Linux-Advocacy Digest #531, Volume #25 Mon, 6 Mar 00 21:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (Mike Anderson)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux / BSD advocacy ("Dan O'Connor")
Re: Which Linux version is best ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (nohow)
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (matts)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (matts)
New Linux Exclusive Website! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses (mr_rupert)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Rex Riley)
Re: Which Linux version is best ? (Denis Barthel)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (matts)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: New Linux Exclusive Website! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A little advocacy.. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Which Linux version is best ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is a lamer (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Which Linux version is best ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:06:24 +0000
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> proculous wrote:
> >
> > Benchmarks?
> >
> > Where are they? Not some stupid German Linux magazine that nobody
> > reads, but some verafiable benchmarks? Any out there?
>
> Let us see. A very primitive benchmark:
>
> int main(void)
> {
> long i;
>
> for(i=0; i< 10000000; i++);
>
> }
>
> time this program on a couple of PCs, such as a 386/20MHZ
> How long does NT take to run this program on that hardware?
>
Hmmm..... Even if the compiler didn't optimize away your entire
benchmark, that would hardly test the performance characteristics of the
OS.
Perhaps something that involved starting a thousand processes and timing
IPC would be a better bet. I'd be interested to see results for that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:20:59 GMT
And a classic LinoNut response if ever there was one.
And you idiots wonder why NOBODY NORMAL is interested in running
Linux?
Only the stupid people are running Linux. The idiots who hate Bill so
much that they give up their time in order to configure, configure and
configure again an obviously inferior operating system all the while
ignoring all the wonderful APPLICATIONS that are availible for
Windows.
YOU are the stupid one :(
Linux will sink to the bottom like the torpedoed Lusitania....
It's already on it's way down as we speak...
I can't wait till the day it hits rock bottom, and it will be soon.
Pickle
On 6 Mar 2000 23:42:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
>Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As a small business owner I am always interested in ways to save money. We
>> switched from Apple to
>> IBM when Apple's pricing became too much to handle. I recently tried Redhat
>> Linux in the hopes
>> that I could save some money.
>
>> Well I spent 11 days messing around with this so called operating system and
>> for the life
>> of me can't figure out why in the world anyone in business would want to
>> waste
>> time on this obviously hacked together, half finished program.
>
>Sounds like the fact is that you're too stupid to make linux work. Its
>really not all that difficult.
>
>Theres no shame in being stupid. In fact, most people are. It would
>serve the rest of us quite nicely if you could just come to grips with
>your own stupidity and move on, keeping it in mind the next time you
>attempt something that requires a little mental elbow-grease.
>
>
>
>
>p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Dan O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux / BSD advocacy
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:21:04 -0800
>Does anyone know where I can find these? You'd be doing a great
>service to the Open Source / Free Software movement! :)
Keep in mind that the Daemon logo is copyrighted...
See http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/mainpage/copyright.html for details.
--
--Dan O'Connor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:23:27 GMT
Do yourself a favor and forget Linux and spend some time with your
kids and your wife. Linux sucks and is a HUGE waste of time.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:06:14 -0800, Denis Barthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I would ask you *NOT* to install Suse. You wrote
>
>> As someone who has never used Linux, but am interested in installing it
>
>SuSE has a very strange file tree and in many cases a lot of
>configuration is extremely different from linux-standards. So whenever
>you get some more experienced and want to realize more complex tasks,
>you may get in trouble, because of the proprietary character of SuSE.
>The famous HOWTO's are often useless then, because many things are
>different within Suse and changing dist then may be hard re-learning. So
>for first steps I recommend Corel, which is fully debian-based. It is
>very easy to install and you can run it fast and learn well. It is
>sometimes a bit unpredictable and unstable now ( V 1.0 - !), but when
>you learned enough, you might change to Debian, famous for it's
>stability and reliability ( And it's cool too :-) because it is the only
>full open-source-distribution ).
>
>>
>> Can someone tell me what the difference is between the various versions of
>> Linux - i.e. what are the major differences in the applications which come
>> packaged on the CD's?
>
>The main differences mainly are not within the applications itself, but
>their default selection ( one dist relies on wuftpd, another one on
>proftpd, i.e. ), their configuration ( some give security a higher
>priority, some prefer usability ) and their basic intention ( TurboLinux
>is very cluster-friendly, Corel is desktop-system-orientated, debian is
>prefering stability and security, SuSE tries to do everything in the
>same time and nothing is really convincing :-), etc.pp. )
>
>>
>> E.g. do all linux versions come with the same relational databases, same
>> compilers etc ?
