Linux-Advocacy Digest #676, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 12:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Martin Eden)
Re: Windows Has Lost (Craig Kelley)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (John Travis)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:43 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:04:21
>"Bill Shine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I use a linux desktop at home, for a single reason -- Linux gives me the
>> applications that I want, and
>> windows doesn't. I use programming languages
>> (C++,Lisp,Prolog,Java,Perl,Python), text editors (Nedit,vi,emacs), and
>> databases (mysql,interbase) a lot. I find that between KDE 2.0 , Gnome,and
>> Star Office, I have all the "home office Apps" I could want, and I see no
>> reason to spend money on software to replace what I can get for free.
>> Anyone saying that UNIX on a desktop isn't pretty hasn't run Gnome or KDE
>> 2.0. They provide you with a desktop that is superior to the windows
>> desktop. Try it.
>
>Your a programmer genius. When you loose the ability to imagine the perfect
>user interface in CODE FORM, let us know. You offically classify as a
>"geek", and as such, no longer can be concidered a valid test case for Linux
>being bad on the desktop.
I would have to whole-heartedly agree with you there, Kyle.
>If the world ran by people like you, then we would still be using MS-DOS.
If the world ran by people like him, kid, then we wouldn't ever have
wasted time with MS-DOS.
--
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 inconsistant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:45 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:07:59
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > Of course, then there are idiots like you who would choose a Linux
>> > workstation platform as their choice when you knew what would suffer.
>>
>> System Stability and no lost work is...what, exactly?
>>
>> This must be a new definition of "suffer" about which I am unfamiliar.
>
>Yes, actually, you of all people are totaly unfamiliar with the type of
>suffering that would occour. It's called USER INTERFACE, and UNIX
>inherently has poor ones.
See, this is where you go too far, Kyle. I understand what you mean
about Bill and Aaron, but your just simply wrong about this last thing.
Unix inherently has an extremely powerful and capable user interface, or
set of them. Perhaps you find that 'set of them' bit consternating, but
to be honest, you're just someone who's been weaned on Windows, and
wants the Linux system to be more like Macintosh, like Windows.
Too bad. Its not. Deal with it. Everyone else can.
>The average user isn't in the mood to learn the
>in's and out's of CDE or GNOME/"E". They like Windows explorer. They like
>Apple finder. Both of which may look totaly different, but they can claim
>one, unified thing:
>
>They are inutitive.
That's to say they are familiar, and polished. Because once they get
familiar, they get polished. Soon as GNOME gets familiar, it will be
polished, too, and then it will be intuitive.
>And USERS like that.
They like a lot of things. Some of them like to be different. Some of
them like to whine about whatever it is they have, or want, or don't
have.
>> > UNIX on the desktop isn't pretty.
>>
>> Neither are stock cars...yet they beat the pants off normal street cars.
>
>Do you see America driving down the highway in a stock car? They don't BUY
>stock cars. They buy gas guzzeling monster SUV's because of one, simple
>factor; They like how they LOOK. But most importantly, they love how they
>look in them.
Best of all, they love being able to go into any dealer and buy one,
without anyone making sure that no after-market products will fit on
them.
>> > If it were, Microsoft wouldn't be in business.
>>
>> Microsoft Stock is down 80% in the last year. Why is that.
>
>Investor panic. Wait till Sun's stock begins to tank later this year.
Couldn't have anything to do with federal convictions. They're just
going to evaporate, we're told, now that Bush is president. But he
seems to be busy on the religious front. Does anyone know the Pope's
stance on Microsoft? He is infallible, after all, so it might be useful
to know.
--
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 inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:46 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:44:36
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:29:56
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> Well, let's not stir up the "what is a 'standard'?" question again. It
>> >> isn't a standard, the way the word was intended. It was a proprietary
>> >> specification. Now, IBM had a 'standard' use of the proprietary
>> >> specification, but that doesn't make it a "standard", though if you
>were
>> >> to use the phrase "the Microchannel standard", I doubt anyone would
>find
>> >> it incomprehensible, though some few pedantic ones might argue the
>> >> point.
>> >
>> >This whole debate is a bit pedantic. It was a standard so far as it was a
>> >specific hardware protocol and implementation.
>>
>> It is not an act of pedantry to point out that this doesn't make
>> something a standard.
>>
>> >In that, it was as much a
>> >standard as ISA and S-100 were.
>>
>> I'm afraid not.
>>
>> >The only thing "non-standard" about it was
>> >the draconian liscensing costs IBM inflicted on third party
>manufacturers. I
>> >think the wording "widely-accepted-and-implemented-standard" would more
>> >acurately describe what MicroChannel wasn't.
