Linux-Advocacy Digest #802, Volume #25 Sat, 25 Mar 00 08:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Weak points ("Give me a choice")
Re: Weak points ("Give me a choice")
Re: Weak points ("Give me a choice")
Re: Weak points ("Give me a choice")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Dave)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Bob Germer)
Re: VMWare vs. Bootmanagers ("gcaldwel")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:12:13 GMT
Jason Bowen writes:
> O.K., lets change the subject then. What do you think these numbers mean
> for OS/2?
Which numbers, Jason? You didn't retain any numbers in your follow-up.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:16:35 GMT
George Marengo writes:
> <snip>
>>> So you don't think IBM actively corrected that misconception?
>>> If so, don't you think that negatively affected OS/2's sales?
>> What I think is irrelevant; the facts are relevant. Do you have any?
> What you think is irrelevant?
Because the facts are relevant. Having reading comprehension problems?
> Are you just a mindless robot?
Illogical, given that mindless robots are not able to determine
relevance.
> What I think is relevant because that's among the reasons why I
> dropped OS/2.
Irrelevant, given that your dropping of OS/2 isn't the issue.
Interestingly, you haven't dropped the OS/2 newsgroup. Why is that?
> The facts that you keep using are simply someone _elses_ opinion
> that happens to carry the weight of law.
Illogical, given that facts are facts and opinions are opinions.
Exactly what fact do you consider to be someone else's opinion?
>> What I think is irrelevant; the facts are relevant. Do you have any?
> Yeah, we know... your opinion is irrelevant.
Because the facts are relevant.
> Just let the Judges opinion be your opinion on the matter.
What judge issued an opinion about IBM's alleged unwillingness
to promote OS/2 on their own hardware?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:21:53 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
>>>>>> Doesn't change the fact that it was a common perception. It's even
>>>>>> been mentioned in this newsgroup on several occasions.
>>>>> It has also been mentioned several times in this newsgroup that you
>>>>> abused your employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded for
>>>>> doing so
>>>> There is a difference between a common perception and a fact. I was
>>>> talking about a common perception. You are claiming fact, but you
>>>> have yet to present a shred of evidence to support your claim.
>>> It is a fact that it has also been mentioned several times in this
>>> newsgroup that you abused your employer's computer facilities and were
>>> reprimanded for doing so.
>> I just finished telling you that there is a difference between a fact
>> and a claim of fact, Glatt.
> I just finished telling you that it is a fact that it has also been
> mentioned several times in this newsgroup that you abused your
> employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded for doing so.
I just finished telling you that there is a difference between a fact
and a claim of fact, Glatt. Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
>> Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
>> some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
> Prove it, if you think you can,
Simple: you never produced a shred of evidence to support your claims,
thus both are mere allegations.
> loser.
How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't presented any evidence.
>>> I suggest that you learn how to use dejanews
>> How ironic
> Yes, it is ironic that you suggested someone else use dejanews to
> verify that something had been mentioned in this newsgroup,
Illogical, given that there is a difference between someone who allows
their postings to be archived at DejaNews and someone who does not,
such as you.
> when you are clearly unable to use dejanews to verify that it is a
> fact that it has also been mentioned several times in this newsgroup
> that you abused your employer's computer facilities and were
> reprimanded for doing so.
I just finished telling you that there is a difference between a fact
and a claim of fact, Glatt. Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
>> , coming from someone who sets the archive flag to "no" to
>> prevent DejaNews from archiving his own unsubstantiated and libelous
>> claims.
> What alleged "unsubstantiated and libelous claims", loser?
Having more reading comprehension problems, Glatt? Consult borg.com
for a copy of the formal complaint.
------------------------------
From: "Give me a choice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:50:29 GMT
> 1) Serious and easy modem/fax and printer support.
> (sendfax makes me laugh, postscript printers suck)
It has been left very clear that there are Linux serious support, but
not easy support at all, so half the sentence is true. It has been left
clear too that postscript printers run very well under Linux and that
buying other than these is let's say stupid.
