Linux-Advocacy Digest #635, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux fails - again (Paul Voller)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Linux fails - again (Peter Espen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Date: 22 May 2000 13:06:55 GMT
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>sniop<
: Linux is not a Mac OS, and it's not a Mac OS replacement. If you don't
: have a real need for a Unix system, then don't bother with Linux.
Well, everyone that uses a computer has a "real need" to not have to
fight with a machine where random crashes and other misc failures
aren't simply common, they are daily. It's a simple matter of
productivity. In that reguard, most people do have a real need for
a Unix system...or at least a system with Unix's well known
stability and general power.
: You can find this out by just using the console for a week. If you can't
: get anything done, then Linux is not for you. Clicking on icons won't
: help you.
Perhaps Linux isn't for them, however this doens't mean that Unix at
large isn't for them. Indeed, AFAICT this is exactly why Mac OS X
is basically a BSD Unix system. Mac users *need* Unix stability and
power...they also *need* an easy to use, intuitive, and efficient
UI. Microsoft tried to offer exactly that, but has so far failed on
both counts. It's OK these days on the UI, but stability is
laughable. Windows2000 is meant to change all that, however...but
then so was NT, Win95, NT4.0, etc, etc, etc... We'll see, but I
highly doubt it.
So, IMHO, Mac OS X may yet prove to be a much, much larger threat to
Microsoft then Linux ever has or will be. Iff they do it right, of
course. If they can or not still remains to be seen, however so
does Win2k for all practical use.
: Likewise, if you find that you don't want to configure your machine the
: way you would like it, but would rather take it the way Bill (or Apple)
: gives it, then Linux is not for you.
This isn't exactly accurate. One can tweak the hell out of both
traditional Mac OS and Windows. It's not commonly done, but that's
a different thread.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
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: 22 May 2000 13:09:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I much, much, much prefer being able to right-click on something and
> hit "Properties." I also like being able to press F1 when the mouse
> is over a confusing field and get an explanation of it. (The
> explanation often isn't a help, and I expect that would carry over
> to Linux, but at least there's no flipping around between screens.)
Agreed. The right-button and F1 idioms are good ones, as are button
bars on apps and scrollwheels on mice. Writing decent documentation
is a different skill to writing a decent GUI. I have yet to meet
anyone at all who was good at both in the same application.
[attribution lost]
>> This is the problem though, they don't care enough to create
>> programs to help newbies install and use linux and so linux is
>> being held back.
>
> I care enough. I'm just no good at GUI programming.
It isn't that hard with something like Tcl/Tk, Perl/Tk or TkInter.
You just have to remember that users aren't necessarily going to work
through things the same way you do, that they want *both* mouse and
keyboard navigation, plenty of help and a chance to undo things where
possible (and a really hefty warning where you can't undo!)
If you're genuinely interested, try to read a copy of Alan Cooper's
_About Face_ (ISBN: 1-56884-322-4) which, for all its strong focus on
'Doze, is a really good book on GUI design.
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: "Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:11:08 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Depends what you mean by improvements. Fadout menus (can Linux do that?),
> fadout Windows (now part of the API).
Fortunately Linux can not do that, and will never be capable to do that. Linux
is an operating system, not an user interface.
------------------------------
From: "Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:15:21 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Every report that I have read on the speed of W2K vs NT4 is that NT4
> > is faster. Perhaps that is on identical hardwarem, since W2K consumes
> > even more resources than NT4 does, it would stand to reason that I need
> > to do a major hardware upgrade to see the improvements; of course, NT4
> > would run that much faster, too :)
>
> Guess you don't read many reports. For instance:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755,2426071,00.html
>
> "Windows 2000 Server's performance surpasses that of Windows NT 4 Server.
> Our benchmark tests showed across-the-board improvement for several
> network-server functions including file and print, application service, and
> serving up Web pages. Architectural enhancements in network communication,
> multiprocessor scaling, and file-system components account for the overall
> boost."
