Linux-Advocacy Digest #555, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful (Guy)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is awful ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Off Topic: Funny Light Bulb Joke: ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Whistler review. (mitch)
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: What is the best/most powerful distro of linux? (John Travis)
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: OK, so let me get this straight, was Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:13:40 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here's another 10 cents...
windows is easy to use...no brainer to use most of the time plus you can
get support up the wazoo...but its unstable, erratic, and downright
bloody annoying...
linux on the other hand is not so easy to use...but its stable and when
correctly used is powerful and much handier than windows...but its a
pain to setup and install linux and software(if you don't know what
you're doing)...support for the uninformed is almost nonexistant without
digging under every internet stone to find it...thus making it
downright bloody annoying...
There's no such thing as a good OS...not that I've yet seen and everyone
defends the one that they like most, so don't take it personally.
Guy
(Quester for the perfect OS - like that'll ever happen!)
PS. I still want to try Mac and OS/2 - if there's any other widely used
OS's in use let me know so I can see about trying them to...
"J.C.Posey" wrote:
>
> "Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Rozzi, my good friend, there's that thing called brain that you need to use
> > in order to succeeed with Linux. Apparently you lack the above mentioned
> > item, or don't know how to use it properly.
>
> This is the kind of elitist attitude that kills Linux in the general market.
> Most people are *not* programmers, and *not* computer geeks. They just
> want to be able to turn the computer on and do their work.
>
> I'm all for Linux, and am slowly making the shift to only Linux, but the more
> I'm involved with it, the more I get the feeling that the Linux community is
> not really interested in helping the average user. In fact, they tend to
> view the average user as a 'luser' which is pathetic really.
>
> Linux users wake up! Don't slap new users in the face.
>
> Jake
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:18:50 GMT
J.C. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:28:18 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>> Let me ask you again. Why should I trust TPC over my own judgement? If I
>>
>> was a Holocaust
>>
>>> survivor, should I take the word of a Holocaust revisionist just because
>>
>> he might be a better
>>
>>> historian than me?
>>>
>>> Why should I trust TPC over my own judgement? My own judgement tells me
>>
>> that NT/2k falls over
>>
>>> where Unix doesn't; what, that's bullshit, because some corporation
>>
>> disagrees?
>>
>> Because it's a industry standard?
>
>
> You just get worse and worse. Should I not trust my judgement, based on my empirical
> observation, over some study/research group, just because they have a big name for
>themselves
> and I don't?
>
> What you're saying here is that I should place my faith blindly in an organization
>because TPC
> has a reputation to uphold? Why? As I keep saying (and as you keep dodging): Why
>should I
> trust TPC over my own judgement?
>
> (because they have a big name for themselves? ha, ha. I'm laughing already...)
>
>
I liked the response by (I think it was sun) that if all you were going
to do was to run TPC tests all day, then yes, Windows 2000 is good, but
if you want to get real work done, then you're better off using
Solaris. I'd like to know when Microsoft will come out with an OS that
can handle up to 1024 processors, and 16 gigs of memory and lots of
other fun things. Yes, you could cluster, however, it costs more to
maintain a large cluster of servers than have or two bloody big servers
like the ones produced by SGI (Origin) and SUN (Spitfire).
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:33:28 GMT
I have talked to developers, and their own opinion was the the Win32 API
is a bitch to write programs around. Win32 API is a mish-mash of
different parts thrown together in a blender, when compared with cleanly
written API's such as the ones included with BeOS, which are fully
documented, for real!
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Simon Palko wrote:
>
>> "J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:40:30 -0500, Simon Palko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If MS thinks that they are so hot, why don't they just release the
>>>>> API spec, and challenge someone to come up with something better....
>>>>> and pay the winner a prize
>>>>
>>>> Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available for
>>>> ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
>>>> implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now, haven't
>>>> checked up on it in a while).
>>>
>>> Um, WINE is purely the result of reverse-engineering... (why would MS
>>> want to help get the w32 api set onto other OSs? to break their monopoly?
>>> I can imagine them wanting that... not...)
>>
>> A reverse-engineering of the IMPLEMENTATION. The full spec for the API
>> (with behaviors and whatnot) is freely available.
>
>
> No..it is a PARTIAL spec.
>
>
>> That's like saying that everyone's implementation of a Java VM is a
>> reverse-engineering because they're only implementing the spec!
>
>
>
> the published JAVA spec is **COMPLETE**.
> The published Windows API is INCOMPLETE.
>
>
>
>> --
>> -Simon Palko
>>
>> "More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
>> backs!"
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:37:22 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90417b$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <903r8k$594r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >> In article <3a228f5a$0$14371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad
> Rutherford
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >> >how would you know?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I think he knows what's run better for him, which is what he said.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It's nothing like :
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> at all.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> wa waaaaa.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Besides, we really don't care whether Ayende likes the colour
> > >> >> scheme of DOS7.3 or DOS8 or whatever this will be.
