Linux-Advocacy Digest #634, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 12:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux (.)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows Has Lost (.)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (.)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. (Tim)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (.)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Poor Linux (.)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (.)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux
Date: 21 Jan 2001 16:10:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jerry Wong wrote:
>>
>> I want to gather information on the compatibility of Motherboards on
>> Linux.
> This is probably a very good thing to try to do, good luck.
> I have a Tyan Tiger 133c, dual processor board that works, but not well,
> I don't recommend it.
> I have a Asus dual processor board that works, and works great.
I would recommend that everyone stay as far away from Tyan motherboards as
possible. Ive gone through two lemons lately (bad DIMM slots) and a bad
CPU socket.
And when they do work, theyre still quite awful.
Stick to Asus and Abit, if you absolutely must run AMD/INTEL equipment.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:14:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:41:56 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Look, the 2GB limit in Linux is retarded, no matter how you
>> try to defend it. 32-bit, 64-bit, it's retarded. Many other
>> OSes have overcome this problem with relative ease, and
>> Linux still doesn't have a shipping solution.
>>
>> It's retarded, plain and simple. Admit it, acknowledge there's
>
>And it doesn't exist any more. It never did exist on poper computers and
>now it doesn't exist on crappy ones either. Get 2.4.0 if you want to use
>Linux. Any how, stop bitching about a problem that has now passed.
>
Oh, it exists, all right, mostly because apps haven't been rewritten
to use off_t yet. :-) And the fix predates 2.4, I think; the compilation
options I have work on a recent 2.2.x. kernel and glibc set.
But yes, we don't need to worry much anymore; just make sure the apps
are written properly, and we're fine. It's going to be interesting
when we bump the 2^64 limit, though. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:21h:42m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows Has Lost
Date: 21 Jan 2001 16:14:24 GMT
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Craig,
> That perspective is fascinating. I have checked up and the XBox does NOT
> have firewire (http://www.xbox.com/xbox/flash/specs.asp). It only has 100Mb
> Ethernet. Even so that speed would enable Microsoft to expand the XBox later
> on: keyboards, extra storage space, printers, etc. It may be in Microsoft's
> interests to make special XBox-only hardware.
You realize that it is indeed possible to run linux on a dreamcast...
I wonder how long it will be before someone sticks it on an xbox.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: 21 Jan 2001 16:16:30 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94chnr$esm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:94blks$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Hi "sfcybear",
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >
> http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
>> >>
>> >> Also, apparantly linux is able to scale to 20,000 processors.
>> >>
>> >> Compared to windows 2000 datacenter's alleged 32.
>> >>
>> >> Thats a pretty big difference.
>>
>> > Man, this isn't even vapor.. it hasn't even been *STARTED*. They claim
> to
>> > not have the machine ready till 2004. Lots of things will change in
> both
>> > the Linux and Windows side before then.
>>
>> Alright then. 6,000 nodes on the Google linux cluster.
>>
>> How many nodes exactly are capable of operating on one W2K cluster again?
> Did you read the article? It's *NOT* a clustered computer. It's a single
> machine with 20,000 processors.
You're an idiot, erik. Seriously.
*No One* has built a single hyper-parallell machine where all the processors
share the same cache and same ram out of more than a few hundred processors.
They are NODES, dickweed. NODES. See IBM's mainframe specs for details; pay
particular attention to the ASCI series.
> Why don't you people read the articles you harp on about?
> Here's a quote:
> "However, the system will be a long time in coming. Bill Blake, vice
> president of high-performance technical computing at Compaq, said the three
> partners hope to have a prototype machine ready by 2004."
> Note the use of the singular word "machine".
The same word is used for singular mainframes containing hundreds of NODES.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:17:12 GMT
SoneoneElse wrote:
>
> Because everyone else is getting it, and you are the person not
> getting it.
> The newests open source apps ( whether for Windows or Linux or
> other OSs ) almost always come out in source code form first.
