Linux-Advocacy Digest #644, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Disproving the lies. (George Marengo)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("W. Kiernan")
Re: ?? (Robert MacGregor)
Re: New MS commercials.. ("W. Kiernan")
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Feature set: Kerberos, IPSec (Jeff Hall)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Humor: Beer? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New MS commercials..
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (abraxas)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (david parsons)
Re: Linux based software to US government? (The Scotts)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:10:28 GMT
On 15 Mar 2000 16:59:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:33:00 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>If you had $400 to spend on a computer, why would you use one with
>>unreliable, case sensitive software, when you could just get comething
>>from eMachines or the like, with Windows 98 and everything installed?
>
>I'm truly impressed that you could write that with a straight face.
>Saying "reliable" and "Win98" in the same sentence, while at the same time
>implying (but not saying explicitly) that Linux is unreliable in
>comparison (with Win98!). You're almost as full of shit as Rex.
Actually, he never said that Windows 98 was reliable. I'd have
to put him on my "full of shit" list if he did. At this point he's
just on the "doesn't know what he's talking about" list. ;- )
eMachines and Windows98 -- a perfect combination.
------------------------------
From: "W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:12:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 7. Scanners. SCSI scanners still rule in the Linux world although they
> offer no advantage over parallel port scanners...
Evidently you don't use a scanner much. If you have to do a lot of
scanning, the difference between a pp scanner and a SCSI scanner is like
the difference between a wheelbarrow and a pickup truck. Incidentally,
I have never tried to use my scanners under Linux; I do all my scanning
in NT 4.0. One of these days I'm going to have to have a look at GIMP,
though; what I'd like is to be able to script certain repetitive
graphics-editing jobs. I don't know if you can do that in GIMP but with
the general Linux emphasis toward scriptable applications, I'd guess
it's more likely than with canned, closed-source Windows graphics
programs.
> 6.Dial up's and Free ISP's as well as AOL. First point AOL does not
> work...
AOL? And this is a DISADVANTAGE to Linux? That's like saying that
snorting heroin sucks compared with shooting up heroin, because yay! you
can get AIDS shooting up, whereas you can't snorting it.
> 1. Fragmentation of the various distributions. Red hat, Corel, SuSE
> and others are all competing for press and that coveted best
> distribution award. As a result RPM's don't work with deb's...
RPMs work just fine with debs.
> The organized assualt has begun. Shields up cause we're gonna blow
> this baby wide open!!!
But why? What's in it for you, personally, to make yourself into Bill
Gates's unpaid piss-boy? I've never understood why some people are so
eager to be lowly foot-soldiers for the rich and powerful. It seems
kind of degrading to cast one's gaze skyward and to grovel and worship
so fulsomely. And it's not as though they are going to become rich and
powerful themselves. Why don't you just go to alt.mag.playboy and check
out some babes instead?
Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Robert MacGregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ??
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 19:13:50 -0600
In article <9tPz4.633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > With NT? ha!
>
> What has NT to be with you ? Have you ever thought that there's NT
> information on the net too ? I use both OS's and like/dislike things from
> two. Do not need to have the best OS for every thing in every world for
> every person ... use all of it and enjoy.
>
> Net Walker
There aint a billionth the info for fixin NT that there is for Linux on
the Net... give me a break!
I'm not a Linux bigot either...
------------------------------
From: "W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New MS commercials..
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:22:50 GMT
Gooba wrote:
>
> Just tonight I was watching TV and there's a new ad campaign by
> Microsoft. They are now advertising 100% reliability for Windows 2000.
>
> Anyone crashed Win2k yet? False advertising if it crashes even once,
> right?
Well if they said "100 percent" with no decimal places, then anything
greater than 99.5 percent, when rounded to the nearest digit, is close
enough. Of course I already get way better than 99.5% uptime from my
old NT 4.0 boxes, and I don't use Win9x at all.
Microsoft's print ads suck pretty bad - in fact, I'd have to say their
ads are quite a bit worse than their software itself is - and everything
on TV sucks so bad I can't watch it at all anymore, so I imagine that MS
ads on TV would have to be pretty much uniquely awful. But I've got a
fine and comprehensive low-tech solution for all your TV-related
problems. Get a brick.
Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:05:14 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott Higdon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In article <8alsm0$lvs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What children learning software and games are there for your children
>> on Linux?
>>
>> What do they typically use the computer for? Learning? Playing games?
>> Browsing the web?
>>
>> What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
>> your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
>>
>> Are you sacrificing the well being and mental development of your
>> children simply because you're too ignorant?
>
> This is the most idiotic thing I've ever read. To associate well being
> and mental development with the use of Microsoft products is an insult.
> Oh, no! How did any of us survive before Microsoft!? For that matter,
> how did anyone survive before computers? I suppose the millions of
> people who don't own computers have had their development stunted.
Yes, I forgot in my reply to Chad's message that ignorance can be cured.
