Linux-Advocacy Digest #612, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
*** THE PROPOSAL *** (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (John Travis)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: CD DAE problem fixed! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: I just can't help it! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:52:25 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gxja6.214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZzX96.252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:VSR96.3041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly
> > > unscientific
> > > > > misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is
> counted
> > > > > as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
> > > >
> > > > Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
> > > >
> > > > The crux of your complaint is this:
> > > >
> > > > Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
> > > > website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
> > > > many websites
> > > >
> > > > If I understand you correctly, you're complaining that the Unix
> > > > web servers have an unfair advantage because they are more
> > > > robust, higher performance, thus capable of hosting many more
> > > > websites than windows pc servers?
> > > >
> > > > So, in your eyes it would be more fair if each unix system was
> > > > limited to a single website? what would be the point of that? In
> > > > some sense they might as well be running windows, if all they
> > > > could host is a single website -
> > > >
> > > > I think you are whining unnecessarily here.
> > >
> > > Its' called grasping at a very tenuous straw.
> > > That and beating a dead horse.
> >
> > http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
> >
> > Call it whatever you want.
> >
> > It's obvious that the Netcraft numbers are grossly misleading.
>
> You'll recall that my only posts to the Netcraft debate were to call the
> whole practice silly. Numbers of any sort can be misrepresented by either
> side of a debate. In the end, the best way to see what's out there is to
> take a gander at a bunch of port 80's and see what they answer. I see a LOT
> more Apache's than IIS's. This should be a surprise to no-one. It's free and
> it works very well. Except the Windows version...I played with it a bit and
> wasn't impressed at all. It just didn't port very well.
There are many more Apache's out there than IIS, I agree, but so what?
If I set up 15 boxes with Apache and they serve 1 request a day, so what?
If there's a Fortune 500 company whose business depends on their web site,
or a significant part of it, and they choose IIS, this means something.
People who know and need, use IIS and iPlanet.
People who don't, use Apache. This means people don't trust Apache for much.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:53:11 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:19:49 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >This is great. Now, rather that admitting the problem and working to solve it
> >you attack the process.
> >
> >For the sixth time now, I will explain the obvious to lay people who
seemingly
> >have never processed a large video in their life.
>
> They understand it alright, they are just trying to make you repeat
> yourself to wear you down.
>
> Classic Penguinista technique used when they have lost a discussion,
> which is generally the case.
> Flatfish
They have no argument, it's plainly obvious, they now seek to attack the
process rather than admitting Linux sucks in this deparment. It's
sad to watch, really.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: *** THE PROPOSAL ***
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:08:35 GMT
The internet is a wonderful place to come and discuss IDEAS
which could lead to more wonderful things for the Linux
community.
We have all read and heard the comments about RedHat's
beta release compiler which has trouble compiling applications
with except for the kernel {of course} and also this new
worm {hole fixer worm} which was unleashed on all the RedHat
6.2 and 7.0 customers just recently.
Everybody knows I've used Slackware, RedHat, Suse, Mandrake
and Debian. I've tried them all and I like Debian's
distribution the best for it's stability and quality and
it's huge list of supported hardware platforms.
We have two key players here.
We have RedHat who has 80% of the Linux market or more.
We have Debian who has the largest and most stable of
the Linux distributions.
RedHat has the BEST marketing.
Debian has the BEST OS.
Since RedHat is working on it's own apt-get upgrade
for it's .RPM base, now is the time to suggest this.
It would make better business sense for RedHat to use
Debian as it's base distribution than to continue on
creating it's own alone. RedHat has Mandrake and Suse
feeding off them along with others.
Yet, RedHat's distribution always seems to have broken
software in it. This combined with the fact that apt-get
and .deb packages being better drove me to Debian anyway.
Debian is a much more stable, working distribution of Linux
as they have a larger test base. They are the second
largest Linux distribution.
The way the Debian test base works is anybody who runs in
unstable becomes a tester. It's very easy to run in
unstable as all you have to do is edit your apt/sources list.
RedHat's beta is like Mandrakes and all the rest, you end
up having to re-install your OS with a boot disk from
the net then keep track of all the .rpms which change
manually. This is why they are comming up with thier
own apt-get path.
