Linux-Advocacy Digest #602, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The real truth about NT (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Windows 2000 Datacenter Server does support the "five nines" ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (J Sloan)
get your Downloads at... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Edward Rosten)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Edward Rosten)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Edward Rosten)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Edward Rosten)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Edward Rosten)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:36:16 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, you couldn't find the killfile documentation for
> knode so it's no great surprise that you can't operate
> a dictionary (online or otherwise) either.
Well, after all that, it doesn't work properly. So I was almost right after
all. I knew it.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:38:48 +0000
Salvador Peralta wrote:
> 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.
Thank you for that!
> 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.
It's in Mandrake which was based on Red Hat. Also, it can run in text or
gui mode, and I believe it uses Gtk when in GUI mode. There was a KDE
version (so I'm told) but it was scrapped?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:41:37 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> > > For someone who appears to be so concerned with the semantics of Linux
> > > advocates, you sure do engage in quite a bit of hyperbole yourself.
> >
> > Sure why not, you do it.
>
> Proof, please.
Sorry, not you specifically, but "you" in the general sense.
> > Then half the tools leave the desktop.
>
> Examples, please. What does KDE lack that you need from GNOME, or
> vice versa?
Linuxconf is a Gtk tool. GIMP is Gtk.
KPaint is KDE - unfortunately seems to be broken on my system, so I'll have
to go on memory - it's not as well developed as GIMP.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:43:15 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> > And I cut myself off from tools to configure the system like linuxconf.
> > What's the equivalent in KDE or something else?
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if you ever have used Mandrake now. Ever hear
> of that thingy called DrakConf? You know, that little icon that
> Mandrake put on your desktop? There's a little button in the DrakConf
> called Linuxconf. Care to guess what it does?
Yes, and Linuxconf is a Gtk tool, not a Qt tool. What's a Gtk tool doing
mixed with a KDE desktop? The differences between the way Qt/KDE and Gtk
handle save/open dialogs are what I'm complaining about. Linux Mandrake
gives you a mixed desktop, not a complete KDE or GNOME one.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:47:43 +0000
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> So, as a general statement, "Linux installs are harder" is not
> correct?
I'd say in some specific instances, in this one, it is as easy if not
easier.
> Install Windows 95. Then try to upgrade to Windows NT 4.0
You can't.
> Install Suse personal edition. Then try to upgrade to SuSE professional
> edition.
I don't know SuSe.
I do know what happened when I tried to upgrade Linux Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1.
It took three hours and I ended up with a broken desktop.
> What do you expect to be easier?
In this example, the question is moot because you can't upgrade from 95 to
NT (although you can install it dual boot), and in the second case, my
example shows Linux Mandrake update is broken.
> > And I cut myself off from tools to configure the system like linuxconf.
> > What's the equivalent in KDE or something else?
>
> I thought we had already covered this? The KDE equivalent of Linuxconf
> is Linuxconf. There may be some packaging issues there, but there is no
> technical reason why you can't use linuxconf on a GTK+ free system,
> today.
But linuxconf GUI is based on Gtk. Therefore it uses the Gtk widgets.
Therefore the differences (i.e. the "mess" as I call it) exists.
> If you *really* want your system to be configured through a graphic
> thingie that doesn't use GTK+, you could try Suse's YAST2, or Caldera's
> whose name I can't recall.
I'm beginning to see Linux Mandrake is not the best choice for me.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:49:18 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> ROFLMAO!
>
> So you somehow feel the need to come rushing to the defense of
> Microsoft? You know, the second largest company in the world? You
> know, that company that can't afford a good marketing department?
And they are here in this group are they? I don't see any evidence of that.
I don't see anyone admitting to being part of Microsoft marketing here.
> Windows advocacy is the biggest waste of time. What's the point of
> advocating an OS that runs >90% of the desktops out there? Are you
> trying to convert that other 10% or what.
When the 10% appears to blast the 90% as sheep or drones, what did you
expect?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: 20 Jan 2001 07:53:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:979912868.332644@nol...
[ snip experiment to prove EF wrong ]
>
>I think most people that have had problems with burns under 9x or NT have
>had much slower computers.
Still, your tone is quite different from
>> > > Very few people mastering CD's outside of the sort of enviroment
>> > > where there would be a special machine dedicated to the purpose
>> > > stress machines to the level where it should be an issue.
>> > Just kick of a kernel compile.
>I can't match your test right now for 3 reasons. 1) I have an old Yamaha
>CDR-100 4x4 CD-R (4 years old and still going strong) with a very small
>internal cache (512K). Most modern burners have 1-2MB internal caches,
>which greatly reduces risk of buffer underruns. and 2) It's SCSI and 3) I
>don't have it hooked up right now.
>
>Even with such an antiquated burner with such high risk of failure, I
>haven't burned a coaster since my P133 days on 95.
