Linux-Advocacy Digest #493, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Corneil du Plessis")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Netscape review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:52:19 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:eLGU5.25220$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vtpdc$5k4hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8vtl51$8bk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
> > > > Same mecanism you get one into a win machine.
> > > > Lure the user to open it.
> > > The mere open()ing a file doesn't execute any suspect code, so that
> won't
> > > work.
> > >
> > > > What delivery mecanism MS provides?
> > > > No, win9x gives that to everyone. And it's shit.
> > > And msw9x isn't a MS product?
> > > That's news for me.
> >
> > First sentence is asking about the dilivery mecanism
> > Second sentence is talking about giving everyboyd a root-like
permissions.
> >
> > > > Use NT or better yet, 2000 for a good system.
> > > Which also allow the same delivery mechanism.
> > > At least by default.
> >
> > What delivery mechanism?
> >
>
> How many would you like?
> http://www.guninski.com/index.html
>
What system is your primary/favoirate OS?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:00:50 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
>
> I concurr. I used a PIX firewall set to block and log all outgoing traffic.
> Fired up Netmeeting Server (ILS20) with Netmeeting 3.01 (the latest) and set it
> to use my ILS server only. There were no outbound PIX log entries generated by
> the Netmeeting client IP.
>
> This is just typically of the lies that come from the Linux peanut gallery.
How do you know your PIX firewall isn't a warez vehicle, heh heh??
And we all know who the biggest purveyor of trojan warez is, don't
we? MICROSOFT!!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:03:14 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> I love how virtually all Linux lovers say they are forced to use Windows
> at least sometimes. Usually end up that they just plain can't do
> something the need to in Linux and have to go back to Windows to do it.
And what exactly is wrong with that?
Or why exactly does that indicate a problem with Linux?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:06:04 GMT
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > Most likely the same, MS saw this as a PR/Marketing problem and did what
> > > they do best, give the customer's what they want.
> >
> > Man, a decade of rants and raves from magazine writers about the
> > bugs and catastrophes published by the 600-pound Microsoft
> > gorilla make what you say utter crap.
> >
>
> Well I guess those guys made their agenda, they sold you a stack of
> worthless magazines.
Yeah, Windozzzzzzzzzz magazines.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:08:10 GMT
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> Perchance you need some learnin' on system configuration. BTW Linux 2.3
> with KDE really stunk on that system. And Linux wouldn't run the SQL
> application.
>
Perchance you need some learnin' on system configuration.
Like I said, if you read carefully enough, this is a fresh,
default install from the Windozzzzzzzzzzzzz 2000 Pro CD.
No extra crap running, just the default stuff.
Maybe you need to take a mulligan.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:10:07 GMT
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Question: Is Terminal Server the rich man's X-Windows server?
> >
>
> No it's a smart man's remote adminstration tool.
Took Microsoft long enough to make it.
Microsoft was hot for the desktop. Now that they've
won (at least this round), they're going back to the
old server model that they so abjured back in the
days when all they wrote was toy operating systems
for toy computers.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:16:26 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > Rant off, I'm having a bad day with linux & its users.
> > > >
> > > > Windows and their users are typically worse.
> > >
> > > I'm holding Linux users to higher standards.
> >
> > Don't mix up OS merits with user merits.
> >
> > I'm forced to use for a portion of my time Windows, but this doesn't
> > necessarily make of me an incompetent amateur.
>
> I love how virtually all Linux lovers say they are forced to use Windows
> at least sometimes. Usually end up that they just plain can't do
> something the need to in Linux and have to go back to Windows to do it.
There's nothing I can do with Windows which cannot be done
much better under Linux, as far as my professional and
personal needs are concerned. On the contrary there's a lot
of things which can be done only under Linux, and which
can't be conceivably done under Windows.
I'm forced to use Windows because, being a monopoly, it has
90% of the market. Therefore a lot of my unaware customers
are using it. If I want to supply them applications they can
use, I must develop and test them under Windows.
Luckily we also have a lot of instances where we may choose
what to do, and in that case we select the best, in terms of
ease of development, performance and stability. Which isn't
always Linux, but is never MS crap.
Having some decades of experience in a number of different
OS's I may therefore claim that I've never found a single
instance where Windows didn't prove to be the worst possible
OS, tied to pre-unix technology, badly implemented, with
poor and unstable performance.
