Linux-Advocacy Digest #577, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Comparing Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Ed Allen)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Comparing Linux (UnixGeek)
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful (David M. Butler)
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Comparing Linux (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Comparing Linux
Date: 1 Dec 2000 02:45:20 GMT
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:09:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Why is (almost) everybody out there comparing Linux to other Operation
>Systems ??
I don't know. Maybe they're bitter little dweebs with small penises.
Seriously, most of the people who are obsessed with making "comparisons"
are like this. You also get a lot of people like this who program in certain
programming languages.
I think it's motivated primarily by bitter and envy that their supposedly
"better" system is less popular than something else.
Personally, I use Linux, but couldn't give a rats a** if it gets "more
popular".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:54:16 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pBmV5.3637$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <i8HU5.143$[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.
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Tom Wilson
> > >A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > How about a pascal compiler - there're 2 index registers on
> > a 6502 - it should be possible :)
>
> Although I'm BIG fan of Pascal, (Used Borland's compilers for years and
> still use 7.0 for DOS "quickies") I think assembly is an excellent
teaching
> tool in that it forces a student to really THINK his algorithms through.
It
> also give a great deal of insight into how a computer actually works on a
> logical level.
>
> I'm also quite sadistic at times and would love nothing more than to
assign
> a large project, with floating point math, using the above mentioned
> hardware, to some pimply faced kid who learned on Visual Basic! Hee Hee
Hee.
>
Having been a Sysadmin in a c programming shop I have to agree. Any
programmer should be required to make his program run on a 640K dos machine
before he even thinks about going beta. Too many companies give their
programmers lots of RAM and Disk to program in, and guess what, they always
fill it up.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Go home Al....
> Game over, man!
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:55:44 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
<trimmed>
> >
> >Just exactly how many WEEKS would it take to install 1500 apps on a
windows box?
> >
> Exactly why my company uses pre-made images on CD. Problem now is that
> Microsoft want paying twice. One for the OEM version, then once
> for the CD.
>
Not even close. Read the License, you are allowed to make backups, that's
all images are.
> Now, we're about 150,000 people, what does that work out as?
>
> I lurve monopolies, baybeeeee
>
> Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:59:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 30 Nov 2000
>05:03:22 GMT;
>>Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>>
>>> Uhm, you say that many in the know that are in your acquaintance prefer
>>> OS/2 to Win2k.
>>>
>>> I said the opposite and you said that I'm wrong. I'm saying that you are
>>> wrong in saying that I'm wrong. I'm not saying that your initial
>>> statement was wrong.
>>
>>In logic or sophistry, 2 wrongs can make a right.
>
>Oh? Does that mean that two rights make a wrong?
>
No, but three rights make a left.
Gallagher
--
"Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
-DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:59:23 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9040f5$6if4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <903l4c$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >> >Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> <very large snip because Aaron doesn't understand the first thing
> about
> > >> >> replying to posts or how to use usenet or even how to change
> underwear
> > >more
> > >> >> than monthly 100+ lines to write unrelated stupidity at the
bottom -
> a
> > >> >> typical @yahoo.com user, almost as bad as an aol.com user>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will
> be
> > >as
> > >> >> good
> > >> >> > > from win2k as win2k was from NT.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Wow....look at this car
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > It's great
> > >> >> > It's fantastic.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > They painted it at the factory!!!!
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > No, I don't know anything about whether the engine is any good,
> > >> >> > or how it handles in turns....or even going in a straight line
> > >> >> > down a highway at a mere 60 km/h (US 40 mph)...i only got to
> > >> >> > drive it 5 feet forwards and back..
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Yeah...I know there's no locks on the doors...and you can't
> > >> >> > roll up the windows...and...you know...it doesn't have any
> > >> >> > rear view mirrors...or seat belts...and that hand-crank in
> > >> >> > place of the usual steering wheel is gonna take some getting
> > >> >> > used to...and...yeah, it's kinda strange how they put the
> > >> >> > radio upside down mounted on the floor...it's got a really
> > >> >> > leaky fuel system...but...it's got a custom paint job...and
> > >> >> > when I crack up on the highway, and die in a ball of fire...