It's a pity the system was fast, but it was the only system available
that I could do my test on. But something like a kernel compilation
does rely heavily on disk I/O which is still a factor of 10e5 to 10e6
slower than memory I/O. The key here is not how fast the CPU is, but the
OS's scheduling mechanism. I could easily repeat the experiment on a
slow system if I would have an IDE burner available in one of them, but
I don't.
Is there anybody out there who can prove to me that W2K's scheduling
mechanism is just as advanced as Linux's by doing the same experiment?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore,
be regarded as a criminal offence.
-- E.W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Datacenter Server does support the "five nines"
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:00:18 +1200
Hi Craig,
> I'm sure it uses clustering to do this (no big deal).
It does. Does this mean so long as at least one machine is running in the
cluster it doesn't count again 99.999% availability if one machine has to be
rebooted, etc?
So as an extreme example, if you rebooted a different server in the cluster
each day you could still quote 99.999% uptime?
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:02:30 +0000
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> This is possible; "jedi" likes to obsessively and routinely call
> "Swango,Flatfish,Claire," a liar whenever s/he brings up issues reguarding
> Linux's imperfection. Rather than admit to problems, or just not saying
> anything, there is old, reliable "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with a post that
> can
> be summed up in four, simple words: "I think your lying". I could have
> mistaken his words for yours, and for that, I'm sorry.
How true. That seems to be ol' jedi's way of not hearing things.
> > >The point-clicky thing works just fine for Windows,
> >
> > Oh, p'shaw, if it didn't suck balls, we wouldn't want to get rid of the
> > shit, y'know? ;-)
>
> Except the mentality of this is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> All the "innovations" in the Linux GUI front are coming at the expesne of
> a
> very obvious, underlying problem; functionality. Sure, there are good
> looking interfaces, but when things like GNOME programs have no ability to
> recognize KDE assoications, and KDE menu's aren't GNOME menu's, and the K
> control panel has no ability to configure real system wide settings (like
> administrative level settings), this is where we hit a problem, caused by
> the STRUCTURE of Linux.
In Linux Mandrake if you want a KDE desktop, you still need some Gtk tools
in order to configure the system. It's this combination of KDE/Qt and Gtk
that makes the desktop on Linux an incoherent mess.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:02:59 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:36:07 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500, JS PL <jim@wauseon_com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> JS PL wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays
>> >exactly
>> >> > 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to
>> >only
>> >> > play one until I reboot though.
>> >>
>> >> You sure fucked up your configuration then.
>> >> Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
>> >
>> >What do you want me to do, film it happening?
>>
>> ...something this odd, HELL YES.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> I wouldn't even take a claim like this about the Win95
>> retail version at face value...
>
>But then, Linux + sound (usually)= nightmare that is,
>if you manage to get it working in the first place.
As long as the hardware is supported, all you've had to do for
some time (at least with Bughat) is run a rather straightforward
sound configuration wizard.
Any 'nightmares' are entirely inherited from ISA.
>
>OTOH, Sound + Win95 was a no brainer and always seemed to
>work, even with odd-ball sound cards.
Except Win95 still existed in the era in which the defacto
standard was SoundBlaster and you really were best off
(even with Monopolysoft) getting the "real thing" rather
than some poor clone like the opti mad-16 (which is supported
under Linux BTW).
So, I never had any problems getting sound to work in Linux.
You're making disparaging remarks about something you have
absolutely no actual experience with.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:03:42 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Yes, and Linuxconf is a Gtk tool, not a Qt tool.
Wrong - linuxconf is a system tool.
You can access it through a web interface.
You can access it through a color terminal interface.
You can access it through X, if you install gnome-linuxconf.
So, the problem is that you installed gnome-linuxconf, and then
complained that it used gtk libraries?
> What's a Gtk tool doing
> mixed with a KDE desktop?
Obviously it works just fine -
> The differences between the way Qt/KDE and Gtk
> handle save/open dialogs are what I'm complaining about. Linux Mandrake
> gives you a mixed desktop, not a complete KDE or GNOME one.
So uninstall gnome-linuxconf. use the web interface or
the color terminal interface. problem solved.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: get your Downloads at...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sa, 20 Jan 2001 06:41:57 -0600
Hi !
only Fullversions
http://www.gamezappz.da.ru
------------------------------
From: [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?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:13:56 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>> >>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
>> > [...]
>> >>>>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. ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Databases.
>> >
>> >A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention, a single file.
>>
>> There's that magic word: "convention".
>>
>> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
>> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
>> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
>
>Man, you must really have you head up your ass.
No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
I still don't, especially after you've broken down
the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
>
>I never said it couldn't, I merely said it would be incredibly
>wasteful and stupid to do such a thing.
That's total bullshit.
