Linux-Advocacy Digest #25, Volume #27 Sun, 11 Jun 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Game Available ("Rich C")
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux in the Reject Bin at CompUSA (mlw)
Re: Linux newbie requires advice..... ("Alistair G. MacDonald")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (tinman)
Re: Linux newbie requires advice..... (mlw)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sealand in the news (was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north) (Michael J. Stango)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Arthur)
Re: No need to take sides ("Otto")
Re: No need to take sides ("James")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Game Available
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:57:12 -0400
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i04af$tqr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3942a2af$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bugger off, scumbag!!!!!!!!!
>
> "James", this nastiness is totally unwarranted. Michael
> Simms has posted only *twice* before, and makes a good case
> for this particular commercial announcement. The avail-
> ability of games for Linux is an important factor for its
> acceptance, and the number of games won't increase unless
> some people buy them.
Yes, but note also that they are putting both versions in the same box. (At
least that's how I read it.) So how are they going to separate the sales
figures for the Linux version vs. the Windows version?
Unless it's by how many of each type of machine log into the host server(s).
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
>
> >"Michael Simms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> This is moderately advocacy-related so I am posting here
> >>
> >> Phantom EFX has produced a new game for Linux. This is their first
game,
> >> and they are producing it in the same box for Linux and Windows.
> >>
> >> If they get a decent sales-level for it, then maybe their next game
will
> >> be available for Linux also, but if it gets few sales, well, the
chances
> >> are lower.
> >>
> >> The company is Phantom EFX, http://www.phantomefx.com
> >>
> >> The game is Reel Deal Slots, and is available from July 1st
> >>
> >> You can pre-order the game for $19.99 from
> >> http://www.tuxgames.com/details.cgi?gameref=44&referrer=news
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Tux Games - http://www.tuxgames.com
> >> We supply the games that will distract you from working.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:55:49 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:35:15 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is actually a fairly decent debug routine. A 4k limit is not
>uncommon. I think (if I remember correctly) the Windows 386 executive
>debug has a limit of 1k.
It is useful as a debug routine. I am not arguing its usefulness, I am
arguing its implementation with a 4K limit. Any programmer who has any
programming experience at all can code the routine with no limit at all.
It's absolutely trivial to do.
>I am also baffled as to why the original poster claims it is not
>documented. Any C/C++ programmer should know there is a limit.
Incorrect. Anybody who has been doing C/C++ for more than an hour can
trivially make that routine work for an arbitrary length string. Only
those new to C, will believe that there needs to be a limit.
>Even if BUFLEN is in a header, a simple grep would find it. If this is an
>example of where open source is badly written, I would take OSS over
>commercial code, any day.
You appear to be missing "the big picture". The problem is not finding a
tool to search for strings in files, but in identifying places where fixed
limits exist. The string "BUFLEN" does not indicate the presence of a
fixed limit of the function, nor does the absence of it mean that one is
not present. How many projects have you worked on with at least 250,000
lines? In these projects the function stack is pretty deep, often hovering
around 10 or 20. Input is passed from here to Mars before it finally hits
system calls. Fixed limits of any time are difficult to track down. It is
not a matter of searching for strings in text files.
Most programmers typically have fixed size buffers all over the place,
which do not indeed represent fixed sized limits for the function. As I
said before BUFLEN-type constructs are used all over the place where there
is no limit. Here is an example:
PROGRAM_STATUS read_in_file(FILE *fd, char **buffer, size_t *size)
{
#define BUFLEN 4096
char buf[BUFLEN];
size_t rt;
if (!fd || !buffer || !size)
{
return PROGRAM_E_INVPARM;
}
*buffer = NULL;
*size = 0;
while ((rt = fread(&buf[0], 1, BUFLEN, fd)) > 0))
{
if ((*buffer = realloc(*buffer, (*size) + rt)) == NULL)
{
return PROGRAM_E_INSVIRMEM;
}
memcpy(*buffer + *size, &buf[0], rt);
*size += rt;
}
return PROGRAM_S_NORMAL;
}
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:04:22 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>> 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:
>
>Let's take this apart shall we.
>
>> #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)
>> {
>
>This really isn't a great test. It let's both system "play to cache".
>one million lines of a 30 byte message? If you had 32 meg you'd be
>still be in cache. Since you didn't give out the configuration, you
>can't really qualify what you are comparing. Essentially you were
>comparing the performance of three nearly identical (suspiciously
>identical) compilers on identical hardware.
>
>> for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
>> {
>> fprintf(file, "The lamb lies down on
>broadway\n");
>> }
>>
>> fclose(file);
>
>In another posting there was an indicator of some tuning requiered to
>support some of the obscure boards.
>
>> }
>>
>> 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.
>
>If you really want to impress somebody, try compling the
>Bytemark benchmarks under Windows 98, if you can.
>The cygwin kit may even make it possible to compile the tests
>for Windows.
>
>Those benchmarks are at:
>http://www.silkroad.com/bass/linux/bm.html
>
>Run the standard set of benchmarks on a typical machine, not one
>so packed with RAM that you are playing to cache.
>
>Linux has been compared quite favorably to comparably equipped
>UNIX systems.
