Linux-Advocacy Digest #746, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 08:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (Matt Chiglinsky)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (Bastian)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:26:53 -0600
nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Can you detail this *high* customization? Do you have any idea what
> >> they've implemented in user or kernel? Do you have any idea what
> >> they've implemented in 64 bit?
> >
> >No, and that's just the point. Neither can Paul, therefore his
statements
> >regarding what Hotmail has and is doing are completely fictitious.
>
> That maybe true but my point was your use of the term "highly
> customized Solaris" is just as misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong but
> besides the tcp/ip stack we don't know what has or hasn't been
> customized, how its been customized, nor the effort this customization
> took.
Microsoft has stated that they have highly customized the TCP/IP stack and
the file store. That doesn't mean that they have or have not done any other
customizations, only that this is what they have said. It's entirely
possible that they may or may not have done other work, and to me quite
possible that they have.
> The only infrence I draw from the whole episode is that since MS
> has a track record for using it's own stuff and since they didn't move
> Hotmail over that maybe NT 4 couldn't handle it. Personally I believe
> in the "if it ain't broke don't fix" school of thought and wouldn't
> move it over unless necessary.
MS also has a track record of using what works. For instance, they never
ran www.microsoft.com on NT4, it was running on NT 3.51 until they switched
everything to Windows 2000. That tells me that they are willing to wait and
leveredge the work being done for new OS's rather than jump on the coding
bandwagon. They'd rather add the changes to NT permanently than to make
special customizations.
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:27:28 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And likely to change. IA64 only runs in simulation right now.
>
eh? BULL. Intel have demonstrated Merced in public already - running
linux! And go look at the Linux source, IA64 has been integrated into
the tree. Full 64bit kernel and userspace.
tis just NT doesn't run on it yet.. (well maybe in simulation, maybe
that's why you thought Merced wasn't taped out yet.)
> And how do you know that it runs in 32 bit address space under Solaris?
>
because solaris doesn't support a 64bit address space. (least not
properly yet).
> Because the device drivers are part of the entire application. Hotmail
> could not function as efficiently as it does without Hotmails custom
> drivers.
>
and given your previous statement that hotmail is just an application,
therefore we can make straight comparisons between the OS's and conclude
that NT mustn't be up to the job?
> You didn't answer the question. Hotmail runs on highly customized Solaris.
> You have no idea what they've implemented in user or kernel and what they've
> implemented in 64 bit.
>
i doubt they've gone and customised the kernel. Heavily customised, yes.
(nice the way unix kernels are so tweakable, even without source). Do
you have any REFERENCES?
> And?
>
And they've been owned by Microsoft for nearly 2.5 years... wow you're
good at avoiding the point.
> How do you know they're running on Intel?
ermmm... before it became an embarrasment to MS, they made no secret
that they use /FreeBSD/ for the web servers.
> Even if they were, they can do
> load balancing and add new servers.
your point being what? That this isn't possible with NT?
> "Solaris is one of several operating systems in use. So is Windows NT
> Server"
doesn't say in what capacity, the way it is worded it could refer to
Hotmail the company, rather than just the site. NT might only be used as
the desktop for non-technical staff, and that statement would be true.
-paul jakma.
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:30:09 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> No, and that's just the point. Neither can Paul, therefore his statements
> regarding what Hotmail has and is doing are completely fictitious.
All i said was that Hotmail uses solaris and FreeBSD, which is what
hotmail said.
you started all this 'highly customised kernel' toss. How do YOU know?
And why in the name of god would a company operating/developing a web
site want to get in to kernel coding?
-paul jakma.
you're a stoolie.
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 06:40:37 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Because ive done it, and my experience is very different.
> Well, see, an experience of *not* having a problem is really pretty
worthless
> when contrasted to actually *experiencing* the problem.
Uh, in the context of this discussion so far, T. Max, it actually is worth a
lot. Norm didn't post with an assumption of "my system is problematic and
here's how _I_ have to install Windows." He posted in the context of (a)
arguing which is easier for most folks to install, and (b) claiming that
_this_ is actually how one installs Windows.
"How one installs Windows in an exceptional case" wouldn't have made the
point he wanted to make, so whether or not that's the truth here, that's not
what Norm was shooting for. Maybe if that would have been explicit, we
wouldn't have been giving him (quite as much) shit.
> To insist that
> somebody else *shouldn't* be having a problem because you *didn't* have
> the
> problem is pretty silly.
On the other hand, to insist that that's not the normal way to install
Windows isn't that silly when that's what Norm is trying to suggest.
> >Ive had experience with this sort of thing. Alot of it. You are WRONG.
> The very little experience I have had with THIS THING (re-installing
>Windows
> on my Gateway 2600 over forty times (including over thirty botched
installs
> because I missed a step in the "magic install procedure") contradicts your
> statement irrefutably.
