Linux-Advocacy Digest #167, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("mud")
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Uptimes (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Why Hatred? (Form@C)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
COM on UNIX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 07:45:21 GMT
...so according to you, I should just go ahead and design my own CPU as well
eh?... you lintrolls are all the same.
plonk.
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6gV36.52976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So what this shows is that web sites where the designer wants a counter
> and is incapable of making his own are not particularly interesting
> to Linux users....
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:00:12 +0100
Flatfish wrote:
> Not in this case, because I at least caught the attempt at humor. Most of
> the others thought it was for real.
Yep, all those with an IQ below 60, that is, all windows lovers
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:17:25 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
> Period.
>
it is a fact (for me at least) that 2 different machines (each with 2
processors, ECC-memory, all SCSI) just locked up on win NT4 while simply
doing nothing at all (during the night), no screensaver, no nothing, just
waiting there. One machine was trashed so badly, that it could NOT be
rebooted again.
That was the end of WinNT for me, I simply stopped using it. And i do not
believe a single word of "win2k is better". Since years we are told "just
wait for the next win-version, it will solve all these problems". Not only
were all these problems not solved, we got ne ones in addition.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 08:25:01 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>John Smith wrote:
>>
>> So, it's ok for Linux users to hate Windows, but not Windows users to
>> hate Linux? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
>
>Ok, you tell me. What reason would a windows user have to hate Linux? It
>is not as if they are forced to use it. It isn't as if it is something
>they even have to deal with.
>
IMHO most windows users don't care about Linux one way or another. It's
just some incomprehensible software on a cover disk. They are warned "do
not run the install program as it will erase your windows setup" or "this
program requires 300MB of hard disk space" (or something like that - I'm
not sure). At that point, since windows is working and they don't have the
free space they stop looking.
>Linux users, on the other hand, have all pretty much been exposed to
>Windows and have formed an opinion about it, most of them think Windows
>sucks for various reasons. I don't disagree, and I think Windows and NT
>suck for various but different reasons.
>
Most Linux users will have used windows before. The reverse is almost never
true. Hands up all those whose first computer came with Linux installed.
>So again, why would a Windows user even have an opinion about Linux?
>
Mostly because they are the ones who have decided to try it in spite of the
warnings mentioned above. This probably means that they are dissatisfied
with windows in some way, or are just looking for a better OS in general.
Unfortunately they probably approached Linux with a windows-users approach,
after all, the KDE desktop looks nice and friendly to them. They don't
realise, at first, that under the desktop lies one of the most arcane
command line-driven OSs yet written! They try double-clicking or right-
clicking icons, they look for Help files for everything. Eventually they
run a few K applications in spite of the unfamiliar dialogue boxes. Note
that they don't even consider buying a Linux book yet - why should they,
the software was free on a cover disk and there should be eough help files
- after all, many windows "help" books only regurgitate the programs' own
help files onto paper!
Their first experience with a CLI window is probably what puts them off.
Windows generally does a very good job of completely hiding the CLI - you
have to look for it. Linux assumes that you will want to use the CLI as it
is here that the real power of Linux can be used. Note that this will, in
many cases, be their first experience of *any* CLI whatsoever. Many windows
users (not windows enthusiasts note, I am choosing words carefully here)
just panic and phone a friend, ask a workmate or whatever if they ever even
*see* a "C:>" prompt.
They discover that they are forced to use the CLI simply because the
desktop doesn't do enough for them. They have to look for MAN pages for
everything and they just arn't there. It's fine saying that there are
other, better help systems than MAN, but very often they just don't know
how to access them.
The problems *really* set in when someone tells them to install or upgrade
one of the packages which didn't come with their distro. This can be hairy
even for some experienced Linux users but to a newbie it is next to
impossible. Yes, they *could* have looked for more help pages. Yes they
*could* have gone out and bought a book (or, perhaps. another one). If they
have managed to get an internet connection they *could* ask on the
newsgroups. But why should they? They never had this much difficulty just
installing a program under windows. The install wizard did it all for them!
It even loaded additional programs, or at least told them that they were
needed, if it needed them!
