Linux-Advocacy Digest #563, Volume #25 Wed, 8 Mar 00 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Salary? (Pas Moi)
Why Linux is doomed to fail ... ("James McLaren")
Re: BSD & Linux ("Noah Roberts")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Disproving the lies. (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Salary? ("Michael C. Watz")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (nohow)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (George Marengo)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: A little advocacy.. (mlw)
Re: Salary? (Jan Schaumann)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Gary Hallock)
Re: BSD & Linux (5X3)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Open Software Reliability ("by")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
From: Pas Moi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 22:10:28 GMT
>> "MCV" == Michael C Vergallen schrieb am 7 Mar 2000 15:15:25 GMT:
MCV> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthias Warkus
MCV> wrote:
>> Also take in account that we've got the state taking care of our
>> health, pension etc., that is we don't need to pay private health
>> insurances and such from our salary after taxes unless we want to.
MCV> Now I don't really like the state making those desisions for me
MCV> ... but here in europe we don't have a choice to opt out of this
MCV> so I'm forced to pay for a mediocre healt system and a pension
MCV> that will be only 800 Euro / month if anything is payed at all. I
MCV> rather make my own provisions on pensions and healt, also who
MCV> cares about the working hours ... I would like to be able to make
MCV> this out for my self instead of some fucked up government
MCV> desiding how long I can work in a week.
yes, i agree. like you, i much prefer having coke sniffing investment
bankers make all the decisions instead of those oh-so-stodgy g'mint
bureaucrats. life is sooo much better now than before. i can't
hardly believe it. damn.
enjoying the wonder of it all,
g.y.
--
Guy Yasko -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Barbie says, Take quaaludes in gin and go to a disco right away!
But Ken says, WOO-WOO!! No credit at "Mr. Liquor"!!
------------------------------
From: "James McLaren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:13:29 +0200
Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
calling it a day.
How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure :)
James <- Asbestos jox in situ
------------------------------
From: "Noah Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: 8 Mar 2000 22:03:39 GMT
> Mainly, the differences are that there is only one FreeBSD
> distribution, but there are way too fucking many Linux distros. I
> thought RedHat was for losers, because it does way too much
> hand-holding. AND, RedHat usually dumps too much shit onto my HD.
> With FreeBSD, you get a very good unix without all the frills. RedHat
> always insists on second-guessing what the user wants, and in the
> process, always over-installs, which creates a security hole. (Because
> theere's too many services started in RedHat.)
Problem is, your comparing the wost of Linux with your favorite OS. If you
want to compare *BSD with Linux, compare it to the good one....namely
Slackware. Course, SuSE is the second nicest....RedHat is like LAST (well
I don't much like Debian either).
Your right about RedHat, it is crap. But don't compare it like its the
classic example of a Linux system because it isn't. I have tried almost
all of the Linux systems, most are copies of RH, those die with it. Debian
is to sensitive on the install....one wrong answer and you get to start
over. SuSE is very nice, but uses the init setup that I dislike.
Slackware is just plain beutiful.
And, speaking of FreeBSD, how does it fare in compatability with Linux?
Can the two live together on the same drive with Win98? NetBSD destroyed
all the partitions I had. I can't say I am impressed with the *BSDs so
far....
FreeBSD: USED to erase the MBR wether you wanted to write a boot manager
there or not, hopefully that has been fixed.
OpenBSD: USED to have an fdisk system that was very hard to use by anyone
but an expert....which may be a good thing, but at the time I couldn't make
heads or tails of it...thinking of testing it out again, linux fdisk can
reserve a partition for it it appears.
NetBSD: scatters partitions around so my HD no longer functions and I loose
any previous OS. That seems to only happen when I have 3 OSs and under
varios other times....otherwise it just makes its own partition end offset
from the cluster end. Last night it also changed the states of other
partitions I left alone. I might be able to get it all working by trying
other ways, but it should not have done what it did in the first place.
Linux on the other hand has never given me so much trouble. I was able to
make it work right the first time I did it...nothing like what I am running
into with these BSD systems. Maybe if you put the BSD on its own HD it
will be ok, or if you only split it with win98....but it also seems to be a
little behind Linux so when you really compare the two in useablility BSD
comes a little short. And be it as it may, Linux also seems to accept
these cheap MS style components like my mouse better....and it supports
dvorak out of the box. The kernel in the distro for NetBSD does not appear
to.
This is not meant as a flame gatherer, these are real observations I have
made first hand. I don't know enough about BSD to tell what is better
about it since I have not ever gotten far enough to find out. I heard it
was more stable and a better system and kernel, which is why I have kept
trying even when I run into such off the wall problems. So far, I am
unimpressed with BSD...Linux falls short on a few things (example would be
internet speed) as well, don't get me wrong, but these installation issues
are real problems...not just little things like "this is to hard to
install" it actually corrupts things I never told it to touch.
