Linux-Advocacy Digest #701, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Reboot without all these... (Bob Hauck)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Terry Porter)
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet
again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Tim Kelley)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ("Michael Aldred")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet
again) (Jeff Glatt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Reboot without all these...
Date: 20 Mar 2000 00:20:33 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:23:21 GMT, C.X. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I want to build a Linux box which has no anything except a network card
>to connect to outside.
Look here: <http://www.linuxrouter.org/>
These kind folks have already put together a very small Linux
distribution just for building routers.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Mar 2000 08:31:43 +0800
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:21:12 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
><snip>
>>In NT it is quite common, despite all the propaganda you can spew,
>>that users are running NT on a FAT filesystem (no security at all)
>>or have administrator rights.
>
>It might very well be common where you looked, but I've seen
>NT generally installed on NTFS and users running as Users.
>
>>Everything from MS is utter crap.
>
>Hey, now there's a novel way to get people to think you're a
>rational thinker...
>
Unlike you George, we have Tim's long history of posting in COLA
to tell us he is a rational thinker.
But dont listen to me, tell us why MS is NOT utter crap ???
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 17 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge
yet again)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:37:00 GMT
Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>: I agree, but I also think -- in light of what has come out at the M$ antitrust
>: trial, that there are many, many dirty deeds committed by M$, as well as
>: mis-information and lies spread by Ziff-Davis and others -- that had just a
>: large an impact on OS2, as anything that IBM did or didn't do.
>Would this be a good time to mention IBM's dirty deeds, and how they often
>"squished" the smaller companies and spread lies in the name of profit?
>This is what capitalism is... a fight to the death. I for one find it
>fitting that IBM get a taste of their own medicine. But then again, I grew
>up in an time where Microsoft was the underdog.
Then you might also be too young to know that when IBM engaged in too many
"dirty deeds" e.g., they rigged the market, until the government stopped them
-- just as they are going to do to M$. And one could add that in the process,
IBM generally tried to produce good products -- while M$ has focused on junk
that looks good.
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:38:33 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:07:01 GMT, someone claiming to be David D.W.
Downey wrote:
>> >I never claimed my
>> >procedure was absolutely optimum but neither you nor anyone else has
>> >shown (nor can show) how, for this particular machine (Gateway Solo
>> >2300XL) and its Windows 95 software (version 4.00.950 B), as provided by
>> >the manufacturer, the installation can be made significantly shorter
>> >overall.
>> Also wrong -- the use of SMARTDRV all by itself will do this.
>haha hahah ahahahahah ahahahah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
>
>yeah, o.k.
You have data to the contrary?
Didn't think so.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:39:45 GMT
On 19 Mar 2000 23:45:05 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:05:59 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>| You don't -- do you suppose Gateway pays people to sit there and click
>| "OK" all day?
>No. They do it once and then clone the drives.
No. They use a scripted install.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:48:56 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:21:12 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> ><snip>
> >>In NT it is quite common, despite all the propaganda you can spew,
> >>that users are running NT on a FAT filesystem (no security at all)
> >>or have administrator rights.
> >
> >It might very well be common where you looked, but I've seen
> >NT generally installed on NTFS and users running as Users.
> >
> >>Everything from MS is utter crap.
> >
> >Hey, now there's a novel way to get people to think you're a
> >rational thinker...
> >
> Unlike you George, we have Tim's long history of posting in COLA
> to tell us he is a rational thinker.
>
> But dont listen to me, tell us why MS is NOT utter crap ???
It is, isn't it? I do use obscenities from time to time, depending on my mood,
and besides, some would prefer it that way.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:43:46 GMT
So you like to name call, that's fine. How about challenging the topic
instead of burying your head among the collective Linux supporters up
Linus's a** and in the process ignoring the obvious deficiencies of
Linux.
Steve
On 19 Mar 2000 23:08:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED],net says...
>>
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:10:02 -0500, Gary Hallock
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Welcome to Linux :(
>>>>
>>>> Answers you will get from the Linux community, in no special order:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Didn't you try the RPM? Took ME 5 seconds.
>>>
>>>So, what's wrong with that answer? The RPM file is very obvious and easy
>>>to find on the gnucash web page. For someone who wants easy installation
>>>it is the obvious choice.
>>
>>Assuming they satisfy all of the dependencies and that is usually not
>>the case in my experience.
>
>
>Just because you're an ignorant fool, don't make the mistake of assuming
>everyone is also.....
>
------------------------------
From: "Michael Aldred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 08:44:55 +0800
"Xcott Craver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b3eq0$q8q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Now, why AmigaDOS isn't used as an embedded system, I don't know.
> How portable is/was it? Also, systems like QNX are such that
> one can leave out the components of the OS which aren't needed.
> Other OSs are more suitable for net appliances, because of the
> need to run things like real-media files and Macromedia flash.
> But it's a good question.
