Linux-Advocacy Digest #590, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Craig Kelley)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Steve Mading)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Gary Hallock")
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Tim)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (J J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
And yet another Linux supercomputer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Salvador Peralta)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit. (Tim)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: 19 Jan 2001 16:46:35 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane) writes:
> In article <#fNLtYJgAHA.272@cpmsnbbsa07>,
> "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In terms of bang
> > for bucks AIX did not perform well and was found to be somewhat flaky
> > considering its costs.
>
> So the guy that authorised the orginal purchase was fired?
>
> I've found that AIX is spookyly stable. It's one of the few OSs you can
> really configure and forget. Extensive use of circular logs is a major win
> for unattended servers.
And... all praise LVM!
It's something that free UNIXen need to get going and use.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 16:48:12 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
> > get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
> > to believe all these claims that have been made over the last few
> > years about NT staying up indefinately? How are we expected to
> > believe the current claims made about W2K?
>
> Microsoft did not conduct the study. Why do you people always distort the
> truth?
They *are* trumpeting it, though. It makes no difference.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:54:14 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
> enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
> aparently the drive doesn't do this.
You are so full of it.
Microsoft has been dealing with this problem for at least a year. If you
reference this Knowledge base article:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q153/2/96.asp
The last review date is March 2000.
They knew about this problem and didn't test for it in QA. They have a
patch for NT 4.0 and 3.51.
MS is crap, period. Don't you get it, they don't care about product
quality or stability. They don't test for known problems, they can't do
a serious job of QA because it is a miracle that Windows runs for any
length of time to begin with.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: 19 Jan 2001 16:52:11 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, here we go.
>
> I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
> linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
> drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
> Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
> for the Deluxe box.
>
> It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
> plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
> have a real-world comparison, taking into account and reflecting on the
> monopoly, pre-load, and ease of installation. The Win-whiners aren't
> going to agree, of course, but I think seeing just how easy it is to
> install 95 or NT on a box that has Linux preloaded is going to be very
> instructive. I've said I'd never build a PC from scratch again, and
> would prefer an OEM earned their profit by integrating the system for
> me. But in this case, the exact same hardware is supported by the same
> vendor as a dual-boot option, (can you believe it? an OEM selling
> dual-boot), so I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Plus which, if
> Windows for some reason is too much of a hassle to get up, I'll still
> have a functional system, so that might help eliminate the 'frustration
> and desperation factor' which so badly reflects on the monopoly in the
> typical scenario.
You're kidding, right?
Windows was never designed to cooperate with non-Microsoft operating
systems on the same machine; half the time it can't even cooperate
with other Microsoft operating systems (try installing 95 after
any of the NT versions -- your MBR will be overwritten).
I'll tell you what will happen: Windows will overwrite the MBR and
take over the machine. If you happen to install ME or 98, and aren't
paying attention, they will even re-partition your drive and put
themselves as the first primary partition.
It will be interesting what excuses the windows advocates come up
with, though. Please follow-up. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:08:09 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:53:08
>J Sloan wrote:
>>
>> JS PL wrote:
>>
>> > Easily. I just built a system last week. And it played an mp3 perfectly
>> > while simultaneously copying 600mb worth of other mp3's from the cd drive to
>> > a folder AND installing office 2000 from the other cd drive. Didn't skip a
>> > beat. It was probably "accessing" the internet too, I forget.
>>
>> Sure, and I'll bet it cured your cancer too...
>>
>> Meanwhile, back in the real world, my friend just mentioned
>> that he clicked on the icq button the other day and windows
>> 2000 spontaneously rebooted.
>
>Tsk. That's obviously the fault of the mouse drivers. Its not Win2Ks
>fault that it can't supply decent drivers.
Why not? Get your head out of your ass! ('Tsk', indeed.) Whether it
was the mouse driver that *failed* or not, you haven't any way
whatsoever of knowing that it was the mouse drivers "fault". And
considering how much more often, and much less explicably, this "bad
driver" crap happens on Windows, I'd say it makes perfect sense to blame
Windows, indeed, Microsoft's lousy monopoly crapware design, for the
fact that a mouse driver glitch, regardless of who's "fault" it is, can
cause a spontaneous reboot.
