Linux-Advocacy Digest #307, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Computers, monopoly... (WAS: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear
both - www.ezboard.com) ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: Windows fails again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: rt18139.c ("Bennetts family")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("kiwiunixman")
Apple Quicktime (was: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!!)
("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!! ("Bennetts family")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Apple Quicktime (was: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own
movie!!!) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Vann")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Why Advocacy? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.sys.apple
Subject: Re: Computers, monopoly... (WAS: Re: Big government and big business: why
not fear both - www.ezboard.com)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:40:13 -0000
>If the software and hardware you need are available for the Mac, you will
>almost certainly find it much faster and cheaper in use than a Windoze PC.
>
This may be true but neither of them are as cheap to use as a linux PC
(or linux mac as this can also compile and run most of the same programs).
I wonder how the situation will change once the Mac uses the new osx as this
should also run unix code so mac and linux software could be written
together
(and can also be ported to the many other versions of unix). Who will bother
writing software for windows which is hard to port to other systems when the
rival systems can all have software easily ported between them. Write
software
for one unix and have the potential to recompile and sell to users of many
other
unixes or code for windows and only be able to sell to windows users
(especially
if MS get broken up and their applications section will be stupid to ignore
the many
unix users).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:45:50 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:21:19 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Wow, "S" is back!
I have to warn my spell checker :)
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:45:28 -0000
>>Look to see what UART is listed on the box.
>>
>>If there's no UART, then it's a LoseModem.
>
Only useful if particular purchaser knows what a UART is and
what value should be shown for a real one (I have an old winmodem
with uart shown on box as 'Enanced virtual UART to overcome throughput
limitation of a standalone UART' which sounds like a new improved
device but really means it is a winmodem).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:49:52 GMT
On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:22:50 GMT, "kiwiunixman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bullshit! I have never had that problem, even with the free ISPs in New
>Zealand. This so-called "un-friendly" Linux clap-trap that gets spread is
>bullshit. Yes, it is true that some ISPs dont support (in terms of
>techsupport) Linux users, however, they still can use the service provided
>by the ISP.
Assuming the person sitting at the keyboard knows how to properly
configure Linux to work.
Example: To make Linux work with att the "noauth" statement has to be
commented out. How is a newbie supposed to know that?
Also the only Free ISP that supported Linux was FreeWeb and they went
under. I don't know of any others that support Linux here in the USA,
but you can correct me if I am wrong.
>And if he were using the same ISP as you (att net), then all he would simply
>have to do is select PAP/CHAP from the kppp selection (in the config
>dialogue box).
Up until recently that would not work. The "noauth" statement had to
be commented out.
Currently, it does work though.
>kiwiunixman
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:48:44 -0000
>Not really. They probably wrote drivers only for the Windows platform out
of
>commercial considerations. It wasn't until very recently that hardware
>companies started paying attention to Linux/BSD. We can only hope the trend
>continues.
>
On the other hand users of Lucent winmodems may be able to use them under
linux - unfortunately it is a closed-source driver which installs as a
kernel module,
making it only compatible with specific kernel versions (open source drivers
are
in development though). If you use Kernel 2.4 then forget it.
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rt18139.c
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:05:37 +1100
I'll ignore the flaming that is going on elsewhere in this thread (all
involved are showing what kind of fools they are, regardless of which side
of the divide they are on).
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9374bm$hd1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> now i've got the driver for the my ethernet card for Redhat 5.2
> installed in my pc. (i know this version is.....)
snip
I'd give up on this driver, I suspect that there is a suitable one in the
kernel source anyway, for your version of RedHat, I'd choose the latest
2.2.x kernel (2.2.17?). That should be a little easier, and reading up on
the relevant Howtos should get you set up.
> b) and what is "chmod 777" actually??
Sets a file to be able to be read, written to, and executed by anyone on the
system, usually a Bad Thing.