> 2) Coherent window manager configuration files and behaviour.
It has been left clear that there are a lot of window managers that
never give problems to anyone, but no one ever pointed out that
sometimes XF86Cofig is a /etc and another at /etc/X11 (like this
there are several examples about coherency). I know that file has
nothing to see with window managers, just an example.
> 3) If easy installation methods are to be so, better go back text mode
> installations or else improve the so called "easy" installations, because
> really suck.
t has been left clear that the original post was not clear enough.
Anyway,
I guess Linux installation will improve till it reaches Windows one, even
with
bugs (well, there are some now).
> 4) Apart from saying that there's decent software lack, just point that
> the tries to make it (aka Staroffice) produce such a bloated software as
you
> claim Microsoft Office and the kind are. I disagree, Microsoft Office is
far
> ahead from Staroffice, not to mention Applixware, LyX (huuhuhu), ...
It has been left clear that if you want Office compatibility, you have to
use
Office (under Windows or emulated), but who wants that at all ? If you need
you are as stupid as the ones who programmed it.
> 5) Games ... yeah yeah, not every one like the 10 decent games. And
> besides, X11 was awful and slow, perhaps XFree86 4.0 get it closer to
> Windows desktop, though I don't think so. KDE ? Don't make me laugh, have
> you ever tried to change an icon on a 350MHz and 256MB SDRAM machine,
hehe,
> pitiful.By the way, I do not like Quake, any more ? Huhu
It has been left clear that there are a few games for Linux, and that
now,
those are the best ones, and better having few and good that a lot and good.
When Linux have more games, we'll here about the good gaming platform
Linux is.
> 6) Serious internet tools : pine sucks, Netscape breaks more than
Windows
> 3.11 and is awful and slow. Nothing like IE 5 (the browser) and Outlook
> Express (yeah yeah, virus are a problem ... but prefer them than slrn,
tin,
> krn and such sucky tools).
It has been left clear that mail, news and browsing are not serious
internet uses,
that Netscape never freezes and that macro virus exist.
> 7) Yeah yeah, Apache runs very well under Linux ... but do not forget
> that under Solaris, FreeBSD, and even NT/2K too, and besides, home users
> don't really need a web server. Is Linux offering anything to home users ?
> And be serious, do not tell me about BSOD's evey 5 minutes because Windows
> 2000 (and NT almost) has never frozen.
I'd need more posts, nothing clear in here.
> 8) I am going to stop in here, and wait for your answers, I hope you to
> do it without FUD and with real arguments (if any).
It has been left clear that this should have been ommited.
It has been left clear too that you need a name to tell your ideas to
some people, as if the important were persons, and no ideas.
------------------------------
From: "Give me a choice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:50:09 GMT
> My LEAST favorite thang about Usenet over my 9+ years'
> experience of it is people who fake their email addresses.
> It just gives me a giant woodie that I don't know how to
> deal with.
Well, is not open source about freedom ? What the hell happens
if someone do not want to post his/her email or his/her name ? Is
it that the arguments are less valid ? NO NO and NO, I won't
accept it. Will be you happier if he/she had posted a false name or
a non-existent email ? I thought that these news were to talk about
things, not to talk about people, I think that if you HAVE TO KNOW
what you are talking about to do it, you are rather primitive. I love the
idea of exchanging ideas with people I do not know, so I can't prejudge
them or believe or not believe based on things out of the discussed ideas
themselves. Not to talk about the spam and undesired email that can
be derived of posting here an email (I mind nothing if that's not your
case).
Freedom, freedom, freedom, just freedom and tolerancy, if you can't
achieve that, I think that we are far worse than 200 years behind now.
------------------------------
From: "Give me a choice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:50:10 GMT
> I, for one, don't ever want to own a combination
> coffee-maker/toilet.
