Linux-Advocacy Digest #939, Volume #25 Tue, 4 Apr 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY?????? (David Steinberg)
Re: linux users group? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY?????? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty (David Damerell)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Bob Tennent)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (David T. Blake)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (STD DIALUP)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("fmc")
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (Craig Kelley)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Craig Kelley)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Craig Kelley)
Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Mike Lee)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(George Marengo)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ("Robert Moir")
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Mr. Rupert")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:18:08 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 11:12:58 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The reason to move to linux are mainly to save money in the long
>run.
>Get off the upgrade treadmill. This in itself is huge. the
>upgrade treamill is an enormous lie that very few people even
>question. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
You would be amazed at how many business are still running Win 3.1 as
well as 95 and 98. I have several clients that are still running DOS
applications because to them it works and they see no return on their
dollar by switching operating systems.
Upgrade-itus infects mostly home users and yuppie types that have to
run the latest because it's got to be better.
Corporations are much more conservative these days.
Hence the somewhat cool reception Win2k has had.
>Take control of the product you paid for. Modify the apps you
>like to perfectly suit your environment. Use it for whatever
>purposes YOU deem fit.
Yea. I can see my friend who owns the local watering hole (aka
Drinking establishment) pounding out code all so he can submit his
accounts to his accountant in a format that the CPA's program can
read. This guy wants to serve his drinks and run his business that's
why he uses off the shelf software that already does what he needs and
is compatible with what the rest of the world is using.
Pounding out code is a waste of time for him, even if he knew how to
do it.
>I think the popularity gnu/linux will cause the industry to cool
>somewhat. "Innnovation" won't stop, the the ridiculous sums of
>money people spend on software will.
Linux is a novelty at the moment, and is a hot topic. How many of
those trying it will stick with it though?
I suppose time will be the ultimate judge.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY??????
Date: 4 Apr 2000 17:23:04 GMT
CG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I saw him on tv this morning and he looks different. Any ideas on
: this?
You know how he rocks back and forth when he gets upset? He was just
checking the stock price on the 'net yesterday and...let's just say
his monitor looks different this morning, too...
;)
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux users group?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:26:19 GMT
The url is wrong:
http://www.nylug.org
should get you there.
Steve
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:51:00 -0400, "BadMan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> www.mylug.org
>
>I tried, but the URL did not work, then I tried to trace it but the host
>could not be resolved
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY??????
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:28:03 GMT
He looks rather bloated to me especially around the face, like he
might be on some steroid type drug?
Steve
On 04 Apr 2000 12:22:17 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG) wrote:
>I saw him on tv this morning and he looks different. Any ideas on
>this?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:34:44 GMT
I agree locate is fast, but like FastFind for Windows that is
cheating. The real question is why is a "brute force" search all the
disks for a certain file name, so much slower under Linux than
Windows?
Is it the OS?
The file system?
What is the reason?
To the best of my knowledge, and I may be wrong here, regular Find
under Windows doesn't use any indexing, it is a brute force method
that is the same concept as find under Linux.
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 12:04:41 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
>> >LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
>> >and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
>> >probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
>> >if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
>> >everything.
>>
>> Nope. Windows is searching through even more files because of all my
>> *mp3 files. It is still so much faster it is not even close.
>>
>> >That said, any comparison of GNU "find" and its pathetic
>> >counterpart in windows is, well, naive.
>> >GNU find is to windows find like the sun is to a little star.
>>
>> But the little star finds soooooo much faster.
>
>Heather,
>
>Do yourself a favor and use the locate command. That uses the
>updatedb and is, well, way faster than windows "find" for the
>simple task of finding files.
>
>
>My previous example is more relevant, since it involves the speed
>with which windows is deleted. Not much else matters when
>windows is still nesting on the drive somewhere.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: 4 Apr 2000 17:43:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yea. I can see my friend who owns the local watering hole (aka
>Drinking establishment) pounding out code all so he can submit his
>accounts to his accountant in a format that the CPA's program can
>read. This guy wants to serve his drinks and run his business that's
>why he uses off the shelf software that already does what he needs and
>is compatible with what the rest of the world is using.
>Pounding out code is a waste of time for him, even if he knew how to
>do it.