The Debian tester merely just updates and upgrades their
distribution using apt-get which is easier and if you
use Dselect you even see what's being changed before
you do it.
Since RedHat would have to come up with it's own Dselect
to compliment the apt-get why don't we just do the following.
Why doesn't RedHat contribute to Debian and use the Debian
base to make it's RedHat distribution...
Debian has the largest development crew and alot more experience
in makeing a stable OS. RedHat can contribute it's expertise
in installation, compilers, and other areas to the Debian
base. Together they would be a sizable team.
Leave Debian as the all volunteer effort and just contribute
to the system. RedHat would assist in the development using
the Debian infrastructure. RedHat could then offer two
seperate distributions to the public with little effort.
#1 would be the stable commerical rated branch which would
be Debian stable. That's rock solid stable. And stable
Debian would benefit from this also by being propelled
along quicker thanks to the help from RedHat. Quality
would be controlled using Debian's already excellent
system of bug tracking and eliminating.
#2. RedHat could publish cuts every 3-4 months from Debian
unstable which would be the cutting edge desktop/home user
stuff. Again allowing Debian to control bug tracking
and freeing up RedHat to work on REAL SYSTEM ADVANCEMENTS
instead of just crawling along and keeping up with the jones's.
It takes alot of manhours and money to bring in that next
version of emacs or that next version of gaim or that next
version of licq and test it. It's time they could better
spend having their employee's work on integrating new products!
And these NEW products would go into Debian unstable and
get tested thoroughly! There would be a greatly increased
testing base. Both organizations would benefit from each
other in great ways and the Linux community would have
a better product.
Clearly, there's nobody better at the net upgrade than Debian.
Clearly, RedHat dropped sparc support and Debian still has it
and it's strong!
RedHat is clearly wasting money and limiting their progress
by having to work thru the already in use upgrades of mondane
packages which would be better upgraded and tested by the
Debian community. Clearly the Debian community would love
to have the high technology items hit their FTP site a little
quicker like the IBM stuff.
And the RedHat/Debian relationship would eliminate this current
drag on the company image of having Mandrake be better in
consumer eyes. People look at Mandrake and say that's RedHat improved
and fixed! And they are right for the most part.
The RedHat/Debian relationship would provide the Linux commmunity
with a battleship of progress.
And it could be done! It would be more cost effective for RedHat
and it would be the freshest newest idea since the inception of
the company. Debian would stand to gain MUCH from this releationship
also in the way of GPL'ed corporate technology.
RedHat is being dragged down by allowing others to clone their
distribution.
They were the leaders of the community and still can be.
We just have to make an adjustment to the GPL marketplace.
This is such a powerful notion and such a do-able notion
that I think the leaders of the Debian community and the
leaders of RedHat Inc should talk.
They should discuss this idea.
If nothing more, then Redhat could take unstable and get started
right now.
RedHat could contribute to the Debian community also.
They already do to some extent. But not to the extent
which I'm thinking of.
RedHat would have to conform to Debian as to the way's
of building packages, security, and the overall distribution.
Debian would have to accept the RedHat installation, Kudzo,
there is alot to merge here.
Yet it is still very do-able and an extremely good idea for
both RedHat and Debian.
Redhat instantly get's support for a huge range of computers including
the 390 which have been tested and are stable.
Debian's testing structure eliminates unstable compilers and worms
from the stable business distribution sold by Redhat and still downloadable
from the internet without support.
Debian get's used in more business's and Redhat makes money from the support.
Redhat has two versions now, stable business grade and unstable cut's
which are their home/users technology previews.
See this is the problem with Redhat as all their releases are unstable
by Debian standards only probably worse. They push the edge as they
HAVE to compete with others like Mandrake and Suse.
RedHat would have the luxury of PUSHING the Debian unstable tree with
the aid of the Debian community to new and great heights which aren't
currently possible with seperate organizations. They won't have to
do everything anymore. They can concentrate their talents on real
advancement for a change.
Let's face it! Anybody who WANT'S to download Redhat for FREE can
do so right now and avoid paying for it or the support. If your
going to give it away for FREE anyway then give everything to Debian
and continue on with your marketing and development efforts.
LEAN THAT COMPANY OUT AND MAKE IT MORE PROFITABLE.