>Besides if it was Linux you
>would have spent 8 months just getting your keyboard to work, never mind
>the mouse.
Well, that's a fabrication, if not an outright lie, and the fact that
you can't see why W2K spontaneously rebooting *NO MATTER WHAT* is W2K's
fault, and nobody else's, indicates you don't really know what you're
talking about, at all. Frankly, its a ludicrous suggestion, and
provides evidence you don't know what an "operating system" is, or what
it does.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:08:53 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:59:11 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, here we go.
>>
>> I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
>> linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
>> drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
>> Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
>> for the Deluxe box.
>
>RH 7.0 ?
>On general, you should stay away from RH, and especially from .0 releases.
>RH tend to put all sorts of bleeding edge stuff in those things, stuff that
OTOH, I didn't have the pains with 5.0 and 6.0 that others
seemed to have had. Then again, being a former slacker,
many of those x.0 problems that might have been show stoppers
for otheres might have just been minor nuisance.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 20 Jan 2001 00:07:14 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:18:15
:>"Karri Kalpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:>>
:>> > Just because there's some brave souls out there doesn't mean
:>> > that the Linux community is about to say: "Linux is enterprise
:>> > ready, and we have an enterprise OS called "ReiserFS", it's
:>> > good enough to run NASDAQ without worry of fault".
:>>
:>> Well, true. That very much unlike the situation with Windows. The
:>> Windows approach is that "when the next version is released Windows
:>> will be more enterprise ready than ever". And that's how it�s been
:>> since Windows 3.0.
:>
:>Windows 3.0 is a client OS, so is 95, 98, Me, 2000 Professional, etc.
:>
:>We're not talking about client OS, we're talking about server OS.
: Unbeknownst to you, there's not really any difference, at all. This
: "client OS/server OS" thing is a boondoggle. The OS doesn't have
: anything to do with clients or servers.
Shhh. Stop trying to inject facts into the situation. The fact
that the only difference between clients and servers is the
software that runs ON TOP OF the os, not the os itsefl, is one
that MS hasn't figured out yet.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:13:10 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:28:59
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>In the last couple of days I [...]
I don't care. If you haven't noticed it, that's not my problem. It is
trivial to show that Windows cannot multitask effectively. For one
small proof, if you're interested, I suggest you download the shareware
DirectX game DX-Ball2. While running it, begin retrieving a series of
files from the Internet, or copying large amounts of data locally, or
accessing a floppy in any way. If you do not see visual confirmation of
the stuttering and stammering which proves that DirectX is a pile of
shit, and that Windows (any flavor) can't multi-task worth a shit, then
you are simply blind.
The same will work for any DirectX game, of course, but it is *always*
noticeable on DX-Ball, because of the nature of the graphics (not any
problems in the code; its rather well written, and I've never seen any
crashes or even a glitch, outside of the inherent lack of reliability
caused by running on Windows.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:13:36 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:03:55 -0600, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> The thing with OSS is, it's not about
>> OSS, it's simply because Linux is free. People use it, but hardly anyone
Nope.
In my case I was willing to shell out the ~ $400 that Solaris or
Nextstep cost way back in 1994. I never bothered with either
option, not because of the pricetag for the OS itself, but due
to the fact that neither OS at that time supported MY PC hardware.
Linux was the first visible x86 Unix to do that.
Solaris or Nextstep would have required me to go to SCSI for
my disks (or at least CDROM), at which point the associated
cost may have made it cheaper to just buy a Mac.
>> bets the company one it, and the ones who have are mostly out of business
>> now.
>
>Facts, please?
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:15:21 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> No, you didn't. We've played this game before, Gary, about your
> reticence. You pointed it out, just like you did in the post I
> responded to, but you didn't explain anything any more. And even if you
> did, why did you bother to play sniper games by correcting the same
> point twice, when you knew the author couldn't have read your response?
