Linux-Advocacy Digest #534, Volume #25 Tue, 7 Mar 00 01:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Jim Richardson)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Jim Richardson)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Jim Richardson)
Re: Salary? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Jim Richardson)
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Richard")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (matts)
Re: I've been Cleansed (Joshua Pruitt)
Re: BSD & Linux (Miguel Cruz)
Re: I've been Cleansed (matts)
Re: Which Linux version is best ? (Joshua Pruitt)
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Richard")
Re: A little advocacy.. (An transfinite number of monkeys)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:12:37 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:12:48 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 16:42:35 +1000,
>> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 03:11:43 +1000,
>> >> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> brought forth the following words...:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:20:03 +1000,
>> >> >> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> >> brought forth the following words...:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Or perhaps "OSes can't save broken applications" ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Broken apps shouldn't crash the OS.
>> >> >
>> >> >It didn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps you have a different definition of crash from the crew of
>> >> the Yorktown?
>> >> According to http://www.info-sec.com/OSsec/OSsec_080498g_j.shtml
>> >> the problem was a buffer overflow from a badly coded app, and the
>> >> OS crashed. (actually, all the consoles on the lan crashed, quite
>> >> a feat...)
>> >
>> >I don't see anything about an OS crash there. I see what appears to be
>the
>> >server part of a client/server app crashing, but no evidence of the OS
>going
>> >down.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Did you read the bit where it says that all the consoles on the
>> lan crashed?
>>
>
>And what does that exactly mean? Exactly? I mean, *IF* the NT server had
>actually crashed, blue screened, that would not cause other independent
>consoles to crash would it? I'm sure these are independent units, networked
>to the main. Become non-responsive perhaps?
>
>The report remains vauge and unclear - and I think everyone prefers it stay
>that way - for some perverted reason. Perhaps because there are some
>seriously embarressed software engineers who's *application* fucked up SO
>bad that they had to blame SOMEONE and it was just so easy to say: It's NT's
>fault! Not our application crashing because we didn't check for someone
>entering a 0 in a field? !!!!! WTF?! yea!
There sure isn't enough information, but I got the impression
that the lan consoles were running NT.
We know that applications crashing can take down NT, this is
simply another example. A proper OS should not crash due
to a misbehaving application. (Linux even has some problems in this area,
but the fork bomb kernel patch and the quota system seem to have
killed most if not all of them.)
A warship is one place where I'd look askance at someone
suggesting linux run it, and I'd call the funny farm for someone
suggesting NT should do it.
"Captain? phalanx is down, bsod'd again."
*boom*
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:21:39 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:59:11 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:07:29 -0500,
>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > That is incorrect. NT3.51 was not network C2 rated but NT4 IS network C2
>> > rated.
>>
>> .. if and only if the network is physically secure. Else: No
>> more C2.
>
>Obviously - how could it be any other way? What you say applies to ANY OS or
>system. I mean, it's like saying:
>A(secure)+B(secure)=C(secure) which is different that A(secure)+B(unsecure)
>
>>
>> > W2K is even more secure than NT4 could ever dreamed of being.
>>
>> In other words: NT4 never was a highly secure system.
>> Certainly not half as much as M$ claimed it was. (Else W2K
>> would be hard pressed to be even a bit more secure.)
>
>Not necessarily. It means that NT4 was secure enough to get a C2 evaluation.
>W2K is even more secure than that.
>
>Be careful when using logic like you've given in your "other words" as it
>can be applied to everything. When someone writes "the latest kernel release
>of linux is faster." do you then admit, linux was slow before that. No, just
>not as fast. Same thing applies.
>
>
>
If M$ is claiming that W2K is "the most secure windows ever"
where is the C2 rating for W2K? What evaluation method are they
using to make that claim?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:22:31 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:44:22 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
>useless,
>> : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
>> : on two screens really provide?
>>
>> Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system except for
>> a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and whistles
>> vs. Linux functionality.
>>
>
>ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
>
>
>
Metro-X does multi monitor, next?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:36:12 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 14:16:17 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 6 Mar 2000 00:02:12 GMT <89usi4$2eqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be useless,
>>> I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
>>> on two screens really provide?