Right in this moment we're developing network programs,
which must be implemented both on Unix and on Windows
environment. If you compare the few, compact and clean lines
of code which perform a functionality in a fast, robust, and
performing way, with the amount of coding required to end up
with a poor performance, unstable application on Windows
(performance and stability being an OS related issue), you
realize once more how crappy the very OS conception is.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:19:38 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > What does the cow has to do with the eagle?
> > >
> > > You are confusing totally different subjects here, are you even aware of
> > > that?
> >
> > You're a real Dale Carnegie!
>
> Who is he?
Old guy, probably dead now <grin>. Author of
"How to Win Friends and Influence People".
Chris
--
[ ] Encrypt Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:22:00 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vsa15$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > CorelLinux 1.2 acts like a single user OS, if you don't take extra steps
> in
> > order to make sure it wouldn't.
> > The only acount defined is root, and you've *no way* of defining the root
> > password during the install.
>
> Apparently Corel went far out of their way to make their version of
> Linux act like Windows. I don't think you'll find many people here
> supporting either the concept or that implementation
>
I tested CorelLinux, and I agree: they tried to make it
Windows-like, and of course they ended making a lot of
things as crappy as in Windows.
I hope they didn't screw up the kernel, at least!
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:55:43 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZHIU5.25257$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > I'm forced to use for a portion of my time Windows, but this doesn't
> > > necessarily make of me an incompetent amateur.
> >
> > I love how virtually all Linux lovers say they are forced to use Windows
> > at least sometimes. Usually end up that they just plain can't do
> > something the need to in Linux and have to go back to Windows to do it.
>
> Yes, the thing they almost universally have trouble doing under Linux
> is interoperating with the proprietary file formats that Microsoft has
> used to lock you in. It's your data, but you have to pay for a software
> license to access it on another machine.
Well, ther is a nice idea which Office support called *exporting*.
Actually, they call it Save As, but that is what they mean.
Save in a file format that you can read, and you are done.
That the proprietry file formats are superior to the open ones is another
matter (if they are not, why do you use the proprietry file formats when you
don't have to?)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:57:04 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u0HU5.25230$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vsa15$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > CorelLinux 1.2 acts like a single user OS, if you don't take extra steps
> in
> > order to make sure it wouldn't.
> > The only acount defined is root, and you've *no way* of defining the
root
> > password during the install.
>
> Apparently Corel went far out of their way to make their version of
> Linux act like Windows. I don't think you'll find many people here
> supporting either the concept or that implementation
Way out of their ways.
I agrees.
Still, because of that, it's the easiest Linux for a newbie.
And it really takes only a couple of minutes to secure the system.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:58:53 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sOGU5.25222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vv5e2$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > >The first is a perfectly legal, morally correct, and a wise bussiness
> > > >decision. The second is considered illegal, but still a wise
bussiness
> > > >decision, moral I leave to others to ponder about, as value systems
are
> > > >different around the world.
> > >
> > > No, monopolization is not a wise business decision. It isn't a
business
> > > decision at all; it is a decision to avoid doing business, and instead
> > > to engage in criminal activity.
> >
> > Monoply is a wise business decision because it increase revenue.
> > That is what I was talking about.
> > On pure logical level, wise business decision is one that increase
> revenue,
> > monoply increase revenue.
> >
>
> But I was taught that crime doesn't pay.
Tell that to OJ Simpson.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:05:58 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> NO. The money made today is in the maintenance of software products
> and NOT the sale of software products. Microsoft is actually
> the last bastion of software SALES stupidity. The money is
> in the market for maintenance.
MS share worth: ~70$
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=quick&mode=stock&symbol=msft&symbol=
&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=
Red hat share worth: ~8$
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=quick&mode=stock&symbol=rhat&symbol=
&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=
Enough said.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:08:10 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You can download Debian for FREE right now. It doesn't cost
> you a GD thing. Why is it that RedHat just keeps selling
> more and more of essentially the same software in boxes
> for anywhere from $65 to $189 a box.
Redhat also sell a version of linux in 3k+ (optimized for oracle, IIRC)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:14:27 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mSGU5.25223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vv5ea$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > IBM is a company comparable to Microsoft, if not larger.
> > IBM apperantly had a technically superior OS.
> > Why did IBM failed? IBM is more than powerful enough to break MS
monopoly
> > (which it created, apperantly)
>
> Ibm was legally constrained from bundling products before they even
> developed the PC. There is no way they would have been allowed
> to force customers to buy their OS and they knew better than to try.
So if I buy an AIX from IBM, I won't get OS?
Anyway, before win3 & 95, IBM could've make OS/2 a more attractive offer
than windows.
