Linux-Advocacy Digest #636, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 13:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Poor Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Poor Linux (.)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (.)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (sfcybear)
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (sfcybear)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Bob Hauck)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:16:45 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:49:54
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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,
>> 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.
>
>Whoa... when has Max finally understood anything?
Guffaw.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:19:57 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:48:59
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Or is that some sort of IA-64
>
>Yes. IA-64 will be shipped when IA-64 ships, or shortly after.
The 64 bit Windows is not expected to ship for at least *SIX MONTHS*
after the Itanium is available. Just about every major Unix vendor will
be there by then (including Linux).
"Shortly after". What a load of steaming bullshit.
>> or Alpha port?
>
>No. You know that story =)
Indeed, we do. We also know the lies that you and Microsoft provide in
place of that story. ;-)
--
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 17:23:11 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:58:47 -0500;
[...]
>Just trying to explain it would be revolting.
>"O.K. grandma, to play the cd you'll have to mount the cd drive." NO NO
>STOP!! Step away from the computer granmdma!!
I would expect that Linux has had automount for a number of years. Can
somebody confirm this?
--
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:26:23 GMT
On 21 Jan 2001 16:19:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>Or you could have been like claire and thought that a soundblaster live was
>an appropriate soundcard for high level sound engineering.
>
>Ummm. Yeah.
Err, no mr "."
SBLive is simply used to check mixes on my "shit, consumer" system so
I can get a decent idea what things will sound like on the average
boombox/mini-system. It's also for playing games on occasion and is
used to drive my outboard D/A converters on rare occasions.
Primary audio card is:
http://www.midiman.com/m-audio.htm
Notice the drivers section...
BTW how many times are you going to post this false accusation?
>
>
>
>-----.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
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 17:31:34 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:54:29 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >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.
>
>But you would have no way of knowing that I lie when I say that in approx.
>11 months my Win2K OS has crashed exactly "once".
Yes, I would. Reason alone is more than enough to consider such a
statement a fabrication, predicated on a highly selective consideration
of what a 'crash' is, and more importantly on whether it was 'the OS'.
Whether it is intentionally dishonest, or a baldfaced lie (which is,
BTW, an inadvertent, not an obvious, lie) is not so easy to determine,
though given your posting history, the former seems slightly more
likely.
>Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on my own.
Using it is generally sufficient for most, but not all, installations.
>You've never had any experience with Windows 2000 in your life except what
>you've read.
To the contrary; my first experience showed that the OS itself crashes
slightly less often than NT (in keeping with the '13 times more
reliable' statistic, given the difference between the real-world and
published studies, even studies of real-world behavior.) Which is to
say it crashes occasionally, instead of routinely. Of course, all the
applications, drivers, utilities, and such crash even *more* often (the
X server bombed twice and the Explorer shell itself failed either once
or twice, depending on how you count it, the very first time I saw W2K.)
>So you just go ahead and advocate an OS you don't use while bashing an OS
>you've never used and do it all using Windows98 to do the bashing.
I've used Linux, I just don't use it routinely at the moment; I've been
using Unix professionally for years. I've used Microsoft OSes since
they first appeared, and find them all to be nothing more than monopoly
crapware; unacceptable to any free market, but irrevocably forced on the
consumer.
--
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 17:34:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2001 16:19:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>
>>Or you could have been like claire and thought that a soundblaster live was
>>an appropriate soundcard for high level sound engineering.
>>
>>Ummm. Yeah.
> Err, no mr "."
> SBLive is simply used to check mixes on my "shit, consumer" system so
> I can get a decent idea what things will sound like on the average
> boombox/mini-system. It's also for playing games on occasion and is
> used to drive my outboard D/A converters on rare occasions.
Aw. Its sweet that you think you do actual "sound engineering" though.
> Primary audio card is:
> http://www.midiman.com/m-audio.htm
Yeah? Which one exactly?
Nice use of search engines, glad you finally learned how to make them
work.
> Notice the drivers section...
This whole thing would have been much more interesting if youd sworn
that you used a Tascam or something for your mixing requirements.
