Linux-Advocacy Digest #876, Volume #25 Wed, 29 Mar 00 19:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (BSD Bob)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (JEDIDIAH)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Gary Hallock)
advance routing ("horst")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Artur Bartnicki)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Chad Myers")
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Debian Potato release? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Weak points (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BSD Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Date: 28 Mar 2000 22:18:59 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Well, if we are supposed to be *nix types, send it to them in
>>native troff. After all, if you don't know nroff/troff on *nix,
>>you are still in training.....(:+\\.....
> One could do that, admittedly! However, AFAIK nroff/troff/groff
> only lives on in manpages.
Gee.... I must live on another planet, since I use the old engine
daily for memos, reports, books, etc., to this day. I will admit,
writing in native troff is becoming a lost art form.....(:+{{.....
> A more general option would probably to use one of the TeX family.
> Probably LaTeX.
Probably so, I use that a lot, too, and it has good portability.
> Or SGML, since Linux sports a fine suite of SGML-conversion tools.
> One can convert SGML to HTML, TeX, or raw text.
Probably also good, but not yet settled in for the long haul.
Give it 5 more years.
> If MSOffice can't read HTML format, well, it really sucks! :-)
> Note also that I use MSOffice 2000 at work, and it can in fact read
> from and write to HTML format, although I can't say how well it writes;
Lousy, actually. I do a lot of web pages with input from peecee-wares.
The conversion to a decent unix web system, can be frustrating, mostly.
Generally, the output is, at best, less that optimal... at worst, abysmal.
Give them 5 years, too, and maybe the dust will settle, and it will
become seamless.
Still, for electronic resumes, and especially for the unix world, IMHO,
plain old ascii is still the best format if you have to send it in to
a headhunter that is going to goof it up their way.
The idea of pdfs that are mostly cast in stone, is interesting, and
possibly more stable. But, the headhunters would probably also have
a hard time with that, too.
Mebbie we need to retrain the headhunters into *nix.....(:+\\.....
Bob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:25:11 GMT
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:23:46 GMT, Erna Odelfsan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just ignorant of BE, is it GPL ?
Nope, it's just another commercial OS offering.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:34:42 GMT
On 29 Mar 2000 17:01:44 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
>I wonder if my shiny new SB Live is supported (Take it away Steve)...
It's listed as supported in the hardware compatability list but I
can't find any specific information on HOW supported it is, meaning do
all the features work.
Seems the phrase "supported" takes on a whole new meaning in the *nix
world.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:45:05 GMT
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:34:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 29 Mar 2000 17:01:44 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
>wrote:
>
>
>>I wonder if my shiny new SB Live is supported (Take it away Steve)...
>
>It's listed as supported in the hardware compatability list but I
>can't find any specific information on HOW supported it is, meaning do
>all the features work.
>
>Seems the phrase "supported" takes on a whole new meaning in the *nix
>world.
Not really. Even on Win9x something might be supported but with
a crappy driver. This is even more of a problem with NT, especially
with more 'esoteric' configurations. Ars Technia's head to head
comparison of the Live and Vortex is a good example of this. Oddly
enough, they also seem to take my position on the MIDI features too...
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:57:26 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Chad Myers wrote:
> But with NT (SP3 and later), if your physical security was somehow
> compromised, it would be rather difficult and time consuming to get
> access to the machine. With Win2K, if the files are EFS, it's near
> impossible to ever get the files out.
>
> It's frightening to know that someone could just walk up with a boot disk
> in *nix and set the root and have their way with the system...
>
> I suppose you could PGP the important stuff, though...
>
> -Chad
You can easily disable this feature in Linux so that you can not boot from floppy
nor log in with "linux single" . That provides some protection from casual access
to a machine without physical security. But, short of putting a self destruct
mechanism on the box should anyone try to open it, the only real security is to
keep the box in a locked room. That is true for any computer and any OS.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "horst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: advance routing
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:38:55 GMT
has anybody read the advanced routing howto?
if anything, this seems to be a real 'killer app' so to speak. I'm
interested to know, however, how good the bsd's support for this is, they
are suppost to have excellent networking code right?
h
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:50:24 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > And, all you really need to do is add the Backup group to the
> > > Administrator....
