Linux-Advocacy Digest #641, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 17:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Mike")
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Poor Linux (J Sloan)
Re: Loki has trouble playiong their own games under Linux!!!!! (Mig)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (J Sloan)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100. (sfcybear)
Crappy CDROM? (mlw)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Tear down the Wall (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:12:41 GMT
JS PL wrote:
> 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!!
This is just the sort of widespread cluelessness among
wintrolls, who endeavor to make people think Linux is too
difficult to use.
Of course the wintrolls are far from reality as usual.
You do not mount a CD to play it - in fact, there's no way
to even mount an audio CD. You just click on the player
icon, wait a moment for the song titles to appear, and click
on the play button.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:13:29 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:40:54 GMT,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
> [...]
>>>Again, your knowledge seems sound, but your understanding is flawed.
>>>There are no subnets 'reserved' for anything, unless you're dealing with
>>>a full-blown firewall (which by nature breaks all those rules about how
>>
>> Or routers.
>>
>> There are certain addresses that aren't meant to be routed.
>> To do so will cause name collisions.
>
>Routers don't have anything to do with names; I'm not sure what a 'name
>collision' is, or what mechanism you're trying to explain. The only
>addresses that "aren't meant to be routed" are 127.0.0.1, and 0.0.0.0.
>Perhaps you got something about DHCP a bit mangled. There was much ado
>about how 0.0.0.0 needs to be handled concerning Cisco's "DHCP
>forwarding".
don't forget 192.168.0.0 and 10.0.0.0, and something in 172.mumble.mumble.0
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:13:42 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At eastern bank, in Massachusetts, today. There was a teller trying to
> get information to a customer. Just as she was looking up the info,
> (remember their is a line of people waiting) she says to the customer,
> "I'm sorry, can you wait until I reboot my machine? It always does
> this."
>
> I asked what they used and the teller told me "Windows." I dropped my
> head in disgust.
>
> The world has been sold a bill of goods that is a fraud. Windows isn't
> usable. It is not a viable platform for any purpose for which you would
> use a computer.
And yet, millions of us use Windows all day, every day, with no problems. I
have three machines, one running NT and two running Win2k. In the past year,
they've had two unexpected crashes. The Unix box on my desk, from a highly
respected Unix workstation vendor, has crashed once during the same time. My
personal experience isn't unique. We now run somewhere around 300 NT
machines at my site, and have no outstanding OS issues.
> Whilst the Winvocates defend the horrible MTTF numbers on all windows
> platforms, I think the real core issue needs to be addressed. If you
> want to play games on your computer, it doesn't really matter much what
> you use. If you use your computer for work. You should hold it and the
> operating system which it runs under the same scrutiny as you would any
> office equipment, such as a fax machine or a copier.
As I mentioned, we run 300 NT machines, and have virtually no problems with
NT4. Our biggest single problem, by a large margin, is with Netscape, which
crashes regularly. Since more and more of our critical applications now
involve accessing databases over browser based interfaces, this has been a
real problem. On the Unix side of things, it's even worse. Unix Netscape has
lagged way behind the PC versions, and for a long time we've either been
unable to run the applications or had terrible reliability. Until a few
months ago, Unix users have been unable to use the travel reservation system
or the expense reporting system at all.
> This information must be made public, not just to the techies, but
> everyone. People that don't want to know about cars, still know about
> anti-lock brakes and fuel injection, because it is important for their
> purchasing decisions.
Ugh. I hate automobile analogies.
I remember Peter Lynch making a case for buying Chrysler stock in Barrons a
few years ago. Someone pointed out that they had the worst reliability in
the industry. He said something to the effect of, "So what? That's not what
matters to people. They want a minivan with the right features, and cars
with good styling." He was right. Chrysler stock did very well, as Chrysler
delivered the features people wanted at a good price point. You could
lecture customers for hours about the benefits of whatever features your car
has under the hood, but it wouldn't really matter.
That leaves you in the same position you were in several weeks ago, when you
asked how Linux was going to get onto the desktop. Your list of important
features in a car is different than the woman buying the minivan, and your
approach seems to be to try to convince her that her important feature list
is wrong. It's not going to work.
Similarly, my important feature list for a computer is different than yours.
You can try to lecture me all day about what's more important, but at the
end of the day, I'm buying the product that most closely matches my feature
list. If you want to sell me your product, you have to start by finding out
what my feature list is, and trying to match it.
As you've pointed out in the past, there's nothing Windows can do that Linux
can't. But there are reasons that, even though I'm a fully competent Unix
user, the machines I buy for myself run Windows. On the other hand, there
are no reasons that it has to stay that way.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 21 Jan 2001 21:19:26 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Oh, and to address "WYSIWYG" criteria. There is no such capability in
: HTML, and people that assume there is always make web pages with serious
: formatting errors. The rule is write the page and try it on many
: browsers with different fonts and screen resolutions.
