Linux-Advocacy Digest #351, Volume #31 Tue, 9 Jan 01 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: KDE Hell ("MH")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Yatima)
Re: Linux, it is great. (Yatima)
Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("MH")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("tony roth")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("tony roth")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Jan 2001 16:14:06 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:50:49 -0500, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Linux is crude and inconsistent.
>>
>>OK, now that you've stated the obvious...
>>What's your point?
>Just reminding the Penguinista's because they tend to be a forgetful lot.
I see --- the people who actually use Linux need to be reminded that it
is crude and inconsistent, while for those who don't use Linux, the lesson
once learned will not be unlearned through actual experience.
Did I sum that up correctly?
Bernie
--
Biography should be written by an acute enemy
A.J. Balfour
British Prime Minister 1902-1905
Observer, 30 January 1927
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Jan 2001 16:24:59 +1100
* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>then there's your ridiculous assertion that drivers of either car are
>limited to what they do - like it takes any skill to drive a
>beetle. like you're always hearing of beetles flipping
>over. umm. this is simply not true. the McLaren driver could not only
>drive their McLaren, but they could also drive your beetle. and
>almost certainly better than you.
I would seriously doubt it. There are very few areas in human life where
experience can't make up for a heck of a lot of theoretical knowledge.
Last time a friend of mine wanted to drive my Beetle, she couldn't even
get it started. She did all the right moves, but nope, no start. We swapped
seats again, started first time. I don't know what I did different, so
I couldn't even teach her how to do it.
And ever wondered *why* you don't see Beetles flipping over all the time?
Well, first of all, most of the people driving them have driven them for
a while, and thus know how to handle them. And those who are new to the
Beetle are generally clever enough to *know* that they don't know how it
handles, and thus tend to err on the side of caution. Going through a
corner too slow doesn't hurt you --- doing it too fast does, and you end
up being even more late for your date....
Bernie
--
In politics it is more blessed not to take than to give
Enoch Powell
British Conservative politician
Daily Telegraph, 31 January 1964
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Jan 2001 16:32:03 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 8 Jan 2001 05:23:56 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>So it's normal that Win98 won't properly reboot on original IBM hardware?
>>Did I mention that Linux doesn't seem to have this problem on the very
>>same machine?
>No.
>I am saying that you have a dinosaur of a machine that is rife with
>non-standard hardware, that was even non-standard when it was built.
What "standard" is it you are talking about? What "standard" says that
a PC from IBM, using an IBM VGA card and a 3COM NIC, is "nonstandard"?
>Run Linux on it and be happy.
That won't work --- I bought this machine to run a specific application
on it, which only runs under Windows. And quite frankly --- I don't need
another Linux box. There are 6 in this room alone, a further 3 upstairs,
and one in the lounge room.
Bernie
--
Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means
government by the badly educated
G.K. Chesterton
New York Times, 1 February 1931
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:59:50 GMT
In article <93d4vh$bfd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 08:28:48 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Terry Porter wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've finally finished upgrading my Linux box to Mandrake7.2!
> >>
> >>How long did that take you?
I've installed it on 3 machines. It takes less time to install Mandrake
and nearly 1000 packages (equivalent of 500 Windows applications such as
Office, Notes, BackOffice, ...) in less time than it took to unstall
JUST windows 2000.
> >>> Good one Mandrake, worth every penny,
> >>> and once again showing Linux *has*
> >>> the EDGE!
Mandrake is billed as the best distribution for new Linux users.
I'm a very experienced user and I like it. SuSE has more bells
and whistles, but Mandrake make the OS more invisible.
> >>What edge? I can't see anything on Linux
> >> running faster than on Windows.
> >>Response on X seems sluggish at times.
The time when response **should** be sluggish is when the application
is first being initialized. When you click the application icon,
or select from the menu, you don't see anything for several seconds.
On windows, the application starts letting you know right away that the
application is loading, and keeps taking control of your screen to give
you lots of informative updates.
Because X11 was originally designed for an operating system that already
had TRUE MULTITASKING, similar to the type of multitasking that
Windows2000 ALMOST Achieves, the designers of X11 assumed that users
would probably have more important things to do with their screen while
the application loaded.
Ironically, back as early as 1991, X11 would let you read e-mail or
browse newsgroups while applications went through the initialization
process, back in the days of 5 MIPs machines and 18 ms SCSI drives,
you could read several pages while you waited. The Windows 3.1
approach left the user "Hostage to the Hourglass" during the entire
initialization sequence. Of course, both systems took almost the same
amount of time to initialize the real applications, but with Windows you
could either stare at the screen or "get a pencil and paper and make
some phone calls".
When dealing with customer service situations, the effect got really
dramatic. X11 was quite comfortable with 20-30 windows. Windows 3.1
got dicey with 2-3 overlapping Windows.
