Linux-Advocacy Digest #620, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Oh look! A Linux worm! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Windows Has Lost (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows Has Lost (Mig)
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away (Jim Richardson)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Jim Richardson)
Re: Open Source & security holes (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. (Jim Richardson)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Poor Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:43:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001
> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:949quf$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.
> >>
> >
> >My Linux boxes, because of the above mentioned do gooder, go
> >in low power standby state after some programmable time of
> >no activity, and therefore don't need to be shut down.
> >
> >The same is possible also on Windows boxes, but it's better
> >to reboot them frequently in order to have them working. For
> >that reason I shut down Windows workstation, and not Linux
> >workstations.
>
> Its frankly impossible to use power-saving features with Windows in this
> way. It so drastically increases the likelihood of a crash that its not
> feasible except for the most specific machines which have been
> thoroughly vetted for this purpose, with a highly restricted set of
> software. So, like I said, its frankly impossible. Too many bugs in
> *Microsoft's* handling of APC.
>
Actually the only box I've seen where the power saving feature appears
to work with Windows is an HP Vectra, which came with Win NT
pre-installed, and an HP-supplied APM driver (NT doesn't have a native
support for APM). I have tested it for a few weeks, before installing
Linux, and now I hardly boot NT once a month, if I need to test
something under native NT, not using VMware.
Being a third party crappy driver, it doesn't crash the system, as
opposed to the original MS driver which used to hang Win 9x on my laptop
one time out of two if I ever attempted to use APM features.
To be honest, using RH 6.1 I've found a bug in APM. If the PC clock is
set to local time, on a resume after suspend, it will show the wrong
time, because the Time Zone information isn't handled properly. Setting
PC clock to UMT (which is the sensible thing to do anyhow) solves the
problem. I've not yet checked with further RH releases.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux worm!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:48:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:35:57 GMT
<9469te$l63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
AAAAAH!
Panic panic panic panic panic go to supermarket panic panic panic
panic panic panic buy a copy of Windows 2000 Personal Edition panic panic
panic panic panic install it over my Linux system panic panic panic panic
panic panic watch it spontaneously reboot.
Feh. False alarm, go back to sleep, everyone.
:-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- splunge!
EAC code #191 1d:04h:17m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows Has Lost
Date: 20 Jan 2001 16:53:31 -0700
Microsoft made Windows popular by using the x86 as a delivery
platform. They cleverly out-maneuvered IBM and started making
companies like Compaq, Dell and Gateway profitable (not to mention
Intel). They did this by using *open* hardware *standards* that
allowed a free market to thrive, while still holding a workable API
that software developers could target. This allowed mom-and-pop
stores to both grow into huge companies (like Gateway) and to
diversify into niche markets and/or small business opportunities; both
in hardware and software. It also gave Microsoft machines a cheap price
tag and allowed ordinary people to mix-and-match what they
wanted with what they needed. It was great. It beat the pants off
the all-in-one "solutions" that you were forced to choose from with
their competitors.
Then problems started with OS/2: The platform was so open that anyone
could write system software for it (ia32). NT was developed to combat
OS/2 (or, to *be* OS/2, depending on who you talk to) and has been a
wild success: it was relativly cheaper while maintaining a
respectable backwards-compatibility with older Microsoft offerings.
People fell in love with Windows 95, and NT4 gave them more
substance. Windows 2000 may be the pinnacle of the entire series.
On the other side of a pinnacle is a down-hill slope.
The new threat comes from Open Source; Linux, BSD and a disorganized
army of programmers. Competing with OS/2 was straigtforward: build a
product that competes on it's terms. This gave us NT.
Competing with open software is the same: They have to give us better
*free* software than Linux/BSD/etc are able to. The problem is,
Microsoft isn't structured to handle this pardigm shift. Instead,
they want to change the rules. They cannot come out with the
"Microsoft PC" without upsetting all their allies; they would probably
all join the Linux/BSD movement out of spite. Compaq seems to be
doing this already, with the purchase of Digital (and of course IBM
is jumping on in a big way).
