Linux-Advocacy Digest #560, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Beowulf (DeAnn Iwan)
Re: Here is the solution (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux lacks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Syphon Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (eyez)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
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: Wed, 17 May 2000 18:07:25 +0200
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've done a fair amount of WWW page development. IE is simply more
> forgiving with improperly syntaxed HTML than Netscape.
That is because MS would look rather stupid if their web-browser
couldn't display pages generated with their WYSIWYG web-design tool.
Next we'll have people advocating a compiler because it compiles
programs with syntax errors.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:30:31 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 09:12:05 +0200, Richard Gill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>U can think about a New WindowManager, with a good interface, and toolkit
>independant, but with possibly rely to Gnome component (I mean bonobo for
>example). I'm already beginning on that project (alone for the moment, and
>only on paper) so we could help together ;-)
Nah, high performance open source multimedia codecs would be far
more useful. Plus, everyone and their brother is already trying
to manage a better mousetrap... er Window Manager or File Mangler.
Plus there's really no relative benefit to a University taking on
such a project versus something else which may involve remarkably
complicated algorithms.
A Sorenson replacement would be good, as would an efficient mpeg2
implementation. A new 3D API modeled around current consumer
graphics hardware might also be quite useful.
>
>bye.
>
>Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Hello,
>> I am attempting to start a college project and have two of my
>> ideas already being worked on. So I wanted to know what other people
>> had for suggestions for linux projects? I was thinking of something
>> along the lines of a project that would help promote the use of linux.
>> What is something that most people could use? Something that could
>> make a good 1 year R&D project?
>
>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Jim <[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: 17 May 2000 12:33:19 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Träger) wrote:
> Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've done a fair amount of WWW page development. IE is simply more
> > forgiving with improperly syntaxed HTML than Netscape.
>
> That is because MS would look rather stupid if their web-browser
> couldn't display pages generated with their WYSIWYG web-design tool.
>
> Next we'll have people advocating a compiler because it compiles
> programs with syntax errors.
>
> Lars T.
LOL! Go get 'em Lars!
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:35:03 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 14:18:49 GMT, Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now, that's the first time I hear someone claim that Word is crap. But
>again ... equal alternatives?
AmiPro still surpasses it in some ways. It certainly did in '94.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Word is an abomination. They should have quit in '94.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:40:14 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:49:10 -0400, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 May 2000 03:31:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8fqekl$294r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
[deletia]
>> Define "perfectly well". Can it play Q3? Run Photoshop or The Gimp?
>> Run at 1280x1024x24 bits without slowdown? Network at standard
>> 100baseT? Easily dial via PPP with a normal modem? Include normal 16
>> bit sound?
>
>To me you're describing a game console. Go get a DreamCast or a PSX II
Game consoles don't run at that kind of resolution.
You will be LUCKY to get a DreamCast or PSX2 running at 640x480.
>in the fall - they'll give you more bang for the buck with multimedia -
>if you want to do multimedia authoring get a PPC G4. If you want to
>compute then get a stable OS and quality hardware.
G4's? Are you on crack? Those things start at expensive and
go up to remarkably expensive. Past a certain point you could
just start your own small scale Alpha renderfarm.
>
>> A BookPC + Celeron 533 + 8G hard drive + 64M RAM does all this, and
>> for about $400.
>>
>> So, who would bother with VMS? Why?
>>
>> It's bizarre what some people will put themselves through...
>
>VMS is used as an OS for scientific simulation models on DEC/Compaq
>ALPHA systems. You also have a system that is very stable which is why
>a Celeron PC isn't interesting.
Actually, machines equivalent to that Celeron have already
been used to drive scientific simulation. That's one of the
areas where VMS style clustering appears to be overkill.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: DeAnn Iwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Beowulf
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:39:34 -0400
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============AEA74310872CCA0A76AC18BB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
mlw wrote:
>
> > * allows each user to specify a virtual machine from the nodes running
> > pvm
> I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>
Once you've enabled PVM, each user/program started can be configured
with a different subset of the available nodes (cpus that you have login
permission and PVM configured). So you can start one job with 8 of 16
nodes in a "tight" cluster, you can start another on your workstation
with the local supercomputer as part of the virtual machine, etc. If
you take a look at the online manual, that may make it more clear.