>
>This depends on your selection. Base applications ( i.e. GNU
>C/C++-compiler )are mostly identical, add-on's can be chosen at
>installation. But in general you are able to replace one app by another
>doing the same work, if you like to.
>
>>
>> Is there anywhere on the Web which reviews all the Linux variants in terms
>> of their features and ease of installation ?
>>
>> Actually, I am not that bothered if I choose a Linux version which is not
>> necessarily the easiest to install. I am prepared to spend the time doing
>> the nitty gritty of installation as a learning exercise in itself.
>
>Choose Debian, hehehe. Installing it means to do it almost from scratch
>;-).
>
>Best wishes,
>Denis
>
>P.S.: Might sound as if I were a SuSE-hater. I have used it a few years
>and were content. But now I changed because of the given reasons and I
>am sure that I have done the right thing more than ever.
------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:28:34 -0800
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:12:09 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> No, it was over patents. MS was accused of having violated Stac's
>patent.
>> >
>> >Which is a liscensing issue, ie a contract dispute. Stac claimed that MS
>> >did not have a liscense to use Stac's patent.
>>
>> What? How can it be a "contract dispute" if there's no contract? Yes, it
>> was a civil matter. Whatever it was though, the judgement was for over
>> $100 million as I recall. It was cheaper to buy a controlling interest in
>> Stac.
>
>Stac thought there should be one, MS didn't. That's a contract dispute.
eh? Following your arguement then all civil matters are a contract
dispute. A contract dispute is when there is a contract to dispute.
This was a case of patent infringement.
>
>> I don't think anybody sane is accusing MS of having murdered or kidnapped
>> anyone, so most actions will be civil in nature rather than criminal.
>> OTOH, I don't know that a defense of "they aren't bad, they haven't been
>> charged criminally" is very strong when you have a clear record of pushing
>> the boundaries of fair play at every opportunity.
>
>I didn't say they weren't bad or didn't do bad things. The argument was
>whether MS can be called "criminal".
>
Sure, for releasing Win 3.x on the unsuspecting world.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:26:34 GMT
386/20mhz......
Typical LinoNut cheapshit hardware.......
They will spend hours configuring the shit Linux, but won't spend one
second earning enough money to buy a real hardware system...
Typical left wing Linux crap.....
My model T runs on gasoline just like my 1999 Vette.....
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:06:24 +0000, Mike Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> proculous wrote:
>> >
>> > Benchmarks?
>> >
>> > Where are they? Not some stupid German Linux magazine that nobody
>> > reads, but some verafiable benchmarks? Any out there?
>>
>> Let us see. A very primitive benchmark:
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>> long i;
>>
>> for(i=0; i< 10000000; i++);
>>
>> }
>>
>> time this program on a couple of PCs, such as a 386/20MHZ
>> How long does NT take to run this program on that hardware?
>>
>
>Hmmm..... Even if the compiler didn't optimize away your entire
>benchmark, that would hardly test the performance characteristics of the
>OS.
>
>Perhaps something that involved starting a thousand processes and timing
>IPC would be a better bet. I'd be interested to see results for that.
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 7 Mar 2000 00:34:32 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> but I still won't purchase or
> recommend Microsoft software until Microsoft ceases and desists from
> unethical and/or criminal behavior
Ok, so I guess you're referring to the rest of the computer software
industry, right?
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 7 Mar 2000 00:37:36 GMT
> That would sound stable to a MS user. To a Unix user 1 or 2 MONTHS is
> NOTHING! We Unix and Linux users expect and get up-time in YEARS!
>
Years in which the box does nothing, yes. Years in which the box does some
work, or real work, no.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New Linux Exclusive Website!
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:41:24 GMT
http://www.cruisingforsex.com
Great stuff for all Linux users....
"Bob"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:38:22 GMT
Eventually, Microsoft is going to get tired of re-inventing the
UNIX wheel as if it were new and just come aboard the UNIX camp.