Their solution? The X-Box.
It isn't a PC, it's a game console that runs Internet Explorer,
Microsoft Office, USB devices and everything else that Windows already
does. They seem to have pulled the proverbial wool over other ia32
manufacturers; at least we haven't heard a peep form that camp yet.
Microsoft hopes to supplant the entire PC market with the X-Box
eventually. If they do it with quiet aplomb, their "strategic
partners" may never notice the knives in their backs until it is too
late. High-definition TVs with a "game console" sporting FireWire,
USB and such, it's not very difficult to see this happening.
Either way, the Windows as we know it is losing and will lose the war.
Whether Microsoft can re-structure it's revenue streams is still a
matter to be resolved. Once Windows is gone, Windows technologies
won't be far behind. Microsoft Office can last longer, but not much
longer. We may be looking 10 to 20 years down the road from here, but
I suspect it'll happen sooner than we think.
--
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: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Has Lost
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:00:33 +0100
Craig Kelley wrote:
[cut]
> The new threat comes from Open Source; Linux, BSD and a disorganized
> army of programmers. Competing with OS/2 was straigtforward: build a
> product that competes on it's terms. This gave us NT.
>
> Competing with open software is the same: They have to give us better
> *free* software than Linux/BSD/etc are able to. The problem is,
> Microsoft isn't structured to handle this pardigm shift. Instead,
> they want to change the rules. They cannot come out with the
> "Microsoft PC" without upsetting all their allies; they would probably
> all join the Linux/BSD movement out of spite. Compaq seems to be
> doing this already, with the purchase of Digital (and of course IBM
> is jumping on in a big way).
They started loosing a couple of years ago allready. They simply lost the
momentum and they are not and where not ever innovative.
> Their solution? The X-Box.
>
> It isn't a PC, it's a game console that runs Internet Explorer,
> Microsoft Office, USB devices and everything else that Windows already
> does. They seem to have pulled the proverbial wool over other ia32
> manufacturers; at least we haven't heard a peep form that camp yet.
> Microsoft hopes to supplant the entire PC market with the X-Box
> eventually. If they do it with quiet aplomb, their "strategic
> partners" may never notice the knives in their backs until it is too
> late. High-definition TVs with a "game console" sporting FireWire,
> USB and such, it's not very difficult to see this happening.
Dont forget that the vast majority of computer users DO NOT NEED a pc. They
need a device to surf the web, read and send mail, play games and watch
movies. Im not sure that MS is so wrong in going with X-Box - they simply
have to compete in another field... and when its not computers (think AOL)
they are not very good at it. Besides they face fierce competion from Linux
(what about the BSD's?) on these devices
> Either way, the Windows as we know it is losing and will lose the war.
> Whether Microsoft can re-structure it's revenue streams is still a
> matter to be resolved. Once Windows is gone, Windows technologies
> won't be far behind. Microsoft Office can last longer, but not much
> longer. We may be looking 10 to 20 years down the road from here, but
> I suspect it'll happen sooner than we think.
But will Linux on the PC gain that market or will it just shift towards
devices instead of PC's?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:31:46 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:57:38 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>> >Why are you people so incapable of reading? There *ARE* drivers for it,
>> >they're just not good drivers. There's a difference between certifying
>your
>> >drivers and software and releasing it.
So they are not certified to work with W2K, right?
>>
>> So are you saying here that some of the drivers which are claimed to work
>with
>> W2K are not released? So what's the word for something that's claimed to
>be
>> available, yet isn't... Oh, I know, vapourware... that's it.
>
>What the fuck. READ. The drivers are released, they are *NOT* certified.
>You can get the drivers. Download them off the companies web site. They
>simply have not gone through the MS certification program to verify that
>they are reliable.
WTF "(hey! profanity *soo* helps get your point across don't you think?)
