Linux-Advocacy Digest #651, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (Streamer)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (CAguy)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: SPLOITS IN LINUX??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (CAguy)
re: ("Simon Toomer.(LC10062583)")
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (John Culleton)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 23 May 2000 17:39:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Ross would say:
>> >So theory aside, X in reality can crash the entire machine.
>>
>> I blame it on the video hardware. You can send instructions to the
>> video card that will cause it to dump data pretty arbitrarily _anywhere_
>> in system memory, outside the control of the CPU.
> Hrmm.. nope. Sounds good, but nope. I've installed RH Linux
No, you havent. This particular lie of yours has been exposed half a dozen
times over the last 4 or 5 months, chad.
> (yes, I know
> RH != (necessarily) Linux, but it uses X11R6 XFree86) on several machines
> and have seen X puke on all of them.
Lie.
> They all have varying display hardware
> from Matrox, to Cirrus Logic, to Chips and Technologies, etc. The odd thing
> is, it crashes seemingly unprovoked. I will start X, be browsing the file
> system, fire up an xterm (note that Netscape has not be allowed to defile
> the system at this point), and boom, locks up. Numlock works, mouse moves,
> but nothing else. I attempt to switch terminals using the CTRL+ALT+F(x)
> to no avail.
Lies, lies, all lies. You have no linux experience. You are an idiot.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:29:09 GMT
Read what netcraft looks for WEBSERVERS not OS's. MANY of the sites
runing Apache are running it on Unix!
Some examples of Apache running on Unix:
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.ft.com
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.w3.org
Not much at billgates.com but hay it runs Apache on Unix:
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=billgates.com&port=80
But the Queen of England selects Apache on Linux:
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.royal.gov.uk
You have used inaprobreate data to reach your conclution.
In article <8gbtij$jdg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> now even the netcraft guys are saying it. linux is hurting commercial
unix
> vendors more than microsoft.
>
> from http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>
> "Notable Sites
> On May 9th w3.org introduced Linux into its load balancing pool, such
that
> around a quarter of requests are now served from Linux. This is the
first
> time that we have noticed the web standards controlling organisation
running
> anything other than Solaris. While Microsoft is nearly always the
target of
> the Linux community's rhetoric, in practice it seems that Sun is being
posed
> the more difficult operational problems competing with the
price/performance
> and convenience of the Linux platform. Many commentators seem to
sometimes
> forget that Linus started developing the operating system because he
> couldn't afford a Sun.
> "
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:42:25 GMT
On 23 May 2000 17:32:09 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2000 09:18:46 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:56:55 +0200, "Davorin Mestric"
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>now even the netcraft guys are saying it. linux is hurting commercial unix
>>>>vendors more than microsoft.
>>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Linux is hurting Unix - but not in the way you indicate.
>
>> No, more than likely the perception that you can get a Quad Xeon
>> that can replace a Sun Enterprise Ultrasparc is what is 'hurting
>> Linux'. Linux just happens to be taking the place that NT would
>> try to push itself into.
>
>The sparc is better hardware in dozens of ways, and anyone who knows
>anything at all about server hardware will tell you that.
That still doesn't address the PR. That's the problem here,
not the reality of the situation. PHB's will just see the
pricetags, mebbe look a the CPU speeds and start jumping to
the wrong conclusions. This sort of mentality was running
rampant through the recent Slashdot thread on the newest Xeons.
>
>>>
>>>I've administered in excess of 10 flavours of Unix since 1992. All of
>>>these have been rock solid with little or no problems. Linux simply
>>>does not achieve these sorts of reliability and stability levels.
>
>> Odd then that it's making Commercial Unix installations
>> drop like flies.
>
>Oh really? Which ones? I wonder if you can find me a "linux solution"
His claim: not mine. He's the one that wants us to believe that
Linux is more of a threat to commercial Unix than to NT.
>which will cover our quad e420r (quad procs a piece), running in
>cluster, each dealing with a 3.5 gig in-memory dynamic database?
>
>I didnt think so.
>
>>>
>>>Linux is creating a generation of programmers who will believe they
>>>must run VMS if they want a rock solid operating system.
>
>> VMS is still more robust than the Commercial Unixen. VMS will
>> take server loads that HP/UX and Irix and SunOS melt under.
>> Unix is thrown together well but it's still thrown together.
>
>I suspect you actually dont know what youre talkinga bout.
>
>>>
>>>Administrators should think twice before compromising their systems by
>>>introducing a Linux box.
>>>
>
>> The VMS remarks are a matter of firsthand experience: RDBMS QA.
>
>How bout the unix remarks? :)
They were made relative to the major commercial Unixen.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:57:27 -0500
Simone Paddock wrote:
> For whatever reason, a great many Linux and UNIX
> users spend a lot more time working with Windows
> than they might like, or like to admit.
