Linux-Advocacy Digest #574, Volume #34 Thu, 17 May 01 17:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("~�~")
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("~�~")
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Peter Hayes)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("Edward Rosten")
Re: LILO no boot .. says "LIL-" then just hangs there (Michael Marion)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Michael Marion)
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... (Philip Brown)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ("Edward Rosten")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "~�~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 19:01:16 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> > > The real problem here is that most users are complete morons. They
never
> > > understood DOS, Windows or Linux. Sure they seemed to achieve
something
> > > with Windows but when it went wrong, they didn't have a clue and, as
> > > someone who worked on a help desk for some years, I got sick and tired
> > > of dealing with these cretins who shouldn't have been allowed anywhere
> > > near a PC.
> > > Like women drivers who don't know how to change a wheel, the
technology
> > > is beyond them and they should leave it to the big boys who really
> > > understand it. Sorry guys - you are too stupid to have a computer.
> > >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > Doesn't the above just summarise the problem with the populous.
> >
> > Doesn't the above summarise your problems? Your bias? Your sexism?
>
> Nope, it shows the end user is, by default, a complete and utter moron
beyond
> belief. One only needs to go into a super market, and see the number of
> people who put their eggs and bread first on the conveyer belt at the
> checkout. The number of users who want to get a P4 because it has a
"bigger
> number than PIII". Or, because Bill Gates says its good, obviously he's
> right. Better still, users, who buy crap machines from Compaq, IBM and
HP,
> then one year down the track they want to upgrade something, say the
graphics
> card because they heard from a friend that their game will run better, and
> get told by their local computer shop that they can't upgrade.
>
> It is about time the end user got out of this ignorance. These are the
exact
> same people who protest against globalisation and Free Tebet, they know
> diddly squat about, but because some communist, aka, trade unionist rants
on
> the news about things, because it would mean the end of their pampered
union
> lifestyle, and whats worse, they, the ignorant public, believe them!
>
> It is about time people started reading books and started educating
> themselves instead of sitting in front of a televison for 4 hours each
night
> watch Septic Tank crap like "Roswell" and "Mad about you". The politicians
> know that, and play on peoples ignorance. Its quite funny seeing people
run
> on policies that the educated 10% known won't work, whilst the 90% sit in
an
> ignorant slumber.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
You really do have some very serious issues. You do realize that I hope.
------------------------------
From: "~�~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 19:03:34 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, it's another example of the kind of contempt for end-users that will
> > keep Linux from making a dent in the desktop market.
> >
> > Christ. Talk about own worst enemy.
>
> What is keeping Linux off the desktop is ignorance and arrogance rolled up
> into a little ball called, "Linux is too hard!" + "Why should I learn how
> to use it?". You hear users bitch and moan, but when a replacement comes
> along, they make excuses, even though all they do it write a letter to
Aunt
> Dolly and email some crap to work. Something Linux is more than capable
of
> doing.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Nice try. It doesn't excuse what you wrote in any sense. I've been calling
you on your "advocacy" for weeks, but grew weary of it. Glad to see you
proved yourself today.
Like my Daddy used to say "give an idiot driven by ego enough rope, and soon
enough ..."
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:00:15 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 17 May 2001 03:26:26 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<...>
> > Now we are getting somewhere. The main beef c't has with the activation
> > process, is that Microsoft does not tell what it does exactly. The amount
> > of traffic is big enough to hide additional data in the activation
> > request, and unless the exact method is known, we only have Microsofts
> > word that that doesn't happen. You may trust them, c't apparently doesn't
> > and they seem to be justified based on past experiences.
>
> If you don't trust them, you shouldn't be using the OS at all, since if they
> wanted to send data, they could do it in any of a million ways without you
> ever being able to detect it. Why would they put such data in a high
> visibility scheme like activation?
>
> The fact of the matter is, if you trust them enough to use the OS at all,
> you trust them enough to activate. There is no more or less danger or risk.
