Linux-Advocacy Digest #39, Volume #26 Sun, 9 Apr 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win2000 kicks ass (Joe Kiser)
Re: Be vs. Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (David Utidjian)
Re: MANDRAKE 7.0!!!!!!!!! - Linux has finally convinced me. (Joe Kiser)
Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious! ("tony roth")
Re: Be vs. Linux (Opinionated)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640 (tholenbot)
Re: Be vs. Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Observations on Internet World LA (Craig Kelley)
Re: Review: Corel Office 2000 (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:11:59 -0400
Dirk Gently 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.
That is the most ignorant post I have *ever* encountered.
--
-Joe Kiser
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.mindspring.com/~joekiser/
"Make the sadness go away."
-Iced Earth, Melancholy (Holy Martyr)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 02:00:59 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
ax wrote:
>
>
> If that's the case, why those Linux companies don't take the kernel
> with them and make speedy enhancement or cleanup of the
> kernel instead of relying on part time Linus?
>
> I'd rather see companies such as Red Hat and many others to
> take the lead in the kernel development instead of having Linus
> to control when and how the next kernel release will be.
>
> Did I misunderstand anything?
>
Actually, they do. IBM for one made modifications to the kernel for S/390
support. They could have simply then released their version of the kernel.
But in order to keep Linux from being fragmented, it is generally a good
idea, even though not required under the GPL, to feed those changes back to
Linus so that they could be incorporated into the official kernel. And that
is exactly what IBM did. The version of the Linux kernel that comes with
Redhat 6.2 for your PC now includes S/390 support.
>
> > --
> > -| Bob Hauck
> > -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> > -| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: David Utidjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:22:28 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snippage]
> BTW how come no other Linvocate has backed up your claims?
> 2 Seconds David?
Well... out of interest... I ran the same tests that David ran.... (nice to
have cut-n-paste).... I got different results, which is to be expected. My
results varied from 0.74 to 3.84 seconds... this varied from system to system.
I tested on Linux on Alpha, Linux on Sparc, Linux on x86. These systems range
from old slow IDE to hardware based RAID5 and RAID0. One test took 3
minutes!!! then I realized it was also searching the central file server over
the network.... which has over 700,000 files in the share.
Anyhow.... what no one has yet mentioned (unless I missed it) is exactly how
many files we are searching through. It does not good to describe the "size of
the hayloft" (read disk capacity).... what seems to be more meaningful is to
discuss the "size of the haystack"(read total number of files). IOW how many
files total are we searching through. I have a box that has a virgin "install
everything" distro of RedHat-6.2 it weighs in at 98,000 files (give or take a
few). I have another box with NT4.0 Workstation (SP5) it has 7,800 files (give
or take a few), I don't have Office on this machine, I use it for AutoCAD. On
my more "mature" Linux workstations I have as many as 200,000 files (give or
take a few).
I find (no pun intended) that when I have NO clue where what I am looking for
is located that a "find" time of 1-4 seconds is acceptable. I don't know how
long windows takes to search through 1/20th the number of files that Linux
does... there is no "time" command in windows that I am aware of.
The typical user is not going to have to look anywhere beyond their home
directory most of the time for a file. The typical sysadmin has to find all
sorts of stuff.... but then again, if they are a sysadmin, they would
hopefully have some sort of clue where everything is.
Anyhow all of this is pretty meaningless unless one can precisely define the
total number of files that are being searched and how long it takes to search
them. Is there a way to determine exactly how long a windows "find" command
takes to complete? I know how to figure out the number of files on a dual boot
windows/Linux box... I just mount the windows partition and do an "ls -R
/dos/* | wc".
-DU-...etc...
------------------------------
From: Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MANDRAKE 7.0!!!!!!!!! - Linux has finally convinced me.
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 23:22:34 -0400
Martijn Bruns wrote:
>
> I've seen Mandrake 7.0. It's a fine distribution. It's a little slow
> though, compared to SuSE. Why is this?
I don't know, RedHat and Mandrake are both slow at loading apps when
compared to Slackware and FreeBSD. The difference isn't that bad, but
it's noticeable.
--
-Joe Kiser
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW: http://www.mindspring.com/~joekiser/
"Make the sadness go away."
-Iced Earth, Melancholy (Holy Martyr)
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious!
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 20:32:29 -0700
why not, being a linux advocate does not mean you have to be inaccurate and
make incorrect generalizations. What it should mean is that you have enough
confidence in linux that you'll (as an advocate) profess its excellence
based on its own merit not the failings of another os.
"RCS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SCHH4.1233$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why?