> After a lag time, sometimes long, sometimes short, the prebuilt
> binaries come out. If it's a highly niche item, they sometimes never
> come out.
>
> As a result you will at times have to compile stuff. It doesn't matter
> that you don't know C from FORTRAN. You should still be able to
> compile.
>
> Otherwise you leave yourself out of all the newest innovations out
> there.
> >What am I getting myself in to?
> >
In the old days, source was basically open, and all computer users
were at the forefront, and mastered even the most arcane tools.
Then Gates proved that the monkey-mass can barely handle a mouse,
and wants to be able to stick a disk in and push a button. Furthermore,
he has proven that any deviation from those steps becomes
insurmountable to the average moron.
Linux now comes along and proves that the monkey-mass can't
even make the switch from one GUI to another GUI. It's like
we can't step out of a Buick and step into a BMW.
Much less download a tar file, decompress it, and type
"./config; make; make install".
Hell, most of us monkeys can't even program a VCR clock properly.
So, flatfish is right. [I, a Penguinista, so state.]
Now I shouldn't be so hard on the monkey-mass, especially as flatfish,
chad, myself, T. Max, and all others in this group are part of it.
People do learn, if they want to, or have to, or like it. The main
question is, is Linux less expensive enough to overcome the inertia
that Windozzzzzzzz has.
Chris (not trolling, believe me)
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:16:22 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >> > That's bullshit. Most people don't have frequent bluescreens under
> > >Win9x.
> > >> > Unpredictable, perhaps, but then how predictable is a kernel panic?
> > >>
> > >> No, *that's* bullshit. I had a freaking BSoD this morning when I booted
> > >this
> > >> box up. It hadn't even finished booting (take two was more sucessful).
> > >BTW,
> > >> I find Windows crashes/freezes/BSoDs very regular: every 4 hours. I'm
> glad
> > >> I've got LM7.2 working on the other partition, it won't take me much to
> > >> switch over full time (damn games...).
> > >
> > >And you're "most people"? My girlfriend's 98SE machine crashes about
> once a
> > >month, and it's on 24x7.
> >
> > So 98 does crash at your girlfriends house. I thought you just said
> > it never crashed. Does your girlfriend even know how to use a
> > computer EF or is it just another rather expensive nightlight for her?
>
> I never said any such thing. I said most people don't have frequent
> crashes. If, in your halucinagenic haze you somehow think that this equals
> to "it never crashes", then you're a moron.
>
Hate to say Erik, but I have been using Linux for close to a year now
and it has NEVER crashed on me unless I am upgrading the kernel and have
done
something stupid, even then I think this has only happened once or
twice.
I have had to re-install the OS ONCE, when I first started
to use it and didn't realy know what I was doing.
This is heaven compared to NT and Win95 which used to BSOD on me
regularly
(once or twice a week), and sometimes even refused to come beck up
again.
I had to re-install regularly as I was advised by M$ just to stop the
damn
thing messing itself up.
Some reliability.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: 21 Jan 2001 16:17:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:23:44 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Did you read the article? It's *NOT* a clustered computer. It's a single
>>machine with 20,000 processors.
>>
>>Why don't you people read the articles you harp on about?
> Not enough time as they are too busy reading How-To's.
You, claire, as someone who has sworn that you have lots of mainframe experience,
should understand exactly why erik is wrong; yet somehow interestingly you
ignore it completely.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:18:26 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:15:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Does anybody have any idea what the fuck he's trying to say?
>>
>>More importantly, does anybody care? (Other than EF or Claire?)
>
>He seems to back up his claims with facts and references and so do I,
Guffaw. You're a lying sack of shit; so's he. Guffaw.
>but you Penguinista's don't know how to read, or you selectively read.
>
>It's amazing how many times the same information has to be repeated to
>you guys before you finally understand.
