Linux-Advocacy Digest #280, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 21:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: RPM Hell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 2.4 finally made official ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows fails again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, it is great. (J Sloan)
Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why NT? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows fails again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why NT? (J Sloan)
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 03:08:46 +0200
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:935l0c$2sd$02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > First of all, how would you know if it was "latched" at 100% CPU during
> > the
> > reboot? There would be no way to tell.
> >
> > Second of all, I'm a programming consultant, that also does
administration
> > in some situations and am a corporate officer for 2 startup companies
(CTO
> > to be specific).
> >
> Has it never occured to you that nowhere was any statement that said this
> were happening during reboot?
> The infamous 100% utilization VERY effectively prohibits ANY further
action
> of that NT-machine. You simply have to press reboot or that big red one.
> Your very fine settings to reboot on BSOD do not halp here.
> And it still is quite easy to get a NT into that state. I have seen it
> happen 3 times in the last 3 month (NOT on the same machine, 3 different
> ones). NT is shit, even if you deny it. Just stop telling lies about how
> easy, stable (take your pick) it is.
> It's simply not true.
You open task manager and kill the opending task.
If it's a service, use task manager to verify what is taking so much
proccessor power and use kill.exe to kill it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:21:39 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:03:42 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>BradyBear wrote:
>
>> Well, I decided to give KDE 2.0.1 a shot. So I downloaded all the
>> relevent rpm,s. But before I can install my shiny new desktop, I need
>> to install the latest version of QT. So, I go grab QT2.2.3. Great.
>
>Not so great - you should have downloaded the qt rpms from
>the same location as your kde rpms, or you will have incompatible
>versions.
>
><long winded whining snipped>
>
>I've put kde 2 on several boxes, simply downloaded the
>rpms - all the rpms including qt - from ftp.kde.org, and
>simply did an an rpm -Uvvh - no problems noted.
So how do you explain why the Mandrake Update CDROM turned a
functioning system into a veggie? It was mainly a kde upgrade.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 6 Jan 2001 01:21:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Linux had better get it's collective ass organized if it ever hopes to
> compete for desktop market share with Windows and Mac. In it's present
> state it is a conglomeration of disjointed half completed works.
> I received my Mandrake update CD this week and decided to give
> Mandrake 7.2 another whirl, partly because I am bored at the moment
> and partly because I was hoping that this one was the big winner.
Thats a scientology term. Suddenly everything falls into place.....
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:25:12 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Jan 2001 22:59:34
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 21:08:19 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Jan 2001 07:41:20
>
>>>I don't think that at all. That's the problem -- when third parties
>>>join the game, it becomes possible to win without a "simple majority".
>>
>>But since, as I mentioned, the simple majority of votes rarely if ever
>>constitutes a simple majority of the population, this is a problem,
>>since in a two party system, the winner acts as if it "has a mandate"
>>from the majority of the population, when it almost never does.
>
>They have a mandate from the majority of those who bother to vote. Those
>who don't bother to vote don't count. Those who want to be counted vote.
I'm afraid this is a flawed and even dangerous argument. Everybody
counts; you do not sacrifice your rights as a citizen because you did
not exercise your right to vote. Nor did you, despite the common
contradiction of this point, forfeit your right to complain. You merely
limit your opportunity for determining who won the election, and that is
all. Yes, those who don't vote still "count"; it is there votes which
aren't counted.
>>>No, it's problematic because there are large numbers of people who are
>>>trying to circumvent a flaw in the system, (namely the "throw-your-vote-away"
>>>concern) which is a sign that something is wrong with it.
>>
>>So trying to circumvent a flaw, and succeeding, by negotiating with a
>>leading candidate to consider your concerns, is a bad thing? I don't
>>get it.
>
>No, the fact that the system needs to be subverted in such a way indicates
>there's something wrong with the system.
Subvert? Sounds like a dangerous term, in the wrong hands. That isn't
"subverting" the system; that *is* the system.
>>>Instant runoffs still result in a two party system, because it's not
>>>possible to gain a seat unless you can get more than 50% of the vote.
>>>IOW, if you have 20% of the popular vote, you get 0% of the seats.