So, we have drivers, which are available, are touted as working with W2K, and
don't, or do so poorly that the customer's "feel the pain"
slick... so it's ok when W2K drivers are crappy, but if linux drivers are
crappy then that's some sort of a slam against linux? I get it...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:38:46 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:50:09 +1200,
Adam Warner, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>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
>
>
The same opinion I have on the W2K box having 15,000RPM drives instead of the
10,000RPM drives on the linux system. It's not a perfect test, but it shows
that M$ claims of poor performance of linux are, well, marketing hyperbole at
best.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Open Source & security holes
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:06:41 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:11:53 GMT,
Charlie Ebert, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bones wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> In 2000 over 100 security holes were discovered in Microsoft SW. IIS
>>> has more than anything else. Would you stake your companies business on
>>> such a flawed piece of SW?
>>
>>Well, no.
>>
>>> Don't worry, they are now going to include it in the kernel to try and
>>> keep up with Linux. :-)
>>
>>I highly disapprove of this behavior with Linux, and I hope MS does not
>>follow suit, because then there will lots of other un-original thinkers
>>following suit. To me, this is a huge security problem waiting to happen.
>>
>>
>>----
>>Bones
>
>Just out of curiosity, why?
>
>Can't security with this measure be tested the same
>as other issues reguarding Kernel Security are?
>
>Is the mere presence of a Kernel based web server
>scarry when compared to all the other IP related
>issues the Kernel must be secure in using?
>
>It's just another thing to test.
>
>Charlie
A kernel based webserver for static content is one thing, it's a whole 'nother
ball of wax for dynamic content, especially for db data. Imagine adding
yourself to a database with a name that consists of metacharacters that are
interpreted as a syscall.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:47:08 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 15 Jan 2001 19:04:46 -0800,
Tim Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>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
a) Most tax systems are not sane.
b) Pay 10K, and deduct the 10K as a business expense
now deduct the depreciation of the computer over the next 2 or 3
years, which since govts are rather slow and sedentary, allmost allways
results in a computer which is "worth" 20-50% of it's original purchase
price as a writeoff to a non-profit as a donation.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:25:05 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:02:45 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> My brother lives in Wasila Alaska, pop about 4000, he lives about 15 miles
>out
>> of town, he has a cable modem. Now it doesn't get much more rural than
>Wasila,
>> at least not without the occasional bear wandering through (opps, he gets
>that
>> too.) So your claim of rural areas can't get 56K is hyperbole.
>
>A cable modem is not a dialup 56K x2 or v.90 modem. This argument is about
>dialup modem connections, not faster than 33.6 alternatives.
>
>Follow the freaking discussion.
He has 56K available there also, your point?
>
>> >>> >speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8.
>Since
>> >>> >there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop
>bit)
>> >>> >that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6
>hours.
>> >>Even
>> >>> >a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27
>hours,
>>
>> A basic linux machine will fit onto a floppy.
>
>Not one useable by a Linux newbie farmer.
perhaps, but neither does said farmer need a 300 MB install either. In fact,
looking at SuSE for example, a basic install with no "dev" stuff, no emacs,
etc, just system, and KDE and kde apps, runs about 200MB, but that is with kde
everything, It's easy to trim it down a lot beyond that, for someone who just
wants a doze box equivelent.
>> >>> >more than a day. Not "overnight".
>> >>>
>> >>> Total Bullcrap EF. They do!
>> >>>
>> >>> 56 K hot and read and the fiber line is just 2 miles away.
>> >>
>> >>Ok charlie, you've just completely shot your credibility on this story
>(your
>> >>credibility is shot anyways, but on this story you're lying).
>> >>
>> >>56K doesn't work with fiber lines. 56K works only on copper connected
>> >>directly to a CO because it takes advantage of the lack of analog to
>digital
>> >>conversion. If you've got fiber between you and the CO, you get
>multiple
>> >>A/D conversions and it totally screws your ability to get more than
>33.6.
>>
>> bzzzt!