>>
>> Standard, it wasn't. Whether it was widely accepted and implemented
>> does have much to do with that. I think the word you're searching for
>> is 'specification'. It was a specification. A proprietary
>> specification, to be exact; about as far from 'standard' as you can get,
>> except for the special dubious and prone-to-pedantic-problems term "de
>> facto standard", which Microchannel *obviously* doesn't rate.
>
>Alright then, I'll settle on specification...
>
>We agree, at least, that it was an utter failure regardless of label. Shame
>too, the Model 80 wasn't half bad performance-wise. If they'd been a little
>less restrictive with their licensing, it might have actually worked out.
That would have been the problem, you see. Nobody ever said that
Microchannel wasn't good. But it was a pariah; you needed special cards
for it, so everybody knew it was brain-dead to buy into it. Except for
the True Blue shops, of course. But not even all of them, and so IBM's
big 'gambit' to recapture the PC architecture failed. They hoped that
the better technology would have been enough, since they could guarantee
enough forced march to the platform by the True Blue shops to ensure
that MCA cards were only 150% more than standard cards. It might have
actually worked. And then we'd have never seen PCI, either.
--
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 inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:47 GMT
Said Martin Eden in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:14:29
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> Debian is BSD based
>
>Where on earth did you come up with that?
>
>BSD is a family of Operating Systems which does not include Debian. I am
>sure all the people who have worked so hard to develop Debian from
>scratch will enjoy hearing that their product is a knockoff of something
>else.
>
>It's not "based on" BSD any more than Solaris is "based on" BSD.
Solaris isn't based on BSD, its based on System V. SunOS was based on
BSD.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:48 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:28:04
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> Think of penguins on the edge of the Antarctic ice with the terror of
>> >> sea lions in the shallow waters just off shore. Once beyond the
>> >> shallows they can outmaneuver the salons but getting there
>> >> requires running the gauntlet and the first few might not make it.
>> >
>> >Really? Here's how I see it.
>> >
>> >Penguins are standing at the edge of the Antarctic rim, staring at some kind
>> >of golden land beyond the tundra, there is a small land bridge that can be
>> >crossed, but powerful penguins are preaching that the world for penguins is
>> >better in the tundra than "the golden land" could ever be. Of course this
>> >is just an excuse, but it seems to be catchy among the penguins.
>>
>> A strikingly accurate analogy, as well. I'm assuming the tundra is
>> Windows and the "golden land", separated by a small land bridge, is
>> Linux, right? So why are you lauding how "catchy" the deception is?
>
>Close, True desktop operability is the golden land, the land bridge is the
>public eye, and the tundra is where Linux IS. The penguins are Linux.
Kyle, Kyle, Kyle. Where did you pick up this delusion that its a matter
of "convincing" anyone to seek "desktop operability"? Its a matter of
*markets*, Kyle, not lamenting and cajoling on Usenet. Your activism
is, frankly, counter-productive. When the OEMs start selling a lot of
it, then you can go find a job whining, maybe, or be a beta tester.
[...]
>> Because there's no reason for the missing 10% accept to prevent
>> interoperability?
>
>As far as end-users are concerend, StarOffice is 100% compatible.
Shit; most end users are savvy enough to know that not even another
version of Word is going to be 100% compatible.
>StarOffice doesn't do the "O2k" networking stuff (because it's not O2k), but
>still, users aren't flocking to it? Gee, I wonder why... Could it be the
>horrible interface? The patehtic help system? The shitty stability?
The lack of users to flock?
[...]
>> >I don't see Microsoft FORCING StarOffice a shitty product.
>>
>> I do. So does Ed.
>
>Please. Microsoft can't buy lazy programmers, but Sun can hire 'em.
Microsoft can't buy lazy programmers?
>> >> Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot allow
>> >> that.
>> >
>> >Except there is more interoperability NOW then there ever has been in
>> >computing.
>>
>> Again proving something which we all know quite well already, that
>> Microsoftheads don't have the first clue what the term
>> "interoperability" means.
>
>As far as I can see, it's the opisite of the "compatibility" problems we all
>had with MSDOS, Apple, and software for the two platforms.
Lesson One: compatibility and interoperability are not really related.
>It's what the
>people have wished for ever since computing became popular, the ability to
>excahnge, "stuff". We can do that now. I have NO idea what kind of
>interoperability you expect when everyone can come out with their own
>propriotory standard for literaly everything, just like back in the 80's.
I expect them to interoperate, of course, just like back in the 80s.
What were you saying? It got garbled.
--
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: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:50 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:35:45
[...]
>I think distributing PDF format files is an excelent idea. Even if it does
>max bandwidth. [...]
PDF files are generally much smaller than their Word document
counterpart.
--
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: Why "uptime" is important.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:51 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:50:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Here's the way I read your post.
>>
>>I would like Linux, except for the fact that Windows has predatorally
>>maintained an application barrier preventing commercial development of
>>software on alternative platforms.
>
>No.