Throw your pot in with Debian and contribut a little cash
to their organization to show you care and do a joint development
effort. They have 20 times the testing force you have at Redhat.
Focus RedHat Inc in bringing forth TIP development for Linux.
QUIT focusing on upgrading already used software then QA'ing it.
The Debian community is far better suited to do this task.
And they come up with a better distribution because of this.
Go ahead and use the .deb packages, the apt-get, the dselect.
These are all tools which exist. FOCUS on TIP development!
The development of the FUTURE and stop re-inventing the wheel.
A centralized homing post for the planet will be further re-inforced.
This kind of organization relations ship has me very excited to think
about as it's everything Microsoft isn't.
Microsoft has to throw away everything anytime they come out with a new
OS.
This organization cosolidates everything and truely builds on foundations.
I've always felt it was a conflict within the community to have two
seperate package management systems. Much time was spent doing this
which could have been better spent else where furthering the cause
for free software.
I would encourage everybody from Linus Torvalds to Richard Stallman to
Wirt Akerman to Bob Young to back this idea.
I heard Richard Stallmans voice for the first time last night on my
Real Player. He said much of what he's said and I've read since
the beginning. It was a good pep talk.
He spoke of community!
Community is what he modeled the GPL from.
Community is why I came up with this idea.
It is time we got this community together and it's time we show
our strengths to the world.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:54:40 GMT
And Charlie Ebert spoke unto the masses...
:Instead of starting a WAR here, I would like to propose the following
:RADICALLY DOOABLE idea!
:
:Why don't RedHat MERGE with Debian?
<Gags...remembers to breathe>. For a myriad of reasons I suppose. First of
which RedHat is a corportation. Debian is not.
:Redhat has the marketing venues and the support, Debian has the better
:software.
Yes to the first part, all ties into above. No on the latter part. Better
packaging system, but they run the same software.
:Redhat is currently building THEIR version of apt-get for .rpm.
Why? The guy who wrote WindowMaker already ported it (working for Connectiva).
It works quite well. I only used it off the cdrom as the ftp mirrors were being
hammered for days during the time I was playing with it. But the problem arises
about a homogeneous binary pool. Connectiva users can't simply suck down RH
rpms without fear of breakage.
:Why not just solve the rest of the problems and MERGE.
Becuase there is basically no reason to. Besides that Debian wouldn't look
kindly on what others did with it's code regarding licensing etc. If this had
happened a while back, the debian developers would shit themeselves when RH used
their work and included (at the time an issue) kde in the main distribution.
:Let Debian develop the OS and release it to Redhat. RedHat can
:contribute to the unstable tree as they see fit. Debian will still
:release and sell stable, Redhat can cut from unstable at 3-4 month
:intervals.
Again not really reasonable, or practical.
:And switch to .deb's.
Well that would be nice :-).
:This will get Mandrake off their backs and Suse too.
:
:And it will make for a much more powerful Linux organization.
:
:A more mobile organization as RedHat will be able to support Sparc
:customers again.
They dropped the support. If they cared they could bring life back to that
project.
:I like this IDEA! What do you think?
It goes against everything Debian, but I understand what you meant.
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.1-pre9|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .96 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jan 2001 04:00:55 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> Also, there was VERY popular network hardware that wasn't immediately
> recognzied under Win98 either. It's only a function of how old the
> vendor support is relative to how old the OS distribution is.
Heck, stick an old RTL8139 card into a PC, install Win98 --- and hope that
you have internet access without that card, because otherwise you won't
get it working when the vendor CD is not handy.
Bernie
--
Wherever books will be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Heinrich Heine
German poet, 1797-1856
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CD DAE problem fixed!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jan 2001 04:08:30 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I know that, I was just having a really weird problem with Linux where
>it defaulted to doing DAE everytime I played a CD.
Actually, you had a really weird problem where some version of Windows
reprogrammed your hardware to do something which wasn't meeting specs,
and didn't undo these changes before a reboot.
In other words, you didn't have a linux problem. You had a Windows problem.
Bernie
--
If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?
Albert Einstein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jan 2001 04:16:30 +1100
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes. Just run a lot of svgalib apps, and keep switching back and forth
>> between the console and XFree86. Sometimes, XFree86 totally destroys
>The probablity is even greater if you run xawtv and then change from the
>X to a text console or back.
