Linux-Advocacy Digest #882, Volume #25 Thu, 30 Mar 00 16:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Daniel Tryba)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Daniel Tryba)
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG (Mike Kenzie)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG (Robert Heininger)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG (mrghostly)
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: Need help on compiling Linux stats (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erna Odelfsan")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Daniel Tryba)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Darren Winsper)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Darren Winsper)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 30 Mar 2000 15:16:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > How do you know they're running on Intel?
>>>
>>> Because FreeBSD is x86 only.
>> Wrong. There is an Alpha version, and I believe they are working on a Sparc
>> version.
> For all intents and purposes (sane), it is.
FreeBSD is available for Alpha. it is since 3.2 IIRC, which was
released about 1/2 year ago. Hotmail is older than that so one can
predict that they aren't running it on Alphas.
BTW if they are running Alphas why don't use NT4 on it. Afterall NT4
is multiplatform and NT4 Alpha is the only "64-bit" MS product I know
of...
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:21:01 GMT
> No. Not even close. Old-style commercial software.
Then I can't understand why is everyone not only here
(a know a lot of friends doing to) comparing it to Linux.
It is not GPL, which are similarities ? Is it Unix based ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: 30 Mar 2000 15:27:05 GMT
Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I've tried BEOS. It does not give my anyting I do not get with linux, and
>>linux provides much more.
> Exactly. BEOS is nothing but the Amiga rehashed,and quite frankly I want
> nothing to do with another Amiga...
Amiga can read NTFS, Fat32, ext2 and UFS filesystems natively?
My god, BeOS has been free for a few days and already the wolves are apon
it.
Pathetic.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 30 Mar 2000 15:34:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Solaris/UltraSPARC is not a 64bit architecture."
^-OS ^-Architecture
> Sun seems to disagree with you. They specifically call UltraSPARC a 64 bit
> architecture.
^-Architecture
> And again, we're talking about *I/O* which is a kernel function, thus 64
^-OS
> bit, along with the 64 bit PCI system.
The architecture might be 64bit. But the OS doesn't have to.
Think in terms like NT/Alpha.
Alpha is an 64bit architecture.
NT is not an 64bit OS.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Date: 30 Mar 2000 15:37:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Robert Heininger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> I've asked this question before in another news group and got some good
> answers, but this seems like a much better place to get them because you folks
> really know your stuff, :-) so I'm trying it again.
>
> Are there any non-MS OS's (ie. DOS) still available that will run on
> a 80286 machine that I would like to use as just an Internet gateway utilizing
> ip forwarding, for a small lan? I have one of these 'lil 'ol boxes collecting
> dust and desire to give it one last mission in life before it's finally
> retired to a scrap heap.
I have minix and freeDOS running on old 286's here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:12:35 GMT
On 30 Mar 2000 15:27:05 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>I've tried BEOS. It does not give my anyting I do not get with linux, and
>>>linux provides much more.
>
>> Exactly. BEOS is nothing but the Amiga rehashed,and quite frankly I want
>> nothing to do with another Amiga...
>
>Amiga can read NTFS, Fat32, ext2 and UFS filesystems natively?
>
>My god, BeOS has been free for a few days and already the wolves are apon
>it.
>
>Pathetic.
Mebbe the same guys that are writting Amiga/Linux game code could
port the linux kernel modules for those filesystems, assuming they
aren't already supported...
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 30 Mar 2000 16:42:55 GMT
In article <8bvr56$qh6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Tryba wrote:
>BTW if they are running Alphas why don't use NT4 on it. Afterall NT4
>is multiplatform and NT4 Alpha is the only "64-bit" MS product I know
>of...
NT4 Alpha is 32 Bit. No MS was even not able to make a NT version that was
64 Bit on Alpha's.
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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:42:12 -0500
Daniel Tryba wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> > How do you know they're running on Intel?
> >>>
> >>> Because FreeBSD is x86 only.
> >> Wrong. There is an Alpha version, and I believe they are working on a Sparc
> >> version.
> > For all intents and purposes (sane), it is.
>
> FreeBSD is available for Alpha. it is since 3.2 IIRC, which was
> released about 1/2 year ago. Hotmail is older than that so one can
> predict that they aren't running it on Alphas.
