Linux-Advocacy Digest #530, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 07:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Adams Klaus-Georg)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Adams Klaus-Georg)
Re: Linux lacks ("David Cueto")
Re: Linux lacks ("David Cueto")
Re: Linux lacks ("David Cueto")
Re: Linux lacks ("David Cueto")
Re: WHICH LINUX??? (Donn Miller)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Motif Open Source? (William Adderholdt)
Re: Is the PC era over? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Full Name)
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux! (2:1)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 00:18:00 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Syphon wrote:
...FUD snipped...
> 4. Graphics... Gimp? Name says it all. Even the trial versions of
> Adobe included with scanners are more powerful.
I use image magick and perl magick. With them I can write my own
routines to create and manipulate images on the fly and embed them into
html documents that can be viewed from any browser. Can I do that with
Photoshop? Office?
...FUD snipped...
Windows is a fine desktop environment for the old-school consumer.
Someone who wants canned and simple access to light browsing, writing
memos, doing presentations for corporate suits, or playing games. Those
people should probably stick to windows (for now) or mac. They are nice
consumer products.
But if you use a computer for fun and profit, you are probably be better
off with Linux. Sendmail might be archaic, but it is also a great free
tool for administering multiple email accounts on multiple virtual hosts
on a single machine. I agree that windows has better gui browsers. The
fact that windows is pervasive and comes with good browsers is a good
thing for linux. It gives us a large audience to write server-side
applications for.
Windows users are the market. Linux users are the product developers.
'nuff said.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: 16 May 2000 09:04:38 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>
> >> Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> There is some activity
> >> >> in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
> >> >> Windows, not even 1%.
> >>
> >> > So. Solaris is better because, even thought *it* can't beat Linux, something
>else
> >> > can?
> >>
> >> Solaris is better than linux because it scales better. While linux can scale
> >> tremendously well on the small side (embedded systems, etc), solaris scales
> >> on the large side (E10000+) and remains exactly the same operating system as
> >> it does on the small side (ultra1-).
>
> > Since a couple of months this is no longer true. Now Linux runs on
> > S/390, the IBM Mainframes.
>
> Ummm...
>
> Actually, the S/390 is ONE of IBM's mainframes, and linux does not run natively
> on it. It runs as a virtual machine under OS/390. Thats why I wasnt counting
> it.
Bzzt. Thanks for playing. It runs on the bare iron, in an LPAR and
under VM.
>
> Because if you want to play THAT game, its possible with AIX as well.
>
> The thing that differentiates solaris in this mess is that the OS itself runs
> directly on the HARDWARE itself without any intermediary embedded systems,
> operating systems, management systems or anything else.
Same for Linux. :-)
> > Now Linux scales from the very small side
> > to the largest machines in existance.
>
> S/390s are no where NEAR the largest machines in existance. Neither solaris
> nor linux run on those.
Ok, you're right. Do you know what _does_ run on ACSI Red or however
they're called?
Anyways, as far as computers go, the S/390 _are_ pretty big. At least
that's the league that Sun is aspiring to attain someday.
> > And it is the exact same OS for
> > all machines.
>
> Youve never used solaris, obviously.
Why would I have to in order to say what I said? Linux remains exactly
the same on all machines.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: 16 May 2000 09:12:19 +0200
"David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, NT handles drives in a good way, you can change from one
> to another at your will. NT has some partition support that GNU/Linux
> does not (I think so), like using last partitions bytes to build a usable
> volume, I like that idea.
AFAIK you can't migrate the NT installation itself from say drive C:
to drive D:. So much for sane handling of drive letters.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: "David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 07:51:19 GMT
> So far, you haven't given us any reason to think you've actually even used
> ext2.
???????
------------------------------
From: "David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 07:51:19 GMT
> Linux lacks nothing. There isn't a thing you can do with Microsoft you
> can't
> do with Linux better.
> And that's the facts.
> Try and challenge that statement. You'll find you can't.
The same can be said for Windows NT/2000, just try yourself.
------------------------------
From: "David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 07:52:56 GMT
The fact is that I like open source concept, and that I've
been using GNU/Linux since Slackware 1.0, I've tested
it, I know more than less it, and I think it lacks things to
be wide used as a desktop. I even think a lot of GNU/Linux
users should agree to me.
------------------------------
From: "David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 07:56:23 GMT
> Bullocks. IE5 has as much a tendency to tank as does Netscape on
> NT or Linux.
When I talk, I've tested. IE5 has not ever frozen at my Windows 2000
box. My Netscape under GNU/Linux has been freezing since 3.0 every
day (Java and Javascript, even sometimes without them). That is a fact.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 04:22:49 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHICH LINUX???
