Linux-Advocacy Digest #919, Volume #25 Sun, 2 Apr 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win2000 kicks ass ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2000 kicks ass (Jianmang Li)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped ("Ken J Braatz")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 02:01:11 GMT
WOW A WHOLE MONTH WITH OUT A CRASH???? REALLY??? WOW!!!!!
You MUST be a MS user to be impressed with a months worth of uptime.
Unix/Linux are used to getting a year or more of uptime.
.
.
.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
chewing_gum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi there
>
> Had this installed for a month now. Superb, no hangs, no crashes..
> ....beautiful piece of software. Well done Bill.
> Linux for the desktop? Never.
>
> cheers
> bob
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Jianmang Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 04:10:37 +0200
Yes you right more memory will help you survive longer. But remember only longer
but not forever. The out of memory is mostly due to memory leakage. So no matter
how much memory you have you crash the machine as long ass you run it for too
long.
I use MS visual studio on a P400/128 MB Windows 95 box. During debugging phase, I
normally crash the machine two, three times a day. Generally two times crash of
my own early stage buggy program will most likely bring down the Windows. One
"healthy" habit that I developed under window is that - push that save button as
often as you can, otherwise you regret for it.
Normal user does not suffer as much as developer. First the developer use memory
intensive tools such as compiler. Secondly developer runs buggy programs of their
own on a buggy OS.
Shadow Hunter wrote:
> I can't say I have the same problems with Windows 98. I can't say too
> much about new Linux Distro's at this point in time as I'm still
> awaiting my copy of Redhat 6.2 to arrive from cheapbytes.com but this
> system will be dual booting Windows 98 and RH 6.2. I have no problems
> or crashes with Windows 98. Adding 32 megs of RAM to the 64 I already
> had really made the system more stable then it was as it would
> occasionally crash out and I believe that was due to running out of
> memory more then anything. Just my experiences although I know a lot
> of people have had trouble with 95 and 98 so I am not a Microsoft
> Advocate by any means. After I learn all the little tricks to RH I'll
> probably completely switch over since I do have another machine that
> runs Windows 95 anyway. :)
>
> Shadow Hunter
>
> On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 23:10:56 GMT, "Dirk Gently"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hello. What medication are you on? I think you had better stop eight years
> >ago. Windows CAN'T be better than Linux. Sure, it might have a better gui
> >and more programs, but it still isn't better. The day Windows is better
> >than Linux, 6545.546646 will be the answer to life, the universe, and
> >everything (Not 42).
> >
> >At home, I have two 98 computers. One crash literally every 5 minutes. The
> >other one crashes once a week (min). You're just lucky because 2000 thinks
> >you like Microsoft.
--
Jianmang Li
Stachanov
Phone: +31-72-5646664 +31-6-22977904
Fax: +31-72-5627410
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 01:51:55 GMT
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 01:17:11 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting R.E.Ballard from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:59:00 GMT
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:13:09 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>> Devlin wrote:
>>But when they did this, OEMs suddenly switched to other chips.
>And thanks also for once again proving that knowledge and wisdom are not
>valueless in the face of mindless neigh-saying like Roger repetitively
>practices upon us.
Because, of course, in MaxWorld assertion == proof.
Which ignores the fact <which Max conveniently snipped> that ATI
freely supplies the information needed to support OSes other than the
various flavours of Windows, even when they don not write such drivers
themselves.
Which also ignores the complete lack of support for the implication
that OEMs stopped using S3 chips because of the availability of an
Xfree86 version optimized for their chip.
>>Linus knows how to speak USB, and he even knows that there are
>>people who have cracked the protocol. Unfortunately, he can't
>>put the complex peripheral protocol code into Linux because it's
>>protected by Microsoft agreements.
Hmmn. I must be imagining http://www.linux-usb.org/ then...
>>As usual, even if I had the agreements in front of me, I couldn't
>>tell you what's in them. That could only be revealed under a court
>>order. I wouldn't be the one to ask, but the membership of the USB
>>standards committee would be a good starting point.
