Linux-Advocacy Digest #717, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (David Steinberg)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
Re: Dirty deeds... (was Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of (Gary Hallock)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Terry Porter)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Terry Porter)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Terry Porter)
Re: Windows 2000: download bog (abraxas)
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (Terry Porter)
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: 21 Mar 2000 00:42:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Try installing Gnome some time. You need 20 or so packages not to
: mention all the different pre-reqs for each one, You could easily
: spend half a day just figuring out what you have and don't have.
Oh please. RPMs are too easy for words! I've been doing all of my
installations via RPM, when I can find the packages, and building from
source when I can't. I have had exactly ZERO problems.
When I attempt to install a package and get a failed dependancy, there's a
really good chance that whatever it requires is sitting on my RedHat
CDROM. If not, I just look at the page I downloaded it from, and, WITHOUT
EXCEPTION, I have found a link to the required package.
It's been really easy. I've managed to do all of my major applications
and libraries from RPM, so that I won't get those failed dependencies that
occur when the needed program/library is present but has been installed
from source. I've only ever needed to build from source for smaller
programs on which other packages are not likely to be depndant. RPM's are
THAT easy to find.
>From everything I've ever heard, deb's make it even easier.
: Under Windows setup.exe and that's it.
: It just works.
Don't I wish. I just installed a bridge game (with setup.exe) on NT 4
SP 6a. The game had worked fine on previous service packs, so I didn't
expect any problems. Next reboot: blue screen. Lovely.
It just works? Not only did it not just work, it buggered the system, and
it provides no mechanism for me to know what it did. How do I know what
DLL it replaced or what setting it tweaked to make the system crash on
booting?
: This weekend I installed Windows SE, fresh install not an upgrade.
<reboot>
: Installed updated Canon scanner and printer drivers fine.
<reboot>
: Installed updated SBLive driver fine.
<reboot>
: Installed updated Matrox driver fine.
<reboot>
: Installed new Laplink program fine,
<reboot>
: Installed new MusicMatch Jukebox fine.
<reboot>
: Installed Cakewalk 9.0 and update fine.
<reboot>
: Installed TaxCut fine.
<reboot>
: Installed updated Logitech Mouse driver fine.
<reboot>
: Installed patch for SoundForge fine.
<reboot>
With all those reboots, that couldn't have taken you more than a few
hours, eh?
When I installed Win98 SE, it screwed up reading the partition table and
over-wrote the end of my Linux partition. Oops.
After I fixed it, and did all the partitioning with Linux's fdisk, I
spent a few hours making minor configuration changes, installing
drivers (Voodoo, SBLive, Logitech, SCSI, etc), installing applications,
and rebooting...between EVERY step.
In Linux, the mouse (all 3 buttons!), the SCSI driver, and unaccelerated
video were already there out of the box. The glide and mesa libraries had
to be installed from RPM's, but gues what, they all came from the same
place! Took minutes to install, and no reboot! I built the SBLive driver
myself. I just read the README, issued a command, and poof! It took less
time than installing the Windows drivers (that's because I didn't have to
reboot twice!). Note, it wasn't hard -- I had never build a kernel module
before and had no idea what was involved until I started.
Yesterday, I decided to change the look of my desktop, so I installed the
newest release of Enlightenment. I found the needed library RPM's on the
same FTP site as E. It took seconds to minutes to install! No reboot!
: Note, no upgrades were REQUIRED, I just wanted to start fresh with the
: latest patches.
Uh huh. And I didn't HAVE to install the Voodoo, Live, Adaptec, or
Logitech drivers under Windows, either...if I wanted 640x480x256, no
sound, a coffee cup holder (instead of CD-RW), and a two-button mouse.
: This is why Windows succeeds and Linux is a miserable alternative for
: someone who doesn't want to waste time looking at configuration
: options and searching for libraries and pre-reqs.
Please. I spent way more time getting Windows to do half as much as
Linux on the same machine.
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:44:41 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> I understand what you are saying but my experience has been different.
> Example: I need some Gnome library that I download. i try to install
> it and it complains that I need version 1.2 of yet another library. I
> happen to have version 1.3 of that library. What do I do?