> > > I haven't any idea what you're babbling about here. In 18
> > > months I've never had a single window manager problem on Red
> > > Hat 5.0, Red Hat 5.1, Red Hat 5.2, Linux-Mandrake 5.2,
> > > Linux-Mandrake 6.0, or Linux-Mandrake 6.1.
> > > I think Micros~1 Office is a bloated piece of crap -- lucky
> > > me, I am forced to use it at work
> I routinely reply to email formatted in Word97 with email
> formatted in KLyX. For documents on diskettes, I ask that
> they format the documents in some platform-independent
> system. Most don't, but they soon learn. (I work in a
> central office at a university, and there's no way anyone at
> the university can get past me without my OK.)
> I have no desire, let alone reason, to read Word documents.
> > > I have less than no interest in computer games.
> I have less than no interest in computer games.
> I haven't felt a need to test either system, mostly because
> it would have cost me beaucoup de bucks.
> And there's really
> no reason for me to switch to Microsoft products.
> I'm
> functioning at least as quickly on 3 year old hardware as
> Winders 2000 users function on brand-new, state-of-the-art
> hardware.
> My download times at home via a 56K modem are as
> fast, if not faster, than my downloads from work where I'm
> ethernetted into a backbone site (usc.edu).
> > > used Internet Explorer or Outlook Express, mostly because
> > > I've never felt the need to do so.
> My new boss uses IE and Outlook Express. The main
> difference in my productivity and output from hers, so far
> as I can tell, is that her print-outs are formatted
> differently.
> I've never used krn, but tin strikes me as more than
> acceptable.
> Give me a break. I've been using computers at work since at
> least late 1985/early 1986. Shall I really list them out?
> Buy me the hardware that even Microsoft claims is the
> minimum and I'll try Windows 2000 out.
> I'll hush up, Missy "SetMeUp", if you will.
Yeah, it may seem incredible, but the above is a discussion
about Windows v.s. Linux as desktop, although it could seem
like he/she was telling about his/her life. I won't post in here any
more reasons and facts, because it seems like if some people
don't understand what are all about; besides I am not giving my
name and email (I think that my genetic code identifies me enough),
and that's very very important, what's more, if Newton of Leibnitz
hadn't give their names, perhaps the theories they developed weren't
as demonstrable by each person around the universe. You know what
I want to say, don't you Mr GIVEMEYOURNAME ? Don't bother me
with relativistic issues and things like that ...
------------------------------
From: "Give me a choice" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:50:11 GMT
> Not sure what you mean here. I am running an HP DeskJet 870Cse on my
> Linux system which is NOT a postscript printer, but all of my apps can
> print. I have my modem answering my phone, playing a message and
> collecting faxes when sent. I can send faxes, easily. Hmm, what are you
> getting at?
I'm getting at that I am almost sure that normal desktop users would have
more problems under Linux than under Windows doing that. In fact, I do
that too, but I know not everyone would like to mess with howtos a couple
of months to get it done.
> Again, "Coherent" by who's standards? Microsoft where you can have any
> Window manager that you want as long as it is the one they wish you to
> use. What is the actual configuration problem? My system was easy to
> configure.
Not at all, still today Linux is starting to fix different pieces of its
code
among themselves; I mean KDE and GNOME shared points, window
managers compliant to KDE and GNOME, ... still a little bad organized,
again, I repeat, for normal desktop user (and I do not say Windows user).
> Again, the latest RedHat 6.1 is sweet. Installs no problems for 99% of
> the computers out there. I bet that's better than Windows 2000's
> ability.
Do not bet, are you rich ? Redhat can overwrite your Solaris partition
if you have no care, I think that is a bug; Windows 2000 does not. I bet
that Redhat installation will improve.
> Actually side by side, Micros~1 office, Star office, and Applix, I like
> Applix. Fast, full featured, very reliable, never had anything I could
> do under MS office that I could not do under applix.
Not the common case I think, but lucky you.
> That's what playstation and dreamcast are for. I just can't imagine why
> someone would play a game on a computer.