This makes me want to boycott O'Reilley books. I've had over 5 years of
learning about Windows.....enough to know that I don't want to know
anything more about WIndows (I don't give a damn about W2K) , and that I
want to know more about Linux. I think O'Reilley is mis-marketing their
book if they think they're going to get a bunch of Linux Users to buy a
'secrets of Windows' book.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:53:37 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 13:53:53 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CAguy wrote:
>>
>> On 22 May 2000 19:23:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, with billions of dollars now riding on the success of linux...I
>> think it's about time they kicked the kiddies off kernal development,
>> and start using a more professional development process.
>
>who is 'they'?
>
The 'they' I was refering to would be Linus and the other top kernal
developers. I certainly wasn't lumping them in with the 'kiddies'.
>From the interviews of Linus I read..he seems to have his head
on straight and understands the realities of life. And the reality
is..Linux is no longer 'just' a hobby anymore. It's big business.
James
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:53:10 -0400
W2K Datacenter doesn't exist? So, that little CD sitting on my shelf over
there, just at hands reach... little shiny thing, i'm imagining it? So, the
copy running at <insert name of large on-line book store> is vaporware?
ahhh yes... I forget how the retail commoner trenches are stocked...
beta 2 is in my hands in the next few weeks... a little late but I'd prefer
working perfectly rather than "on-time" according to some 2-year old
schedule. I accepted W2K Pro/Server/Adv.Server "1 year late" (according to
some schedule) because the improvements to quality and reliability were
worth it. I'll accept data center being a little late to incorporate the
latest enhancements due to new hardware and technologies and even greater
reliability and performance, thank you.
Datacenter is much more real than Linux 2.4 - I've actually got Datacenter
running...
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gcikc$23mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Just like W2K Datacenter...
>
> Except that it actually exists. :)
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:54:22 -0400
So, the nice shiny CD that reads "Datacenter Edition" on my shelf is just a
figment of your imagination???
I don't think so...
I see you are still living in denial... grow up.
Hows that copy of Linux 2.4 running?
"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gcaks$nre$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> > Just like W2K Datacenter...
>
> That does not exist at this point in time
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:55:18 -0400
I didn't mention big iron - i was refering to the ability to run on 32
processors. but i'm sure you knew that.
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 17:19:53 -0400,
> Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >Just like W2K Datacenter...
> >
> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >>
> >> > WindowsNT Datacenter Server can recognize up to 16 processors.
> >> >
> >> > Exactly how many can Linux handle? The most I've ever heard
> >> > of was 16, and that was with a major kernel renovation.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Linux for S/390 handles up to 32 processors. See Chapter 2 of:
> >>
> >> http://linux390.marist.edu/download/inst.pdf
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> No Drestin, W2K doesn't run on big iron :)
>
> (since you can run 41,000 + instances of linux S/390 on a single machine,
> does that mean that linux scales down to 1/41,000 of a processor also :)
>
> (Linux S/390 is to a server wwww, what ArcherDanielsMidland is to a garden
> plot.)
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 23 May 2000 12:52:31 -0500
In article <8geca6$jb8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hrmm.. nope. Sounds good, but nope. I've installed RH Linux (yes, I know
>RH != (necessarily) Linux, but it uses X11R6 XFree86) on several machines
>and have seen X puke on all of them. They all have varying display hardware
>from Matrox, to Cirrus Logic, to Chips and Technologies, etc. The odd thing
>is, it crashes seemingly unprovoked. I will start X, be browsing the file
>system, fire up an xterm (note that Netscape has not be allowed to defile
>the system at this point), and boom, locks up. Numlock works, mouse moves,
>but nothing else. I attempt to switch terminals using the CTRL+ALT+F(x)
>to no avail.
Can you reproduce this with RH 6.2? I've seen it too, but not for
a long time and not on anything since upgrading to 6.2. I've usually
blamed it on having gpm running (even after they claimed the
contention bug was fixed) but it didn't happen often enough to tell
for sure that removing gpm eliminated it.
>Holding down the power button for ~5 seconds seems to be the only way to
>regain control. Of course, then you must endure the 1-3hour fsck that
>is required because of ext2's crappy crash recovery, only to find out
>some critical system file was hosed and I have to reinstall from scratch.
I had about 75% success telneting in to do a graceful reboot. And if
you ever need to fix something by hand you can boot the install
CDROM, tell it you want to upgrade, then ctl-alt-f2 while it is scanning
for packages. This puts you in a root shell with your partitions
mounted under /tmp.
>In the X case I mentioned above, it sure sounds like a video driver bug,
>but also, I've seen similar behavior in every default-install RH Linux 6.0
>and 6.1 install I've ever done (which is around a dozen or so). I find it
>hard to believe that with all those different cards, the drivers were buggy.