>>
>> 56k (downloads note) are limited to one A-D link, which can be at the
>fiber
>> head, or at the CO, since the fiber is digital into the backbone, it works
>fine
>> with 56k.
>
>You apparently don't understand how phone companies work. They build
>central offices with switch equipment. You need a switch in order to route
>your calls. Fiber heads aren't switches, they're multiplexers. The Digital
>data needs to be converted back to analog in order to be used at the switch.
>Fiber is used in remote areas as copper extenders, not as remote switches.
free clue, switches are not the only way to route information, that's the whole
point of a packet switched system. Once digitized, you can do anything with it,
including dropping back to analog for compatability with old switches, but you
don't have to. It's quite possible to go from the house, to the CO, to fiber
and then out, or from the house, to a fiber point, then on to the CO. I know of
at least one location where a half dozen lines or so come into a grey utility
box, and are A-D right there and sent on the fiber. No CO involved. Probably
only makes sense in the rural areas though, which is where this discussion
started.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:06:44 GMT
In article <LZda6.184771$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Everyone goes on about how Linux offers me
> the 'choice' of which desktop I
> can use, unlike Windows. However,
> choice here does not equate to consistant
> style.
There are a number of different programming languages,
would you want to forfeit all PERL utilities, or Python,
or TK/TCL?
> If I want all my file save/open dialogs
> to all look the same - like the KDE
> style, or MOTIF or Gtk, can I do that
> with the Linux desktop?
I've tried several different look and feel themes,
and each has it's advantages an weaknesses. I like
KDE, the BeOS lookalike, the Gannymede theme, and several
other themes.
The core controls are pretty consistent. You may have
different positioning, or a different ICON. It takes a
second or two to learn what the decorations mean.
Each distribution is pretty good at delivering a good "starter set".
Most offer KDE, Red Hat uses Gnome.
If I like the packages offered in Mandrake, this doesn't necessarily
mean that I want to stick with Mandrake's GUI. Others are simpler,
with less eye candy.
> No I can't -
> my choice is restricted here to whatever
> toolktip the application is created with.
Keep in mind there are different legal, financial,
and performance issues related to any toolkit.
The first lesson of programming is that there are
at least 5 ways to do any task, and the "best" is
a function of constraints that are subjective as well
as technical.
Microsoft has assumed that you have unlimited memory, unlimited CPU speed,
unlimited budget, and unlimited hard drive space. They convinced the
development community that they should use tools that worked exclusively on
Microsoft platforms, and reenforced that by introducing "enhancements" that
caused code written in portable APIs and Languages to fail. These have been
nicknamed "torpedos" since they do their damage below the surface and have
the effect of sinking the competition.
With Linux, there is a large, substantial infrastructure which
serves as a baseline for a number of APIs and languages. Some
of these are even portable to Windows. The Linux community works
to assure and maintain backward compatibility.
Developers who aren't willing to fork over $6000 per programmer for
the right to publish Qt programs (KDE toolkit) often chose to program
for GNOME. Others who just wanted something quick and dirty wrote
code in Python or Perl/TK or TCL/TK.
An another group who had written Java progarms that ran on Solaris
and Windows ported their code to Linux because Linux does enjoy a
large, rapidly growing market. This is especially important to vendors
who have been excluded from the Windows NT or Windows 2000 market by
torpedos and bundleware.
> If I restrict myself to KDE only
> applications then I lose certain system
> configuration tools as there isn't one
> written for KDE (that's certainly
> true of the Mandrake distribution).
Precisely the point. Ironically, the control files themselves
are very strictly defined in terms of format and structure.
The formats are described in the man pages.
On the other hand, there are actually about 40 different configuration tools
that have been developed to manipulate these files. Which one you like best
is a matter of personal taste.
On the flip side, you have some pretty standard decoration objects.
Buttons, selection lists, radios, and checkboxes are common to
nearly all dialogues. Icons may vary but most have help balloons
that tell you what the icon buttons do.