>>
>>More evidence that youve never actually used linux. Exactly how stupid
>>do you wish to appear?
>>
>>Because at this point, its generally the case that pretty much everyone
>>you're talking to thinks you're a pinhead.
>
>But the question is still valid. How good *is* Linux's multiple
>monitor support?
>
>I do know that Linux can support monochrome and CGA simultaneously,
>but that's so old that everyone's probably laughing at me now :-).
>
>I could see multiple monitor support being very useful in specialized
>contexts, e.g. multiple-monitor simulator units.
>
>[rest snipped]
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
www.metrolink.com
www.xig.com
Both companies have xservers for multi headed mode.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:43:14 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6 Mar 2000 14:06:20 GMT,
Desmond Coughlan, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On 6 Mar 2000 13:52:53 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> : Here in Spain, if you have just finished your career and ask for a
>> : salary starting at 7M pesetas ($45K) you will probably end in a mental
>> : institution.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Most of the IT people I know earn between $50-$250K per year. The
>> President of the United States earns only slightly more than that. My
>> salary is closer to the low end of that range, but I live in an area
>> with moderate cost of living, so it is reasonably adequate and
>> comfortable for me.
>
>I think it's a myth that wages are higher in the United States, at least
>when the high cost of living is taken into account.
>
>I presently earn a tad under 500,000 FFr a year, which I think translates
>into about 73,000 US$ per year. That doesn't seem much, but I live in
>a relatively large flat, and only pay 4,000 FFr a month (580 US$).
>
>So the wages are lower in Europe, but the cost of living is lower, too.
>
hehe, I live in a boat, my "rent" ranges from $0 to about $400 mo
for slip fees (I own the boat of course.) But I am a few sigma
off of the SD in this area :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:51:57 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:19:37 -0500,
Gary Hallock, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Mark Hamstra wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) writes:
>>
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > Certainly, you must have a need for a lot of horsepower before considering
>> > > using S/390. But once you start talking about installing a few hunderd or
>> > > 1000 x86 based servers to handle the load S/390 looks pretty good.
>> >
>> > I would say that the number exceeds 1000 by quite a bit...
>>
>> You're getting your x86 servers and administrative help way cheap,
>> then.
>>
>
>Either that or IBM is making a lot more money than they tell me. Perhaps it's time
>for me to ask for a raise :-)
>
>Of course S/390 comes in all sorts of different sizes and costs. For the really
>low end, you could just plug a P390 card into your PC .
>
>Gary
>
>
If you have a spare P390 card hanging around, I'll, er, "review"
it for you :) shouldn't take more than a month or two, maybe
three, well four to be safe...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 20:55:05 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:32:15 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:89u1nn$594$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <89saq3$9sf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:89mdbo$un0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various
>> NG's,
>> > > > and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
>> > > > reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on
>> people's
>> > > > servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
>> > > > pretty stable to me. Then, when I went to www.microsoft.com, the
>> web
>> > >
>> > > 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!
>> >
>> > Hmm... let's rephrase that. Instead of saying 3 months lets be equally
>> > accurate and say:
>> > It's been up and running since the day it was installed and has never
>> ever
>> > in it's entire run time crashed or rebooted for any reason. That sound
>> more
>> > linux like?
>>
>> Pathetic Dresten, even from you this was pathetic.
>>
>> Just because you installed W2K yesterday and it has not crashed yet does
>> not mean it is stable.
>>
>
>really? then you now know what winvocates think when we hear shouting about
>"years" of uptimes. After maybe allowing it's possible we think; who would
>ever have a system running a whole year without an upgrade? or maybe just a
>little down time to blow the dust out of the power supply fan. Or maybe
>upgrade a CPU or hard drive or something. I guess we tend to be more
>interesting in having current equipment and much less interested in avoiding
>upgrades simply for the sake of having a cute .sig that says: my box hasn't
>been upgraded for 8 months 30 days and 12 hours - can you please send me
>money?