A few other issues with the "WYSIWYG" school of "HTML" generation:
* Standard HTML separates content from presentation. Content should
NEVER have <FONT> tags and that sort of thing; that's what styles
are for.
* Opening tags MUST have matching closing tags. Most browsers will
forgive minor violations of this rule, but some will not.
* If it isn't HTML, then it isn't a Web page, even though it may
seem to work in some brain-damaged version of IE. And if it
doesn't pass the tests in http://validator.w3.org, then it isn't
HTML.
* The "Javascript" code and "Java" applets generated by many tools
are badly broken.
* Properly generated HTML is human-readable and editable. Tools that
spew nonreadable HTML are in my opinion worse than useless.
* The "HTML Tidy" program (http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/)
can help fix the broken HTML generated by bad "WYSIWYG" HTML editing
software.
Joe
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:20:30 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.
How could I have saved a bundle, since I didn't spend a bundle?
I got the OEM version at a computer show after I heard that
there would be Linux drivers for it - it was like $40 or so, and
I needed a PCI soundcard - my old faithful SB16 was fine,
but ISA slots are getting scarce these days.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Loki has trouble playiong their own games under Linux!!!!!
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:16:04 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/4/ns-13122.html
>
> Here's a snippet:
>
>
> "Even our developers have trouble getting (games) going," said Scott
> Draeker, president of Loki, during a conference session at the
> LinuxWorld show here, emphasising the difficulty of setting up Linux
> platforms for gaming. "(The Linux situation) is reminiscent of the bad
> ol' days of DOS."
Then should go for one distro.. no more problems
"Draeker said he expects his company to release 16 games this year, up from
eight in 1999. Each game is a port to Linux from Windows. Next year, Draker
hopes to release at least 40 titles. "
> But this one is my favorite!
>
> "How bad, exactly? Ray Schwamberger, a Linux technician for Atipa
> Linux Solutions, spent two hours tweaking and configuring a dozen
> computers at his company's LinuxWorld booth so they could adequately
> run Quake 3 and demo Atipa's Linux PC. "
>
>
> This stuff is HYSTERICAL!!!!!!!
Wow configuring 12 PC's in 120 minuttes.. thats 10 mins/PC.. thats fast.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:26:39 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > Oh, I understand, I just don't have the patience to deal with the idiocy
> > every time the electricity hups.
>
> Mine reprograms itself from Teletext, which constantly broadcasts the time.
>
Cool.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:24:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
Linux has great for me - if you prefer windows, good for you,
I wish you a good life, and don't let the door hit you in the ass
on the way out!
> I'm waiting for you to try and use a news reader other than Agent and
> see what happens.
I find netscape communicator does a passable job.
> IIt'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.
Sorry to shock you with the facts old chap, but it nearly always
goes the other way - people try Linux, then get into it, and finally
reformat their windows drive for mp3 storage or something of a
similar nature.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:28:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> They don't have to. People use it because it works for them.
Nope, people use it because they're stuck with it.
It's the only thing they have ever heard of, and the
lock-in effect strongly discourages any effort to find
out about alternatives.
> Linux can't even be given away, and that is even more so when it is
> actually tried for the first time by a home user.
This is typical nonsense from claire - Linux is spreading like
crabgrass and he's beside himself over it, and in denial.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:34:18 GMT
Peter Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:24:02 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
> 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.
Unlike the local wintrolls, I have actually used gcc-2.96 on RH7,
and it works just fine - The "kernel gcc" aka "kgcc", was provided
for the paranoid, specifically for kernel compilation, which has
exceedingly rigorous requirements. But the 2.4 kernel compiled with
gcc-2.96 seems to be just fine - as it should be, considering the
considerable compiler expertise of cygnus.
> Wasn't kgcc put in for compiling kernels?
precisely for that reason, for the truly paranoid.
> Jusr remove the current link to gcc and replace it with a link to kgcc and
> all will be as it should have been in the first place.
Probably won't harm anything, but some of the more advanced
c++ compiler features needed by some high end customers
wont be there with the older gcc.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:49:12 GMT
Mike wrote:
> And yet, millions of us use Windows all day, every day, with no problems.
Do you think the readership here lives in a cave and have been
waiting just to hear your testimony? No, we know that millions use
windows every day, and have millions of problems.
> As I mentioned, we run 300 NT machines, and have virtually no problems with
> NT4.
