > a slow FAT format, it takes about 20 seconds to do the NTFS format.
>
> You are not really talking about formatting the disk are you, you are just
> talking about installing the file system on an already formatted disk.
> Correct?
>
i doubt he knows himself what he is talking about....
/IL
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:38:56 -0000
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:08:24 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
>wrote:
>
>>>I did not bother with tarball.
>>>
>>>Got it?
>>
>> However, someone did.
>>
>>>
>>>Good.
>>
>> That severely undermines the notion that "bad linux documentation"
>> was the cause of this person's worries.
>>
>
>Okay - what more steps should the user have taken?
In Redhat: NONE.
[deletia]
xfs is already there you ninny.
Although for an upgrade, something on the order of directing
the user to go to the shiny happy rpm/update tool and entering
"xfs" would likely be a good start. Even directing them to
rpm itself would be more sensible. (XF3 versus XF4 being an issue)
As far as the "post-xfs" documenation goes, that's on Redhat's
support pages and not too terribly difficult to find.
--
Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.
Never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own.
-- Nelson Algren
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:49:06 -0000
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 12:44:55 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It's a license; get over it. All licenses restrict your rights and/or
>> access to code in some fashion.
>
>No. Neither the BSD license or the X license restrict your rights in any
>way.
Actually they do. They do so in a fashion that is considered
trivial by some but they still aren't quite public domain.
Then they would really be free of any sort of encumberance.
If you're that much into being a vessel for corporate welfare,
why bother with a licence at all?
[deletia]
--
One would like to stroke and caress human beings, but one dares not do so,
because they bite.
-- Vladimir Il'ich Lenin
Life exists for no known purpose.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:42:22 GMT
In article <8q807l$2hnb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In comp.unix.admin Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No. It would do so if it had been submitted and failed.
> > For example, you probably have never had a DNA exam to prove you
> > are your father's son. By your logic, you are not your father's son.
>
> Well of course he's his father's son. I suspect you mean "the son of
the
> person you assume to be your father" ;-)
Hmmm... this is hard to say right, isn't it? ;-)
How about "you assume your father is also your biological
father" ?
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:52:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:08:24 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Okay - what more steps should the user have taken?
>
> In Redhat: NONE.
>
>[deletia]
>
> xfs is already there you ninny.
Okay, I tried to bring this back to a discussable level, but there isn't any
point. You once again prove that you lack basic reading skills.
I explained very carefully. She knew she had XFree86 3.3.6. From the XFree86
official documentation, she knew that 3.3.6 didn't include TrueType support.
It is COMPLETELY reasonable for her to assume at this point that she needs to
add that capability. She did not know that RedHat ships a custom version, and
she didn't have any reason to suspect it.
In fact - never mind. I'm gonna do what most users on this forum have probably
long-since done and killfile you. You contribute nothing, repeatedly prove
your stupidity and lack of comprehension, and repeat the same tired posts even
when the issues are addressed.
Wow - you're good.
> Although for an upgrade, something on the order of directing
> the user to go to the shiny happy rpm/update tool and entering
> "xfs" would likely be a good start. Even directing them to
> rpm itself would be more sensible. (XF3 versus XF4 being an issue)
>
> As far as the "post-xfs" documenation goes, that's on Redhat's
> support pages and not too terribly difficult to find.
>
Shiny/happy - sounds just right for you.
I've only ever read one regular poster on UseNet with a pattern of idiocy to
match yours. Congrats.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:58:23 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
This thread has already generated a lot of posts. Now,
quoting the original post:
>Spent some of my Sunday helping out a friend with a problem.
[...]
>"I'll mail you a link. Download the tarball and make sure you follow the
>instructions in the INSTALL file."
Now comes the question: what was that link, precisely?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 13:53:48 -0400
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Name isn't the only difference between what was an early build of NT5
and
> > what is Windows 2000 final (Pro, and Servers).
>
> You're right, they surely added some more bugs. And took some stuff out.