Course I like the BSD mascot better, but that has nothing to do with wether
or not the OS itself is worth a damn. I have always hated that smug fat
penguin, the daemon should cook `im.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:20:01 -0600
"Michael C. Vergallen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8a66tr$iqf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
>
> >Umm...did you read what you reponded to? He didn't say Win2k WAS
> >certified. He said it is likely to be.
> Yes I know but this is a speculation on his part. Not a fact as I don't
> like speculations I only wan't to accept it when it is actually certified.
It's a logical deduction. You are capable of logic, aren't you? (Appearently
not)
> >Also, NT4 was recently
> >certified so your statement about NT3.51 being the only one is somewhat
> >incorrect.
> However Microsoft touted that NT4 was C2 certified when it wasn't. Only
> recently they have the certification.
It's like, do you guys even have any concept of truth or facts?
Do you just speak out of your ass all the time? How do you even get a
job with this little understanding of anything?
<sigh>
Windows NT 4 Workstation and Server achieved C2 Redbook certification early
on.
The RedBook is local, non-networked security.
C2 OrangeBook is significantly more difficult to achieve, and therefore test.
Testing takes several years, at best. Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and Server
achieved C2 OrangeBook around the middle of last year, I believe.
Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and Server are now fully C2 Redbook and Orangebook
certified.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 16:40:25 -0600
James McLaren wrote:
> Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
> calling it a day.
Sorry you were disappointed. What, by the way, is ".help"? My server doesn't
show a comp.os.linux.help.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 8 Mar 2000 23:47:52 +0100
Nik Simpson wrote:
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8a54li$6et$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> <quote>
>> Table 1
>> Early Adopter Reliability Statistics on Windows 2000
>>
>> Customer # Run Time (years) Down Time Availability
>> Percentage
>> 1 0.45 0.10 99.94
>> 2 4.18 0.84 99.95
^^^^
How does this work out?
W2K haven't existed for 4 years, has it?
>> 3 0.09 0.01 99.96
>> 4 0.30 0.00 100.00
>> 5 0.65 0.09 99.96
>> 6 0.84 0.07 99.98
>> 7 0.72 0.01 100.00
^^^^ ^^^^
And how does this work out? Non-zero downtime,
but still they say 100% up?
It should be: 99.96
>> 8 0.81 0.41 99.86
>> 9 0.39 0.13 99.91
>> Totals: 8.42 1.65 99.95
>>
>> Source: Microsoft Corporation, February 2000
>> </quote>
>>
How have these times been measured and calcualted?
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Al Powell: You ain't pissing in somebody's pool, are you?
John McClane: Yeah, and I'm fresh out of chlorine.
/Die Hard 2
------------------------------
From: "Michael C. Watz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 15:53:49 -0700
Bwaaaaaaaaahahahhaa... 1.60USD/gallon? Nothing! Driving around Great
Britain it cost us around 50USD to fill up that tiny little tank.... I
think it worked out to over 4USD per gallon....
Just wait until we have $2.50/gallon prices this summer.... break out
the bikes!
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:31:57 +0000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >And verily, didst Desmond Coughlan hastily scribble thusly:
> >> 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.
> >
> >What high cost of living?
> >Food's cheap. Petrol's cheap. PHone calls are cheap?
> >You don't have a HIGH cost of living.
>
> You haven't been seeing the price of gas rise lately,
> have you, then? :-)
>
> Around here, it's hovering around $1.60 a gallon, and that's
> for the ultra-cheapie stuff. I don't know how many pounds
> per liter that is offhand, though.
>
> (Of course, living in the San Francisco Bay Area / Silicon Valley
> might have something to do with that...)
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but hey, this is where the software is! :-)
------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 15:14:17 -0800
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:20:01 -0600, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Michael C. Vergallen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8a66tr$iqf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
>>
>> >Umm...did you read what you reponded to? He didn't say Win2k WAS
>> >certified. He said it is likely to be.
>> Yes I know but this is a speculation on his part. Not a fact as I don't
>> like speculations I only wan't to accept it when it is actually certified.
>
>It's a logical deduction. You are capable of logic, aren't you? (Appearently
>not)
>
>> >Also, NT4 was recently
>> >certified so your statement about NT3.51 being the only one is somewhat
>> >incorrect.
>> However Microsoft touted that NT4 was C2 certified when it wasn't. Only
>> recently they have the certification.
>
>It's like, do you guys even have any concept of truth or facts?
>
>Do you just speak out of your ass all the time? How do you even get a
>job with this little understanding of anything?
>
I believe your ass runneth over.
><sigh>
>
>Windows NT 4 Workstation and Server achieved C2 Redbook certification early
>on.