> > >> >> > well, it's gonna look really cool!
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > And...looking cool THAT's what's REALLY important...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Here's a hint, Ayende....GROW THE FUCK UP
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hey Aaron, want YOUR hint?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hey, look at this car.
> > >> >> Well, it's not really a car yet, it's just a bunch of parts made
all
> > >over
> > >> >
> > >> >Really?
> > >> >
> > >> >I've done full-installs of Linux from various makers.
> > >> >
> > >> >ONE reboot, and the system is up and running...with ALL hardware
> drivers
> > >> >installed, and ALL applications available immediately.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Getting the same hardware configuration to work on a Windows machine
> > >takes
> > >> >MANY reboots (1 for the sound card, one for the graphics card, one
for
> > >> >the monitor, one for the printer, one for the mouse, one for the
> scanner,
> > >> >one for the network card, another for the network configuration.....
> > >> >
> > >> >And then...installing the software...
> > >> >
> > >> >Lets see...If you installed 1,500 apps on a windows machine....how
> long
> > >> >would it take?
> > >> >
> > >> >A day? don't be foolish!
> > >> >
> > >> >2 weeks?
> > >> >3 weeks?
> > >> >
> > >> >Just exactly how many WEEKS would it take to install 1500 apps on a
> > >windows box?
> > >> >
> > >> Exactly why my company uses pre-made images on CD. Problem now is
that
> > >> Microsoft want paying twice. One for the OEM version, then once
> > >> for the CD.
> > >
> > >1500 apps on one machine?
> > >Assuming average install time of 5 minutes, that means about 5 days of
> just
> > >sitting there 24 a day, just installing software.
> > >If we assume 8 hour work days, it results in over two weeks.
> > >No one install 1500 apps on a machine.
> > >No one *need* 1500 apps on a machine.
> >
> > Ah, you know so little. Look up debian and see what you can have,
> > fully automatically installed. A mere 1500 is nothing. You really
> > have swallowed the microsoft line here.
> >
> >
> > You can have as many as you like with linux, no arbitrary limits.
> > No 'no one *need* 1500', no '640M is enough for anyone'.
>
> Why would you need 1500 applications?
> Give me a good reason why would you need 1500 application installed.
>
On a Linux installation they'd all be text editors...... ;^p
>
------------------------------
From: UnixGeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparing Linux
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 02:53:15 GMT
If windows were a stable OS, and the software were cheaper, it would be
a fair argument when comparing the two. Gamers and non programmers use
windows, and programmers who dont play many games, should use linux,
which is basically the way it is now. But if they were equal, it would
be a matter of taste. Instead, it seems people are migrating to linux
for stability, more hardware control, and prices. MS has been pumping
out a bunch of crap, and charging us too much for it, and some of us
have just gotten sick of it. It seems to be more of a question of
common sense rather that taste. I have been windows-free for quite a
while, just because after 10 years of this, I am sick of freezes,
crashes, and overpriced software. I love it. I would never go back. I
am tired of programs which are flawed in design, crashing and causing
problems, being reffered to MS, just to have them tell me I am an
idiot. They were right, I was an idiot for relying on their products
for my business. This idiot is smooth sailing in the linux world, and
loving every bit of this growth we are seeing.
In article <906tnp$3q3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why is (almost) everybody out there comparing Linux to other Operation
> Systems ?? I don't get it. Linux is a stand-alone OS, it don't needs
> DOS or something. Linux is a product made out of Unix but that don't
> makes it a clone or a good copy of the original. As I stepped to Linux
> everybody was saying to me: "What the hell is Li.. what ??" But I
never
> cared what they said about it, because I wanted to discover it myself.
