Linux-Advocacy Digest #368, Volume #30 Wed, 22 Nov 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
10 Pcs. Of Paper Money From Around the World 1656 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Marty)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! (mark)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! (mark)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here... (mark)
Re: Small Distro? (mark)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Gary Hallock)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (mark)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats ! ("Joel Barnett")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 10 Pcs. Of Paper Money From Around the World 1656
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:16:36 GMT
Two days ago I ordered 10 pieces of paper money from 10 different countries from a
company called Perth Numismatics. Lo and behold they arrived today and they are very
nice and colourful. They even have a bill from Antarctica. I didn't even know they
existed. These are perfect for stocking stuffers or people who are hard to buy for.
The website address is www.perthmoney.com
Good luck and Merry Christmas
Cynthia Reeves
oknendxqedjgdjqsdllhoypzibhjybziuolgtvolzcerckqhjqvbk
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:19:21 -0500
mark wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >>
> >> Kind of like the speedometer scale on production street cars is
> >> ALWAYS higher than the maximum speed that the car will go with
> >> the factory drivetrain.
> >
> >[Aside:] That's not always the case. My '92 Ford Exploder (er.. Explorer)
> >only went up to 85MPH on the speedometer and I've gotten it to 105 or so.
> Just wondering - how did you know?
Mostly extrapolation and seat-of-the-pants sensing. I didn't have a
"peg" at 85, so the needle continued around a bit and it looked about
right to be about 105.
> My experience of speedos is that once you exceed common speed limits then
> they become quite inaccurate. They're also increasingly affected by
> such things as how inflated your tyres are as speed goes up. Also,
> how loaded the vehicle is affects the tyre profile which affects the
> reported speed.
>
> This is why real speed tests use external machines - car speedos are
> really not very accurate.
Agreed. It was definitely faster than 85 at least. ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:18:37 +0000
In article <8vgjkl$6ui$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MH wrote:
>
>> > Well done Linux community! You now have a desktop which may stand a
>> > chance against W2k.
>>
>> They already did. But that's a personal opinion, of course ;-)
>
>Yes indeed. But, if usability is what makes 'standing a chance', not going
>to happen. Yet.
My 6 and 4 year old kids have no problems using X and the console. See
other post on the subject. Usability is no issue, it's all about
experience, training, willingness to learn & discover.
>
>> > The apps are not quite there yet. E.g.,
>> > downloaded Netscape 6 which is even worse than Netscape 4.7
>>
>> What do you mean by "apps not quiet there"? Are you missing anything they
>> did not include?
>
>What part of no decent internet browser are you having a problem with?
>Sort of like when the republicans missed the point when Bush got tarred by
>Clinton...It's the internet, stupid. Three years, Mozilla STILL hasn't
>gotten it right. This is the future of open source developing big,
>important, main stream applications. Get used to it. You want more? Sure...
Mozilla will be ready when it's ready. The development cycle follows
precisely the same one as the Linux kernel, gnu tools etc., and as such,
takes as long as it takes. This is the development approach which has
resulted in a kernel more stable than anything Microsoft have produced,
a huge number of distributions of fully fledged, best of breed unix
clones (just paraphrasing Microsoft's own halloween docs there).
>
>What part of no easily programmable back end to an office suite are you
>having a problem with?
>(uh oh, here comes the mellissa virus BS again...)
As someone who disabled the vba capabilities on my Win95r2 and then
my Win98SE (work) boxes, and showed a large number of my colleagues
how to do the same, I can say that I'm not impressed with MSOffice's
security weaknesses. I typically get 2/3 Word documents a month
with some Macro virus they're not supposed to have - I just get
a 'visual basic not installed' message (or something similar).
Those who use the full microsoft capability usually get a visit from
the IS people armed with CDRoms with new OS images. And days
and days trying to sort out their data again.
No, that's not something I'd like to see in debian.
>
>What part of a RAD development tool are you having a problem with. (and
>don't say Delphi, it's not here yet, and I'll bet the only folks who
>purchase it will be windows hackers, and the linux community will say "I
>don't want no stinkin delphi runtime support on my box")
I've no idea what other members of the linux community will say. I
prefer to let them say it themselves.
