Linux-Advocacy Digest #348, Volume #30 Tue, 21 Nov 00 17:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LINUX USED BY THE NEW ZEALAND ARMY FOR ARMED FORCES SIMULATION: (Jacques Guy)
Linux Free ISP News ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8( (Pete Goodwin)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Small Distro? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux for nitwits ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (.)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Date: 21 Nov 2000 20:53:47 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: If you don't have a three-button mouse, you may have to configure
: X to emulate 3 mouse buttons, and depress both buttons
: simultaneously in order to paste.
: (Guess who gave us the two-button mouse?
: M - I - C ..... R - O - S .... O - O - F - F - T ... :-) )
Strange, but true, I never actually used MS-DOS/Windows3.x or
the MacOS until long after I'd gotten used to X11 with 3-button
(optical) Sparc mice. All my Linux boxes have 3-button mice
(including my ThinkPad with their 3-button trackpoints).
The notion of using a computer with anything less than a
3-button mouse hadn't even occured to me until long
after my posting :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:56:04 GMT
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:38:20 +0500, "Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Perhaps because there haven't been many web browsers in Linux. This is
>starting to change (witness Mozilla, Konqueror, and Opera).
Mozilla is growing more bloated by the hour.
If the Windows version of Opera is any indication of what the Linux
version will be like, forget it. Opera is ok for general browsing but
it is such a pain in the ass to use. It always seems to be complaining
about some plug-in that is missing when visiting many pages. This is
the full, not stripped version. I dumped it after screwing around with
it all the time. By contrast IE 5.x just works and never complains
about anything missing.
>If your "This is the accountability you get with open source" statement
>is supposed to be a cricicism of the Open Source/Free Software model, I'd
>like to point out that Netscape Navigator versions < 6 are not Open
>Source.
As soon as Linux goes commercial, and it will all in good time, it
will cease to exist. Corel is a classic example of this. People are
just not going to pay money for the half assed applications that Linux
has. They are fine for free and in some cases fantastic values (ie:all
the server and programming tools), but for the mainstream home user,
forget it.
>How exactly do you "feel retail products coming out of KDE?" KDE is a
>desktop environment, not a company.
The lure of backing and big money will attract the investors.
>Furthermore, why would Linux users "turn on [KDE]?"
The Linux users won't. It's the credit card carrying public that will
turn on it when it goes commercial and they feel like they have been
ripped off.
>> In another 8 years perhaps?
>
>What is supposed to happen in another eight years?
We might have a president? :)
claire
>-Evan
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:01:31 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX USED BY THE NEW ZEALAND ARMY FOR ARMED FORCES SIMULATION:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I didn't realize New Zealand had an army?
Of course: you don't have a brain, just a knee.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux Free ISP News
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:48:06 GMT
There is a new free ISP which is attempting to create the same general
model as freewwweb.com: http://www.xoasis.com/
They have their own dialer software, but claim that you can connect to
their service using whatever dial-up PPP dialer you have on your machine
(must support PAP).
Unfortunately, they're still getting started, so don't expect much right
away (like, say, a local access number in your area) but this might be a
place to check out for a free ISP for Linux.
In Other Free ISP News:
...NetZero (www.netzero.com) continues *not* to publicly offer its Linux
version of its ZeroPort software, slated for release on certain Internet
Computers in a few months...
...OneNationOnline (1nol.myway.com), which used to be a place for Linux
users to get free ISP access, now is a *pay-only* service. They even
want $21.95 a month, much steeper than most fee-based ISPs. In a bit of
*fraudulent advertising*, their banner ads still read "Free Internet
Service" even though they only offer fee-based Internet access...
...Freewwweb.com is completely bankrupt, and has been bought out and
replaced by the extremely un-friendly to Linux, JUNO.com...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:08:59 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > That's because you don't know what you're doing.
> > > >
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q156/5/13.asp
> >
> > > I won't tell that to my customer because I don't want him to take his
> > > millions and go home. Everything that is part of a build gets checked
in
> > > and controlled. MS may think that there is no need to put the
> > > autogenerated files under source control, but they aren't paying me to
> > > develop software. We even have to save the compiler used to make the
> > > build!
> >
> > You're a moron then. Do you save the temp files generated by the
compiler
> > in the Temp directory as well?
>
> The project files generated by VC and code are dependent on environment
> settings in a system. They are important.
Yes, the project file is (.dsp). The other files mentioned in the knowledge
base article are not.
