Linux-Advocacy Digest #495, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Charlie Ebert)
Re: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next? (Tim Smith)
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? (Tim Smith)
Re: More Linux woes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. (Tim Smith)
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. (Tim Smith)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:29:58 GMT
In article <owK86.78010$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Obviously you aren't reading the garbage the people on COLA are posting.
>
>
People like you!
>"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93u462$5qc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It seems to me you would like Linux to be like Windows? That is extremely
>> user friendly and since Win98B I have found this and subsequent releases
>to
>> be VERY stable.
>>
>> However ( my point of view ) the down side being limited ability to expand
>> your knowledge regards all facets of computing and being tied to
>proprieary
>> systems.
>>
>> My experience with Linux is that it's getting much better at becoming user
>> friendly, it's by no means perfect but at least it's moving in the right
>> direction, without inhibiting users ability to hack anything and
>everything.
>>
>> The funny thing is Linux is like math, the more your tinker around with it
>> and solve problems the easier it becomes to configure trouble shoot and
>> deploy applications on.
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:33:36 +1100, "Interconnect"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Considering there is a good chance you are receiving your news via Open
>> > >Source software you are being very disrespectful making such a sweeping
>> > >generalization regards proven track records.
>> >
>> > I don't think so.
>> >
>> > I buy a Mandrake CD and I expect whatever that is on that CD to work,
>> > and if it does great, if it doesn't Linux is to fault.
>> > No other consumer is going to see it any other way.
>> >
>> >
>> > >Sure some open source projects have their problems. However in relation
>> to
>> > >LINUX you have to keep a clear dilenation between the OS and
>applications
>> > >built to run on it.
>> >
>> > The OS is useless without applications to run on it so it is really a
>> > moot point.
>> >
>> > While the folks who designed the OS might have done a great job and
>> > the applications designers may have not, it doesn't matter because it
>> > is the end result, meaning the combination of OS an applications that
>> > counts and in this case Linux fails miserably IMHO.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:39:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> >Wow. Be careful you don't cut yourself with that razor-sharp wit,
>> > >> >claire.
>> > >>
>> > >> But it is true. If Gates released an OS with the basic "gotchas'"
>that
>> > >> you Penguinista's put up with on a regular basis, he would have been
>> > >> out of business years ago.
>> > >>
>> > >> Linux is full of bugs and anyone who trusts their system to a
>> > >> collection of 1-x versions of programs with no proven track record is
>> > >> out of their minds.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Flatfish
>> > >> Why do they call it a flatfish?
>> > >> Remove the ++++ to reply.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Flatfish
>> > Why do they call it a flatfish?
>> > Remove the ++++ to reply.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:36:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:46:47 GMT
><XNy86.194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>"Stuart R. Fuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Charlie Ebert <charlie> wrote:
>>> : Linux has the BEST uptime record of any operating system in the
>>> : world.
>>>
>>> Well, between Windows and Linux, that might be true. However, there's
>>> more to the world than Linux and Windows.
>>>
>>Not in this neck of the woods, my friend! ;)
>
>Unix is still out there -- granted, Linux is a virtual clone
>thereof at the application level. Various flavors of Unix exist:
>HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, whatever OSF/1 mutated into (Tru64? Ultrix?),
>QNX, SCO Unix, and even NeXT and Xenix, if they're still around.
>I should also mention the BSD variants, FreeBSD among them
>(I've heard good things about FreeBSD, but haven't tried it yet).
>
>I suspect that VM/CMS is still running around in some form.
>Even MVS might be used. (Heck, if the FAA can run on 30+-year-old
>equipment, some others might be using such, too. :-) )
>
>AmigaDOS and MacOS are proprietary, but also exist. OS-X will
>be interesting, but I don't know a lot about it, or how well
>it's doing.
>
>Other speciality/embedded operating systems (WinCE might be
>construed as one, although it's a relatively recent entry)
>might be included, as well. I don't know a lot about them.
>
>I suspect one could look at the source code for g++ to see
>what operating systems it supports.
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random OS here
>EAC code #191 4d:14h:47m actually running Linux.
> Are you still here?
I've used FreeBSD and I have some comments.
It's license allows for corporations to steal the code and
copyright it for their own purposes, thus not contributing
back to the base code.
As a server, FreeBSD is great.
As a desktop, FreeBSD is fast but the upgradability path
is absolutely horrible. And the Linux software they
are running under their emulator comes from RedHat
and it's a 6 month old model and some of it doesn't work
with their emulator.
For instance, when I was running 3.3 and 3.4, I found
that doing performance graphs didn't work as the Linux
based graphs couldn't read the BSD kernel thru their
filter.
There are OTHER ways of monitoring BSD performance but
it might as well be working.
