Linux-Advocacy Digest #611, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 11:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... ("xxx")
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (Christopher Browne)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Bob Germer)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Humor: Beer? (Bastian)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("Chad Myers")
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ("mr_organic")
Re: Copying linux to a larger drive ? (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 14:02:18 GMT
In article <nR5z4.81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
LP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8agv29$dgm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <38cba2e0$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On 03/11/2000 at 11:41 PM,
>> > Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >
>> >
>> >> That's why the Linux/Win98SE dual boot box has only 64 meg - it's an
>> >> Intel 430TX chipset MB. It will take more ram but only caches 64 meg.
>> >
>> >Unless, of course, you are running OS/2. Then all the ram can be used
>> >provided you tell the Bios you are smart enough to run OS/2. I have Warp
>> >running on a 430TX motherboard with the Award Bios set for using OS/2.
>> >When thus set, all 96 megs are available and the swapfile never grows
>> >beyond the allocated size.
>>
>> Unless you are a complete fucking idiot that likes to show that he doesn't
>> know dick. The 430TX chipset only caches 64Mb of ram. Anything above
>> that won't be cached and you will suffer when the cpu has to hit
>> memory.
>
>Um, Dos/Win9598 will cache from the top-down.. so it is not "anything
above it".
The 430TX allows the operating system to specify the 64 Meg block of
memory that is cached?
> >The real problem stems from the fact that it is top-down caching, so
performance will suffer across the board. >If you have 96megs installed,
the first 32megs won't be cached. > >Contrast that to OS/2, which will
cache from the bottom up.. so that yes, if you are actively using it
beyond >64megs, it'll not be cached.. but for 99% of it's memory usage,
it'll be fully cached. > > > > >
In each case there is only 64 megs of memory being cached.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:00:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thingfishhhh
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <8agv29$dgm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <38cba2e0$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >On 03/11/2000 at 11:41 PM,
>>> > Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> That's why the Linux/Win98SE dual boot box has only 64 meg - it's an
>>> >> Intel 430TX chipset MB. It will take more ram but only caches 64 meg.
>>> >
>>> >Unless, of course, you are running OS/2. Then all the ram can be used
>>> >provided you tell the Bios you are smart enough to run OS/2. I have Warp
>>> >running on a 430TX motherboard with the Award Bios set for using OS/2.
>>> >When thus set, all 96 megs are available and the swapfile never grows
>>> >beyond the allocated size.
>>>
>>> Unless you are a complete fucking idiot
>>
>>Maybe it's me, but anytime you address anyone over a computer matter
>>this way says to me you need a break and/or to get laid, and you take
>>this WAAAAAAAY to seriously.
>Nah just treating Bob how he treats others.
>>
>>Are computers really worth that kind of venom and angst?
>You'd have to read Bob's hate filled diatribes on non-OS/2 using people to
>answer that question.
...after it was started by the wincrap assholes, who come here loaded with an
obnoxiousness that looks for it, and who apparently don't have any other life
since they are always here.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "xxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 16:16:49 +0200
It is just that sometimes you get rather irritated when some one asks
something that is explained in perfect detail in the HOW-TO's. Most of us
started at the same level with Linux - 0% knowledge. There is only one way
now to learn - read! Even with W2K it's a whole new ball game. There is so
many new features that even the experienced users need to go back to the
books for this "user friendly" OS.
But... Point taken. Maybe we all must pay more attention to the quality of
help we give and stay away from bragging.
Memnoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:13:29 +0200, "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
:)
>
> I hear ya, brother.
>
> Really sorry you had a bad experience, but I know what you mean...
> I've been there too. I got myself some O'Reilly books, asked my
> co-workers (which are all very experienced *nix administrators), and
> worked to a good knowledge of this wonderful OS...
>
> Newbies CAN really be trashed good on Linux NG's. For no other reason
> than that the self-proclaimed linux-gurus and soooo good at it, they
> forget THEY were once newbies too. They've all did their share of
> "hello world", if you know what I mean...
>
> Then again, on the other hand, there ARE lots of experienced people
> here too, and you CAN get great help. You just have to wade thru the
> garbage-I'm-a-Linux-GOD-so-I-MOCK-YOU-with-my-LinuxGOD-pants-like
> postings to get to the good, clean, informative an' helpful ones...
>
> Hear that, everyone? Be nice! Help people out!
> Remember: YOU WERE NOT BORN A LINUX GURU!
> Linux will fail as a whole, if the community will not accept some
> constructive critizisms, and acknowledge that we're all in this
> together...
