Linux-Advocacy Digest #679, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: The *BEST* advertising! (Giuliano Colla)
I gota kick out of this... (sfcybear)
Re: Windows 2000 (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Steve Mading)
Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (.)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (spam)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Steve Mading)
Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Re: Games? Who cares about games?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:47:40 -0000
On 22 Jan 2001 23:06:53 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 22 Jan 2001 18:53:18 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
>> >
>> >MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
>> >europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
>> >
>> >Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
>linux?
>>
>> You mean besides RealVideo and Quicktime?
>
>there is a quicktime streaming server? I thought linux couldn't play
>quicktime?
>
>Forgot about realvideo, it's a loser format...
Sour grapes from a Lemming.
...how pathetic.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:50:00 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I won't even go into what happens when a Mac user tries Linux.
>
> Why on earth not?
>
> I was a die-hard mac-head (having come from the Amiga school) when I first
> tried linux. The first linux I ever installed was MKLinux DR2. It was
> admittedly difficult to understand, having previous unix experience only
> on a very large scale; It took me most of a day to install it. In those
> days (especially with MKlinux) installation was a pain for EVERYONE; you
> had to partition an unused drive by hand and then lay a filesystem down
> the LONG way (byte checks with an uber-old A/UX filesystem utility that
> only worked from the boot prom). THEN you had to lay the actual operating
> system by hand by unpacking an enormous tarball and moving everything to
> where it belonged manually.
>
> But it worked, and it worked very well. Because I applied "thinking" to
> the "problem" of linux, I "solved" it early on, and "understanding" was
> the result. I never used MacOS again (I believe 7.5.1 had just come out).
>
> Linux is much easier these days. It hardly takes any brainpower at all.
>
> Why you cant make it go is beyond me, claire. I used to postulate that
> if you could TYPE, you could understand linux. I'm going to have to revise
> that postulate.
>
Maybe he's using IBM's ViaVoice! (which is also available
for Linux BTW)
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I gota kick out of this...
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:44:53 GMT
http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: 23 Jan 2001 19:42:17 GMT
Ed Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:38:11
: [...]
:>>You are so misunderstanding what is being said. I'm merely pointing out why
:>>multi-platform support, (which this thread had veered into), was/is so poor
:>>as to be non-existent.
:>
:>But you are mistaken; I am not misunderstanding you, I'm disagreeing
:>with you. I am merely pointing out that the reason multi-platform
:>support is poor is because of illegal behavior, and that alone. Your
:>attempts to rationalize it as 'appropriate behavior under certain
:>circumstances' is a thinly veiled apology for a monopolist.
:>
: I would like to inject here that I think the reason, though they
: would deny it, that M$ dropped the other ports of NT and never even
: attempted a port of WinDOS was that adapting to other hardware
: forces a rationalizing of interfaces which would have made cloning
: like WINE easier.
Actually, I think the reason for it is that the only reason Windows
is popular at all is because of all the applications that are only
released for Windows and nothing else, not because the OS itself is
all that spectacular. Therefore, porting the OS to other platforms
would be usless unless MS could get all the third-party application
developers to make all of their software for non-intel platforms
also. If ONLY Windows and maybe Office ran on platform Foo, but
nothing else did, nobody would want it. MS discovered this, and stopped
trying to support other platforms. Of course they falsely attributed
this to people being uninterested in other platforms, when in fact
they *would* be interested if the Windows world hadn't been
monoplatform for so long that all the app developers forgot how to
program cross-platform code. (Consider how Corel ported WP 2000
to Linux - by using Wine instead of actually doing a real port.)
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 23 Jan 2001 19:48:57 GMT
Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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.
: If the world ran by people like you, then we would still be using MS-DOS.
You are operating under the assumption that MS-DOS is a good
representation of computer geekdom. It is not. It's the
worst example of a command-line interface you could pick. I
hate the fact that it is the first thing people think of when
they hear "command-line". It gives command-lines a bad rap.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:53:40 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:39:05 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Donn Miller in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 Jan 2001 00:15:17
>>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?
>
>One word: keyboard.
Keyboards for the Dreamcast have been available for quite
some time now. Plus, the DC comes with a built in modem
and a web browser. There's even a 100BaseT NIC that's
supposed to be coming out for it as well.
[deletia]
You really don't follow this stuff, do you?
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 23 Jan 2001 19:53:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:08:52 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>nuxx wrote:
>>
>>> W2K Advanced Server is an excellent choice for this application.
>>
>>it might be made to work, but they could have saved themselves
>>a ton of money, and gotten better performance, reliability, and
>>remote management capability by using Unix.
> What streaming server would they use?
Pretty much everything is available for solaris.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:56:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:57:28 GMT
<c5gb6.12889$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> > Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:22:28
>> > [...]
>> > >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?
>> >
>> > That it would require intense research in order to point out your
>> > baseless presumptions and trivial fabrications is a rather laughable
>> > suggestion, Chad.
>>
>> I recommend against taking the time to research facts for refuting Chad.
>
>Well, no one has been doing that, so it shouldn't be a big loss.
>
>I present fact after fact after fact, and all you guys (Max, you, et al
>except for Ghost in the Machine) do is critize, personally attack, and
>spew forth baseless supposition.
Pedant point: I criticize as well, when I can. :-) However, my
criticism is based on my knowledge and I try to back it up
with facts in that case. Sometimes I succeed...
>
>> I wasted a couple of hours over the weekend looking up Hot 100 uptimes, and
>> Chad won't even bother to respond to the post. He much perfers to make up
>> his own statistics.