They *will* form an opinion of Linux, It won't be a good one in many cases
simply because even the new desktops can't get around the confusing and
messy systems required for program maintenance. It is all well and good
adding classy installation routines to simplify the initial installation
but what was wrong with curses-based systems? They should only ever be run
once, so why dress them up to the point where, if a PS2 intellimouse isn't
recognised as such by the installer, you can't use it to do system
configuration from the KDE desktop? This is a complete waste of programming
rescources. The Linux community shiould be thinking more about making
system maintenance easy than making Linux easier to install.
Most of the problems are *not* with Linux as such. They lie with the
various distributions who all want to go their own way, not really
bothering too much about compatibility issues.
People who like OSs because they *are* OSs appreciate the power of Linux
and tend to stay with it. Those who want a hidden OS will tend to look
somewhere else, possibly leaving Linux with some bad feeling. This *is* the
formation of opinion.
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:34:57 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> No. Germany refuses to use Win2k because the disk defragmenter is made by
> a
> company which is run by a scientologist. It's purely a political reason,
> not a security one.
>
Wrong. It IS a security reason, because people here believe that a disk
defragger written by a scientology company is not to be trusted. In
addition, software used by the government must be inspected for its
security by the so called BSI (its an governement institute which inspects
all sort of things). Microsoft refused to let the BSI take a look at the
code, although the BSI is forbidden to disclose anything about HOW the code
works. Microsoft said that they dont get the OK from said scientology
company to do so. If this is the case, it is VERY questionable WHY that
company refuses to let the BSI inspect that code.
There must be a reason, and NOT a reason to protect their knowledge.
For myself, it means that win2k can NOT be installed on a machine connected
to the network. That means, it is NOT godd for anything. We had people
complaining that the software written by our company had problems with
win2k. In all cases those problems were problems with a faulty setup
(modified by the user after installation), but we also told the user that
we will NOT install win2k. Not as long as this defragger is inside.PERIOD
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 1 Jan 2001 08:41:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Walsh) so writ:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 06:14:38, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gary Hallock wrote:
> > >
> > > But you are dead wrong. xedit does not work that way.
> >
> > It did in 1980-83 on the Oakland County Schools S/370,
> > in 1985 on a S/370 at Purude University, in 1997 at Ford
> > Motor Company, and 1999 at Kmart.
>
> You mean to say you're ~35 and still using a .sig befitting
> a socially-stunted 19 year-old? Sad...
What would a bag-lady be without her bag. . .
>
> --
>
> Rich Walsh
>
Vacuo
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: COM on UNIX
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 08:37:01 GMT
Hi ,
Has anyone build a COM server on a unix/linux machine ,
Is there any supported evironment for that purpose (such ATL fow
windows).
and what about portabilty to NT machine and vice versa ?
I know thats a lot to ask but even partly answer we be appricated .
Thanks Itay .
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:07:08 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
> not
> going to be able to replace Windows.
In some instances, it is very useful to be able to use an editor to edit
these text files and configure the system. Sometimes a GUI can just "get in
the way".
I don't think Linux is going to be held back by being configured by text
files - I think your other excellent points are closer to the truth.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:10:28 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Therein lies the problem with Linux zealots. They refuse to believe
that
> > Linux can be unstable.
>
> Let's just say a Linux savvy admin is going to be very
> very skeptical of a windows advocate making wild claims
> that "linux always crashes", because it flies in the face
> of experience.
I said no such thing. I did say that I've had a linux machine that crashed
daily, but i've also had linux machines stay up for months.
> > Likewise, I know that Windows NT *CAN* be unstable, but I also know that
it
> > *CAN* be very stable if you know what you're doing. Windows 2000 is
just
> > stable period.
>
> Well apparently windows 200 is a bit more stable than
> the old windows nt, which you microsoft zealots BTW
> claimed was as stable as anything out there.
Both my Linux and NT4 boxes stays up an average of 30 days between reboots.
The reasons for reboot vary, but it's never because of a crash except when
i'm doing device driver development.
> > > zdnet did a year long test of windows nt and linux, running
> > > their office server tasks. In one year the Linux servers did
> > > not crash once. the windows nt servers crashed 13 times.
> >
> > Do you have a link to this?
>
> Are you saying you weren't aware of it? I don't remember
> the URL, just the study, but I'll bet google would help you
> find it.