> That would be like your friends telling you: "The juice tastes like
> this !" But that is bull...., because thats a matter of taste. Most of
> you step to Linux, because somebody told you its great and cool, but
> you know what? You're about to enter a world which you probably don't
> understand. It ain't like Windows: Turn on the computer and wait for
> the hackers to break in. Linux is made to adapt to what you want it to
> and you don't have to fit to the system (Windows). Now, even if you
run
> Linux, why do you want to run commercial (Windows) software on a free
> system ? I'm writing about using i.e. Word on Linux with Wine (or a
> program equal to this). Because commercial software is good ? I can
> tell you a lot of adresses where you can get free software with a
> better quality than a program for about 50 $ ! Sure, you have to know
> what you want to do with your computer. If you only want to play
games,
> Windows is the better choice, but if you do networking, routing or
> anything like that: use Linux. Get to know what it is, how it works
and
> you'll see: I was right !
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:03:18 GMT
"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.
>
There must be something wrong with the administration of those systems,
don't fall 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...
>
Just curious, if your implementation of an OS is falling over, how will
having the code help? Wouldn't RTFM be more useful?
>
> --
> J.C.
> "The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
> homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
>
> -- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:04:57 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <zmBU5.22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bennetts family wrote:
> >
> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8vthhl$5kru8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:gPlU5.54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Fair enough.
> >>
>
> >>
> >> Any idea why?
> >
> >Because I understand nerdboxen well enough to know that, unless I do
> >something stupid like leaving a bootable CD in the drive between
restarts, I
> >doesn't do anything except pause for about 1/2 a second during the boot.
>
> Restarting is a windows thing, Ayende, not a Linux thing. Linux
> users do not need to keep restarting. The OS doesn't keep
> stopping.
Until wvm or kde fubar the graphics card and the system becomes wedged ( a
penguinista term for a system that is down in all aspects except that the
power is still on) requiring power cycling.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:08:38 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9053mh$j6i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <twmV5.11488$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Also, since 7.2 comes with a pre-release version of KDE 2, you need to
> > upgrade to get the final. I had lots of problems with KDE until
> upgrading.
>
> I'm still trying to work out if my version of KDE 2.0 is really V2.0 or
> the prerelease. How do you tell?
AFAIK all commercial packagers of Mandrake 7.2 include the pre-release
version. The versions on their web site have been updated to include KDE 2
final. You can run MandrakeUpdate (you'll likely have to install it) and it
will tell you the actual versions (you should also be able to do a rpm -q
kdebase and see what package RPM thinks is installed.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:08:04 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Could you load in safe mode?
> If you could, you should've removed all hardware from the hardware tab in
> System Properties in the Control Panel.
> And then reboot.
> Windows would then rebuild the hardware list, and ask you for drivers for
> the new hardware (and the old one which it doesn't have drivers to).
Actually, I did that before even trying to boot into normal mode...
Windows didn't give me the cold shoulder immediately, it waited for about
45 minutes until I thought it was stable, then started randomly resetting
the computer quicker and quicker until I could no longer keep it running
long enough to get in at all (even in safe mode, which caught me off
guard... safe mode's not supposed to use ANY non-generic drivers is it?)
Reinstall fixed it though... I've had similar results with 3 different
MB/CPU upgrades, so I was expecting it, just hoping I'd get lucky. ;)
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:08:29 GMT
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a26937a$0$44719$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Because I started in computers running unix and have graduated to W2K. You
> might learn something if you moved up too.
Up? I think you are confused. Does Win2k even include the tools to
clone an installed system with its apps?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparing Linux
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:11:03 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kiwiunixman wrote:
> I actually prefer Solaris, however, Linux is the next best thing for the
> x86 platform. Unfortunately my hardware in un-compatible with Solaris,
> hence the reason I use Linux.
I'll basically use any system that someone will let me install a perl
interpreter on. Right now, I'm learning how to manipulate DB2 with
perl. It's like bridging two worlds. I use linux because of its
command line tools and horde of daemons...err penguins....
I like it because it seems to handle transactions really well. I'm
always shocked when I compare the performance of my semi-well tuned
linux boxes running nothing but free software with supposedly highly
tuned main frames at real world transactions ( serving docs over http,
serving mail, etc. ). I recognize that there is a ceiling, but i have
yet to hit it.
Windows is fine if you use it for what it's application-set does well.
Games, light surfing, opening terminal sessions, light graphic
manipulation, sharing documents with lamers, etc.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