Yikes--over 40 times?! If that was necessary, that hardware would have been
history by now if it was mine.
> >Uhhmmm...Just so you know, I really actually dont like windows, and I
really
> >actually despise microsoft quite passionately. You would realize this if
you
> >had read any of my other posts under this moniker before responding to
this > >one.
> I respond only to your statements; sorry,
"Typical Microsoft quackery," by its nature, isn't responding just to his
statements. It's responding to a whole body of statements over a relatively
long period of time and placing him in a context coherent with where those
statements are coming from.
That he happened to say something that Microsoft might say doesn't make it
"typical Microsoft quackery."
> I don't plan on researching the
> background of people I'm replying to.
That's understandable, but this isn't the first time you've posted to this
newsgroup and it helps when arguing to have some idea of what sorts of
things the person you're responding to has said before.
Of course, that's not necessary and you might not have the time or desire to
keep up with it that much, but it makes it less likely that you'll chastise
for someone being such and such when they've explicitly stated they aren't
such and such in a previous post and haven't said anything to contradict
that in the present post--you just implied that they were such and such (in
this case, pro-Microsoft) because of other statements that don't actually
mean that.
It helps you dismiss the counterargument in a kind of ad hominem. Whereas
since he isn't pro-Microsoft, that makes dismissing his argument a bit more
difficult.
>You don't *sound* like someone who
> despises Microsoft;
Based on your assumptions, at least. But maybe not everyone who despises
Microsoft thinks they have to agree with everyone else who does, or with
every statement designed to be anti-Microsoft.
As for me, I'm not anti-Microsoft--I actually like them. But I don't think
I have to agree (or disagree) with every statement made from a particular
political position, or by a particular person, either.
If I have any allegiance, it's to the philosophical ideal of following the
implications of logic/reason and my ideas/perceptions/experience, etc. to
wherever they lead, whether anyone else, or even I am comfortable with it.
> you sound like someone who despises people who are
> frustrating to tech support jockeys.
lol
--doc
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:50:45 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And likely to change. IA64 only runs in simulation right now.
> >
>
> eh? BULL. Intel have demonstrated Merced in public already - running
> linux! And go look at the Linux source, IA64 has been integrated into
> the tree. Full 64bit kernel and userspace.
Intel demonstrated NT running on Merced at about the same time as Linux
running on it.
> tis just NT doesn't run on it yet.. (well maybe in simulation, maybe
> that's why you thought Merced wasn't taped out yet.)
Merced is not done yet, or it would be shipping. There are clearly going to
be many changes yet in the product.
> > And how do you know that it runs in 32 bit address space under Solaris?
>
> because solaris doesn't support a 64bit address space. (least not
> properly yet).
user address space. I repeat the question. How do you know what parts of
hotmail run in 32 bit address space? Said another way, how do you know what
parts of hotmail are running in user space and what parts are running in
kernel?
> > Because the device drivers are part of the entire application. Hotmail
> > could not function as efficiently as it does without Hotmails custom
> > drivers.
>
> and given your previous statement that hotmail is just an application,
> therefore we can make straight comparisons between the OS's and conclude
> that NT mustn't be up to the job?
I never said any such thing. You're trying to pretend that I said something
I didn't *AGAIN*. Please stop it.
I said that the spokespersons comments were talking about Hotmail the
Application and not the hardware and OS it ran on. In fact, her comments
specifically stated that she was ignorant of such details. Nowhere did I
say it was "just an application". Do not be dishonest again.
> > You didn't answer the question. Hotmail runs on highly customized
Solaris.
> > You have no idea what they've implemented in user or kernel and what
they've
> > implemented in 64 bit.
>
> i doubt they've gone and customised the kernel. Heavily customised, yes.
> (nice the way unix kernels are so tweakable, even without source). Do
> you have any REFERENCES?
You doubt it because it would invalidate your arguments. The fact is, you
don't know. As such, any statements about what could be done on a 32 bit
platform compared to 64 bit is meaningless since you lack the information to
make any such judgements.
As far as references, MS has stated that they've customized the TCP/IP stack
and file store, both of which are typically kernel level portions of code.
> > And?
>
> And they've been owned by Microsoft for nearly 2.5 years... wow you're
> good at avoiding the point.
And what point am I avoiding? My question was in regards to a statement
that didn't make any sense. But since you snipped away the context of that
response you chose to make it look like I was avoiding a question, which I
was not. You're being dishonest again.
> > How do you know they're running on Intel?
>
> ermmm... before it became an embarrasment to MS, they made no secret
> that they use /FreeBSD/ for the web servers.
You didn't answer the question. How do you know they're running on Intel?
> > Even if they were, they can do
> > load balancing and add new servers.