This will be a sad day for us all.
http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/06/ms.linux.idg/index.html
--
The lovely, the talented, and the quite dapper,
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rex Riley)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:45:38 GMT
In <8a0e8e$13t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Jensen wrote:
> Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [Sal points me to:]
>
> [snip food OS fight]
John, why are you cross-posting CSNA's little OS fight over to CSMA and COLA?
-r
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:54:08 -0800
From: Denis Barthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
guess you assumed to be at comp.os.windows, eh ?
if you want something better then linux/unix, get AS/400 or even OS/390
hugs and kisses,
xxx000
denis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Do yourself a favor and forget Linux and spend some time with your
> kids and your wife. Linux sucks and is a HUGE waste of time.
>
> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:06:14 -0800, Denis Barthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I would ask you *NOT* to install Suse. You wrote
> >
> >> As someone who has never used Linux, but am interested in installing it
> >
> >SuSE has a very strange file tree and in many cases a lot of
> >configuration is extremely different from linux-standards. So whenever
> >you get some more experienced and want to realize more complex tasks,
> >you may get in trouble, because of the proprietary character of SuSE.
> >The famous HOWTO's are often useless then, because many things are
> >different within Suse and changing dist then may be hard re-learning. So
> >for first steps I recommend Corel, which is fully debian-based. It is
> >very easy to install and you can run it fast and learn well. It is
> >sometimes a bit unpredictable and unstable now ( V 1.0 - !), but when
> >you learned enough, you might change to Debian, famous for it's
> >stability and reliability ( And it's cool too :-) because it is the only
> >full open-source-distribution ).
> >
> >>
> >> Can someone tell me what the difference is between the various versions of
> >> Linux - i.e. what are the major differences in the applications which come
> >> packaged on the CD's?
> >
> >The main differences mainly are not within the applications itself, but
> >their default selection ( one dist relies on wuftpd, another one on
> >proftpd, i.e. ), their configuration ( some give security a higher
> >priority, some prefer usability ) and their basic intention ( TurboLinux
> >is very cluster-friendly, Corel is desktop-system-orientated, debian is
> >prefering stability and security, SuSE tries to do everything in the
> >same time and nothing is really convincing :-), etc.pp. )
> >
> >>
> >> E.g. do all linux versions come with the same relational databases, same
> >> compilers etc ?
> >
> >This depends on your selection. Base applications ( i.e. GNU
> >C/C++-compiler )are mostly identical, add-on's can be chosen at
> >installation. But in general you are able to replace one app by another
> >doing the same work, if you like to.
> >
> >>
> >> Is there anywhere on the Web which reviews all the Linux variants in terms
> >> of their features and ease of installation ?
> >>
> >> Actually, I am not that bothered if I choose a Linux version which is not
> >> necessarily the easiest to install. I am prepared to spend the time doing
> >> the nitty gritty of installation as a learning exercise in itself.
> >
> >Choose Debian, hehehe. Installing it means to do it almost from scratch
> >;-).
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >Denis
> >
> >P.S.: Might sound as if I were a SuSE-hater. I have used it a few years
> >and were content. But now I changed because of the given reasons and I
> >am sure that I have done the right thing more than ever.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:48:50 +1000
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a11oj$m73$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "Eric Remy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> The MacII could drive 6 monitors at the same time if you stuffed it
with
> >> video cards. Multi-monitor support is still an Apple strength: it
> >> really is just plug-and-play.
>
> > It is that way now with Windows2000 and semi-modern machines (with PCI
slots).
>
> > There was a catch-up period, but it's even now.
>
> A ten year catch up period?
>
> Oh its even now, is it? Tell me, can I natively firewire-RAID 10
terabytes
> of storage devices in a free version of W2K? (you cannot buy a mac
without
> macos, its essentially free)
So in all machines that ship with Windows, Windows is free ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:59:52 GMT
Yea it reads like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
pickle
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:38:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
wrote:
>
>
>Eventually, Microsoft is going to get tired of re-inventing the
>UNIX wheel as if it were new and just come aboard the UNIX camp.
>
>This will be a sad day for us all.
>
>http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/06/ms.linux.idg/index.html
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 7 Mar 2000 00:57:30 GMT
>
> Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX... I've done development
> work on all of them (as well as NT). Your point?
>
Cool. What do you do?
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:09:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
:> but I still won't purchase or
:> recommend Microsoft software until Microsoft ceases and desists from
:> unethical and/or criminal behavior
: Ok, so I guess you're referring to the rest of the computer software
: industry, right?