I've already queried google, and couldn't find anything like that. I also
searched at the zd site, still no luck. That's why I asked for the link.
> > Gee, if your server needs to be rebooted nightly, yet zdnet only had
> > problems (according to you) once a month, why is that?
>
> The zdnet test was not running the same apps -
You claimed you were only running standard things like DNS and web services.
> > > No, it proves that windows trolls are willing to say anything
> > > to try to discredit those OSes that they see as a threat.
> >
> > Look. I use NT and 2000 daily for software development. I put my
machines
> > through hell, and routinely go months without rebooting. Occasionally I
do
> > have a crash, but this is because i'm doing driver development.
>
> I work in an office full of folks who use windows nt & 2000, and it
> has it's share of crashes, lockups, and instability.
If you had an office full of Linux machines, I'm sure you'd also have your
share of issues.
> > My Linux machines are pretty stable as well in most cases, but I've had
> > Netscape lock them up tighter than a drum (Even the keyboard interrupts
were
> > not responding). It wasn't just X locked up, because I couldn't telnet
in
> > and the web server was not responding.
>
> That's bizzare, I'd holler to my vendor long, loud and hard about
> that one - do you have a hardware support contract for the
> system in question? What distro and kernel? What kind of
> hardware?
No, it's just some off the shelf hardware.
Interesting that as soon as there is a problem with Linux all you can do is
blame the hardware, yet when people blame the hardware for NT you won't
accept that.
> > It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
> > Period.
>
> To state it more correctly, for any OS there is a non-zero
> probability of trouble, but the thing you miss is that windows
> track record is probably the worst of all OSes.
NT runs on an order of magnatude more systems than all Unix combined, thus
you're going to have an order of magnatude more problems.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:11:14 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92onac$cjp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Likewise, I know that Windows NT *CAN* be unstable, but I also know that
> it
> > *CAN* be very stable if you know what you're doing. Windows 2000 is
just
> > stable period.
>
> Are you saying that W2K is stable even if you don't know what you're
doing?
For the most part. Of course nothing is idiot proof. Win2k just has a good
resiliancy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:13:29 -0600
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92peee$pbb$02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
> > Period.
> >
> it is a fact (for me at least) that 2 different machines (each with 2
> processors, ECC-memory, all SCSI) just locked up on win NT4 while simply
> doing nothing at all (during the night), no screensaver, no nothing, just
> waiting there. One machine was trashed so badly, that it could NOT be
> rebooted again.
> That was the end of WinNT for me, I simply stopped using it. And i do not
> believe a single word of "win2k is better". Since years we are told "just
> wait for the next win-version, it will solve all these problems". Not only
> were all these problems not solved, we got ne ones in addition.
If you think that's "normal", you're crazy.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 10:11:28 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
> not going to be able to replace Windows. Yeah, there are tools like
what bullshit.
What has the kind of config to do with the usability of a system ?
I have learned to hate the Registry of windows. This is the perfect example
for "how NOT to do" things. All those config files (in text form, readable
by humans) which are used by the unixes are MUCH clearer than the registry.
Did you ever notice that there are no comments in the registry ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 1 Jan 2001 09:16:16 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ:
> >
> It's NOT a question of flexibility, dumbass, it's a question of
> what the DEFAULT settings are.
>
> Why should I, or any other user, be required to give special instructions
> to make the editor behave in a rational manner?
>
Maybe so it would be found non-functional to some twit who
wandered in off the street.
You sound like the M$_Word_Only crowd. There is more than one way
to skin a cat.
Vacuo
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:21:23 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92omek$bs3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > www.intercation.com
> >
> > Average uptime of 7 days. Not very good if true.
>
> But true. The machine has only existed for about a month and I rebooted
> once to test if Netcraft would see it. The old machine (the one this
> replaced) was at 193 days before I took it down.
I see.
> > > www.runreports.com
> >
> > "We have been monitoring www.runreports.com, but have not been able to
> > detect uptime values"
> >
> > Says it's running under NT3/95, yet it's running IIS4. Strange, since
> IIS4
> > is in NT4.
>
> It's behind an MS Proxy Server 2 reverse proxy. Didn't used to be. When
I
> checked it (back when I still worked there, and it wasn't behind the
proxy)
> it was accurate. I'll have to take it off of my list now.