>>
>>Instant runoffs DON'T result in a two party system; the results merely
>>appear similar, on the surface.
>>
>>But I appreciate your concerns, which are valid, which is that I wasn't
>>distinguishing between proportional representation and an instant
>>run-off. Both share the same flaw; they require coalition governments.
>
>No, they do not both require coalition governments.
OK, I see your point; I'm again being imprecise. I see a government
determined by 'instant run-off elections' as sharing many of the same
problems and dangers as a coalition government.
>Proportional representation *often* results in coalition governments,
>but often a major party can still win a simple majority ( in Australia,
>it's not unusual for a major party to have more than half the senate)
>It does help to give the smaller parties a political voice in the
>senate though.
>
>Instant runoffs almost never result in coalition governments.
>
>What gives you they idea that they "require" such a thing ?
They require a different form of compromise than a two party system. As
counter-productive as the naked extremist partisan rhetoric we suffer
these days might be, it is worth considering that it only exists because
of the inherent motivation for both sides to "stick to their guns", and
maintain their principles, if you will. But they must, inherently,
compromise on their activities, since there is no coalition to support
them in straying from the moderate course. In a coalition government,
or one run by someone with the ephemeral 'mandate' that an instant-run
off provides, the compromise has to only be enough to gain *control*,
not enough to gain real *support*.
>BTW, one could argue that the US system requires this. For example, the
>senate rules are written in such a way that some degree of cooperation
>and civility is necessary to get anything done. And it's extremely rare
>for a single party to have a useable majority in all three tiers of
>government. (btw, I consider this to be one of the strong points of
>the US system)
Me too. Incredibly important. I fully expect the legislature to change
hands in 2002, now that Bush is in the White House (or will be very
soon, anyway). The scary part is the judiciary; Bush's Supreme Court
could reverse a hundred years of progressive support of liberty and the
empowerment of the individual over the oppressive forces of society.
[...]
>>The idea that voting for someone who doesn't win is "throwing your vote
>>away" is, to me, abhorrent and reprehensible.
>
>Unfortunately, there's a widespread perception that voting for someone
>who *has no chance of winning* is "throwing away your vote".
That's what I said. So why are you encouraging this perception, by
using it as an assumption in your presentation, if you know it is
unfortunate, since it is not correct?
>And it's
>largely because if a candidate has no chance of winning and you vote
>for them, your vote will not have any effect on the outcome of the
>election (bar hurting the major party candidate who you might otherwise
>have voted for, which is certainly not the effect the voter would hope
>for)
By definition, every vote is wasted, then, except those that were for
the winner. That sounds like an 'instant run-off' to me.
>>About a hundred thousand times the maximum size I would consider
>>reasonable for a run-off style election.
>
>Why do you think run-off elections are so hard ? In case you don't
>understand how they work, it's not necessary for voters to vote
>more than once. They fill out ballots ranking the candidates in
>order of preference.
It is not the number of ballots, but the level of true consensus
necessary, which makes the size too large.
>Australia has 18,000,000 and has been doing just fine with instant
>runoffs. There are countries in Europe that are somewhat larger
>and have succesfully deployed a similar system.
To be honest, I wasn't aware of that. Does it result in picking the
"most favorite extremist", rather than a moderate?
>The population of the US is 270*10^6, so divided by 10^5, it's
>2700. Are you saying that instant runoffs aren't even feasible
>in (for example) a small college campus election ?
Yes, that is about the size of it, in my opinion. No offense to those
countries which use them, I'm not saying their results are invalid. I'm
saying I can't see them being preferable, any more than I could see
supporting a coalition government. It seems quite possible, in
retrospect, that they are just too foreign to my experience, as it were.
>That statement
>flies in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.
To be honest, I would suspect that nothing about government has ever had
any truly empirical evidence. Its one of those rare cases where the
post-modernists are right, with their misinterpretation of Karl Popper
and their Higher Dismissivness. There can be no empirical evidence
which illuminates issues of government. Call it the Devlin Suspicion.
>Instant runoffs and proportional representation aren't crackpot
>schemes, they're legitimate, widely used, and succesful electoral systems.