You mean the membership listed here:
http://www.usb.org/info.html
As usual, Rex has tried to suggest that he has more information than
he actually does, and imply that he is prevented from sharing all of
the details because of restrictive NDAs.
He's usually better at choosing his claims, however -- usually they
are not of a nature to be so easily shown to be BS.
>I suspected that USB was a monopoly move, but was never sure how. Are you
>saying that the USB standard is unavailable to anyone but Microsoft and their
>victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpartners?
And as usual, Max takes such claims at face value, because it casts a
bad light on MS.
I mean, after all, they * are * icky....
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 02:18:09 GMT
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 01:17:15 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:11:16 GMT
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:37:41 GMT, someone claiming to be R.E.Ballard
>>wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:10:16
>>>GMT
>>>> >On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:46:36 GMT, someone claiming to be me" wrote:
>>>> > I certainly don't call that proof
>>>> > that MS pressures hardware
>>>> > manufacturers not to support any
>>>> > other OS, which is the claim in this
>>>> > thread.
>>
>>>Actually, the most dramatic examples of this behavior - as disclosed
>>>in Judge Jackson's "Findings of Fact" include Microsoft's specific
>>>targeting of IBM - the only OEM that did not have a license until
>>>15 minutes before the release of Windows 95.
>>>
>>>Microsoft demanded that IBM stop shipping machines with OS/2, and
>>>even insisted that unless IBM agreed, that Microsoft would insist
>>>on a license audit (extortion) which it threatened to disclose to
>>>the public (blackmail). Eventually, to get the license, IBM paid
>>>nearly $30 million - for nearly 4 million licenses - machines sold
>>>with OS/2 instead of Windows.
>>
>>Nice revision of history there. [...]
>According to you and Microsoft, maybe. Might we see your documentation?
According to the very findings of fact cited.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
section 122: ... Microsoft's purported reason for halting the
negotiations was that it wanted first to resolve an * ongoing *
(emphasis mine) audit of IBM's past royalty payments to Microsoft for
several different operating systems
and
124. ... At the meeting, Kempin offered to accept a single, lump-sum
payment from IBM that would close all outstanding audits. The amount
of this payment would be reduced if IBM offered a concession that
Kempin could take back to Gates. As one possibility, Kempin suggested
that IBM agree to not bundle SmartSuite with its PCs for a period of
six months to one year. <snip> In a follow-up letter, Kempin stated
that Microsoft would require approximately $25 million from IBM in
order to settle all outstanding audits. Kempin reiterated that,
'If you believe that the amount I am asking for is too much, I
would be willing to trade certain relationship improving
measures for the settlement charges and/or convert some of the
amounts into marketing funds if IBM too agrees to promote
Microsoft's software products together with their hardware
offerings'
and finally:
125. That same day, the firms brought the audit issue to a close with
a settlement agreement under which IBM ultimately paid Microsoft $31
million.
Can we now expect that you will start posting documentation for your
claims? Or will you continue to practice truth by proclamation?
>>And I find nothing to suggest that MS would make the results of such
>>an audit public.
>Well, I doubt a judge would consider you to represent the standards of the
>community in such a thing, because just about everyone here knows enough to
>suggest that MS would threaten blackmail.
And you think, that if MS had done so, IBM would have failed to bring
this to the courts attention, or that the court would not find it
significant?
>>>Microsoft also used it's pricing and discount structure to make it
>>>more cost-effective to purchase more licenses than you needed than
>>>to buy too few.
>>Most volume discounts work this way.
>No, they don't, Roger. They aren't necessarily designed to, nor is that a
>common result. In MS cases, it is purposeful intent. Ask Rex, he'll tell
>you. If he's allowed by restrictive Microsoft licensing contracts.
You mean the kind he implies prevent him from discussing USB in more
detail in a previous post?
You might want to check that post and get back to me re: his
credibility in discussing such NDAs.
And yes, volume discount do usually work on the basis of "buy this
much for the discount, regardless of how much you need." Try going to
Sam's and buy, say, three six packs of soda and tell us how that price
compares on a per can basis with buying the entire case. The only
example of a volume discount not working this way that occurs off the
top of my head is: at the grocery store I occasionally only buy one of
a "buy one, get one free" promotion and get it for half price -- but
then it's a family run operation and they like me there.