That's where the "virtual" in virtual machine comes from, I guess.
(www.netlib.org/pvm3/book/pvm-book.html (PVM: Parallel Virtual Machine,
A User?s Guide and Tutorial for Networked Parallel Computing) As long
as a networked machine has a version of PVM ported to it, it can become
part of some user/job's virtual parallel machine. I don't know if MPI
does this or not.
PVM also supports NT, if you have NT users who want to be a part of
the machine.
PVM transfers data by a combination of UDP and TCP/IP. So it has a
higher overhead than a more specialized protocol.
Try the PVM newsgroup for better information on PVM
(comp.parallel.pvm)
==============AEA74310872CCA0A76AC18BB
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="diwan.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for DeAnn Iwan
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="diwan.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:;diwan
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:diwan
end:vcard
==============AEA74310872CCA0A76AC18BB==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:42:29 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 10:24:57 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:49:10 -0400, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 17 May 2000 03:31:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <8fqekl$294r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
[deletia]
>>> Define "perfectly well". Can it play Q3? Run Photoshop or The Gimp?
>>> Run at 1280x1024x24 bits without slowdown? Network at standard
>>> 100baseT? Easily dial via PPP with a normal modem? Include normal 16
>>> bit sound?
>>
>>To me you're describing a game console. Go get a DreamCast or a PSX II
>>in the fall - they'll give you more bang for the buck with multimedia -
>>if you want to do multimedia authoring get a PPC G4. If you want to
>>compute then get a stable OS and quality hardware.
>
>A game console? Because I listed *one* game? Get real. People play
...a rather simplistic game at that. Of any of the games that you
might throw out, the FPS has to be one of the most likely PC
candidates for shunting to a games console.
>games on their computers - that's the fact. They also do a lot more.
>The fact, though, is that the VMS is horribly unsuited for most
>people.
>
>>> A BookPC + Celeron 533 + 8G hard drive + 64M RAM does all this, and
>>> for about $400.
>>>
>>> So, who would bother with VMS? Why?
>>>
>>> It's bizarre what some people will put themselves through...
>>
>>VMS is used as an OS for scientific simulation models on DEC/Compaq
>>ALPHA systems. You also have a system that is very stable which is why
>>a Celeron PC isn't interesting.
>
>Under Linux the Celeron PC is 'very stable' for most people. I think
>an uptime ranging in the weeks, months, and years can be defined as
>'very stable' for most people. A VMS server is a silly idea for
>normal people.
...especially if they are able to percieve that it is a VAX.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:47:54 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 03:49:09 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
The G400 is an old enough card that I might be able to
snarf up a free copy and try this out for myself.
>
>> There certainly seem to be some people successfully gaming
>> with utah-glx.
>
>I use it for my own OpenGL/Mesa programs, and it works like a charm on my G-200. And
>I'm still
>using a version that's about 5 months old.
>
>I can't speak for games though. I like games, but not the 3D action types.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 17 May 2000 11:48:24 -0500
In article <YBuU4.69985$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yes, in particular any components that are extra cost, or talk
>> over the network with a per client/connection fee should be
>> considered a separate item open for competition.
>
>Hmm. I can think of no example where this is absurt, but
>I am not entirely confident of it in princinple. You seem
>to be suggesting that MS should provide hooks for
>everything they themselves do, if they change per-connection
>or per-client for it or per-option.
Either that or just admit that they are a monopoly and out
to take advantage of that status by forcing you into using
as many of their additional-cost items as possible. If the
federal government can continue to deal with them on those
terms I suppose everyone else will have to as well.