We understand it the first time. We won't believe it even after the
hundredth, though, because a lie is still a lie, no matter how often you
repeat it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 21 Jan 2001 16:19:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:20:40 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The sblive satisfies these criteria, and I'm happy.
>>
>>Could you explain what I'm supposed to be
>>unhappy about
>>Thanks,
> If your happy then fine. You could have bought a $15.00 soundcard and
> saved yourself a bundle and been just as happy.
Or you could have been like claire and thought that a soundblaster live was
an appropriate soundcard for high level sound engineering.
Ummm. Yeah.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:20:37 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:10:52
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Just as yet another point of pedantry: the design of PostgreSQL, as
>> I understand it, doesn't require one monster database file, but
>> instead splits the problem up if it gets too big. However, I
>> have not had a chance to test this -- and it's not clear it would
>> have the performance you require anyway, since it's not going
>> to help you in video processing; that's not its job.
>> It fell down badly compared to my employer's Oracle database, anyway.
>>
>> Of course, to be fair, said Oracle database is running on a monster
>> 30 (?) CPU SPARC machine with gigabytes of RAM and a fair number of
>> spindles, consuming 30 megarows a day, each row containing
>> about 100 or so bytes (and this with other processes querying
>> it for various things, as well!). My dinky Pentium Pro 200 with
>> a couple of 8 gigabyte SCSI drives and a PCI bus, while good
>> for me, isn't going to come even close.
>>
>> But I was hoping... :-)
>>
>> (Also, my understanding is that this SPARC, big as it is, is tiny
>> compared to some installations.)
>>
>> I'd have to rerun the benchmark, and my system's in a sorry state
>> at the moment because of an outage related to the California power
>> crisis, blowing away my system disk. Sigh.
>>
>> I'm curious as to how well a 32-node Win2k cluster could handle
>> that load. Isn't that the market Microsoft's aiming for?
>
>DataCenter could do it, I guess.
A "guess" is what it will have to remain, too, for the moment.
<*chuckle*> I've heard Microsoft is having some *real* big problems
trying to get that puppy to work.
>It can scale to 32CPU & 64Gb ram.
In theory, anyway. Or should I say, in press releases.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:21:04 GMT
Said Bobby D. Bryant in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
05:41:04 -0600;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> For a while, my LoseDOS box would only perform one scan per boot-up
>
>My system only allows one shutdown per boot up.
That's nothing. My only allows one boot up per shut down!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:22:12 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:06 -0500;
>"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?
>I didn't do anything to the configuration. It's the default install. It
>plays an MP3 ONCE. Among other things. Sometimes it won't run ANY programs.
>Sometimes it runs some of them. It just does whatever it wants to do I
>guess. I click an icon and say to myself " I wonder if this will run today?"
>Funny thing is, Windows 2000 on the exact same hardware runs perfectly all
>the time. Go figure...
I think he did, and he figured that you were screwing something up. On
the Linux thing, at least. As for W2K, you're just lying.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:22:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<Please@don't.spam>
wrote
on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:10:52 +0200
<94dr4g$a08$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Just as yet another point of pedantry: the design of PostgreSQL, as
>> I understand it, doesn't require one monster database file, but
>> instead splits the problem up if it gets too big. However, I
>> have not had a chance to test this -- and it's not clear it would
>> have the performance you require anyway, since it's not going
>> to help you in video processing; that's not its job.
>> It fell down badly compared to my employer's Oracle database, anyway.
>>
>> Of course, to be fair, said Oracle database is running on a monster
>> 30 (?) CPU SPARC machine with gigabytes of RAM and a fair number of
>> spindles, consuming 30 megarows a day, each row containing
>> about 100 or so bytes (and this with other processes querying
>> it for various things, as well!). My dinky Pentium Pro 200 with
>> a couple of 8 gigabyte SCSI drives and a PCI bus, while good
>> for me, isn't going to come even close.