They may have fixed this with the 4.X series but they
still have that license and upgrade path problem.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:40:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:30:46 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Nope, works just fine with windows pc-lan attached printers,
>>unix printers, netware printers, or local printers.
>
>After how many hours screwing with smb.conf files?
>
Well Christ! Why don't you just use WEBMIN?
WEBMIN is so easy to use, it makes anything Microsoft
came up with like a useless 4th class mistake.
>>I haven't seen any non supported printers in any place
>>I've worked, so you are greatly exaggerating, if not
>>outright lying, about the supposed difficulty.
>
>Take a walk through CompUSA someday and try and find non PS printers
>that ARE supported by Linux.
>Same goes for scanners BTW.
>Good luck.
>
I've NEVER run into a printer which Linux couldn't write to.
APSFILTER has every printer in it which was made since day 1.
>
>>> Otherwise, do the Samba dance.
>>> Why ARE there SO AMNY webpages devoted to setting up Samba?
>>
>>Beats me, I haven't noticed.
>
>>setting up a samba printer is a quick and dirty point & click.
>
>>Mighty short dance if you ask me.
>
>Tell all the folks running those web pages to shut them down.
>
Why don't you.
>
>>>
>>> Name 3 that are even close to Agent in ease of use and pan is so
>>> unstable it can't be counted...
>>
>>Can't say for sure, I'm always on line...
>
>I'll save you the time, it is an abortion under Linsux.
>
>>> >netscape works quite well for me, and uses my truetype fonts.
>>>
>>> Even Windows users loathe Netscrape.
>>
>>I know quite a few windows users who prefer netscape.
>
>And you accuse me of lying?
>
Why accuse when we have proof?
>
>I see Linsux as a pile of disjointed trash.
>
>>jjs
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
You are a total weenie Flatfish.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:50:09 +1200
That's a great contribution thanks Bones,
For this test:
> System # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
> ------------------- ------------- ------------- --------------
> Dell PE 8450/700 (8) Tux 2 7500
> Dell PE 8450/700 (8) IIS 5 +SWC 3 7300
Do you have any opinion on what effect the Linux box having one more network
controller than the Windows box would have made?
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:58:44 GMT
In article <ffJ86.36596$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> YELLOW FUNNELS IN THE BACK YARD!
>
>Eeeeewwww!
>
>Oh, I see. Flush the genes down the funnels. Silly me! That is what you
>meant right? Not, "disembowel youself with that... flat... rusty...
>yellow... funnel".
>
>B*>
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
No. The bit where you stand outside with your funnel in your
nose and look up and pray to god for rain.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 18:49:31 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>is a BSD version of Unix--right? Therefore, would it not stand to reason
>that a port to Linux or FreeBSD would be possible after OS X and would be
>done with far less effort than the jump from Win-foo to OS X?
No, porting to Linux would essentially be a completely new port. MacOS
X's interface is nothing like any interface on Linux, and dealing with
the interface is the major part of a port like this.
Also, it is in Microsoft's interest for their software to run on MacOS X
and *NOT* run on Linux. Consider what MacOS X will be: a Unix that runs
Microsoft applications, and has a fair amount of commcercial application
support. Nothing like commercial Windows support, but it should
eventually end up with the level of commercial support MacOS 7/8/9 have,
which is way more than Linux, for typical home/business applications. A
lot of questions for which the answer now is "run Linux" will be better
answered with "run OS X" in a few months, possibly.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 18:57:38 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 12 Jan 2001 23:36:30 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That just repeats what was already said. My question was *why* this
>is the case. I can't see it.
It's probably a safety thing. A lot of people are too dumb to obey
those "no smoking" signs in gas stations, for example. That is probably
the original reason for prohibitions against self-service.
Some suggest that we should let these idiots blow themselves up
("evolution in action"), and in general, I agree...I'm a big fan of
letting people remove themselves from the gene pool. However, it would
be a real downer to be pumping my gas on the other side of the island
when one of those people decides to live up to their genetic destiny.
On the other hand, experimentally, people don't seem to be blowing up
self-service gas stations too often, so the risk seems to be pretty low.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if self-service is safer, overall...if you
are busy pumping gas, you aren't going in to the convenience store and
buying junk food. :-)
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:07:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On 16 Jan 2001 01:56:13 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >In order to answer that question, the flounder would have to go from
>> >vague generalities to actual specifics --- like which program he was
>> >actually using to play the audio CD. Anybody volunteering to hold their
>> >breath?
>>
>> Acer 40x generic IDE player.
>> SBlive card with Digital I/O board (which is useless under Linsux BTW)
>> ANY LINUX CD PLAYER PROGRAM, pick one.
>
>Try the program cdplay. This issues an IOCTL call to start the CD
>playing. Whilst that is going, configure the mixer until you hear sound.
>(First connect the audio from CD to SB.)
