Linux-Advocacy Digest #601, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Daniel Berger)
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Daniel Berger)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? ("Chad Myers")
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Linux Sucks (Grega Bremec)
Re: The Power of the Future! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Power of the Future! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Dolly)
Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles ("James Bond")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] ("David T. Johnson")
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Power of the Future! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Video software for linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:01:48 GMT
My experience has been sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Oh, and I forgot:
6) Can add my own file attributes.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> >> incapable of.
>
> > 1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a
button,
> > rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>
> CTRL-ALT-[Plus/Minus key] can be used to switch resolutions in XFree
> on the fly on all platforms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
>
--
In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:04:23 GMT
I just tried this on the Caldera box sitting next to me. I have a
whopping 2 resolutions to choose from. Lemme guess where I have to go
to change this....could it be the XF86 config file?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> >> incapable of.
>
> > 1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a
button,
> > rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>
> CTRL-ALT-[Plus/Minus key] can be used to switch resolutions in XFree
> on the fly on all platforms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
>
--
In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:10:55 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00101116031908.10021@pc03...
> El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Chad Myers escribi�:
> >"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8s218v$i2f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <FzjE5.27898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > As the server or client? The Client is designed to run on Windows CE
> >> > handheld devices. It would fly on a P133. It barely uses any
> >> > resources on a modern PIII. It uses about 3.8KB of RAM.
> >>
> >> That memory figure is deeply disingenuous as it omits a load of stuff
> >> that is in the client's GUI layer. If it's not an utter joke it must
> >> be using encrypted and authenticated comms too, and you'd be hard
> >> pressed to put that into that space. It probably doesn't cope with
> >> architectures with different endian-ness either, but in your current
> >> delusory state you'd claim that as a *feature*.
> >
> >Shall I post a screenshot of it's memory usage?
> >
> >The MS TSC runs on all windows and there is a client for CE.
> >
> >Citrix provides clients for almost every major platform, and
> >what platforms aren't covered are covered through a Java browser client.
> >
> >I happen to be running the TSC in 1280x1024 mode right now which is
> >using 5K or RAM. The 3.8K number I was quoting was running at 1024x768
> >mode.
>
> That is silly. It must be using (or making other subsystem use) over 1MB of
RAM
> (more likely 3MB). Or else, where is the picture stored?
<sigh>
I must regretfully apologize. I had my head up my ass.
<insert witty insult here>
It's using ~5000K (5MB) of RAM.
I'll shut up and sit down now. =)
Regardless, it's still not that big of a footprint. I'm running at 1280x1024
it was around 3MB in 1024x768 mode. The more I have on the ts screen.
Metaframe clients use less than this, I believe. They have clients that run
on WindowsCE palm devices which usually only have a few MB of RAM.
Considering the displays are usually 640x240 or smaller, it doesn't have that
much to draw, so the footprint is smaller.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:20:58 -0300
El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Daniel Berger escribi�:
>I just tried this on the Caldera box sitting next to me. I have a
>whopping 2 resolutions to choose from. Lemme guess where I have to go
>to change this....could it be the XF86 config file?
Just start XF86Config from X itself.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:22:13 -0300
El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Roberto Alsina escribi�:
>El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Daniel Berger escribi�:
>>I just tried this on the Caldera box sitting next to me. I have a
>>whopping 2 resolutions to choose from. Lemme guess where I have to go
>>to change this....could it be the XF86 config file?
>
>Just start XF86Config from X itself.
Argh, I meant XF86Setup.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:20:03 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
>>Re: Intel and AMD...
http://www.aom.pace.edu/meetings/1999/INTEL1.htm
Search for the following to find the paragraphs
pertaining to it...
The 80286 was introduced in 1982, and we were
And this statement is attributed to Gordon Moore
himself, and if you do work for them as you claim
and you do know the company so well, you've got
to know who he is.
And in case that claim of yours is false, then
let me help you...
Gordon Moore is currently Chairman Emeritus of
Intel, as in the past, he was one of the founders
of the company.
Is THAT a reliable enough source? I think the
guy who ran the company till Andy Grove took
over, much less also CO-FOUNDED it is reliable
enough that I am not even going to bother
scanning the pics. If you dont believe
the co-founder of Intel, then you wont believe
anything.
Well Chris and Mike, hope that's enough proof
for you. It is for me (since I dont think there's
any higher one could go for verification other
than his or her god(s) or goddess(es) so I hope
it suffices :-).