>
>The RedBook is local, non-networked security.
>
>C2 OrangeBook is significantly more difficult to achieve, and therefore test.
>
>Testing takes several years, at best. Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and Server
>achieved C2 OrangeBook around the middle of last year, I believe.
>
>Windows NT 4.0 Workstation and Server are now fully C2 Redbook and Orangebook
>certified.
>
>-Chad
<EVEN BIGGER SIGH>
I can only assume you're lying on purpose as this ground has been gone
over and over. NT 3.5 was redbook certified in 1995. NT 4 only
received *ANY TYPE* of C2 certification in 1999 - approximately 3
years after NT 4's release. I'm not sure if 3.51 ever received C2
certification though a system did get the equivalent British rating.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 23:10:31 GMT
"Michael C. Vergallen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> In article <8a66tr$iqf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
> >Also, NT4 was recently
> >certified so your statement about NT3.51 being the only one is somewhat
> >incorrect.
> However Microsoft touted that NT4 was C2 certified when it wasn't.
>Only recently they have the certification.
Microsoft touted that NT4 was _being_ C2 certified, which has recently
been changed to _is_ C2 certified.
Arguing C2 certification WRT WinNT/Win2K is a losing proposition.
Microsoft has and will spend the money necessary to get it certified
because it opens up a whole new market for them, as well giving out
the image that NT is secure.
Who is going to take the time/money to get Linux certified?
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 8 Mar 2000 23:14:23 GMT
Salvatore Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Please don't tell me what I should and should not find interesting. My
: opinions are my own and when I say that _I_ am finding linux testimonials
: boring please trust that _I_ really do find them boring.
1. You are taking me more seriously than I do.
2. A hundred lines typed in opposition says more than this disclaimer.
John
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 8 Mar 2000 23:20:14 GMT
Salvatore Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On 8 Mar 2000 14:06:09 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >They certainly didn't owe it to anyone, but why did they decide not to
: >make friends?
: Are you assuming that there was some conscious effort not to port
: things to Linux? What makes you think this?
It is easy to divide a post into fragments and contest each fragment in
isolation. Why don't you go beyond that. Either accept that Apple has a
strategy to provide an "alternate platform", or explain to me what their
real strategy is.
John
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:26:06 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hardly. The 8008 wasn't even available in 71-72, let alone the 8080
> which the
> > Altair used.. I'm looking at the Jan 1976 issue of Byte right now. On
> page
> > 5 is an ad from MITS. Here is the first part of the ad:
>
> Yes, I was mistaken on the date of the Altairs introduction, but there were
> discrete computing projects and kits available before this. It's not
> particularly germane to the point, which was that home computers have been
> around for pretty close to 30 years and were never a business only
> situation.
The "home" computers was you call them, were totally nerd material. I
build my first computer in the later '70s from a Byte magazine article.
The 1802 Elf.
Computers were in business way before they were in home use. The Pet,
Altair, and original Apple were WAY harder than anything that anyone
says about Linux. The principal use of these machines was either hacking
(which does not count as home use, IMHO), or business applications. Ever
use WordStar?
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Jan Schaumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:28:01 -0500
Thanks!
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:46:29 -0500...
> ...and Jan Schaumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
> > <snipped as I will go compeltely OT>
> >
> > >
> > > mawa
> > > --
> > > /The American Way of Life:/ Schon was sie essen und trinken, diese
> > > Bleichlinge, die nicht wissen, was Wein ist, diese Vitamin-Fresser,
> > > die kalten Tee trinken und Watte kauen und nicht wissen, was Brot ist,
> > > dieses Coca-Cola-Volk [...] -- Faber, in: Max Frisch, _Homo_Faber_
> >
> > markus,
> > I like your sigs. :)
> > You seem to have a script that cats a different sig in every message you
> > compose - how did you do that? (If you don't want to go OT here, just
> > email me directly if you don't mind).
>
> [mawa@audrey]: ~$ cat bin/do-sig
> #!/bin/sh
>
> fortune -s 90% /home/mawa/signatures 10% all >/home/mawa/.signature
>
> [mawa@audrey]: ~$ crontab -l
> # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - edit the master and reinstall.
> # (/tmp/crontab.8386 installed on Sat Dec 4 21:34:21 1999)
> # (Cron version -- $Id: crontab.c,v 2.13 1994/01/17 03:20:37 vixie Exp
> # $)
> */3 * * * * /home/mawa/bin/do-sig
> * */2 * * * /home/mawa/bin/themeswitcher
>
> That's the secret: A signature file organised as a fortune cookie
> file, a one-liner shell script and a crontab entry to call it every
> three minutes.