>
> your point being what? That this isn't possible with NT?
I already made my point, which you cut out of the response. Stop being so
dishonest. My point, which you conveniently cut is:
"The backend processing isn't quite the same."
Which means that front-ends could be running on a million 286's and it would
still work, but that would not work for the backend.
> > "Solaris is one of several operating systems in use. So is Windows NT
> > Server"
>
> doesn't say in what capacity, the way it is worded it could refer to
> Hotmail the company, rather than just the site. NT might only be used as
> the desktop for non-technical staff, and that statement would be true.
Do you always have such problems with reading comprehension? It says
Windows NT *SERVER*, not Windows NT Workstation.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:53:47 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > No, and that's just the point. Neither can Paul, therefore his
statements
> > regarding what Hotmail has and is doing are completely fictitious.
>
> All i said was that Hotmail uses solaris and FreeBSD, which is what
> hotmail said.
No, you claimed to know exactly how Hotmail was using 32 bit and 64 bit
address spaces.
> you started all this 'highly customised kernel' toss. How do YOU know?
> And why in the name of god would a company operating/developing a web
> site want to get in to kernel coding?
I never said the kernel was customized. I said it seems likely that it is,
given that they have stated that they've customized the TCP/IP stack and
file store.
> you're a stoolie.
You're dishonest. You try to make it look like people have said things they
haven't.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:39:53 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:26:39 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Jim Ross wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> You can reboot with no problem. Mark is wrong or else he is assuming
> >that by
> >> "reboot" you meant hit the power button. But clicking on the reboot
> >button
> >> from the login box should cause no problems.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >
> >
> >I was worried as I do reboot alot since I switch between Linux and
Windows
> >frequently.
> >Thanks for that info Gary.
>
> You should check out www.vmware.com and see if you could find
> that useful. You can go either way with it. Performance will
> be an issue of course.
>
> --
>
> So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
> make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
> Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Thanx.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 06:56:12 -0500
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:24:24 -0500, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
> doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Some of us can like MS _and_ Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, etc.
> It's been my experience that those who actually figured out how to use
> *nix-type systems, hated WinXX, and those who liked WinXX, were
> eigther never exposed to *nix-type systems, or never learned how to
> use them. I always attributed it to experiences similar to my own,
> where, discovering the capabilities of a *nix system, I begin to
> wonder why WinXX doesn't work as great as this system based on
> 30-year-old technology.
I think this is due to a difference in the sort of people we work with, hang
out with, etc. (And just in case this would imply this to you, I'm not
trying to imply that the people I know are any better because of it).
I can't say that the folks I know _hate_ any OS. Rather, as far as I know,
I would say that most of us look at them as tools with different flavors, so
to speak. No OS is "the next best thing to sliced bread" to anyone I know
personally and no one has been heard expressing anything, or behaving in a
way overly negative to any OS.
On the other hand, I can't say that the folks I know hate anything, really.
But maybe that's me being myopic, because I don't hate anything, and I tend
to relish variety in most things, almost to a point of
obessive-compulsiveness.
I'll have to start asking my colleagues and friends if any of them hate
Windows (or anything else, for my own curiosity).
> Look, the subject makes sense again!
lol
--doc
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:11:57 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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. 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.
I'm not saying that this is necessarily a parallel, but that reminded me of
something that happened to one of my friends.
They bought an ABS computer. It came with a dual head video card, but my
friend had never used a dual head video card before. She hooked everything
together, the system powered up, but nothing appeared on the monitor and the
red light on the front panel remained on.
So she called ABS. The help desk guy had her open the case, and walked her
through pulling off all the cables then reattaching, pulling off the
processor and reattching, the video card, etc. After about an hour of this,
the help desk guy put her on hold. When he came back, he _finally_ asked
her to check which monitor port she had plugged the monitor into. That was
the problem. It should have taken five minutes at most, as he looked at
what hardware she had and realized that she had that dual head video card.
The only implication this might have is that the solution in the case of
installing Windows on the Gateway might have been a lot more simple than
pulling out the PCI bus . . . a lot of times we go through a complicated,
difficult series of steps to do something that might have been solved in a
minute with one easy step if we'd looked at it in a different way, or had
known something we didn't know.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:18:51 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Neat. I know without a doubt that you are absolutely incorrect, because
ive
> >actually DONE it.
> As have I. Now how do you suppose we should resolve this paradox?
This particular discrepancy would best be understood by doing a little
experiment using a number of Gateway 2600's.
Since no one will probably agree to actually try to arrange such a thing, I
at least emailed Gateway to see what they say about it.
--doc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Chiglinsky)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: 22 Mar 2000 12:26:06 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:53:23 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
> make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
> Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Nice sig, but isn't Apple dead? RealPlayer's formats and MPEG are so
much more prevalent.