>
> Where are my reference works? Educational software? Gak! there arent
>any?!?!
>You had a good set of tools in Corel, but you hung them out to dry because
>you don't spend money for software. Now, where are my group & revision tools
>in a word processor? Does Koffice or wingz do pivot tables and-or- what if
>scenarios10 ways to Sunday? Business uses those you know...I could go on,
>but this is like talking to the Russians. Senseless.
Corel had their own problems before they looked to linux to save
their flagging fortunes. See other post for details, but suffice
to say that trying to compete with a monopoly is a dangerous game,
and Corel appear to have paid the final and ultimate price - they're
being assimilated by the monopoly in question.
The group & revision tools in MSOffice have zero users in my organisation,
mainly because they are very very user unfriendly. Strangely, we
managed to develop documents across the org long before Windows even
existed - nothing Microsoft have offered has come close to the traditional
methods, which generally involve telephones, meetings, discussions,
emailing comments and so on, as well as very tight version control.
Word has now become so unusable that it has virtually disappeared from
our day to day environment - this is one of the most amazing changes
of the last 10 years - All-in-one encouraged a lot of group working and
electronic document preparation, Wordstar was very popular on the
earliest PCs and a good alternative to all-in-one; Lotus Manuscript
is generally accepted as the best word processing package we ever
had. Then came Word 2 and Word 6 - now we just use slide decks
instead.
This is from an international business perspective, by the way.
>
>What am to underestimate? That some people will take the time to tell me
>what hardware they run? Sheesh.
>I do know that if I had spent the $$ on that setup, the only way linux would
>be on it would be either dual boot or with vmware. My linux box runs on a
>PPRO 200. I think those once $1000 chips are selling for under $50 now. Oh,
>and BTW, NT smokes linux on the same box.
>Even when running cute little C binaries. But I don't mind that. I run gnu
>gcc, gdb, with a couple of open xterms on 4 desktops. Very cool. But as soon
>as I go on the internet, I jump on the windows box. What do you think
>Q-public is doing? Playing with gcc?
>
I'm not really very interested in what they're doing. I do know that
most of the people I know are typically surfing for Porn or playing
games most of the time. A small number of those users do irc and other
chat things, a lot of the females I know frequent erotica web-based
chat sites. So no, they're not playing with gcc, unless gcc stands
for something I'm not aware of ;)
An astonishingly small proportion of those people would even know what
usenet is, and a similarly small number use ftp.
The students I know have been splitting their time between napstering
for pirated mp3s and whatever else takes their fancy.
And that leaves us.
Not one of the people I know use NT, have any plans to buy win2k or any
plans to upgrade to anything. They have no interest in whether NT5 is
faster or slower than NT4 or anything else.
They're not interested in how many xterms they can get on a screen.
My wife wants in i-mac 'cos they look nice.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:19:54 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:04:31 -0500, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>gcc, gdb, with a couple of open xterms on 4 desktops. Very cool. But as soon
>>as I go on the internet, I jump on the windows box. What do you think
>>Q-public is doing? Playing with gcc?
>
>That's the saddest part. They actually DO believe that :(
>
Now I don't know what you're thinking, claire/steve/heather/keys/cat etc.,
how do you know what I think?
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:48:49 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't remember doing that, but it is easy enough to find anyway.
>
> claire
>
Of course you don't! It was one of your other personalities. I guess you don't
all talk to each other. You think you're hiding behind these multiple names, but
you have such constant posting style, everyone here can tell who you are, whatever
name you happen to be using at the moment.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here...
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:44:42 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:18:10 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:52:34 +0000, "Scaramanga"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Can't get a mousewheel to work?
>>>
>>>Well I'd rather have that than a whole OS that is quite clearly faulty.
>>
>>It's amazing what lack of ergonomics and ease of use you Linvocates
>>are willing to put up with to run Linux.