>
> I can understand that sort of thing in one of those long involved
> troll-fests; I do it often myself. But merely because each restatement
> of the fallacy by a troll is yet another opportunity for still a
> different perspective, a bit more information to try to make the point.
>
> You, on the other hand, just leap out and contradict and whenever its
> brought up you insist that you explained yourself somewhere else. That's
> not posting; that's trolling.
>
Think what you want. The posts I responded to were totally false with
respect to open source. I grow tired of people making claims without
checking some basic facts. In this case, I suspect the author of the
posts knew that what he said was a lie.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:20:03 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> However, here it would see you're not believed unless you're a dyed in the
> wool Linux advocate, or pay home to the Free Software altar.
Well, I believe you, Pete. I've had problems with Xfree86 on some
installs, and problems getting the crypto stuff during the install, and
problems getting the standard c++ libraries to load on mdk 7.0 install
despite having selected the option.
I don't believe any of the crap that Claire posts, both chads and
funkenbush have all the credibility of oj when he talks about the
murders he was responsible for, but nothing that I have read from you
appears disingenuous.
> I don't believe there is an equivalent to linuxconf in KDE.
Linuxconf is a Redhat tool. You can add it to either your KDE or gnome
desktop, or launch the tui interface from the cli. Although it was
gpl'd, I don't believe that anyone in the gnome project can take credit
for it.
As for the rest... again, I chalk it up to expectation and one's sense
of aesthetics.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:18:37 GMT
On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:13 -0600, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Notice the troll drops a big steamy one and then is nowhere to be
heard when people follow-up to his article.
Retard.
------------------------------
From: J J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:18:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, here we go.
>>
>> I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
>> linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
>> drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
>> Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
>> for the Deluxe box.
Excellent -
> RH 7.0 ?
What's this, Linux advice from a wintroll?
> On general, you should stay away from RH, and especially from .0 releases.
Red Hat is by far the most popular distro, for many reasons.
> RH tend to put all sorts of bleeding edge stuff in those things, stuff that
> will make you bleed.
I find RH 7.0 to be quite solid, and other reviewers agree.
> Most notable example is gcc in RH 7, I remember that there was some problem
> with 5.0, can't recall if there was something of the like in 6.0
gcc in Red Hat 7 works just fine, thank you.
Yes, there was some silly uproar from the Red Hat bashers,
and I'm still not sure I understand what it was all supposed
to be about - gcc 2.96, while not yet 3.0, is a solid compiler,
especially the c++ stuff - and was needed for some enterprise
customers. I have been compiling the 2.4 kernel with gcc-2.96
on several boxes, and it's been completely solid.
> Be sure to have a LILO boot disk around, you'll need it to reinstall LILO
> (or your boot manager of choice) on the MBR after you install Windows.
Unlike Linux, windows simply wipes out the boot record for whatever
OSes might be installed - a rather typical brain dead microsoft
move - so that particular bit of advice is not inaccurate.
jjs
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:18:53 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:949quf$ljt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <kvl96.136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average
>> desktop *IS*
>> > shutdown at night.
>>
>> This is an artifact of the historical unreliability of MS operating
>> systems. Unix/Linux workstations are never shutdown at night.
>
>Tell that to your average "save the world" do gooder that insists on turning
>everything off to save the ecology. So called "green PC's" were invented to
>help shut these people up.
Indeed; so they could avoid shutting down their computer in order to
decrease power consumption when they're not using it. Get it?
[...]
>And you're still ignoring the fact that they used *BETA* versions of the OS.
>Several beta versions, some of which were known to be unstable.
Well, the production versions are known to be unstable, too, so I don't
see what difference that makes. Still, if it hadn't been beta, it would
have been "not the newest version", and you'd have simply done your
foot-stomping about that, instead. And if it were, it wouldn't have
been "the new version" (possibly even "now in beta"!), and so the cycle
continues.