I didn't say they were crackpot schemes. Merely that saying they are
objectively preferable, and should be implemented in the US, would be a
crackpot scheme. Perhaps I'm more of a "filthy American" than I had
ever dreamed, though there are even more radical changes to the US
system of government that I would propose, and ones which would have
substantially more practical effect automatically.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:25:13 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Jan 2001 23:13:29
>On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:11:59 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
[...]
>When an election comes down to the fine print, it comes as no surprise
>that each side has an interpretation of the fine print that maximises
>their chance of victory. That's why we have courts -- because someone
>must have the authority to give binding interpretations of the fine
>print in the case of such a dispute.
Thank you, again, Donovan, for providing a voice of reason in the face
of all this hyperspin and demonization.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: 2.4 finally made official
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:28:51 GMT
No, it's still there running on IIS
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> Glitch wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >http://www.msnbc.com/news/512189.asp
> >It's about time.
>
> Surprising to find this on a MS sponsored site especially the
> mention of it being an alternative to windows - better read it
> quick before MS get the page removed ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:31:33 GMT
What version, Windows 286?
JM wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:29:30 -0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >JM wrote in message ...
> >>If anyone was wondering why yesterdays posts came later than usual,
> >>it's because Windows had to be re-installed AGAIN, thus making me stay
> >>up till 6am setting it all up again.
> >>
> >>Thanks a lot, Microsoft.
>
> >Try installing linux as a dualboot system so at least you will have a way to
> >post
> >between windows reinstalls.
>
> Unfortuanetly I don't have a copy of Linux. I had to perform a quick
> format and reinstall, immediately configuring the modem and Agent so I
> could jump right back into Usenet merely HOURS later....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:33:10 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:07:48 GMT, "adam"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>if you are THAT upset about driving stick shift don't drive a sportscar...
I drive a 1996 Chevy Impala SS fully modified putting out somewhere in
the neighborhood of 400HP.
Would you like to race sometime?
I regularly eat for lunch yuppies driving Boxsters heading to the
Hampton's to hob knob with the movie stars. It's actually quite funny
watching them try and swear in German. I have to wonder how many of
them are running Linux? But then again, the majority of them are
investment bankers(if they are not movie stars) and in that world it
is all Windows or real Unix. Linux need not apply.
>stick around though, im sure a distro will come along in the future that
>will suite your lazy needs. mandrake may not be the easiest for a
>windows/mac monkey like yourself, but its a huge piece of cake compared to
>other distros..
Unlike you, I prefer end results and not the method used to attain
them. To use your automobile analogy, I am halfway down the 1/4 mile
before the idiot in the Boxster has figured out where first gear is.
It's all about ease of use and applications and Linux has neither.
>you dumb!
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:33:49 GMT
Does it really finally work with those USB ports?
Jim Broughton wrote:
>
> The new linux kernel 2.4.0 has finaly been released.
> It is available at kernel.org or SOME of its mirrors.
> The rest of the mirrors will probably catch up by some
> time on jan 5.
> --
> Jim Broughton
> (The AmigaOS now there was an OS!)
> If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:34:33 GMT
In <3a55c3c1$7$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/05/01
at 07:53 AM, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>Are you saying that the 3270 doesnt have a microprocessor buried
>>inside of it?
>Free clue: look up the announcement year of the 3277, then check on the
>microprocessor market for that year.
I'm pretty sure the original 3270's were all hardwired SSI logic. At
least the one's we looked at appeared that way. However, that was IBM's
choice. Our 3270 clones definitely were processor controlled. We looked
at using one of the available microprocessors, but decided to design our
own using discrete logic so that we could drive all 16 terminals off a
single processor. This was back in the early '70's.
Steven
--
===================================================================
Steven Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MR2/ICE 2.21 #10183
Warp4/FP11 www.scoug.com irc.webbnet.org #scoug (Wed 7pm PST)
===================================================================
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:34:53 GMT
Todd wrote:
> > Very ordinary really - I use the web, read/write emails,
> > play games, do programming and system admintration
> > work - Linux is the perfect environment for these sorts
> > of things. (unless you need games which only run on
> > windows platforms, but I'm already got way too many
> > games)
>
> Most people's needs:
>
> Office
Check - applix, staroffice, word perfect, koffice....