>
>Dumb question, but what would you rather have, a mouse whose wheel
>doesn't wrk on an ultra-secure operating system, or a wheelmouse
>which works perfectly on an OS which has more security holes
>than a piece of Swiss cheese? :-)
>
Whilst I agree fully with your sentiments, I'd just like to point
out that Switzerland is one the the worlds greatest cheese producers.
I think the cheese you're most likely referring to is called
emmenthal (th pronounced as 't' as in tree).
I'm saying this because I like cheese and beer nearly as much as
I like linux :-)
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Small Distro?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:46:51 +0000
In article <8vgjuk$23a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MH wrote:
>
>"> I think debian 1.3 (aka 'bo') was the last libc5 version of debian, so
>> if you're really strapped for space, it's slightly slimmer. The linux
>> router project used bo as the basis for this reason, iirc.
>>
>> 400M should allow a reasonable installation, however.
>
>This is small? My god, I could fit 3 NT 4 installations in that space and
>have room for, yes I know it's a foreign concept, an application or two!!!
>
Er, the linux router project fits it onto 1 floppy. So it would be possible
to get around 200 LRPs in the space of 3 NT4 installations, then. Wow,
doesn't NT need a lot of space.
The phrase I used clearly states 'a reasonable installation'.
Cheers,
mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:55:58 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 22 Nov 2000 18:38:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:09:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>You Penguinista's have a difficult time reading for some reason.
> >>Maybe your eyes are worn out from reading all of those How-Not-To's.
> >>
> >>He said MENU BASED.
> >
> >Not in the post I followed up to, he didn't.
>
> Everybody seems to miss the menu part, I wonder why?
> Maybe because it doesn't work correctly?
> claire
What an idiot. Read the thread. Follow the links up from Donovans post. NO
mention of menu based. You are looking at a different subthread. You really
should stop jumping into the middle off a discussion like this.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:53:30 +0000
In article <6rQS5.12295$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bruce Schuck
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:31:03 -0800
>> <WdgP5.125439$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:21:42 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> >Well...eMbedded VB 3.0 and eMbedded C++ are free. Except for shipping and
>> >> >handling.
>> >>
>> >> GNU tools are free too. And I can configure the same compiler and
>> >> libraries for dozens of different targets.
>> >
>> >Tell me about GNU VB.
>>
>> With or without DCOM? :-)
>>
>> An interesting concept, that -- if Wine gets well-developed enough
>> to implement DCOM, things could get *very* different, especially
>> if we do get a Basic which understands it.
>>
>> (Of course, CORBA might be better-suited anyway, and there's
>> always Java's RMI. :-) )
>
>CORBA... hah
>
>Well, implementing DCOM at this point would be a waste of time.
>
>From what I've seen of Visual Studio.NET and the rest of the
>larger than Java.
>
>Considering that MS will turn over .NET when its finished to
>a standards body (and that C# already has), that the .NET runtime
>is currently being developed for Linux and several other platforms,
>and that .NET brings many things to the table above and beyond
>COM, that that would be the way to go in the near future.
>
All our major systems designs are centering on Corba. Of course,
these're the business and network management systems, rather than
the office stuff which microsoft normally deals with, so it's
more Sun's territory.
I prefer today's cake to tomorrow's icing, tho'.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:02:54 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:22:51 -0500, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Oh yeh, right! PM 6.0 did not exist at the time Windows ME and W2K came out. It
>did not
> >exist when I had to use PM on Windows ME. And why should I have to spend more
>money to
> >upgrade PM?. What can't Windows provide upward compatibility?
>
> Because Gary, Windows (Microsoft) shouldn't have to worry about
> supporting backward compatability with every piece of software that is
> out there. If they did, they would be stuck in a rut and in many cases
> not able to advance. That is exactly what happend with OS/2 which
> tried to maintain compatability with Windows applications (Win/OS)
> while MS marched on and OS/2 died.
Hey, get a clue! I said UPWARD compatibility. Don't you ever read before posting?
Any
decent OS provides UPWARD compatibility. Some will sometimes provide limited BACKWARD
compatibility. But it is UPWARD compatibility that is most important.