Seriously, Erik, sometimes I think calling you a sock puppet is being
charitable. There's just no end to the bullshit you'll go on and on
about every time somebody points out that there's ample and widespread
evidence that Windows, indeed all version, really really suck, without
contradicting the fact that some suck more than others. Perhaps Charlie
was right and rather than "sock puppet", the epithet "used condom" would
be more appropriate.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: And yet another Linux supercomputer
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:08:46 GMT
Compaq, DOE, and Celera are doing this big'un. 100-trillion operations
per second.
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO56666,00.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:24:21 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why do I suspect that Funkenbush is going to pretend that your post
never made it to his newsserver?
mlw wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
> > enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
> > aparently the drive doesn't do this.
>
> You are so full of it.
>
> Microsoft has been dealing with this problem for at least a year. If you
> reference this Knowledge base article:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q153/2/96.asp
>
> The last review date is March 2000.
>
> They knew about this problem and didn't test for it in QA. They have a
> patch for NT 4.0 and 3.51.
>
> MS is crap, period. Don't you get it, they don't care about product
> quality or stability. They don't test for known problems, they can't do
> a serious job of QA because it is a miracle that Windows runs for any
> length of time to begin with.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:23:26 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:44:11
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >16 Exabytes ???
>> >16 billion Giga byte.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
>size.
>>
>> Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
>>
>> And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
>
>Difference is in the size.
No, the difference is in the order of magnitude. The principle,
however, is identical. The point was that NTFS has limits, as all
systems do. That they are larger in file size is not the issue. The
efficiency of the market does not call for speculative development;
Linux became enabled to handle files over 2G once it was commonly
necessary to do so.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:26:02 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:53:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001
> [...]
>>I'm not a RedHat fan. I don't think RedHat is worse than Windows.
>>But RedHat and Debian are at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum sir.
>
>How would you characterize the difference, Charlie?
Conservative versus bleeding edge. Debian seems to be much
more conservative about what it includes. This includes
licencing philosphy. They also tend to package the older,
more stable version of a component. They also seem to
concentrate first on getting particular core functionality
(like packaging) right before going after flash and market
appeal.
They're kinda of like Slackware in that they are relatively
not market driven but with more of a usability focus (like
package management).
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:26:15 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:56:19 -0500, Clamchu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Windows 2000 blows Linux away with greater than
>4 CPUs.
Really? All of us end-users better go and replace all of our 8 CPU
PCs, with Win2K, huh?
Stupid troll. This is irrelevant for the vast majority (>99%) of
LiNUX (and Win2K) users.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:28:15 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:59:11
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, here we go.
>>
>> I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
>> linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
>> drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
>> Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
>> for the Deluxe box.
>
>RH 7.0 ?
>On general, you should stay away from RH, and especially from .0 releases.
>RH tend to put all sorts of bleeding edge stuff in those things, stuff that
>will make you bleed.
Don't worry, I can handle it. ;-)
>Most notable example is gcc in RH 7, I remember that there was some problem
>with 5.0, can't recall if there was something of the like in 6.0
I have no plans whatsoever to ever need gcc, or care about its edges
even if I do.
>> It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
>> plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
>> have a real-world comparison, taking into account and reflecting on the
>> monopoly, pre-load, and ease of installation. The Win-whiners aren't
>> going to agree, of course, but I think seeing just how easy it is to
>> install 95 or NT on a box that has Linux preloaded is going to be very
>> instructive. I've said I'd never build a PC from scratch again, and
>> would prefer an OEM earned their profit by integrating the system for
>> me. But in this case, the exact same hardware is supported by the same
>> vendor as a dual-boot option, (can you believe it? an OEM selling
>> dual-boot), so I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Plus which, if
>> Windows for some reason is too much of a hassle to get up, I'll still
>> have a functional system, so that might help eliminate the 'frustration
>> and desperation factor' which so badly reflects on the monopoly in the
>> typical scenario.
>
>Be sure to have a LILO boot disk around, you'll need it to reinstall LILO
>(or your boot manager of choice) on the MBR after you install Windows.
Yes, I know that getting Windows to 'play nice' will still be tricky.
I'm wondering if anyone knows where there is a good step-by-step, or at
least a how-to, on this? I've been looking, but there's SO much about
Linux available that its really tough to know where to look.
--
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
******************************
