Linux-Advocacy Digest #995, Volume #26 Fri, 9 Jun 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (LEBLANC ERIC)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Where are all the astroturfers? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
IE for Linux ("Pedro Coto")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LEBLANC ERIC)
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:54:37 GMT
Bob Germer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On 06/08/2000 at 06:36 PM,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Leblanc) said:
:
: > When 70% of your clientele is French, if you had the choice betwen two
: > equally competent men and one of them only speak english and the other
: > speak both french and english. Which one would you hire?
:
: In a free country, I would choose the one who had the highest test score.
: If they were identical, I would choose the older. But in your province, I
: do not have that choice because your overbearing goverment requires
: bi-lingualism for employment.
So to hell that one of them can't communicate to 70% of your clientele?
Your priorities aren't right imho.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 06:00:47 +1000
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:42:54 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Starcap'n Ra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Skala) writes:
> [deletia]
> >> Actually, there is rationale *for* command lines. For
> >> instance, I can type 'cd /usr/people/kennedy/music/beethoven'
> >> on a Unix system *way* faster than I can click on My Computer,
> >> wait for the window to come up, click on E:, move the cursor
> >> to the scroll bar and scroll down and look for Winnt, click on
> >> Winnt, move the cursor to the scroll bar and scroll down and
> >> look for Profiles, click on Profiles, click on Kennedy, move
> >> the cursor to the scroll bar, scroll down and look for Start
> >> Menu, click on Start Menu, click on Programs, click on Winamp,
> >> and finally click on Beethoven. Not only that, but it hurts
> >> my eyes to do all that perusing the windows looking for the
> >> little folders with the tiny print to find the one that I want.
> >
> >This is true, but that signifies a lack of experience, rather than an
> >interface issue. For example, in Windows you could just hit WindowsKey+R
> >(for "Run") then type in the path and explorer will open up at that
> >directory. AFAIK there is no direct equivalent in MacOS, but I'm sure an
>
> That would still be more awkward actually.
How so ?
> The Mac/OS2 counterpoint was far more effective.
Which was what, precisely ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where are all the astroturfers?
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:12:16 GMT
Speaking for myself, and MY experience in talking with real world
computer professionals everyday, the bottom line is most people don't
give a flying fsk about the decision, either good or bad.
This is the reality. It would be the same reaction if it were Linux,
MacOS or some other more or less mainstream OS.
People really don't care.
I am not saying this is good or bad (I feel it is bad) but at least
here in the good ol' USA folks are more concerned with what Rosie
O'Donnel (a fouth mouthed no talent) is doing next week, than with a
major decision like the Microsoft one.
It is very sad. Very sad indeed.
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:49:57 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why is it that every time Microsoft has a big setback, the steady-state
>level of astroturfing here drops almost to nothing for a few days? Do
>they all get called back to Redmond for a strategy meeting or
>something? Did Bill fire them for failing to influence the outcome?
>Are they hurriedly trying to learn something besides VB to put on there
>resumes?
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:14:12 GMT
On 06/09/2000 at 03:18 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
> >> " 12th Congress (1811-1813)
> >> " Majority Party: Republican (30 seats)
> >> " Minority Party: Federalist (6 seats)
> >> " Other Parties: 0
> >> " Total Seats: 36
> > That was the final tally. The 35th and 36th Senators were not seated until
> > after July 4, 1812, after the vote to which you referred.
> > Under our system, were Puerto Rico to seek statehood, it would require an
> > act of Congress signed by the President. Then Puerto Rico would be
> > admitted. However, they have to hold elections for those Senators AFTER
> > admission. Official admission is July 4 following enactment of the Act of
> > Admission.
> Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United States, just like
> pennsylvania.
Here we go again with absolute bullshit. Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky,
and Massachusetts are commonwealths which are also States of the United
States. When the colonies were set up, Virginia, Massachusetts, and
Pennsylvania were set up as Commonwealths. When Kentucky was formed out of
Virginia after the Revolution, it too set itself up as a commonwealth. The
distinction had to do with ownership of such items as water rights,
inheritance, etc. under English Common Law Each of those commonwealths
adopted the Constitution of the United States and were admitted as states.