[deletia]
>> Just buy an Alpha. '-)
>>
>> Besides, it has unmatched FPU performance.
>
>Sounds like the kind of answer you hate MS for.
>
>Oh yeah, and Alphas have unmatched prices.
No they don't.
Here, you are simply indulging in transparent lies.
>
>Why not buy a PC and buy Win2K, it's far cheaper than Linux + Alpha,
>plus you get so many more features with Win2K.
No it isn't. A PC suitable for video work will NOT
be significantly cheaper than an Alpha.
Feel free to actually counter this with actual specs
and verifiable prices.
However, the real problem still remains application availability.
Given that the 'market leader' and 'biggest audience' target
platform is NOT running NTFS, the claim that a 2G file size
limitation would be a show stopper is a big fat absurdity.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:23:06 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:53:08 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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. Besides if it was Linux you
> >would have spent 8 months just getting your keyboard to work, never mind
> >the mouse.
>
> All I did was follow the instructions at Linux-usb.org. This
> was about a year ago before there were any USB enabled distros.
> It, and the dev kernels I installed, both performed flawlessly.
>
> Mice and keyboards are such fundemental devices (even over USB)
> that there simply isn't a good excuse for a bad driver.
>
> As far as "the hell that is installing USB on Linux" today...
>
> "Install Mandrake, follow the shiny happy gui prompts in installer..."
Reread the post, but this time carefully. How could it takt 8 months to
get your keyborrd to work? Hell, you couldn't fix it if the keyboard
wouldn't work (I didn't consider USB ones). I thought if I made such
wild claims such as a *keyboard* taking 8 months to work, and coupled it
with an NT spontaneous BSOD, people would realise the first bit was a
joke.
For the record I have never had any problems with keyboards under any OS
and it took me a total of about 2 hours first time to get Linux running
and I've never looked back.
You were probably up too late posting like me :-)
-Ed
>
> [deletia]
> >> more sense to run the legacy pc apps inside win4lin or vmware, but
> >> I haven't gotten around to that yet -
> >
> >Wine makes a passable attempt at Office 97 (its not too slow, emen n my
> >computer). Last time I tried (which was some months ago) printing wasn't
> >too hot, but it could view, edit and save.
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>
> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> |||
> / | \
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:26:05 +0000
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
Oops. A more complete reading of the thread indicates I went a little
> overboard and missed some rather important points in the matter. My
> apologies.
Apology accepted :-)
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:33:09 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:23:06 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:53:08 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >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. Besides if it was Linux you
>> >would have spent 8 months just getting your keyboard to work, never mind
>> >the mouse.
>>
>> All I did was follow the instructions at Linux-usb.org. This
>> was about a year ago before there were any USB enabled distros.
>> It, and the dev kernels I installed, both performed flawlessly.
>>
>> Mice and keyboards are such fundemental devices (even over USB)
>> that there simply isn't a good excuse for a bad driver.
>>
>> As far as "the hell that is installing USB on Linux" today...
>>
>> "Install Mandrake, follow the shiny happy gui prompts in installer..."
>
>
>Reread the post, but this time carefully. How could it takt 8 months to
>get your keyborrd to work? Hell, you couldn't fix it if the keyboard
>wouldn't work (I didn't consider USB ones). I thought if I made such
>wild claims such as a *keyboard* taking 8 months to work, and coupled it
>with an NT spontaneous BSOD, people would realise the first bit was a
>joke.
The only problem with this is there are people who will
seriously claim to that either of those situations
represents reality.
One man's joke is another man's FUD mantra.
>
>For the record I have never had any problems with keyboards under any OS
>and it took me a total of about 2 hours first time to get Linux running
>and I've never looked back.
>
>You were probably up too late posting like me :-)
...no, just parts of a posting that looked like it came from
Chad Myers...
[deletia]
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:35:07 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:21:57 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ian Davey wrote:
> >>
> >> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >> [..]
> >> >> In Netscape's case, if you try to
> >> >> save an image, and move directory, it looses the filename.
> >>
> >> Not in Netscape 6/Mozilla.
> >
> >Not everyone has the luxury of using netscape6. It's just too damn slow
> >on a P133. I have to say, though that the above feature/bug has never
> >really bothered me much.
>
> Howabout Opera?
I don't know. I've honestly never had real problems with Netscape 4.75.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:35:56 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:21:57 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Not everyone has the luxury of using netscape6. It's just too damn slow
> >on a P133. I have to say, though that the above feature/bug has never
> >really bothered me much.
>
> It ain't much faster on an Athlon
Heh. With any luck, they'll significanlt improve it with future
releases. It will be pretty good if they do that.
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[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?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:46:23 +0000
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> 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.
Linux has always bewn able to handle very large files on proper
computers (ie 64 bit systems).
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