> >That's what these are. Hell, the temp files
> > are even more relavant than the ones listed in the knowledge base
article
> > because the temp files are actually generated code,
>
> Many companies that have to be able to reproduce and "audit" code
> production do save the object files.
I'm not talking about the .obj files, I'm talking about the compiler
temporary files used in temp.
> > while the the
> > autogenerated files are things to do with Intellisense and the class
> > browser.
> >
> > In other words, they have nothing to do with either the code generated,
or
> > the source code in any way. They're to do with the IDE as temp files.
>
> In many projects, one has to use a properly version controlled compiler,
> library set, installer, etc. They have to save everything that is used
> to create the code which is shipped. In things like banking, there is
> often an audit process with each new version of software and
> differences, no matter how minor, must be accounted for. Sometimes your
> customer even wants to inspect the build process.
Yes. But again, these files have nothing to do with generating code. They
are state files used by the IDE, and are autogenerated when you open the
project, not when you compile the program. Some of them, like the
incremental link files (.ilk) are used only in debug compiling, not release,
and are only used to speed up compiling during the debug stage.
> You MUST be able to take a fresh machine, and build the code from what
> is in version control, and get the same executable. (The differences,
> like date and time stamps, etc. MUST able to be explained!)
And you can in fact. As I said, the files mentioned have nothing to do with
the code generation of release programs, though a few are used in debug code
generation. Actually, only the files in the debug or release directory are
used for this and are completely unrelated to the files which we were
originally talking about which reside in the program code directory.
> I have my differences with Russ, but I know what he is talking about
> when he says this kind of stuff. People change compilers mid project
> under Windows, but this is hardly the case in large non-windows
> projects. In Old CS classes many years ago, the professors took a dim
> view of changing compilers mis stream, because you could never know what
> bugs were fixed and what bugs were new, and how much code would function
> differently.
That's true, but has nothing to do with the comments here.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:18:44 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Not true. What the default html page is admin defineable. They could
have
> >made your default page default.htm if you had asked them to.
>
> Only if every other user had likewise wanted to change an NT server from
> the default (guaranteeing, as if any more assurance was needed, that
> something would go wrong later.) And of course, when it did fail, the
> helpful Windroids would point out that the fault was a "stupid admin who
> didn't know what they were doing."
No. Default pages are defineable by directory, not globally.
> >> 2. All of the CGI stuff I was using had to be canned, rebuilt, or
replaced
> >
> >You'd have to do that if they moved to Solaris on an x86 box as well.
>
> I doubt that entirely. CGI is not platform dependant, unless you use
> Microsoft crapware; then everything is platform dependant, including the
> upper limit of reliability, which is relatively low.
How exactly do you plan on executing Sparc object code on an x86 computer?
Note the term "rebuilt" in the quoted sentance. At a bare minimum, you will
need to recompile it (assuming it's not a scripting language like perl, in
which case the code is portable to the Win32 perl for the most part).
> >Doing a traceroute, I find that pings aren't getting outside of alternet.
> >It's dying even before it gets to the subnet that
emuos2.vintagegaming.com
> >is on. Sounds like a network problem to me.
>
> Now if only you had a better idea what you were talking about (or,
> rather, what you were ignorant of) this would be important. Everything
> "sounds like a network problem". If not using NT as a web server is
> what fixes it, its Microsoft's problem, and theirs alone. Or would be,
> in a free market.
Do you have any idea how routers work? How subnets work? Usually, but not
necessarily always (which is why I said "sounds like") a subnet is routed by
a gateway router. The last IP address in the traceroute wasn't even close
to IP address of the destination, which suggests that unless the IP was
connected directly to the NAP, it would have to go through a subnet router.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:22:28 +1300
> The "so many other virii" you mention are, I presume, the earlier
> generation of Office macro viruses. When an infected document was
> emailed, launching it on the recipient system would infect that host.
> The action of the trojan was to cause other documents on that system to
> become vectors, so that when they were emailed, they spread the trojan.
> Mostly Word, but also Excel, supported such viruses (and still do),
> though any VB-enabled application would work. While again similar to
> the previous waves of basically MS-only viruses in concept, they were a
> distinct, though precursor, mechanism.
No, I wasn't referring to office macro virii, I was talking about the
scripted email virii that could change shit on your computer as soon as
you read the HTML email, if you never changed your security settings by
default. One specific example was kak, which changes the registry and
sends itself out as a signature.