>
>Start a new thread, I told you. This thread is talking about Fortune 500.
>Why do you insist on ignoring this? Fortune 500 is, IMHO, as important, or
>more important than the Hot 100. I think it's more reasonable to see what
>Dell, Compaq, Merril Lynch, Fidelity, and many other huge corporations are
>using for their critical web eCommerce infrastructure than what eGroups
>uses for their message boards, wouldn't you? In 2 years, who's more likely
>to a.) still be in business b.) have the web still be in their primary
>business category? Hint: It isn't likely to be eGroups.
It's also noteworthy who's making the money, as well. I'm not sure
when Hot100 will equal the Fortune500; in an ideal world, perhaps,
they would be equal -- but this world isn't ideal.
>
>These guys are in it for the long haul, not the quick buck, and they've
>overwhelmingly chosen IIS and iPlanet and ditched Apache.
This I wonder about. Granted, there are many factors here -- one
obvious one is that Microsoft, buggy as their software is, has a
contact point, where they can be yelled at, prodded, and if
necessary, legally forced to fix bugs. How does one do that with
Linux? It may make many CEOs rather uncomfortable, although one
could go to an intermediary such as Cygnus, now part of RedHat.
Mind you, this is pure supposition on my part, but it appears to
be a moderate to major impediment to Linux's acceptance. (I will
note that IBM is supporting Linux; while that may risk Linux being
taken over by IBM -- it's a small risk because of the GPL -- it
also means that Linux will gain respectability; IBM isn't exactly
small change in the software market. :-) Besides, Windows can't
run on S/390s yet. :-) )
(Is IBM in the Fortune 500?)
>
>There are the facts, why do you continually try to change the subject
>or avoid them, without posting any of your own facts to refute them.
>
>Why are you so afraid of the truth, Bobby?
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:11h:19m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:59:26 -0800
On 24 Jan 2001 04:35:37 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Which has never been a problem except in lab tests. The 4 million file bug
>>was discovered by a guy who wrote a program to test it. It's never been
>>a problem in the Real World. Anyhow, it was fixed in NT 4 SP4 and isn't
>>an issue AT ALL now.
>
>BTW, Chad --- does the current version of NTFS still limit itself to
>journalling metadata, or does it by now journal data as well?
Just metadata.
>
>>I've never seen that, well not after NT4 SP3 anyhow. It's certainly not
>>a problem on Win2K. Have you ever shut down a Linux box with ext2fs
>>incorrectly? God help you. You have a 90% chance of completely hosing
>>your fs. Not much of an enterprise file system IYAM.
>
>This number is so utterly and ridiculously stupidly made up that I really
>shouldn't comment on it. But what the heck...
>
Of course it's made up, it's from Chad.
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 23 Jan 2001 19:55:05 GMT
Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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.
Bull. I got an SUV becuase I wanted the high ground clearance for
snowy weather. I don't give a rat's ass how I look it the thing. If
looks were my concern I'd get something more streamlined and sleek.
Some people need to remember that not everywhere has sunny California
weather all year round. In winter climes, on snowy days there is
little difference between off-roading and on-roading.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:03:37 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:44:09 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan
>2001 23:33:08 -0000;
>>On 22 Jan 2001 16:32:28 -0500, Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>>>
>>>> On 22 Jan 2001 08:55:27 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:41:30 -0500,
>>>> >mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
>>>
>>>> >By any chance would any of your computers be sitting idle while you
>>>> >play games on your Nintendo? If so, why waste your money on the
>>>> >Nintendo??
>>>
>>>> When's the last time you saw a computer capable of playing
>>>> current games onsale for $100, or even $300?
>>>
>>>For me the question is "when was the last time you saw a computer
>>>capable of playing the kind of games you like to play onsale for
>>>$100, or even $300?"
>>
>> Are we talking current games or just bargain bin stuff?
>>
>> Even a relatively simple 2D RTS can bring older PC's to
>> their knees. If it's not the rendering, then it's the AI
>> & if it's not that then it's pushing the game itself too
>> hard on upper levels.
>>
>>>
>>>Some people play games on their PC because the games they enjoy
>>>tend to be PC games. Consoles don't do IP networking very well...
>>
>> Consoles do IP networking just fine.
>>
>> Infact, several older console based micros were doing
>> multuser gaming long before it became trendy. Consoles
>> merely haven't BOTHERED to support networking for the
>> most part.
>
>Come back to earth, jedi. We miss you.
Pre-PC computers were doing online gaming in 1988.
>
> [...]
>>>Why are you arguing over a matter of personal preference?
>>
>> Spending $2000 or more for a grossly inefficient games console
>> should be considered in it's full context.
>
>You don't understand: we already have, and use, the PC. PLUS, the games
...except you don't NEED a hype system to run Quicken.
>are better, and often the graphics are better, as well. Why would we
That's rather disputable actually. Quite often, the games
on PC's are highily derivative clones of a few genre
progentitors and you need to severely limit rendering quality
and resolution to get a decent level of performance.
Reasonable game performance may also require a faster CPU,
more memory, more expensive video components, and more
disk storage than a mere applications desktop.
>spend an extra $100 for a console? There is literally no reason to; I'd
>rather spend $140 on a Pro Flightstick. ;-)
Except it just won't be $150 for the fancy stick.
That's even assuming that your fancy stick manages to
even work with your favorite games. Such things tend
to happen with PC games.
Beyond who the console game authors are targeting, there
really isn't that much real difference between what consoles
are capable of and what PC are.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:04:53 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
You really should stay out of game discussions...
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
