Linux-Advocacy Digest #647, Volume #31 Mon, 22 Jan 01 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OpenSource Question (mlw)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: OpenSource Question ("Adam Warner")
Re: Tear down the Wall (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tear down the Wall (T. Max Devlin)
So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Russ Lyttle)
Games? Who cares about games? (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:52:17 GMT
THANK YOU.
Anyone who wants to see Linux compete on the desktop, please read this message
- twice or three times even.
Up-time is very important for servers, but if that's all you have to sell to
desktop users, they won't buy it - even if it's free.
Desktop users (end-users) want application availability and ease of use.
To dig a phrase out of the old TQM handbook - "The customer decides what
quality is." It's unpalatable, commercial, and crass, but that is a fact.
I don't like this fact, but I do like Linux, an I want Linux to succeed.
> "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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:54:13 GMT
Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:24:59 GMT;
[...]
>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.
Well, see, in this, flathead/steve has a point. I would be loathe to
use netscape as a news reader. I'd sooner use one of the command-line
do-hickies. I'm looking forward to trying gmail, though. But the kind
of newsreader I like, like Agent, is really not something that's ever
been available on Unix. Its more a descendant of the old BBS
message-base apps then a 'usenet front end' type of thing like tin, or
whatever it was.
>> 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.
Or I'll just get win4lin or vmware express.
--
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: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:56:48 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Driver problems are not the OS's fault unless it was a driver written by MS,
>and even then it's MS's fault, not the OS.
Driver problems are the OS's fault.
>Additionally, a program that crashes repeatedly may not be the OS's fault at
>all.
A program that crashes repeatedly is the OSes fault.
>You may have a locked resource, and the program doesn't error check
>well enough to realize that. Rebooting will cause the resource to be freed
>(for instance, you might have a program running that locks the file. You
>could kill the offending program as well).
A decent OS doesn't have these problems.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OpenSource Question
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:05:12 -0500
Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> (I don't know where else to post this question, if there is a better group
> for OpenSource question please let me know...)
>
> Let's say that my company would like to sponsor 2 or 3 OpenSource
> programmers to help me build a system for in-house use only instead of
> spending an a huge amount of money on a closed proprietary off-the-shelf
> product which only address 2 or 3 needs (in a less then optimal way) out of
> 5.
A great idea. More companies should do this.
>
> Instead, we would build this custom product fully intending to release it
> as OpenSource, however we would release it to the community only after that
> product had reached a basic but significant level of functionality and,
> most importantly, when my company has been firmly established such that
> possesion of this product by competing companies would not introduce a
> significant threat to the well being of our company.
>
> Would this be a bad way of doing OpenSource development, counter to the
> intensions of OpenSource?
Yes and no. If you guys fund 100% of the development, you can make any decision
you want. If you intend to use the open source community to help you do your
development, you must be willing to accept that you can't keep what you are
doing private.
If you base your work on an existing open source system, then it is wrong to
take the work or hundreds or thousands and produce something closed source.
The GPL copyright is an amazing document. If you read it carefully, it is very
careful to spell out reasonable rights and privileges. If you read it
seriously, it makes sense. It gives you a lot of freedom with your own code,
but also gives the authors a lot of rights with theirs.
I have few if any difficulties with the GPL. Every time I have heard people say
it is "wrong, because...," a careful reading clarifies both misconceptions and
a fair balance of the rights of GPL authors and GPL users.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.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: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:06:25 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>"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..."
>
>In other words, the only proof you have that the 65,000 bugs did not include
>feature requests is your suspicion of anything MS does, right?
No, that's not "proof" that I have. That is a valid suspicion, though.
In point of fact, however, I do not have proof that these bugs included
feature requests; nor do you. I would go so far as to admit that you
may, yourself, have a valid suspicion that these bugs did include
feature requests, since that claim was made. The claim was made by
Microsoft, which puts our suspicions into conflict. Aside from throwing
up our hands and declaring "we cannot know", how do you suggest we
resolve the situation? Should we perhaps look to Microsoft's other
public statements, and attempt to analyze whether they are likely to be
truthful in their declarations? Perhaps if we had some internal
documents against which to compare their public statements....
>In case you didn't notice, this was not a response from some PR spin wizard,
>it was taken from the original internal memo that was sent to the Win2k
>team.