When I've seen it, it always had something to do with switching from
one window to another. Either something in the mouse handler and
gpm gets locked up, or the pallete switch to the new foreground window
is doing something wrong, or something like that. Regardless, I
haven't seen it happen in months and I assume it is fixed. This
kind of bug does point out the advantage of being about to run
programs remotely, though. I normally don't run X on production servers,
but run X programs there from my desktop machine. If there is a problem
in the video driver I don't have to worry about it bothering the server
at all.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 23 May 2000 12:56:17 -0500
In article <8gecfh$jc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, if the person in front of the machine is unable to tell the difference
>> between a locked console and a hung machine and then fix it. I'd say that
>> encompasses about 99% of computer users, being conservative.
>
>Christopher, you're forgetting the most obvious answer here...
>
>They could call the sysadmin and just have him rewrite the video drivers,
>write a new windowing system and rewrite their applications. Remember, this
>is all open source and all sysadmins are programmers and have limitless
>amounts of time to be coding things like this.
Or they could pick up the free updates and install them in less
time than it takes to complain about it, and never have the
problem again.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: 23 May 2000 18:04:03 GMT
Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Simone Paddock wrote:
:> For whatever reason, a great many Linux and UNIX
:> users spend a lot more time working with Windows
:> than they might like, or like to admit.
: This makes me want to boycott O'Reilley books. I've had over 5 years of
: learning about Windows.....enough to know that I don't want to know
: anything more about WIndows (I don't give a damn about W2K) , and that I
: want to know more about Linux. I think O'Reilley is mis-marketing their
: book if they think they're going to get a bunch of Linux Users to buy a
: 'secrets of Windows' book.
That's a bit excessive, don't you think?
O'Reilly isn't a UNIX-only shop, even though that's where their
strongest titles are. If you don't want to deal with Windows
anymore (a feeling I can relate to very well), there's no shortage
of non-Windows titles available.
While there seems to be plenty of "UNIX for Windows users" books
out there, finding a "Windows for UNIX users" book might take
a bit more effort. I'm hopeful this one will make dealing
with Windows just a bit less unpleasant for me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 23 May 2000 13:05:58 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Also, configure scripts don't know how to satisfy dependencies when
>>you install several related things at once that must be done in a
>>certain order. Rpm gets this right if you install them all in one
>>command.
>
> No it doesn't. Infact that's one of the most annoying things
> about RPM. Given a collection of packages, it's unable to sort
> things out for itself.
How does it fail? If I need all of file1.rpm, file2.rpm and file3.rpm
and try to install any one or two at once it will refuse and tell
me the one(s) still needed. If I install all 3 at once on the
same command line in any order, the install will succeed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: SPLOITS IN LINUX???
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:03:16 GMT
On 23 May 2000 08:40:03 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
>
>> On 22 May 2000 22:53:32 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Does any body know where to find exploits for RedHat 5.x??
>>
>> http://www.rootshell.com/
>
>... which hasn't been updated in months.
Neither has RH 5.x.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:17:36 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 12:52:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>The short answer is that the memory architecture is quite flat (32-bit
>flat, in fact); this contrasts with e.g. Xenix, and of course DOS and
>Windows. I'm not up on the rest of the kernel workings.
Umm..what version of Window are you talking about?..win32 is 'quite
flat' also. Anyway, who uses DOS/win16 anymore?
James
------------------------------
From: "Simon Toomer.(LC10062583)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: re:
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:57:45 +0100
john wrote:
>
> I have been in the market recently for a computer. Should I get one
> with rdram it I want to run Linux? Will it be worth the extra cost?
Before you make any descissions, take a looksie at
http://www.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q2/000403/rambus-01.html
Should give you an interresting insight on attempted market strangle holds,
patents, lockouts, costs, and the dissemination of FUD, BS.
M$ ain't the only purveyours in ziss game and it looks too bruise certain
HW manufactures bad either way, pending further court room antics.
Regards
SimonT.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:21:33 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 18:17:36 GMT, CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2000 12:52:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>
>>The short answer is that the memory architecture is quite flat (32-bit
>>flat, in fact); this contrasts with e.g. Xenix, and of course DOS and
>>Windows. I'm not up on the rest of the kernel workings.
>
>
>Umm..what version of Window are you talking about?..win32 is 'quite
>flat' also. Anyway, who uses DOS/win16 anymore?
Actually, there are still segment limitations in Win32.
Banging up against them while doing QA against Win95
was what finally got me to dump Windows entirely.
--
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] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 23 May 2000 18:37:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> W2K Datacenter doesn't exist? So, that little CD sitting on my shelf over
> there, just at hands reach... little shiny thing, i'm imagining it? So, the
> copy running at <insert name of large on-line book store> is vaporware?
> ahhh yes... I forget how the retail commoner trenches are stocked...