>
>
> It is also the reason why Linux is mired in old technology, like it's
> file system.
>
You are beyond help. You don't even know the difference between upward and backward
compatibility.
>
> >Your Dos VFat argument is backwards. That's called backwards compatibility. I
>don't
> >expect to be able run a new program on an old OS. But I do expect to be able to
>run an
> >old program on a new version of the OS.
>
> I prefer the latest technology and if I have to upgrade to get it
> that's ok with me.Linux has broken many things along the way as well
> with Lib5/LibC and so forth. It's just that you guys love flittering
> around hoping to be the first one on /. to find the bug and fix it.
And libc5 compatibility libraries were provide to support upward compatibility.
>
>
> Linux will always be living in the past. It will always be behind in
> hardware support and it will forever be trying to have even a small
> amount of the high quality and broad range of applications that
> Windows has. Nothing but a huge influx of money and Linux going
> commercial, is going to change that.
>
Believe what you want, but it is you who is living in the past.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:35:59 +0000
In article <LIBS5.9753$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"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.
What a find really distressing is that I never got to experience that problem
over the whole of the ~3 years I had to run win95 - it had always already
died for some other reason _long_ before getting to 49.7 days. I don't
think it ever managed a whole week.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:42:25 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Then why doesn't Linux store a 64 bit value there either? The answer is
>> obvious, the value is incremented in kernel time, which is to be minimized
>> as much as possible. Incrementing a 64 bit value requires at least an order
>> of magnitude more CPU cycles. (requires 2 32 bit reads, 2 32 bit writes,
>> several math operations to combine the two values, etc..) That may not seem
>> significant, but when it's being done once every millisecond, it adds up.
>>
>
>An order of magnitude? You must be joking. A couple of extra instructions.
>
I think he's confusing a base 10 order of magnitude in used processor cycles
with a base 2 order of magnitude from 32 to 64 bit wordsize.
Easy mistake to make, I suppose?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:45:46 +0000
In article <8vgnag$nv3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sfcybear wrote:
>In article <8vge0n$gbt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <8vfovl$12o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In article <ZvsS5.406$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > > sfcybear writes:
>> > >
>> what
>> > is most important. Your silly little word games does NOTHING to
>chang
>> > the fact that the NT uptime clock is Useless.
>> >
>> Useless after 49.7 days. The Linux clock is useless after 497 days.
>Still the point that I have been trying to make is the same. The choice
>to set the Uptime limit to 49.7 is an example of the poor programing
>choices that are made at MS. I can see NO valid reason to put in an
>uptime clock with an upper limit of 49.7 days, it's just plain stupid.
I can - if you don't expect your OS to be up for more than 1 week at
a time, or so, then 50 days allows a huge margin.
>Before you pull a funkenbusch and fly off the handle about no reason to
>set the time at 497 days, please read some of my other posts. 497 days
>makes a sh*t load more sense than 49 days!
>
>All unix? wrong. Take a look
>
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
>
>The BSD's are showing greater than 497 days.
>
>>
>> I don't know of many (any?) NT Admins that feel it is a priority to
>> collect uptime information from the network.
>
>Of course not. If the uptime stats were known they would be forced to
>switch to Unix.
>
Indeed - supports my view that limiting the uptime count to 49.7 days
provides an excellent excuse:
' here're this months' uptime stats'
' ah - why are they all so small'
' oh- they're really long, it's just the counters rolled at 49 days'
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:48:22 +0000
In article <8vgdai$foe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thank you, I can do it myself. What I noted is that on a NT4
>> >> server version it is not provided. Which I find suspicious.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Indeed. Very suspicious that they didn't include a utility that was
>> >only released last year in a product that they released in 1996. I
>> >think you might be on something here. Or not.
>>
>> No, not suspicious. Utterly predictable, in fact, that MS would not
>> have a fundamental functionality included in its standard release,
>> wouldn't fix it for years, and then would play games rather than fix
>the
>> fundamental design flaw which causes this to be a problem.