What bugs were added, and what was taken out? Surely you can back the
statement up with a couple examples.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 14:09:56 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:41:04 -0400, David M. Butler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> On 18 Sep 2000 23:55:47 GMT, Steve Mading
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >finding out that I have to use a scsi emulation driver. Find
> >> >out that this means recompiling the kernel - do that, then
> >>
> >> Game over troll.
> >>
> >> You've just amply demonstrated that you don't know what the
> >> HELL you are talking about and simply like to regurgiate the
> >> bad FUD of others.
> >
> >??? I fail to see where he was providing false information here? I had
> >to
> >do the same thing to get my CD-RW to work. Technically, if the kernel's
>
> That's entirely unecessary.
>
> Redhat 6.x has all of the modules in place already and Mandrake
> 7.x just plain sets up everything automatically. At the very
> least you have to twiddle with a boot or module configuration.
Well, apparently Mandrake 7.0 didn't like my CD-RW then, since it refused
to acknowledge it until I fixed the kernel. Wouldn't mount, wouldn't
read.... and yes, I had the proper boot config, and the modules would not
allow me to load them while the ATAPI drivers were compiled in the kernel.
Maybe I have an odd setup, but that's exactly what the HOWTO said I had
to do, also. I just checked.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:22:24 +0100
>7. Store it in a tank of anti-freeze.
>
8. After performing all the above when it still crashes, give up, insert
linux cd and install it - no more crashes.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:25:32 +0100
>
> We've heard THAT one before...
At least 5 times - Win3.1 launch, win 3.11 launch, win95 launch, win98
launch and win98se launch.
(and that is if you ignore the launch of NT3.0, NT3.5, NT4, NT service pack
1 to 6 ...).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:14:06 -0000
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:52:20 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:08:24 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Okay - what more steps should the user have taken?
>>
>> In Redhat: NONE.
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> xfs is already there you ninny.
>
>Okay, I tried to bring this back to a discussable level, but there isn't any
>point. You once again prove that you lack basic reading skills.
>
>I explained very carefully. She knew she had XFree86 3.3.6. From the XFree86
>official documentation, she knew that 3.3.6 didn't include TrueType support.
So? That's why you should go to the homepage of your distributor.
She wasn't just upgrading "Xfree 3.x" but an entire whole system
that may or may not include other things.
This is why when you are giving advice to people you should have
something resembling a CLUE and why your little "story" is more
about BAD ADVICE than bad documentation.
>
>It is COMPLETELY reasonable for her to assume at this point that she needs to
>add that capability. She did not know that RedHat ships a custom version, and
>she didn't have any reason to suspect it.
>
>In fact - never mind. I'm gonna do what most users on this forum have probably
>long-since done and killfile you. You contribute nothing, repeatedly prove
That won't change the fact that you a Troll that wishes to alter
reality to suit his own petty little agenda. You constantly choose
to ignore rather major bits of information while trying to whine
about the state of information present.
That is rather absurd.
>your stupidity and lack of comprehension, and repeat the same tired posts even
>when the issues are addressed.
My comprehension is fine.
You're a troll or a moron with an axe to grind.
>
>Wow - you're good.
That better describes you actually.
>
>> Although for an upgrade, something on the order of directing
>> the user to go to the shiny happy rpm/update tool and entering
>> "xfs" would likely be a good start. Even directing them to
>> rpm itself would be more sensible. (XF3 versus XF4 being an issue)
>>
>> As far as the "post-xfs" documenation goes, that's on Redhat's
>> support pages and not too terribly difficult to find.
>>
>
>Shiny/happy - sounds just right for you.
>
>I've only ever read one regular poster on UseNet with a pattern of idiocy to
>match yours. Congrats.
Delude yourself all you like.
--
Life is a game. Money is how we keep score.
-- Ted Turner
The soul would have no rainbow had the eyes no tears.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: 19 Sep 2000 18:16:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Nobody is forcing people to use GPL.
> Actually, the GPL does force others to use the GPL. The description of the
> GPL even talks about this force. Basically it encourages employees of
> companies to use GPL'd code, and then when the company goes to release the
> code it should be "explained" to them that they can't do so without
> releasing the source. GNU then says "The majority of them will go ahead and
> release the source rather than not make the tool available".