> I have had this exact scenario several times.
>
I suggest next time you actually try something before jumping on the bandwagon when
someone complains about a complex install on Linux. You might actually learn
something. I just happened to have a pristine copy of Redhat 6.1 installed in
another partition. This is straight out of the box. No additional packages
downloaded. No tools from the Redhat Powertools disks installed. Just a basic
install. I downloaded the rpm file for gnucash and it installed perfectly with no
dependency problems. I then tried running it and it ran perfectly. Enough said!
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:46:51 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
>
> I did not know that.
>
> However, I don't think it dents my point: the justice department did not
> break the much reviled "IBM monopoly"; if Hitatchi came close, good
> for them; but they probably did it with a better product or something
> like that.
I agree. Hitachi did in fact have a better product in many respects.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[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, 20 Mar 2000 16:42:17 -0800
josco wrote:
> -- joseph
>
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:54:23 GMT, Forrest Gehrke
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >>
> > >> >Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill off OS/2
> > >> >is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
> > >
> > >Even if that were granted, what did MS do? IBM management may
> > >have been after only a good sized niche, one that MS would
> > >never have missed. Why when analyzing IBM's "failure" you
> > >do not question what MS did to totally freeze them out?
> > >Why act as if there had been no Finding of Fact by Judge Jackson?
> >
> > I'm not acting as if their had been no finding... IBM knew what the
> > terms of their OS bundling contract was; i.e., if they preloaded OS/2
> > in preference to Windows, they would lose preferential treatment
> > and pricing status. That wasn't hidden from them, and was in fact
> > part of the reason why MS was found guilty.
> >
> > Given MS's history, even to that point, there were NO indications
> > that they would ever concede anything... they want it all. If IBM
> > thought that MS wouldn't miss "a good sized niche", they failed.
>
> You have your "facts" all wrong.
>
> MS asked IBM to kill OS/2 - Period. Again, Mr. Norris' testimony is
> available on-line. Of course some times the facts are made to fit the
> opinion, in this case IBM is culpable. IBM decided to not unilaterally
> cede markets to MS and also break the law by colluding with MS to not
> compete.
>
> "Hey I told him I'd shoot him if he breathed."
>
IBM charged an arm and a leg to get an OS/2 devlopment kit while Microsoft gave them
away free at schools.
But MS killed off OS/2.
IBM didn't embrace the concept of CD's and multimedia untell way late in the game,
forcing users to install 50+ 1.44meg disks.
But MS killed off OS/2.
OS/2 refused to support an easy install method, forcing users to edit a 200+ line
CONFIG.SYS file to add a CD-ROM driver.
But MS killed off OS/2.
IBM droped all consumer level support for OS/2 forcing users to pay up to 200$ an hour
for help installing the thing.
But MS killed off OS/2.
Face it, IBM did the deed with little help from MS. I used OS/2 up to Warp and liked it
a lot, but the lack of software and tool support made it no longer worth dealing with.
>
> >
> > >from preventing PC vendors from selling a PC with anything
> > >but MS OS and had they done the very simple thing of providing
> > >ports of their Office Suite for OS/2 as they did for the Mac.
> >
> > True, but was any of that a secret that was kept from IBM? Of
> > course not, they knew MS's terms.
>
> "Hey I told him I'd shoot him if he breathed." Those are the terms.
>
> When does this argument become ridiculous? A man who wants to ridicule
> IBM for not supporting OS/2 has now flipped his argument. IBM should have
> know better.....so should have MS which is why they are the ones who butts
> are in court facing a break-up. It is not as if anti-trust laws were kept
> secret. MS knew the law. IBM survived the encounter, MS will probably
> not survive. Who won?
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 21 Mar 2000 01:03:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> _AND_ a highly scriptable command line (CScript, JScript, VBScript,
:> REXX, Python, Perl, the list goes on...).
: And this is different from linux how?
To the best of my knowledge, that useless, type-unsafe, unstable,
buggy, and wretched abomination of a "language" called VBScript - a
"language" that makes even the real Visual Basic look elegant by
comparison - has not yet been ported to Linux.
(Note: if I'm wrong about that, please don't tell me - I really and
truly don't want to know.)