>>
>I was rather unaware that collecting uptime information from the
>network was a requirement of an OS. The uptime tool reports accurate
>information, but I can't see how MS having a 49.7 day limit or Linux
>having a 497 day limit on information gathered from the network is a
>fundamental design flaw.
>
It's certainly a vital function of my network (telecoms, admittedly,
so not really an area where there's anything Microsoft).
Telecoms network users do not sit kindly with anything less than
virtually permanently up networks.
Incidentally, that's why we use so much unix for system & network
management - it stays up.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 7.2 and KDE2 - Congrats !
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:03:20 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 08:46:03 -0500, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >Netscape STILL has these SAME old problems? You say version 6 (the great
> >MOZILLA) is even worse? Oh my. This has turned into a 'same old, same
old'
> >horror show.
>
> It's a perfect match for Linsux which still can't recognize >the correct
amount of memory installed on some >motherboards.
BIOS problem. W2k will not function properly on some machines w/o flashing
the BIOS also. Had this happen to me at work on the first new pc we got with
W2k.
>Still has
> shaky USB support.
Also reminds me of W2k. Agfa Snapcan 1212U won't work, even with the W2k
driver. @home USB NIC had to be replaced with a PCI NIC.
>Still has people running around in circles trying
> to connect to the internet and on an on
No harder to configure than Windows. Phone#, username, password, DNS server
addresses. Works like a charm.
.
>
>
> >You say you spent the big $$ for an Nvidia geforce256, and you want the
sort
> >of performance that card provides? Then what the F are you doing running
it
> >under an X server? Of course window dragging seems sluggish. X is
sluggish.
> >Gee, I voted for Bush and I want the deficit to continue to shrink.
WRONG.
> >Spending big bucks on hardware for a linux box is IMO pound foolish. I'd
> >just as soon put premium gas with octane booster in my riding mower.
>
> "Working" to the Linux community has a completely >different meaning
> than it does in the Windows world.
How true. MS does use English in odd ways.
>
> Working to them means:
>
> 1.Their video card displays a raster.
My video card works just fine.
> 2. They are able to print a character to their printer. No >color or
> features like paper selection etc. But it DOES print.
Haven't setup a printer, so can't comment. Perhaps you can tell me why a H-P
inkjet printer is noticeably slower under W2k than W98 - even with the
latest W2k driver ?
> 3. Half their hardware doesn't work and is sitting off in >a pile at
> the end of the desk.
All of my hardware is connected to my LM 7.2 pc and working fine. Was
detected in the install no problem.
>That's ok though because they are running Linux.
> The superior operating system.
How true.
>
> Ha ha....What a joke...
Windows you mean ?
>
> claire
>
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:51:01 +1300
> > the 95 line... (is there anyone who actually
> > LIKES this OS? Seriously?)
> I don't mind 95b.
> What is so good about 98 or ME?
> (Not interested in NT/2K)
98 I found to be better than 95a or b, providing it was freshly
installed. It still craps out and needs reinstalling to function after
about 6 months.
ME I just wont touch, because I like being able to make boot disks.
But you say you don't mind it... I was curious to know if anyone LIKES
it (and I mean any of the 95 line).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:49:42 +0000
In article <8vgjsb$ktr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > I was rather unaware that collecting uptime information from the
>> > network was a requirement of an OS. The uptime tool reports
>accurate
>> > information, but I can't see how MS having a 49.7 day limit or Linux
>> > having a 497 day limit on information gathered from the network is a
>> > fundamental design flaw.
>> >
>>
>> Your unawareness on Internet standards tells on you, but
>> doesn't add anything to the topic.
>
>What standard are you referring to?
>
>> If you believe that an uptime information of one month and a
>> half is more than enough. it means that you're accustomed to
>> MS crapware.
>>
>
>I never said that I thought it was enough. When I wish to see the
>uptime of my NT boxes, I use the appropriate tool - uptime.exe. I'm
>not particularly interested in what is reported to me by the network
>stack.
>
Is that the one which came with the machine, or one you had to
add later? My debian machines have the capability as part of the
distro.
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
******************************