> > >> >
> > >> >There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
> > >> >You are thinking 9x line.
> > >> >A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Shame really, 'cos the only thing I would actually use
> > >> Microsoft OS for in my own time would be game playing. And
> > >> that's only possible with DOS.
> > >
> > >That is just about the most ridicilous, inaccurate, and idiotic
statement
> > >that I've heard since I last read Aaron's posts.
> >
> > Que? My, we are getting personal. Well, 'tis true. I do not
> > run MS OSs in my spare time except under _exceptional_ circumstances.
> > The only one I know of is for a game which will only run under
> > dos. That's that. It's a fact, and I don't really see how you
> > can call it inaccurate.
>
> Because not even a moderatedly successful game came out in the last three
> years or so that didn't run on windows?
>
You have to remember, Ayende, that a lot of folks still play games that were
written before Win95.
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:37:21 GMT
"Skully1900" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Comparing Linux to Windows 2000 is like comparing the Space Shuttle to a
bottle
> rocket and Linux isn't the Space Shuttle. <snip>
I'm in total agreement...
"Microsoft, go at throttle up".....KABOOOOOM!
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Off Topic: Funny Light Bulb Joke:
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:37:23 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How about people who post about how if M$ made lightbulbs, they would
> have a pretty pattern on the surface but would stop working until you
> switched them off and on again?
Or would require a separate liscense for each person walking through the
room.
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:38:33 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:49:07 GMT, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have never said I would not use Microsoft software, I am simply saying
>that Microsoft does not produce quality software, and any one with half
>a brain would know, the best idea does not always see the light of day.
>I have used Windows 98 and 2000. Now, how come I find that applications
<snip>
In my experience, Microsoft Office is the best office suite available.
(Regardless of cost).
It would be more prudent to state that Microsoft does not produce
quality Operating Systems.
Directx (as it stands just now) is a fantastic piece of software.
(Built, I know, to overcome windows' shortcomings as a gaming os)
Messenger is the best chat tool bar none.
If microsoft were to truly try and create a brand new operating system
from scratch, having backwards compatability via nothing more than a
virtual machine, I bet they could create an extremely nice OS. It`s
their hang-ups regarding backwards compatability which have caused
problems in every OS they have created from Windows3.1 onwards...
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:58:51 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > What do you have to prove with that post? Look at Windows 2000
> > Pro,
> > > > 650MB,
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > base installation, compare that to, say, Redhat Linux, which
maybe
> > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > bigger in size, but includes valuable third party tools such
as
> > tar,
> > > > gzip,
> > > > > > > and StarOffice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a single UDMA66 20Gb drive sells for about $180 or so, last i
> > looked.
> > > > 650Mg
> > > > > > (which, i'm guessing, includes your page file) is not much of a
> > problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bloat-ware is bloatware, no matter how much it costs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bloat is one of the reasons why LoseDOS performance SUCKS!
> > > >
> > > > That'd change if CS students were forced, for at least one semester,
to
> > > > write assembly code for a small 65xx based system with 8K. Learning
how
> > to
> > > > do things compactly and efficiently would be the result.
> > >
> > > 68xx would be better.
> > >
> > > The 65xx line is only appropriate for industrial microcontrollers
> > > and toys.
> > >
> >
> > And therefore an excellent tool to teach floating point theory!
> > I'm a sadist, Aaron, not a realist.<g>
>
> Yes, you are.
But, I'm a sadist with a plan. Performing IEEE floating point operations on
a processor that doesn't even posess an MUL operand - A wonderful exercise
in logic. Performing complex operations with a minimal instruction set and
with limited resources builds a great deal of discipline. Hell, it used to
be par for the course. Those worthless arcade games written for VIC-20s and
C64s were classic examples of efficient software design.
I agree about the 68xx line. It was, IMHO, excellent. A lot more appealing
than anything Intel had to offer at the time.
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:59:47 GMT
A follow up question, why does Windows NT Server install a web browser?
It's a web fucking server, not a workstation, hence, why have a web
browser installed?
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:VxYU5.35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> "Ilja Booij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>> One of the nice things of Linux (or other UNIX-es) is that you can
>>>> run without GUI. Many people like this and use it. Now, if MS
>>>> implements this in it's systems, is that bad? i wouldn't think so.
>>>
>>> I like it too, and it would be good if MS did (re)implement it. But they
>>
>> are
>>
>>> never going to do it. Just watch them. It isn't in their interests, they
>>> killed the command line (or at least swept it under a particularly big
>>
>> rug)
>>
>>> and bringing it back would be an admission of defeat. Never.
>>
>> Admission of defeat? Why?