I have a patch from MS for that one specific flaw, but I can't help
wondering if they fixed the problem or just moved it somewhere harder to
find...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:24:31 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >Read the link again. It explains it quite clearly. NT4 simply cannot,
in
> >any circumstance, report an uptime longer than 49.7 days, even if the
server
> >has been up for 3 years straight. It can't make it into the top 50 if it
is
> >incapable of reporting a time large enough to BE in the top 50, now can
it?
>
> Pardon, but you're buying into your own FUD, Erik. Wasn't the 49.7 day
> bug fixed a couple service packs ago?
Max, grow a clue. The 49.7 day "bug" you mention was related to Windows 95,
which would crash after 49.7 days. NT never had such a bug, though the
uptime still cycles back to 0.
> >> And you never explained the graph that shows Starbucks rebooting their
> >> NT 4 server on a daily basis for months and months on end.
> >
> >Again:
> >http://uptime.netcraft.com/hammer/accuracy.html#whichos
> >
> >"NT4 SP5 sometimes gives unreliable data, appearing as a "swarm of bees"
> >effect on a graph."
> >
> >Notice how the starbucks NT4 results show no trend. One day it's an 18
day
> >uptime, the next day it's 40 days, the next day it's 0 days, the next day
> >something else. There is no way from *ANY* NT4 uptime result to know if
> >it's accurate or not.
>
> You're not kidding, are you?
Are you?
> >> I thought
> >> NT 4 was the end-all and be-all of server OS's, Eric? How can u
> >> explain this anomalous behavior?
> >
> >I explain it by pointing out netcrafts own explanation. NT4's uptime
> >statistics are not valid in any condition. Ever.
>
> I'm sure it won't sway your opinion, but this is not true, regardless of
> what you believe netcraft to be saying. NT4 reports uptimes just like
> any other system, at least up to 49.7 days. After that, it wouldn't
> surprise me if it exhibits unpredictable results. But I know how
> uptimes work, and NT4 statistics are certainly valid; just
> disappointing. Always.
How do you know that the uptime reported is on the first cycle? It could
have cycled 20 times and be reporting 20 days. That's like claiming that an
odometer is accurate on a 20 year old car without prior knowledge that it
is.
> >> Oh, and Eric, how can you explain
> >> the fact that 74% of all Internet servers are on *nix?
> >
> >I can't explain it, because it's not true. 74% of all hostnames are run
on
> >unix servers, which is not the same thing as 74% of all internet servers.
> >There is no statistics on how many actual servers there are on the
internet,
> >and what OS they run. Here's the hint, one server can have more than
one,
> >even thousands of hostnames. And one hostname can have more than one,
even
> >hundreds of servers.
>
> And that's not the only way to identify the relative proportion of
> servers, either Internet connected, or using DNS hostnames. Are you
> disputing the value, or merely presenting an argument from ignorance?
There is no reliable way to identify them. You can't use IP addresses
either, since machines can either be load balanced to have multiple machines
on the same IP address, or multihomed where you have mulitple IP's on the
same machine.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 + hello world = 8(
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:25:36 +0000
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> You're right.
>
> MOV #HELLO,DX (or LEA HELLO,DX)
> MOV #9,AH
> INT 21H
> MOV #0,AL
> INT 20H
> HELLO: .DB 'Hello, world!',13,10,'$'
>
> :-)
>
> (with my luck I committed half a dozen errors, though. It's been
> a very long time since I've done Intel MASM-style assembly.)
Now, how do you do "hello world" in WIN32, or X, or KDE2?
That's what I was writing about in my original post.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:47:48 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:55:28 GMT,
Russ Lyttle, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:13:14 GMT, Russ Lyttle wrote:
>> >mlw wrote:
>>
>> >common : "Post samples", "But you could do that aother way". Any real
>> >program is simply to big to post (I don't think the group would like 2
>> >files of several meg each attached). So read it an weap : The C++
>> >program, a proper C++ program, not a C program in C++ disguise is bigger
>> >and slower.
>>
>> My program was also "proper C++", wasn't it ? I have it beating your
>> C program on speed.
>>
>> --
>> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>> elflord at panix dot com
>I haven't run your code yet. That will be delayed for a bit. But the
>point is whether on something as complex and time critical as an OS
>kernel, C++ (or even OOP) will perform satisfactorily. Take a look at
>Jean Labrosse's "Micro-C/OS" and see if you can implement it as a C++
>design that runs faster. That is a fairly simple kernel. The final
>project should run on a 68HC08 in 16k ROM.