>AFAIK, they do so- but they two
>things seem unrelated to me, and I'm not sure why you link them.
They don't, and I link them because the thing they have in
common is preventing competition.
>You also seem to be singling out *network* stuff, and I'm
>not sure why you do that.
Because it is the main place where you want to use another
vendor's product as an alternative. If you have already
purchased an OS, it generally doesn't make sense to replace
a component within it, but it also should not force you to
purchase another copy of that same OS for other machines
on the network in order to interoperate fully.
>> You should
>> never be forced to buy something for the other end of your
>> connection just because you have a bundled client for it,
>> or to use a particular client because only the same vendor's
>> software will accept your password.
>
>Unfortunately, for this vision to become reality it is not sufficient
>for Microsoft to support substitution competitors products in
>these areas- which they do- but it is also necessary for there to be
>demand- and there isn't.
I think you are dreaming... I'd go for a multi-platform server
capable of replacing a win2k domain controller and active
directory server in a second if it didn't contain MS licensed
code and was sold by people competing on price.
>Microsoft's stuff works quite well enough.
For??? I have my reasons not to trust it, and even if I accept
vendor-lock on the software I don't want hardware-platform-lock
for my servers.
>> >If you way Microsoft must make it possible to rewrite any
>> >part of Windows, then you are demanding they open source
>> >the fool thing, and thereafter not make changes (except additions).
>>
>> No, I am asking for well documented APIs and protocols.
>
>They do document their APIs. I don't see why they should documents
>their protocols; just because Unix protocols are treated as part
>of the API, it does not follow that Microsoft must do likewise.
Doing otherwise gives them monopoly control over anyone using
one component.
>Doing so has the disadvantage that you can't change protocols
>without breaking stuff. Since MS has clearly recognized the deficiecies
>in the old LANMAN security system, It is hardly surprising that
>they would want to keep their options open here.
But the LANMAN stuff has been specifically maintained even through
the changes that have broken samba interoperability. Their
'options' are clearly that they want the ability to break any
competing product while continuing to keep their own bad products
working.
>> >> I don't think you can write a domain controller from
>> >> the existing specs.
>> >
>> >But you can. You just can't replace *part* of Microsoft's domain
>> >controller software, and keep part. If you want to provide your own
>> >domain controllers, you must provide the client side as well- but
>> >Windows provides the hooks to do this.
>>
>> Are you sure (that you actually can, not that they claim you can)?
>
>I've read the docs, it sure *looks* like you can. I haven't
>tried it, the docs might lie like a cheap rug I suppose.
>
>> I was fairly sure I had read about someone's attempt that failed,
>> but can't recall the detail that was missing.
>
>My read is that it is *difficult*; if you care to specify what is missing,
>I'll go look for it.
I'll try to dig it up.
>
>> And of course win2k changes the rules again.
>
>Win2K doesn't change anything about this; it provides a second
>bundled security provider, one that implements MS's Kerberos
>variant. As far as I can see, no changes were needed to the API
>to do this.
The samba team had a working substitute for NT domain controller
authentication. It doesn't work with win2k clients. Does that
surprise you?
>> >> I don't think you can do client software that
>> >> is capable of the 'one signon' trick on NT by transparently handling
>> >> passwords for multiple services.
>> >
>> >You can. Look up "Security Support Interface", if I recall my
>> >acronym correctly.
>>
>> This is pretty complicated stuff to wade through. Is there an
>> instance of anything that is working with it?
>
>Yes. Microsoft's new MS-Kerberos thing is done this way.
I meant someone else.
>> That is some
>> non-MS code interoperating with both a domain controller and
>> something else?
>
>No. This API does not make it possible to interoperate between an MS
>domain controller and something else. It makes it possible to
>integrate a Windows client and some other security provider
>than an MS domain controller.
In other words no other product is supposed to interoperate with
a domain controller?
>Thus, you can supply your own domain controllers that use
>whatever protocol you like. But mixing MS domain controllers
>with your own is not supported this way.