I avoid a great deal of other proprietary software for similar
reasons.
Microsoft is the worst offender but it is far from the only one.
I would resume purchasing and recommending some Microsoft products if
it were to clean up its act, as IBM has gradually done over the past
10-12 years or so. It would have to demonstrate an ironclad
commitment to (a) lawful and ethical business practices; and (b) high
quality software.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: New Linux Exclusive Website!
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:12:32 GMT
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:41:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>http://www.cruisingforsex.com
>
>Great stuff for all Linux users....
Steve, this is hardly the right place to be posting links to gay porn. What
is your point ?
Maybe it will help to hear this -- it is OK to view gay porn and
enjoy it, if that's what you want to do. You can feel free to just go right
ahead and take a peep, you don't have to ask the COLA regulars for permission.
I'll let you in on a secret. I watch porn sometimes, and I don't ask mommy
and daddy for permission, and I don't even ask the COLA guys for permission.
Because they don't care what I watch ( or who I sleep with ), as long as
I don't bug them about it.
In other words, we don't mind if you go and take a look at some of the studs
on that site. However, I should add that this is not the appropriate
forum to discuss your sexuality. There's probably a handful of newsgroups.
I'd imagine some of the people in Greenwich village would also be fairly
receptive.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 14:05:02 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
> Computers were *NEVER* "only used in companies". They've been used in homes
> since the late 60's, and they began life in educational and military
> situations. But even so, they were still hobyist systems, which is what
> Linux primarily is in the home today. If you use your computer to get work
> done, rather than as a fun experiment, you'll find Linux to be not worth the
> effort.
>
I don't think computers were all that popular in the home in the 60's. I
built my first real stored program computer in 1973. It used an 8008. I did
build a calculator using the 4004 about a year earlier but I wouldn't count
that. Since the microprocessor hadn't yet been invented in the late 60's you
would have to have built it from discrete transistors or small scale
integrated circuits - RTL most likely since TTL was quite expensive back then
and CMOS didn't exist. As far as getting work done, I use Linux both at home
and at work. Windows (9x, NT, or 2k) simply can't cut it for the work I
do. Next time you run Windows on your x86, think for a minute what Intel
used to design and test the chip. No, it wasn't Linux but it was a flavor of
Unix. Now that Linux is available to run on such widely different platforms
as a laptop and an S/390 it is the logical choice for doing logic design and
simulation. I can easily move between my laptop, home PC, RS/6000, and
S/390. Try that with Windows.
>
>
> Linux advocates say it's intended purpose is to replace windows. You seem
> to be saying otherwise. Perhaps you should get together with the others and
> get your stories straight.
>
Actually that is what Windows advocates say, not Linux advocates.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:18:51 GMT
Actually AS/400 and OS/390 is a far better approach than Linux..
I assumed I was a Comp.Os.Linux.advocacy, AKA fantasyland.
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:54:08 -0800, Denis Barthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>guess you assumed to be at comp.os.windows, eh ?
>if you want something better then linux/unix, get AS/400 or even OS/390
>
>hugs and kisses,
>xxx000
>
>denis
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Do yourself a favor and forget Linux and spend some time with your
>> kids and your wife. Linux sucks and is a HUGE waste of time.
>>
>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 01:06:14 -0800, Denis Barthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I would ask you *NOT* to install Suse. You wrote
>> >
>> >> As someone who has never used Linux, but am interested in installing it
>> >
>> >SuSE has a very strange file tree and in many cases a lot of
>> >configuration is extremely different from linux-standards. So whenever
>> >you get some more experienced and want to realize more complex tasks,
>> >you may get in trouble, because of the proprietary character of SuSE.
>> >The famous HOWTO's are often useless then, because many things are
>> >different within Suse and changing dist then may be hard re-learning. So
>> >for first steps I recommend Corel, which is fully debian-based. It is
>> >very easy to install and you can run it fast and learn well. It is
>> >sometimes a bit unpredictable and unstable now ( V 1.0 - !), but when
>> >you learned enough, you might change to Debian, famous for it's
>> >stability and reliability ( And it's cool too :-) because it is the only
>> >full open-source-distribution ).
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Can someone tell me what the difference is between the various versions of
>> >> Linux - i.e. what are the major differences in the applications which come
>> >> packaged on the CD's?