>
> Then throw in the fact that Windows 2000 has been setting benchmark records
> in places like www.tpc.org
>
> Perhaps you can post some URL's to reviews that show NT4 being significantly
> faster.
>
> > > Depends what you mean by improvements. Fadout menus (can Linux do
> that?),
> > > fadout Windows (now part of the API).
> >
> > Wow, a major innovation on MS' part. Fadeout menus! What will they
> > think of next?
>
> There's a lot to be said for ergonomic engineering.
Ergonomic engineering should be used in the user interface design, not in
system software design. Remember, Linux is an operating system not an user
interface.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:40:31 -0500
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:31:18 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> W2K took something like 1.5 to 2 years
> >> over-run to get out the door.
> >
> >Yes, similar to Linux Kernel 2.4's being a year overdue.
>
> Could you provide me some documention that 2.4 is a year overdue. That
> would mean is was due last May.
No, I mean that it doesn't look likely that there will be a 2.4 for many
more months. Comments from Linus and crew seem to be that they want it
thoroughly tested before going 2.4 officially. One estimate I read even
said October, though I don't recall where I read that. So, I guess we won't
know for sure till the kernel ships.
> >No. It's impossible to eliminate such things, just like it's impossible
to
> >eliminate kernel panics from Linux. If you could eliminate them, they
> >wouldn't need to be there.
> >
> >Things like faulty hardware and to some extent background radiation
*WILL*
> >cause glitches on non-military spec systems.
>
> This is an evasion, Eric. Yes, faulty hardware and background
> radiation can crash an OS. However I don't live across the street from
> Three Mile Island and faulty hardware can always be replaced. There
> there are other ways an OS can crash.
Radiation includes cosmic rays, which can cause flaky hardware to glitch.
The point is that it was claimed that the goal of W2K was to *ELIMINATE*
BSOD's. Since it's impossible to prevent the reasons why BSOD's are
necessary, it's impossible to eliminate them (unless you call them something
else, such as kernel panics).
My statement is entirely about the accuracy of the statement, and not meant
to evade anything.
> Here is an example where W2K can BSOD by allowing an application to
> misuse resources:
>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=g
n&F
> R=0
>
> Note in the above URL under resolution it says: "To resolve this
> problem, the application has to be modified to ..." So MS is clearly
> blaming the problem on the Application, not the OS . Here is another
> example:
The application is faulty. It should be modified. They're not denying that
it's an OS fault (though they're not admitting it either). Clearly it is,
but it's in the gray area, similar to allocating all virtual memory and not
having anything left for the OS.
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q245/1/12.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=g
n&F
> R=0
>
> Agian, MS blames the problem on the application vendor. In the
> following example, a bad network application can BSOD W2K, but
> at least MS takes responsibility:
Wrong. It states that it only applies to NT 4, not Win2k. Even so, this
only happens when the product runs as a service, which is similar to running
as root on Unix. The app can do just about whatever it wants to, including
things that can cause faults.
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q260/9/56.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=g
n&F
> R=0
MS states that this is a problem with the OS.
> Here are some additional examples of OS bugs acknowledged by MS to
> cause BSOD's:
>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q257/8/13.asp?LN=EN-US&SD=g
n&F
> R=0
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q232/9/48.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=g
n&F
> R=0
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q254/6/11.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=g
n&F
> R=0
I haven't looked at them (due to the need to cut and paste to solve the URL
wrap problem) but i'm sure they're similar to the last one.
> And then there is the whole issue of bad device drivers. For one
> thing, it is not necessary for most device drivers to have access to
> kernel address space. The proper way to avoid that is to use a
> microkerenel architecture, which neither Linux or NT does.
I've never seen a pure microkernel design that was useable in a real world
commerical OS. Even NeXT is a modified microkernel.
> There are
> some areas though, where Linux does a better job of keeping device
> drivers out of the kernel. For example, in the following case an HP
> printer driver BSOD's W2K when printing to a network printer:
>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q199/1/18.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=g
n&F
> R=0
Printer drivers do not run in kernel space under NT. This seems to be a
problem with a network request, since it only applies to accessing an NT4
print server from Windows 2000.