> >
> > No, really, Craig, I want to hear it. Exactly what would that do?
> > Please inform all of us. Let us know how much you know about NT.
>
> It would allow you (on a default NT installation) to read every file
> on the system, regardless the ACL settings.
Let me understand what you're saying... if I use the SYSTEM account, I could
get around all ACLs? This is incorrect. You can deny the SYSTEM account from
accessing files or directories through ACLs.
You mentioned adding "the Backup Group to the Administrator". Do you mean
adding the Administrator user to the Backup Group? Or adding the SYSTEM
account to the Backup Group? It is not possible to do this, well, at least not
normally (perhaps you could write an app to force it to be in there).
If you add the Administrator user to the Backup Group, he/she would be able
to read/write files he/she was denied to, but again, why would you do that?
That's not common, nor is there a good reason why someone would do this.
Also, it's a deliberate action that someone would have to take, as opposed
to rm * -rf... OOPS! I'm in the /home directory instead of /home/userx!
> > 4.) What lesson did they learn, please inform us?
>
> That running a service as a system user *all the time* is a bad thing.
Why is that? When IIS spawns processes, it spawns them as the currently
logged in user (usually IUSR_BLAH). You could log on using NTLM or SSL/Basic
and then it would spawn as that specific user.
Even if you did manage to do an #exec in an SSI page, it would be spawned as
IUSR,
which would have pretty much no privelges.
>
> > > > What happens if you lose the root password?
> > >
> > > Boot up with a floppy, change the password.
> >
> > Wow, that is secure.
>
> Wow, that's what you do with NT as well.
JOOC, how do you do it in NT? Back in the day, before SP3 it was easy.
Now, it's quite difficult. You could use NTFSDOS and get the SAM and use
l0pthcrack to hash it out, probably.
But what if they used syskey? Some people have claimed they have a crack for
it, but I haven't seen anyone succesfully break through it and prove it.
But any way, it's not a simple matter of just booting from a disk into
single user mode and resetting the password, as in *nix.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:55:24 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > : You don't know much about NT. It only takes a small program to get a
> > : command.com up and running as the sysetm user.
> >
> > Please explain how this is possible.
>
> There are several ways, but the last time I did it was by making a
> service which ran using the SYSTEM privileges; allow it to interact
> with the desktop and then have it fire off a command console. The
> resource kit has a nifty program called srvany.exe (trying to
> remember, it's been a while since I used NT) which can make this
> pretty easy.
Actually, the easiest way is to set the scheduler service run as the
local system account, then use the at command or the soon command
(which is easier than at) and to like
soon /interactive cmd.exe
and viola. Except, in order to a.) set up the schedule service and
b.) schedule a command, you have to be an administrator anyhow,
so it doesn't much matter.
Besides, running things as system limits you more than anything else,
because it restricts you to the local machine. No network access for
you-- one month!
> I wonder if NT5 allows you to do something like this:
>
> runas /user:local\system cmd.exe
You would have to enter the password, which is unknown, so it wouldn't
work.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:56:26 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > JOOC, (off topic somewhat), how does apache handle anonymous users and
> > authenticated users?
>
> Through the AUTH phase, which can do anything from a simple plaintext
> password to a secured authentication against an NT primary domain
> controller. With suexec, you can have the process itself change
> security contexts to the target users.
But if you don't use suexec... it runs as with the same user context
as Apache?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Artur Bartnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 30 Mar 2000 00:09:37 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze, co nastêpuje:
[46 linii ciach - AB]
> > Linux does well enough considering the hardware, but I don't think
> > x86 can hold a candle to Sparc in the SMP department.
>
> View the TPC-C benchmarks. Note the #1 and #2 slots.
As somebody has already pointed out, TPC benchmarks don't measure
absolute performance, but rather 'bang for buck'. Therefore low-cost
x86 platform has a sound chance to get high in this type of comparison
even with the performance well below average, just because top
performers are costly big iron.