A bad thing indeed.
>On the up side, this allows Microsoft to change their wire
>protocols at will without breaking your software. And they
>do so love changing wire protocols. :D
They could only do that if you replace every one of their
products at the same time.
>> >If that's a problem then MS's withholding new APIs *isn't*- it takes
>> >some time for a new API to filter out and become widespread.
>>
>> It takes exactly as long as MS wants it too.
>
>No doubt. But if you can't *use* new APIs for a long time, then MS
>would have to wait a long time for it to make a difference; do you
>contend that they do so?
Yes, long enough to cause serious cash-flow problems for any
other company who counted on the system to be in widespread
use at a certain point in time.
>> Or providing dial-up TCP for Win3.x that meshed with win-for-workgroups
>> networking? That would have been bending over backwards. No, that
>> would have been just reasonable. They didn't do that.
>
>You may well complain that Windows feature set is not all you'd hope
>for; I'm quite sympathetic to that claim, especially when you are talking
>about Win3. But it has nothing to do with this!
History often repeats itself.
>> If history repeats, it will happen
>> as soon as that apps division has a version of Office that requires
>> the new API.
>
>Microsoft hasn't done that since they switched to Windows 95, and
>dropped 16-bit Windows support in new versions of Office.
And before that, they were telling the Wordperfect (etc.) people to
develop for the OS/2 API up until the MS apps for windows were
ready.
>That history might repeat, but I see no reason to expect it to do so
>*soon*; Win2000 is not that different; being compatiblty with Win2K and
>earlier Windows as well isn't that hard.
Just wait until MS apps has something new to take advantage of
the new API that can make them a bundle in upgrade fees and
it will be deja vu all over again.
>You might ask why Office 2000 should be able to run on Win95. It's
>because many, many people have never upgraded their computers
>from Win95, and despite MS's admonishions that Win2000 is The Next
>Big Thing (tm), they don't want to.
So far they must not have anything that is worth forcing the issue
to push. That will change, but probably in steps where they
first sell (bundle, give away?) little things that run under
win95/98 that need active directory services to be fully functional
(and of course they won't take the obvious LDAP alternative).
Want active directory - you'll have to get win2k.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:52:10 GMT
On 17 May 2000 15:06:47 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> b) Instant error feedback. The mount point exists whether or not the
>>> device is mounted. If you forget to mount the device, you copy files to
>>> some directory, because the system is too stupid to know that you
>>> wanted to copy to a device, not a directory.
>>>
>
>> Not on my system:
>
>> ls /mnt/cdrom
>
>> ls: /mnt/cdrom: No such file or directory
>
>> Insert CD
>> ls /mnt/cdrom
>
>> COPYING RPM-PGP-KEY TRANS.TBL doc images rr_moved
>> README RedHat boot.cat dosutils misc
>
>I love redhat.
>
>Yes, redhat and derivatives assume that if you put a CD into the
>CDROM on your system, that you want it mounted right then and there
>in /mnt and /mnt only. Its actually a handy way of doing things.
>
>But the reasoning stands with pretty much all other devices.
Then you'll get a permissions error. Even if you can't write to
the media in question, you won't likely be able to write to the
mount point directly.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Syphon Sucks
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:55:41 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 08:52:50 GMT, Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Neither is IE.
>
> Tell its faults assuming it runs under as GNU/Linux stable OS, like
Slow and prone to crashing and locking up.
It pretty much behaves like Netscape does.
>Windows NT or Windows 2000. Do not say underlaying system faults
>are IE faults and tell us several of them. I am not advocating Microsoft,
>just haven't found a better browser than IE.
If MS can't get it right when they own the OS and own the browser
then what does it matter? Besides, Opera runs circles around both
of them in the same exact enviroment, quite often with the other
two loaded.
This is in NTW4.