Not very portable.
But I think the main reason would be the lack of any protection in the
system against bugs, etc. Plus it's not a realtime system when put against
something like QNX which is far more powerful, yet almost as small (Amiga
kernel is 16K and QNX kernel is 32K, so I've heard) makes the AmigaOS have
no real advantage in this area.
Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:48:44 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:17:42 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> Not being a programmer and only a programming ignorant simpleton
>> windows user I can't really say what the Linux solution is. All I can
>> say is that when I need a Windows program, they typically are not that
>> big and whatever libraries and so forth the download duplicates is
>> really a moot point. I suspect, and I may be wrong, that they depend
>> on the libraries installed with Windows.
>> If an older dll file is being copied I have the option of picking
>> which one I want.
>
>And how do you know which one to pick? How do you know that something else
>won't break if you make the wrong decision? What do you do a few weeks
>after the install when you run a program you haven't used in a while and it
>fails. Will you know enough to figure out that it must have been the dll
>installed a few weeks earlier?
In the past I would have agreed with you in full. Currently, and using
current programs I have not encountered ANY dll problems in at least a
year and a half.
>>
>>
>> I click setup.exe and it works.
>> Why it works I don't know. But it does every time.
>
>Yes, the newly installed program works. Under the covers you could easily
>have broken half a dozen other applications. I would rather have more work
>up front installing a new app than worry about what might break later.
See above.
>>
>>
>> Example:MusicMatchJukeBox a fine mp3/cd player burner etc. It is 4.57
>> meg compressed for the version I have. I click on it and it works.
>> Windows updates are the same can of soup.
>> My point is that I don't have to worry about any dependencies at all
>> and still the files are much smaller under Windows.
>>
>> In the past dll hell was a real problem and I don't deny that but
>> currently prompts are offered that allow choice of files to replace,
>> if any.
>>
>
>And then you have to know enough to make the right decision, if there even is
>a right decision.
Maybe I am lucky but I install A LOT of programs on my test system and
have NOT encountered a single problem.
>> I find updating Linux to be more often than not a hodge podge of
>> technospeak that requires an interpreter who speaks geek to translate.
>
>You must then be unable to program your VCR.
Why bother. There is nothing but PC garbage on TV anyway.
> Installing an application on
>Linux is trivial. I find it quite easy with Redhat.
Assuming you have all the dependencies, which is highly unlikely, it
is.
> But, from what I
>understand, Debian is even easier since it will go out to the web and grab
>dependencies if you ask it to.
Sure it will 3.5 days later on a dialup connection. I can grab the
entire Windows update as well and spend an equally wasted amount of
time. Difference is I don't NEED the Win update in order to run
programs.
Steve
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:51:32 GMT
Do you ever say anything Terry? Looks to me like you just try and
parrot the real Linvocates but to be honest you don't do nearly as
good a job. Study Mattius, Jedi and even Bilk to see how it is done.
You are a very poor student Terry. Maybe that's why you are a Porter.
BTW ever listen to "King Porter Stomp" by Jelly Roll Morten? You might
Like it.
Steve
On 20 Mar 2000 07:49:33 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:53:55 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>>On 16 Mar 2000 23:47:12 GMT, Steve Mading
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>: If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
>>>: in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
>>>: on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
>>>: in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
>>>
>>>True. And if someone tells a business owner that he will
>>>be able to switch from *any* OS to *any* OS without having
>>>to learn a lot, then that someone is lying. (Assuming we
>>>are talking about an actual OS switch here and not just a switch
>>>between flavors of the same OS (like WinNT to Win2000, or RedHat
>>>to Debian). )
>>
>>This is of course true.
>>
>>>In other words, while you think you've found a problem with Linux
>>>you haven't. You've found a problem with changing OSes in general.
>>>It's an expensive effort to switch. Thus if you want someone to
>>>swtich to a new OS, it isn't enough to just be a bit better. You've
>>>got to be a *lot* better to overcome the expensive cost of switching
>>>things around. The more expensive the effort is to switch, the greater
>>>incentive there is in the marketplace to accept a monopoly so people
>>>don't have to switch often. When it comes to computer OS'es the effort
>>>to switch is more expensive than the cost of the entire system, so the
>>>incentive toward monopoly is huge. MS happens to have been in the
>>>right place at the right time when that incentive started getting
>>>powerful. They got lucky.
>>
>>I mostly agree with this, especially the fact that MS has the market
>>share and it is indeed difficult to get already entrenched business to
>>switch even if the OS IS far superior.
>>
><snip of more Steve nonsense>
>
>>QextMDI? Yet another library that I am certain is needed somewhere and
>>for something.
>>
>>This stuff is scary..It reminds me of stuff I used back in the mid
>>1980's to tweak my IBMPC, like NumLockOff.
>Hahahah, you definetly rate as Mr Clueless, 1997-2000 Steve.