Obviously, MS never would have publicly announced they had dozens of
thousands of known unresolved issues, so this stands to reason. You're
obviously as naive as whoever wrote the memo would hope you would be to
take on face value what criteria was used to distinguish "feature
requests" in the "known unresolved issues" list (bug report) from
"critical failures". I wonder if they had a category for "things we
can't fix in this version because it will undermine our illegal
dominance of the market so we'll just promise them in the next version,
then finally add them in the one after that after all the potential
competition is gone".
>> >> >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:"?
>
>What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the quote about the number of bugs you posted, which
clearly said that the number referred to *the Windows 2000 source-code
base*, not "all software shipped with W2K".
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:11:12 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:43:43
>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.
Don't forget uncertainty. Uncertainty is very important, too.
Generally, its best to go for "uncertainty about which 10% won't work",
but in a pinch you can use "uncertainty how it will be a different 10%
in the next version."
>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.
And despite the fact, no doubt, that a number of documents are
unreadable to begin with, in any format, and at least 70% of the rest
might as well be. But that's a different concern.
>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.
And the ironic part is that in a competitive environment, where everyone
*wasn't* using the same wordprocessor, files would be *easier* to
interchange, and nobody would even worry about this mythical impact of
'the network effect', which is actually the result of Microsoft's
intentional churn in file formats.
>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>.
--
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: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:14:16 GMT
Said Peter K�hlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> 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*.
>>
>
>Don't snip too much, here it goes:
>
>-----------------------------
>Routers in networks not using private address space, especially those
>of Internet service providers, are expected to be configured to reject
>(filter out) routing information about private networks. If such a router
>receives such information the rejection shall not be treated as a
>routing protocol error
>-----------------------------
Note the last sentence; if such a router receives such information,
despite the rules about it not being sent, it is *not* treated as a
routing protocol error. QED
>Jedi write:
>>Or routers.
>
>>There are certain addresses that aren't meant to be routed.
>>To do so will cause name collisions.
>
>So he was right, to a certain extend. That part with the name collisions
>is, well, a little bit off. But he is right with the private addresses not
>meant to be routed.
He was wrong, in that he considered this to have anything whatsoever to
do with having servers know not to accept connections from particular
subnets.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:15:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:30:55 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >flatfish, you are utterly clueless. What the hell do you
> >DO with computers?
> >
> >Chris
>
> "I" do nothing with "them", it's what "they" do for "me".
Ah, I thought I'd abstain, but, what the heck, I'll rise to this
troll.
I thought Louie Brillion (spelling?) proved quite awhile ago that
computers do not decrease entropy. Therefore, they cannot do anything
for you. You merely use them to leverage your knowledge. The limitations
of your knowledge are directly reflected in the limitations of your
computer. And then some.
> Applications Chris, applications.
> Tons of useful applications that perform useful (to me and 10 zillion
> other desktop users).
Is a zillion 1.0e12? How much does an application weigh? Define useful.
> I'll tell you what I don't do:
>
> I don't play with config files and that includes the registry with the
> exception of the occasional regclean.
You just contradicted yourself.
> I don't spend my time looking a log files to figure out why pppd
> deamon died.
Neither do I.
> I don't spend time downloading 10's of megabytes of files just to keep
> up to date with kde.
Neither do I.
> I don't spend time fiddling with colors/themes/fonts trying to make a
> decent looking desktop.
I do that in Windows and Linux... I'm easily bored.
> I don't spend time trying 7 different Window mangers because there is
> no one WM that does everything I need, easily.
Luckily, Linux provides quite a few useful Window managers, as opposed
to fairly unconfigurable Windozzzz manager which has to run even on
a server. Weird with a beard.
> I don't spend time figuring out how to star/run and add an icon to the
> menus for the program I just installed.
Neither do I. It is so simple (even simpler than Windozzzzz in some
ways).
> I don't spend time figuring out that mess of IPChains and IP Masq. in
> order to set up a firewall which is probably full of holes anyway
> because the documentation is a mess.
Read "Linux Firewalls" by Robert L. Ziegler, or visit his web site to
have the firewall configured for you.
I finally bought a box. Why? I ended up with a Pentium box that I bought
from a friend, serving as nothing but a firewall. It worked, but what
a waste of a nice box. Now it is a nice server, and I can reset the firewall
by pushing a button.
Ever use /sbin/ip? A hidden gem!
> And last but not least, I never read a cotton picking thing to use
> Windows. In fact it is rare that I even read the read me files that
> come with the programs I use.