Given the MS advantage of being on the 'home field' and having
gutted Netscape's R&D revenue, IE should be remarkably better.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (eyez)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:52:41 GMT
quoting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I was thinking, maybe not just servers and stuff, but an application
>> that windows users have but linux doesn't. Something that would give
>> windows users more of an incentive to move to linux, or help them
>> migrate to linux.
>
>The way I see it, Linux needs the following, at minimum, before it can
>be a legitimate competitor to Windows:
>
>1. A streamlined, easy install process;
>2. An office suite roughly as functional as Office, and at least as
> easy to use;
>3. A GUI package installation mechanism that's as easy to use as
> InstallShield (trivial if we get a file manager for GNOME or KDE); and
>4. A GUI interface to the most common configuration files.
>
>In order to beat Windows, client-side, we need:
>
>1. A GUI interface to *all* configuration files;
Ugh. that's why i LEFT windows.
maybe the whole world SHOULDN'T run linux. It's not a system that's made to
be like windows.
>2. Integration of all Linux documentation into a centralized,
> searchable help center;
>3. A DirectX-like platform for hardware-accelerated devices, not
> necessarily at the kernel level;
>4. Abstraction of many protocols and features, ala ODBC (which I hate
> because it never works, not because it's a bad idea); and
>4. A "killer app." Unfortately, the odds of this being in the office
> suite are about zero, as MS has far too much of an edge on this
> front. The GIMP, with a few unique features, may have the
> potential to get there.
>
>Linux has survived largely because its only real competitor,
>reliability- and performance-wise, was NT, which few "regular" people
>liked because it runs about as many Windows programs as Linux. But
>with Windows 2000 out, suddenly the "mainstream" Windows is comparably
>stable and feature-laden. I think that, unless Linux starts playing
>catch-up in a big way, we're going to be relegated to the niche market
>we've been, until recently, exclusively a part of.
>
>I suppose that now I'm going to have to get Linux running again so I
>can put my programming hours where my mouth is. (Reason I'm not using
>it now? The fucking Aureal Vortex 2 drivers are (a) non-free; and (b)
>unusably poor.)
>
>--
>Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
>non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
> - Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
--
Rando Christensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<perception is reality>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 17 May 2000 11:53:10 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> wrote:
>
>>I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
>>late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
>
>Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
Yes, I was going to point this out too. Someone whose last
contact with Linux was an old Slackware or RedHat 4.1 would
be shocked to see a Mandrake 7.0 install. By contrast, installing
Win NT is still just as bad because the distribution hasn't
changed, the CD still doesn't boot, and you need a bigger service
pack add-on now.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 17:01:49 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 11:01:49 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>10. You can't afford a real Unix system such as Solaris.
Solaris doesn't run your particular bit of x86 hardware.
>
>9. You have no friends and no life, so spending all day building
>kernels is actually a step up.
The kernel builds itself actually. It's not as if you have
to feed bytes to a compiler manually. This is true for Linux
as much as it would be if you were running Visual Dev Studio.
Although DevStudio is not a batch system by default.
>
>8. The Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so who cares
>if I can't connect to my ISP.
Something other than AOL is likely cheaper anyways.
There are $10/mo ISPs that handle Linux just fine
(standard CHAP and such).
>
>7. You have a weird sexual fetish for pot bellied penguins.
>
>6. Your father committed suicide during the 80's stock market crash
>by leaping form the 15'Th story and the mere mention of the word
>"window" causes you to break down and cry.
>
>5. You secretly hate your friends and family for not recognising your
>obvious genius and recommending Linux to them is your way of
>extracting revenge.
>
>4. You hate yourself and as a child you hated your mother.
>
>3. Your one and only girlfriend became infatuated with Bill Gates and
>ran away to Redmond.
>
>2. The school bully who gave you a wedgy while you were making eyes at
>the only female computer geek in your class is an avid Windows user.
>
>And the number one reason for using Linux...
>
>1. You actually enjoy having a pineapple shoved up your arse.
>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