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm totally convinced that Flatfish, Claire, ect,ect,ect, is being
paid by somebody to do this. He's on practically 24 hours a day
and he's spent his time performing nothing but anti-linux pro
Microsoft propaganda.
He's either got to be on Microsoft's payroll doing this or
He's one of the mentally sick people this country has every produced.
Clearly, the 3 greatest mass murderers convicted in this country have
not produced the kind of stamina Flatfish has against Linux.
If you look at his posting notes, you notice Flatfish here sleeps
for about 5 hours a day if that.
And while what he's doing IS legal, it would be very interesting
to see WHY he's doing it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:11:12 GMT
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:49:43 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So? What you still seem to fail to realize is that you, someone
>who hates Linux and spreads lots of FUD, managed to unwittingly
>provide evidence to contradict Kyle's assertion that Linux has
>no quality software. I just find it rather funny that you would
>be the one to do this.
Well you should know by now Gary that my comments rarely apply to the
server side of Linux because I don't deal in that area.
DB2 is a fine database, and probably the best of breed in that area,
but that reputation was defined running on other operating systems,
not Linux.
The jury is still out on DB2 running under Linux, not because of
Linux, but because it is just too new.
Time will tell.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:12:09 GMT
In article <imx86.157$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93tldr$3p5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:93t7rd$en0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:93t22l$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> Absolutely,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> OS-X on Linux.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'll try that.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD
>on
>> >> > Linux?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OSX is *not* BSD. You are quite highly misinformed.
>> >>
>> >> > It's BSD based.
>> >>
>> >> Loosely. WindowsME is dos based in just about the same way.
>>
>> > No matter how you look at it, OS-X can't run on Linux.
>>
>> You really are an idiot.
>>
>> 1. why would anyone want it to.
>
>Ask Charlie Ebert, he made the comment. Scroll up, it's still there.
>
>> 2. sure it can, it just doesnt because no one has written a translation
>layer
>> yet, and probably never will.
>
>Well, there's VMWare, but that's not what we're talking about here. You'd
>need a PPC emulator for Linux.
>
>Still, that's not what the point was. Charlie seemed to think OSX was a
>window manager or something.
>
>> 3. this is hardly a linux shortcoming, it wont run under W2K either, and
>> CANNOT do so.
>
>I didn't say it was. This was all about Charlie Ebert making an inane and
>stupid statement.
>
>
What? It's inane and stupid to say if they offer OSX for Linux I want to
try it?
What's inane about that!
Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:14:08 GMT
In article <93tsln$jap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:06:51 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Donn Miller wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [deletia]
>> >> I also think that Xlib tends to scare potential games developers away.
>>
>> Yet, despite of this I have a shelf full of fully supported
>> commercial games. Fortunately, those that like to make money
>> tend to have a 'can do' rather than a 'cant do' attitude.
>>
>> >> For one, the Xlib API is lower level then more popular windowing
>> >> systems, like Windows' GDI.
>> >
>> >
>> >Games delelopers generally use DirectX. I have had very little
>> >experience with this, but it seemed to be very low level at the time
>> >(much lower than the rest of the Windows GUI).
>>
>> Game developers like DirectX specifically because it allows
>> them more direct access to hardware. IMO this is a BAD BAD
>> thing. I'd rather prefer my modern OS in the 21st century
>> to NOT indulge in such shenanigans, even for games.
>
>Why? If you've ever programmed for DirectX, you would already know that you
>*do not* get direct access to the hardware in *any* way. They are just
>lower level APIs *compared to* the Windows GDI.
>
True. But DirectX was supposed to be their answer to Windows gaming
performance problems.
>However, because today's hardware is accelerated, the API overhead is a very
>small percentage of the overall work... just compare frame rates as the
>resolution gets higher... soon the memory bandwidth limitations kick in and
>the API overhead almost doesn't matter. At lower resolutions, the FPS is so
>high that you don't get any advantage because it is faster than the refresh
>rate frequency.
>
Not true! They have added even MORE overhead to the process and
the accelerated hardware has been nullified.
Another classic case of the Microsoft WASTING AWAY your MACHINE.
However 3d on Linux is simply a bullet!
>(Assuming you are talking Direct3D - now integrated with DirectDraw as of DX
>8.0)
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Meanwhile, Linux users are busy killing WinDOS users
>> (and vice versa) on various Quake III and UT servers.
>
>Don't you have any other games besides Q3 and UT? I'm so bored of those
>games...
>
>-Todd
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Common Standards, Common Ownership.
>>
>> The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
>> and anti-democratic monopolies.
>> |||
>> / | \
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:16:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>>> It would be easier making X run on top of Quartz than on top of nothing,
>>> since X would not need drivers (it uses the drivers through Quartz),
>>> much like, say eXceed on NT.