>I guess the trouble is with the TV cards which don't finish pumping images
>into video memory soon enough.
It would be. In fact, at least with earlier X servers, it would not
finish *at all*, because switching away from X would not send the apps
unmap events (or any other events). It appears this is fixed in XF86 4.x.
Also, whether that presents a serious problem depends on the gfx card you
use. An old S3 would die all the time (and as I am using one keyboard for
5 computers, I am well familiar with accidentally switching away from
the xawtv screen). A Matrox Millennium would survive, but of course the
"TV image" wouldn't look real good on a text screen. With my TNT2, I use
XF86 4.0, and can switch to and fro without any problems.
Now, last time I had that TV card in a Windows box, just moving the TV
window partly off-screen would produce all sorts of lovely crashes. So
I am quite please with xawtv and kwintv.
Bernie
--
Among my most prized possessions are the words that I have never
spoken.
Orson Rega Card
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jan 2001 03:53:13 +1100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Not really. The only benchmark I've seen Linux win was with a web server
>that no one uses. One benchmark. Please show me ones where Linux wins
>(oh yeah, and the FUD ones from c't don't count, only major reputible
>companies with standardized benchmarks, not grudges against Microsoft).
So c't, who has a Spec license (can Mindcraft say that?) and comes from
the same people who, in a magzine called "ix" extensively cover Windows NT,
now has "grudges against Microsoft"?
Maybe you should, just for a change, *read* the magazine you are criticizing?
Bernie
--
Ah well! I am their leader, I really had to follow them!
A.A. Ledru-Rollin
French politician
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jan 2001 04:32:36 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>So you tell me then how do you instruct kscd (whatever the included
>kde cd player is) how to not rip audio?
Apparently, the way to do it is to not let Windows reprogram your hardware
to intercept ATAPI commands and reinterpret them in fancyful and silly new
ways.
I mean, there isn't much more Linux can do than to send "please play the
CD to the analog output, and don't bother me with it again". That's what
it does. It's a standard ATAPI command.
Apparently, judging from your "solution" posting, your Windows driver
will happily rewrite the sound driver's firmware to intercept that
command (which I find quite impressive), and then use the soundcard's
own processor to issue instead lots of "read raw audio frame via IDE"
commands and pass the data thus received on to the sound card's PCM
output. While that is quite an impressive hack from a technical point of
view, and might even be useful to people who miss the (non-standardized,
or multi-standardized) audio cables, it is still a silly thing to do.
This functionality belongs into the application layer.
However, none of this would involve the host CPU in any way. Thus, your
allegations that this was causing a "problem" by making things run slowly
is just so much hogwash. In order for that to happen, the host CPU would
have to be involved, and there is just no way that setting a box in Windows
would result in Linux programs suddenly doing things they contain no code
to do.
Bernie
--
Gentleman, I am a Catholic... If you reject me on account of my
religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of
being your representative
Hilaire Belloc
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:18:00 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:47:07 GMT, "Tom Wilson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Copy protection routines for C64's actually did a lot to damage the 1541
> >floppy drives. That was indicative of the drive's bad design more than
> >anything, though.
>
> Heat was the basic enemy of the 1541 along with the half tracking of
> the stepper motor.
The bad-design thing was actually putting a transformer inside of a fanless
case. As for the stepper motor assembly, I can remember having to re-align
the heads on a bi-weekly basis for my older 1540 (The VIC variant).
>
> I also had an Enhancer 2000 drive with my Commodore and that worked
> great with none of the 1541's troubles.
I vaguely remember those. There were a couple of companies out there that
made reliable, high-speed drives. To counter the 1540 and 1541's troubles, I
just popped fans in them. Also rigged up toggle switches to quickly change
device numbers. Funny to think back and remember reading a manual that told
you how to change a drive's device number by cutting a circuit board trace
with a razor blade.
See, Linux isn't the only thing out there to give arcane and technical
advice, huh? <g>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
__
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:26:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:40:09 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>mlw wrote:
>>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops
>> > > > *ARE* shut down at night. This is in contradiction to people
>> > > > who talk about how their
>> > >
>> > > No they aren't. Typical Windows desktops maybe. Does typical mean
>> > > Windows in your world? I take it that you, like Microsoft, think
>> > > these are good results?