>>
>> But I was hoping... :-)
>>
>> (Also, my understanding is that this SPARC, big as it is, is tiny
>> compared to some installations.)
>>
>> I'd have to rerun the benchmark, and my system's in a sorry state
>> at the moment because of an outage related to the California power
>> crisis, blowing away my system disk. Sigh.
>>
>> I'm curious as to how well a 32-node Win2k cluster could handle
>> that load. Isn't that the market Microsoft's aiming for?
>
>DataCenter could do it, I guess.
>It can scale to 32CPU & 64Gb ram.
>With SQL 2K, I would assume this is possible, never saw such a beast, nor
>did I hear about any benchmarks about it.
>Most of the benchmarks are at TPC's site, but they aren't meaningful, they
>use clusters, while your Oracle is using a single computer.
I dunno...it sounds like a multiple-CPU "single computer" to me. :-)
Is this a cluster or no? As opposed to, say, 32 computers on
a high-bandwidth network (FDDI?)?
>
>I would also like to know how this can be done on wintel.
Doesn't DataCenter run on Wintel? :-) Or is that some sort of IA-64
or Alpha port?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:22h:51m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: [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: 21 Jan 2001 16:23:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> (Also, my understanding is that this SPARC, big as it is, is tiny
> compared to some installations.)
The largest Sun installation ive actually seen with my own eyes was a
4 node e10000 cluster recently built for a very large financial institution.
Each node has 64 procs, two domains running on each node. One domain for
trend analysis and the other (much larger) for the most monstrous oracle
DB ive ever seen.
Its pretty sweet. :)
Also, according to a collegue who worked on the project, no part of it
has been shut down or rebooted since the oracle install; about 90 days.
Which is a good thing, because said institution chose the sun platform
because it was cheaper than IBM's comparable solutions, and they need
less than a minute of downtime per year, average.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:24:22 GMT
Said Peter K�hlmann in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>
>> So what's 1597 about?
[...]
> Address Allocation for Private Internets
Yea, that's what I thought they were talking about. That's a rule of
*the Internet*, not a rule of *routing*.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:28:08 GMT
Said SomeoneElse in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:57:13
GMT;
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:02:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>>The simplest workaround is to avoid using gcc, and using kgcc instead.
>>>Reason is that kgcc is the previous version of gcc, which will work
>>>correctly, unlike the gcc that you'll have with RH.
>>
>>Maybe I've been fooling myself all these years, by continuing to think
>>of Usenet as an intellectual exercise. Why does nobody seem to be
>>getting this?
>>
>Because everyone else is getting it, and you are the person not
>getting it.
>The newests open source apps ( whether for Windows or Linux or
>other OSs ) almost always come out in source code form first.
Nope, you're still missing it, sorry.
>After a lag time, sometimes long, sometimes short, the prebuilt
>binaries come out. If it's a highly niche item, they sometimes never
>come out.
>
>As a result you will at times have to compile stuff.
This conclusion does not follow from your previous statements, I'm
afraid.
>It doesn't matter
>that you don't know C from FORTRAN. You should still be able to
>compile.
>
>Otherwise you leave yourself out of all the newest innovations out
>there.
Perhaps if you thought about it *really* hard, this last sentence might
finally give you the clue you need. Perhaps not.
>>What am I getting myself in to?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:35:21 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:33:23 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Using the ever-ready WebFerret (another investment I'll miss) a boolean
>>expression "konqueror and certificate" took no less than thirty seconds
>>(a great bit of time, indicating no huge flood of pages referencing
>>this) brought up this as the third real hit:
>>
>>#16758: Konqueror doesn't warn sufficiently strong when it can't verify
>>an SSL server certificate
>> Package: kio-http; Severity: critical; Reported by: "Ivan E Moore
>>II" <rkrusty at tdyc com>; merged with
>> #11406; 42 days old.
>>
>>Its from http://buglist.kde.org/db/ix/full.html
>>
>>"Doesn't warn sufficiently strong?" That couldn't possibly be the one
>>you were talking about, could it? Still, its listed as 'critical'.