On general, the average customer buy because of a balance of ease-of-use,
price, application offering, and marketing.
Which one of those were in favor of os/2 before windows widespread use?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:21:42 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2VGU5.25225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vv78g$5nghc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Because I know that I've alternatives.
> > I've within reach at least 5 or 6 dist of linux, three of BSD.
> > If MS gets too annoying, I will switch.
> > I always had this option, and I'll always will.
>
> What would you have used in 1996? Which major vendor could have
> sold you a PC without paying for a copy of Windows?
A> When I buy a computer, I don't go to major vendor. On general, I rather
build my computers per my needs. Vednor system has much quircks that I don't
like. Therefor, I don't have a problem here.
B> English isn't your first too? For future reference, the word "will", as
used in the context of my words, indicate that I'm talking about something
in the future. Unless you got the time table from Aaron, the future is not
1996.
C> Who says I'll stay on PC? Plenty of choices around to pick from.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:34:14 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > Not exactly, They do try to meet marketing requests. Little things like the
> > > Terminal Server addition to Win2K Server for remote adminstration originated
> > > from an e-mail sent to tech support at MS by myself.
> > >
> >
> > Question: Is Terminal Server the rich man's X-Windows server?
>
> Again. Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.
You may buy a Linux distribution, and if you select the
appropriate one (competition is there for that!), you're
running with little trouble. If you want it for free, then
it's your choice.
If you compare with the time lost with Windows patches,
security updates, incompatible DLL's, crashes, poor
performance, etc. etc. etc., the cost of ownership turns out
to be a subject that Winadvocates would better avoid using.
It's too much against Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Corneil du Plessis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:51:26 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Mon, 13 Nov 2000 17:29:09 -0500
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >Andres Soolo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [about LF vs. CR-LF as newline separator]
> > >> > Yes, Simon think it is quit normal for Gates to ignore a standard
that
> > >> > had been in place for a full decade.
> > >> Well ... actually, MS followed there a standard. An old standard
from
> > >> about the same era as EBCDIC's roots. The teletypes needed two
separate
> > >> commands to scroll the paper and to move the print head back to the
> > >> left end of the page.
> > >
> > >Please explain the logic benefit of using EBCDIC standards
> > >on ASCII machines....
> >
> > Who knows? dd still has EBCDIC <-> ASCII conversion capability.
> > I suspect someone out there is still using it, but I can't say
> > I've seen an awful lot of EBCDIC tapes out there lately. :-)
>
> That's because IBM mainframe equipment still runs on EBCDIC.
>
> Consider if you upgraded your IBM mainframes...and then had to
> also change in each of multi-million dollar 100-page/second printers.
> ...AND all of your applications.
>
>
>
Only Microsoft expects their customers to upgrade everything when they make
a change.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:47:36 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FpIU5.25251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > | > > Yeah - don't *run* anything, that'll slow it down.
> > | >
> > | > Naturally, if you run anything, on any OS, it will take resources
from
> the
> > | > system.
> > | > Therefor, there will be fewer resources to hand around to other
> programs
> > | > (assuming multi tasking OS)
> > | > Do you know of a way to avoid this?
> > | > If you do, please learn some engineering, because we need perpetual
> motion
> > | > machine.
> > |
> > | Under Linux, things take as long or longer to start up, but there is
no
> > | particular slowdown from having a lot of windows open at once
> > | when the others are not doing much cpu work. On windows things
> > | slow down just because more windows are open.
In windows, if I've ten(s) of windows, and none of them is using CPU cycles
at the moment, the CPU will be idle or be used by the application currently
in foreground.
You can also define how you want your CPU cycles to go around, equally to
all applications, or to the foreground application first, and then to the
others.
The resources I was talking about are more than merely CPU.
> > Which Windows are you referring to?
> >
> > On Win2k here, I use a virtual desktop manager. Once I have certain apps
> > open, I don't close them. I don't see any slow downs with such a
> > practice or else I wouldn't adopt such a practice.
>
> This is win98 - I haven't tried win2k on any low-resource machine. If I
> wanted to spend that much money I'd get some more RAM too (or instead...).
> However, I don't see much performance difference between NT and
> Win2k on a box with 384 Megs running an in-house app. It just doesn't
> crash as often as it did with a pre-sp6a NT.
Used as a desktop? Of course you wouldn't see a difference in here.
There is more than enough resources to supply either NT or 2K.