>
> BTW if they are running Alphas why don't use NT4 on it. Afterall NT4
> is multiplatform and NT4 Alpha is the only "64-bit" MS product I know
> of...
>
> --
> Daniel Tryba
I have real problems classifying NT as Multiplatform. two or three tops.
Multiplatform is something like netbsd. Linux, although originally
developed for the x86, has been proven to be capable of being
multiplatform. NT has only been ported to alpha, mips, and is Merced out
yet? Mips was dropped. The Alpha's port is on shaky ground (is it on
again or off again this week?)
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 30 Mar 2000 18:30:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Tryba wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> > How do you know they're running on Intel?
>> >>>
>> >>> Because FreeBSD is x86 only.
>> >> Wrong. There is an Alpha version, and I believe they are working on a Sparc
>> >> version.
>> > For all intents and purposes (sane), it is.
>>
>> FreeBSD is available for Alpha. it is since 3.2 IIRC, which was
>> released about 1/2 year ago. Hotmail is older than that so one can
>> predict that they aren't running it on Alphas.
>>
>> BTW if they are running Alphas why don't use NT4 on it. Afterall NT4
>> is multiplatform and NT4 Alpha is the only "64-bit" MS product I know
>> of...
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Tryba
> I have real problems classifying NT as Multiplatform. two or three tops.
> Multiplatform is something like netbsd. Linux, although originally
> developed for the x86, has been proven to be capable of being
> multiplatform. NT has only been ported to alpha, mips, and is Merced out
> yet? Mips was dropped. The Alpha's port is on shaky ground (is it on
> again or off again this week?)
Its off again.
They also dropped a PPC port a few years ago. Just when it was looking
quite nice actually.
Go figure.
I guess x86 hardware is "superior" for some reason.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:43:22 GMT
On 30 Mar 2000 15:37:58 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Mike Kenzie' wrote:
>: > Are there any non-MS OS's (ie. DOS) still available that will run on
>: > a 80286 machine that I would like to use as just an Internet gateway utilizing
>: > ip forwarding, for a small lan? I have one of these 'lil 'ol boxes collecting
>: > dust and desire to give it one last mission in life before it's finally
>: > retired to a scrap heap.
>: I have minix and freeDOS running on old 286's here
Thanks Mike:
I missed some posts in this thread because of a broken news feed, (and refuse
to be a deja news using lamer...) and I understand that FreeDOS doesn't have
an IP stack which would make it useless as a gateway as far as I'm concerned,
and it appears that Minix is the way I will go for this little endeavor.
--
Robert Heininger __
# / / __ _ _ _ _ __ __ #
(o- # / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / #
//\ # /____/ /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ #
v_/_ # The Choice of the GNU Generation #
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:44:51 -0800
Hello,
You have been presented two with simple problems. One
problem is for an ordinary user and the other is for a sysadmin.
The simple and efficient unix solutions demonstrate some the
power of the unix computing environment. Where is your simple
and efficient Windows NT solution for these problems?
Does it really take you this long to develop the solution? Please
post your solutions including all commands, scripts, or button
clicks that some one would have to use to replicate your solution.
If you cannot offer simple and efficient solutions for these two
problems, be mature enough to admit your defeat.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mrghostly)
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Date: 30 Mar 2000 18:43:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie) wrote in
<8bvscm$dmj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Robert Heininger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>> I've asked this question before in another news group and got some
>> good answers, but this seems like a much better place to get them
>> because you folks really know your stuff, :-) so I'm trying it again.
>>
>> Are there any non-MS OS's (ie. DOS) still available that will run on
>> a 80286 machine that I would like to use as just an Internet gateway
>> utilizing ip forwarding, for a small lan? I have one of these 'lil 'ol
>> boxes collecting dust and desire to give it one last mission in life
>> before it's finally retired to a scrap heap.
>
>I have minix and freeDOS running on old 286's here
>
>
>
You can also get the DOS-alike from Caldera (do they still call it
OpenDOS?). It used to be DR-DOS, and was about the best DOS ever. It's
a free dl from Caldera's site; you can even get a TCP/IP stack and a web
browser (WebSpyder) for it. And you may be able to locate an old copy of
Coherent floating around; it was a commercial Unix popular in the late
80's, before FreeBSD and Linux ate the market on the low-end.