This sounds very much like a very old and well worn market strategy called
'culling'. The point is to trap your market into your product and make it
extremely difficult to change brands---while at the same time distributing
your product for you with every move.
The interesting about all of this is that 'culling' is exactly what microsoft
has been doing all this time (not that theres anything particularly wrong with
it, or that its more unethical than any other type of marketing strategy).
There appears to be something of a choice of consistency here; either its ok
when both GPL *and* microsoft do it, or its not ok when either one of them
do it. The arguments are generally similar.
> I call that attempting to force companies to use the GPL by hijacking their
> IP and saying "Pay up or the code dies".
Which is modus operandi for every consultant ive ever met who knows at
ALL what theyre doing. Never give the client access to the final product
until you have been payed in full. If they dont pay, they dont own the
product, if they dont own the product, it is still property of the seller,
and theirs to do with what they wish.
=====.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: New Linux Install
From: Josef Oswald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:24:44 GMT
"James M. Luongo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I plan on installing Linux Mandrake 7.1 for the first time. I need some
> help. How big should the partitions be? And, I heard something about
> LiLo not recognizing a Linux partition after a certain disk cylinder (or
> sector, whatever). I think it was 1023, but I'm not sure. Is this
> true? Help!
If you install linux on one Disc all by itself, then you don't need to
worry because the set-up tool will determine everything.
If you do install it as a dual-boot then you would need to be careful
:-)
Since I have not installed Mandrake I am not sure but I guess that
there is certainly a tool for the install.
Also there are quite a few Internet sites ( for newbies) that deal
with all those questions, just put Linux and newbies in a
search-machine and you will be _pleasantly_ surprised at how many
sites are out there.....
deja.com too is a great resource of information as well...
hth.
--
Josef Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
registered-linux-user # 13.818 at http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:25:35 -0000
On 19 Sep 2000 18:16:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Nobody is forcing people to use GPL.
>
>> Actually, the GPL does force others to use the GPL. The description of the
>> GPL even talks about this force. Basically it encourages employees of
>> companies to use GPL'd code, and then when the company goes to release the
>> code it should be "explained" to them that they can't do so without
>> releasing the source. GNU then says "The majority of them will go ahead and
>> release the source rather than not make the tool available".
>
>This sounds very much like a very old and well worn market strategy called
>'culling'. The point is to trap your market into your product and make it
>extremely difficult to change brands---while at the same time distributing
>your product for you with every move.
>
>The interesting about all of this is that 'culling' is exactly what microsoft
>has been doing all this time (not that theres anything particularly wrong with
>it, or that its more unethical than any other type of marketing strategy).
>
>There appears to be something of a choice of consistency here; either its ok
>when both GPL *and* microsoft do it, or its not ok when either one of them
>do it. The arguments are generally similar.
You can stop mooching any time you like actually. There are really
no network effects to speak of when it comes to GNU. You are free
to choose any other compatible implementation.
THIS is in stark contrast to Microsoft.
Also, there is variation in terms of the degree to which Free
Software is viral. Quite a bit of it is not quite as extreme
as the whiners would have one believe.
Otherwise, Oracle on Linux could not exist as it does.
So, their point is ultimately moot.
[deletia]
--
You're all clear now, kid. Now blow this thing so we can all go home.
-- Han Solo
"Are you sure you're not an encyclopedia salesman?"
No, Ma'am. Just a burglar, come to ransack the flat."
-- Monty Python
------------------------------
From: "Erio Michelangelo C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:28:34 +0200
Reply-To: "Erio Michelangelo C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
First of all, I'm no advocate nor I do party for whatever product, I
like real facts, not (marketing) words.
Second off, there are many experiencing W98 SE being a stable system if
correctly "configured" (and used). Being one of them, I must say that Osugi
was pretty unlucky in his experience 'cause on mine W9X systems Starcrfact,
TFC and other "tough" applications like AutoCAD 2000, 3DS Max R3.1,
Photoshop 5.x, Audio/Video and other graphics editing tools, Half-Life/TF,
System Shock 2, Quake 3, etc. work really good... I'm *not* saying I never
had problems, God only knows how many, but they were solved in 90% of the
times by "simple" hw/sw upgrades and I needed things like this for many
other OSes too... starting from Linux when used with the X-Windows system
and a window + desktop manager... not to talk about similar problems on the
PowerPC & G3/G4 based Macs when I used a new OS because I upgraded some
software (especially the darn Quark Xpress).