--a
___ ___ -------------------------------------------------------
/ _ | _ ) Artur "Archie" Bartnicki tel: (0-71) 342 68 22
/ __ | _ \ (0-601) 79 88 72
/_/ |_|___/ -------------------------------------------------------
My name is Neo.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:08:56 -0600
They measure much more than "bang for buck"
The TPC-C benchmark measures transactions-per-second on given hardware
so that vendors can compare their hardware vs the other guy.
One of the more relevant measures IS price per performance, granted, but it's
also indicative of how well one platform compares to another, and how well it
scales.
-Chad
"Artur Bartnicki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze, co nastêpuje:
>
> [46 linii ciach - AB]
>
> > > Linux does well enough considering the hardware, but I don't think
> > > x86 can hold a candle to Sparc in the SMP department.
> >
> > View the TPC-C benchmarks. Note the #1 and #2 slots.
>
> As somebody has already pointed out, TPC benchmarks don't measure
> absolute performance, but rather 'bang for buck'. Therefore low-cost
> x86 platform has a sound chance to get high in this type of comparison
> even with the performance well below average, just because top
> performers are costly big iron.
>
> --a
> ___ ___ -------------------------------------------------------
> / _ | _ ) Artur "Archie" Bartnicki tel: (0-71) 342 68 22
> / __ | _ \ (0-601) 79 88 72
> /_/ |_|___/ -------------------------------------------------------
>
> My name is Neo.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:30:30 -0600
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bt8jj$2vv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sounds plausible, like many of your statements until reality is
> checked. IE
> > does *NOT* ship with viewers for powerpoint, word, or excel. You need
> to
> > download those seperately.
>
> True, but a very large portion of this software is already installed
> into the standard windows distribution. The viewers are merely the
> "face" of the application that has already been embedded.
Backpeddling already? You claimed that IE installed these controlls and
that it did so to make Office's footprint seem smaller. So are you now
admitting you were lying?
> Some of this is also included in wordpad as well.
The source code to wordpad is available. IF you had bothered to look at it,
you would know that wordpad supports a very tiny fraction of the word file
format specification and *NONE* of the word rendering or editing code.
> > Microsoft bought a liscense to SPYGLASS moasic,
> > not NCSA mosaic. Spyglass was granted the exclusive
> > right to resell liscenses for NCSA mosaic by the
> > NCSA.
>
> What the contributors to NCSA Mosaic were told by NCSA was that
> Spyglass wanted "Branding Rights". This primarily consisted of
> the ability to put a logo where the Mosaic ICON was originally,
> and the ability to preload the bookmarks file.
My understanding is that, like the JPL, since NCSA is a government funded
agency, then everything that's not classified that they produce must be
released to the public free of charge (since the taxpayers already paid for
it). The NCSA can get additional funding by selling liscenses to source
code, which it has done with (for example, the NCSA web server it sold to
Netscape).
> There were specific exclusions - many developers, including Marc
> Andreeson specifically denied the request to modify the executable
> binary outside of the NCSA public license (Open Source).
Most of the developers were student interns (including andreeson) with no
rights in the release of the products.
> About two weeks before Microsoft was approached, NCSA unilaterally
> changed the terms of the license, giving NCSA the right to do whatever
> it wanted. This was done ex-post-facto, and was a direct violation
> of the trust which led to hundreds of contributions, upgrades, and
> bug-fixes contributed by companies who would NEVER have given their
> code directly to Microsoft. Some of these contributors included
> companies like Sun, HP, SGI, and other UNIX vendors. The LAST
> thing they would have wanted would have been to have Mosaic put
> directly inder the control of Microsoft.
Mosaic isn't and never was put directly under the control of Microsoft.
Mosaic still exists and is Microsoft free. Microsoft only had the rights to
modify their own version.
> When the news broke that (I thought it was Spry - not Spyglass),
> had sold unconditional modification rights to Microsoft, along
> with the protection of comprehensive nondisclosures, the flack
> flew with a vengence.
>From the IE "About" dialog:
"Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center
for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc."
In any event, even if what you said is true, Microsoft has done no wrong.