> > It has the edge compared to Win95A the last version of Windows that
> > Porter has run, by his own admission.
I've used Windows 2000, Windows NT (WS and Server), Windows 9x,
Windows 3.51, 3.11, 3.1, and 3.0. Mandrake pretty much has the edge
over all of them.
Windows 2000 has a nasty habit of getting into a state where the only
way to fix it is to reinstall the software. In some cases, it won't
even reboot. Fortunately, this only happens every 8-10 weeks, but it's
still very annoying.
Windows NT 4.0 is pretty stable with Service Pack 6A, if you put about
128 meg of RAM and at least 2 gig of hard drive in the box. I still
prefer at least 4 gig. NT applications tend to use quite a bit more
memory.
Windows 2000 still suffers from "DLL Hell", but it is better than
NT 4.0.
> > I find X to be very sluggish at times even
> > with a Matrox G200 or G400
> > and 8 meg running 1024x768 and 32bpp.
>
> You're using the wrong driver,
It's possible. If you are using an SVGA or "FrameBuffer" driver,
the Matrox will function, but you aren't using the graphics
accelerator.
XFree has pretty good support for S3, I128, Voodoo, and a few
other "Smart Chips". These provide the fastest displays.
If you have streaming video running, you might want to make sure that
you don't have any "housecleaning" running at "nice -20".
Windows NT 4.0 has some severe housecleaning that can make streaming
video very jumpy. Windows 98 and Windows ME were stripped of most of
the housecleaning so that streaming video could run smoothly.
Linux uses a comprimise. It allows streaming video to be run at normal
or slightly higher priority, but this doesn't mean that there will be
absolutely no house cleaning. You get a few skips, but mostly the video
on a reasonably fast machine is quite smooth.
Video Games are a similar story. Windows 98 and ME strip out all the
"ugly housekeeping" (which can reduce reliability and result in lost
information), but runs 3D animation very smoothly.
If you really want a DVD player, they cost about $200 these days.
If you really want a video game, get a Sony PlayStation or an X-Box.
X11 was designed to be a high performance workstation appliance.
Coupled with a UNIX or Linux operating system, it is possible to manage
very large numbers of applications on both local and remote machines
with a minimum of difficulty.
> > I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
> > application does on Windows 2k on the same machine.
Windows 2000 is much faster than Windows NT or Windows 9X. It's
also much more stable. In fact, it's the best Operating System
Microsoft has ever produced. But it's 10 times more expensive than
Linux to purchase, to configure, to code, to manage, and to support.
As a result, the applications cost 10 times more. The consulting takes
5-10 times longer, and you need 4-7 times the staff to keep 100 machines
running smoothly.
> > Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
But file managers are essentially launching applications. See the
discussion above. Windows Explorer might pop up that first "Application
Started Icon" much faster, but you might have something better to do
than watch the dancing jugglers. In fact, the dancing jugglers are
simply illustrating how much of the CPU horsepower is being wasted when
you could be using it to do something interesting like read the latest
quotations from Chairman Bill.
> Apache runs much, much faster.
Actually, nearly everything runs faster on Linux once it's fully
initialized and running. And since it's so easy to hop from screen to
screen and application to application, and since there are almost no
unanticipated direct interactions between applications, the system can
easily handle that load.
> > Starting StarOffice? Go get a cup of coffee.
Or write an outline of the document you'd like to write using a simple
text editor, or read e-mail, or browse www.microsoft.com, or browse
linux.org. After all, you still have control of the screen. When
everything is ready, the screen will "pop up", fully initialized and
ready for work.
> Ok, for the sake of argument, I just
> started up staroffice on this machine,
> and it took all of 7 seconds to load.
> Hardly enough time to go get some coffee.
The load time depends on a combination of CPU speeds, available memory,
and Disk drive rotation speed. On a heavily loaded system, with a 200
Mhz Pentium II, 32 meg of RAM, and a 5400 RPM drive, Star Office can
take almost a minute to load. On a 1 Ghz Athalon, with 128 meg of RAM,
and a 10,000 RPM SCSI drive, that load takes about 3 seconds.
What happens AFTER the load is what's interesting. You see, the memory
in the X11 applications is optimized so that about 80% of the
initialization code and memory can be swapped or paged out. In many
cases, read-only memory is simply mapped to the original drive location.
> > MusicMatch Jukebox? Same thing. Sugar and milk please.
>
> Why do you want to use such shit software? Even under windows, I used
> it once and tossed it. Its crap.
It exaggerates the issue. When you have an application that needs to
reinitialize a number of custom parameters frequently, it makes Linux
look worse. This is one of the traps of trying to emulate or port
Windows specific code to Linux. In many cases, the Linux infrastructure
has a more efficient alternative to threading, which was required for NT
and 95.