>He appears to be telling it like it is and that is from an
>applications point of view, Linux is crude, disjointed and simply not
>as easy to use as Windows for a basic user.
That's roughly what I said. Why did you snip the original, though?
>You on the other hand seem to be quite paranoid and on some kind of a
>mission.
I try to speak honestly and rationally as much as possible. Perhaps
you're picking up on that, whoever you are.
>You are blaming the fact that he takes issue with Linux for some valid
>reasons on the predatory marketing practices of Microsoft.
>
>Real weird....
I don't see why. Nor does anyone else. They do see that you're
posturing, though.
--
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: Games? Who cares about games?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:52 GMT
Said Chris Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 04:43:46 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>>
>>
>>Said Bruce Scott TOK in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 Jan 2001 14:59:31
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>I don't play any serious games on computers... no staying power :-)
>>>
>>>I play things like Asteroids, Mahjongg and Shisen-Sho under Linux (they
>>>are KDE programs but well enough written to function properly under
>>>fvwm2).
>>>
>>>I might play real wargames if any became available, but I have never
>>>seen a computer wargame anywhere nearly as good as the board games from
>>>wargaming's heyday in the late 1970s.
>>
>>Alpha Centauri.
>
>Nope. Alpha Centauri is a pale copy of the wargames that's being talked
>about here. A serious Wargamer wouldn't touch Alpha Centauri with a ten-foot
>pole.
Fuck you, you're wrong.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 23 Jan 2001 08:21:09 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Garsh. I almost find myself tempted to ask why they're migrating to Solaris
> > rather than to W2K.
>
> Sun probably paid them a bunch to do it.
>
> However, it was supposed to be completed a long time ago, and I don't
> recall seeing a PR that herralded it, so perhaps they changed their mind.
>
> They were a Unix-type shop to begin with anyhow, the logical choice for
> them was to grow up from Linux and get Solaris. They had NT because one
> of the Senior management was smart and decided to use NT on the back end.
> It served them well, as you can see.
>
> However, I hope they're careful with the Sun migration as you saw
> with eBay what can happen when you rely on Sun for both hardware
> and software.
Do you honestly expect us to believe the stuff you write? It's clear
you either have zero experience with Solaris, or you're a liar. Do
you think Solaris has a MTTF of 38 days as does NT, or 120 days as
does W2K? You're clearly delusional.
Our software vendors won't even supply full IC design solutions on NT,
since 'it is not stable enough of a platform.' Their words, not
mine. The only true end-to-end solution for VLSI design is Sun, and
don't tell me it's because Sun 'paid them a bunch to do it', because
Microsoft could pay them a bunch more if that's all there was to it.
The only thing the two NT servers that we have do is serve up Excel
annd Word documents. Not exactly the most computationally demanding
of tasks. The more you talk about things you clearly have zero
experience with, the more what little bit of credibility you have
goes out the window.
I pity you.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:30:24 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Martin Eden in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:14:29
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >> Debian is BSD based
> >
> >Where on earth did you come up with that?
> >
> >BSD is a family of Operating Systems which does not include Debian. I am
> >sure all the people who have worked so hard to develop Debian from
> >scratch will enjoy hearing that their product is a knockoff of something
> >else.
> >
> >It's not "based on" BSD any more than Solaris is "based on" BSD.
>
> Solaris isn't based on BSD, its based on System V. SunOS was based on
> BSD.
No kidding, c.o.l.a. nut.
>
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
No problem. My door is always open for a Microsoft using Linux fanatic.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Think outside the box.
http://www.freebsd.org/
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Has Lost
Date: 23 Jan 2001 09:30:28 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 Jan 2001 08:34:13
> >Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> "." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Not very. As the Xbox is pretty much a PC, it won't take much work,
> >> seeing as it wou't need a new compiler.
> >
> >Oh, I dont' know: they could do any one of a hundred tricks to keep
> >rogue software out of the system. What if the hardware presented a
> >challenge to the operating system, and if the response was bad it
> >would lock the system down? What if the hard disk was encrypted using
> >a proprietary method, such that it was impossible to examine the disk
> >for any security routines without breaking the encyption first? What
> >if the Pentium III used in the system were modified to prevent people
> >from monitoring pinouts and data transfers?
>
> Without some competitive justification, any one of these would
> constitute a criminal act, to be honest.
How so? There is no legal open protection for this kind of hardware.
It could be interpretted as "anti-competitive" by some, but if they
plan on making revenue from game sales (and they do) while taking a loss
on hardware sales, then it would be justified. Anyone who purchases
an X-Box and then installs Linux on it would be costing them money.
> >Linux/BSD will eventually run on it, but it may be more work than it
> >seems. If they don't lock it down at all then it'll be a great Linux
> >workstation.