>
>
On a related note. (uptime and upgrades) Motorola has announced
that they will begin shipping Linux servers with hot swap PCI
(including the CPUs, which are on a PCI card) in may, guaranteed
99.999% uptime. Pretty soon, you will be able to have your
upgrade, and uptime too...
sorry, W2K need not apply. :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:08:37 -0800
Hey Erik,
I appologize if it sounded like I was saying that if someone didn't want to
take the time to learn Linux they should be considered stupid. What is
stupid is that it seems many people use the learning something new excuse as
proof that Linux is bad. Your statement that you can configure Linux to
crash within a few minutes is nonsense. At least to our discussion. No one
is configuring Windows to crash. If you do it purposely, you could even rig
a monitor to blow up in my face. So what. That doesn't prove anything.
I'm a technician for a major computer distributor/manufacturer and I handle
tech. support calls all day long. There are definite problems with Windows.
There are also problems with Linux. I had a 486 with Windows '95 running
with only a couple of crashes for 2+ years. That was the most stable
computer (with windows) I've ever had.
My point. If you want to use it, then use it. If you don't, then don't.
There's no reason to bad mouth either. It's a no win situation. I have a
computer running Windows '98 and one running Mandrake Linux 7.0. As I see
things now, I will probably always have a system running windows. I'd also
like to get a Mac. But my main system would definitely have Linux running.
Well, that's my two cents.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 00:09:30 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Jim Richardson wrote:
> On a related note. (uptime and upgrades) Motorola has announced
> that they will begin shipping Linux servers with hot swap PCI
> (including the CPUs, which are on a PCI card) in may, guaranteed
> 99.999% uptime. Pretty soon, you will be able to have your
> upgrade, and uptime too...
>
> sorry, W2K need not apply. :)
Oh well, maybe W3K will finally get it right. :)
- Donn
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: 7 Mar 2000 05:05:59 GMT
Elaborate. I want to know why you dislike it. :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Subject says it all***************************
------------------------------
From: Joshua Pruitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I've been Cleansed
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:17:54 GMT
> Unfortunately the carpet started to unravel after the first day. While
> Windows installed fine and set up dial ups, printers, scanners, SCSI
> devices, Networks, Video cards, Sound cards and so forth right out of
> the box. Linux required that I surrender my first born in order to
> make the simple happen.
Linux is more akin to NT than 98 from an structural standpoint. I
encourage you to try to get all your hardware detected and functioning
as smoothly in NT after first bootup as in 98.
Ever set up RAS in NT? Seen a video card autodetected in NT? Ever
setup sound in NT? Hmm...
Network OSs do tend to have stricter hardware requirements. I tend
to wonder if Linux's stability isn't in part due to the fact that
it doesn't support cheap, non-standard, software-driven hardware
as easily (what I like to call 'winware').
> Windows users thinking of switching to Linux?
>
> Try Netscape for WIndows and see what you think. You better love it
> cause that's what you are stuck with unless you are counting on some
> long delayed software.
Ah, I'll leave that one be. :)
Although I must say the latest Mozilla builds are SCHWEET! :)
> Windows users: I'll bet you love that Modem, scanner and printer you
> have and I am certain it works GREAT under Windows.
>
> Surprise, you have a non-functional modem, scanner and a text printer,
> if that, under Linux.
Winmodems (software-driven), and non-SCSI scanners (SCSI-emulated
parallel - again, software-driven) are not supported under Linux.
As well as they should not be - they are sub-par. The cost in
performance and stability for these conponents is not worth the
reduced price.
Most PCL / Postscript printers are supported under Linux do work,
though some cheaper models (such as HP se series 'winprinters' do
not).
Here's and interesting thing, tho. When I first started with UNIX,
I too ran a dual boot 95 / UNIX machine. The UNIX side had stricter
hardware requirements (as did NT when I installed it). So, I
replaced all my winware with standards-based, high quality hardware.
Guess what - not only did UNIX work well, but WINDOWS 95 had
INCREASED SPEED AND STABILITY as well! :) There's a lot to be said
for good hardware - which is your only option when running a server
OS such as Linux or NT. 'E-machines' and the like are fine for the
home consumer market, but not my web / mail servers (I'm not
belittling - just being truthful).
> Need to share files amongst your office coworkers? Hope they like text
> cause that's what you'll be sending them.All those nice graphics and
> custom sig lines, gone under Linux...