>
> RCS
>
> tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:byyH4.3440$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > man I can't believe you took the time to post this bullshit, (your
either
> a
> > bad troll, liar or just plain ignorant) what a waste of bandwidth!
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Isn't is just a riot! I can't believe peoples stupidity.
> > >
> > > People still debating which OS is superior Linux or Microsoft.
> > >
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Opinionated <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:20:04 -0500
ax wrote:
<Troll material>
I wished I had checked deja news before feeding the trolls.
It explains why ax's vision is limited to commercial=retail OSes (Ax is
probably hitting the glass ceiling).
Ax,
No matter how hard you try:
-Linux has been doing very well in for the past 10 years, and will continue to
do so (despite Ax's business model that he tries to make interchangeable with
the laws of physics).
-Linux has defied your laws of 'success of software' business sense. Perhaps
you should read a beginning Linux book before you post anything else
authoritative about Linux.
-I find it hard to believe that many Universities mirror several Linux
distibutions on their ftp sites, if Linux was indeed obsolete. I'd love to
hear what the current research tools in the Universities are, but I have a
feeling Linux is very much with those tools. Any University students/faculty
around?
-BTW: Slackware's first release was in April, 1992. Redhat was founded in
1994.....Therefore, your claim that Redhat was the first Linux company to be a
'mover' is wrong since Slackware was there 2 years before. I have a feeling
there was another company/group before Slackware. Again, you didn't do any
research.
And now I will quit wasting my time with you.
To everyone else,
I have been using Linux for the past 2 years.......I intend to stay with it as
I use it at home and work in primetime. I do my best to support and advocate
Linux.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 00:43:11 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
>
> > Evidence, please.
>
> Haven't you been paying attention?
Haven't you been paying attention? Meanwhile, where is your evidence?
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > tholenbot wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >Today's Haakmat digest:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I'm so happy to see you're digesting me again. I was
> > > > > > > >> beginning
> > > > > > > >> to
> > > > > > > >> think you had become oblivious to all that is wonderful
> > > > > > > >> about
> > > > > > > >> our
> > > > > > > >> relationship.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Your entertainment is irrelevant, Pascal.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Careful tholenbot, I'm going to crack you up ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you are going to to is irrelevant. What you do is
> > > > > > relevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > Non sequitur, as no one has mentioned what he is going to to.
> > > >
> > > > More reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > >
> > > You are erroneously presupposing previous reading comprehension
> > > problems
> > > on my part, Bennett (little bot).
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Liar.
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous invective.
> Your presupposition can plainly be seen.
Irrelevant to your above claim, given that there is nothing erroneous
about it.
> > > > Typical, coming from someone who fails to local the grasshopper.
> > >
> > > Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Bennett (little bot).
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Don't you know?
How ironic.
> > > I see you've failed to answer the question, Bennett (little bot). No
> > > surprise there, Bennett (little bot).
> >
> > You erroneously presuppose the existence of "the question".
>
> Incorrect. There was nothing erroneous about my presupposition of "the
> question".
Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > > > > > >> >> fl. 10 or fl. 15 if you star in it.
> > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > >> >And how many others would be willing to pay the same?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Just you and me, Dave.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Evidence, please. Did you ask all others?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ... and hack you to pieces!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also illogical.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also pontification.
> > > >
> > > > Of what relevance is that remark?
> > >
> > > Weren't you paying attention, Bennett (little bot)?
> >
> > I see you failed to answer the question.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
See what I mean?
> Witness my response to your
> question
> above.
Non sequitur. Your response did not answer the question, Marty. Of
course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills to recognize that
fact.
> > How predictable, coming from someone who lacks asteroid comprehension
> > skills.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect.
> > > > > > Meanwhile, you fail to answer the question. Typical.
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic, coming from someone who typically fails to answer the
> > > > > question.
> > > >
> > > > Who is that, Marty?
> > >
> > > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems, Bennett (little
> > > bot).
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who erroneously claimed that I
> > erroneously presupposed reading comprehension problems on your part.
>
> Incorrect.
Prove it.
> > > > > > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't you know?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know?
> > >
> > > I see you've failed to answer the question, Bennett (little bot). No
> > > surprise there, Bennett (little bot).
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who failed to answer the question.
>
> What alleged "question"?
Typical. Meanwhile, you still fail to answer whether or not there are
any kooks in the theatre tonight.
> > > > > --
> > > > > The infinite wisdom of Bob Osborn:
> > > >
> > > > What is allegedly "infinite" about it?
> > >
> > > Still having reading comprehension problems, Bennett (little bot)?
> >
> > See above.