You are either exceedingly fortunate, deceived, or attempting to
deceive us.
jjs
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:36:34 GMT
In article <94fa8f$dnni$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Remeber
> > Uptimes? I went though and showed that even if the W2K comuters had
ALL
> > the uptime attributied to ALL the MS OS's (NT, W2K, Win9*) and the
> > average uptime for W2K was calculated based on this inflated number,
W2K
> > would STILL have an average up time that was far LESS than the
average
> > uptime of Linux!
>
> i don't understand this. how can adding win98 computers in the mix
increase
> the average uptime?
Read it again, SLLLOOOOWWWWLLLLLY. I never said I was adding win98 to
the mix, I said I atributed all the uptime they had reported to W2K. I
actualy REMOVED the Win98 boxes but attributed the amount of *TIME* they
attribtuted to the W2K boxes. Increasing the amount of time amount of
time atributed to the W2K servers. Thus inreasing their average uptime
dramaticaly.
Try reading over this, It was done at the time that win98 numbers were
reported and I could factor the uptime they reported into the amount of
uptime I attributed to W2K. If they are not reporting uptime, then there
is less uptime I can attribute to W2K and the number would be lower,
closer to the actual W2K number.
http://x76.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=5&AN=702846300.1&mhitnum=6&CONTEXT=976374076.1878327313
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes by OS, for the Hot 100.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:40:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In another thread Ayende Rahien reminded me where to find the Hot 100
> (thanks!), so I've pulled the list and done a current analysis.
>
> Hot 100, as of 17-Jan-2001
> Courtesy of http://www.100hot.com/directory/100hot/index.html
>
> Uptimes as of 21-Jan-2001
> Courtesy of www.netcraft.com
>
> Use "latest" 90-day moving average.
> If average is over < 90 days, did not log that fact here.
> Add "www." if the site gives a list.
>
> yahoo.com .FreeBSD, no info
> microsoft.com .W2K, 15.63
> lycos.com .Tru64, no info
> aol.com .Solaris, 234.56
> altavista.com .Tru64, no info
> egroups.com .FreeBSD, no info
> excite.com .Solaris, no info
> go.com .Solaris, 31.50
> google.com .Linux, 44.53
> cnet.com .Solaris, 40.25
> cnn.com .Solaris, 32.21
> fortunecity.com .Solaris, 9.39
> looksmart.com .Solaris, 31.96
> chek.com .Linux, no info
> ugo.com .NT4/98, no info
> amazon.com .Linux, 42.33
> snowball.com .Solaris, 52.80
> usa.net .W2K, 7.96
> quote.com .unknown (but IIs5), no info
> ebay.com .Solaris, 42.51
> nai.com .NT4/98, no info
> acm.org .AIX, no info
> macromedia.com .Solaris, no info
> rational.com .Solaris, 79.28
> zdnet.com .Solaris, 81.01
> spedia.net .Linux, 63.63
> homestead.com .NT4/98, no info
> sportsline.com .Solaris, 16.69
> burstnet.com .Linux, 89.39
> adbutler.com .Linux, 5.84
> uspto.gov .<not in database>
> reuters.com .Solaris, 7.71
> weather.com .Solaris, 85.45
> lettera.net .NT4/98, no info
> about.com .FreeBSD, no info
> pathfinder.com .Solaris, 334.76
> mail.com .Solaris, no info
> mtnsms.com .W2K, 9.88
> nodak.edu .<not in database>
> click2net.com .FreeBSD, no info
> real.com .Linux, no info
> theglobe.com .NT4/98, no info
> wwf.com .Linux, no info
> nbci.com .Solaris, 23.03
> nettaxi.com .Solaris, no info
> myalert.com .<not in database>
> msnbc.com .W2K, 20.54
> sun.com .Solaris, 55.54
> sony.com .Solaris, 42.49
> mtv.com .Solaris, 79.84
> aveo-attune.com .<not in database>
> monster.com .IIS on unknown, no info
> mamma.com .Linux, 18.43
> eudoramail.com .Solaris, 7.42
> filepool.com .<not in database>
> everyone.net .Linux, 26.74
> passport.com .W2K, 36.57
> cjb.net .FreeBSD, no info
> mp3.com .Linux, 48.36
> webjump.com .NT4/98, no info
> jackpot.com .W2K, 3.84
> oracle.com .Solaris, 17.32
> freedrive.com .NT4/98, no info
> efront.com .FreeBSD, no info
> metropoli2000.net .Linux[*], no info
> mryy.com .unknown, no info
> delphi.com .unknown, no info
> gsmbox.com .Linux, no info
> netflip.com .Solaris, no info
> web1000.com .NT4/98, no info
> tucows.com .Linux, 35.81
> targetnet.com .FreeBSD, no info
> windowsmedia.com .W2K, 45.05
> speedyclick.com .Linux, 21.73
> nytimes.com .Solaris, 54.76
> nasa.gov .<not in database>
> internet.com .Solaris, 43.59
> epilot.com .W2K, 12.04
> webshots.com .Linux, 56.49
> bizland.com .Linux, 6.59
> talkcity.com .Solaris, 39.94