So in other words, it's reporting the OS as being the proxy servers OS and
reporting the web server of the real machine. Chances are, if the proxy
were an OS that reported uptime it would give the uptime of the proxy server
as well.
When was this, anyways? "back when you worked there"? Netcraft has only
been reporting uptimes for the last 2 months or so.
> > > www.nvisioncorp.com
> >
> > 24 days uptime. Still not impressive if true.
>
> True, but not my machine, so I cannot comment on why only 24 days. I can
> say that the sys-admin there is a Windows head and doesn't really like
Unix,
> but that may mean nothing. He did tell me that he bought some new
hardware
> last month so that may have something to do with it, but I'll ask.
And this shows that the uptime is accurate, how?
> > > www.shytei.com
> >
> > "We have been monitoring www.shytei.com, but have not been able to
detect
> > uptime values"
>
> At first I was confused, but then I remembered that they got rid of their
T1
> about 6 months ago and replaced it with a DSL from Jato. Netopia router,
> probably the same one that causes the same problem on your server. Well,
I
> guess that I can't prove this one anymore, either.
You never could prove this one. Netcraft has only been reporting uptimes
for 2 months, your claim that you verified this site with Netcraft is an
obvious fabrication since you claim to have checked it 6 months ago.
> > > www.firstsecuritybank.com
> >
> > "The host www.firstsecuritybank.com site is in our database of monitored
> > hosts, and we have started to monitor it, but we do not yet have a
> > sufficient number of samples to plot an uptime chart for
> > www.firstsecuritybank.com. "
>
> This is an SGI box co-located at US West (Qwest now, but US West way back
> when). I didn't verify this one myself but asked a friend to check up on
it
> for me. I think he may have been looking at something else (they have a
lot
> of hosts at FSB), so for now I'll need to retract this one. I'm going to
> check back on it later and see if they have some numbers to plot and get
my
> friend to tell me the actual uptime of the machine.
You do that.
> > Given that 3 of your sites have no uptimes listed at all under netcraft,
> how
> > can put any faith that the 2 that are listed are correct according to
you?
>
> Doesn't really matter what I say, you won't have faith anyway. Let's be
> honest, I could be lying. The only one I can prove is the InterCation one
> because I posted on this group that I was going to reboot it two days
before
> I did and it showed up correctly. Unfortunately there is no firewall
there,
> so it doesn't really fall under the arguements we've been having lately.
> Still, though, it's more than the 0 sites that have been shown to be
wrong.
> And by that I mean, that someone who knows the actual uptimes claims
they're
> different than what Netcraft shows. Still, people can lie, but no one has
> even tried that yet.
I don't necessarily think you're lying, but you certainly didn't bother to
verify your claims before making them.
> So, anyway, what are those many sites with complex firewall schemes you
> worked on?
I never claimed I worked on many sites with complex firewalls.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:18:44 +0000
Donn Miller wrote:
> The fact is that Windows and unix variants such as Linux represent two
> entirely different cultures and philosphies. I feel that GUI sysadmin
> tools under unix systems such as Linux are pointless, because the entire
> unix culture relies on editing config files by hand that are
> well-documented with
> comments and are very "human readable". Windows, OTOH, has config files
> that are designed to be "machine generated" instead of human-readable,
> like with unix.
OpenVMS switched to a binary style database for configuration, though there
are still text based scripts here and there.
> One of many problems with Windows is that it is a proprietary standard.
It is strange that at a time when it appeared as though everyone was
yelling for "open" standards and open systems, along came Windows, a
proprietary standard and it dominated the world of home PC's.
> For example, it's pretty difficult to port a program from Windows directly
> to
> Solaris. OTOH, all unix systems are similar in that it's pretty easy to
> port a program from Linux to FreeBSD and Solaris with little difficulty,
> as
> long as there are no low-level obstacles. This is due in part to the fact
> that unix systems are set up very similar. For example, all unices have
> man pages, and a C runtime library (libc) with basically a fairly common
> subset
> of functions. All have socket(), connect(), read(), and write(), for
> example. Windows, OTOH, has it's own variants of these commands. For
> example, I don't know if Win98 directly supports the open() function. You
> pretty much have to use OpenFile(), which is tied to Windows' GUI. Also,
> Windows doesn't use connect() AFAIK, but a WinSock implementation of this
> syscall. So now on the network side of things, you've got to do some
> translating between standard unix socket calls and the equivalent WinSock
> calls.