>
>You should have tried Google and then you would see all the hits.
I am interested in information, not data.
>Snip............................
>
>You basically took a lot of lines to say that you will be settling for
>what Linux has in the way of applications you use under Windows until
>it matures to that level.
Well, so now we have proof you aren't entirely bereft of reading
comprehension skills. Good Job, Claire!
>The only thing is you have absolutely no idea how much you will be
>settling until you are stuck using them.
Wrong again. I have a very good idea of what I'll be "settling" for, as
well as what I'll be "stuck" using. I learned the Commodore64 in the
mid-80s, the Macintosh in the late 80s, DOS in the early 90s, and both
Windows and Unix in the last ten years. I'm quite well aware of how
much the application barrier has fortified and inured the Windows
monopoly. You seem to have absolutely no idea of just how awful the
Windows platform is, under all those apps.
>Your new system will give you that opportunity.
Yes, the opportunity to directly observe and compare the harm caused by
monopolization is, indeed, one of my goals.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 21 Jan 2001 16:39:47 GMT
Lloyd Llewellyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Like application availability. I've spent the last couple of days looking for a
: WYSIWYG web page editor so I don't have to boot into Win2K to use FrontPage or
: Dreamweaver. Yes, yes, I know - those kinds of tools give you dirty HTML, and
: real men code their web pages using vi / emacs / etc. Still, I just want an
: interface where, say, I can select a range in an HTML table and move it
: elsewhere in the table, and see immediately what the result is.
The easiest way to do this is to use whitespace and indenting so as to
make it clear where a table row ends.
Having said that, if you *really* want a graphical HTML editor, there
are Bluefish, Quanta, and several others, listed, with links to their
home pages, at:
http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=web+or+HTML+editor
: Is it more productive to have a desktop OS that I have reboot a couple times a
: week, but that has applications like Dreamweaver, or is it more productive to
: use an OS that *never* goes down, but that I have to use a text editor to design
: a web page?
For me it would most certainly be the text editor - that is how I
choose to edit HTML even in a Windows environment.
But for those who'd rather use WYSIWYG tools (even though HTML is
intended as a markup language for content, not presentation), some
such tools exist, and more are being created all the time.
Joe
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:40:04 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>I wonder how long it will take before you catch on, quite repeating
>>yourself, or go away?
>
>I'm waiting for you to get your new Linux system and start
>experiencing the Linux nightmare like the rest of us.
Perhaps you're unaware that I have over five years of Unix experience,
and was not weaned on crapware originally.
>(I believe it is you that just ordered the machine?)
>
>I'm waiting for you to try and use a news reader other than Agent and
>see what happens.
Actually, I've considered running Agent under win4lin. Anybody know if
it works?
>I'm waiting for you to try running Agent under Whino and see what
>happens.
Perhaps I'll bite the bullet and go with VMWare. Microsoft has already
cost me thousands of dollars, and it would be, as all this is, tax
deductible.
>I'm waiting for you to be forced to do without all of those Windows
>applications you said you will miss (in another post).
I'm forced to do without them now, when Windows crashes on me. I think
I'll manage.
>It's going to be a lot of fun around here in the next couple of weeks,
>but of course I don't expect you to actually admit that Linux sux and
>that you reformatted your drive to Windows, but I have a strong
>feeling that is what will happen.
It is quite possible that, even with all my experience and expertise, it
might still be more trouble than its worth to avoid the monopoly.
You seem blissfully unaware that this argument clearly points to how
little technical merit Windows has, and how forcefully it brings home
the point that they have been illegally monopolizing in order to ensure
this result.
>No, I'm not going anywhere T-Rex, this place is just tooooooo much
>fun......
Too bad you aren't anything more than an annoying part of it we're
forced to deal with despite your lack of brains or ability.
--
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
******************************