> Email
check - netscape and a host of other mail programs....
> Web
check - netscape, opera, konqueror...
> Games
Yep - quake, unreal tournament, tribes 2, heavy gear 2, descent....
> Out of these, Office only runs on Windows.
of couse, office is a microsoft product - are you surprised?
> As for Web, IE is by far the
> best browser with the most capabilities.
nope, it's just another browser, but microsoft has had great
success forcing vendors to preload it.
> Many sites on the Internet are
> tuned for IE.
There used to be a lot of idiotic "ie-only" sites, but luckily
they seem to be disappearing.
> As for games, the best are only found on Windows.
In your opinion of course - windows does have more
games, but IMHO the best ones are also available on
Linux -
> For the ordinary user, Windows is clearly the better choice.
I dunno, I think an ordinary user would rather enjoy
never again having to worry about viruses, blue screens,
dll conflicts, random lockups, frequent OS installs, etc.
> My RedHat 7.0 installation failed to install my SoundBlaster Live! and my
> 3Com ethernet card correctly. This is on a brand new 815E PIII 866 system.
That's odd, I too have a SoundBlaster live and it's working
just fine - in fact it worked just fine in 6.2 also. ditto for any
and all ethernet cards.
OTOH I have been fighting with win98 (my wife's pc) for some
time now trying to get it to recognize an ethernet card that works
like a charm when I boot to Linux. I have tried a realtek 8139
10/100, and a dec tulip 10/100 - with Linux, it's automatically
detected on powerup and correctly configured. With windows,
it's an endless merry-go-round of futzing around with the "device
manager", the "network properties" requests to insert the windows
98 CD, the floppy, repeated reboots, etc, etc.
> Windows 2000, OTOH, not only installed everything fully automatically, but
> configured my ethernet for DHCP and I was online without doing *anything*.
Yes, windows 200 was made for you, Todd. I'm so happy.
I see windows 2000 every day and I still prefer Linux.
> Unless you already have another OS as most people do not want or can't give
> up Windows.
Linux, unlike windows, does not blow away what's already there -
> > So, you suppose the engineers at IBM, Compaq, VA Research,
> > SGI, SuSE, NASA etc are all working on Linux for free?
>
> The companies that work with Linux exclusively have not made much profit if
> any. Look at RedHat for example.
According to their plan, they are not yet in the black, but are
on track to be profitable next year IIRC - same with VA. It's
a very young, growing market.
> IBM is using money from other profit
> sources to fund its Linux work.
Why do you suppose they are doing that? Think about it.
> Are you saying that MS no longer holds a monopoly?
Ah, you agree about the monopoly then?
>
> > Are you not Todd Needham?
OK, your posting style is similar - but thinking back I do
remember another wintroll named Todd from a few years
ago - You worked in Japan, right?
> This is the present condition.
Sorry, but that is quite stale, and discredited anyway.
> Windows 2000 beat Linux hands down.
There was no windows 2000 - that was windows nt, Todd,
it was years ago.
> Nobody
> can refute that. RedHat could NOT refute that even though *they* tweaked
> Linux for optimal performance. Linux still couldn't best 2000.
Linux has indeed bested 2000 -
> > Linux beats ms on high end web benchmarks.
>
> If you can point me to a benchmark where both MS, a Linux competitor, and a
> unbiased 3rd party were present, I would be happy to see it. Note that I am
> looking for only audited benchmarks, not those by MS or UNIX supporters.
I'm not sure about your curious requirements, but spec.org is
officially recognized, as you state below. Go look up the specweb
99 benchmarks - Linux on top. Best 8 way results, best 4 way results,
best 2 way results, best single cpu results.
> > I guess you will be pretty badly stunned when the Linux results
> > are posted -
>
> I'm looking forward to seeing them.
Somehow I don't think you are...
>
>
> > > Finally, even Tom's hardware states that OpenGL runs slightly faster
> under
> > > 2000 that Linux with NVidia hardware (pretty much the most common 3d
> > > hardware out there these days).
> >
> > much more mature and highly tuned drivers - and even at
> > that the performance is about equal - put that amount of
> > effort into the Linux video drivers and let's see who is faster.