--Chris
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:04:26 GMT
look on http://www.sourceforge.net and look for the special script/program
there, I have seen many there for linux
kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:22:25 GMT, "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jure Sah"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Say how do you connect to network from linux? Something like: "Jhwers
> >> -tr fj3h42 -ij fsd76234h +dc -u 748738967 -E fdgbazidurks ���" ?!
Yuck!
> >> Even DOS command lines looked a lot better than that!
> >>
> >> Sure linux is stable; Only because the user can never get to all the
> >> advanced programs that control anything important!
> >To you first question, I do this:
> >kppp -c tm.net
> >And it dials, just like magic. Of course, I have a menu item to do it
for me,
> >so I don't have to type it in every time. And kppp is no worse than
> >Windows DUN, either.
>
> And how do you make it (kppp) dial on demand like Windows 2000 can do
> by checking a box?
>
> What is the point of having ICS under Mandrake if you have to run to
> the Gateway box everytime a user on the network wants to dial out?
>
>
> >By the way, as I say to everyone who doesn't like linux:
> >If you don't like linux, don't use it. It's really that simple.
>
> It seems to be working quite well.
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Apple Quicktime (was: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own
movie!!!)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 00:07:11 -0000
I thing it is time that all linux supporters here started writing to
software companies
to ask where to obtain there product for linux as this should guarantee the
availability
of more software.
I know that products like Xmovie can play many formats including many
quicktime
variants but we would be better off in this case having the full real
product so I have
emailed apple asking where I can download their quicktime plugin for linux.
I would
appreciate it if all other linux users also made this request at:-
http://survey.info.apple.com/info.apple.com/survey/feedback/feedback.taf?fun
ction=tellus
Thanks,
Nigel
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!!
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:13:36 +1100
"genkai wa doko da" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9386f3$ahs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>
> linux usings being fagit who don't know real perfesional operatoning
> systim like windows NT!!
>
> fuck off!
Ahhh, so *this* is the standard of your typical NT user, eh? Maybe I'll
stick to 98 and MDK7.2 (stupid no name monitor, if could get the refresh
rates right, I'd be set).
--Chris
Personally, I prefer a professional operating system like Linux over a "real
perfesional operatoning systim like windows NT".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:20:21 GMT
References: trimmed back.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 05 Jan 2001 20:06:17 GMT
<ZOp56.151404$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>What the hell are you smoking?
Why do documents carry viruses? Does this make sense to anybody?
It sure doesn't make sense to me.
In times of yore, one might envision a rogue nroff macro wreaking
havoc with the output of the nroff or troff processor, but that's
about it. Modern Word documents, by contrast, can take out an
entire system, because of a variety of factors (part of it being
laziness on users and/or sysadmin types).
Of course, the fact that it's so easy to "point, click, execute,
kaboom" on Microsoft isn't helpful either (on Unix, at least, one
has to go through some hoops; it's doable, but the only damage would
be to one's own account -- not the entire system).
>
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>> >
>> > Listen, there IS a technology called "pattern detection" which works on
>Word
>> > macro viruses (to detect "suspect" patterns).
>>
>> Of course, putting such functionality into a WYSIWYG editor so that it can
>> even carry a virus is the ultimate in LOUSY FUCKING DESIGN in
>> the first place.
Indeed, unless Microsoft in their infinite wisdom decided that it would
be A Good Idea(tm) to be able to hook monitors so that they get notified
whenever a document is accessed.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- can one ever be too paranoid? :-)
up 95 days, 23:19, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Apple Quicktime (was: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own
movie!!!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:24:56 GMT
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 00:07:11 -0000, "Nigel Feltham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I thing it is time that all linux supporters here started writing to
>software companies
>to ask where to obtain there product for linux as this should guarantee the
>availability
>of more software.
They don't care because they are making far too much money from
Windows sales. Until Linux makes some kind of a dent in the desktop
market, it will always be a niche operating system or a back room
server operating system.