Not that I would have been impressed, but I would have been more likely
to believe that you were telling the truth about doing sound engineering.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 21 Jan 2001 17:35:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > I don't recall saying that Fortune 500 = top web site. Nor do
>> > I see that anywhere in my previous post. Please show us where
>> > you see this.
>>
>> No, you *didn't* say it. And *we* are saying that you should be looking at
> the
>> top sites rather than the Fortune 500.
> Another argument with which I do not agree on the merits.
> Looking at the Hot 100 _AND_ looking at the Fortune 500 tell different stories.
> Many of the sites on the Hot 100 are start ups or purely web businesses which
> don't have a high profit margin, or any at all.
Dont forget kids, if chad meyers doesnt like statistics, they must therefore
be false.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: al.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:37:37 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:35:21 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
.
>
>I am interested in information, not data.
Well, you got it wrong...
>Well, so now we have proof you aren't entirely bereft of reading
>comprehension skills. Good Job, Claire!
You made the statements not me. I merely summarized.
>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.
With the exception of Mac which I am just getting into, my resume
reads pretty much the same, but you can add in Atari and TRS-80 into
it and pretty much eliminate Unix except for some AIX sys admin
courses. Until Linx of course which I go back about 4 years or so
with, off and on though. Mostly off.
>Yes, the opportunity to directly observe and compare the harm caused by
>monopolization is, indeed, one of my goals.
I'll leave it at that, but based upon the applications you mentioned
you are in for a surprise at how crude some of the Linux alternatives
really are. You will also see quite clearly, how desktop users have to
settle for crude inconsistent applications when running Linux.
You'll never admit it though.
After the novelty of the new system wears off, and that joyous feeling
of being Gates free, the warts will start growing.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:22:28 GMT
"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
> > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >Hmm, you know, it's ironic. When the 65K number came out for Win2K,
> > >> >it was a.) grossly inflated, b.) included feature requests and feature
> > >> >change requests c.) included other products and projects related to
> > >Win2K.
> > >>
> > >> Hmm, you know, that's interesting. Because all three of those are
> > >> baseless suppositions that have already been refuted here. It was MS's
> > >> own number, it did not include feature requests (but "real issues"),
> and
> > >> it was exclusively the OS.
> > >
> > >No, it's not. You are entirely baseless here Max.
> > >
> > >From the original article:
> > >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
> > >
> > >"According to the Microsoft memo, the Windows 2000 source-code base
> > >contains:
> > >
> > [...]
> > >> No, that's what we've been trying to tell you. Its *not* OK to lie
> > >> about W2K and completely misrepresent facts, and we'd appreciate it if
> > >> you'd stop doing it.
> > >
> > >You're lying about it (as I just proved), so why the dual standard?
> >
> > Your brains are leaking out, again, Erik. "According to Microsoft..."
> > is pretty much like saying "if you are dumb enough to believe it..."
> >
> > >> >b.) It's not ok to take a concrete number from Debian's site and
> repeat
> > >> > it as fact
> > >>
> > >> Again, you seem to have inverted the message. The number on Debian's
> > >> site is known to include all software shipped with the distribution.
> > >
> > >And MS's bug list includes all software shipped with it as well.
> >
> > Then what happened to "the Windows 2000 source-code base
> > contains:"?
> >
> > >> >c.) Linux has no bugs and its absurd to assert that notion.
> > >>
> > >> You are batting .000 here, Chad. One baldfaced lie after another.
> What
> > >> is wrong with you?
> > >
> > >That's sarcasm. Look it up.
> >
> > Perhaps the whole response was sarcasm. But I can't see you're saying
> > that someone else said "linux has no bugs" as any different from your
> > saying that someone said "its OK to lie about W2K". One might think it
> > was sarcasm coming from anybody else. For you, I'd call it trolling.
>
> I haven't run accross ANY of the supposed 64,000 bugs in Win2k in 11 months.
> Where might I find one of them to test out. I'm running Win2k pro, and have
> Administrator access to Server and Advanced Server, give me a hint on
> uncovering ONE of the 64,000 imaginary bugs.
Now you've crossed the line. You've asked T. Max Devlin to produce facts.