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:12:43 GMT
I am talking about Gnome, you are addressing GnuCash.
And how well does that rpm work with SuSE, Caldera, Slackware or
shudder, Corel?
Steve
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:44:41 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> I understand what you are saying but my experience has been different.
>> Example: I need some Gnome library that I download. i try to install
>> it and it complains that I need version 1.2 of yet another library. I
>> happen to have version 1.3 of that library. What do I do?
>> I have had this exact scenario several times.
>>
>
>I suggest next time you actually try something before jumping on the bandwagon when
>someone complains about a complex install on Linux. You might actually learn
>something. I just happened to have a pristine copy of Redhat 6.1 installed in
>another partition. This is straight out of the box. No additional packages
>downloaded. No tools from the Redhat Powertools disks installed. Just a basic
>install. I downloaded the rpm file for gnucash and it installed perfectly with no
>dependency problems. I then tried running it and it ran perfectly. Enough said!
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:13:24 GMT
oooooooo I love it when you talk dirty Darren.....
Steve
On 21 Mar 2000 02:07:08 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:31:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
><[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately your description of sloppy, scripted application
>> prototype so accurately describes the typical Linux program.
>
>Oh look, the homophobe makes yet more assertions without proof.
>
>> Linux users are willing to put up with crap like this. Others are not.
>
>Oh bullshit. Just because you think you are some almighty authority
>about what's good and what isn't, doesn't mean you are right.
>
>Do us all a favour and fuck off.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:21:31 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> I am talking about Gnome, you are addressing GnuCash.
>
> And how well does that rpm work with SuSE, Caldera, Slackware or
> shudder, Corel?
>
> Steve
>
No, this thread was started by someone who had trouble installing gnucash. You jumped
in saying how this is typical of Linux and you knew what the answer would be. When I
responded that he should use the rpm if he wanted an easy install, you ridiculed my
response. In fact I was right. The rpm install was trivial. As for other
distributiions, why don't you give it a try and let us know (as if you have ever even
tried Linux).
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:28:22 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 08:10:11 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>So Steve tell us again how hard Linux is to install, how it doesnt work well
>and how its slowly dying ?
If you would have read my distribution comparison you would see that I
said Linux installed in 15 minutes or so in some cases and that
Windows could learn from it.
The fun begins AFTER the install, setting up everything that Windows
sets up during it's install. Printers for example.
>Another nail in Steves coffin, which although made of cheap WindowsPine (tm)
>is beginning to look like a metal box ;-)
Pine is something Linux folk seem to like. Why I can't imagine as it
looks like a program that was written by a first year CS student. Ugly
green screen application if ever there was one.
>
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:20:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b5pro$mks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > My company is planning on hosting roughly 200 web sites on a single
> > Linux box (I am unsure as to which flavor), using Apache server. The
> > server will have roughly between 500 megs ~ 1 gig of memory. These
> > sites will by dynamic and primarily database driven on a separate
> > server which will be using MYSQL as the back end and Perl to access
the
> > data. Is this a feasible notion, can a single Linux box coupled with
a
> > database server with the previous stats be capable of hosting and
> > handling approximately 200 dynamic web sites?
>
> Nope.
>
If what you're thinking even borders on e-commerce, I gotta agree with
Drestin. Don't. Not because it couldn't eventually be done, but
because it could be done more elegantly with either mainstream UNIX or
W2K.
If you make the decision to go Linux, pick your hardware very
carefully. Not necessarily because you'll it to run Linux, but because
you may have to shift to Solaris x86 or W2K if your world turns to shit
during implementation or testing. And then you'll want to have those
options available as part of your risk management contingency plans.
> (besides, I've heard you could run that on a 486 with 4 megs of ram
and a
> EDSI drive right?)
>
ESDI.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 09:33:50 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:21:19 GMT, Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Out of curiosity, I would like to add that an insurance company based in the
>town where I live has installed Linux as the main operating system in all
>200 of their branches due to the amount of time it takes to install windows.
>It would have taken 3 hours per branch to install Win NT but linux only took
>10 minutes per branch.
>
>They do run NT in head office though due to needing to run MSOffice (but
>this may also change eventually).