> beta 2 is in my hands in the next few weeks... a little late but I'd prefer
> working perfectly rather than "on-time" according to some 2-year old
> schedule. I accepted W2K Pro/Server/Adv.Server "1 year late" (according to
> some schedule) because the improvements to quality and reliability were
> worth it. I'll accept data center being a little late to incorporate the
> latest enhancements due to new hardware and technologies and even greater
> reliability and performance, thank you.
> Datacenter is much more real than Linux 2.4 - I've actually got Datacenter
> running...
Ive got betas of 2.4 running.
Do not comment on linux, because you honestly dont know a thing about it. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:43:42 GMT
Funny how you keep finding your way back schmuck.
EdWIN wrote:
> In article <8gd076$2kf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I wouldn't liken MS to the Nazi era of Germany. I think a more
> appropriate
> > >example would be a state univerisity directly east of Illinois in
> Elam's
> > >territory..
> >
> > I'm totally lost.
>
> Then you're in the right place! This group was created as a hang out
> for "totally lost" people. :-D
>
> > --
> > Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> > My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
> >
>
> --
> "Let all who oppose the OverMind feel the Fury of the Swarm!"
> -- Infested Kerrigan, aka The Queen of Blades, StarCraft.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:53:18 -0700
> Anyway, who uses DOS/win16 anymore?
>
> Actually, there are still segment limitations in Win32.
> Banging up against them while doing QA against Win95
> was what finally got me to dump Windows entirely.
>
>
>--
>
>
I use the old 16 bit stuff for three purposes:
1: booting up antique peripherals like my Orchid sound & cdrom
card;
2: Running the only OCR program available for my scanner (it came
with--).
3. Running Delphi ( gui for my Interbase DBMS.)
As time goes by I hope to get a newer cdrom & throw the Orchid
card away. I already have an Ensoniq sound card. By summer there
will be a Delphi for Linux port at a ridiculous price. Hopefully
I can get to be a beta tester.
OCR is another matter. There have been some early, half-finished
efforts but nothing recently.
That is what I use MSDOS & Win 3.1 for. By leaving my system up
all the time I need to reboot only on rare occasions.
I really don't want to buy Win 95/98/2k if I can avoid it.
John Culleton
Please visit http://ccpl.carr.org/~john/
My Linux Slackware 2.2.15 system on Tuesday May 23 2000
2:54pm up 9 days, 16:29, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01,
0.00
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 16:18:59 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 23 May 2000 05:49:03 GMT...
...and CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, with billions of dollars now riding on the success of linux...I
> think it's about time they kicked the kiddies off kernal development,
> and start using a more professional development process.
s/more professional/slower/
mawa
--
The utility of a fancy Web browser is damn near zero compared with the
utility of a really good text editor.
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:56:17 -0400
so you acknowledge that you are wrong about datacenter.
good, facing the truth is a start...
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gej58$1bh2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > W2K Datacenter doesn't exist? So, that little CD sitting on my shelf
over
> > there, just at hands reach... little shiny thing, i'm imagining it? So,
the
> > copy running at <insert name of large on-line book store> is vaporware?
>
> > ahhh yes... I forget how the retail commoner trenches are stocked...
>
> > beta 2 is in my hands in the next few weeks... a little late but I'd
prefer
> > working perfectly rather than "on-time" according to some 2-year old
> > schedule. I accepted W2K Pro/Server/Adv.Server "1 year late" (according
to
> > some schedule) because the improvements to quality and reliability were
> > worth it. I'll accept data center being a little late to incorporate the
> > latest enhancements due to new hardware and technologies and even
greater
> > reliability and performance, thank you.
>
> > Datacenter is much more real than Linux 2.4 - I've actually got
Datacenter
> > running...
>
> Ive got betas of 2.4 running.
>
> Do not comment on linux, because you honestly dont know a thing about it.
:)
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:57:08 -0400
Datacenter exists today.
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mig Mig wrote:
>
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > Just like W2K Datacenter...
> >
> > That does not exist at this point in time
>
> Good point. Of course Linux support for 32 processors is available
> today.
>
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:57:26 -0400
and linux smp SUX and everyone knows it (but some won't admit it)
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mig Mig wrote:
>
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > Just like W2K Datacenter...
> >
> > That does not exist at this point in time
>
> Good point. Of course Linux support for 32 processors is available
> today.
>
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 23 May 2000 19:00:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so you acknowledge that you are wrong about datacenter.
No. Datacenter doesnt EXIST. It is betaware, and I challenge you to
come up with solid proof that any of these "large online bookstores"
are basing the core of their business on a beta copy of datacenter.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 23 May 2000 19:01:30 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and linux smp SUX and everyone knows it (but some won't admit it)
It depends on the implementation, but then again you wouldnt know
that---
because you dont know anything at all about linux.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
