Linux-Advocacy Digest #265, Volume #30 Thu, 16 Nov 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity (LuisMiguel
Figueiredo)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Paul Grayson")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("CC Ghost")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Norton Linux (Bradley J. Milton)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (mlw)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (The Great Suprendo)
Re: RedHat BugList Summary (Marc Richter)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! (Curtis)
Re: OS stability (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:18:43 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:RUwQ5.4392$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> You realize, of course, that for a four processor Dell, currently
>>> Linux beats NT on SPECWEB99 almost by a factor of three.
>> With the web server running in the kernel. That's no victory.
Why not? It's basically the same as IIS using NT's Sendfile. Why
don't you harp on about Linux playing catch up instead - at least here
you'd be right.
> I think they are talking about Tux, and I may be mistaken, but I do believe
> that Tux is only capable of handling static pages. Not very useful
> today.
Why not? Most content is still static. Tux is perfectly able to pass
on dynamic requests to another layer (e.g. Apache)
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755,2551188,00.html
> However, shows who excels in dynamic pages.
Well, it does seem to contradict SPECWeb99.
Unlike SPEC, I see ZDnet hasn't bothered to completely spec the boxes
they're using, nor any tuning parameters, and they're using an old Red
Hat release.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: LuisMiguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Most important computer program in the history of humanity
Date: 16 Nov 2000 10:36:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Mike wrote:
>> [ . . ]
>
>Those are Egypt-pyramid 0.x systems.
>
>the "bent Pyramid" is the 0.99 version...they got the slope right
>mid-build.
>
>
>Conversely, extremely steep-sided pyramids from anothr vendor in Nubia
>are still up.
>
>How steep? Base of about 10 feet, hight of 60 - 100 feet.
>
>
>> [ . . ]
>
>
Well, it's time to aplly a patch or maybe an upgrade.
elmig
http://www.alunos.ipb.pt/~ee3931
Figueiredo.LuisMiguel AT pt.bosch.com
------------------------------
From: "Paul Grayson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:59:57 -0000
"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I tried both URLs and, in both cases, I got timed out.
>
> Me too. There was also a chart on the same site showing how Starbucks
> was rebooting its NT server on a daily basis. Just think how much
> money you would have lost if you were a business, Marty.
Last year I spent some time at the main office of a big UK company. They
were planning to roll out NT networks to hundreds of branches. This network
consisted of one NT server communicating with the head office, and a number
of smaller PCs running NT or 95.
One task I was set up with was to find some mechanism to ensure that the NT
systems were rebooted at a specified time, between sending the results back
to the head office at the end of the day, and the time schedulded periodic
anti-virus updates.
The reason for the reboot was that their in-house written software leaked
memory, and the developers of this software were no longer around to fix it.
Boggle!
------------------------------
From: "CC Ghost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:52:10 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
<snip>
>Easy. It isn't an emotional dislike. C++ just isn't suitable for the
>job. C++ is slower than C by an order of magnitude (almost as slow as
>Java).
Not true. C++ adds a small amount of overhead which
can make it very slightly slower in normal circumstances.
The best explanation for the perceived slowness of C++
in comparison to C was a statement to the effect that
idiomatically correct, well written C code is often
very poor C++ code. C++ code that is properly designed
is not perceptibly slower than C++, given modern
optimizing compilers.
But good C code is often damn poor C++.
>It is difficult to manage any sizable project in C++.
Misleading. It is not easy to manage C or C++ in
large projects (or large projects in general). The fact
that C++ has different management requirements
does not make it inherently more difficult, just
different.
>Multiple
>inheritance and friend functions are just two reasons.
I will admit both of those are the cause of problems.
>C++ is almost
>impossible to maintain. C++ has all the weakness of C and none of its
>advantages.
Again, misleading. C++ has a number of advantages;
but not when compiling C code.
>I can think of any number of alternatives to both C and C++.
Well, we can certainly agree on that ;>
>But C does have the history behind it.
So does the model T.
Bear in mind, I am not condemning C. I always prefer
to maintain well-written C to poorly written C++.
But most C (and C++) code in the world is not well-written,
and it is innaccurate to blame the result of poorly written
code on the language.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:22:14 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Not to mention the OS's that don't report uptimes at all,
>>> such as OS/2, OS/390, SunOS4, NetWare...