Don't you know that that would break his streak of fact-less posts?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 21 Jan 2001 17:37:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Shall I continue?
>>
>> Yes, but cut to the chase and tell us how many of the Fortune 500 are also in
> the
>> Hot 100.
> There are two different arguments.
> Yes, IIS doesn't have a huge lead in the Hot 100, however, it's #2 at last
> figure
> (however the hot 100 changes with great frequency, it's entirely possible that
> IIS has retaken the lead).
> I'm talking about the Fortune 500, now, which is a different argument.
> Yes, the Fortune 500 may not be the hit-leaders of the world, but they
> certainly do carry a large porition of the total number of hits out there.
Actually, they carry a very, very small portion of the total number of hits
out there. The gauge of your seive is too small, chad.
And besides that, I work for a fortune 500 company---and every single administrator
of both windows and unix in the company agrees that IIS sucks the most balls of
any web or ftp server in existance.
Not that youre going to reply to this of course. You are confused and irritated
in the face of truth, and choose to ignore it instead of comment.
=====.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:27:41 GMT
In article <94chqm$esm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <MGda6.1010$[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.
>
> > Um, to install 10,000 to 20,000 computers in 4 years would mean they
> > would be installing 2,500 to 5,000 computers a year. That is an
> > impressive number when you think of the issues involved! I'll be
> > impressed if they get it done by the end of 2006. But hey Eric, Show
us
> > anything that indecates that ANYONE is even THINKING of doing the
same
> > with W2K.
>
> Ummm...
>
> Actually, you can very easily plug in any number of blank computers
> and have them all kickstart and install themselves off of ONE linux
> machine.
>
> Personally, ive set 20 machines to image themselves after one central
> machine and gone to lunch; when I came back they were all done and
> happy.
>
> Theres no reason that you wouldnt be able to do this on a very large
> scale.
>
Loading the software onto the box is only a small part of every thing
required for this project. Think power, floor space, and air
contitioning all of which needs to be set up BEFORE you even start to
build the system. Then think about working out the bugs of such a large
system!
> -----.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:34:17 GMT
In article <94f226$bf1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> [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.
Actualy, I think that I would be more impressed with a single machine
running 20,000 processors than a 20,000 node cluster. Not that I would
think this the best way to go for most large scale sites, but it could
have its place. But the way I read the article, it seems a bit vauge on
what a "machine" is. It seems the author interchages the word system and
machine in such a way that makes me think that he did not understand
what the difference is.
>
> -----.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:40:57 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:33:48 \
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Stop distorting the truth. It *DID* in fact include feature requests, and
>> it did include issues such as problems with existing programs. For
>> instance, shortly after WIndows 2000 was released, MS released a
>> "compatibility update", which addresses compatiblity issues with software.
>> You know damn well that software was listed in the bug database.
>
>It's interesting to note that Max didn't provide any facts to counter my
>claim (which I made from facts which had come up in previous debates circling
>this same 65k bugs claim).
Yes, I did. I pointed out you were lying, and that's a fact. You seem
to be thinking of 'references', or perhaps 'research or evidence'. You
are correct that I provided none of those. I'm not in the business of
spending time researching your lies.
>Yet another factless post from T. Max Devlin. He's on a streak now. He's
>taken the lead from the supreme liar MiG.
>
>(Thank god I have them all killfiled!)
Now if only you'd take the extra step of going away, we could get back
to discussing Linux, instead of fending of Winidiots.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:42:35 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:07:46 -0500;
[...]
>I haven't run accross ANY of the supposed 64,000 bugs in Win2k in 11 months.
Sure you have; you just didn't recognize it. Think back to the last
time an app crashed repeatedly, but then ran fine after a reboot.
That's the OS's fault. Consider how many 'driver problems' you've run
into. Those are the OS's fault.
>Where might I find one of them to test out. I'm running Win2k pro, and have
>Administrator access to Server and Advanced Server, give me a hint on
>uncovering ONE of the 64,000 imaginary bugs.
Well, you did mention that you've had one crash in the last 11 months.