Dolly
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:19:21 GMT
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] used the keyboard:
>No...wasting my time responding to your twisted rhetoric gives me a
>headache.
However twisted Jedi might seem occasionally, there usually is a very
good reason to introduce that twistedness. A common response to that
kind of content would be thinking about it in a rather depth. <hint>
>SuSE is in business to make money.
True. They aren't all _that_ insane (yet).
>People work towards wealth.
Also true, given the means of doing so. We all know that working
_with_ MS representatives doesn't account for that. Working _for_
them, OTOH deprives one of significant ammount of freedom to innovate.
MS isn't the Alpha and Omega of computing business either, you know (I
gained impression from your past articles that you had somehow became
blundered about that fact, assuming that anything concerning computing
had to deal with MS almost inherently).
>All the Open Sores philosophy in the world won't change the fact that
>SuSE and RH and Corel etc want to make money off Linux.
Also, true. They have legal means of doing that as well.
>In COrel's case they were looking toward Linux to save them from sure
>death. Ironic that Microsoft stepped in and did that.
I wouldn't comment on that one, because I don't have the information
you seem to have. Nevertheless, the entire point doesn't depend on
this statement of yours. We could without harm mark it as irrelevant
to this debate, since the specific problem introduced was dealing with
SuSE and their marketing strategy. Corel is an entirely different kind
of beast, having been dependant on MS for a vast ammount of their
lifespan. Quite logically, sitting on two chairs at a time _does_ tend
to be difficult.
>If you feel otherwise, write SuSE a letter and tell them to send their
>net profit to charity and give away their complete products for free.
Why should they? As mentioned above, there are ways of making money by
not targetting MS market share. If a logical consequence of a quality
product that had been designed to be adaptable to diverse environments
seems to actually be _adapting_ it to the aforementioned, you can't
blame people for infact attempting to achieve that, can you?
They should be working towards wealth, after all.
>And BTW you haven't proven me wrong on one single point.
Oh, yes, he seems to have. At least to somebody who gave up the agony
and false hope of trying to make things work on certain platforms half
a decade ago and hadn't looked back since.
Cheers,
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:21:44 GMT
ctrl-alt + or - (or something like) that changes screen res under
Linux.
Can't get much easier than that.
claire
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:25:53 -0500, dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
>>rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>
>An annoying issue with Linux, no doubt.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:29:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthias Warkus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:11:54 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It was the Mon, 09 Oct 2000 17:23:04 GMT...
>...and Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Is of course Linux.
>>
>> Nope. The future is BeOS!
>
>Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
>incapable of.
That may not be a correct question, for what I hope are obvious
reasons.
BeOS is optimized for video throughput and processing (at least,
that is my understanding of this particular OS); the issue
may therefore not be whether Linux can do whatever BeOS can do,
but whether Linux can do it at the same or nearly the same speed,
disk space, and RAM, and how much of a "slop factor" is tolerable.
(It may depend on the user or the application; sending email wouldn't
require full-motion video at 1472 x 964 [*], 30 frames per second,
for example.)
That said...I suspect that Linux's throughput is pretty good
if it can scroll text much faster than Windows NT and has
a higher Quake frame rate. :-) (No, I don't have cites
or sites handy -- athough the text scrolling is easily provable
with a simple Perl program).
I am also curious as to what portability issues ensue when one
tries to develop on BeOS; presumably, BeOS has some special
characteristics available only as add-on libraries for, say, Linux.
(Unknown as to whether these libraries are now available, either.)
Presumably, this can be worked around by various methods (by putting
the system-dependent stuff in a "cage", if nothing else).
The same comments apply to other operating systems, as well; NT can
do everything Linux can do if reliability or memory usage aren't top
priority (although purists might construe packages such as "cygwin" a form
of cheating :-) ). Linux can also encapsulate NT using tools such as VmWare
(NT can also encapsulate Linux in the same fashion). And both can
emulate DOS.
Both operating systems can support Java servlets using tools such as
Jakarta (http://jakarta.apache.org), and Java applets in their browsers
(although Netscape's support, as of 4.x anyway, is a tad on the flaky side).
Or, one can look at it from a packet level. Linux has SAMBA, which
emulates NT's protocol for reading directories from the network
pretty well. NT can do NFS with third-party software, and has
FTP, HTTP, and HTTPS capability as well.