Yes, it's a problem with Win2000, but it's one that has a workaround
(installing the correct driver). It will probably be fixed in a service
pack.
> It is extremely unlikely this will ever happen to Linux, becuase the
> "printer drivers" are filters provided by ghostscript, a process
> called by lpd, neither of which has access to kernel address
> space. The worst a bad printer filter can do is send garbage to the
> printer or tie up some resources untill the admin kill -9's it. It is
> utterly unecessary to give a printer driver, which is nothing more
> than a data filter, access to kernel address space.
If it's a networked printer, then clearly there is soom room for bad drivers
to fail the system.
> Similarily, we all know that because W2K has GDI in the kernel,
> bad video drivers can also cause a BSOD. In contract, an X server on
> linux does not have access to kernel address space, and so X crashes
> only lock up the console. Of course, if you are running a desktop, you
> work is lost anyways so it doesn't matter. If you are running a server
> however, it makes all the difference.
X can also cause the graphics adapter to fault the bus, which can cause your
entire machine to lock up.
> And in the case where device drivers have access to kernel address
> space, they are effectively part of the OS and should be treated as
> such. Nearly all open source Linux drivers are distributred with the
> kernel and developed under the same open source model as the kernel
> itself. I have never had a problem with a device driver distributed
> with the kernel. Will MS has started signing drivers. alot of stuff is
> not supported in that way.
You're suggesting that the drivers shipped with the kernel cannot have bugs?
> It is no wonder with these design issues, we are constantly hearing
> more BSOD stories than 'kernel panic' issues. And I have used Linux
> long enough to see a few unexplainable kernel panics, at least under
> 1.0, 1.2, and 2.0, but none so far under 2.2 (fingers crossed).
I've seen 2.2 panic. The classic case was when the swap partition died.
> >> totally failed at goal #2.
> >
> >Only because you are listening to "reported goals" by people who don't
know
> >what they're talking about.
>
> Microsft's goal is to make W2K as stable as UNIX. IMHO the jury is
> still out on that, but the initial evidence does not look good.
That's totally different from the claim that MS's goal was to ELIMINATE
BSOD's.
> >It's (W2K is) significantly faster than NT if it has it's minimum
> >requirements. 10% faster on average.
>
> Proof please!!
See another message i've posted.
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:37:59 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>I'm using the exact same definition that MS does. OLE (without any numbers)
>means OLE2. This can be noted by looking at "Inside OLE" (which is the
>third edition of the book. The second version was called Inside OLE2. Note
>how MS dropped the 2 moniker, prefering to act like OLE1 never existed).
If you re-read the quote from that book, that you yourself produced in another
part of the thread, carefully, you'll see that MS obviously preferred to stop
implying a version *3* would be forthcoming (since they we're reasoning
everyhting would be an extending implementation of the version 2 API), *not*
to imply there was no version 1:
"...no longer given a version number[...] The reason for this is that OLE 2
implies that there will be an OLE 3".
Read your own evidence wrt. what is _says_, not what you'd like it to say.
>>One must read statements in context. The context of that quote of yours
>>was clearly an impassioned defense of MicroSoft. Therefore, the reader can
>>only conclude that you agree with Gates' statement.
>One must read what the statement says, not some imagined hidden meaning.
Look who's talking. Read what Page 11 of Inside OLE (according to you) says,
not some imagined hidden meaning.
And BTW, if people _consistently_ "misread" what one says/tries to say, one
_might_ start to wonder whether one puts things right / understandable.
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: "Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:22:48 +0200
steve@howdy wrote:
> any one can give a link or have information on how can one
> enter a bug report if they find a problem in the linux OS?
>
> Is there an official site setup so one can do that? if not,
> how does one report a bug in linux? is it distro specific?
> I see rhat have a bug report page
>
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/
>
> But if one has a bug in kernel, is that the place to
> report it? btw, I did not see such a thing on Suse web site.