Puerto Rico, on the otherhand, is a commonwealth of the United States
which has not sought entry as a state. Its citizens cannot vote in
national elections, have no voting members of the Senate and only one
non-voting member of the House of Representatives.
> How many senators does pennsylvania have again?
Two, of course, just like every other state regardless of population. Our
Senate was the result of the New Jeresy compromise adopted in the
Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The smaller states
wanted equal representation in the Legislature regardless of population.
The larger states wanted representation based on population. The
compromise was a bicameral Legislature in which each state got two seats
in the Senate and seats in the House were apportioned based on population
to a certain extent. Thanks to the example set by our British forebears,
we were saddled with slavery in some states. When the House seats were
apportioned, slaves counted as 2/3 of a free person. This was eliminated
by the Civil War amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) adopted in the mid to
late 1860's.
> p.s. by the way, I saw this neat thing about old people on TLC a few
> weeks ago that explained all about why they get 'stuck in their ways'.
> Apparantly its not really your fault that you like OS/2 so much, its
> simply your brain hardening.
No, it is because I don't have to reboot my machines several times a week
as Windows users are forced to do. It is because I never see the BSOD
familiar to all users of NT. It is because OS/2 supports REXX. It is
because applications run much faster under OS/2 than under Win9x on the
same machines. It is because the publisher of OS/2 provides free periodic
updates, enhancements, etc. to the Operating System unlike MS which calls
bug fixes a new version and charges accordingly.
It is because it has far superior hardware support than Windows 2000 has
that I use OS/2. It is because it provides SMP capability which Windows98
totally lacks. It is because it doesn't corrupt its registry regularly
which Windows 9x and NT consistently do.
It is because I can run one of our Notes Servers continuously for over a
year at a time without ever rebooting, something that NT cannot do for a
month at a time. It is because it doesn't require a 385 megabyte swapfile
like NT 4.5 does despite having 256 megs of DIMM memory. OS/2 doesn't
ever, ever write to the swapfile here even with 40 applications running
simultaneously.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:16:29 GMT
Next time I need 512 CPU's in my living room I will make certain to
call on Linux.
Next time my Impala SS can't do 155 MPH I'll make certain and look up
Ricky Rudd and ask for advice.
BTW my Impala SS has been clocked at 147 mph, so maybe I am getting
close.
It's stock also.
Great car for cruising the LIE (Long Island Expressway) when the
soccer mom crazies in their SUV's try and tailgate me of an exit ramp
at 70mph.
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:39:48 +0200, Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Linux has been assimilated, resistance is futile.
>>
>> God, after using Linux for the last few months and now installing
>> Windows 2k it is like jumping in a time machine and going 10 years
>> into the future.
>>
>
>Strange thing is IBM doesn't think so - they have 512 CPU's in parrallel.
>Correct me if I'm wrong but W2K can only manage 32? (
>http://216.156.233.67/linux/news.htm )
>
>
>>
>> Win 2k installed so easily while Linux is asking me questions about
>> Monitor refresh rates and giving me a list of 1985 variety printers to
>> choose from.
>>
>
>I have Packard Bell PC's with unsupported Floppy Drives and best
>resolution in W2K is 256 (in Win95 I got 24Bit). Also you need to be
>reminded not all people have the luxury of upgrading every year or two.
>There is still many businesses with older to very old hardware. The
>reason is simple - why replace it if it still delivers the goods?
>
>
>>
>> Does anyone really use an HP LaserJet 500 anymore?
>>
>> How about Sound Blaster Live support?
>>
>> Linux had the jump on Windows 2k, yet Windows 2k has Livewire support
>> and Linux does not.
>>
>
>Not really true - the W2k team worked many years with the HW vendors. The
>Linux hackers don't have that luxury.
>
>
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>> Maybe Creative knows the future and is applying it's resources
>> appropriately.
>>
>> Sorry, but Linux is a bunch of promises and Windows 2k delivers right
>> now on the spot.
>>
>
>You buy W2k and you get a stable OS. You buy Linux and appart from the
>stable OS, you get httpd, innd, sendmail, wuftp, x etc... A lot more
>promis then W2k, don't you think?