Sorry to burst your buble but eh accounting software exists for Linux and
has for many years. The only thing is that those applications are not geared
at the mentaly deficient. the application I'm talking about also costs 2000
USD or so but is a real accounting package. Also some firm is developing a
GNU accounting package in java with a Postgress Backend that would allow
this guy to actually not need an accountant at all & do his own accounts
thus save him the fees those accountants charge.
>Linux is a novelty at the moment, and is a hot topic. How many of
>those trying it will stick with it though?
Even if only 20 % of the poeple who try Linux adopt it it will be 20 % more
poeple who software vendors can't ignore and start porting applications to
Linux.
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: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 04 Apr 2000 18:17:10 +0100 (BST)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in several
>>>areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group", or whatever)
>>>any good?
>>If their applications division is separate from their OS division, they
>>no longer have the same interest in having their applications only run on
>>Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them everywhere.
>And will Orifice 2001 "for linux" be written to use GTK+? (Or QT for those
Perhaps you've misunderstood me; it's not that I think Orifice for Linux
would be a useful tool for the likes of us; just that, once the apps are
widely ported, there won't be the same pressure to use Windows; and once
other software vendors can write just as effectively for Windows, there
won't be the same pressure to use the Microsoft apps; if that happens,
they've lost the stranglehold on the market, and that's good.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris!
|___| You bought a mask: I put it on: you never thought to ask me if I wear
| | | it when you're gone. The Sisters of Mercy: When You Don't See Me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 4 Apr 2000 17:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:34:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I agree locate is fast, but like FastFind for Windows that is
>cheating. The real question is why is a "brute force" search all the
>disks for a certain file name, so much slower under Linux than
>Windows?
>
>Is it the OS?
> The file system?
>What is the reason?
>
>To the best of my knowledge, and I may be wrong here, regular Find
>under Windows doesn't use any indexing, it is a brute force method
>that is the same concept as find under Linux.
>
Because find can do much more than just find the filename.
treescan <directory> | grep <filename>
is more comparable: treescan just outputs all file paths, and
grep filters out the ones of interest. This is faster
than find, but less flexible.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 4 Apr 2000 15:29:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you enjoy using your text based applications, thats
> fantastic. I'm happy for you. Unfortunately, windows programs, no
> matter how bloated, ugly, etc HAVE added graphic functionality
> that I and others have become used to having in an email program.
>
> Four quick examples of when a GUI mail program is easier to use for
> most people:
>
> 1) I want to move mail from one folder to another. A drag and drop
> interface makes it easy to move and manage folders.
Two keystrokes in mutt.
> 2) I want to view a HTML mail page. Oh yeah, I know some of you
> just get all flustered when mail isn't plain text, but it
> happens.
MIME handling and opening a w3m window. Handled automatically.
> 3) I want to search for an item in several hundred mail
> messages. A list of search matches I can quickly click on and
> open makes it simple.
Come on. Grep does this, as will cranking up a pager, or
even emacs for full featured grokking.
> 4) And of course the most simple thing of all, opening multiple
> mail messages at the same time.
By opening multiple xterms and running mutt in each ???
> And FYI, I didn't start using linux w/ Redhat 4.2, I started to
> use Linux in 1991 or 1992, when I had to download 50+ slackware
> disks on my 14.4k modem. I am completely, fully, totally aware
> and able to use text based applications, but my fiancee, who will
> also be using my computer, cannot.
The fact that millions of college students use pine each
year is proof positive that anyone can use text based
email clients.
But to each his own. Some people prefer mouse-strokes to
key-strokes, and that I fully respect. But to claim that
the GUIs add some sort of functionality is quite a point
of contention. Especially on a system that grew a GUI on top
of its text interface.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (STD DIALUP)
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:20:31 GMT
It is much slower than a UNIX based web server.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: There's a reason MS software is very rarely used for websites.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:12:19 GMT
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> For instance, if Microsoft decided to charge people with white
> skin $100 for a license, and charged people with black skin $200
> for that license, this would be considered Rather Improper, and
> charges *would* be laid.
You'd think that was the case, the way the government is acting.
> People don't run for US President because of the high salary; they
> do so for a variety of motivations that likely include:
> - Desire for power
> - Desire for prestige
> - Desire for fame
> - Unlikely, but possibly even *to help people.*
>
> Microsoft's actions over the last number of years are consistent with
> the primary goal being a *desire for power* rather than simply to
> "maximize profit."
>
> The fact that they spent money on "giving away" Internet Exploder is a
> good example of this.