>
>This company is called 'Hill House Hammond' and is based in Bristol, England
>(source: the BBC television 'Money Program' shown the week win2k was
>released).
>
>
>
>
Wow, you Poms arn't scared to be different :)
Over here in Aussie land, I had to watch while the queues got longer and
longer after my bank went to NT :((
Now the cashier has not only a keyboard to operate, but a mouse too.
The cashiers hate it, they think management have screwed up bigtime, which
of course they have. The guy who brought them NT, has resigned and the
project is 3 million dollars over budget. Cool huh ?
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 18 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:34:08 GMT
And your proof of IBM moving Aix to Linux?
IBM is running Linux on an OS/390 as far as I have heard they have
absolutely no plans what so ever to abandon AIX in favor of Linux.
First off Linux does not support Chrp.
RAS is not honored. (ie: concurrent maintenance)
Proof please?
Steve
On 20 Mar 2000 17:08:14 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> To make the most of its limited capital, seeUthere.com began development
>> using the Linux platform since the company's engineers were familiar with
>> UNIX, and Linux tools are very inexpensive. However, after two months of
>> work, developers were falling behind schedule because the Linux platform
>> required that they build infrastructure before developing core business
>> logic. That's part of why seeUthere.com then began a parallel development
>> program using the Windows DNA platform. Windows DNA provided the necessary
>> infrastructure so developers could get right to work on business logic.
>>
>> In three months, the team working with Windows DNA caught up with the work
>> it had taken the Linux group five months to do.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews2/031700.htm
>
>Nice.
>
>That must be the reason why IBM is moving AIX and OS/390 over to
>Linux.
>
>At least they know the difference between an operating system and a
>web-deployment framework...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 09:42:40 +0800
On 20 Mar 2000 15:45:34 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Quoting 5X3 from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Mar 2000 01:25:04 GMT
>>>You didnt have to go through all that partition crap. Theres a lot of
>>>partition software out there thats much easier than what you used. You
>>>also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install.
>
>> Yes, you do. On the Gateway 2600, those steps are absolutely 110% essential;
>> I know that without a doubt.
>
>Neat. I know without a doubt that you are absolutely incorrect, because ive
>actually DONE it.
>
>> In fact, my procedure (which goes a bit further,
>> but dates from a couple years ago, and may have been dealing with different
>> hardware or software revisions) went farther; I had to rip out the whole damn
>> PCI Bus in order to get "Windows" to install with all the drivers working.
>
>Do you always overcomplicate problems like this?
>
>You've got quite an impressive signature for such an entirely unimpressive
>person.
And you're impressive lack of technical argument, is only matched by your
ability to be rude, Mr Anonymous.
Not that your snide personal critisism probably bothers Max at all.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 18 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:44:36 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:26:54 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
<snip>
>> Given MS's history, even to that point, there were NO indications
>> that they would ever concede anything... they want it all. If IBM
>> thought that MS wouldn't miss "a good sized niche", they failed.
>
>You have your "facts" all wrong.
No, I don't have my facts wrong. I was using OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 when
this was occurring and I know the history of the two companies. The
point is that IBM PSP on one hand was pushing OS/2 while another
part of the same division was selling Windows.
>MS asked IBM to kill OS/2 - Period.
And IBM didn't concede -- what's your point? My point is that IBM
didn't go in willing to fight Microsoft tooth and nail for operating
system share.
>> >from preventing PC vendors from selling a PC with anything
>> >but MS OS and had they done the very simple thing of providing
>> >ports of their Office Suite for OS/2 as they did for the Mac.
>>
>> True, but was any of that a secret that was kept from IBM? Of
>> course not, they knew MS's terms.
>
>"Hey I told him I'd shoot him if he breathed." Those are the terms.
>
>When does this argument become ridiculous? A man who wants to ridicule
>IBM for not supporting OS/2 has now flipped his argument.
What in the world are you talking about? My argument has been that
regardless of the illegal activity that MS did, OS/2 ultimately failed
because of IBM.
MS isn't the one who decided that the default OS install on IBM PC's
would be Windows, MS isn't the one who decided that it would chase
the moving target called the Win32 API.