>--
Isn't BeOS written in C++ ?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Small Distro?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:53:13 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:38:25 +1200,
Adam Warner, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Hi Mitch,
>
>> Sorry if this is in an FAQ somewhere, but is there a small, stable,
>> fully functioning (ie. PPP, X, etc ) available anywhere suitable for
>> downloading via a 56k modem? (ie. Less than, say, 40Mb. )
>
>You might want to give Debian a go (www.debian.org). Download the base
>floppy disk images (which will give you a bare bones system) and then once
>that's installed use the packet management system (apt-get) to download the
>components you need (e.g. X). The latest version has only been recently
>released so it's very current.
>
>You would probably find Redhat easier, but you'd first need to grap a CD off
>someone. I don't think there's any easy way to install Redhat from a smaller
>download (and I bet Redhat likes it that way).
>
Incorrect, RH (at least as of 5.2, which was the last version I unstalled)
will happily install (after booting from the bootfloppy) over ftp, or nfs or
smb. (Actually, I never installed via smb, so cannot verify it works, but ftp
and nfs installs did.)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 13:02:37 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:07:00 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8vcn0b$gr4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hardly Identical. NT is acurate for 49 days, Linux/Unix is accurate TEN
>> TIMES LONGER! 497 days! This is better design. When looking at the TIME
>> that Unix was designed, memory was VERY expensive (the reason that 2
>> bits were used for the year giving us Y2K), Programers did not program
>> with large variables and computers were much less reliable, 497 days was
>> a VERY reasonable number and shows a well thought out choice! When NT
>> was being designed memory prices were far lower and it was not uncommon
>> for computers to be up MUCH longer than 49 days. 49 day was a very poor
>> choice, and is an example the LACK of thought in programing that drove
>> me away from MS
>
>You are completly clueless Matt.
>
>No Unix system that I know of suffered from Y2k in the way you mention.
>Unix has never used two digits for years (digits, not bits as you claim) in
>any way except for textual printout (on screen or printer or text file).
>All date and time variables are stored internally in a "seconds from" some
>day (usually Jan 1, 1970, IIRC). The only Y2k issues Unix had were when
>dates were stored in textual form, or when they were printed or read, not
>when they were stored in binary form.
>
You completely avoided answering the point raised, which was the poor choice of
49 days as an uptime counter reset used in NT, unless maybe 49 days was the
best they expected NT to stay up for?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:18:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nutty Professor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Have to agree with you Lynn. Until Linux
> >>> is made totally "halfwitt proof", the average
> >>> Joe or Jane moron will never move to Linux.
> >>> Windows is almost there (after seeing the
> >>> latest clips of Windows Whistler),
>
> As one of those Linux nitwits, I have to disagree.
> I own a ThinkPad 701C notebook. The 701C comes
> with an external floppy drive and no CD-ROM. This
> means that in order to install Windows 95, I must
> create dozens of floppy disks, then spend hours
> inserting them into the floppy drive, before I get
> a working system. Total effort expended, about 6
> hours. With Linux and FreeBSD, I simply set up
> an NFS server on my desktop, connect my notebook
> to my desktop via the parallel port, boot from the
> floppy drive, and install Linux or FreeBSD over
> the mounted CD-ROM in the desktop system. Granted,
> it took some experimentation before I learned to do
> this, but the install is MUCH easier than Windows.
First, I too am a Linux nitwit, but unfortunately
your solution to install Linux on your laptop is
already supported by Windows 9x. "Direct Cable
Connection" uses the parallel port to directly
connect computers together in Windows, thereby
allowing the same procedure to work in Windows as
it did in Linux.
And even if it turns out that I am horribly wrong
and Windows has built-in security measures which
consider the above procedure a "violation of
copyright" or some other weirdness like that,
Command Line Interface Windows 9x still possesses
the ability to do the INTERLNK/INTERSVR commands,
which can copy files between systems using the
parallel port (commands which, I need to add here,
aren't implemented as simply in Linux as they are
in Windows). This means all you need to do to get
Windows up and running on your laptop is a Windows
9x startup disk (or even two MSDOS 6.22 boot disks
with INTERLNK/INTERSVR on them and CDROM drivers),
a parallel port "LapLink" cable, and a desktop
system with a free parallel port and a CDROM drive.
[1] Use the Win9x Startup disk to partition the
hard drive on the laptop. Create a partition, in
addition to a main partition, with at least 60MB
(Win95) or 300MB (Win98) space in it. Format
all partitions.