>
>>
>> Linux will die shortly and WIndows will live on and on and on and
>> on......
>
>I will take my changes with Linux, thank you.
------------------------------
Subject: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:30:30 GMT
Someone here in this group claimed Linux is three times faster than
Windows. I question this figure so I did my own crude test. Here's the
program I wrote and ran on both Windows 98 SE and Linux Mandrake 7.0 on the
same dual boot system:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i;
FILE *file;
time_t t;
time(&t);
printf("Started: %s\n", ctime(&t));
file = fopen("test.dat", "w");
if (file)
{
for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
{
fprintf(file, "The lamb lies down on broadway\n");
}
fclose(file);
}
time(&t);
printf("Finished: %s\n", ctime(&t));
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
The file it generated is 30MBytes long, and from reading the timings these
are the results I got:
Visual C++ 6.0 6 seconds
Borland C++ Builder 6 seconds
GNU C++ 6 seconds
Now, this test can't be said to be any good kind of benchmark - after all
I'm testing multiple things: compiler optimisation, disk file access etc. I
do find it interesting that they all roughly run at the same speed.
Except... Linux exhibited very interesting behaviour after running this
application. I ran the test again, and to my surprise, my system had hung!
It unblocked after a second or two - so I ran it again, then I noticed the
disk light was permanently on after running the app. What's it doing after
this? Why should my system grind to a halt for a few seconds - hardly a
good feature of a system claimed to faster than Windows!
Pete
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:30:53 GMT
On 06/09/2000 at 07:41 AM,
Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >Well, here I must strongly disagree. I have just under 32,000 hours in the
> >log, and I will neither fly a FBW airplane without an ejection seat and
> >parachute nor ride in one. I do not consider this an advance in any way
> >for commercial aircraft. Had the survivors of the Iowa DC10 crash been on
> >an AirBus A320 or any other FBW aircraft they too would be dead.
> It was fly-by-wire with mechanical backup, although I suspect you're
> disparaging it solely because you want to be disagreeable.
No, I will not fly one, will not be a passenger on one because I have seen
those ships kill people when the computers fail. The crew has absolutely
no way to try to salvage things in that situation.
> >
> >> However Canada did succeed in showing up the US industry in much the
> >> same way they did with the Arrow, when they flew the worlds first
> >> "Jetliner" into La Guardia (actually it was whatever it was called in
> >> 1947) airport. the New York Times put it on the front page and
> >> embarrasingly reported to the American public that a small country of
> >> 10 million had usurped the entire US aircraft industry.
> >
> >That is revisionist history. What an imagination. At the time, 1947,
> >Boeing was only one of many commercial aircraft manufacturers. Ever heard
> >of Douglas? Convair? Lockheed? DeHavilland? Each of them and several other
> >companies in England and France were making transport aircraft. Had the
> >prototype to which you refer had any technical merit, it would have
> >entered scheduled service.
> And when did Boeing's first jetliner enter into passenger service? Or
> Douglas'? Or Lockheed?
Long before any Canadian jetliner. We're still waiting for you slowpokes.
Flying a prototype which never made it to certification does not show up
anyone. The overwhelming ignoring of it by airlines, manufacturers, etc.
shows just how poor a design it was.
Boeing's 707 entered commercial passenger service with PaAm in 1957 or 58.
Convair's 880, and Douglas's DC8 followed within a few months.
Certification was delayed for over a year until the cause of the Comet's
crashes were discovered, analyzed, etc. to make sure the same fate did not
befall our planes. As a matter of fact, the Air Force KC-135 entered
active service with the Air Force in 1954 or 5. A 707 was the same bird
with windows and seats in place of fuel tanks. > >
> >> A Canadian also introduced a major innovation in all modern aircraft,
> >> with the first flying aircraft that sported movable sections of wing
> >> (aileron, rudder, and elevator controls). Prior to that most aircraft
> >> were basically controlled by wing warpage ala the Wright brothers. All
> >> modern aircraft use the innovative (at the time) methods introduced by
> >> Alexander Graham Bell. Oh yea, by the way, he also invented the
> >> telephone.