The same is true going the other way. You can get packages like CygWin
for Windows, which lets you compile Linux code and run it under Windows,
but it will run much slower because the Windows NT context switches are
much slower than they are in Linux and UNIX.
Put simply, UNIX was optimized to run thousands of little processes,
all "at the same time" (very short time slices of a few hundred machine
cycles per process). Windows NT was designed to run hundreds of
THREADS, and a very few processes. As a result, Windows puts everything
but the kitchen sink into each application (since they are all shared
DLLs anyway) and then clones lots of threads. This results in
applications that tend to run well when they are the only instance of
that application running.
Linux, with it's "thousands of itty bitty processes" approach
tends to create shared code as servers which are then called by
small, simple interface programs which send the servers request
messages and display the responses.
GNOME and KDE are both good (not excellent) examples of creating
applications in the Linux/UNIX paradigm.
> > I use Wordperfect Office 2k under Win2k and
> > it is up and running in 3 seconds.
Is it actually Running? or is it just letting you know that it is
running.
> > StarOffice is still churning away 15 seconds later.
Actually, StarOffice was running within a second, it's just doing it's
initialization routines "under the radar".
> Oh my god, 15 seconds. The horror.
Actually, on a 486/50 with 32 meg and a 5400 RPM 5 1/4 inch hard drive
(bigfoot) this can extend to about 3 minutes. I usually like to make
sure that I have something to do before kicking off Star Office.
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:15:09 -0500
> I think the parable of the three blind men and the elephant is applicable
> to the misconceptions about what KDE is. One blind man thinks KDE is a
> development environment (he sees kstudio). One man thinks it's an office
> suite (after someone shows him koffice). Another thinks it's a window
> manager.
Parable, smarable. I don't think KDE is any of the above.
If essence, it's a windows clone designed to bring just those 'desktop
users' you claim are not the target of the linux-distro developers to the
Linux fold.
Funny, MS knew the desktop was a sure fire way into other areas...
I guess these Lin-Devs are just smarter marketing folks.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:59:29 GMT
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93ddau$a5i0p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Wow! 32 "computer chips" at once! Is that like counting the CPU, memory
> HUB,
> >BIOS, hard drive controller, sound controller, etc? A whole 32 chips! woo
> >hoo!
>
>
> Thats 32 CPU chips at once.
So?
>
> >far larger individual files, has a journeling file system and can support
>
>
> Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem (reiser or
> ext3 )
Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has none
of these problems.
> and has built-in software driven RAID.
*yawn*
> >much more physical as well as virtual memory.
>
> What about using whole partitions as virtual memory without a filesystem
> getting in the way - linux has done this since version 1.x over 6 years ago
> (up to 128mb per partition with virtually unlimited number of partitions).
The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue. Even
NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
> >isn't even out of development yet ... big deal? Do you really think itanium
> >will ship before it runs Windows? (p.s., there is a beta of Windows 2001
> >that will run Itanium, butthead)
> >
>
>
> When is MS starting development for the 64-bit AMD chip then - linux
> development
> started at least a month ago. Why shouldn't the itanium ship before a
> compatible
> version of windows - why should Intel wait for MS to be ready?
It's irrelevant, MS is ready, they've had at least 2 or 3 demos of
Windows 2000 running on Itanium.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:02:11 GMT
"Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
> Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
>
>
> Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
> operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years. It's
> amazing.
> Here are some of the common failures:
>
> 1.)If I change an IP address in Win2k, order to join another network in
> another city, Windows 2000, upon boot up, crashes and pops up a nice blue
> screen with kernel and panic errors all over the place (you all know what
> that is). Just to change the IP address!!! Now, I do this all the time
> with Win 98 or Unix, and I never had problems like this.
Give me a break, do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit?
If you're going to lie, at least make it halfway believeable.
> 2.) If I copy a few files, Windows 2000 will simply lock up and nothing
> happens. At first, I thought it was just the slow byte-to-byte algorithms
> MS uses, so I decide to wait a few minutes...but, alas, it locked up cold,
> and I reboot.
Again... rediculous. I'm not even going to quote the rest because it's just
a bunch of BS. We have at least 30 or so Win2K workstations and about 10
servers at the place I currently work. Even more at the last place I worked,
and I never had a SINGLE crash. We even went through an IP block change and,
trust me, we copied millions of files and some of them were huge 2-8gb
video files. We even copied them from Macs and we never had ONE crash.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:18:30 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:16:39 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>You mean the wrong XServer, don't you? He's using Linux Mandrake, isn't he?
>Why on earth should he have to go out on his own, and obtain functionality
>that's supposed to come out of the box. It's not like Matrox is a
>speciality brand.
Really, should I have stuck with the functionality windows 98 gave me
with my GeForce instead of downloading the driver from nvidia's website?