>
> > Clearly the certificates aren't all that necessary if you can just pass
> > along your hardware key over the phone if you choose that method of
> > activation
>
> The phone is much more trustworthy than the Internet, with less of a chance
> for interception of the data. Otherwise, why aren't we using encrypted
> telephone communications?
I think the point here is that it appears that far more bytes are being
transmitted than are justified by the activation process alone.
Clearly, any user employing the telephone activation service will be
instantly aware of any additional information Microsoft may attempt to
extract from them and this will ring alarm bells with the brighter ones.
It's much easier for Microsoft to spy on their users via data transmitted
in encrypted form over the Internet . Most users will be blissfully unaware
even if 40-50k, perhaps even 100k of data - a full inventory of their hard
disks, for example - were to be sent to Microsoft.
And you can be certain that the telephone system will be via a premium
number at $$$s/minute, on the specious grounds that operators have to be
paid for, but in reality to encourage users to register via the Internet so
the spyware can report back.
The simple answer is to refuse to use XP. Unfortunately, after the launch
of XP, Microsoft will phase out 98/ME/2000, and OEMs will be forced to
supply XP only. "No Linux, or you don't get XP licences. None of that
anti-American crap please". Then, after a year or so and when XP is in full
swing, Microsoft will alter the licences to subscription based. Pay
Microsoft a monthly fee to continue to use XP. With the lemmings in major
corporations dutifully doing Microsoft's bidding, the rest of us will have
to follow suit, especially when the de-facto office product is Office-XP
and we all need it to read documents supplied by our major customers and
clients.
The whole scenario looks to me like a combination of the drugs underworld
and a protection racket. Get the user base hooked on a product, then mug
them if they fail to pay up monthly. The sole difference appears that
Microsoft's rackets are legal, else how are they getting away with it?
> > Face it Erik, *nobody* trusts Microsoft on their word anymore. Well, you
> > do, obviously, so I'm curious if you can give a reason for that? You seem
> > to be too intelligent to trust anything on faith alone.
>
> I don't trust them in the way you mean, but I can use common sense. Simply
> using the OS gives them the opportunity to do whatever they like. If i'm
> going to do that, there is no extra risk in activation.
There is certainly a logic in that, but why let them away with introducing
a system that virtually invites them in your front door and inventory your
property? There are umpteen reasons why millions of machines need never be
connected to a network, let alone to the Internet and Microsoft, or may be
connected to an internal network that has no external router. Why should
you have to risk your company's security just to "activate" a product
you've purchased anyway?
The whole concept is aimed at the ultimate control of every computer and
every bit of company data by Microsoft (and who knows who else...?), pure
and simple, nothing else. A permanent revenue stream completely under
Microsoft's control, plus unlimited power. A Gates nirvana.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:13:13 +0100
> Nope, it shows the end user is, by default, a complete and utter moron
> beyond belief.
Agreed. Case in point:
______________________
|____________________|
| Press OK to |
| continue |
| ______ |
| | OK | |
| ------ |
|____________________|
Uhhhh... What to I do here?
Um. You press OK.
WOW! How did you know that?
Anyone had that happen before?
> One only needs to go into a super market, and see the number of people
> who put their eggs and bread first on the conveyer belt at the checkout.
> The number of users who want to get a P4 because it has a "bigger
> number than PIII".
Uh. That G4 PowerMac is so slow. It only goes at 733Mhz. I'll by the much
faster 1GHz Celery instead.
> Or, because Bill Gates says its good, obviously he's right. Better
> still, users, who buy crap machines from Compaq, IBM and HP, then one
> year down the track they want to upgrade
Do IBM make crap PCs? Most of their hardware is top notch.
> It is about time the end user got out of this ignorance. These are the
> exact same people who protest against globalisation and Free Tebet, they
Not entirely sure I agree with you here, there are arguments for and
against.
> It is about time people started reading books and started educating
> themselves instead of sitting in front of a televison for 4 hours each
<rant type="off topic, tangential" >
But books don't have moving pictures. They make you use your brain. it's
loke all the anti-intellectual crap. If you claimed to be ignorant of
current affairs, peole would think you're stupid. If you claim you don't
know anything about computers/science, people not only think its OK, but
they seem to think its better than knowing something.