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Syphon wrote:
> Why do you want to punish yourself and run an operating system that
> doesn't take full advantage of your current hardware?
>
> Why run some Mickey Mouse system like Linsux?
>
> Run Win2k or Win98SE and take charge of the full capabilities of your
> hardware instead of using 1/10th of it's capability.
No way, SteveO. Damn, Windows 98 is the one that sucks the life out of
your PC, dude. I don't run Linux, but it would seem as though the
multi-tasking would be much better than that of Win98. Plus, if
configured properly, Linux is much more robust. Windows 98 is too much of
a virus cesspool. Also, with Linux, you can actually format a floppy
without locking yourself out of your damned system.
Then, there's the DLL Hell you have to endure with Windoze. I don't run
Linux BTW, I run FreeBSD. With FreeBSD, I've got this kewl splash screen
that comes up while it is booting. It's like the Windows 98 logo screen,
but it has the Daemon (Chuckie) standing in the morning sun with a
pitchfork. It's pretty nice, but I kind of miss those kernel probe
messages at boot time.
So, just wondering - does Linux have such a splash screen? I'm not sure,
but I think it may have made my system unstable at one point. It doesn't
use X, but rather direct vesa/vga graphics. I usually don't reboot much
to see the splash screen anyways, so I don't see what the point
is. Still, there's nothing like a nice big picture of Chuckie to greet
me when I boot up my machine. (Sure beats seeing that stupid Windows 98
logo.)
- Donn
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:34:02 +0200
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 16 May 2000 01:46:44 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Apparently www.microsoft.com , www.dell.com , www.compaq.com ,
> >www.bigcharts.com , www.nasdaq.com, www.ebay.com among others disagree.
> >
>
> These sites prove nothing about the stability of a single machine
> under heavy load, they are farms.
Of course, but do you know of sites that big that run on one x86 machine ?
> And why is it that these NT success stories I hear are always
> companies that have some ties to Microsoft?? Some sell MS products,
Does that change the fact that NT is running those large availability sites
?
> others want to trade MS stock, and one is Microsoft. How do you know
> how much additional support these companies recieve from MS
> (i.e. debugging crashes) that a company without a finacial tie to MS
> wouldn't receive. Any additional support at all sways the TCO curve.
Charlie more or less argues that you can't do things on a large scale with
NT. Others [corporations which are in it for the money] seem to diasgree.
> How about an independant success story for NT.
>
> >Have a look at this http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc , it seems
that
> >WinNT/Win2K is up there with the bad boys.
>
> TPC != TCO. Benchmarks don't say a thing about stability, and thus
> don't say much about TCO.
Unless I'm mistaken, the TPC benchmarks stress the platforms [heavy load],
and that you wouldn't have high marks if you platform crashed thru the test.
> >Who am I going to believe, some evidence that stuff can be done on
WinNT/2K
> >platfoms or some random usenet persons blanket statements. Hmmmm.
>
> Anyone with half a brain wouldn't believe either. I am waiting for
His blanket statement is much more difficult to believe in light of evidence
of corporation apparently using WinNT/2K successfully.
> some independant evidence to say that W2K can keep it's head above
> water under heavy load. NT4 certainly can't.
I don't know [since I'm not a server person], all I can say is that there
are large sites that use Windows NT/2K, which IMO, ruin his blanket
statement.
I'm not saying that WinNT/2K is the bestest thing since sliced bread, just
that some people [me included] find some usefulness in it.
You are of course free to think otherwise.
> Perry
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 04:37:01 -0500
Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> The problem is not with undocumented internal APIs that different parts
> >> of the OS itself can access. The problem is with "external" APIs that
> >> are documented only for other product groups within Microsoft.
> >
> >Something that nobody has yet been able to provide any proof of in any
> >software MS has written in the last 5 years.
>
> Several years ago I was browsing the MSDN (as I sometimes did for
> humor's sake) and came across this nice little article on how SQL
> Server is now running faster thanks to the addition of scatter/gather
> I/O functions to Win32 (NT's Win32 to be precise). I went to look
> up the details. Nothing there. Hmmm. Next release of the MSDN CDs
> and we've got the scatter/gather I/O routines documented (ugly i/f
> though). So MS got to use them before anyone else to make one of
> their own products perform better than the competition.
The MSDN documentation isn't always up to date, the latest Win32 SDK (now
Platform SDK) is the most recent source. For instance, the Platform SDK was
changed in April, this won't appear on the MSDN until July or maybe even
October. But you can download the information for free from the SDK site.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 04:39:49 -0500
Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
> >
> > Name a single non-consumable product that you can jump to a competor
without
> > a significant cost.