> Linuxconf is one example, it can run in
> text mode or GUI - but uses the Gtk toolkit.
Yes. Of course there is also DrakConf, Control Center, netmanager, Red Hat's
control panel. There are also Web interfaces such as webmin, and Linuxconf
for the web.
And then you have the ability to use scripts to copy different
configuration files into the configuration directories.
> It is true that on Windows, application do
> use different styles of file
> open/save dialogs - however, there is
> a system wide _standard_ that 99% of
> applications use.
And there abligations and up-front expenses
that are included with each of these. Microsoft
charges $400 for Visual Basic Professional,
$600 for Visual C++. MSDN Enterprise edition costs
nearly $1500 per person per year.
Linux offers 200 programming languages, 40 toolkits,
and thousands of programs in source code form which
can be patched, used as templates, or reverse engineered.
Some people like Black & Decker drills, others like Skill.
The choice of which car is right for you depends on how far
you drive, which roads you drive, what the weather is like,
your income, your tax status, and some regulatory issues.
If all we needed was fair weather cars for 1-2 miles, and
only needed to drive during bright sunny days, we could
all drive around in Golf Carts.
If you're running a large Chapter S corp, and you want
the largest possible tax deduction, you would buy an SUV.
If you want to haul 10 ton trailers, you'd want something a
bit more than a Subaru Brat. You might want an International,
Kenworth, or Mac tractor to pull that load.
> Unfortunately, you
> can't change this standard - like have
> different shapes buttons etc. (and this
> is what I would call a "choice" -
> not the varying standards Linux offers).
Actually, you can. In some cases, you can literally
change the icons without even changing the code.
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:18:31 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 20 Jan 2001 20:37:52 GMT, Lewis Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
> >alt.linux.sux on 19 Jan 2001
> >
> >>Lewis Miller wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> in alt.linux.sux on 16 Jan 2001
> >>>
> >>> >Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >Translation...
> >>> >the $200 product [Lose9x] crashes every couple of hours
> >>> >the $1000 product [LoseNT] crashes only once/week.
> >>> >The $25 product [Linux] will stay up for months.
> >>> ^^^
> >>> $25?!?! Damn you're gettin ripped off.. last I checked Linux was
> >>> free. :) I've never paid for it. Even my CD versions.
> >>
> >>It's nice having the manuals around, for distribution quirks/features
> >>so that you can loan it to a friend with some degree of confidence that
> >>they will return your linux disks within a reasonable amount of time.
> >
> >Manuals? Last I checked they were on the CD.
> >
> >>> Besides forget NT get 2000 if you're going to run a Windows box.
> >>
> >>Why would i want to do something as stupid as that?
> >
> >Um, because 2000 supports a hell of a lot more hardware than NT. 2000 is
a
> >lot more stable than NT. 2000 has more tools than NT.
>
> It also supports less hardware than Win9x.
>
> It also supports less software than Win9x.
It's infinately more stable than 9x.
I have seen all versions of 9x blue screen within 10 minutes of booting.
Repreducable, btw.
I've seen exactly one BSOD since applying SP1, and that was when I was
dealing with HW as administrator.
Seen 2 BSODs before applying SP1.
My computer is being rebooted only for new hardware, and even then, not
always.
I've yet to see the 9x that can achive 48 hours uptime.
Computer has been up for 2 days, 1 hour, 47 minutes, 58 seconds
(entered a HD that killed system power)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:43:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:39:08 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>This is interesting - IIRC Linux was the first to support ATA 100.
Dumb question, then ... how did the hardware manufacturers sell the
idea of ATA100 on PC workstations?
(Unless they're actually -- gasp -- using Linux internally! :-) )
>
>Who's been spreading fud around here? (need I ask?)
>
>jjs
>
>Sauosol wrote:
>
>> Your quite right, and this is the one point that embarrasses me most
>> about Linux. It does not truly support the latest hardware and I'm
>> afraid never will.
>>
>> Classy Jones wrote:
>>
>> > Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:05h:41m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