>
>
> _-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-_
> Memmie signing off... ;)
>
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> URL: http://www.spork.tzo.org/~memnoch/
>
> Badgers? We don't need no Steenkin' Badgers!
> _-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-_
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 14:32:24 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Matt Gaia would say:
>*has a hunch* I wonder if this is "S" trolling from their hotmail account
>again?
No, the quality of the spelling and grammar is too high.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a real computer" - Dilbert.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:39:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
On 03/12/2000 at 08:35 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> Unless you are a complete fucking idiot that likes to show that he
> doesn't know dick. The 430TX chipset only caches 64Mb of ram. Anything
> above that won't be cached and you will suffer when the cpu has to hit
> memory. You see the CPU operates fastest when the data it needs is in a
> register, if not there it will go to the L1 cache, if not there it goes
> to the L2 cache, if not there the L3 cache(chips with built in L2 cache
> with L3 being on the motherboard) and at last slow main memory. So you
> see that all memory above 64Mb won't be cached and will slow down
> processing. This has nothing to do with the OS or the operator, it has
> to do with the chipset. You obviously don't have the experience that
> you'd like to make everyone believe Bob. You configure software and
> apparently don't do that very well.
As others have pointed out, OS/2 can and does use ALL the memory thanks to
its cacheing methods which are far superior to what idiots who run any
Windows operating system experience.
But then that is what I would expect from the likes of idiots like you.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 14:47:51 GMT
In article <38cced89$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thingfishhhh
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In article <8agv29$dgm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <38cba2e0$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >On 03/11/2000 at 11:41 PM,
>>>> > Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> That's why the Linux/Win98SE dual boot box has only 64 meg - it's an
>>>> >> Intel 430TX chipset MB. It will take more ram but only caches 64 meg.
>>>> >
>>>> >Unless, of course, you are running OS/2. Then all the ram can be used
>>>> >provided you tell the Bios you are smart enough to run OS/2. I have Warp
>>>> >running on a 430TX motherboard with the Award Bios set for using OS/2.
>>>> >When thus set, all 96 megs are available and the swapfile never grows
>>>> >beyond the allocated size.
>>>>
>>>> Unless you are a complete fucking idiot
>>>
>>>Maybe it's me, but anytime you address anyone over a computer matter
>>>this way says to me you need a break and/or to get laid, and you take
>>>this WAAAAAAAY to seriously.
>
>>Nah just treating Bob how he treats others.
>
>>>
>>>Are computers really worth that kind of venom and angst?
>
>>You'd have to read Bob's hate filled diatribes on non-OS/2 using people to
>>answer that question.
>
>...after it was started by the wincrap assholes, who come here loaded with an
>obnoxiousness that looks for it, and who apparently don't have any other life
>since they are always here.
Yes and the people that believe that use of a product implies some kind of
higher moral standard, read their posts too.
>
>
>
>_____________
>Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 14:50:24 GMT
In article <38ccfde2$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 03/12/2000 at 08:35 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>> Unless you are a complete fucking idiot that likes to show that he
>> doesn't know dick. The 430TX chipset only caches 64Mb of ram. Anything
>> above that won't be cached and you will suffer when the cpu has to hit
>> memory. You see the CPU operates fastest when the data it needs is in a
>> register, if not there it will go to the L1 cache, if not there it goes
>> to the L2 cache, if not there the L3 cache(chips with built in L2 cache
>> with L3 being on the motherboard) and at last slow main memory. So you
>> see that all memory above 64Mb won't be cached and will slow down
>> processing. This has nothing to do with the OS or the operator, it has
>> to do with the chipset. You obviously don't have the experience that
>> you'd like to make everyone believe Bob. You configure software and
>> apparently don't do that very well.
>
>As others have pointed out, OS/2 can and does use ALL the memory thanks to
>its cacheing methods which are far superior to what idiots who run any
>Windows operating system experience.
>
>But then that is what I would expect from the likes of idiots like you.
Nope you are an idiot still. The 430TX chipset only caches 64 megs of
memory. Accesses to this memory outside of the cacheable range always
require a trip to main memory, no matter what operating system is being
used. You obviously dont' understand what is being talked about. You do
realize we are talking about the cpu cache and the motherboard L2/L3 cache
right. I didn't think you did you moron.
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
>MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
>As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 13 Mar 2000 10:03:20 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ah2mk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> For the hardware I described every step is necessary. Please tell me
>> what step is not necessary if you think I am wrong.