Stupidity is permanent. Poor Chad. :-)
------------------------------
From: Jeff Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Feature set: Kerberos, IPSec
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:37:58 +0000
Here are a couple quick questions. A Federal government contractor has
mentioned that he has specified Windows 2000 because of its "free"
support for Kerberos security and an secure ip protocol called IPSec
(?). Two questions: Is there an open-source alternative
that I should recommend, perhaps involving Linux? Also, are these
truly part of the feature set of W2K that make it a compelling purchase?
Thanks, Jeff
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:42:48 -0800
In article <0HEz4.2135$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Ross"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Should someone who doesn't know how to access a file be
>> installing software?
>
>Sure.
If you mean "sure, they should be installing software" then I
disagree. Perhaps we can agree to disagree?
>> How many windows users know what winzip is, where to get it,
how
>> to install it or how to use it? Among my relatives and
>> aquantences, maybe 10% can do all of those. 30% can do one or
>> two.
>
>That's one of the few most people know since everything seems
to need it.
<personal anecdote>
I was surprised that none of my coworkers (6 people) had any
clue at all what winzip or a compressed file was. All they ever
downloaded from the internet was .exe and .doc files. So of
course they didn't even have winzip on their computers.
Then I visited my family at Christmas and, surprise, same thing.
</personal anecdote>
>Ya windows sux too. But for different reasons.
So we agree that every operating system has things it could do
better.
>On a desktop security isn't always the top priority.
True. But one thing I _really_ like about linux is that it is
more secure (on a stand alone) right out of the box. I assume
that most "typical users" are sharing one or maybe two computers
with the whole family. Linux allows everyone to have their own
desktop, home directory, bookmarks, etc. - windows 9x tries, but
isn't really multi-user.
But we were talking about mounting. One thing I don't like with
windows - and I think this is a mounting issue - is that anytime
I open "my computer", the os wastes time checking everything
(floppies, cd, zip,) to see if there is anything there. I think
windows is trying to automount everything - even when there is
nothing there and even when I am not using the floppy or
whatever. It is not a huge problem, but it does waste my time -
not a lot, but enough to annoy me.
>> >Linux has a way to go to become a decent desktop for normal
>> people.
>>
>> Linux by itself? Sure. Linux plus XFree86 and KDE? MY wife
>> cannot tell the difference between my kde box and her windows
>> machine except for the fact that I never have to reboot mine.
>
>Hmmm.
I am totally serious. But to be totally honest, she doesn't know
very much about computers.
On a related note, many people equate desktop (gui) with the
windows gui. Differences are explained as "linux is not quite
there yet." In some things - like fonts - the linux desktop
might be open to criticism. In some things - like multiple
desktops and choice of window managers - windows might be open
to criticism. Probably MacOS and BeOS also have things they
could do better. Every operating system has benefits and
drawbacks - ie the user has to compromise.
I think I had a point in there somewhere.
>Isn't the lack of anti-aliasing the problem?
>I have a TrueType font server, and that only half solves the
problem.
I don't know what anti-aliasing is. I do know that I personally
do not have a problem with my fonts - even in netscape - and do
not have a true type font server running. Either I got used to
them or I just don't care. (prolly just got used to them).
Osugi Sakae
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Humor: Beer?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:38:19 GMT
And according to a story in LinuxToday, someone who had one of the IBM
VM can openers reportedly consumed 41200 cans in a single gulp!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: New MS commercials..
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:03:57 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:22:50 GMT, W. Kiernan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gooba wrote:
>>
>> Just tonight I was watching TV and there's a new ad campaign by
>> Microsoft. They are now advertising 100% reliability for Windows 2000.
>>
>> Anyone crashed Win2k yet? False advertising if it crashes even once,
>> right?
>
>Well if they said "100 percent" with no decimal places, then anything
>greater than 99.5 percent, when rounded to the nearest digit, is close
>enough. Of course I already get way better than 99.5% uptime from my
Or anything greater than 50%, rounded to one signifigant digit. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:05:56 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:51:48 GMT, W. Kiernan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donn Miller 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.
>
>Well, I certainly hope so. If Win2000 weren't able to stay up for that
>long, I'd be selling MS stock short right now and shopping for a yacht.
>My NT 4.0 servers are usually up for several months between reboots. Of
BFD. Is anyone suposed to be impressed with such crappy
reliability?
Using MS-software is like being a bad fuck. You just don't know any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 16 Mar 2000 02:10:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> OTOH, I saw RedHat 6.1 at Walmart yesterday.
>>
>> $29.95
>>
>> I *never* thought I'd see it in a department store. It's come along
>> way since Slackware 1.0.
> Yeah, I saw it too... right next to all the rest of the bargin-bin
> <$30.00 software and old, washed up games.
Just wondering here, but does your distain for linux come from any
real-world experience? If so, exactly what was your experience?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 Mar 2000 10:16:30 +0800
On 15 Mar 2000 17:33:26 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2000 22:22:01 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>On three separate occasions, I've asked store clerks in both CompUSA, and
>>Best Buy how well Linux was selling...