The other 10% was due to a bad management of resources (speaking
generally, even about mangaemnt of temporary files in it) by the system
and/or the applications and/or even the user her/himselves (includin myself
too, at times... not only my customers), and also by using some other
"minor" sw that bugged the "major" products (IE included).
There's 2 much hw/sw combo out there fro the Windows family, and
unfortunately this is at the same time the strenght and the faulty property
of the OSes made by "mom MS". I agree that they too don't do much to test
some basic functions at times while they seem to implement "wizardies"
more... but that's also why our industries work this way, and we consultant
often earn $$$ for it; we can still blame them when something goes wrong,
but if we wanted to do another job we could do it... everything in life is a
compromise.
I remember NextStep being by far the best OS I ever saw... the lack of
the applications made it "die... too bad... I don't renounce to experiment
new OSes when I've time or if, better, when it is really needed, but I will
never spit too much on the dish I eat from. If I don't like the taste of
something in it, I can add some salt or even put something else offered by
that restaurant and that I'll like more...
Happy computing to all (yes, MS sucks but hey... even if sometimes
hurts, most of the times that is funny... ;-) )
Ciao!
--
*** PLEASE reply to the NG (or all) and not directly to the sender ***
E=MC^2 (Erio "U2 ?!" Michelangelo C.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ICQ UIN : 4502546
www.thehungersite.com
Help starving people, you can do it with just a click and not spend any
money at all!
www.therainforestsite.com
Help us & our kids to have healthier air, you can do it with just a click
and not spend any money at all!
"Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:8q6k55$5bl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <dEwx5.7054$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Greg Topf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm...dance around and sacrifice a virgin then? That more
> appropriate for
> > him? Silly me, sharing real experience:)
> >
>
> I would be interested in hearing more details about your real
> experiences. Of course personal anecdotes do not constitute proof, but
> much more detail is necessary before yours could even be considered
> hearsay evidence. What are your machines doing? What programs are they
> running?
>
> The original poster may have exaggerated a bit, but win9x does seem
> fairly unstable, especially compared to NT, Linux, and *BSD, (cannot
> comment on BeOS or Mac, as I have no experience with them). It seems a
> bit disingenious for MS to claim that system crashes are the result of
> third party programs when, IMO at least, a competant operating system
> should be able to deal with misbehaving programs. On my home linux
> system, for example, Netscape has once or twice in the past crashed
> badly enough to kill the x-server, but has never once taken down the
> os. On the other hand, on Win98SE Japanese version on my wife's laptop
> has, in the last 6 months or so, crashed twice on boot up, and at least
> three times while opening LookOut Express. With no other programs
> running (except the japanese input program supplied by MS). There have
> been other crashes as well, but these are the most mind boggling (I
> mean, blue screen on boot!, give me a break).
>
> Much of the time win98 works just fine on that laptop (which has the
> stupid "Designed for Windows" sticker) for the limited demands placed
> on it. But I would not call it stable. My linux (mandrake 7.1 KDE
> workstation, no unnecessary servers running, lots of software from lots
> of different sources, K6-2 450, 128 meg) box has come close to crashing
> only once - I tried to run Myth 1 for windows in linux using WINE,
> which is considered alpha software. Something bad happened and although
> I could telnet into the box, the response time was extremely slow and
> the hard disk was going nuts, so I cut power. Only one time, and that
> on alpha software emulating another operating system.
>
> The very same box (dual boot (win98se) for starcraft and TFC) crashes
> fairly often, especially with games.
>
> Like I said, personal anecdotes do not constitute proof. However, from
> my personal experience, I would recommend that winvocates be careful
> with their claims of stability for the win9x class of os. At best, it
> might be stable enough for some people.
>
>
> --
> Osugi Sakae
>
> I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
> I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