>
>Can you allow me to make up a hardware/pre-existing software setup that is
>as massively contrieved and specifically hostile to a linux setup as humanly
>possible and then give you ever single possible option step to an
>idiots-guide-to-setting-up-an-OS and find it relates to... what again?
>
>
It is not "massively contrived". It is a standard, off-the-shelf,
Gateway 2300XL Solo laptop, with every piece of software and hardware
unmodified and exactly as provided by the mfr., with no additional
hardware or software not provided by the mfr. It was purchased about 2
years ago, with the latest/greatest release of '95 just before '98 came
out.
My point is that it takes me almost 2 hours of intensely interactive
time to reinstall the OS, and that I do not consider it easy and
intuitive. The steps were documented in detail for my own benefit
because there are a number of "gotcha's" along the way, such as
accidentally clicking "Close" instead of "Apply" after installing the
video drivers -- the former will lock up the machine unrecoverably.
Installing OS's is not my profession, not something I do every day, so
yes I do need a kind of "idiots-guide-to-setting-up-an-OS". As would, I
expect, most ordinary users. It ensures me that I get a predictable,
consistent result rather than wondering "did I do this or that last
time?" and in the end saves me time.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: Humor: Beer?
Date: 13 Mar 2000 15:04:08 GMT
God, I'm glad that I'm a non-drinker, but if I have to, I prefer the Linux
beer, because of the 32 oz cans (I can get very thursty) :-)
My bottles never explode, and if they do, they just destroy the Windoze beer
cans next to them. They're not very important anyway, because they rot in the
corners of my HDD (sorry, beer-store).
Bastian.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 15:11:19 GMT
In article <38ccfde2$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 03/12/2000 at 08:35 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>> Unless you are a complete fucking idiot that likes to show that he
>> doesn't know dick. The 430TX chipset only caches 64Mb of ram. Anything
>> above that won't be cached and you will suffer when the cpu has to hit
>> memory. You see the CPU operates fastest when the data it needs is in a
>> register, if not there it will go to the L1 cache, if not there it goes
>> to the L2 cache, if not there the L3 cache(chips with built in L2 cache
>> with L3 being on the motherboard) and at last slow main memory. So you
>> see that all memory above 64Mb won't be cached and will slow down
>> processing. This has nothing to do with the OS or the operator, it has
>> to do with the chipset. You obviously don't have the experience that
>> you'd like to make everyone believe Bob. You configure software and
>> apparently don't do that very well.
>
>As others have pointed out, OS/2 can and does use ALL the memory thanks to
>its cacheing methods which are far superior to what idiots who run any
>Windows operating system experience.
>
>But then that is what I would expect from the likes of idiots like you.
I really am laughing over this one, had to post again. So tell us Bob,
how does OS/2 make the chipset cache more memory than it is designed to
in hardware? You obviously don't know much. Tell us about the caching
methods it employs to completely bypass the hardware on the motherboard.
You know the superior caching methods you were talking of. Again remember
we are talking about the cpu cache.
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
>MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
>As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:22:07 -0600
"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:38ccfde2$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As others have pointed out, OS/2 can and does use ALL the memory thanks to
> its cacheing methods which are far superior to what idiots who run any
> Windows operating system experience.
>
> But then that is what I would expect from the likes of idiots like you.
Oh yeah, I forgot that OS/2 somehow managed to overcome the shortcomings
of the TX hardware and was able to magically cache >64MB of RAM _IN_ RAM
and still be faster than L2 cache!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:44:39 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8aaqmm$j1o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Alan Sugar fix my mind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> Admit it; you're a dinosaur in the fast moving mammalian world of
> :> technology. NT is old, boring shit, and Linux is new and exciting.
>
> : NT and 2000 can do whatever Linux does
>
>
> LOL! :)
>
> Let me know when W2K gets a fork(), and can run on an S/390 (or for
> that matter any non-Intel platform).
>
>
> Joe
I'm not a WinNT advocate by any means, but I feel compelled to point out
that WinNT could easily be ported to at least the Alpha and PowerPC chips --
NT 4.0 ran on both platforms (although the PowerPC port never made it out of
the lab, AFAIK). I think there was even a MIPS port at one time. NT is
built on a pretty cool microkernel designed by Dave Cutler of VMS fame, and
was built from the get-go to be portable since M$ at that time thought that
the x86 architecture was plateauing performance-wise. My gripe with NT has
less to do with the core and more to do with all the s**t layered on top of
what is actually a pretty clean OS.