Why doesn't that count?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:43:43 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:16:35 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Really? StarOffice is 90% Microsoft Office format compatible, yet no
> one is using it. Why? Well, the horrible interface, the
> overcomplicated documentation and the amazing lack of performance is
> seems to have acquired on all platforms.
No. It is because of the 90% interoperability, or rather the _fear_
that something important might not convert. Even 100% compatibility
would not be good enough if MS can plant enough doubt.
I brought up the idea of using Star Office to the IT committee at work.
It would save thousands in licensing costs after all, and runs on all of
the platforms we use (NT, Solaris, Linux). No one wanted to even
consider it, sight unseen, because of the risk that document exchange
with our customers might be hampered by imperfect conversions. Nobody
was even willing to do any testing, even though I have been using SO for
months without anybody noticing.
I'll say it again...*without having ever even seen Star Office*, it was
rejected on the basis that perfect compatibility with our customer's
word processor is required. In fact, that was _also_ the reason given
for not upgrading to Office 2000, that our customers hadn't yet and we
did not want to risk incompatibility.
The quality of the UI, documentation, and performance, or lack of same,
has *nothing* to do with the acceptance of Star Office.
BTW, I was able to convince a few people that if we are so concerned
that our documents look perfect, we should send out PDF instead of Word
format. One can't be sure that our customers have the same fonts and
printers that we do after all and embedded diagrams in particular can
get blown apart by that. PDF handles this well, Word format doesn't.
We'll get to the next logical step in due time <g>.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:43:47 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:04:23 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I find it hilarious that this Myers asshole calls me "Mr. Personal
>Attack", when I see people posting messages under the name
>"[email protected]".
If you make fun of him he'll put you in his killfile. That'll show you.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:43:45 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:56:32 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Of course not. That's what choice means. Things aren't forced into a
>> consistent mold.
> Can you imagine what kind of chaos would reign if there were no
> standards for gasoline, or if there were 50 standards?
That is a very flawed analogy. For one thing, if the "type 18" gas
doesn't work at all in my car that requires "type 27", then that is a
much more severe impairment than Goodwin's not wanting to learn what to
click on if the "save" dialog looks a little different. The former is a
lack of functionality, the latter is a nearly trivial inconvenience.
To make the analogy reasonable, you'd have to postulate 50 kinds of gas
that all smell different or are different colors but which have only
trivial differences in functionality.
> Or what about if there were were 20 different telivision standards?
> You'd need to buy a TV that handled all of them, or be stuck watching
> only those channels that your TV supported.
Another flawed analogy, for the same reason. Total lack of
functionality is being compared to a trivial inconvenience.
> In many situations, too much (or even any) choice is BAD for the
> consumer.
Yes, but user interfaces for computers doesn't happen to be one of those
situations.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:43:49 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:00:09 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd take this non-problem over a retarded and elementary design
>flaw that prevents ext2fs from handling larger than 2GB files.
For the millionth time, the flaw was *not* in ext2 but in the 32-bit
Linux kernels.
What's with this "big lie" technique you've started using?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:43:51 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:49:28 GMT, Lloyd Llewellyn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
The latter. HTML just isn't that hard and modern text editors have lots
of nifty features for handling it.
The big problem with crashes isn't the time spent rebooting, or the time
spent re-doing lost work, or any of those immediate things. The problem
is that the user comes to not trust the system and alters his work
habits so as to minimize problems, often in ways that reduce his
productivity (and which often don't really minimize problems either).
The user becomes superstitious, repeating mantras like "reboot every
morning", "save early and often", and "run only one program at a time"
because he does not know when the system will fail next or what causes
the failures. This reduces his productivity compared to what it could
be if he were able to take full advantage of his tools.
It is difficult to be productive while waving vodoo dolls about in the
hope that your hard work won't get flushed down the toilet on the whim
of your computer.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [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 17:44:01 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:54:29 -0500, "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>So you just go ahead and advocate an OS you don't use while bashing an OS
>you've never used and do it all using Windows98 to do the bashing.
He'll be using Linux real soon now.
I can't wait.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [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 17:44:45 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:23:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I would expect that Linux has had automount for a number of years. Can
>somebody confirm this?
You'll know for yourself in a week or so.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