>> Beside, why does a server need GUI?
>
>
> Ask microsoft. they seem to think it's an essential.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:08:13 GMT
Well, in that case, I should stick with my type writter and send all my
mail via NZPost, why should I need to learn how to send email when I
already know how to use a type writter! In fact, from this day forth I
will stop learning new skills as JC. Posey has pointed out that if ya
have to learn a new skill, its not worth doing.
kiwiunixman
J.C.Posey wrote:
> "Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Rozzi, my good friend, there's that thing called brain that you need to use
>> in order to succeeed with Linux. Apparently you lack the above mentioned
>> item, or don't know how to use it properly.
>
>
> This is the kind of elitist attitude that kills Linux in the general market.
> Most people are *not* programmers, and *not* computer geeks. They just
> want to be able to turn the computer on and do their work.
>
> I'm all for Linux, and am slowly making the shift to only Linux, but the more
> I'm involved with it, the more I get the feeling that the Linux community is
> not really interested in helping the average user. In fact, they tend to
> view the average user as a 'luser' which is pathetic really.
>
> Linux users wake up! Don't slap new users in the face.
>
> Jake
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Subject: Re: What is the best/most powerful distro of linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:58:00 GMT
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:05:41 +0100, SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Frank Van Damme wrote:
>
>> Not Redhat. You'll get frustrated.
>
>He means: Not RedHat 7.0. The 6.2 is very adequate and stable. Also the
>user-friendlyness and wide availability of programs and support is a good
>help.
>
>Allright, Debian may be more for pro's, but it can't do more or less than
>a RedHat-based pc. Don't forget linux is linux - a distribution is no more
>than a bunch of programs fit together.
Very true except...dpkg/apt are far superior to rpm. Not that it makes it "do
more," it just makes it less of a pain in the ass to do "the same" :-).
>The answer is simple and common: "Use the distro you think you'll like the
>most. If you can't choose, take one which one (or more) of your friends
>use - it makes it easier if you have problems."
Good advice. I just threw Turbo Linux workstation on here to play with for a
while. Pretty nice little package (once I upgraded X etc. :-).
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.1|nVidia.95 Drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:13:40 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > What do you have to prove with that post? Look at Windows 2000
> > Pro,
> > > > 650MB,
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > base installation, compare that to, say, Redhat Linux, which
maybe
> > a
> > > > > > little
> > > > > > > bigger in size, but includes valuable third party tools such
as
> > tar,
> > > > gzip,
> > > > > > > and StarOffice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a single UDMA66 20Gb drive sells for about $180 or so, last i
> > looked.
> > > > 650Mg
> > > > > > (which, i'm guessing, includes your page file) is not much of a
> > problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bloat-ware is bloatware, no matter how much it costs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bloat is one of the reasons why LoseDOS performance SUCKS!
> > > >
> > > > That'd change if CS students were forced, for at least one semester,
to
> > > > write assembly code for a small 65xx based system with 8K. Learning
how
> > to
> > > > do things compactly and efficiently would be the result.
> > >
> > > True.
> >
> > Picture Aaron, if you would, an eighteen year old college freshman. He's
a
> > whiz with VB.
> >
> > The Assignment: A simple, text prompted, artillery game. (You know the
type)
> > using the above mentioned hardware and an assembler.
> >
> > Interesting visual, huh?
>
> And totally worthless.
This is one of those "The journey is far more important than the
destination" things, Aaron.
The above project really drives home how a computer performs higher level
math and basic input/output at its' lowest levels. It also pounds good
documentation habits into you, particularly if you're an assembler novice.
I HAD that particular project, myself, many moons ago except it was on a
Z80-based machine.
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:10:12 +0200
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:04:35 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >Beside, why does a server need GUI?
>
> If you ever figure this out, email me the answer, hmm? ;)
I won't.
For configuration purposes? Yes, that is reasonable and I can understand it.
For normal operation? No, that isn't reasonable.
The GUI take system resources that could be used elsewhere.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OK, so let me get this straight, was Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:16:17 +0200
"Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Err...what?
>
> Believe it or not, I was only trying to understand the way that Windows
> handles attempts to rename open files or apps.
>
> Looks like I struck a nerve, though.
You can change most files while they are run, exe & dll usually not when
they are running, as they are loaded into memory.
You can almost always read into a file, no matter if it's open or not, no
matter what it type is.
The only exceptions that you are likely to run into are databases which
usually lock their files, and windows swap files (on 9x,
c:\windows\win386.swp, on NT %systemroot%\pagefile.sys)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:28:00 +0200
"Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <903vm1$4jsk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> > Unreasonable to say the least, unless you've a different defination of
> > application than I do.
>
> Application == program. Something with a menu bar / user interface,
> an event loop, and some purpose for which it was written. I don't count
> DLL's, plugins, scripts, etc.. something I can double click on and run.