>> On the contrary, OS/2 can report an uptime.
> Hey, so can netware... teehee.
>
> I was pasting an earlier comment from Erik...
Then why not use quotation marks?
> I guess I should have >'d it. Have a quick look back through the
> thread if you're still confused.
You're erroneously presupposing that I was ever confused.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:39:14 +1100
The Great Suprendo wrote:
>
> A certain Les Mikesell, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
> >Is there some trick to it? I had a win2k server configured for
> >administration
> >via TS and couldn't get a Citrix client on Linux to connect.
>
> The Linux client worked straight out of the box for me. I take it you've
> done all the obvious stuff, eg you can ping the server from your linux
> box.
>
This one interests me. Are you sure you're not confusing W2K server
and Metaframe?
I think the Citrix clients only use the ICA protocol, which rules
out using the Citrix clients to connect to W2K Werver or NT4 TS.
Erik seems to have reconsidered his statement that the Citrix
client will connect using either RDP or ICA.
>From a purely business aspect, it would seem to be a strange move
for Citrix to provide a free client to connect to a competitor's
server product. It's a pity, though. I'd like to be able to use
a variety of systems to connect to a W2K Server to do the things
I need to use Windows for. I could use Tarantella I suppose, but
that's adding another layer of complexity. ..or a Metaframe server,
but that more than doubles the cost :-(
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:14:34 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
[snip]
> > I don't want to turn the knife in the wound, but on my linux
> > KDE desktop I wanted to make Acrobat Reader the default for
> > pdf document instead ot the PS reader, add kwrite besides
> > kedit for C and C++ sources, and have Real Player default
> > application for stream audio. As I'm too lazy to read
> > documentation, I just gave a look on how it was done for
> > other applications, and was able to figure out how to do it.
> > It worked at first attempt.
>
> Linux never promulgated the "intuitive" lie.
>
> Microsoft does.
>
> spot the difference.
>
MS tries to fool customers into believing that you don't
need training and education in order to achieve acceptable
results. But if things are done as they should, they turn
out to be more "intuitive" than a crappy piling up, which
appears to be the MS "innovative trend".
------------------------------
From: Bradley J. Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Norton Linux
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:13:31 GMT
In article <8ut5tl$s7d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you for your summary. This sounds like Linux is using a totally
different paradigm for disk operation than what I am familiar with using
DOS systems. What I can forsee being a problem is how the executives may
accept this, if they only know Windoze. Maybe more should be said about
this now? I played with e2fsck but now I know that daily use is unneccessary.
This could change the way business looks at disk operations. I have
much more time for learning Linux this month because my wife won't be
coming home for Thanksgiving so I will have free time until December
and maybe beyond. I went to the bookstore last night to learn more and
I was surprised to see that Peter Norton has his own guide to Linux!
With a well respected industry name like that behind it, I can't see
how Linux can do nothing but succeed. It has a bright future in store,
that is becoming clearer to me every day.
> What you want doesn't really have any place in unix machines as far as
> checking fs integrity. Especially if you use a system like reiserfs.
> Running e2fsck every so often is a waste of time. If the system was not
> unmounted cleanly it will run if not it won't. I think once you use linux
> longer or really any unix for that matter you will grow to dislike how
> much fs maintenance windows really needs to continue working. That is also
> why you don't really see fs defrag tools for unixes. Their fs while they
> do fragment lightly don't seem to impact performance much if at all. Some
> of the fs seem to even unfragment over time depending on the amount of
> free space on the drive. I think you will learn to leave these utilities
> behind you and just not worry about the os that much any more. Like
> anything else it does have a learning curve but you only have to learn it
> once and I have found it well worth the time it took to learn it.
>
> Once you understand how unixes work you will really appreciate them. The
> job of the OS is to allow you to get your work done without it
> interfering. After using it for a while and understanding its operation at
> times it is almost like the OS is not really there because everything just
> works always. You don't turn your computer off and don't worry about it
> crashing because it doesn't. The only time you reboot it is to add new
> hardware or upgrade a kernel and I hear they are working on fixing the
> kernel issue and some hardware already can be hot swapped. It is a
> different world and while it still needs it rough edges filed off the core
> is good.