>
> Even now, though certainly by then, even 'locking it down' would be
> extremely risky, legally. But there aren't going to be that many PC
> vendors interested in it. Sony, however, would find themselves at it
> yet again; maybe they'll have learned from Accolade, this time.
The PC vendors need to get interested in it; it represents a threat to
their entire business. How long before "X-Box Professional" comes
out; one capable of running a standard monitor and sporting standard
ports? Couple the DMCA with Windows "copyright protection" schemes,
and Microsoft can convert their userbase over to Microsoft hardware
quite easily.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:30:53 GMT
Said Johan Kullstam in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:24:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Max it is quite clear you do not know what you are talking about.
>> >At what level in the OSI stack would you place ethernet, IP, TCP, ftp
>> >for example?
>
>you don't. OSI is not an exact match for the usual internet way.
It isn't an exact match for OSI ways, either. That's why they call it a
"reference model", not an architecture. Still internet protocols and
mechanisms can be abstracted quite well with the OSI model, if you know
now to do it right. Presuming that whatever is commonly called "an
application" is "the application layer", however, is not doing it right.
In fact, its important to recognize that there is no *software* in the
OSI model. The protocols which software implements might correspond to
the layers of the model (in fact, they have to, even if the creators
didn't know it or know what the model was), but to assign software or
hardware devices to 'a layer' is merely to discombobulate the thing.
For example, transmission systems (which include NIC cards for things
like Ethernet, called Access Methods) are layer 2, but that doesn't mean
a NIC card driver "works at layer 2". A NIC card driver doesn't have
anything to do with layer 2, just with the computer and the NIC card its
driving.
>> I'm sure you cannot answer this. Proxies work at the
>> >application layer (7) to give you a little help.
>>
>> I'm not Max (thank God), but I believe IP and TCP would go in Level 5,
>> which is the session layer.
>
>i found this site to be amusing
><URL:http://www.thereese.com/ositaco.html>
Certainly amusing, yes. And a stereotypical example of the common
misunderstanding by many about just what the model is and how it is
applied.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:17:28 GMT
And Martin Eden spoke unto the masses...
:Think outside the box.
Hey that's my line 8^). I have an "aren't computers fun" rant about
getting Be up to share later. Damn powerquest... ;-).
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.1-pre9|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .96 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: 23 Jan 2001 16:32:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:35:45
> [...]
>>I think distributing PDF format files is an excelent idea. Even if it does
>>max bandwidth. [...]
> PDF files are generally much smaller than their Word document
> counterpart.
In this vein, guess what happens to a W2K machine when you use office2000
to read a document you converted in staroffice from .rtf to .doc?
Thats right kids, it locks up solid. Powercycle nessesary.
What was it exactly that windows does well again?
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:37:06 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:30:42
>Users like intuitive. IS likes stability. Guess who won out there.
Monopolists who make unstable systems and call them intuitive.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 23 Jan 2001 09:39:39 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > Now, (I know you can't answer this, but just think about it), how many
> > > articles/100 about Microsoft are favorable, or at least non-bashing?
> >
> > c't is a mainstream computer magazine, probably #1 in Europe.
> > Your theory is full of holes, do you think they can make money
> > by being devoted to windows bashing?
> >
> > > I bet it would be significantly lower, if not zero, than any of the
> > > mainstream tech magazines (PC World & Magazine, Wired, etc).
> >
> > This proves the integrity of c't. They aren't bought by microsoft
> > advertising dollars, they tell it like it is, and that's why c't readers
> > trust them technically.
> >
> > > Are there any benchmarks showing Microsoft leading anything?
> >
> > You mean mindcraft? haven't you heard, that organization has
> > been discredited - they were nothing more than a microsoft puppet.
>
> <sigh>
>
> in c't
>
> Please follow the thread, or don't post, sir.
Please show some Mindcraft tests that are critical of Microsoft.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:42:30 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:50:16
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:41:16 +0100, Peter K�hlmann
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Well, as much as I agree with you on the whole, here you are wrong.
>> >I know for a fact (because I worked for that company 14 years) that
>> >Honeywell / Bull produced Microchannel-machines AND boards.
>> >And they were not the only ones. IBM was NOT alone with MC, although it
>> >never was any good. The advantages were not good enough in the light of the
>> >diasadvantages compared to ISA (VLB / EISA). PCI incorporated many of the
>> >good things of MC.
>>
>> This is true, IBM did Licenses it's MCA to several other companies,
>> which produced MCA machines as well. They were way a head of their
>> time, technically, but the buying public just didn't accept them.
>
>The cost was just a bit too high for the benefits. If they had kept the
>costs down, they'd have had a better chance. I actually liked the
>archetecture. Very efficient.
Obviously, IBM was hoping there were enough clueless people like you
that they could re-proprietize the PC platform. Luckily, they could not
bring the costs down enough, once again pointing out that 'efficiency'
isn't always what you expect it to be.
--
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
******************************