I don't know about other europeans here, but this is one reason I respect
the French: they (unlike us) see famous scientists as a good thing. Hell,
their names are plastered round the edge of one of the biggest tourist
attractions.
</rant>
> night watch Septic Tank crap like "Roswell" and "Mad about you". The
> politicians know that, and play on peoples ignorance. Its quite funny
> seeing people run on policies that the educated 10% known won't work,
> whilst the 90% sit in an ignorant slumber.
As much as 10%?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:14:07 +0100
> What does that rant has to do with the above?
Does it matter? After all, its a rant and this is c.o.l.a :-)
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,dc.org.linux-users
Subject: Re: LILO no boot .. says "LIL-" then just hangs there
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:21:17 GMT
Bernadette and Warren McRobie wrote:
> I found that having the drive linux is installed on a slave with no master,
> then this error occurs - yes I know it should be the master - but I did not
> set up this machine hardware wise ;P
Better yet.. directly from the docs:
LIL- The descriptor table is corrupt. This can either be caused by a
geometry mismatch or by moving /boot/map without running the map
installer.
--
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
Homer: "I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me,
Superman!" -- Simpsons
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:24:00 +0100
>> I'm bored of all these benchmarks, since benchmarks are just marks and
>> meaningless out of context. So Win2K served up an extra transcation per
>> second or Linux manages an extra web page per second? So what?
>
> Because that's what everyone wants?
BS. Real people don't spend their time running benchmarks.
>> To get a better idea, you need to look at the real world.
>
> Now, let's see what you consider the "real world"...
Go on...
>> If you look in the real world, you see Linux having several spots in
>> the top 100 fastest supercomputers. If Win2K/NT is so great and so
>> scalable and gives such a great price/performance ratio, then why is
>> there not a
>> *single* Windows cluster in the top 100 supercomputers list?
>
> Ah, I can go into my local PC world and buy one of these supercomputers
> can I? It's an off the shelf easily affordable machine, is that so?
Don't be such a twit. Firstly is a real computer being used for a real
purpose, by real people (as opposed to something used just for
benchmarks) in the real world or not?
Lets illustrate this ridiculous point of view:
Can I go down to the local marina and buy a supertanker? Is is an easily
affordable, off the shelf ship? No its not, so i guess supertankers don't
exist in the real world.
What about helicopters? Can't afford one or get one easily? They don't
exist either. Same goes for satelites. And open cast mining equipment.
None of it exists in the real world because you can't afford it.
Oh, and Boeing 747's don't exist either. Remember that when you next go
on holiday. Oh and in case you go by ferry or train, those don't exist
either because you can't afford the.
> No!
>
>> The reason is simple: Linux scales better, is more efficient and gives
>> a much better price/performance *in the real world*.
>
> Well I knew that.
So did I.
> Your definition of "real world" is fascinating. Out here in the _real_
> real world, it's Windows that is dominating, not Linux.
I was talking about scalibility, and price/performance. Which one wins?
Besides, don't forget that your segment of the real world is the *only*
one.
>> Linux wins, again.
>
> In one small percentage of the whole market. Not enough.
I was illustrating that in the *real* world as opposed to wired
benchmarks, linux thrashes Win2K in terms of scalibility and
price/performance.
Are you going to deny that a supercomputer is a prefectly real world
example of huge scalibility?
Oh and before I forget, yes, you can go down to the local shop and buy
one of these computers, only it won't have many nodes, that's all.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:24:03 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> I'm quite interested in the Cray cluster as well as the new "super" they
> are designing in conjunction with SUN Microsystems that will use the new
> Ultra Sparc III.