>
> "Above" does not answer my question, Eric.
Balderdash, Marty. You simply failed to read the above properly.
> > > > > So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you should try asking that question in a post made in
> > > > response
> > > > to Bobo, Marty.
> > >
> > > Aren't you sure, Bennett (little bot)?
> >
> > Don't you know?
>
> Ask your sex life.
You erroneously presuppose that I have a sex life.
> > > > --
> > > > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
> > >
> > > I've already addressed this issue above, Bennett (little bot).
> >
> > Reading comprehension problems again, Marty?
>
> See what I mean?
See what I mean?
> > > [Editorial: So if we accept this, it's safe to assume that his usage
> > > of
> > > the words "moron" and "idiot" are also consistent, hence they are
> > > derogatory terms.]
> >
> > What alleged "we"?
>
> Don't you know, Eric? It's your "we".
Incorrect. Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > --
> > The Dave Tholen Show Theme
> > (feel free
>
> How free is "free", Eric?
Can't you tell?
> > to provide third verse;
>
> What alleged "third verse"?
How ironic.
> > I wrote this back in January and never got around to finishing it)
>
> Typical inconsistency.
Why?
> So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
Why are you addressing me as Bobo, Marty?
--
Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08 Apr 2000 22:54:37 -0600
"ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Opinionated" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ax wrote:
> >
> > > If that's the case, why those Linux companies don't take the kernel
> > > with them and make speedy enhancement or cleanup of the
> > > kernel instead of relying on part time Linus?
> >
> > Why can it only be Linux companies? The way you are saying the above
> implies
> > to me that you seem to think that only companies can "take the kernel with
> > them and make speedy enhancements or cleanup of the kernel" which is far
> from
> > the truth. And why do you seem to have trouble understanding that many
> > companies, developers, and very talented individuals have/are contributing
> to
> > the Linux Kernel & applications? You somehow seem stuck on this one
> > person/one company mentality. BTW: Linux is one of many people making
> > speedy enhancements and cleanup of the kernel....He doesn't do it all
> > himself.
> >
>
> Because Linux is no longer the research and education tools
> used within universities. It is a commercial OS taken by many
> as one of the potential rival OS to MS Windows. Moving from
> university to the industry is a significant leap which requires
> corresponding changes in many areas including the management
> of development cycle. Even a private organization going public
> will incur lots of profound changes within the organization.
> Linux movement seems to involve more.
Linux never was a university OS. Minix was, and that was the
problem (and it cost $160 back then). Linux was originally designed
to be a useful UNIX-like OS for the 386. It grew into more than that;
there have been significan patches for it from the likes of IBM, SGI
and other big companies.
> Commercial OS cannot soly rely on volunteers who cannot
> commit their time to the development of a project. Time
> to market and timely delivery are always important for
> the success of any commercial products. Full time employees
> of any Linux company are better suited with respect to the
> time commitment and obligations.
I think that Linux is proving you wrong here.
> Red Hat was the first mover as a Linux company. it naturally
> attracts most of the attention and receives higher expectations
> from the public. But Red Hat may or may not be the eventual leader
> since other new Linux players such as IBM, HP, etc have enough
> resource to wipe out Red Hat if they want.
>
> The Linux kernel community had made significant contribution
> to the Linux success. I believe It will continue its role while at the same
> time it needs the support from industry leaders after Linux
> had gone commercial.
Where is the problem with this?
--
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: Observations on Internet World LA
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08 Apr 2000 23:02:45 -0600
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Re IBM: I'd love to convince the IBMers to facilitate DB2 access in
> linux native tools like Perl. In terms of talent, Linux developers in
> the workforce are well ahead of Lotus teams in form-based email routing
> and other web-enabled server-side scripting for corporate
> nfrastructures. We are viral in our ability to use sendmail and
> delimited text to interface with Legacy middleware like Lotus mail
> databases. it still amazes me how something so simple can be so
> powerful. The ubiquitousness of RFC's, and other documentation on linux
> coupled with programming tools like RegEX and parsing modules also has
> linux developers ahead on Notes teams in terms of most types of
> web-enabled clients.
Is there something wrong with DBD::DB2?
--
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: Review: Corel Office 2000
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08 Apr 2000 23:04:13 -0600
Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > The suspect: WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux Delux.
> >
> > The widgets are definately kde. It looks like I'm running kwm inside
> > the application's MDI. The are some Window-isms here to (not
> > surprising, considering the winelib they used. Well, let's see what
> > other libraries it uses:
>
> Screenshots?
It looks exactly like WordPerfect Office 2000 for Windows, but the
window controls are kwm-like.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