Or it may be a good example of how they tried *to help people.* After all,
free software is supposed to be *a good thing*. Also, how much did the
government *help people* whose 401Ks took a hit yesterday? Are they going
to be made whole from the fines that will be levied, or will those monies go
directly into the U.S. Treasury?
>
> The fact that Bill Gates has been spending millions of dollars
> establishing charitable foundations is consistent with a desire for
> prestige far moreso than to "maximize profit." The interesting
> conjunction of the timing of the charitable activities with the DOJ
> proceedings is consistent with "desire for power" moreso than "to help
> people."
After all, redistributing wealth to establish power should be reserved to
the government, right? And since you brought up the subject, how much money
has the Linux community given to charities for ANY reason?
fmc
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:17:28 -0600
"Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote in message ...
> >Just stay the HELL away from their Oracle books.
>
> Why?
>
> I haven't checked them out; what is your experience?
They are beginner-only books. They do not answer any tough
questions.
> What Oracle book(s) can you recommend?
Unfortunately, the Oracle press releases the best books on Oracle; so
in addition to gouging you for their database, they turn around and
ping you to death with book prices.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:23:35 -0600
Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You're not really interested.
>
> no I am interested.
Go for it:
http://www.be.com/products/freebeos/
> If there ARE some apps which run better on BeOS than on
> Linux I want to know which and WHY.
> (maybe Linux could be patched than :) )
It's more a matter of X11 (which is much more functional) vs. BeOS,
and not kernel matter at all. It is becoming quite moot in today's
world, though -- A 600Mhz processor can make up for all kinds of
abstraction.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:24:56 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name) writes:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:44:24 GMT, Robert Heininger said:
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:59:21 -0600,
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Tim Kelley' wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000331S0002
> >
> >What's the big deal? It's only just an "issue", according to Microsoft.
> >Didn't you read the whole article? What's wrong with you? All the facts
> >that _you_need_to_know_ are right there in the last sentence. What's your
> >point? ;-)
>
>
> So is W2K not a buggy OS but an issuey one?
:)
I suppose that's better than a "featurey" OS.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:17:43 GMT
Die, Micro$ux, di ...
<BLUE>GENERAL PROTECTION FAULT IN MODULE. . .
</BLUE>
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
P.S. I note in passing that the Jan. 2000 issue of PC World,
in describing Windows 98 bugs, listed one that would appear
if your machine had been running 49.7 days: The machine
would freeze up.
PC World noted in a rather ascerbic manner that this wasn't
much of a _real_ problem: If your machine managed to stay
_up_ for 49 days, you should count your lucky stars.
POS. . . .
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Lee)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 4 Apr 2000 17:40:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| GNU find is to windows find like the sun is to a little star.
The sun *is* a little star...it just looks bigger because
you're closer to it.
mikey
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:37:55 GMT
On 4 Apr 2000 17:43:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Yea. I can see my friend who owns the local watering hole (aka
>>Drinking establishment) pounding out code all so he can submit his
>>accounts to his accountant in a format that the CPA's program can
>>read. This guy wants to serve his drinks and run his business that's
>>why he uses off the shelf software that already does what he needs and
>>is compatible with what the rest of the world is using.
>>Pounding out code is a waste of time for him, even if he knew how to
>>do it.
>Sorry to burst your buble but eh accounting software exists for Linux and
>has for many years. The only thing is that those applications are not geared
>at the mentaly deficient. the application I'm talking about also costs 2000
>USD or so but is a real accounting package.
And how many people are using this great package?
There are 2 issues here. The end user using $69.00 Quicken or such,
and the CPA who is probably using vertical commercial level accounting
packages in the $2k range.
>Also some firm is developing a
>GNU accounting package in java with a Postgress Backend that would allow
>this guy to actually not need an accountant at all & do his own accounts
>thus save him the fees those accountants charge.
Windows has many such packages availible already. Quickbooks Pro is
one.
>>Linux is a novelty at the moment, and is a hot topic. How many of
>>those trying it will stick with it though?
>Even if only 20 % of the poeple who try Linux adopt it it will be 20 % more
>poeple who software vendors can't ignore and start porting applications to
>Linux.
Software vendors will go where the money is. If they can make a buck
off Linux they will.
>Michael
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:26:30 GMT
Ever wonder why a guy name steve is posting under Heather69?? Still,
Locate works faster than Windows find for me.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > >I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
> > >LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
> > >and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
> > >probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
> > >if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
> > >everything.