>
>Notice that he doesn't say when these occasions were. Perhaps they were
>in 1997.
>
>Good FUD Stephen.
>
>--
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
In the years I've seen his posts Stephen Edwards has never been anything but
a troll and fud merchant.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 1 day 19 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 Mar 2000 10:19:38 +0800
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:01:43 GMT, Net Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I fully agree with you. Though, another OS's have their own problems too.
>Anyway, by now, Windows 98 is the ONLY possible choice to use normal
>hardware, play games and compute home works ... unstable, but the ONLY
>option, I reapeat.
Sure it is, hahahahahhhah!
Please get a clue net crawler ?
>
>
> Net Walker.
>
>
>
A new troll is amongst us :))
Welcome Net Walker.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 1 day 19 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: 15 Mar 2000 17:13:50 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:10:54 -0600, John Sanders
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> Subject says it all***************************
>>
>> I'll bet you're the kind of guy that uses an application toaster. Am I
>>right?
>
>I prefer Bagels myself, but toast will do.
>
>
>> I'll bet the one you use is W95 or W98. Am I right again?
>
>Win 98SE in MY case. Works like a charm and supports just about every
>piece of hardware on the planet.
*snicker*
Steve, meet my CL31-A motherboard that I tried to get Win98 to run
on. Sure, the Win98 upgrade would INSTALL, but did it recognise the
on-board audio or the PCMCIA adaptor card? Ho, ho, not bloody
likely. And how did I tweak the settings for those two, so I could
force the silly system into actually talking to them? [settings]->
[control panel]->[system]->{button-pushing}->reboot, repeated until
I finally tired of the whole thing and moved the hard disk to
another machine that had an ISA soundcard dating from 1993.
I just wish I could find some of the "every piece of hardware on the
planet" that works with Windows without having to play a frantic
tattoo with installation CDs, floppy disks, websites, and the Big
Red Switch.
And even on the new machine, it doesn't recognise the Logitech
scrolling mouse I've got.
____
david parsons \bi/ The Linux boxes are nowhere near as persnickity
\/ about what hardware I put in them.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:43:57 +0000
From: The Scotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux based software to US government?
I can neither confirm nor deny that the US government already uses Linux
in network servers and firewalls.
Seriously, unless there is a specific requirement or prohibition in the
government contract, it shouldn't matter at all what software does the
task. Check with the government contracting officer with whom you do
business.
Bob Scott (not speaking as an agent of the US government)
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:55:59 +0100, John wrote:
> >Hi there!
> >
> >We are currently evaluating Linux (RTLinux to be more specific) as the
> >operating system for our control software. Part of our products are sold to
> >the US government. Does they accept products which are 'equipped' with
> >Linux? Is there a place where I can find more info on this?
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:42:06 GMT
Sorry to hear you had troubles especially with a FIC which generally
tend to be among the better motherboards.
Sounds like pilot error though as "The Firing Squad had no troubles
with Win98. They are merciless BTW when a board is a POS.
Steve
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ficcl31-a/page4.asp
Check it out....
On 15 Mar 2000 17:13:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:10:54 -0600, John Sanders
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Subject says it all***************************
>>>
>>> I'll bet you're the kind of guy that uses an application toaster. Am I
>>>right?
>>
>>I prefer Bagels myself, but toast will do.
>>
>>
>>> I'll bet the one you use is W95 or W98. Am I right again?
>>
>>Win 98SE in MY case. Works like a charm and supports just about every
>>piece of hardware on the planet.
>
> *snicker*
>
> Steve, meet my CL31-A motherboard that I tried to get Win98 to run
> on. Sure, the Win98 upgrade would INSTALL, but did it recognise the
> on-board audio or the PCMCIA adaptor card? Ho, ho, not bloody
> likely. And how did I tweak the settings for those two, so I could
> force the silly system into actually talking to them? [settings]->
> [control panel]->[system]->{button-pushing}->reboot, repeated until
> I finally tired of the whole thing and moved the hard disk to
> another machine that had an ISA soundcard dating from 1993.
>
> I just wish I could find some of the "every piece of hardware on the
> planet" that works with Windows without having to play a frantic
> tattoo with installation CDs, floppy disks, websites, and the Big
> Red Switch.
>
> And even on the new machine, it doesn't recognise the Logitech
> scrolling mouse I've got.
>
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ The Linux boxes are nowhere near as persnickity
> \/ about what hardware I put in them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:47:45 GMT
On 15 Mar 2000 17:13:50 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
wrote:
> And even on the new machine, it doesn't recognise the Logitech
> scrolling mouse I've got.
>
Win98 SE does fine with MY Logitech ScrollMouse Model M-BA47 (on the
bottom).
Win98 regular did fine with the diskettes that came with mouse. You
DID try them didn't you?
Steve
____
> david parsons \bi/ The Linux boxes are nowhere near as persnickity
> \/ about what hardware I put in them.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