Especially once things are optimized for US3 chips too. That's our biggest
gripe right now... there's just nothing really available that's been compiled
for US3 chips, so you don't see as big a jump in speed as one would expect
from the new architecture. Then again... most commercial software for
SPARC/Solaris isn't even Ultra-1 optimized! Most software is still just
32-big SPARC compiled... I think the only software I use regularly that's
ultra optimized at all is Realplayer8. :/
--
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
Homer: "I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me,
Superman!" -- Simpsons
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Brown)
Crossposted-To:
alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix
Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 20:27:10 GMT
On Thu, 17 May 2001 14:37:06 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Rich Teer wrote:
>> Hmm. I'd rather developers use their local CPU for running the
>> compilations - using NFS mounted home directories to address your
>> other points.
>
>Experience says that NFS is much slower than local disk, especially when
>there is serious network contention.
However, compilation is primarily CPU-bound, and MOST of the I/O
will be local (rereading the local system headers in /usr/include)
--
[Trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
[ Do NOT email-CC me on posts. Pick one or the other.]
S.1618 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:SN01618:@@@D
The word of the day is mispergitude
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:31:09 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>When you write "months without rebooting", does that mean that your
>>Windows
>>98 pc stays powered on continuously, or do you occasionally shut it down
>>
>>voluntarily? And if so, how often do you perform these "maintainance
>>reboots"?
>
> Yes, it does mean that I leave it one continuously. In fact, the only
> time I really have to reboot anymore is right before I burn a CD on my
> new CD-RW so the buffer doesn't time out. But I think it's because my
> comp is so frickin so moreso than the operating system. (200mHz, 64 MB
> RAM, parralel port to CD-RW). I wish I could afford a better machine,
> but I simply can't.
My poor friend, you don't need a better computer, you need a better OS.
My Linux box (a P133/72M) can easily handel 8x writes from my CDRW and
that's without a reboot before hand.
Oh, and that *is* with creating the ISO9660 image on the fly.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:33:04 +0100
> Not "whacked", just missinformed. Intel doesn't need to wait, it
They really need to wait. The Itanium is a really poor performer. They
have to wait for the McInley to be ready first, since that (should) be
rather better. But don't hold your breath, Intel's track record on RISC
processors is really poor.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:34:07 +0100
> I killfiled yttrx, and I suggest everyone else do the same. He
> obviously has some serious anger-management issues. My hide is pretty
> flameproof, but I have better things to do than listen to some
> mental-defective idjit rant and rave.
it's odd. He never ysed to be like this. never mind, he'll be in my
killfile if he comes out with another post like that.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:33:24 +0200
In article <SWLM6.1191$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip for brevity>
>> Now we are getting somewhere. The main beef c't has with the activation
>> process, is that Microsoft does not tell what it does exactly. The
>> amount of traffic is big enough to hide additional data in the
>> activation request, and unless the exact method is known, we only have
>> Microsofts word that that doesn't happen. You may trust them, c't
>> apparently doesn't and they seem to be justified based on past
>> experiences.
>
> If you don't trust them, you shouldn't be using the OS at all, since if
> they wanted to send data, they could do it in any of a million ways
> without you ever being able to detect it. Why would they put such data
> in a high visibility scheme like activation?
>
> The fact of the matter is, if you trust them enough to use the OS at
> all, you trust them enough to activate. There is no more or less danger
> or risk.
>
>> Clearly the certificates aren't all that necessary if you can just pass
>> along your hardware key over the phone if you choose that method of
>> activation
>
> The phone is much more trustworthy than the Internet, with less of a
> chance for interception of the data. Otherwise, why aren't we using
> encrypted telephone communications?
>
>> Face it Erik, *nobody* trusts Microsoft on their word anymore. Well,
>> you do, obviously, so I'm curious if you can give a reason for that?
>> You seem to be too intelligent to trust anything on faith alone.
>
> I don't trust them in the way you mean, but I can use common sense.
> Simply using the OS gives them the opportunity to do whatever they like.
> If i'm going to do that, there is no extra risk in activation.