On windows, that would be exe files. Let's see how many I've?
1103
How many application do I use?
About 100, top.
> > For that matter, assuming that the average install of a program is 10
MB,
> > 1500 applications installed would result in ~14.6 GB on your HD.
> > 1,117 will be ~10 GB.
>
> If the average app took 10MB, your numbers might hold water.
> However, many of my apps are under 1MB. I have a 12GB drive on this
> laptop, about 4GB free. The Tools folder where most of my apps live, is
> about 2.5GB. There are several dozen apps scattered around in other
> locations of course.
Have you looked at photoshop lately?
Bryce?
Poser?
Those are 100+ MB on your HD.
You are on a mac, so I choose those.
Photoshop comes with several executable files, I don't consider each of them
to be an application.
> The biggest app folder I have is probably CodeWarrior, with all of
> the docs, Win32 libraries, MacOS libraries, etc etc, gets close to 800MB.
>
> Think I'm making this stuff up ?
No, but I don't think you've a defination of application that is even close
to mine.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:32:55 +0200
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pAgV5.20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90417j$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Really? How do they get the OS from the CD to the HD, then?
> > You do realize that when I'm talking about installing Linux I'm talking
> > about installing the OS, right?
>
> You install once, and then you learn how to use RPM. The only time a Linux
^^^^^
And then you've to reboot, right?
You've a naked computer, you install Linux on it, and it restart when it's
done with the installation, right?
That is what I was talking about.
> system needs to be restarted is a) after you have recompiled the kernel;
b)
> when you are installing non-USB/Firewire hardware, especially the
> motherboard, or c) after a power outage.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:42:51 +0200
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:24:46 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >Who proved Win2k to not be stable.
> >Answer the question.
>
> Ayende, you seem not to comprehend that whether or not something is
`stable'
> is purely subjective. To you, 2k is stable because it's an un-crashy
_desktop_.
> To me, 2k is not stable because it can't stay up as a _server_ for any
length of
> time without falling over.
>
> So, as I keep saying, until you get me the source (which I can peruse and
point out faults to
> you) we will have to rely on our empirical observation and our judgement
in `proving' 2k to
> be unstable...
I use Win2K as a desktop, so what?
I also use it as a server, where it's just as stable.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:43:20 +0200
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:28:18 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >> Let me ask you again. Why should I trust TPC over my own judgement? If
I
> >was a Holocaust
> >> survivor, should I take the word of a Holocaust revisionist just
because
> >he might be a better
> >> historian than me?
> >>
> >> Why should I trust TPC over my own judgement? My own judgement tells me
> >that NT/2k falls over
> >> where Unix doesn't; what, that's bullshit, because some corporation
> >disagrees?
> >
> >Because it's a industry standard?
>
> You just get worse and worse. Should I not trust my judgement, based on my
empirical
> observation, over some study/research group, just because they have a big
name for themselves
> and I don't?
>
> What you're saying here is that I should place my faith blindly in an
organization because TPC
> has a reputation to uphold? Why? As I keep saying (and as you keep
dodging): Why should I
> trust TPC over my own judgement?
>
> (because they have a big name for themselves? ha, ha. I'm laughing
already...)
Because you've not seen what win2k can do?
TPC proves that it can do it.
TPC results are reproducable.
Can you say the same about your experiance?
I'm not saying that you should take TPC results better than your own
experiance, I'm saying that I'm unwilling to accept *your* experiance, and
that other's experiance, including insdury standard tests, shows otherwise.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:40 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:46:29
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000
01:45:18
> >
> >> >I know what made me use IE, and it wasn't product bundling.
> >> >It was IE (version 4 and upward) being superior from Netscape (4.XX,
I'm
> >> >downloading 6 right now)
> >>
> >> So it was the technical tying, rather than the actual bundled
> >> distribution, which is why you use IE?
> >
> >What technical tying?
>
> MS started tying IE to Windows back in 1995. Didn't you know?
I know, IE 2
Did anybody used that?
You've not answered my question, what technical tying made me switch to IE
on the 4 versions.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:58:55 +0200
"PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:n3hV5.396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > And so monopolization is OK in Finland? Somehow I doubt that, as every
> > member of the EU, and *every* other "first world" country, has
> > anti-trust laws.
>
> Monopolization is in fact OK in Finland. We have government-owned alcohol
> monopol. Monopols are OK is US as well, if you did not know this. Illegal
use
> of mopolistic power is not.
Phone company, monopol.
Cable company, monopol.
High bandwitdh connection, monopol.
Electirc supply, monopol.
Water supply, monopol.
Just five examples on the top of my head that are monopols here, in a first
world country.
Monopols are fine, abusing monopol power isn't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