>
> looking at http://www.kernel.org I did not see a place
> to report a bug.
>
> I think there should be one place to report bugs for linux. The
> way it is now seem confusing. How do people enter bug reports
> against other OS's such as windows? (not a window user so I do
> not know).
>
> regards,
> steve
Use the source, Luke.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:56:32 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >I'm using the exact same definition that MS does. OLE (without any
numbers)
> >means OLE2. This can be noted by looking at "Inside OLE" (which is the
> >third edition of the book. The second version was called Inside OLE2.
Note
> >how MS dropped the 2 moniker, prefering to act like OLE1 never existed).
>
> If you re-read the quote from that book, that you yourself produced in
another
> part of the thread, carefully, you'll see that MS obviously preferred to
stop
> implying a version *3* would be forthcoming (since they we're reasoning
> everyhting would be an extending implementation of the version 2 API),
*not*
> to imply there was no version 1:
Which doesn't change the fact that MS uses the term OLE to refer to OLE 2,
and not OLE 1.
MS does act like OLE 1 never existed for the most part. Yes, they
acknowledge it for backwards compatibility, but the mere fact that no
documentation that refers to OLE without a verion number shows this.
> "...no longer given a version number[...] The reason for this is that OLE
2
> implies that there will be an OLE 3".
>
> Read your own evidence wrt. what is _says_, not what you'd like it to say.
It says exactly what I'm saying. OLE without a version number means OLE 2.
> >>One must read statements in context. The context of that quote of yours
> >>was clearly an impassioned defense of MicroSoft. Therefore, the reader
can
> >>only conclude that you agree with Gates' statement.
> >One must read what the statement says, not some imagined hidden meaning.
>
> Look who's talking. Read what Page 11 of Inside OLE (according to you)
says,
> not some imagined hidden meaning.
There is no imagined hidden meaning. All I said was that MS pretends that
OLE 1 doesn't exist when they refer to OLE. That's not a hidden meaning,
that's a statement about how they act. That's my opinion. The fact is that
MS when MS says OLE, they mean OLE 2.
> And BTW, if people _consistently_ "misread" what one says/tries to say,
one
> _might_ start to wonder whether one puts things right / understandable.
Didn't you notice the statement above where it says "One must read
statements in context", which states that he I didn't say what he says I
did, but rather that he's implying it based on his idea of the "context".
I can't control what other people want to see.
>
> --
> Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" -
Yoda
> Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
> Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
> Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but
myself
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:49:27 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[Start of reinserted evidence]
>>>>>I think it's perfectly legitimate for DOS to have
>>>>>undocumented API's if they do nothing but access internal data that 3rd
>>>>>party programs should not be accessing.
>>>>You mean 3d party programs (to DOS anyway) like Windows???
>>>>What the f*ck does Windows have to find in "internal data" unless it's
>>>>not really "internal" after all?
>>>>Excuses, excuses, excuses...
[End of reinserted evidence]
>>>Windows communicates very closely with DOS and replaces many DOS
>>>functions (and in Windows 95, nearly all of them). Windows uses DOS data
>>>structures for process and module creation.
>>Windows isn't (part of) DOS. So any data it's accessing isn't "internal
>>data".
>>So (other) 3d party programs should be able to get to it to.
>>If they shouldn't, neither should Windows.
>That's not the issue here.
It is if you mean to defend MS by making blanket statements about their having
every right to shield off "internal data" from 3d party programs.
If some programs _do_ have some business in that data, then your whole
reasoning of shielding off and "private internal data" goes out the Window.
>The issue is that Windows *DOES* communicate
>very closely with DOS, and expects certain things to be certain ways.
So did every DOS extender (which, BTW, nicely summarizes Windows).
That's what you have APIs for. You know, like OLE (version 1 or 2).
>Microsoft has no control over any other version of DOS, so it can't
>guarantee that Windows will run correctly with a non-MS or IBM version of
>it.
As has been said umpteen times, nobody asked them to guarantee that.