>I know that products like Xmovie can play many formats including many
>quicktime
>variants
But not the latest QuickTime 4.x variant.
My turntable can play 78RPM records as well.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:25:54 GMT
Thanks Alan,
I knew I wasn't imagining it
Erik, your thoughts?
jjs
Alan Boyd wrote:
> OK, I'll back him up. I saw that article too.
>
> In fact...look here:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/issue/0,4537,2387282,00.html
>
> Conventional wisdom says Linux is incredibly stable.
> Always skeptical, we decided to put that claim to the
> test over a 10-month period. In our test, we ran Caldera
> Systems OpenLinux, Red Hat Linux, and Windows NT
> Server 4.0 with Service Pack 3 on duplicate 100MHz
> Pentium systems with 64MB of memory. Ever since we
> first booted up our test systems in January, network
> requests have been sent to each server in parallel for
> standard Internet, file and print services. The results
> were quite revealing. Our NT server crashed an average
> of once every six weeks. Each failure took roughly 30
> minutes to fix. That's not so bad, until you consider that
> neither Linux server ever went down. This test, coupled
> with our technical staff's extensive Linux and NT
> experience, leads us to believe that Linux truly is more
> stable than NT on uniprocessor servers.
>
> --
> "I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
> program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
> will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:29:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:22:25 GMT, "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jure Sah"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>> Say how do you connect to network from linux? Something like: "Jhwers
>>> -tr fj3h42 -ij fsd76234h +dc -u 748738967 -E fdgbazidurks ���" ?!
>>> Yuck! Even DOS command lines looked a lot better than that!
>>>
>>> Sure linux is stable; Only because the user can never get to all the
>>> advanced programs that control anything important!
>>To you first question, I do this: kppp -c tm.net And it dials, just like
>>magic. Of course, I have a menu item to do it for me, so I don't have
>>to type it in every time. And kppp is no worse than Windows DUN,
>>either.
>
> And how do you make it (kppp) dial on demand like Windows 2000 can do by
> checking a box?
>
> What is the point of having ICS under Mandrake if you have to run to the
> Gateway box everytime a user on the network wants to dial out?
Well, kppp can't, as far as I know. You can, however, write a simple
script to do it, or use something like diald or an argument to pppd (
Although I foget which, pppd --help and man pppd describe it well )
<snip sig>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:39:58 GMT
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:29:03 GMT, "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, kppp can't, as far as I know. You can, however, write a simple
>script to do it, or use something like diald or an argument to pppd (
>Although I foget which, pppd --help and man pppd describe it well )
><snip sig>
Yes that is indeed possible, but my point is that kppp is the default
dialer installed under Mandrake 7.2 and ICS is there as well so why
can't the 2 work together like ICS does under Windows? Checking a box
enables the connection to dial on demand.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:28:10 GMT
Another factless, insult laden post by Max.
-Chad
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 05 Jan 2001 14:05:18
> [...]
> >Max can BS all he wants, he can call it all BS and gibberish, but
> >let it be known, Max has not presented one single argument, not
> >one bit of fact, or one single reason for any of the Democrat
> >tampering in Florida.
>
> They wanted their candidate to win, just like the Republicans did. And,
> just like the Republicans did, they felt they were acting ethically and
> correctly in pursuing the fair results of the election, under the
> presumption that this would mean their candidate came out ahead.
>
> >He presents only insults and "no it isn't!" type arguments without
> >any substance to back them up.
>
> That's because all you posted was empty rhetoric. If you want me to
> argue with factual information, you're going to have to present some
> putatively factual information for me to argue against. I don't have
> any *need* of factual information, in order to eradicate your
> "Demoncrats" hot air, since its nothing more than partisan pandering.
>
> >Until he presents even ONE fact supporting his claims, I suggest
> >you all ignore him.
>
> The Bush camp filed the first lawsuit, in an effort to prevent the fair
> recounts of votes.