NT wins out on applications, though I understand this is fading as an issue
(e.g. Wordperfect has already been ported, and I'm seeing Quake III on store
shelves -- for Linux!). Linux wins out for reliability, at least at an
entry level (FreeBSD is rumored to be better, although I can't say either
way since I haven't used it; one nice thing about FreeBSD and Linux is that
development for one usually means an easy port to the other -- though
not always).
NT also wins out on presentation -- barely. GNOME and KDE are
very good; I don't know of anything offhand that would be missing.
KDE even has variegated title-bar tinting -- a la Win2K. (Why this
would even be an issue for hard-core engineering types, I don't know.
I use fvwm at home.) The only reason NT edges out Linux here might
be the fact that more people are familiar with the Windows look and
feel -- and this perceived superiority may be a matter of pure opinion.
(I prefer Linux, myself, but not because of the presentation. :-) )
Linux wins out on various esoteric issues -- X's network transparency,
for instance, makes it easy to set up interesting systems that
display their results on low-performance (albeit high-color)
workstations from an ultra-powerful but graphically-challenged
central server. A lot of places do this, as I understand it. (To be
fair, NT has X servers, too, so it could also be used as such. But
they are third-party affairs, and shareware or payware to boot;
e.g., Mi/X is no longer free.) I'm also given to understand that Linux has
better interrupt latency -- an issue if one has, say, a data acquisition
card. However, I am not that familiar with that particlar issue.
[.sigsnip]
[*] I have an old Personal Animation Recorder with one-quarter this
resolution. The video it generates isn't too bad, but I'll
admit I'm a little worried about 2006, since all NTSC equipment
will presumably become obsolete at that time. Hopefully by that
time I'll have money enough to replace it. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random operating system here
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:32:50 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> >> incapable of.
>
> > 1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
> > rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>
> CTRL-ALT-[Plus/Minus key] can be used to switch resolutions in XFree
> on the fly on all platforms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
Hi Chris,
Here's a question... other than selecting only
certain pixel depths when configuring (or edditing)
the config file, is there any way to change
those?
We've got setups that vary in video memory,
etc, and as opposed to having to know the
capabilities of each card to edit the config
files, it would be nice if there were some
other method along the lines of resolution
changing... if not, that's fine. I guess
I could just get one of the other techs
here to get on it... but if I am missing
something on this, I'd love to know.
Thanks in advance,
Dolly
------------------------------
From: "James Bond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:37:12 +0200
Asshole! And this is from a Win2k advocate ...
"Cannon Fodder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.04.10010110151100.24339-100000@snoopy...
>
> 'Nuff said
>
> --Trolling about trolling,
> From A Troll
> hehehe
>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 05:47:31 +1000
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kR2F5.635$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s2d4l$atv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > (You heard that right folks! :-) )
> > >
> > > I don't have Win98, Win2K, or WinMe at home to test it. (Win2K might
> > > run it under some sort of emulation -- if it works at all.)
> >
> > Win2k won't, I can almost guarantee.
>
> Actually, you might be suprised. NT 4.0 definately wouldn't have because
> most of the "newer" DOS games used DOS4GW which, for obvious reasons,
> wouldn't work in NT. However, I noticed that DOS4GW magically works in
> Win2K (no doubt some obvious trickery in the NTVDM to make DOS4GW think
> it's doing its job).
I was thinking more along the lines of sound, high res video etc.
And DOS4GW stuff works in NT4, IIRC. I'm sure I got Duke3D running in it
once (without sound).
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:45:57 -0400
Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >"David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
> >comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
> >threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
> >computer software, or even computers:
>
> Your post is off-topic for COOA. Read the newsgroup charter you
> worthless and clueless poor excuse for an alleged "OS/2 Advocate"
> (whose primary mission appears to be to harrass and denigrate
> remaining, active OS/2 developers. Are you working for Microsoft?)
I have never harassed and denigrated OS/2 developers. Please delete
this post or face the consequences.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:45:16 GMT
It will only allow you to select resolutions that you chose during
installation.
Try XF86Setup (capitals count!)
and select all the res and bit depths you like.
You will now be able to cycle between them.
claire
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:04:23 GMT, Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I just tried this on the Caldera box sitting next to me. I have a
>whopping 2 resolutions to choose from. Lemme guess where I have to go
>to change this....could it be the XF86 config file?
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
>> >> incapable of.