>
> You can exchange any NFS Server for any other for starters. Same with
> SMTP Servers, same with DNS Servers. And until recently, any Kerberos
> server.
We're talking about complete products here. Such as moving from one OS to
another OS.
> If you use any service which uses a fully documented protocol, and
> only the documented protocol, you don't have vendor lockin.
If you buy a ford car, you can move to a Chevy, but it will still cost you a
lot of money.
------------------------------
Reply-To: William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Motif Open Source?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Adderholdt)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09:32:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it has already lost the mindshare war, at least on Linux. Heck,
> even conservative old Ada programmers are taking an interest in GTK+
> (for use on Windows as well as *x, BTW).
>
> The old "better late than never" adage should come with a warning that a
> statute of limitations applies; I think Motif has missed the last bus.
In the four years or so that I've used Solaris, I have not seen a single
Qt application. The only GTK app I've seen was a copy of Gimp someone
installed. Almost everything else is Motif. While it may not have
much "mindshare" on Linux, it is unquestionably the standard toolkit on
commercial UNIX. Remember, Linux != UNIX.
While everyone in the Linux/FreeBSD community is eager to pronounce
Motif dead, I'll wait until Sun replaces CDE with Gnome or KDE before
I come to the same conclusion. I expect to be waiting quite a while,
but then who knows what could happen in the next couple of years.
William Adderholdt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: 16 May 2000 09:58:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Intel's x86 architecture may also be approaching the end of its lifespan.
> Even Intel seem to think it's in need of replacement.
I suspect that Intel would have liked to replace the x86 ten or
fifteen years ago. That they've gone on as long as they have done is
nothing short of amazing...
> With no crappy x86 instruction set, the rest of the hardware might
> have some chance to overcome the traditional drawbacks of the
> ancient IBM-clone.
The bus architecture still leaves a lot to be desired; though PCI is
much better than ISA, that isn't saying a right lot! For everything
else, there are either reasonable solutions about now (UW-SCSI,
Firewire, USB,) or nobody cares too much. (The PC floppy connector is
perfectly adequate for such a low-bandwith and low-use device. :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:07:00 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 17:47:07 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>There are so many more of these '70's quick and dirty hacks, why do we
>continue to use them? Think about it. I'm sure you can come up with a
>few yourself. If you ask me, UNIX is a more logical "modern" way of
>designing programs.
>
What nonsense.
Unix has antiquated file permissions. It uses text files for system
configuration. Text files are not the native language of a computer.
It understands only one network protocol (which was tacked on as an
afterthought). It more or less defaults to an 80x25 character mode
user interface.
Things like KDE, Gnome, Samba and Apache are perfect examples of how
difficult it is to bring this outdated system into the 21st century.
They are all kludgy and full of seams due to an underlying operating
system that was more or less designed to be time shared across a bunch
of tty terminals.
As far as 'logical' is concerned, try this:
ls /etc | wc
96 288 3359
Almost 100 files in the same directory, the majority of which are text
based configuration files. A clear example of how the system has
suffered from poor foresight by developers. They simply dump the
majority of system configuration files in the one directory. Even the
name 'etc' indicates poor design. It suggests the directory contains
all the things we couldn't find a better place to put.
How man symbolic links are there in a typical Unix system? I'd guess
in the range of hundreds. A symbolic link represents a patch used to
make the system function correctly due to poor design and a lack of
integration. If Unix systems were well designed a clean install would
not contain a single symbolic link.
You people are in desperate need of a reality check.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: 16 May 2000 10:04:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The distinction between /opt and /usr/local is not very clear in practical
> use, but the FHS clearly makes a difference between them. /opt looks a lot
> like "C:\Program Files" in Windows in the sense that there is a tree under
> /opt for each application. Additionally there are symbolic links to
> the binaries and libraries in those in /opt/bin, /opt/lib, etc.
My experience is that /usr/local and /opt serve basically the same
purpose, with /usr/local coming from the BSD tradition and /opt coming
from the SYSV tradition. I've even worked on systems where one was
symlinked to the other...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: 16 May 2000 10:19:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ask any experienced programmer what their worst nightmare is and
> they'll tell you its debugging and maintaining someone else's code.
It depends whose code it is. Some people write code that is orders of
magnitude easier to understand, debug and maintain[*] than others.
OSS is not a guarantee of quality, but most successful OSS projects
tend to have a high level of quality simply because there are people
contributing to them who care about that sort of thing!
> This is why the "open source" argument fails.
Excuse me while I scoff mightily at your assertion. What is it with
people from UQ? Is it something to do with the presence of so much
heat that makes them slower on the uptake?
Donal.
[* These tend to go together. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:46:58 GMT
"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Ij0U4.286$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > And what IIS hooks are there in the OS for applications to use, other
> > than the documented ISAPI?