I don't know about you but I'm not a big fan of 640x480, 8 bit color (or
whatever it was -- just remembered it looked crappy).
>> > I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
>> > application does on Windows 2k on the same machine.
>> > Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
>>
>> Apache runs much, much faster.
>
>What does Apache have to do with file management?
Read the emphasized part. He only used file managers as an example.
>> > Starting StarOffice? Go get a cup of coffee.
>>
>> Ok, for the sake of argument, I just started up staroffice on this
>machine,
>> and it took all of 7 seconds to load. Hardly enough time to go get some
>> coffee.
>
>StarOffice 5.2 takes 21 second to load from my UDMA33 drive on a Duron 700
>with 128mb RAM. It's possible you just have a faster hard drive, but my
>Windows version also takes 20 seconds to load, on my 7200RPM drive. Either
>way, Staroffice is a big program.
I agree. I don't use it very often (only to read documents from people
that think Word docs are a standard or something). It does, however,
work quickly once loaded.
I prefer LaTeX for easy structured writing. I don't have the time or
patience to cajole the correct formatting style from Word/WP/StarWord.
It's better to let the computer do this stuff for you. Plus the output
is much better quality than anything I can get out of a word processor.
As an added bonus I can out put to PDF's for crossplatform
compatibility.
>I'm sorry, I like Music Match, it's integrated, and somewhat intuitive. It
>ain't winamp, but sometimes you don't want Winamp. He's right, the Linux
>version is awful, period.
Why is he using it then? Like you've said winamp (and xmms in linux) are
much better. In fact I like xmms better the winamp and music match.
I guess if MM means that much to him he should stick to windows (this is
not an insult).
>It's Linux, it's 79% BETA and "pre-release" version software. It's scary.
So is windows (at least it feels that way). They just slap big version
numbers on stuff.
>Here's that adage again; "It works fine for me, so YOU must be doing
>something wrong..." Ever stop to think that there are a lot of people with
>this problem, a LOT?! No. Because you don't ever stop to think for a
>second that Linux is anything but perfect, therefore "it's the user, it MUST
>be, because Linux is perfect".
>
>What "impeccable logic."
I agree. Linux is not perfect but the same argument obviously applies to
windows. Just use what suits your personal taste and all will be well :)
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:22:54 GMT
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:27:23 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Downloading stuff at home is pretty impractical across a 56K modem. That's
>gonna change in Feb 2001 when I get my cable modem installed. 8*)
Sweet! Congratulations (I love mine).
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:29:13 -0500
Awww...did da wittle twoll get something up his nose?
Sorry, didn't mean to disturb you. Go back to your pup-tent marathon.
Be sure to wipe the stains off of Linux Journal when you're done!
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
> >
> > Linux is crude and inconsistent.
> >
> > OK, now that you've stated the obvious...
> > What's your point?
>
> Oh, I thought they were talking about you, jerk.
>
> --
> Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:34:33 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93ddau$a5i0p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >Wow! 32 "computer chips" at once! Is that like counting the CPU, memory
> > HUB,
> > >BIOS, hard drive controller, sound controller, etc? A whole 32 chips! woo
> > >hoo!
> >
> >
> > Thats 32 CPU chips at once.
>
> So?
>
> >
> > >far larger individual files, has a journeling file system and can support
> >
> >
> > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem (reiser or
> > ext3 )
>
> Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has none
> of these problems.
>
> > and has built-in software driven RAID.
>
> *yawn*
>
> > >much more physical as well as virtual memory.
> >
> > What about using whole partitions as virtual memory without a filesystem
> > getting in the way - linux has done this since version 1.x over 6 years ago
> > (up to 128mb per partition with virtually unlimited number of partitions).
>
> The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue. Even
> NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
>
> > >isn't even out of development yet ... big deal? Do you really think itanium
> > >will ship before it runs Windows? (p.s., there is a beta of Windows 2001
> > >that will run Itanium, butthead)
> > >
> >
> >
> > When is MS starting development for the 64-bit AMD chip then - linux
> > development
> > started at least a month ago. Why shouldn't the itanium ship before a
> > compatible
> > version of windows - why should Intel wait for MS to be ready?
>
> It's irrelevant, MS is ready, they've had at least 2 or 3 demos of
> Windows 2000 running on Itanium.
Native code, or running Pentium instructions....
(DOH!)
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:04:33 -0800
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Matt,
You win the stupidest usenet poster award. It was Aaron but you've just
whipped the snot out of him!
"Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:07:05 -0800
hmm I have servers that have uptimes of 2 years.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> tony roth wrote:
> >
> > hmm, like I've said before the only possible way to crash an nt4 sp6a
> > server is by administrative ignorance!
> >
>
>
> Then how come we don't see any NT4 boxes with 180 day uptimes?
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > tony roth wrote:
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