[2] Run the InterLnk connection (help files
available on the Windows 9x desktop) and connect
the laptop with the desktop system using the cable.
[3] Copy the \Win95 or \Win98 directory off the
Windows install CD and put it in the extra partition
on the laptop hard drive. All the files are in
8.3 format, so the fact that you're using what
is essentially a DOS program to copy, will not make
any difference.
[4] Run SETUP.EXE in the extra partition to install
Win9x on your laptop.
Sad to say, it is actually *easier* to use a
parallel cable to install Windows than it is to
use a parallel cable to install Linux.
Me, I went and purchased a parallel-port IOMEGA
ZipDrive, which not only makes it easy to install
Windows, it also makes it easy to install SlackWare
Linux 7.1. Slackware installs quite handily using
either the method described in the ZIPDrive Install
HOWTO, or just floppy-installing the A series and
then copying over .TGZ files as needed and using
_pkgtool_ or just _installpkg_.
Another thing you should realize before you
label me some kind of Windows nut, is that there
is a very easy way to install Linux on a laptop
that has no CDROM: pull the hard drive out of the
laptop and mount it on an existing desktop with
a CDROM drive. You might have to change some of
the X Windows settings if the distribution is
fairly automatic (i.e., "forces you to accept its
choices over your own") but you will still end up
with a hard drive that has Linux installed on it,
without anything more complicated than plugging
it into an IDE cable or adjusting the SCSI ID#.
Put it back into your laptop, and Linux will
reconfigure your hardware settings when it boots
up again (at least, RedHat with Kudzu does this),
or you can do it using one of the various "Linux
for Dummies"-type books.
> > Debatable, for various reasons. One issue is support by a
> > reputable vendor. (I would include Cygwin, now owned by
> > RedHat, as a reputable support vendor, but I'm not sure
> > everyone would, especially since Microsoft has effectively
> > brainwashed so many.)
>
> I have to agree. I was sitting in a coffee shop and
> nearly choked on my coffee when I heard someone state
> quite authoritatively, "Linux, that runs on Microsoft."
> Obviously the person was ignorant about what an
> operating system is.
Considering the plethora of Linuxes that run using
LOADLIN and no repartitioning, its an easy mistake
to make.
> >>#3. Linux will never be the OS for nitwits.
> >One advantage for Linux is that nitwits can't screw it up,
> >if they don't have root access. :-) I for one would
> >think that this makes it especially suited for children.
>
> I use it on my notebook to take notes in class and I
> am an Arts major, so I like to think that I am living
> proof that nitwits can learn something about Linux.
> {I use Windows at school, but only because the
> Unix systems are not available to Arts students}
>
> I love Linux and FreeBSD for all the free software.
> I cannot find software with the same capability
> under Windows for free. (Grip is a prime example)
Do you mean "GIMP"?
In any case, if you load up the Linux system in GUI
mode and hand it to a child, your child will be just
fine with it. Use something similar to computers the
child may have used in school (such as Enlightenment
or FVWM95, or whatever KDE comes with) and the child
shouldn't even notice much of a difference from
computers s/he is used to using. The "username
password" thing may even get a smile out of the child,
thinking that s/he has password protected files on
your home computer (you can educate them about "root
access" later on in life :).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:34:19 +1300
> Unix had a 10 ms counter, and they judged that a range of
> over one year and a half was enough, so they didn't bother.
> MS roughly 30 years later had a 1 ms counter and didn't
> bother either. Judging apparently that a range of one month
> and a half was enough.
You are, of course, making the assumption that MS did this deliberately.
For all we know it could have been any kind of cockup... the same kind of
cockup that produced 95 in the first place?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 15:36:00 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >You are completly clueless Matt.
> >
> You completely avoided answering the point raised, which was the poor
choice of
> 49 days as an uptime counter reset used in NT, unless maybe 49 days was
the
> best they expected NT to stay up for?
You are suggesting that someone "chose" 49 days. More than likely, they
chose a 32 bit value without considering how many days it added up to.
Perhaps it was important to store the value in milliseconds for some reason,
rather than hundreths of a second like Unix. Storing it in a 64 bit value
would have taken significantly more cycles.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:29:54 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>mark wrote...
>> Whereas I go to the pub and buy a pint with the money that I didn't give
>> to Microsoft :)
>
>Sorry that you can't afford a commercial solution.
I can, but because I choose not to, I can have a pint instead.
I love having choice.
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