> >
> >Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Wright Flyer had a hinged canard for elevator
> >control and a movable rudder. It did use wing warping. And before Bell got
> >involved with the Wright brothers, Glen Curtis introduced aelirons.
No answer for this one, eh?
> >
> >> Another Canadian first is the worlds first commercial sattelite. A
> >> communications sattelite for Canada's people. All other sattelites at
> >> the time were military, or test probes.
> >
> >And just which Canadian rocket launched it?
> Germany's.
Huh? What German rocket launched a Canadian commercial satellite before
Telstar? Name, manufacturer, launch site, date, etc. please.
Some aerospace program you all have up there.
> >
> >> All in all Canadians have a great reason to be proud of the engineering
> >> and high tech innovation that they have done in the past, and continue
> >> to do in the present. It is a pity that the rest of the world really
> >> does not know much about Canada.
> >
> >Their reputations are not enhanced by chauvinistic flights of fancy such
> >as you post.
> "chauvinistic flights of fancy"?
You betcha. What wild claims you make with absolutely no backup.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:31:36 GMT
You asked some good questions so I will answer.
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:58:21 -0700, "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Linux has been assimilated, resistance is futile.
>>
>> God, after using Linux for the last few months and now installing
>> Windows 2k it is like jumping in a time machine and going 10 years
>> into the future.
>
>Really? What's new in Windows 2000 that makes you feel this way?
1. It just plain looks better. Smoother, graphics are much more
responsive and setting up the networking was simple.
I will, however give Linux Mandrake 7.x the gold ring when it comes
to the overall install. Mandrake was stellar on my system and required
only one reboot.
Win 2k needs to learn more about how to install properly.
Linux just looks at acts ugly. IMHO it is just crappy looking.
The file managers of both kde and Gnome take an eternity to post a gui
view of a directory with icons.
Windows 2k does a similar directory in a split second.
>> Win 2k installed so easily while Linux is asking me questions about
>> Monitor refresh rates and giving me a list of 1985 variety printers to
>> choose from.
>>
>
>Yes, using a fringe OS does have its minuses...but we are doing pretty good
>for having virtually no vendor support. But you probably only care about
>results...
Linux is not doing pretty good, it is doing FANTASTIC, considering all
of the obstacles.
You are correct though that I am interested in results and not
interested in tinkering.
Others have different agendas.
>> Does anyone really use an HP LaserJet 500 anymore?
>>
>> How about Sound Blaster Live support?
>>
>> Linux had the jump on Windows 2k, yet Windows 2k has Livewire support
>> and Linux does not.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
>What is Livewire and why should we need it?
Livewire is the software that allows the SBLive card to perform up to
it's full potential instead of being degraded to a SB-16 on steroids
like Linux does to the card.
Linux has had basic drivers for the card long before (at least 9
months) Win2k was even released, but yet you can go to the Creative
site and download Livewire for Win2k but not for Linux.
This tells me something about Creative's priorities here.
>>
>> Maybe Creative knows the future and is applying it's resources
>> appropriately.
>>
>> Sorry, but Linux is a bunch of promises and Windows 2k delivers right
>> now on the spot.
>>
>
>What promises? GNU/Linux exists *now*. What have you been promised and by
>whom?
Creative has been promising support for almost 2 years now. Still
Linux has half assed support for that card.
Same thing with 3d video on certain cards. Printer support and so
forth.
Why is it that an operating system released long after Linux can have
this support but Linux does not?
>> Linux will die shortly and WIndows will live on and on and on and
>> on......
>>
>
>The developer and vendor rights of GNU/Linux are distributed to each of its
>users while such are rights for Windows are left to one company. It seems
>that only the reverse can happen.
Based on 95 percent of market share Windows is not going away anytime
soon.
>I am glad you are happy with Windows 2000. I am also happy that Windows 2000
>offers improvements from previous versions. But Microsoft still retains
>exclusive rights to source code, modification, and distribution. For these
>reasons among many others, I am keeping with the GNU/Linux operating system.
>Besides, I already know my monitor refresh rates...
So do I, and I agree with you, but most folks don't know this
information and could give a rats ass about Linux when Windows does
everything they need.
The market place is entrenched with Windows for what ever that is
worth.