Well, if Linux can't it is not neccessary; that is not a reason, and if
it were
so, Linux games hadn't started being created, and Linux users were not be
so proud to be able to play Quake III Arena on their machines, even when
telling me that under Windows, there are far more frames per second
> Why do you say these tools suck? Macro viruses make MS products
> completely unacceptable for any serious professional use.
Sure. You're right in here.
> internet mail with a Microsoft macro-virus incubator is a fool.
Sure, right again, but for news it is very good.
Thanks for your answers and what's more thanks for answering with
reasons and even for answering an anonymous person (I've come to
know that this disappoints someone).
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 06:41:24 +0100
"Mr. Rupert" wrote:
</SNIP>
> <*sigh*> Dare I ask what this new 'whistler technology' is all about? Is
> it a technology, or an MS mop and bucket?
>
> --
>
> Mr Rupert
If I'm not mistaken (though I'm waiting for someone to tell me that I
am), it's what should have been "Windows 2000" (NT for consumers).
Dan O'Nolan
------------------------------
From: Dave <[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: 25 Mar 2000 06:30:23 -0600
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:24:29 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 22:03:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>George Marengo writes:
><snip>
>>> So you don't think IBM actively corrected that misconception?
>>> If so, don't you think that negatively affected OS/2's sales?
>>
>>What I think is irrelevant; the facts are relevant. Do you have any?
>
>What you think is irrelevant? Are you just a mindless robot?
If you need to ask this question, then you don't know tholen. He/it
hasn't earned the name "tholenbot" for nothing!
>What I think is relevant because that's among the reasons why I
>dropped OS/2.
Any thoughts/ideas/opinions are "irrelevant" to the the tholenbot if
you disagree with it. Watch it chime in here babbling about "typical
invective" or "what alledged tholenbot" or something equally useless
and obtuse.
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: 25 Mar 2000 12:30:55 GMT
Bill Gates should have to give back all the money.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There should be a law that a customer must have a right to buy any PC
>without any operating system installed.
>This will give a customer choice of any OS, or if someone aleady have
>Win on desktop, why he/she have to pay to M$ an additional fee for OS
>on laptop?
>
>Zalek
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 07:32:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
On 03/23/2000 at 05:53 PM,
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >George, why are you trying to fight the facts the court determined to
> >be true based on the evidence -- Do you work for M$?
> The court determined that MS had a monopoly via preloading. They did
> not determine that OS/2 failed because of that.
It is quite obvious that you are totally unable to comprehend the Findings
of Fact. They clearly, absolutely, unequivocally, without question, beyond
a shadow of a doubt contradict what you state above. That makes what you
said a lie. That makes you a liar.
> IBM could have decided to preload OS/2 on their machines
> -- Better Windows than Windows, right?
Anything is better than Windows.anything. If I had a choice between
Windows.anything and no computer, I would choose the latter.
> BTW, I don't work for Microsoft or make any money due to
> any connection with Microsoft.
That is no more believable than your claim the court did not find that
OS/2 failed due to MS's illegal activity.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.10 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "gcaldwel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VMWare vs. Bootmanagers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:03:12 -0800
I made a typo in the last post I've corrected it.
I said remove windows from the OS I meant remove windows from the
computer.
Hello Group
I'm going to install multiple OSs on my computer, so I nailed it down to
uses Partition Magic and Boot magic or VMware.
Are any of you using VMware for Linux? How does the virtual platforms
perform. Is there any problems with performance do to running in a virtual
window. Can files be shared between the installed platforms.
I have 256 megs of ram and a 30 gig drive in my PC
I'm looking for some pros and cons of each to help me decide which
configuration I want to use.
1) VMware
Remove windows from the computer and installed Linux .
Install VMware for Linux
Then install windows 98 on a virtual platform
install windows NT on virtual platform
install BeOS on virtual platform
2) Use partition magic to create new partitions
Install Linux in second
then Windows NT in next
then BeOS in next
use IBM Boot manager or Boot Magic to boot between the operating
systems
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance
Gerald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