>>>At the same time, this obligated the OEM to use
>>>the licenses that were purchased - especially if they wanted a rebate
>>>in the event of a sales short-fall.
>>Nope -- MS had their money, they could care less if the software
>>actually shipped.
>Says you. MS might say that in public, but their record of deceit stands on
>its own. MS is quite concerned that their "shovelware" get in front of a user
>(or at least between them and anyone else's software.)
<Max> Because I said so! </Max>
>>>This was stated in the Sunsoft vs Microsoft Java case in so many words.
>>>Microsoft even stated that it had to protect it's market share from
>>>all sorts of competitors.
>>The ones Jackson claims don't exist?
>The ones that don't exist. Only MS claims they exist.
MS and Rex, apparently.
>>>Microsoft's market share at the time
>>>this testimony was given was nearly 95% of the market. Microsoft
>>>specifically named OS/2 and Linux as competitors.
>>But of course, Jackson knows better than MS what their market is, and
>>the possible competition.
>Why wouldn't he? MS gets to make it up themselves without any support from
>market data? You need a new diaper, Roger. The baby shit is leaking from
>your mouth again.
Despite your continued descent into ad hominem, the answer is that he
wouldn't because he's never been in that market, nor competed against
those competitors.
------------------------------
From: "Ken J Braatz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 02:18:35 GMT
In article <38e6f073@news>, "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Douglas E. Mitton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Yes, I agree with some things on your list ...
>>
>> - Windows users never have to deal with partitioning. That is one of
>> the toughest concepts the new Linux installer has to contend with.
>> Now, buy it pre-installed and its as easy as buying a computer with
>> Windows pre-installed! :-)
>
> When did Windows users get so stupid? I remember when there were all
> kinds of tips in PC Magazine and others about how to partition your
> hard drive to save space and to protect your data and so forth. I still
> partition my hard drives into a system drive (for windows) and a data
> drive for programs and data. Then i can just format c: to reinstall
> windows and not lose anything else.
>
I remember those days too. Like when PCComputing actually had some useful
information. Keep in mind, however, that far fewer people had PCs at home
back then. The industry's grown considerably since.
>>
>> - Knowing your hardware. The typical windows user has no idea what
>> hardware is inside the box at all. They know the general stuff,
>> speed, processor, HD size, CD, floppy and sound. Linux users generally
>> have to know what is "in" their "box"!
>
> What did all these people do before Plug and Pray? I can't believe they
> were all paying computer repair shops in cash or relatives in beer
> just to get that scsi scanner card installed with windows 3.1.
They took their machines to specialty shops and paid someone $100 to
install it for them. I remember when there were at least 20 of these
shops within 15 minutes from my house. None of them are around any more.
>>
>> The biggest solution to these problems that I've been able to see is:
>>
>> - Don't buy an old Linux book from a discount book store that may be
>> 5+ years out of date and try to install that distribution. Definetly
>> don't think thats state-of-the-art for Linux. Have you ever used
>> Windows 3.0? <shudder> :-)
>
> Actually, the distribution and the book should be pretty much in sync.
> What you definitely should NOT do is download a current version from
> the web and try to use the book.
I haven't used Corel, but I can say that Mandrake 7.0.2 picked up my
hardware better then Win2K. I mean, it got my 2940UW card and tape drive,
CDRW, Zip, Sound Blaster, the NIC, brand spanking new Voodoo 3500 and
everything worked with no problems. If RedHat and the others continue
this trend towards simplicity in the setup, I think Linux really has a
chance against Windows.
>>
>> - Get a recent distribution, a few minutes research on the net will
>> get you that. Pick up a Linux magazine (or 2 or 3). Lurk in the
>> Usenet groups for awhile.
>
> (Just not this one. There is no practical knowledge to be gained here.)
>
>> Get involved with your local Linux User Group or cultivate a
>> friendship with someone with some experience at Linux.
>
> Good idea! (We take payment in beer too.)