>
>
>
>
Well,
The whole point of the matter is that they appear to be contradicting
themselves. They *implied* that the activation would be based on a hash
generated out of your hardware configuration. I am not a crypto expert,
and I regret ignoring the crypto thread you were involved in, but you
wouldn't need to go to such lengths to send this info in a reasonbly
secure manner? Surely something like SSL, which is already trusted with
CC transactions, would suffice?
What makes us not trust MS in this matter is twofold:
1. They will not tell us what is going on, *on our own computers*, they
will not even tell us what hardware changes will trigger reactivation.
2. 'If you don't trust them, you shouldn't be using the OS at all' is not
much help when most PCs will be sold with XP preinstalled.
You may think different. That's ok, we're reasoning from different
premises here, so while both sides may employ good logic and reasonable
arguments, we will still end up on opposing sides. Nonetheless, thank you
for being reasonble,
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:39:00 -0500
"quux111" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:JvSM6.644$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> >>Even if MS weren't one iota bad, their OS
> >> still isn't as good as unix, because unix doesn't sufer from the DLL
> >> HELL that Windows does.
> >
> > Yes it does. If you want to install different applications and they
> > require different libraries or depend on certain conflicting files, the
> > net effect is the same. Not only that, it's exacerbated in Linux by the
> > fact that just installing a simple game or maybe a new Window manager
> > can conflict with some other app. As any Linux advocate, they'll tell
> > you the same.
>
> Wrong. Linux, unlike Windows, uses library versioning, which means that
> you can have several versions of the same library on your system at the
> same time. Try that with Windows! I've done it myself: I can run
KDevelop
> (which uses QT1.44 libraries) and KDE 2.0 (which uses QT2.x libraries) at
> the same time with no problem at all.
Kindof. The problem is, what happens if one program requires glibc to built
with a certain set of libraries, while another application requires glibc to
be built with a different set?
> Likewise with Applix office: it was built against gtk+1.2.7 libraries, but
> it runs fine on my gtk+1.2.10 system.
This is an entirely different problem. We're not talking about versioning,
but about dependancies.
> When specific applications experience problems, it is the fault of the
> programmer, not the OS.
And when Windows developers say this, Linux developers say that the OS
should handle all problems.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 21:23:58 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same
>> >> > server
>> > can
>> >> > server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
>> >>
>> >> Each running its own software.
>> >
>> > No, it doesn't.
>> > Get *some* clue before you post.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, it does. If you want. And if it�s a IBM/390.
>> Get *some* clue before you post.
>
> No ISP will use a s/390 for this, dimwit.
> *No one* will use it for this, for that matter. That is beyond stupid.
>
Tell *that* to IBM.
And to the finnish ISP who did just that.
Dimwit
Peter
--
Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
dumb to handle the real thing.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:52:16 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>When you write "months without rebooting", does that mean that your
>>Windows 98 pc stays powered on continuously, or do you occasionally shut
>>it down voluntarily? And if so, how often do you perform these
>>"maintainance reboots"?
>
> Yes, it does mean that I leave it one continuously. In fact, the only
> time I really have to reboot anymore is right before I burn a CD on my
> new CD-RW so the buffer doesn't time out. But I think it's because my
> comp is so frickin so moreso than the operating system. (200mHz, 64
> MB RAM, parralel port to CD-RW). I wish I could afford a better
> machine, but I simply can't.
>
Not to call you a liar, but I have _never_ met anyone who managed to keep
Win 9x running for more than a working week (i.e.: five days) in a normal
office or home environment (*). Most people call themselves lucky if they
get through the day without a three-finger salute to their grey box.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
===============================================================
Has anybody ever wondered why Microsoft launched Windows 95
with a song that contains the line: "You make a grown man cry"?
Oh, wait...
===============================================================
(*) There are of course many who _claim_ this on Usenet (Pete's Magical
Server, anyone?), but no-one I met "in the flesh" has ever managed even
close.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 22:42:39 +0100
Save your breath. This guy is a firm bigot and he will *never* conceed
that he has made a mistake.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
My opinions are my own. I represent no one but myself.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