Nope. Let's just do email.
Balsa. KMail. Eucalyptus. StarOffice, Gmail. NS Messenger. AMC.
ICEMail. NeoMail. PMail. Should I can go on. :)
Productivity: Sun StarOffice, WordPerfect 8, KOffice, LaTEX,
Adobe FrameMaker, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Custom sig in email? "vi .signature". Easy.
> I could go on for pages but the point is that Linux doesn't cut the
> mustard, it just plain sucks and you would be far better off using
> WIndows or McIntosh or AIX or anything other than Linux.
Hardware support for PowerPC UNIX machines? Come on now.
Macs are good, BTW, at least from a hardware standpoint, because
Apple keeps strict controls over hardware specifications and
development. This makes Macintosh, despite it's other flaws, the
only TRUE Plug n' Play OS.
> Don't believe me?
>
> Try it for yourself and see how much it sucks...
>
> Http://www.corel.com
> Will get you started.
The Corel distribution is very limited in it's feature set of
included software. Very limited. Only a 200 Meg ISO! Suse,
OTOH, comes on many, many CDs - with more software than you can
use!
Of course, with Corel Linux, you can download everything you need
as you go. Freshmeat.net cures all ailments. :)
> When was the last time you got something for free that actually
> worked?
Last nite in fact. :)
I usually don't answer posts like this. Just got an inklin' I guess.
Cheers,
-Josh
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Cruz)
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:19:39 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:45:09 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
> would be less violent than both! :) But, I haven't really seen enough
> soccer matches to tell. Of course, every time you hit the ball with
> your head in soccer, 1/10th of a brain cell dies. So, if you butt the
> ball 10 times, 1 brain cell dies!
Well, you have many millions of brain cells, so at that rate it might take
some time to notice the difference (and, of course, once you've lost enough
brain cells, you won't be able to notice anything anyway).
miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I've been Cleansed
Date: 7 Mar 2000 05:12:20 GMT
In a sense, he does have point, because Linux doesn't have all the ease of use as
Windows does. For Christ's sake, try installing a simple fucking printer under
the OS and you'll see what I mean. More and more people are having the same
trouble with Linux - ask yourself why that is, eh?? Nevertheless, it doesn't
mean it sucks...It just doesn't have the same ease-to-use concept as Windows,
that's all. And please, to any of you lamers who are about to tell me that it is
and that I'm a moron for saying otherwise, keep your comment in your ass, ok?
Good.
JoeX1029 wrote:
> "try it and see how much it sucks"?? My god i'm appaled at the sheer stupidy
> of WiN usr's. If you knew anything at all you'd having working fine. My god
> all you grown ups and adults can't even use a simple OS besides WiN....
------------------------------
From: Joshua Pruitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:23:51 GMT
Easy answer. I have never met a Linux distro that I could not make do
exactly what I wanted it to, or compile and run the available software
I wanted it to run.
So, with that in mind, use what's available, and use what the local
UNIX / Linux gurus use (making assistance easy). Visit freshmeat.net
and filewatcher.org often. Don't be afraid to READ a little. Have fun.
-Josh
------------------------------
From: "Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:26:38 -0800
Hey! I'm on your side. You're so eager to argue with someone that you
don't even see my point.
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:55:01 -0800, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Has anyone noticed that all "reasons" given about Linux being inferior to
> >Windows just don't make sense?
> >
> >Sure Linux requires more study.
> Not if pre installed like most Windows installs
>
> > I don't mind using my brain. If you do,
> >then stick to windows.
> >
> >True, it doesn't support a lot of hardware.
> Ho hum, totally untrue
>
> > Keep in mind it's original
> >intended purpose.
> What was that Mr Anonymous ?
>
> > It supports enough for what it was intended.
> Which is ?
>
> > It's
> >working it's way into homes because people are tired of problems with
> >Windows and are looking for an alternative. Remember when computers were
> >only used in companies. They eventually made it to homes.
> >
> >Not a lot of commercial software availabe? True.
> LOTS of NON COMMERCIAL software though, thousands of them, and more every
day.
>
> > At least not software
> >suitable for home use.