>
> >Max, when you're ready to come back and act like a big boy, let
> >us known.
>
> Why? I'm supposed to be the only one who has to "act like a big boy",
> while you continue to spread lies (outright, obvious, high-volume lies)
> about what happened in Florida? Puh-leeeze.
>
> If you weren't so full of shit, you wouldn't have to keep trying these
> "ignore him; he doesn't have any 'facts'" posts. This is, what, the
> sixth one, at least? Funny how you couldn't just present any reasoning
> or facts to refute my conclusion that your partisan posturing has no
> bearing on the actual situation.
>
> --
> 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]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:44:14 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 6 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So in order to avoid having to even bother writing an export filter for
>> Word95, MS figured they could just use RTF, and save the files with .doc
>> extensions to minimize the questions from the mass user base. A typical
>> cost cutting process, and not at all a matter of trying purposefully to
>> screw anyone or force them to upgrade.
>>
>> That scenario is quite possible, and I guess you've stumbled onto a
>> reasonable justification which does not require malice. Merely the fact
>> that monopolies are not controlled by a requirement to be competitive,
>> so brain-dead, unacceptable, counter-productive, moronic ideas like this
>> end up being forced down the throat of millions of consumers. No
>> competitive organization would fail to see how stupid this is, and how
>> adversely it will affect their customer-base. Microsoft, though; it
>> doesn't have to care, because its an illegal monopoly. (Which means
>> that the 'purposeful theory' is still not excluded by reason, anyway.)
>
>It's also the most likely scenario. Attributing to malice, that which can
>adequately be explained by other means is a sign of a paranoid personality.
Denying evidence, on the other hand, of purposeful and repetitive
"malice" (intent to monopolize) in similar scenarios, is merely
soft-headed.
>You anti-microsoft zealots put MS so high on a pedestal.
Not so high that you can't see the competition from there.
>They are
>omnipotent and carefully craft these huge conspiracies which they pull of
>flawlessly year after year.
No, they monopolize. No omnipotence necessary; its a self-reenforcing
criminal strategy to restrain trade.
>In your rush to decry them, you are willing to
>latch onto any feeble rumor and present it as fact (for instance, the
>neverending stories of how NT contains DEC source code line for line, how
>Hotmail was converted to NT right away and it crashed, how MS uses secret
>API's in their apps to make them work better than their competition, and a
>ton of others).
All simplifications of factual predatory activity.
>Fact is, MS got lucky in a few key areas, and their competition failed to
>compete.
No, the facts are (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm)
that they break the law, and act anti-competitively. Of course "the
competition failed to compete" (did you know that was nonsensical?);
there is no way to compete against someone who is anti-competing.
Competing harder only loses money faster; your only possible strategy,
in fact, is to anti-compete. This "cascade effect" is something you'd
find even easier to hand-wave away. But the utter naivete (or
stupidity, lets be honest) of proposing that MS "got lucky in a few key
areas" is rather preposterous. I'm sure you'll find it comforting to
know, however, that it is now wise to attribute to intellectual
dishonesty what can be reasonably explained by ignorance.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:50:23 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:18:06
>[...]Even if the 97 CD did contain a filter, I don't
>see how that helps the people who have word95 and obviously don't
>have a copy of the 97 CD.
Well, you can't very well put in on the 95 CD. ;-)
And, as Erik is so anal about pointing out, it was available for
download.
But I wonder why on earth Microsoft couldn't provide a filter for 95 to
allow it to save in 97 format, as well? Is it just that its
nonsensical? It does seem bizarre, doesn't it? Word97 could read 95
files, of course; it just couldn't write them (till people complained).
Still, that's premised on the notion that there was some beneficial
format change to begin with, which means wanting to save a 95 file in 97
format should make sense?