> >
> > Nope. Windows is searching through even more files because of all my
> > *mp3 files. It is still so much faster it is not even close.
> >
> > >That said, any comparison of GNU "find" and its pathetic
> > >counterpart in windows is, well, naive.
> > >GNU find is to windows find like the sun is to a little star.
> >
> > But the little star finds soooooo much faster.
>
> Heather,
>
> Do yourself a favor and use the locate command. That uses the
> updatedb and is, well, way faster than windows "find" for the
> simple task of finding files.
>
> My previous example is more relevant, since it involves the speed
> with which windows is deleted. Not much else matters when
> windows is still nesting on the drive somewhere.
>
> --
> Tim Kelley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:45:37 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:47:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 4 Apr 2000 13:38:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Believe that MS has done more for the home computing market than any
>>>corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
>>>computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>>
>>Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
>>implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
>>illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
>>ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
>>product.
>>
>>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=550266479
>
>So if you what you say is true why didn't all of these great companies
>that MS stole from market the ideas themselves first?
They did. As an example, do a search of Stac Electronics and Microsoft
>>>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>>>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>>>us all in that market :(
>>
>>Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>>a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>>guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>>believe them.
>
>Take a look at all of the Taxes you pay?
>
>My phone bill is almost $22.00 before I even make a call.
Is that a direct consequence of deregulation, or is that due to over
taxation?
>The cost of LD has gone down due to technology costs being lower.
>INW they can cram more voices on a given line, or fiber.
Competition -- without it there would have been no driving force to
make rates cheaper. As a recent example, look what the introduction
of the Handspring Visor has done to Palm PDA prices.
>Linux buries itself on it's own accord. It doesn't need any help.
If it doesn't need any help, then surely you have an explanation for
the Microsoft "Halloween" document, right?
>It's fun watching you guys squirm and set up a human shield to protect
>the beloved kernel.
>Only in this group do you see threads arguing over a single word
>trying to define what constitutes programming. That's the very reason
>why MS will win the war and Linux will peak and head toward ground
>faster than one of Von Braun's V2's.
Take a look at Netcraft's numbers for IIS vs. Apache. Are you quite
sure that it's headed toward ground?
>So why aren't people running in mass from M$ if they can get all of
>this great stuff for free?
Because they're not used to it, it's different, it doesn't run Word,
it's not what their employer uses, it's not what came on their
computer, etc. In other words, lots of reasons.
>It's the truth. Linux itself is the best advertisement to use Windows
>I have ever seen.
Why did nobody continue to use it?
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:57:18 +0100
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
> > happens.
> >
> > Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
> > couple of seconds.
> >
> > I'm not talking about FastFind either, just the normal find that comes
> > with Windows.
> >
> > Windows wins by a large margin, searching a similar number of files.
>
> I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
> LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
> and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
> probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
> if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
> everything.
So Linux is so bloated that it's search is slow despite being super
efficent?
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:47:34 -0500
Tim Kelley wrote:
>
> let's count 'em:
>
I make my living programming on the UNIX platform but some of the
items on your list are nonsense.
> 1. DOJ ruling
> 2. Netscape 6
So?
> 3. KDE 2.0 (I haven't forgotten gnome just not paying attention)
So?
> 4. K Office
So?
> 5. Linux 2.4
Server only!
> 6. Corel Office for linux
So?
> 7. NDS for linux
> 8. W63K is a laughable DUD. their new OS reminds me of that fat
> bloated creature in the movie "Blade".
> 9. Big linux strategy from IBM
Server only!
> 10. Total, utter failure of Win98. the biggest piece of
> worthless shit ever sold to anyone.
Win98 a total failure!??? Are you goofy? It's crash prone, no doubt, but
a failure?
If you cannot even babble half-truths, it is hard to believe anything you
have to say. Even the Devil has enough smarts to mix truth with lies.
> 11. BeOS making slow progress (wrt its popularity)
>
Very slow progress...
> Fat assed Windows is coasting, sputtering and dying, Linux is
> behind but accelerating.
>
I don't consider being on 99% of the world's desktops close to death.
> 2000 will be more exciting for linux than 1999 was.
>
> Can they survive this? Let's hope not!
>
Let's hope so... I'd hate to have to teach my parents how to use vi.
--
Mr Rupert
> --
> Tim Kelley
> [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
******************************