> Bull.
>
> > Again, remember it's intended purpose.
> I'm trying, but you havent said what that is yet !
>
> > Software
> >companies will make software for the popular OS regardless of it's
quality.
> >Look at Macintosh. If you go to most retail stores that sell software,
> >you'll see several hundred titles for the PC and just a little corner for
> >the Mac. Why is that?
> Who knows ?
>
> >
> >Hard to find hardware that works. See above.
> Nope, there are thousands of programs for Linux, and 20 to 30 are released
> EVERY DAY.
>
> >
> >The bottom line is use whatever you like. There is no need to put down
> >something you don't like. My Linux system wouldn't run with any version
of
> >Windows (95, 98, 98SE, NT 4.0) for more than a few minutes without
locking
> >up. Linux runs for days with no problems on the same hardware. There
are
> >definitely several advantages using Linux over Windows. People wouldn't
> >spend their time learning something more difficult unless there was a
valid
> >reason.
> At last some accuracy, but nothing we dont know already.
>
> This is a trolls post.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours 46 minutes
> ** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (An transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 05:25:37 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:04:10 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Assuming he doesn't have the ever popular Winmodem which seems to be
: included with just about every pre-load on the planet.
Winmodems don't even work well under Windoze. Why would any right thinking
person want that kind of trash anyway? Spend the extra $10 for a real
modem.
: >> Can I share files, you know, like a file server? Yes.
: After reading Samba How-to's until your eyes are bleary eyed and red.
: If it's so easy why has someone in this group even set up "yet
: another"Samba help page" ?
Because retards like you can't manage to install an RPM, then type in one
or two parameters into linuxconf?
: Buy a Linksys Windows networking kit and you will be doing it in 10
: minutes or less.
Even less time under Linux.
: >> Can my wife's Mac use the files? Yes.
: See above.
You can't install an RPM for netatalk? You're pretty sad. Nice
troll^H^H^Hy...
: >> Can I put a printer on it, and share that? Yes.
:
: Assuming you paid through the nose for a Postscript printer ala HP.
Negative. My printer (an HP LJ5L) cost me about $300 a few years back.
No PS, base configuration, no extra memory. It just works. Epson
printers work fine, so do a number of other brands.
: Winprinters which are included yet again in just about every pre-load
: need not apply. Same for many fine non-Winprinters which are reduced
: to featureless junk when using Linux, although they may produce "Some"
: output.
Like my PCL printer that's capable of printing PostScript thanks to
the printing filters that got automatically installed by RedHat's installer?
: Same goes for non-SCSI scanners, USB devices, Sound Cards, camera's.
USB works just fine, thanks. Even under kernel 2.2 (with a patch that's
a snap to apply).
: Assuming you don't have a Winmodem or use a free internet provider or
: AOL that requires Windows based sign up procedures.
You get what you pay for. Half of your bandwidth on those "free" ISPs gets
chewed up by the ads you're forced to download. AOL? Come on.
: >> The free UNIX camps and OSS generally, really do provide a complete
: >> suite of applications and services. Except for compatibility with
: >> MS-Office, I can see no reason for Windows NT.
:
: Yea but that last one is a biggie :)
StarOffice is available at no charge, and reads and writes MS Office
formats without difficulty.
: >Can I do my taxes on it? No
http://www.turbotax.com/ ? Turbotax Web.
: >Can you guarentee that every piece of hardware I will ever buy will have
: >drivers included and probably updated newer ones on the companies website?
: >No.
: Linux plays the catch up game on a daily basis. Linux is ALWAYs
: behind, always.
Just like when my mother called me the other day, wanting to be upgraded to
Windoze 2000, and I checked for scanner drivers, there was nothing, nada,
zip? Her little USB scanner would work just fine under Linux, mind you..
: >Can I exchanged cute .EXEs with my friends in e-mail? No
: With the assistance of 10 other programs maybe.
Why on earth would you want to dispense such mindless drivel?
: Under Windows install type setup.exe and it works. Done in 10 minutes.
10 minutes my left foot! 63,000 bugs, eh?
--
Jason Costomiris <><
Technologist, cryptogeek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