> tenmax.com .NT4/98, no info
> apple.com .Solaris, 75.14
> brinkster.com .unknown (but IIs5), no info
> dell.com .W2K, 11.82
> terra.com .Solaris, 26.36
> friendfinder.com .Linux, 4.94
> hp.com .HP-UX, no info
> developer.com .Solaris, 82.65
> tminterzines.com .BSD/OS, 38.28
> ea.com .Solaris, 28.36
> clickagents.com .Solaris, 6.26
> winamp.com .Solaris, 48.26
> 50megs.com .Linux, 49.35
> homepage.com .W2K, 42.97
> usatoday.com .Solaris, 94.38
> unicast.com .<not in database>
> infospace.com .W2K, 11.77
> zzn.com .unknown (but IIs3), no info
> foxnews.com .Tru64, no info
>
> [*] "Microsoft-IIS/6.0PR2 (Unix) PHP/4.0.4 on Linux"
>
> There may be even more errors in the following counts and averages
than
> there are in the transcriptions above. I did not check my arithmetic,
> because everyone but Chad already knows how it's going to turn out.
> He's welcome to check it if he thinks he can wrangle any advantage out
> of it. (He'll need it.)
>
> Solaris - 35 sites (30 with stats), avg 60.18, max 334.76, min 6.26
> Linux - 19 sites (14 with stats), avg 36.73, max 89.39, min 4.94
> W2K - 11 sites, avg 19.82, max 45.05, min 3.84
>
> Using Linux as the benchmark (simply because it's the median), you
get:
>
> Solaris - 1.65
> Linux - 1.00
> W2K - 0.54 (State-of-the-art Unix killer, tee hee.)
>
> Others:
>
> NT4 or W98 - 9 sites, no info.
> BSD - 8 sites (of which 7 are FreeBSD), mostly no stats.
> Tru64 - 3 sites, no stats.
> HP-UX - 1 site, no stats.
> AIX - 1 site, no stats
>
> 6 unknown, 7 not in database.
>
> Total 100
>
> Corrections welcome.
>
> Ready to spin, Chad. Notice that Linux and MS have approximately the
> same share of these "fluffy the cat" sites, though almost half the
> MS-based sites haven't seen fit to upgrade to W2K.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
Very cool! Thanks for the work!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Crappy CDROM?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:56:29 -0500
Here's one for you:
I have a dual processor system, and a Promise IDE66 card. I have a CDROM
and a CDWR on one channel, and a hard disk on the other. The IDE ports
on the MOBO are also filled.
If I do this:
cat /dev/cdrom > file.iso
cat /dev/cdrom | cmp file.iso
(With the file on a MOBO controlled disk) It runs until end of file,
with no errors.
If, while I am doing that, I copy a big file from one drive to the drive
on the promise card, I get compare errors.
I was thinking that this was a bug in the Promise driver and SMP (this
card has been a problem from the start). So I slam it with copying and
comparing GB sized files, across various drives too and from the drive
on the promise card. no errors. Then I try the CD dump while comparing
files, but this time I try it with the CDWR driver, no errors.
I try the CD dump/compare again with the CDROM drive, I get errors (it
wasn't a fluke). It seems as though it is a bad CDROM drive, or at least
one which is very sensitive to noise.
Does this behavior worry anyone? I have always been worried about IDE,
it seems ill designed for the speeds at which it is transferring data.
Am I being paranoid and this is just a bad CDROM drive?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:04:49 +0000
> But you know how to use them all. You figured them all out with no
> problem. So it really is quite a trivial matter if they don't actually
> affect your work.
True, but it kinda makes a mockery of a desktop on Linux. With one
application it works one way, with another, yet another...
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:06:49 +0000
mlw wrote:
> > Mine reprograms itself from Teletext, which constantly broadcasts the
> > time.
>
> Cool.
In fact when I first bought it, it self tuned, found the time and was up
and working within a few minutes. It copes with British Summer Time, again
by monitoring Teletext.
Unfortunately, it doesn't make tea.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tear down the Wall
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:13:21 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/4/ns-13122.html
>
> Linux picking up its game
>
> Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:26:32 GMT
> Robert Lemos, ZDNet News US
>
> 3-D gaming components of Linux to be done by summer, say
> graphics chip makers and game developers
I would love to see display vendors shipping their own X driver, cool.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