>
> I hope this helped to answer your questions. Kosh
>
--
How to combine Business and Counter-culture?
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/milton/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:22:54 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> C++ is slower than C by an order of magnitude (almost as slow as
> Java).
Here I prove to you that C++ is the same as C with the same code.
I create a function, strrev, in strrev.c:
#include <string.h>
void strrev(char *p)
{
int i;
register int cb= strlen(p)-1;
for(i=0;i<cb;i++,cb--)
{
char c = p[i];
p[i]=p[cb];
p[cb]=c;
}
}
I symlink it to strrev.cpp
I compile:
gcc -O3 -S strrev.c
And I get:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
.file "strrev.c"
.version "01.01"
gcc2_compiled.:
.text
.align 4
.globl strrev
.type strrev,@function
strrev:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
pushl %edi
pushl %esi
movl 8(%ebp), %esi
pushl %ebx
xorl %eax, %eax
movl %esi, %edi
cld
movl $-1, %ecx
repnz
scasb
notl %ecx
subl $2, %ecx
xorl %ebx, %ebx
cmpl %ecx, %ebx
jge .L147
.p2align 2
.L145:
movb (%ebx,%esi), %dl
movb (%ecx,%esi), %al
movb %al, (%ebx,%esi)
movb %dl, (%ecx,%esi)
incl %ebx
decl %ecx
cmpl %ecx, %ebx
jl .L145
.L147:
popl %ebx
popl %esi
popl %edi
popl %ebp
ret
.Lfe1:
.size strrev,.Lfe1-strrev
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.0)"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Now I compile gcc -O3 -S strrev.cpp and get:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.file "strrev.cpp"
.version "01.01"
gcc2_compiled.:
.text
.align 4
.globl strrev__FPc
.type strrev__FPc,@function
strrev__FPc:
.LFB1:
pushl %ebp
.LCFI0:
movl %esp, %ebp
.LCFI1:
pushl %edi
.LCFI2:
pushl %esi
.LCFI3:
movl 8(%ebp), %esi
pushl %ebx
.LCFI4:
xorl %eax, %eax
movl %esi, %edi
cld
movl $-1, %ecx
repnz
scasb
notl %ecx
subl $2, %ecx
xorl %ebx, %ebx
cmpl %ecx, %ebx
jge .L9
.p2align 2
.L6:
movb (%ebx,%esi), %dl
movb (%ecx,%esi), %al
movb %al, (%ebx,%esi)
movb %dl, (%ecx,%esi)
incl %ebx
decl %ecx
cmpl %ecx, %ebx
jl .L6
.L9:
popl %ebx
popl %esi
popl %edi
popl %ebp
ret
.LFE1:
.Lfe1:
.size strrev__FPc,.Lfe1-strrev__FPc
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.0)"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Now, why would you say that C++ is any slower than C? The code is the
same. Different lables, but the same generated instructions.
~
~
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: The Great Suprendo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:07:18 +0000
A certain Les Mikesell, of comp.os.linux.advocacy "fame", writes :
>> I imagine it would be competitive with a commercial X implementation.
>
>There is nothing wrong with the free X versions.
If I concede that you're right here, why would I want to bother buying
one of the pay-for distributions (like Metro-X) ?
--
ROAR UP MY TWAT!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Richter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RedHat BugList Summary
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:40:49 -0500
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:43:45 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:01:22 GMT, Chad Myers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Marc Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> Hiding and pretending that bugs and exploits don't exist don't make
>>> them magically go away.
>>>
>>> It seems that opponents of Open Source laugh at the number of reported
>>> bugs and exploits, without realizing that it's only by admitting flaws
>>> and fixing them that software gets better.
>
>And then as usual Chad proceeds to post a response that ignores the
>substance of the man's argument. I think Chad is one of those people
>who like to hear themselves talk.
>
>
Thanks Bob.
Glad that you clearly understood what I was trying to say...
1. All software has bugs
2. Discovering bugs is good - that means that they get fixed
3. Not knowing about or admitting to bugs doesn't make them go away
Chad can't seem to grok this. He seems like a bright enough fellow at
times, but much like Claire, he seems to be a tad blinded by his
dislike of Linux.