The discussion is about their (alledged) right to *prevent* other DOS's to run
Windows (or feign incompatibility).
Your MS master has taught you well; once your "argument" has been exposed you
neatly side-step the issue and go along another (dark) path.
In Usenet words, one strawman down, several more to go.
>>>Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was not marketed as an add-on for any version of DOS.
>>>It was marketed as an add-on for MS-DOS or PC-DOS, since those two
>>>versions had very known structures.
>>Keep reurgitating the MS partyline. Who knows, someone might even begin to
>>believe it/you!
>So, you're suggesting that Windows WAS marketed as an add-on for other
>DOS's?
Their marketing has nothing to do with the right of shielding off "private
internal data structures" and letting their own "3rd party" program get at
supposedly "private internal data structures".
Strawman.
Let's do the twist again, ...
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:58:42 -0500
Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Depends what you mean by improvements. Fadout menus (can Linux do
> > that?),
> > > > fadout Windows (now part of the API).
> > >
> > > Wow, a major innovation on MS' part. Fadeout menus! What will they
> > > think of next?
> >
> > There's a lot to be said for ergonomic engineering.
>
> Ergonomic engineering should be used in the user interface design, not in
> system software design. Remember, Linux is an operating system not an user
> interface.
We're talking about Windows 2000, not Linux (other than the quote about
Linux being able to do it). The person should have said, can X do that?.
Windows 2000 is a complete brand name system, not a kernel. Much like Red
Hat Linux is a complete system. So saying, "Can Red Hat do that?" would be
correct.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:38:01 GMT
Never mind it IS free of charge on the internet. If you look at the
Redhat page, you will notice that you can download the current version
of Redhat for FREE, BUT, you do NOT get the SUPPORT that comes with the
version you can purchase. So, what you are buying is SUPPORT.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 19 May 2000 03:08:54 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
> > >Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse
6.4,
> > >install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just
said!
> >
> > Buy ?
> >
> > $45 ?
> >
> > It's supposed to be free (worth ever cent)
>
> Free as in free speech, not free lunch. Besides, you're paying for the
> convenience
> of not downloading several hundred meg of RPM's
>
> Colin Day
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Paul Voller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:44:43 +0100
On Mon, 22 May 2000, Full Name wrote:
> We had a brief power outage today. Affected were two Sun Ultras
> (Solaris 2.7), an aging HP-UX, a SCO Intel box, two NT BDC's, around
> 50 NT workstations and one Linux Intel box.
> <snip>
> This is actually the second time we've observed the boot sector of a
> hard disk drive to fail during a single uptime of an NT machine. This
> is because our users never re-boot their NT boxes. NT has uptimes
> longer than the life of some hard disk drives :-)
<snip>
Wow! How /do/ you get NT to run for more than a day without
rebooting? When I used Access to manage a couple of large database tables,
the bloody thing cooked itself!
Sorry. I just get bitter about the successes of others. But as a
precaution, I would switch hard disk suppliers...
P.
===
Paul Voller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.themullet.org.uk/paul
rule britannia
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:52:45 GMT
joseph wrote:
>
> The justification for the code changes based on the criticism: Testing
> specifically for DR DOS due to technical defects, Testing generally for
> any DOS version [sic], ....
>
That may be their stated reason but it is total bunk. Because they would be
forced to answer some performance questions. Like why after the DR-DOS 6.1
patch was applied allowing Win16 to run on it. How much faster and more
stable it was. M$ didn't have a decent cache mechanism for quite a while
until MS-DOS5.1
------------------------------
From: Peter Espen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:55:59 GMT
You are obviously a Microsoft stock holder who is afraid to use your
real name. You also obviously have a real lame network setup evidenced
by the fact that you are still using a SCO systems. Also you are
obviously
some sort of MBA type person who has been drafted into running computers
cause you don't seem to think it's important to give us the details on
what
versions you are running and how you've setup your NFS clienting.
I recommend a good book for you titled: Computers for Dummies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