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:27:03 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No, you claimed to know exactly how Hotmail was using 32 bit and 64 bit
> address spaces.
>
because hotmail have stated that they use Solaris (64bit hardware, 32bit
userland) and FreeBSD (has to be Intel, cause the Alpha port isn't
really production quality, linux is far more tested on alpha than
FreeBSD).
> I never said the kernel was customized. I said it seems likely that it is,
> given that they have stated that they've customized the TCP/IP stack and
> file store.
>
so they've changed some kernel parameters/variables. Standard practice
on Unix.
> You're dishonest. You try to make it look like people have said things they
> haven't.
Apart from my cut&paste mistake, for which i have apologised, all i am
doing is asking what conclusions i may draw from your comments. That is
not dishonest.
-paul jakma.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: 22 Mar 2000 12:46:27 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:49:07 +0100, Davorin Mestric wrote:
> yes, but linux advocates (i don't have those crashes) only have windows
>crashes periodically, but windows is always faster. :)
>
You must tell me what you're comparing windoze to. And I doubt if it's faster,
cause it runs on a 486 or even 368. I've got a pentium-optimized version.
BTW, have you ever tried to format a floppy under windoze? Man, I wouldn't
complain if this would run in the background (because it takes so long), but
you can't even type something in a simple editor window.
(Not to mention CD burning.)
Bastian
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:50:02 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thank you for the clarification. If your system did what his and my
system
> did not, they most obviously could not have been either "the same" or "the
> equivalent", though it certainly could have been "similar".
But Windows would be the same, so you are saying it was a hardware problem.
> Now, maybe I've got which models are under discussion at the moment
confused,
> and maybe I've got which operating systems are under discussion at the
moment
> confused, and maybe I've got which languages are under discussion at the
> moment, or which universe we are in, confused. But it seems to me that if
> Gateway says that all such models need special steps to install correctly,
and
> your saying that yours didn't, then either you're mistaken about not
having
> any problems with the install, or your computer was not the same as his.
Well, at the moment I'm trying to check whether Gateway actually says that
all 2600's need voodoo. If they do, doesn't that seem like a hardware
problem, since I've never encountered any other system that needed voodoo
like that?
> Either way, your statements appear to be either contradictory or simply
> pointless.
I don't think his statements appear to be contradictory--he didn't say "All
2600's need voodoo" and "No 2600's need voodoo."
Rather he was claiming that what someone else said was incorrect. That's
the usual starting point of a disagreement of this sort.
> Perhaps you'd honor me with more clarification as to which one it
> is?
> >> The last statement simply doesn't make any sense.
> >Yes, it does.
> I'm sorry, I'm the one that said it didn't make sense. Since it doesn't
make
> sense to me, the only real response would be "No, it doesn't",
If we were in that other universe, perhaps. On this one, the way we talk is
the way he responded. It's understood that it doesn't make sense to you.
Wrapped up in that claim outside of a "to me" explicitly added by you is a
claim that it isn't a coherent statement. He is saying not only that it
makes sense to him, but furthermore, it is a coherent statement. That's how
our language works.
> but that would
> be ALMOST as stupid as your original response to my statement to begin
>with.
Do O'Reilly, Hallacy, et al. actually think it's kosher that their manager
of research & educational services for managed services post on the usenet
with a stress on ad hominems?
Interesting bosses, if so.
> There certainly seems little sense in the statement "Linux would certainly
be
> overkill" in almost any context except possibly a discussion of embedded
> systems (and then only barely).
I agree that it's not something I would think, but it's not that important
to me that he thinks that. On one view, all commercial and *nixen OSs are
overkill if you only use them to play MP3's. I don't really care about
that, though.
> >>>Even on my most "difficult" machine (pentium III, 3 IDE drives, two
> >>>ethernet cards, aureal vortex2 sound, nvidia TNT2 video, 2 USB devices,
> >>>etc.) windows98 is about an hour and a half install, but most of that
> >>>is waiting for stuff to be pulled off the CD. Its simply not all that
> >>>difficult.
> >
> >> Thanks for your data point. Installing Linux isn't all that difficult,
> >> either. Get it?
> >
> >You really have no idea what hes advocating do you?
>
> I have no idea what he's SAYING; he doesn't seem to be 'advocating'
anything
He didn't seem to be advocating anything to me, either.
> except "I have no problems, therefore you're stupid".
> >>>> 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".
> >>>
> >>>Then listen to people who have more experience than you.
> >
> >> Better yet, listen to people who have even more experience than they
do.
> >
> >You'd be well advised to do so, sir.
>
> Ha. Give me one tiny speck of a reason to even begin to believe that you
have
> more experience than I do. Please.
Down, testosterone, down.
--doc
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