Perhaps he was attacked by a penguin at the zoo as a child?
We'll never know.
Chad, re-read what I said and think about it this time.
Thanks.
Marc
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:57:18 GMT
Your reply makes me laugh. It seems that whenever
Windows cocks up, it is always the fault of the users
ah?
You still have not even addressed the fact that such
things will never happen to any Unix operating system
In article <8tjdg7$snj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "XYZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > My thoughts on Windows 2000....
> >
> > What a bug-ridden piece of shit. If I burn an audio CD, everything
works
> fine,
> > but don't try burning another after it! The CD Writer driver (or
something
> in
> > the subsystem) fucks itself up after the first burn...when you're
burning
> the
> > second CD, it gets all the way to the end, then when it is 75%
through
> burning
> > the last track, the whole application just disappears, and the CD
Writer
> locks
> > up and won't let you eject the CD. Then when you play it, it plays
fine,
> > except for the spot where it stopped writing on the last track. What
> absolute
> > dogshit. So I have to burn a CD, reboot, burn another, reboot.
>
> CD-R type, version, and driver used.
> Win2k type, version
> Computer details?
> Application that you use?
>
> > I'm using beta video drivers...and due to the shitty design of the
Win2000
> > kernel, a problem in the driver will just spontaneously reboot the
> computer
> > without any fanfare.
>
> Well, it just proves that you don't know much about win2k.
> Right click my computer > propeties >Advace > StartUp & Recovery,
uncehck
> "Automatically Reboot"
> Write down the BSOD, 99% that you've a driver/hardware failure.
> Video card type/driver type?
> Why are you blaming win2k for your fault at using beta drivers in the
first
> place?
>
> > Did I mention that you *still* can't reliably kill a hung process in
> Windoze?
> > I have to physically unplug the goddamn machine from the wall when a
> process
> > gets hung...I can't even reboot...and I can't hit the reset button
on the
> > hardware because of the power-management crap. I thought one of the
> > fundamental jobs of an operating system was to manage
processes...how the
> FUCK
> > did that requirement slip past the Winblows engineers?
>
> Get the NT Option pack , nice little utility there called Kill.exe
> But 90% of the time you can make do with "net stop" or simply End Task
from
> windows task manager
>
> Hold power button for 6 seconds, it will turn itself off.
> It was build this was so you wouldn't accidently turn the computer
off.
>
> > Try running an old DOS game under Win2K? Forget about it. Alt-TAB
out of
> it
> > and you're done. If you're lucky, it'll reboot automatically.
Otherwise,
> yank
> > that plug again.
>
> What game, what version?
> What are you doing running DOS games?
> And why are you yanking the cord anyway?
>
> > Fucking Windows 2000. None of the myriad of serious design flaws in
the
> > previous versions of Windows have been addressed, but at least in
this
> version
> > I have animated menus, a fancier taskbar, a new recycle bin icon.
>
> What are those serious design flaws?
>
> > You know, Linux was a bit buggy at first...so was Solaris...but over
time
> they
> > get more and more robust and stable and foolproof...but not Windows.
It's
> the
> > same piece of bug-infested dogshit that it was from day one.
>
> You've never used NT, I understand. Or 98/95, for that matter.
>
>
--
--
Ng Kai Hoe Raymond ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.gazy.org
Technical Director, Aeon/Xe Technology
http://www.aeonxe.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 16 Nov 2000 13:24:00 GMT
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:58:57 GMT, Ketil Z Malde wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>> Read "Design Patterns" (Gamma et al) or "C++ Programming Styles and
>> Idioms" (Coplien) some time. C++ is a very flexible and powerful
>> language. If you learn how to use it, that is.
>
>Yes, and that's my main criticism. It is a huge paradigm shift from
>C, but it is packaged and marketed as just tacking on a feature or two
>to your regular C programs.
Point well taken. If and when it gets marketed like that, it's marketed
badly. I don't advocate redoing C projects in C++ unless the project
requires heavy use of polymorphism.
>When you're developing on the level of abstraction that you need
>object orientation, you need to have a langauge that supports high
>level concepts - and C++ does - while shielding the developer from the
>details - which C++ doesn't.