Linux has to be far superior to take over that market place.
Linux is free and still has not made even a minuscule dent in the
desktop market.
>Best Regards,
>Kevin Holmes
It's been a pleasure speaking with you!!!
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IE for Linux
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:31:03 GMT
I'd like to have IE 5.0 (and above) for Linux, do you think it
will be available if Microsoft splits ? If it is free I have nothing
more against using it that against using Staroffice or Netscape.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:34:52 GMT
On 06/09/2000 at 07:54 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (LEBLANC ERIC) said:
> : In a free country, I would choose the one who had the highest test score.
> : If they were identical, I would choose the older. But in your province, I
> : do not have that choice because your overbearing goverment requires
> : bi-lingualism for employment.
> So to hell that one of them can't communicate to 70% of your clientele?
> Your priorities aren't right imho.
In Philadelphia, New York, many other cities, someone who speaks Spanish
only is eligible for Civil Service employment because a sizable minority
of residents speak Spanish and our supervisors, etc. are intelligent
enough to speak both English and Spanish. But in Quebec, an anglophone who
speaks no French is not even if the area where he seeks work is primarily
Anglo. That is not a free country.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:45:29 GMT
Alan Baker writes:
> Okay, then if OS/2 is superior to Windows, why isn't it dominant?
Okay, then if a Lexus is superior to a Chevy Cavalier, why isn't the
Lexus dominant?
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: 9 Jun 2000 20:54:55 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: Now, this test can't be said to be any good kind of benchmark - after all
: I'm testing multiple things: compiler optimisation, disk file access etc. I
: do find it interesting that they all roughly run at the same speed.
: Except... Linux exhibited very interesting behaviour after running this
: application. I ran the test again, and to my surprise, my system had hung!
: It unblocked after a second or two - so I ran it again, then I noticed the
: disk light was permanently on after running the app. What's it doing after
: this? Why should my system grind to a halt for a few seconds - hardly a
: good feature of a system claimed to faster than Windows!
I got about 3 seconds per run. Multiple runs gave me no problem.
Perhaps the kernel was busy garbage collecting 30 megs of old data
after test.dat was overwritten the second time around. Slow hard
drive, perhaps?
I'm not sure who's claiming that Linux is faster than Windows, but
I don't recall that being a big selling point. For consumer-grade
Windows (95/98) one would expect Linux to be a bit slower since
Linux is running quite a bit more protection - effectively trading
speed for robustness and security. For commercial-grade Windows
(NT/2000), I'd expect the speeds to be comparable for the same
reason.
I can *use* Linux faster than Windows by virtue of typing speed vs.
point-and-click, but that has very little to do with Linux itself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: 9 Jun 2000 20:59:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> p.s. by the way, I saw this neat thing about old people on TLC a few
>> weeks ago that explained all about why they get 'stuck in their ways'.
>> Apparantly its not really your fault that you like OS/2 so much, its
>> simply your brain hardening.
> No, it is because I don't have to reboot my machines several times a week
> as Windows users are forced to do. It is because I never see the BSOD
> familiar to all users of NT. It is because OS/2 supports REXX. It is
> because applications run much faster under OS/2 than under Win9x on the
> same machines. It is because the publisher of OS/2 provides free periodic
> updates, enhancements, etc. to the Operating System unlike MS which calls
> bug fixes a new version and charges accordingly.
> It is because it has far superior hardware support than Windows 2000 has
> that I use OS/2. It is because it provides SMP capability which Windows98
> totally lacks. It is because it doesn't corrupt its registry regularly
> which Windows 9x and NT consistently do.
> It is because I can run one of our Notes Servers continuously for over a
> year at a time without ever rebooting, something that NT cannot do for a
> month at a time. It is because it doesn't require a 385 megabyte swapfile
> like NT 4.5 does despite having 256 megs of DIMM memory. OS/2 doesn't
> ever, ever write to the swapfile here even with 40 applications running
> simultaneously.
Yeah, they said that old people very rarely understand that their brain
is hardening, and will usually become quite defensive if confronted
with such information.
I dont run windows by the way, or OS2. In case you thought you were
getting my goat or something. :)
=====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
******************************