I think I've been thinking about RTF too much; my brain is obviously
melting down.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:51:47 GMT
Said Alan Boyd in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:23:29
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > I know that this is strong medicine for someone like yourself,
>> > > > and you may choose to disbelive it. If I find the spare time I
>> > > > will see if I can locate an online reference.
>> > >
>> > > You made the claim. Back it up.
>> >
>> > my aren't we paranoid.
>>
>> You make a claim that nobody else seems to be able to corroborate, and then
>> refuse to back it up. That's not paranoia, that's plain common sense.
>
>OK, I'll back him up. I saw that article too.
>
>In fact...look here:
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/issue/0,4537,2387282,00.html
>
> Conventional wisdom says Linux is incredibly stable.
> Always skeptical, we decided to put that claim to the
> test over a 10-month period. In our test, we ran Caldera
> Systems OpenLinux, Red Hat Linux, and Windows NT
> Server 4.0 with Service Pack 3 on duplicate 100MHz
> Pentium systems with 64MB of memory. Ever since we
> first booted up our test systems in January, network
> requests have been sent to each server in parallel for
> standard Internet, file and print services. The results
> were quite revealing. Our NT server crashed an average
> of once every six weeks. Each failure took roughly 30
> minutes to fix. That's not so bad, until you consider that
> neither Linux server ever went down. This test, coupled
> with our technical staff's extensive Linux and NT
> experience, leads us to believe that Linux truly is more
> stable than NT on uniprocessor servers.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 00:49:01 -0000
>Yep. Sure is. Unless you really have very limited funds, and build your own
>pc from discarded parts.
>But I'll bet you better than 3/4 of these linux zealots are running >
400mhz
>pc's with newer hardware.
>You almost have to in order to see any snap in the newer desktops.
>
Mandrake 7.2 installed on my laptop with no problems (except the problem of
getting the install files onto the machine as it has no CD drive) and worked
perfectly and runs at a useable speed (faster than win95 on same machine)
and
is not a 400mhz+ machine but a P133 with 32mb ram and 5.1gb hard-drive
(a dell lattitude xpi 133 to be exact). Even KDE2 and Gnome are useable -
ICEWM is faster but I prefer KDE2 as this gives better integration with
koffice
and konqueror web-browser.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:55:11 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001
23:37:15 GMT;
>Why would one need to write their own version if Linux was the best to
>start with? I'm sure most all users would love to write their own
>operating system. Definately on their top ten most enjoyable ways to
>spend their life.
I don't think anybody would mind being able to, whether they ever would
or not.
>Truth is most people would rather just wax and drive their cars than to
>play full time mechanic. Same for operating systems.
I don't see much of a difference, actually. Wax and shine or do a bit
of tweaking on a kernel module and recompile; just two different ways of
spending a Sunday afternoon, if you ask me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 00:55:40 -0000
>Well, SAMBA is trying to reverse engineer the undocumented features of
>Microsoft's implementation of networking. They deliberately change things
>without telling anyone to make sure you're tied to Windows. You can hardly
>blame the SAMBA people for that one.
>
Is it true that win9x and winNT4 clients also have problems connecting to
win2k
servers due the the SMB changes?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 00:59:40 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>kiwiunixman wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft has never owned up to the BSOD, or security wholes, or memory
> whores
>
>> leaks or needs of developers (esp. in the area of API calls) or the
>> needs of consumers. Pip, do a little research before making sweeping
>> statements regarding Microsofts legacy of customer and developer relations.
>
>If you pay $5,000 for developers tools, they'll blow sunshine up your ass.
>MS reps carry it around in little compressed-air bottles. While you sign
>the contract, they attach the spray-tube to the aerosol nozzle, and as a
>conclusion to the ritual, they have everyone representing the "MS-Partner"
>company bend over, drop their pants, while the MS-reps proceed to give
>each MS-Partner a compressed-air dose of MS sunshine.
>
>This is a ritualistic prelude for future-dealings with MS.
ROTFLMAO! "Yea, they carry it around in little spray bottles..."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