====================================================
Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:41:22 GMT
So do I get the extra 10 points?
Steve
On 30 Mar 2000 08:05:53 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>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
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:39:31 GMT
I'd use that 286 as a terminal rather than as gateway or the
like.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:53:40 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Need help on compiling Linux stats
Tom Steinberg wrote:
> I have spent the last couple of days reading endless Linux articles looking
> for any and every bit of statistical data I can find concerning Linux. I'm
> not getting very far very fast, so I've returned to the wonderful and
> generous people on usenet ( butter butter ) to ask for suggestions and info.
> Absolutely anything numerical is helpful, but I am especially looking for:
>
> 1) Info/guesses about the Linux and opensource user base. Growth patterns
> over time and projections are especially needed.
> 2) Value of markets, quantified cost benefits, market impact analyses of
> opensource.
> 3) Stock valuations of opensource ( esp. Linux ) firms.
> 4) Revenue streams associated with opensource.
> 5) Surveys & stats on user/industry opinions.
> 6) Numbers
> 7) More numbers
> 8) er...
> 9) Thats it.
>
> Thanks very much!
>
> Tom
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Tom Steinberg,
> Institute of Economic Affairs
> http://www.iea.org.uk
Best of luck... There is no way in hell you will get an accurate user base
stat. With the commercial stuff I suggest you contact some of the big players
directly (RedHat for example) and maybe they can lend a hand.
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
I don't want a pickle,
I just wanna ride on my motorsickle.
And I don't want to die,
I just want to ride on my motorcy.
Cle.
-- Arlo Guthrie
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:57:24 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c06fp$14b0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have real problems classifying NT as Multiplatform. two or three tops.
> > Multiplatform is something like netbsd. Linux, although originally
> > developed for the x86, has been proven to be capable of being
> > multiplatform. NT has only been ported to alpha, mips, and is Merced out
> > yet? Mips was dropped. The Alpha's port is on shaky ground (is it on
> > again or off again this week?)
It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be profitable)
to free OSes like that.
>
> Its off again.
>
> They also dropped a PPC port a few years ago. Just when it was looking
> quite nice actually.
Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
software ?
> Go figure.
>
> I guess x86 hardware is "superior" for some reason.
In some ways. It's common, cheap and fast, relatively speaking.
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 19:53:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:33:11 GMT, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On 3-23-00, 9:19:05 AM, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >regarding Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet
> >again):
> >> So why didn't they simply offer OS/2 as the installed OS and have
> >> Windows as an extra-cost option? It was the Better DOS than DOS
> >> and Better Windows than Windows OS, right?
> >
> >Having OS/2 as the installed OS is forcing customers to have OS/2.
> >
> >Since IBM lacked monopoly power in the PC OS market, IBM was
> >unable to force all PC buyers to pay for a OS/2 license.
>
> Because nobody wanted it.
Actually, many folks who have used OS/2 rave about it, and it
seems to happen at a higher percentage than windows users, although
certainly OS/2 lacks the market share of microsoft. Clearly folks
wanted it. So earn some credibility and retract the above mistake,
it'll earn you some points.
Additionally, Microsofts practices in dealing with hardware vendors
are pretty much public knowledge, ie., they essentially got market
share early on by methods non-related to product quality or value.
They continued this, hence the DOJ's actions.
Cheers!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erna Odelfsan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:08:30 GMT
> I guess x86 hardware is "superior" for some reason.
You're joking, aren't you ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:16:08 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:57:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8c06fp$14b0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I have real problems classifying NT as Multiplatform. two or three tops.
>> > Multiplatform is something like netbsd. Linux, although originally
>> > developed for the x86, has been proven to be capable of being
>> > multiplatform. NT has only been ported to alpha, mips, and is Merced out
>> > yet? Mips was dropped. The Alpha's port is on shaky ground (is it on
>> > again or off again this week?)
>
>It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be profitable)
>to free OSes like that.
An OS that is owned by the resident 800lb gorilla of the market
doesn't need to be profitable. Furthermore, MS could have used
it's clout to MAKE Windows on other platforms not just viable
but profitable. As always, they chose the least effort path that
they thought wouldn't inspire mass customer defections.
>
>>
>> Its off again.
>>
>> They also dropped a PPC port a few years ago. Just when it was looking
>> quite nice actually.