>
> True - but it illustrates that Windows 2000 has, again, better hardware
> support.
With a 10 year head start I would think so - but does getting
1% better frame rate make me want to dump Linux and go back
to using a windows pc? I don't think so, that's too heavy a price
to pay for such a trivial item.
> Besides, isn't Linux supposed to be so much faster than 2000 that small
> differences in drivers would be made up by Linux' supreme awesome speed
> advantage?
It's amazing that the speed is nearly identical, given that
1. Linux is using a network transparent, client/server window system,
while windows is using a simple PC GUI.
2. Windows drivers have been under development for years, while
Linux driver development is brand new and very immature -
So, yes, I am quite happy with Linux performance, and expect to
continue to see impressive improvements as DRI is tuned and
more hardware vendors wake up.
> (Do you see why it's hard to convince Windows 2000 users now?)
Oh, I'm sure the psychology of windows fanatics is probably a
fascinating subject, but I really haven't had time to explore it.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:36:12 GMT
And ensuring compatibility on 100's of Linux favors would be a better
effort
mlw wrote:
>
> Microsoft's lack of quality, and view that software is, at best,
> ephemeral, make all software engineers look bad.
>
> When my mom works on her computer (No commercial TAX applications for
> Linux yet.) It crashes. She hates windows, but has to use it. She says
> things to me like, "why can't they make this work right?" meaning
> software engineers in general.
>
> People say things at work like "I hate computers" right after Windows
> locks up or crashes. People view software as crap, and under Windows are
> generally correct.
>
> This "reboot your computer to fix a problem" mentality is stupid. We
> have an IT department, smart guys, but been using Microsoft too long.
> Their first response to a problem on Linux was to reboot. Slowly, they
> are coming around because they see that if something doesn't work on
> Linux, it is because of a problem, and rebooting does not make the
> problem go away.
>
> Is Linux right for the home computer? Maybe not yet. But it is very
> acceptable for the workstation and server market. One could easily
> deploy a full Linux network infrastructure, right to the desktop, in a
> company and improve reliability and reduce costs.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:36:59 GMT
Try Windows 2000
mlw wrote:
>
> With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
>
> I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
> deploy NT.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:37:32 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:31:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What version, Windows 286?
>
>
>JM wrote:
ROTFLMAO!
Actually about 6 months ago there was a post in the Linux setup groups
that described this one chap's 6 month "love affair" with Linux trying
to connect to the internet. Seemed his ISP was not Linux friendly (and
which one is?) and he wouldn't give up. Imagine paying for 6 months of
access and not being able to use it?
Damm these LinoScrews are a stupid lot....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:40:17 GMT
Todd wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> > why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
> >
> > I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
> > deploy NT.
>
> Neither can I. We are deploying Windows 2000.
>
> Linux shouldn't be trying to compete with NT. Linux needs to be able to
> compete with 2000 - which I don't believe it can do yet, if ever.
The question is, can windows 2000 compete with Linux?
The answer is not as simple as someone like you might
prefer. On the desktop? sure, what choice do you have if
you are a windows shop with a heavy investment in legacy
windows software? You either march forward in lock step
with redmond, or you get left behind.
Some desktop migration to Linux is nonetheless happening.
On the server end, Linux is the clear winner; there is simply
no sensible reason for a Unix environment (which most internet
related environments are) to switch to a windows pc server
environment, when Linux gets them Unix functionality, power
and stability, but amazingly at prices that undercut ms windows.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:40:17 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:33:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Does it really finally work with those USB ports?
Even if it does, and I doubt it does, the Penguinista's won't admit it
one way or the other. They are in complete denial mode when it comes
to that sorry ass'd OS we know as LinSux...
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:47:06 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> Don't be quite so cynical even if it comes naturally from prior
> experience with MS products. Win2k really does have some of
> the long-missing command line functionality filled in but for some
> reason nobody knows anything about it.
Is that because Microsoft moved the command-line app to the
Accessories menu, hmmm? <grin>
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:49:02 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Oh, like all the "documented" functionality under Linux.
>
> Nice try.
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:NmS46.54285$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
When are you going to learn the proper quoting etiquette?
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