*IF* what you said is true (which I doubt), then NCSA would be the ones that
violated anything.
> I had written the specifications to 5 major enhancements which
> were critical to e-commerce. This included specifications for
> SHTTP, SSL, Cookies, and htaccess, along with the original
> specifications for the earliest web browser (Viola). I put
> them on the internet. In several cases, I even published them
> under the terms of the GNU general public license.
Considering that e-commerce didn't even exist then, I find that hard to
believe. It's my understanding that Netscape published the cookie
specification as well as SSL. At least RFC 2246 says so.
> Of course, since I was a faceless personality on the internet
> and the online-newspapers and online-news mailing lists (currently
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]), I was pretty much anonymous,
> which was appropriate for that period of my life. I have included
> some of the work I did to "put the 'com' in '.com'" on my personal
> web site.
So you're saying that Netscape "stole" the credit for the work you did? Not
even giving you a passing reference? If you published under GPL, you would
have had to have used your name in the copyright.
> > > For example, the IETF publishes specifications for nearly every
> > > protocol used on the internet, except for the proprietary stuff
> > > used by Microsoft. There was a reason for this in 1982 and it's
> > > just as valid today. It was believed that regardless of how good
> > > the security system was, if traffic went across the internet that
> > > couldn't be indentified, traced, and audited, then the entire
> > > infrastructure was vulnerable to attack.
> >
> > And which protocols might those be?
> > There aren't many of them.
>
> TCP/IP, IP, DNS, HTTP, HTML, MIME, TCP/IP over PPP, Frame Relay, and
> ATM, arp, smtp, nntp, snmp - in all over 3000 RFCs covering everything
> from the IP address to multimedia.
No, which PROPRIETARY protocols from MS would that be?
> > Even many of the protocols Microsoft developed
> > or co-developed exist as RFC's.
> > PPTP for instance.
>
> This is true. On the other hand, MOST of Microsoft's specifications
> are incomplete or ambiguous. This includes MS-CHAP, WINS, for several
> years SMB, and Imap, and most recently DCOM and ActiveX. Furthermore,
> most of these measures were proposed as a means of allowing Microsoft
> to transmit binaries - some of which contain executable code - across
> the internet.
I don't think MS invented IMAP. And ActiveX is fully documented by the Open
Group and has been for years.
> One of the reasons ARPA formed what is now the IETF in the first
> place was to prevent the unfiltered proliferation of executible
> binaries across the internet.
Funny, I thought it was formed to promote open protocol standards.
> Using FTP to download a program,
> and then choosing to execute that program gives a substantial
> audit trail including the TCP connection log, the FTP transfer log,
> the image stored on the hard drive, and in the case of files FTP'd
> using a web browser, the HTTP log. There is still a chance that
> the DNS name was spoofed, the IP address was spoofed into the router,
> and that the binaries will erase themselves after doing their damage,
> but these are security risks that can be identified, managed, and
> mitigated. Using ActiveX, a hacker can put his content on an
> unsuspecting site, register the control using information
> obtained from a wallet left with a coat-check service, and
> let unsuspecting users download programs that send confidential
> files (e-mail, passwords, whatever) to competitors, or to the
> "highest bidder".
The key word here is "can". To date, I know of no registered activex
control that does this. It's a long shot.
> > > With the introduction of ActiveX controls, there have been more
> > > breaches of security, more invasions of personal privacy, and more
> > > examples of fraud and corruption by supposedly trusted people.
> >
> > The only security breaches that I'm
> > aware of relating to ActiveX was when
> > the controls were installed improperly
> > and marked safe for scripting when
> > they were not. Can you name some?
>
> Read www.ultraviolet.org. The defense given is that the
> user gives permission to automatically load ActiveX controls
> which then allows the ActiveX control to access files on the
> hard drive.
>
> Keep in mind that Microsoft and several other companies
> use these controls for "support functions", which includes
> license registration, piracy detection, upgrade notification,
> and even automated upgrade of application software.