>
>Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
>software ?
Typically when MS Shills talk about 'running things' the first
things brought to the fore are Microsoft's own apps. So, that
certainly shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore, MS is the leading
devtools vendor. Certainly they could have made supporting other
CPUs quite trivial.
>
>> Go figure.
>>
>> I guess x86 hardware is "superior" for some reason.
>
>In some ways. It's common, cheap and fast, relatively speaking.
It's not relatively fast, just relatively cheap due to a
self-perpetuating process based on popularity.
--
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: "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: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 14:22:02 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c07ho$ojv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello,
>
> You have been presented two with simple problems. One
> problem is for an ordinary user and the other is for a sysadmin.
> The simple and efficient unix solutions demonstrate some the
> power of the unix computing environment. Where is your simple
> and efficient Windows NT solution for these problems?
> Does it really take you this long to develop the solution? Please
> post your solutions including all commands, scripts, or button
> clicks that some one would have to use to replicate your solution.
> If you cannot offer simple and efficient solutions for these two
> problems, be mature enough to admit your defeat.
Heh, how lame.
The problem is he's asking something that he knows is not the way
NT does things. In effect, he's creating a strawman.
With Un*x, you would do it that way, but with NT, you would do it
differently, but they're both means to an end, and both have their
pros and cons.
If you wish to continue debating strawmen, please continue doing so
in COLA, where it's most common and appropriate.
If you want to debate about the merits of the various OS, let's talk
in terms of how each one accomplishes different tasks.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 30 Mar 2000 20:55:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8bvr56$qh6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Tryba wrote:
>>BTW if they are running Alphas why don't use NT4 on it. Afterall NT4
>>is multiplatform and NT4 Alpha is the only "64-bit" MS product I know
>>of...
> NT4 Alpha is 32 Bit. No MS was even not able to make a NT version that was
> 64 Bit on Alpha's.
I definetly need to improve my sarcasm 8-)
BTW There defenitly will be a 64bit version of NT as soon as the first
64bit machines ever will be available.
BTW2 I try to be sarcastic with the BTW above.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: 30 Mar 2000 20:57:23 GMT
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 15:13:28 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was the 29 Mar 2000 17:01:44 GMT...
> ...and Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Btw, it's well worth taking a look at. It's fast, looks great, is as
> > > easy as the Mac.
> >
> > Looking at the screenshots, I'd disagree. I strongly dislike those
> > tags and it looks too cartoony for me.
>
> Heretic!
I seem to have become used to being called that (Pointing out that RISC
OS has flaws seems to do the trick).
> You've been tainted by looking at the decidedly non-childish
> and non-cartoonish style of GNOME for too long!
Indeed. How dare GNOME have nice icons, it's just not on.
> :)
In my campaign to reduce the use of smileys to a non rediculous level,
I have discovered evidence suggesting they cause cancer of the liver,
throat and lungs, and they reduce the ability to tell humour from
seriousnous. Thus, smileys are now a big no-no.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: 30 Mar 2000 20:57:23 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.
Good enough for me. All I want is something to play around with, but
it won't get a second look if I can't play MP3s in it.
> Seems the phrase "supported" takes on a whole new meaning in the *nix
> world.
Don't forget W2K isn't perfect in that regard either. Win9x's
overwhelming market share means developers will support all the
features of the card in their drivers for it.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:00:48 GMT
On 30 Mar 2000 20:55:26 GMT, Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In article <8bvr56$qh6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Tryba wrote:
>
>>>BTW if they are running Alphas why don't use NT4 on it. Afterall NT4
>>>is multiplatform and NT4 Alpha is the only "64-bit" MS product I know
>>>of...
>> NT4 Alpha is 32 Bit. No MS was even not able to make a NT version that was
>> 64 Bit on Alpha's.
>
>I definetly need to improve my sarcasm 8-)
>
>BTW There defenitly will be a 64bit version of NT as soon as the first
>64bit machines ever will be available.
Gotta have that 64 bit addressing to handle the next generation of bloat.
A DVD's, ms-office can grow to >30G and with 64 bit addressing, the
executables can now exceed 4G.
All so that you can 3D dancing paperclips with photo realistic
bellybuttons. Such progress!
W2K, the "Mr. Creosote" of operating systems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