>> >
>> > Typical desktops are shut down to conserve power. Only recently has power
>> > management become useable in Linux and other OS's.
>>
>> You keep saying this, but I doubt that it is true. I see many people
>> just turn off their monitors when they go home.
>
>They shouldn't even do that.
>
>when the monitor goes to power saving mode, it only consumes a couple
>of watts...just enough to keep the tube warm so that "turning on" to
>display again doesn't add yet another thermal-shock cycle.
>
>Compared to the energy cost to make a NEW monitor (which of course, is
>included in the price of said monitor), the 5W to keep the tube warm
>is minor.
Napkin calc time.
5W x $.065/kwH / 1000 * 24h/d x 365d/y = $2.85.
(Wow. Lunch.)
More pedantically:
5W x $.065/kwH / 1000 * 16/d x 365d/y = $1.90.
(Wow. Breakfast.)
since I'm going to want the monitor on for 8 hours out of that
24 hour day. :-)
(I hope the flatscreens are more resilient, admittedly. They're
nice little beasties, but still a little pricey for my tastes.)
Contrariwise, I've just had a disk blow because of an unscheduled
power failure. Time to go get another one -- fortunately, 8 giggers
are cheap and I might go 18 GB SCSI, or even 37. (Wow. I hope
my SCSI card can handle it; it's a 50-pin Adaptec. At least there's
a 68-to-50 pin snap-on adaptor available for some drives.)
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > A company that shuts down it's PC's at night can save millions in
>> > electricity bills.
More napkins.
For a company to save $1M per year, one would have to have, assuming that
a 300W power supply actually consumes 300W to produce 300W,
and that a monitor consumes 5W on standby, the following number
of desktop PC units:
$1M / (305W x $0.065/kwH / 1000 * 16h/d * 365d/y) = 8639 PCs.
One can fudge this number a bit with the heat this generates (305W =
305 J/hr -- if nothing else) by adding in air conditioning costs,
and noting that I included the 16/24 hour corrective factor (those
PCs are assumed in use 8 hours a day; turning them off during that
interval would be pointless), but that the machines might be in use
more than 8 hours, etc. But this shouldn't affect the number too much.
If they're really that tight up for money, perhaps they'd be better
off shutting the lights off at night. :-)
>>
>> The time it takes to start up a system, especially Win2K, probably costs
>> more in productivity than the electricity a computer uses over night.
Yet more napkins.
I make about $100,000/year. This is $50/hour, or almost $1/minute.
To spend $1 a day waiting for a machine to boot up translates
into $250 wasted per year (50 weeks x 5 days/wk).
305W * $.065/kwH / 1000 * 16h/d * 365d/y = $115.75, the amount saved
by turning the entire machine off.
(This is admittedly a very fuzzy number; one could go get coffee while
the machine is booting, for example, and people rarely get to work
on the dot at 8 AM and immediately start working in engineering.
Maybe in telesales or technical support -- but even at half the salary,
it's not clear it's worth it. There are also reliability factors;
the reason I leave my computers on 24/7 (even with the current round
of power failures) is that I've had some disks blow on me when I
power-cycled them. Try convincing someone in telesales that they
are making money after their hardware blew a disk. :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random calculator and napkin supply here
EAC code #191 1d:13h:17m actually running Linux.
Use the source, Luke.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:30:06 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:15:31
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >We just had a huge debate on this about 2 months ago.
>>
>> You don't have debates, Chad; you troll.
>
>You name call and never provide facts.
It is a fact, not name-calling, to point out that you fabricate, lie,
troll, and perform a wide variety of other acts of intellectual
dishonesty.
> A "debate" to you is just
>exchanging slanders.
No, it is an engagement of wits. Some people just don't know when to
fall down.
>For the grown-ups, it's posting facts about
>your position, something I've yet to see you do.
Indeed; reason alone has been more than sufficient to discount just
about every misrepresented or fabricated 'fact' you've ever posted, my
dear sock-puppet. Grown-ups know how to post facts to *support* their
position, when necessary, rather than simply making unreasonable
declarations about their position. Intelligent grown-ups, at least.
Intelligent grown-ups don't generally fail to see the flaws in either
Microsoft software, or the lack of reasoning in Microsoft apologists.
--
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
******************************