>> >
>> >The main differences mainly are not within the applications itself, but
>> >their default selection ( one dist relies on wuftpd, another one on
>> >proftpd, i.e. ), their configuration ( some give security a higher
>> >priority, some prefer usability ) and their basic intention ( TurboLinux
>> >is very cluster-friendly, Corel is desktop-system-orientated, debian is
>> >prefering stability and security, SuSE tries to do everything in the
>> >same time and nothing is really convincing :-), etc.pp. )
>> >
>> >>
>> >> E.g. do all linux versions come with the same relational databases, same
>> >> compilers etc ?
>> >
>> >This depends on your selection. Base applications ( i.e. GNU
>> >C/C++-compiler )are mostly identical, add-on's can be chosen at
>> >installation. But in general you are able to replace one app by another
>> >doing the same work, if you like to.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Is there anywhere on the Web which reviews all the Linux variants in terms
>> >> of their features and ease of installation ?
>> >>
>> >> Actually, I am not that bothered if I choose a Linux version which is not
>> >> necessarily the easiest to install. I am prepared to spend the time doing
>> >> the nitty gritty of installation as a learning exercise in itself.
>> >
>> >Choose Debian, hehehe. Installing it means to do it almost from scratch
>> >;-).
>> >
>> >Best wishes,
>> >Denis
>> >
>> >P.S.: Might sound as if I were a SuSE-hater. I have used it a few years
>> >and were content. But now I changed because of the given reasons and I
>> >am sure that I have done the right thing more than ever.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 14:11:56 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
Donn Miller wrote:
>
>
> I think it would be nice if there were decals with the Chuckie or Tux
> logo. It would be great, also, if there were keyboards manufactured
> that had the logos already on them. Of course, Windows demand would
> probably win out, and we'd never see them. Or, the keyboard
> manufacturers could supply a couple of extra keys w/ the keyboard that
> had the logos on them. You'd just pop out the old key, and insert the
> new one in place.
>
> - Donn
I seem to remember seeing an ad recently for replacement keycaps that had
Tux on them. I know I saved it somewhere. I'll have to track it down.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:19:40 GMT
On 7 Mar 2000 00:37:36 GMT, matts wrote:
>> That would sound stable to a MS user. To a Unix user 1 or 2 MONTHS is
>> NOTHING! We Unix and Linux users expect and get up-time in YEARS!
>
>Years in which the box does nothing, yes. Years in which the box does some
>work, or real work, no.
I've seen boxen that are doing real work -- for example, hosting several
websites, and running ftp services, serving several mailing lists, and
also providing shell access to developers -- stay up for over a year.
This notion that the only boxen that stay up a long time aren't doing
anything is simply bogus.
In the UNIX world, machines simply don't crash. We are not worried about
whether or not the OS will crash. Because it won't ( not unless the hardware
fails ). There are other concerns -- maybe it will get broken into, maybe
it will slow down because it's overworked, etc etc. But crashing ? Left
that behind with Windows.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:22:19 GMT
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:26:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>386/20mhz......
>
>Typical LinoNut cheapshit hardware.......
>
>They will spend hours configuring the shit Linux, but won't spend one
>second earning enough money to buy a real hardware system...
Scaling down to ridiculously cheap hardware is actually useful
( think devices ), though its relevance to the desktop is minimal.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:23:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> That would sound stable to a MS user. To a Unix user 1 or 2 MONTHS is
:> NOTHING! We Unix and Linux users expect and get up-time in YEARS!
:>
: Years in which the box does nothing, yes. Years in which the box does some
: work, or real work, no.
Usenet articles are archived forever. Your future employers, peers,
friends, etc. can learn a great deal about you by your Usenet posting
history.
May I politely suggest that you consider either (a) using an anonymous
account when posting ignorant drivel, like the other Wintrolls do, or,
even better yet, (b) not posting ignorant drivel in the first place,
and instead informing yourself at least minimally about the things you
wish to post about.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
Date: 7 Mar 2000 01:24:57 GMT
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:23:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Do yourself a favor and forget Linux and spend some time with your
>kids and your wife. Linux sucks and is a HUGE waste of time.
I use Linux for my work. Don't have a wife or kids yet, I live with my
girlfriend. Oh, we had a great time last night btw.
However, I'd have to agree that Linux, by inducing you to post this
trash to usenet, certainly is wasting your time.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