>
> One option is to check the "ask for permission on each ActiveX
> control", but you are immediately inundated with so many permission
> requests that you eventually end up ignoring them anyway. I tried
> running in "confirm mode" and was shocked at some of the "signatures"
> that were being accepted by the system. Many corporations have
> a strict policy of disabling ActiveX controls entirely.
Nonsense. I've never told the browser to accept all content for anything,
and I don't get "inundated" and in fact very rarely do I see any kind of
request except for a few common controls from verified sources (such as
Macromedia Flash). Something you fail to mention is that "confirm mode" is
the default mode.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 29 Mar 2000 23:29:47 GMT
In article <8bu2db$buk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>They measure much more than "bang for buck"
>
>The TPC-C benchmark measures transactions-per-second on given hardware
>so that vendors can compare their hardware vs the other guy.
>
>One of the more relevant measures IS price per performance, granted, but it's
>also indicative of how well one platform compares to another, and how well it
>scales.
No this is not correct ... namely SUN hardware scales very well as do Alpha
based hardware however the cost involved in high end Sparc & Alpha systems
makes them too expensive for the most common applications, thus intel is
used.
Michael
--
Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:45:42 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:06:20 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >Unless you su root, type rm * -rf and then realize you were in /home
rather
> >than /home/userx
>
> Thats pretty hard to do if the current working directory is in your
command
> prompt.
Most admins I know don't do that, since that gets annoying when you're 20
levels deep in directories and typing off the end of the screen.
> >> Are you suggesting that if you run a buggy program in NT that it
> >> cannot write to disk sectors or trash files it shouldn't be touching?
> >
> >Yes, if your permissions are set accordingly.
>
> Even if the program is running as "system" ? By the way, are the
"permissions
> set accordingly" on a default NT install ?
Who's talking about "default"? A program running as "system" is a service,
not a user program.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian Potato release?
Date: 29 Mar 2000 23:40:08 GMT
Alex LaHurreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>><topic newsgroup="cola">
>>This shows well that in the Linux development model, the quality
>>is more important than the release date, which can and will be
>>pushed where it won't interfere with buglessness.
>></topic>
> Of course I don't suppose that dpkg's release-critical bugs
> will get fixed by the next release. :-)
The terrific truth and irony is you're probably right :-)
The latest (today's) Debian Weekly News writes:
We're now past the second bug horizon. [10]28 packages were not fixed
in time, of those about 12 are too important to really be removed.
Though it is clear that bug horizons do work to reduce the [11]number
of release critical bugs, they're not as effective at motivating
people to fix bugs in very important packages.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Falling in love is a lot like dying.
You never get to do it enough to become good at it.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:56:46 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Obviously I was referring to the Linux version.
> Windows has an hourglass to let you know it is busy.
>
> Steve
And Linux has a stopwatch.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 00:01:26 +0000
mr_organic wrote:
> I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree:
>
> a) Debian Linux runs great on my vanilla K6-2/450 with an
> Ensoniq AudioPCI card and 128MB of RAM. It runs fine
> on an old NEC P120 I have set up as a firewall. It runs
> fine on my wife's PII/233 clone. All of them are "normal"
> hardware -- except my wife has a zip drive in her box, but
> Linux works fine with that too.
Did you get MIDI working on the Ensoniq AudioPCI? I had
to replace mine with a SoundBlaster.
>
> b) Games. Granted, Linux has far fewer games than Win9x. Still,
> gamers are well-served by Linux -- QuakeIII, UT, and so on.
> c) There are loads of productivity software available now --
> WordPerfect, Star Office, AbiWord, etc.
>
> "Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:beQz4.747$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I fully agree with you. Though, another OS's have their own problems
> too.
> > Anyway, by now, Windows 98 is the ONLY possible choice to use normal
> > hardware, play games and compute home works ... unstable, but the ONLY
> > option, I reapeat.
> >
> >
> > Net Walker.
> >
> >
> >
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 Mar 2000 08:05:53 +0800
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:04:30 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm sure you are a nice person Terry and I do respect you for at least
>backing up your claims with facts. This group gets emotional at times.
>
>Steve
>
Hahahah you'll say anything to get a score of 100%, you Wintroll ;-)
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 16 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