>
>>
>>Absolute FlintStone period.
>You should know Steve, your trollism on COLA goes back to the stone age.
>
>>
>>BTW this was taken off the http://www.freshmeat.net page today.
>>
>>>: If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
>>>: new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
>>>: the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
>>>: current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
>>
>>Absolute truth and the main reason why for small business owners Linux
>>is not an option.
>Who's telling small business owners this Steve ???
>
>I'm a small business, I run Linux, on OLD hardware.
>
>According to Steve-of-the-broken-promises (hes leaving COLA) Linux only runs
>on OLD hardware, now its Linux needs NEW hardware to run ?
>
>Which is it Steve the troll ???
>
>>
>>Steve
>>
>
>
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:52:15 GMT
Here we go again......
Terry "The Porter"
Nothing to say in so many words.
Steve
On 20 Mar 2000 08:31:43 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:21:12 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>><snip>
>>>In NT it is quite common, despite all the propaganda you can spew,
>>>that users are running NT on a FAT filesystem (no security at all)
>>>or have administrator rights.
>>
>>It might very well be common where you looked, but I've seen
>>NT generally installed on NTFS and users running as Users.
>>
>>>Everything from MS is utter crap.
>>
>>Hey, now there's a novel way to get people to think you're a
>>rational thinker...
>>
>Unlike you George, we have Tim's long history of posting in COLA
>to tell us he is a rational thinker.
>
>But dont listen to me, tell us why MS is NOT utter crap ???
>
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:54:21 GMT
I'll send you an MP3 if you are interested....
Steve
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:51:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
>Do you ever say anything Terry? Looks to me like you just try and
>parrot the real Linvocates but to be honest you don't do nearly as
>good a job. Study Mattius, Jedi and even Bilk to see how it is done.
>You are a very poor student Terry. Maybe that's why you are a Porter.
>
>BTW ever listen to "King Porter Stomp" by Jelly Roll Morten? You might
>Like it.
>
>Steve
>
>
>On 20 Mar 2000 07:49:33 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:53:55 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>>>On 16 Mar 2000 23:47:12 GMT, Steve Mading
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>: If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
>>>>: in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
>>>>: on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
>>>>: in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
>>>>
>>>>True. And if someone tells a business owner that he will
>>>>be able to switch from *any* OS to *any* OS without having
>>>>to learn a lot, then that someone is lying. (Assuming we
>>>>are talking about an actual OS switch here and not just a switch
>>>>between flavors of the same OS (like WinNT to Win2000, or RedHat
>>>>to Debian). )
>>>
>>>This is of course true.
>>>
>>>>In other words, while you think you've found a problem with Linux
>>>>you haven't. You've found a problem with changing OSes in general.
>>>>It's an expensive effort to switch. Thus if you want someone to
>>>>swtich to a new OS, it isn't enough to just be a bit better. You've
>>>>got to be a *lot* better to overcome the expensive cost of switching
>>>>things around. The more expensive the effort is to switch, the greater
>>>>incentive there is in the marketplace to accept a monopoly so people
>>>>don't have to switch often. When it comes to computer OS'es the effort
>>>>to switch is more expensive than the cost of the entire system, so the
>>>>incentive toward monopoly is huge. MS happens to have been in the
>>>>right place at the right time when that incentive started getting
>>>>powerful. They got lucky.
>>>
>>>I mostly agree with this, especially the fact that MS has the market
>>>share and it is indeed difficult to get already entrenched business to
>>>switch even if the OS IS far superior.
>>>
>><snip of more Steve nonsense>
>>
>>>QextMDI? Yet another library that I am certain is needed somewhere and
>>>for something.
>>>
>>>This stuff is scary..It reminds me of stuff I used back in the mid
>>>1980's to tweak my IBMPC, like NumLockOff.
>>Hahahah, you definetly rate as Mr Clueless, 1997-2000 Steve.
>>
>>>
>>>Absolute FlintStone period.
>>You should know Steve, your trollism on COLA goes back to the stone age.
>>
>>>
>>>BTW this was taken off the http://www.freshmeat.net page today.
>>>
>>>>: If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
>>>>: new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
>>>>: the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
>>>>: current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
>>>
>>>Absolute truth and the main reason why for small business owners Linux
>>>is not an option.
>>Who's telling small business owners this Steve ???
>>
>>I'm a small business, I run Linux, on OLD hardware.
>>
>>According to Steve-of-the-broken-promises (hes leaving COLA) Linux only runs
>>on OLD hardware, now its Linux needs NEW hardware to run ?
>>
>>Which is it Steve the troll ???
>>
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge
yet again)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:12:35 GMT
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>IBM generally tried to produce good products -- while M$ has focused on junk
>that looks good.
LOL! Yeah, Tophat was quite an impressive product. Too bad it got
jettisoned in favor of Microsoft OS/2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