>
> mawa
> --
> adaptagony, n.:
> the state into which any kind of modem or ISDN adaptor inevitably
> falls many times a day and to which power-cycling the beast is the
> only remedy
--
Jan Schaumann
http://jschauma-0.dsl.speakeasy.net/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:33:29 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
James McLaren wrote:
> Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
> the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
> they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
> calling it a day.
>
> How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
> don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure :)
>
> James <- Asbestos jox in situ
Which .help is that? The only .help I can find is linux.help . It does not
appear to get much traffic and I can't find any record of you posting to
it. Did you try any of the comp.os.linux.* newsgroups or alt.os.linux?
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
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
Date: 8 Mar 2000 23:39:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Noah Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, speaking of FreeBSD, how does it fare in compatability with Linux?
> Can the two live together on the same drive with Win98? NetBSD destroyed
> all the partitions I had. I can't say I am impressed with the *BSDs so
> far....
Youve missed the point of freebsd entirely...Its not a "hobby" OS or
really a "workstation" OS, its for ridiculously long uptimes and major
load handling. I have no idea why anyone would want to put it on the
same hard drive as any other operating system, especially now that
physical drives are so cheap.
> FreeBSD: USED to erase the MBR wether you wanted to write a boot manager
> there or not, hopefully that has been fixed.
It doesnt do that anymore.
> Linux on the other hand has never given me so much trouble. I was able to
> make it work right the first time I did it...nothing like what I am running
> into with these BSD systems. Maybe if you put the BSD on its own HD it
> will be ok, or if you only split it with win98....but it also seems to be a
> little behind Linux so when you really compare the two in useablility BSD
> comes a little short.
Again, BSD isnt written to be a handy little operating system for light-to-
medium duty home or office use. Its legacy is nearly unmatched, and it shows.
> And be it as it may, Linux also seems to accept
> these cheap MS style components like my mouse better....and it supports
> dvorak out of the box.
So does FreeBSD, because there really is no *box*. See the ports tree and
cvsup for details.
> This is not meant as a flame gatherer, these are real observations I have
> made first hand. I don't know enough about BSD to tell what is better
> about it since I have not ever gotten far enough to find out. I heard it
> was more stable and a better system and kernel, which is why I have kept
> trying even when I run into such off the wall problems.
You heard right. Generally, BSD can handle load much better than linux can,
though FreeBSD has a couple of strange little kernel bugs that wake up under
moderately unusual circumstances (multiple interfaces pushing 60mbps).
> So far, I am
> unimpressed with BSD...Linux falls short on a few things (example would be
> internet speed)
Internet speed? What the hell is that? My SDSL connection at home grants
120kbps in each direction evenly to the following operating systems and
hardware:
W2K (workstation) on a gateway laptop
RedHat Linux, Win98 on a PIII 450
FreeBSD on a PII 200
LinuxPPC and MacOS on a powermac 7200/120
BeOS on a PIII 450
Wheres the problem?
> as well, don't get me wrong, but these installation issues
> are real problems...not just little things like "this is to hard to
> install" it actually corrupts things I never told it to touch.
Ive never had a problem installing linux (Redhat 4.2, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1; Mandrake
6.0, 7.0, SuSe 6.0, various slackwares) or FreeBSD (3.4 off the CD or a Net
Install) along side a wide variety of different operating systems.
> Course I like the BSD mascot better, but that has nothing to do with wether
> or not the OS itself is worth a damn. I have always hated that smug fat
> penguin, the daemon should cook `im.
And now we get to the crux of your argument. :)
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: 8 Mar 2000 23:50:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
James McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
>the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
>they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
>calling it a day.
>
>How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
>don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure :)
>
>James <- Asbestos jox in situ
Sorry you had a problem.
DejaNews does not show any articles posted from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] that contain the word "linux",
nor that were sent to any newsgroup of the form
*linux* .
Nor does it have any articles from "James McLaren"
that meet either criterion, except two that were
sent from Canada (not Africa) to some BeOS news-
groups, and that mention Linux incidentally, but
don't request any help for it.
Where and when did you request help for Linux?
(A good place to start would be comp.os.linux.setup .)
------------------------------
From: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:53:52 -0800
Reply-To: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Frank Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a2uvc$23mf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I wonder if someone could help me understand a claim that the development
> paradigm for open source software in general (and for Linux in particular)
> yields higher reliability, maintainability and stability.
>
I doubt this. From my experience using windows, linux, & bsd, I think
OS-wise, open source has probably produced more stable OS, but with poorer
hardware support. I personally haven't seen any stablity difference between
Linux & NT, but I mostly used them as workstations, not as servers.
On the application side, I'd to divide it into two categories:
1. command-line/console applications. These applications/programs tend to be
highly technical in nature, and open source & closed source produced
software of roughly the same quality.
2. GUI applications. Open source generally failed to produce reliable &
stable applications.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