>
>>
>> - Expect to do some research to learn how your new system works. No
>> one is born comfortable with Windows. Generally, you just don't
>> remember the long painful learning curve you had. A typical Linux
>> distribution is huge and there are many things that you have to get
>> working. Windows doesn't come "stock" with nearly as much "stuff" as
>> Linux. Linux tries hard to be everything to everyone and so it is a
>> little more complex. I personally found the work worth it.
>>
Honestly, aside from the stability, the only reason I use Linux over
Windows, is WindowMaker. WM is, to me one of the best shells I've ever
worked with. If there was a WM port to Win2K, I'd probably switch back.
I've used 2K for a while and find it stable enough for what I do at
home... which is mostly surf. Hell, if I switched back I could even dump
my MetaFrame server that I use so I can get to Quicken. Now, if Intuit
would port Quicken I'd never go back to Windows regardless of what shells
were available.
>> Good luck!
>>
> Hear hear!
>
> [snip]
>
> -- Rich C.
> "Great minds discuss ideas.
> Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
>
>
>
--
--
Ken J Braatz
Remove "_spamthis_" to respond via email.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 02:58:36 GMT
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:25:44 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Hardly. WinCE mightn't be as popular as PalmOS, but devices using it are
>> >certainly selling well. WinCE hasn't been around for that long either,
>> >whereas NT was around on several platforms for many years.
>>
>> Selling so well, that IBM just stopped making Wince boxes. Still making
>their
>> palm clone though.
>
>IBM just came out with a new Workpad that is CE based. The Workpad z50.
>
>This thing sells faster than IBM can produce it.
This thing came out almost a year ago.
Also, visiting commerce.www.ibm.com and searching for Z50, results only
in accessories, no machines. Wonder if they are still making them? The
only product named workpad that I can find, is their palm pilot clone.
Of course, if you trot on over to
http://www.byte.com/features/BYT20000202S0003 you can read the reaction
of one writer (who really likes his Z50) to IBM's discontinuing them...
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Eric...(no, that's not sarcasm)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 3 Apr 2000 03:00:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The point being, that with root and rm, you can wipe out an entire user
: database in seconds. With WindowsNT, you have to take ownership of each
: and every file and folder. This has to be done manually, and cannot be
: done by mistake, or on the fly.
That is a pretty weak point. If you so choose, there are numerous
ways that a Linux system can be modified to give similar
functionality. The most obvious way is to use chattr. One also could
alias out the rm command, make it not executable by root, replace it
with a safer version, avoid using root (use sudo and intelligent
permissions instead), or, best of all, train the admins not to do
stupid things like running rm on a production box without knowing what
the hell they are doing.
It is true that NT offers ACLs and that Linux out of the box doesn't,
and it is at least arguable that NT out of the box is more
"idiot-proof" than Linux. But then Linux assumes that its users
aren't idiots, and doesn't treat them as it they were. That behavior
may not be ideal for home users, whose systems may not be backed up or
expertly administered. But it has not proven to be a a serious
problem in a production environment where the admins are reasonably
competent and clueful people.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 03:01:09 GMT
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 19:44:58 GMT,
George Marengo, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:25:44 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >Hardly. WinCE mightn't be as popular as PalmOS, but devices using it are
>>> >certainly selling well. WinCE hasn't been around for that long either,
>>> >whereas NT was around on several platforms for many years.
>>>
>>> Selling so well, that IBM just stopped making Wince boxes. Still making
>>> their palm clone though.
>>
>>IBM just came out with a new Workpad that is CE based. The Workpad z50.
>
>Is this "new" Workpad z50 something other than the product they
>introduced nearly a year ago? (note the date of the article)
>http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2257047,00.html
>
>>This thing sells faster than IBM can produce it.
>
>Are you sure that it's the CE-based z50 that you're talking about?
>Given that PalmOS-based handhelds hold have around 80%+
>of the PDA market, and IBM's CE-based z50 sells for $999, if they
>really do sell faster than IBM can make them, that says more about
>IBMs ability to manufacture it than it does about their popularity.
>
IBM have dropped this item. See
http://www.byte.com/feature/BYT20000202S0003
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