Whatever MS _wanted_ them to do, what IBM did with OS/2 was their
choosing, not MS's.
>IBM should have know better.....so should have MS which is why they
>are the ones who butts are in court facing a break-up. It is not as if
>anti-trust laws were kept secret. MS knew the law. IBM survived the
>encounter, MS will probably not survive. Who won?
MS's legal issues didn't kill OS/2, despite what they wanted.
Do you really think that MS won't survive a break-up? Ever hear
of Standard Oil? Guess what happened to them after they were
broken up. Break up MS and you'll end up will smaller versions
of the current MS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 09:48:40 +0800
On 20 Mar 2000 14:58:21 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please stop arguing on the side of linux. You're making the rest of us
>look very foolish.
PLEASE do *not* EVER speak for me.
Abraxas comments are his own, not mine, nor anyone else here.
>
>Thank you.
Fuck off
<plonk>
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
Unkind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 18 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: 21 Mar 2000 01:55:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Clement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8b0dp6$2rtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy rm_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't Barnes and Noble's one of Drestin's highly touted sites
>> > for NT excellence!???
>>
>> > [bn.com / barnesandnoble.com is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0 on NT4
>> > or Windows 98]
>>
>> > http://cnn.com/2000/books/news/03/15/king.ebook/index.html
>>
>> > "A CNN editor who attempted to
>> > download the story from Barnes &
>> > Noble's site on Tuesday was told the
>> > downloading queue was backed up,
>> > and offered the opportunity to have
>> > the book e-mailed directly to him.
>> > Some hours later, he received an
>> > e-mail saying high demand had
>> > delayed the e-mail delivery."
>>
>> I have *never* seen this kind of effect on a Sun Sparc/Solaris based
>> high volume email system. Ever.
> Perhaps you should check with Amazon.com. They have been going through the
> exact same problem. Their platform? Sun Solaris and Stronghold web server.
> There download queue is full and I am still waiting for an email.
I stand graciously corrected.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 09:59:40 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 05:44:15 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ilya Grishashvili wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>> There was a discossion here that moved me to post this message.
>>
>> This is my opinion you don't have to agree.
:)
>>
>> I'm a real Penguinist, but I have to admit:
>
>> LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
True
>> AND NOT FOR EVERY NEED.
True again
But so is every other OS in the world!
>>
>> If you're a secretary who only needs email and office tools,
>> linux is not for you!
Before MS started pushing their crap, Secretaries used BANYAN to run
MsWord, and that networking system is STABLE!
They used Banyan email utilising "Streetalk" naming methods, and they loved it
. Word was just another app.
>
>How many times must we dispell this crap? This is EXACTLY the sort of person
>linux is perfect for. This is EXACTLY the sort of job windows (and Mac for that
>matter) is HORRIBLE for.
I agree 100%.
People who say this have no real world experience, its just the MS propaganda
line.
>
>I'll agree that linux is not suited to the typical home user/gamer.
>Fine. Almost no one here would say that it is.
Everyone but me that is :))
My kids loved networked Koules (Windows uses have NEVER have seen it, never
will), networked Quake, Networked FreeCiv, Adom etc.
>
>> Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers
>> and for programmers or researchers !!!
Crap.
>
>Yeah, and windows was developed by monkeys, for monkeys? What are you talking
>about?
>
>--
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 18 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:54:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
> AND NOT FOR EVERY NEED.
Ya know, you could substitute just about any status quo altering term
for LINUX in the above. Your statement would work just as well for
Microsoft Windows, personal computers, electricity, motor vehicles, or
even indoor plumbing.
I've always had a percentage of users of various automation systems that
could not, even if their life depended on it, intuitively deduce what it
was that they were supposed to do without an itemized step-by-step list
of instructions taped to their console. I've inserted a fourth menu
option into the middle of a three item menu, and seen users collapse
into a puddle of tears, or just vacantly stare at the screen hoping the
new selection would just go away if they stared long enough. I've seen
users who thought that they could make error messages disappear if they
hit the "return" key harder; somehow it would make the bits stick to the
disk more permanently the harder they hit it.
I often wonder how they find their way home after eight hours....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