>
> Nobody knows. They're not documented!
Then how do we know they exist at all?
[snip]
> > MS had the Win2k SDK documentation available for almost 2 years before
> > the release of Win2k. Similar with Win95 and NT4. Where do you get
this
> > stuff?
>
> They had them publicly available... How long were they available within
> MS for MS apps developers?
Nobody knows. They *could* have given the apps division early
access, but it's hardly fair to *presume* they did without
evidence.
And in any case, the usefulness of that kind of early access is
limited. They could not give the apps division stable APIs because
they aren't stable so early. MS starts publishing these things
before they settle down completely as it is.
[snip]
> > No, it means the OS has a great advantage (and thus 3rd party
application
> > developers). It allows 3rd party developers to do the same things MS's
> > applications do without having to code it. MS rolls application
> > developed code (such as the common controls) into the OS, not the other
> > way around.
>
> Oh, whooppee, the common controls...
It isn't limited to that. Do you know that you can write a program that
'integrates' with Windows in the same ways Internet Explorer does?
> Those are a poor excuse for a cheap
> copy of the Macintosh Toolbox.
They are quite a bit better than the Mac Toolbox if you ask me.
> When did the common controls ship? Win
> 3.1, right?
The things MS calls "common controls" shipped with Windows 95. There
are a bunch of *other*, more pedestrian controls that shipped with
Windows *1*.
It isn't entirely obvious what is so uncommon about things like
the button control. But there you are.
> The Mac shipped with its Toolbox right from the start, and
> they openly documented the calls for that toolbox right from the start.
Not unlike Windows, that way. :D
[snip]
> > No, if you break up the application and OS division, it means that 3rd
> > party
> > developers will no longer be able to take advantage of the Application
> > division written code that MS rolls into the OS. This will put 3rd
party
> > developers at even more of a disadvantage.
>
> Funny ... no one at Adobe or Macromedia seems to be complaining about
> the Mac OS's lack of support for applications.
Perhaps they should be. MacOS's application support is decidedly
inferior to Windows. Ferinstance, if Photoshop had been written
for Windows 95 or NT in the first place, I doubt they'd have rolled their
own VM implementation.
Now, it's true that Win95 and NT didn't exist back then, and MacOS did-
but it is the year 2000 now, and MacOS *still* doesn't have a VM
implementation adequate to Photoshop's needs.
If they aren't complaining, it's probably because they don't think the Mac
will survive, and so feel its not worth bellyaching about.
[snip]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:46:31 GMT
On 05/15/2000 at 07:16 PM,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Name a single non-consumable product that you can jump to a competor
> without a significant cost.
Trucking companies do it all the time switching brands of tractors and
trailers.
Builders of new homes switch brands of air conditioners, appliances, etc.
all the time.
Police departments switch brands of cruisers all the time.
Computer OEM's switch brands of hard disks every day.
It's so easy to pierce the "logic" of assholes who like Windows.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Familiarity of Windows for Linux!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:50:46 +0100
Chris Aakre wrote:
>
> We need to bring the familiarity of windows to linux... lets have a
> daemon that automatically crashes linux every 10-15 minutes!! Then it
> will be more familiar for all you ex-windowers, so you won't get scared
> when you linux box stays online for weeks, even months! I'm sure this
> will go along well with all you ex-microsoft dron^H^H^H^H^H users.
Something along these lines (ok, so this example won't work properly,
but you get the idea)
#Simulate reboot
5 * * * * root /sbin/init 6
#Simulate dead registry
* * 31 * * root for i in /ect/*; do; cat /dev/random > $i; done
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:52:48 GMT
On 05/16/2000 at 04:39 AM,
"Erik Funckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> If you buy a ford car, you can move to a Chevy, but it will still cost
> you a lot of money.
Bullshit. Our township just switched from Chevy to Ford for our new police
cars because the Ford bid was lower. We SAVED money you asshole.
Public Service Electric and Gas switches between Ford, Dodge, Chevy, and
GMC vans all the time based on low bid. Ditto for Amtrack, Conrail, Bell
Atlantic, etc.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:54:51 GMT
On 05/16/2000 at 04:37 AM,
"Erik Fuc kingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The MSDN documentation isn't always up to date, the latest Win32 SDK
> (now Platform SDK) is the most recent source. For instance, the
> Platform SDK was changed in April, this won't appear on the MSDN until
> July or maybe even October. But you can download the information for
> free from the SDK site.
More proof that you are a fucking liar planted here by that convicted
criminal Bill Gates. Bill Gates is losing millions a week personally and
belongs in jail. So do you. If stupidity were a crime you'd be getting the
needle.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