So what? OpenVMS had its own standard but did pretty well for many years.
Shortly after Digital tried to embrace the Open standard, it died.
What I found was I could port an application from UNIX to Windows easily
enough, and make it multitasking, multithreaded with relative ease. As for
going back the other way, yes, I can see there would be difficulties, but
not with standard libraries but with the more exotic libraries like video
or audio or whatever.
> I'm much more at ease knowing that I'm programming on a system that is a
> standard.
Standards can be a two edged sword. If the standard is decided by comittee,
then it can evolve very slowly whilst other non-standard features done by
one company can be racing ahead, leaving the standards crowd standaing. I
think that's what happened with Windows. Because Microsoft went their own
way, they managed to achieve a lot more - however, they also introduced a
strange arrogant culture that may bring about their own downfall.
> But, how exactly do you acheive an "open standard" with a
> Windows-type OS? "Well, it has a very weak CLI interface, and is 99% GUI
> driven, and the Windowing system has it's own built-in widget set and is
> closely intimated with the kernel". Heck, it's very hard to acheive a
> standard like that! Let's see, Windows, BeOS, and MacOS would fall into
> that category. Yet, they don't seem as compatible with each other as the
> unix variants (FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux) are.
Linux does not have a GUI standard. It has GNOME, KDE and whole bunch of
others. They all work differently and you can't interchange source code
between them. If you strip away the GUI, then Windows is nothing.
> It's only natural that we programmers should choose a standard over a
> proprietary system, which is why I like unix systems better than Windows.
Why is that natural? I long recognised that standards can be a good thing
as well as a bad one. In some cases standards like the C or C++ language
are a good thing. However, where are the GUI standards? Microsoft did
follow one for keystrokes, menues etc. I seem to remember IBM had a hand in
that one. Where are the GUI standards on Linux?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:22:59 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> Routine batch-processing jobs (like data collection and report generation)
> is something that I can routinely accomplish with 15-120 minutes
> of script programming, and then a mere couple of SECONDS to type
> the command thereafter.
>
> Meanwhile, in LoseDOS land, the same task will continue to take
> several HOURS of my time EVERY WEEK.
Any script you can write in Unix can be written for Windows as well. I
don't understand your point.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 10:18:46 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> If you think that's "normal", you're crazy.
>
No, i do not think that this is normal or should be normal.
Thats the reason I do NOT use NT anymore.
By the way, both of these machines run on linux without glitches, there was
no hardware problem of any sort, no power problem, nothing. NT just went
down. THAT is something i will NEVER accept.
And this is not only my personal experience, several other people told me
similar things about NT just crashing. The difference is, those people
think they still need windows. I don't
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:23:26 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Yes, it is.
For someone used to working in UNIX, it would appear so.
> Routine batch-processing jobs (like data collection and report generation)
> is something that I can routinely accomplish with 15-120 minutes
> of script programming, and then a mere couple of SECONDS to type
> the command thereafter.
Batch processing is something reminiscent of old style '60s computing.
> Meanwhile, in LoseDOS land, the same task will continue to take
> several HOURS of my time EVERY WEEK.
Because Windows is not batch orientated.
> If this is your idea of "not hard", you're using a different dictionary
> than the rest of us.
No, I'm using a different OS than you. That's the whole point isn't it.
UNIX is good at batch processing because you have all the tools. Windows is
less so, because its a heavily GUI based system. That doesn't mean you
can't do batch processing, just its harder.
Why not stick to UNIX for heavy batch processing and Windows for most
everything else?
> Correcting your LIES is not misinformation, shit-head.
And you're sinking down to that level of conversation where no one pays any
attention to what you say. Introduce an expletive and then don't be too
suprised IF NOBODY LISTENS!
> > Currently I'm certainly not afraid of Linux. I _want_ Linux to compete
> > with Windows. I just wish it did! What amazes me is the depths of
> > insults you guys have to stoop to when things don't go your way!
>
> Pull your head out of the sand, petey-boy
Huh? What are you talking about?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