>>
>> > 1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a
>button,
>> > rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>>
>> CTRL-ALT-[Plus/Minus key] can be used to switch resolutions in XFree
>> on the fly on all platforms.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Chris Wenham
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:47:06 GMT
For me, all the greatest file systems in the world are not going to
make up for the fact that the Digital Audio developers like Emagic,
Steinberg and Cakewalk have dumped BEOS as a viable platform.
Shame, since I had high hopes for the OS.
claire
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:49:09 -0700, Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>dc wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:49:24 GMT, Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
>> >> incapable of.
>> >
>> >"Conceptually" is nothing but code for "it could do it someday if
>> >someone writes the program". Let's look at some simple things I can do
>> >in BeOS that I can't do in Linux as of today.
>> >
>> >1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
>> >rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>>
>> An annoying issue with Linux, no doubt.
>>
>
>You can also have multipul virtual desktops within BeOS each running in a
>diferent res and bit depth.
>
>
>>
>> >2) I can fill the root partition to 100% and not be totally f*&$ed.
>>
>> No experience with this.
>>
>
>The nasty part is that by default you are limited in the size you can make
>the root slice with Linux.
>
>
>>
>> >3) I can flip the power switch off and not have to sit through a long
>> >fsck reboot (or possible crash).
>>
>> How stable is the BeFS? What happens when you crash during a write to
>> that write operation and the few before it? What happens to the files
>> committed for writing?
>>
>
>Journalized file system. If a file is opened for edit but not closed it is
>regressed to the last known good file after a crash.
>
>
>>
>> >4) I can set my network settings with the click of a button. Exact
>> >sequence was: Menu, Preferences, Networking - clicked DHCP. Restarted
>> >networking server (not OS). 3 clicks and 2 mouseovers - no typing.
>> >Bing - I'm surfing.
>>
>> Linux can do this too.
>>
>
>Not for me. I had to restart the OS after switching to DHCP inorder for it
>to work. BeOS can change the network settings without rebooting.
>
>
>>
>> >5) I can search through my filesystem without using "find" (but I can
>> >if I want to).
>>
>> Huh? Linux has nice searching features; what's the problem?
>
>BeOS BFS is a journalized / data base derived file system that allows you to
>perform SQL like queries. Linux has nothing like that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Video software for linux
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:53:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Martin Svensson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:25:39 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hi!
>
>Does anyone know of any video software which works both in windows and
>linux ? I'm thinking of applications such as Netmeeting, CuSeeme etc but
>they don't support linux.
>
>If you do .. please reply via email!
Try comp.os.linux.setup or comp.os.linux.misc.
comp.os.linux.advocacy is for those of us who like to shout at
each other :-).
(In any event, good luck.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- we now return you to an argument (or two or
3,594) already in progress
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:53:29 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s01jh$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:10:54 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> >news:8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >> >> There are alot of companies which make enormous machines that are
> > > fully
> > >> >> >> capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely away.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > But they haven't?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096
> > > processor
> > >> >> mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> No, really.
> > >> >
> > >> >Spare me the sarcasm. Please answer the question. Why hasn't IBM
> > >> >enterered their top-o'-the-line into the TPC race and annihilated the
> > >> >competition? What reason would they have not to?
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps their marketing department is a bit more sophisticated
> > >> than that.
> >
> > > I don't consider that more sophisticated, I think it's stupid. If it
> WERE
> > > such a thing that was "below" IBM - they wouldn't have entered at all
> > > (instead of several 100 times) and certainly wouldn't have spent
> $millions
> > > to achieve 1st place (now second).
> >
> > >> Perhaps they know that this consumer grade sort of
> > >> stinginess is less prevalent amongst customers willing to spend
> > >> 6 or 7 figures on computing solutions.
> >
> > > I think that is very unlikely. If someone can spend a low 8 figures and
> > > smoke the pants off someone in the higher 8 figures - there is a
> difference.
> >
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps they don't find any reason to worry about being "outdone"
> > >> by massively clustered solutions.
> >
> > > Perhaps they should be worried if bottom lines mean anything to anyone
> at
> > > IBM sales..
> >
> > Perhaps they know that they are the only competitors in the market in
> which
> > the machines in question exist.
> >
> > Idiot.
>
> oh yeah, THAT makes sense. "We are SO good that we don't even have to prove
> it." I'm sure that's the kind of smart marketing that assumes that everyone
> else is "smart" enough to ignore published results and just *magically* ...
> know... that an IBM solution is faster/better than anything else because..
> well... just because.
Kind of like you and Microsoft pollutions...
>
> Damn! why didn't we all think of that?!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