Well, that depends on what you want to do. If performance isn't critical,
there are certainly good arguments for using a GC language instead.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:32:49 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > [snip]
> > Easy example. I put in an html page (or html e-mail) a link. Visible
> > string tells anything reasonable such as www.microsoft.com, or
> > Photograph, etc. Underlying link (which you don't see) contains:
> > "C:\WINDOWS\rundll.exe User,ExitWindows". This, with crappy MS software
> > (OS+IE or OS+OE) will shut down your computer even if you have disabled
> > ActiveX, VB, and Javascript.
> > Technically is a trojan, but anybody can be fooled and no other OS (IE
> > is now part of the OS, they say!) in the world, however bad, is
> > vulnerable to such a simple trick.
>
> You can't shut down the system in Linux? What? You can as root, but
> not a user?
>
> Same way in NT, so this argument is really irrelevant.
I'm afraid you failed to grasp what my example shows.
It's not related only to shutdown, it is just an example.
What I've shown is that it is possible, by clicking an
apparently innocent link, to have your computer to perform
ANY operation that you could type on the ->Start->Run box,
with you being completely unaware of that.
A malicious e-mail, a malicious site, or, much more
commonly, a buggy e-mail or a buggy site may produce any
destructive result, without you being able to tell until
it's too late.
Well, this problem result from the MS inability to tell
apart "open a document with an application" from "run an
application". And this is an MS-ONLY issue. No other OS is
so crappy. No other Browser or e-mail client is so crappy.
The feature is common on Desktop environment, and it is
handy. But it must be (as it is on any other OS's) limited
to desktop, it can't be a system wide feature.
>
> In an enterprise environment, the workstations would/should be locked
> down in such a way that viruses become irrelevant.
When the browser can't tell apart url addresses from
executables on your box, it's not a trivial task.
The only way is to rule out MS crapware. No other way out.
>
> Email viruses are easily defeated with rules and virus scanning software.
>
What will be your rule when a link appears just to be
"report.doc" coming from a trusted site? (and it was
intended to be, but the guy pasted the wrong thing, maybe
the last command he typed on ->Start->Run?)
According a recent survey from the American Society for
Information security roughly 75% of security breaches comes
out of "casual errors" (i.e. bugs or unexpected operations).
As MS accounts for 90% of installed stations, you may easily
draw your conclusions.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:33:36 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
> > If Linux had great application support, I might have stayed and slugged
> > it out since I like a challenge that's worth my while, but unfortunately
> > I couldn't see why learning Linux would be worth my while so I ditched
> > it. I have no problems with it personally. I just see it for what it is
> > and appreciate which the OS is appropriate for and it doesn't include the
> > average user ... not by a long shot. It will be a few years before I'll
> > even remotely reconsider this point.
>
> Don't judge Linux's speed of change by Window's standards...
I'm not.
> Take
> a look at Mandrake 7.2 plus StarOffice 5.2.
I actually did and I rest my case. StarOffice? .... LOL!
--
___ACM________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: 16 Nov 2000 13:38:06 GMT
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:30:16 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>Starting to sound paranoid.
...
>things into what I said are sounding a bit paranoid.
...
>behavior!!!! I said nothing about their stance on OS. you seem to let
>you insecurities read things into it that were NOT there!!!!
...
>BS! It was ment as an insult.>
...
>Sure you do the only positive thing you have said is about yourself why
>you degraded me. The clasic behavior of a person with low self image.
You know, next time I'm in need of a psychological evaluation from an
illiterate usenet kook, you'll be the first to know, OK ?
>It's clear to me that the only thing you have going for you is Linux
>coding and putting people down.
It's not clear at all. You really don't know anything about me outside
of usenet, so you are in absolutely no position to make these kind of
comments. If I were to make personal judgements about your character
based on your usenet presence, I'd have to conclude that you have absolutely
nothing going for you. I'm going to be nice and conjecture that there's
more to you than your usenet presence (and I certainly hope there is!)
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 16 Nov 2000 13:40:04 GMT
On 16 Nov 2000 10:08:20 +0200, Michael Livshin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>> C++ is a very flexible and powerful language. If you learn how to
>> use it, that is.
>
>you should try learning something else too, it's good for you.
C++ is "something else". I was programming mostly in perl and java for
a long time. I try to learn new stuff as time permits.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