Put them under some pressure, and you'll see how 2K excel NT.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:49:38 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OtGU5.25217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vsa1i$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > > Win98 will fly on 32MB (I used to work on 16 win 98)
> > > > And I'm running a server on a 64MB which is also used as a desktop
> > > machine.
> > >
> > > You have a strange idea of flying. My 32MB machine crawls if you
> > > open more than a couple of windows.
> >
> > What are you doing on it?
> > What windows? What services run on the background?
>
> A P133 - the office quickstart is the main thing running automatically and
> it
> can't run Media Player 7 playing an mp3. Other players work OK.
Are you sure that the quickstart is the only thing that run on it
automatically?
Run msconfig and check.
That it is the only think in startmenu or the only thing visible mean very
little.
What error that MP7 gives you?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:55:42 +0200
"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Well, I've tried netscape. (6, windows version. On Whistler 2296
machine)
> > Just as a note, Whistler being a beta release of windows might skew the
> > results, but I don't think it would do such a degree as to nullify the
> > results that I post.
> > Even if you half the numbers I give, it's still *bad* for Netscape.
>
> I DON'T CARE!!!
>
> I will still continue to run my Netscape 4.75 Browser on Linux which has
> performed for me better than anything MS running Internet Exploder has
ever
> done. Once Mozilla comes out with a version with debugging turned off, I
will
> be switching to it as soon as it is available.
You've the source, why don't you turn the debugging off yourself?
> If you don't want intelligent people responding to this propaganda, keep
it off
> the linux and mac newsgroups.
Netscape is a multi platform product.
Whistler is a direct competition to both Mac & Linux.
While the second might not interest you, the first should.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:56:36 +0200
"Corneil du Plessis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900d6e$kaq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Only Microsoft expects their customers to upgrade everything when they
make
> a change.
I still have a win95 running word 6 on a 486 & 12MB
It's being used daily.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:01:05 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > > Giuliano Colla wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm forced to use for a portion of my time Windows, but this doesn't
> > > > necessarily make of me an incompetent amateur.
> > >
> > > I've been peeved by Microsoft's Gilligan-like iconclasm for a long
time.
> > > I got my first real computing experience on a PDP-8, then worked with
> > > a time-sharing terminal (Digital OS again) from Atchison, KS, to
> > > Kansas City, I think. Then a small IBM mainframe. Then a DEC-10.
> > > Found a resonance in a PDP-11 running UNIX. Nothing else has
> > > felt so good since, until Linux.
> >
> > But yet you too are "forced" to use Windows?
>
> Another dumbass aphorism. Sure I'm forced to use Windows.
> I discovered Linux only relatively recently, but my company
> (not the one in my header) has been using Windozzzzzzzzzz for
> quite some time. Since I have to develop a project that
> works on Windozzzzzzzzzzzz NT, I have to use Windozzzzzzzzzzz
> tools.
I develop to X, I've to use X tools.
Replace X with any OS name.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:05:50 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > > Rant off, I'm having a bad day with linux & its users.
> > > > >
> > > > > Windows and their users are typically worse.
> > > >
> > > > I'm holding Linux users to higher standards.
> > >
> > > Don't mix up OS merits with user merits.
> > >
> > > I'm forced to use for a portion of my time Windows, but this doesn't
> > > necessarily make of me an incompetent amateur.
> >
> > I love how virtually all Linux lovers say they are forced to use Windows
> > at least sometimes. Usually end up that they just plain can't do
> > something the need to in Linux and have to go back to Windows to do it.
>
> There's nothing I can do with Windows which cannot be done
> much better under Linux, as far as my professional and
> personal needs are concerned. On the contrary there's a lot
> of things which can be done only under Linux, and which
> can't be conceivably done under Windows.
GUI?
Linux & Unix has the worst GUI I've ever had the displeasure to experiance.
It drove me to the CLI.
There isn't one one windows manager that can compare with Windows' GUI or
Apple GUI.
> I'm forced to use Windows because, being a monopoly, it has
> 90% of the market. Therefore a lot of my unaware customers
> are using it. If I want to supply them applications they can
> use, I must develop and test them under Windows.
So, if your customers used linux, you'd be forced to use linux.
What does this have to do with MS?
If your customers are using X, you'll have to use X.
> Having some decades of experience in a number of different
> OS's I may therefore claim that I've never found a single
> instance where Windows didn't prove to be the worst possible
> OS, tied to pre-unix technology, badly implemented, with
> poor and unstable performance.
You don't work with human users, then.
Try ease of use combined with a reasonable price tag as a good reason for
windows.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