>>
>>
>> X already has drivers for Apple hardware coming out of its ears. It works
>> just fine. The only sticking point would be the port, which to my knowledge
>> has already happened.
>
>But if you're running X on top of Quartz, you would go through the
>quartz API, and not access the hardware directly.
>
>
>> Though I cant think of one good reason to run X on top of quartz.
>
>I can think of plenty.
>It would mean that you could port other UNIX GUI programs easily
>it would mean that you could put things on your display from other machines.
>
>Personally I'd rather Quartz ran on top of X. That way, all Quartz apps
>would have remote display capabilities, which for me would be preferable.
>
Well. It would be my guess that the makers of OSX will port it to
Linux anyway just to prove they can do it.
And people like EF will go back to their basements where they belong.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:18:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
> [ a lot of crap]
>>
>> -Chad
>
>Chad Myers is inane. Why do you bother
>conversing with this moron?
>
>Do yourself a favor... relax... skip his posts.
>
>Chris (much happier nowadays)
>
>--
>Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
I totally agree. With comments about Datacenter whipping
a Linux clusters ass and Datacenter beating such systems
like the 390 series, Chad clearly has a grape fruit sized
braintumor.
I think he's probably under 22 and he's pissed as Linux
won't play his kind of video game.
He also read alot of magazines.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:21:16 GMT
In article <nGq86.3697$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > One more thing I forgot to add...
>> >
>> > Bottom Line:
>> >
>> > Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
>> > the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
>> > tasks.
>> >
>>
>> First example coming to my mind. Just check this:
>>
>> http://www.akamai.com/
>>
>> And then this:
>>
>>
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=AKAMAIINT-11-15,212.133.25.128,212.
>133.25.159
>>
>> Maybe they know how to set up Linux!
>
>We've already gone over how the netcraft uptime numbers range from untrustable
>to
>completely wrong, so that doesn't mean anything.
>
>How come Linux doesn't lead in anything? Security infrastructure, performance,
>stability, scalability, transaction processing, etc? On every major list
>of each of these (www.tpc.org comes to mind, TPSEC for security comes to mind,
>etc) Linux is never even on the list?
>
>Because it can't compete with the big boys.
>
>-Chad
>
>
It must really be horrible for the average video playing 22 year old.
He got Linux and can't figure out how to load that Quake game.
There are instructions. They are very clear. He knows his own root
password. Yet he can't manage to get his Linux game going.
And he see's Linux comming on in the market and he get's mad.
So junior starts posting to COLA to try and turn people away from
Linux. That's being a BIG BOY.
That's Chad.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:24:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:32:35
>>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
>>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=AKAMAIINT-11-15,212.133.25.128,212.
>>133.25.159
>>>
>>> Maybe they know how to set up Linux!
>>
>>We've already gone over how the netcraft uptime numbers range from untrustable to
>>completely wrong, so that doesn't mean anything.
>
>Chad, we try to remain rational, civilized, and calm, despite the fact
>that this is an advocacy group, but there really is no way to avoid
>pointing out that you are lying, purposefully, knowingly, brazenly, and
>pathetically. You, sir, are a dishonest sorry sack of shit.
>
Chad Myers is a used hand puppet turned condomn!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: 15 Jan 2001 19:04:46 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:22:56 -0800, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>2) I suppose the tax system of Luxembourg is similar to other countries.
>>Explain the gain of paying more then necessary for any system.
>
>It's called a writeoff. You get to write business expenses off against taxes in
>many places, and depreciation rates on computer systems makes them a very nice
>writeoff indeed.
But in most sane tax systems, you are always better off with the money
in a case like this. If you spend $1500 on a computer, and then pay
extra taxes on the $6500 you have left over, you are still ahead of
someone who spends $8000 on a computer to avoid the extra taxes, if the
$8000 computer doesn't actually do anything better than the $1500
computer. If you want to avoid paying the extra taxes, you should put
the $6500 into something productive, like expanding the business.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: 15 Jan 2001 19:06:23 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:44:53 GMT, Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Most Americans on this group don't remember the time before Regan when
>we had "tax brackets" and had to come up with all kinds of schemes to
>avoid the dreaded 110% marginal rate ($1 in extra income resulted in
>$1.10 in extra taxes.
No American in this group remembers that.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:25:53 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:30:46 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Nope, works just fine with windows pc-lan attached printers,
> >>unix printers, netware printers, or local printers.
> >
> >After how many hours screwing with smb.conf files?
> >
>
> Well Christ! Why don't you just use WEBMIN?
> WEBMIN is so easy to use, it makes anything Microsoft
> came up with like a useless 4th class mistake.
But he's totally off in left field anyhow - the smb.conf file
has absolutely nothing to do with printing to ms pc-lan
printers from linux.
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