Do you use Visual C++?
Do you configure DNS?
Do you use batch files?
Do you use Windows NT?
Do you use Windows 2000?
Do you use Matlab?
Again I ask you, what DO you use your computer for?
> You see Chris, I use applications, lot's of them unlike the
> bit-twiddling Penguinista that spends time compiling kernels.
I probably use more applications than you (unless you count
video games as applications). But who cares?
I compiled a kernel once. I forgot to obtain the current configuration,
so I lost some features with it. But it turned out that I didn't need
to recompile to get an IDE CD burner working. I will compile a kernel
again, I'm sure. I would like to download the Debian source code and
end my dependence on RedHat, some day. Comniling a kernel is pretty
simple; it's the configuration and adding the rest of the code that's
difficult.
Basically, all you've said is that you are a computing know-nothing.
Bit-twiddling is not the sole province of Penguinistas. Winboys do it,
VMS'ers do it, it's been a big thing with computer lovers since well
before the IMSAI computers with a few K of RAM.
> That is what computers do for me.
You said what computers /don't/ do for you. Where's your logic?
You've shown yourself incapable of the simplest Boolean calculations.
A computer is a tool. You've just admitted to an incomplete
knowledge of your tools. Yet you castigate others who do know how
to use the tools, and far more effectively than yourself. You've
shown only that you're a borderline Luddite, and that you're
completely satisfied with your incomplete Window on the
world of computing. You've said, nay, screamed, I don't know too
much, and I'm proud of it! Bill Gates has clasped your hand and
led you to the Promised Land, and it's naught but a womb with
a view. You think you're a real player, but all you can get running
is RealPlayer. You are a surface skimmer. Real work is beyond you,
because your biggest talent may be casting bait and sucking down
the pleasure of the discord that you sow.
You trolled for it, you've caught it. A capsule summary of
your sophomoric sophistry. Babbage cabbage. Fiddling while
your Rome burns, Caesar Au-Gates-Us with a knife in his OS,
sipping his lead-laden cup of bile. Your gallium-arsenide
semiconductor fuctor with Pb. Sipping from a firehose with a
straw, it gets jammed in your craw.
One who does not know how much he does not know. One who does
not grow. A troll, a toll on the Usenet.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OpenSource Question
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:16:26 GMT
Hi Mark,
(I apologise if this post arrives twice. ISP newsserver issues)
<snip>
> Instead, we would build this custom product fully intending to release it
> as OpenSource, however we would release it to the community only after
> that product had reached a basic but significant level of functionality
and,
> most importantly, when my company has been firmly established such that
> possesion of this product by competing companies would not introduce a
> significant threat to the well being of our company.
You are entitled to do so. If you are building the product upon GNU software
you will have to abide by the GNU licensing restrictions. The point where
you want to distribute the program is the point where you must make the
source available to anyone you distribute the program to.
See the GNU GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The preamble puts it quite succinctly:
"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you
must show them these terms so they know their rights."
If you see here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html
You will see how Richard Stallman disliked the original Apple Public Source
License because you couldn't do this, and how it was incompatible with the
GPL:
"Disrespect for privacy
The APSL does not allow you to make a modified version and use it for your
own private purposes, without publishing your changes."
> Would this be a bad way of doing OpenSource development, counter to the
> intentions of OpenSource?
I don't think it is open source development. It is in-house development
built upon open source software. If you later decide to distribute your
efforts then everyone will look forward to the source.
Regards,
Adam Warner
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tear down the Wall
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:18:49 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
19:28:28 GMT;
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:42:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>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
>
>
>Ha! Ha!
>
>You better read that article again Max.
I did. I think the difference is, I understood it. All you saw were
more things to pretend are "failures" of Linux. Let me give you a
pre-emptive "guffaw", and ask you to kindly shut the fuck up and go
away. Stop being childish and just go away.
--
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: Tear down the Wall
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:20:43 GMT
Said Mig in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 20:55:48 +0100;
>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
>
>Why does evertbody seem to think 3D gaming is so cool ? Buy a gameconsole!
If I could get a game console that didn't use a proprietary format,
supported a mouse and joystick as well as pads and special I/O devices
like racing wheels AND a 100 key keyboard, and came for free with my
computer, I might consider it. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:22:04 GMT
I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was up
and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends out
to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
--
Russ
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:41:30 -0500
I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is that out of
the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
--
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
******************************