Linux may have a few more warts, but it makes infinitely better use of
hardware than NT does. And if you really want "clean code" for its own
sake, you can run any of the *BSD's. They are excellent OSes, just as good
as Linux in most ways and better in some others, and the overall quality of
code is very high.
Just my $0.02 (US).
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Copying linux to a larger drive ?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:03 -0600
Steve Budak wrote:
>
> Howdy, since this tends to be one of the most active Linux groups I thought
> I'd ask here.
> What's the best way to copy Linux from one hard drive (4GB) to another (8GB)
> ?
> Thanks.
I just use:
cp -a
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:28:48 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Subject says it all***************************
Please don't feed the trolls.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:39:29 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But to be fair, I've heard that Windows 2000 was much more stable than
> NT 4.0. Gee, if Windows NT 4.0 was so stable, imagine how stable W2K
> is. Of course, maybe the Winvocates were bullshitting when they said
> NT 4.0 was really stable. When it crashed, it was always the HW, or
> the administrator's fault. Now that Win 2000 is stable "for real",
> people aren't blaming bad HW anymore.
>
actually, Donn, we're finding the same thing is true as always. You stuff
bad drivers into a good OS and it'll go bad for everyone. What's true is
that w2k doesn't just up and puke as bad as NT4 did with a bad driver and
w2k's recovery console is much better in these cases. I've seen the only two
BSODs under W2K ever occuring during beta; once with pcAnywhere 8 and the
other with fooked up video drivers. One was annoying the other required a
safemode fix, ugh. I'm happy to say I personally haven't had a repeat since
RTM but... I've been reading the w2k ms newsgroups and drivers are a bit
spotty right now. I can honestly say I'm not aware of a single non-driver
crash on w2k. I'm most encouraged. I honestly believed NT4 was stable - but
it's not illogical to say that W2K is much MUCH more stable (I say on par
with any *nix stability). I think the only reason five 9s of reliability
haven't been touted yet is because the product is only a month old! Give it
some time guys, let the drivers mature one rev and lets give MS just a
little more time to get some fixes in and then start your timers (I mean, be
fair, did Linux 2.0.0.0.0 run perfectly out the gate?)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:40:51 -0500
or to accidently drag and drop them... had a client who did that non-stop.
Swore atop stacks of bibles he (actually, his secretary) never could have
done it. We turned on auditing and... he never swore to us again :)
"Ray Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3p%y4.4693$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> W2K is very stable and reliable and so is NT. I've been using them for
> years and never had directories mysteriously disappear on me. The only
way
> that a directory disappears is to actually delete it..
>
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8agrej$23eq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <8aeb6p$3oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:08:59 -0500, "Drestin Black"
> > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >> <snip>
> > >> >>>Yes, it installed, I have no idea if it installed right because I
> > > haven't
> > >> >>>really done anything with it, there isn't really anything to do
with
> it
> > >> >>>other than type shit at the CLI or fire up a browser in the
> > > windows-clone
> > >> >>>GUI and be impressed that even if X crashes I can telnet in, kill
> the
> > > task
> > >> >>>and try again!
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>><click>
> > >> >
> > >> >> IOW, you did this with a chip on your shoulder. Just like the
> > >> >> LinVocates that you complain about who install Windows just
> > >> >> to find every problem they can with the install or the OS itself,
> > >> >> with no intention of actually using it with an open mind to see if
> > >> >> they might actually <gasp> like using it.
> > >> >
> > >> > There is no chance that Dresden will ever, ever give linux a fair
> > > chance.
> > >>
> > >> It is not a matter of 'ever'. He can't do it. He knows only M$.
Unless
> > >> he has a button to click the guy is completely lost. Very sad (except
> > >> he makes this newsgroup so much fun even though I have him
killfiled).
> > >>
> >
> > > I love it when that happens... they can't take it and won't even
listen
> to
> > > the other side. blinded by linvocacy and unwilling to even consider
it's
> > > possible linux isn't perfect - he slips his blinders on, his rose
color
> > > glasses and doesn't even see the train coming... :)
> >
> >
> > I understand fully that linux isnt perfect; thats why I choose FreeBSD
for
> > most "important" tasks, like my workstation at my job. But I also
> understand
> > that for my applications (various and sundry) NT is much, much worse.
> >
> > And so is W2K btw. What the fucks up with stuff I stick in the recycle
> bin
> > coming back after deletion? And what about mysterious disappearing
> > directories? I just recreated an MP3 tree for the 4th time and im sick
to
> > death of doing it man.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > p0ok
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