>
>A 50 mhz Sparc systems compared to a 75 mhz Pentium.
>
>The pentium II and the Ultra compare very nicely as well.
>Linux is much faster. than it was during the Silkroad benchmarks.
>
>>
>> Pete
>
>As for Linux being 200% faster than Windows 98, that's up for grabs.
>Linux is typically about 30% faster than Windows on functionally
>identical configurations (as opposed to rigged benchmarks based on
>Linux "defaults" and Windows "performance tuned" systems.
>
>http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/41/ns-10795.html
>
>Windows 2000 is supposed to be about 20% faster which means that Linux
>and Windows 2000 are similar in benchmarks where each gets to "strut
>their stuff".
HA! That's where I get Linux is 200% faster.
Try it!
>
>The biggest difference at this point is that Linux is based on the same
>standards used by Internet servers, and enterprise oriented systems.
>Windows rejects all of these standards and requires special design and
>specialized applications and stripped down servers to get even
>reasonable performance. This means that the costs of development will
>be higher in the long run, especially in the integration testing,
>stress testing, and performance testing phases, and will take much
>longer to stabilize in production (if ever).
>
>Also, since Microsoft consistantly changes its standards every year or
>so, it's pretty likely that whatever you ran on Windows 95 will be
>obsolete when ME comes out.
>
>--
>Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>I/T Architect, MIS Director
>http://www.open4success.com
>Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
>and growing at over 5%/month!
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:09:22 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Christopher Browne wrote:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Pete Goodwin would say:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>I want to say that I'm not against the idea of anybody writing their own
>>>speed test program in C and then carrying it across several OS's.
>>>
>>>What I'm against is somebody who writes one which runs for just 6
>>>seconds and then posts it to the newgroup in some triumphant exercise of
>>>futility.
>>
>>I ran it several times, and got more interesting results:
>>
>>Windows 98 SE Linux
>>
>> 6 6
>> 8 6
>> 8 5
>> 8 5
>> 7 5
>>
>>From these results, Linux is running faster than Windows 98 SE. However, it
>>is not running three times faster than Windows 98 SE. I don't need an
>>extensive test to see that.
Well... But for the sake of GOOD SCIENCE, you must run an extended test which
covers several hours of duration!
See NT was about 3/4 the speed of Linux under an extended TEST!
And Windows 2000 is 1/2 the speed under the same test.
All these damn predictive results based on short term tests are probably
true if the test lasted between a minute to 2-3 minutes.
But when you get past that and start using virtual memory to it's fullest,
disk IO to it's fullest and so on, you get to see the true nature of the OS.
Now, Pete took my comments to heart and ran another test using some commercial
software written for windows. He then took the same software and probably wined
it over to Linux pronouncing it was twice as slow under Linux.
Well. Is that a fair fight in the sand box or what?
>>
>>>If your going to write a test, the test should run for at least 10
>>>minutes duration. The test should include File I/O both sequential and
>>>random writes and reads, which over 3 files of varying sizes where these
>>>three files are exercised at least 6 times. Then the test must include
>>>video diplays of some kind, simple text scrolls would be nice with
>>>colors. Then the test should compute the prime numbers between say
>>>1,000,000 and 3,000,000, just for a good math exercise and store the
>>>results into tables in memory. You could produce one of the 3 test files
>>>using the results of this math.
>>
>>I also tried the Dhrystone test - that shows Linux is 10% slower than
>>Windows 98 SE. I've also heard from others who have run benchmarks on Linux
>>and they claim a spread of results where Linux is always slower than
>>Windows 98 SE.
>>
>>>You MUST give the machine an exercise in order to determine who has
>>>the best OS.
>>>
>>>We had a comprehensive insurance industry standards test which lasted
>>>almost 4 days and that's why we've proven Linux is 2 times the speed of
>>>NT in handling 200 applications doing this kind of testing running
>>>simultaneously.
>>
>>If Linux is twice as fast as Windows, why does it not show up as such in
>>the admittedly limited tests I've done? Why does Dhrystone show Linux as
>>running 10% slower than Windows?
>
>Taking a wild guess, what's likely to be "three times faster" is where
>you're running a relatively I/O-intensive application, where Linux, by
>more aggressive cacheing, keeps data in memory, and doesn't have to
>hit disk as often.
>
>All indications seem to be that there _aren't_ dramatic improvements
>to be had by switching platforms for applications that are CPU-bound,
>and which are single-threaded.
>
>[The fact that Linux "does SMP" means it could be several times faster
>on a highly parallelizable algorithm, when running on SMP hardware
>where Windows 9x has _no_ ability to harness extra CPUs...]
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
>"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea; massive,
>difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
>mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
>-- Gene Spafford (1992)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in the Reject Bin at CompUSA
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:13:22 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yep, just visited the local CompUSA here and found
> Redhat/SuSE and the various Linux PowerPacks in
> the reject bin selling for $20.00 or less (mostly
> $9.99).
>
> Some packages were opened and resealed but others
> were brand new.
>
> I asked the store manager about it and she said
> that Linux has been one of the worst sellers they
> have ever had. Virtually every copy returned.
>
> She added that most sales were returned by irate
> customers pissed off at Linux for "erasing" their
> hard drives.
>
> Sounds like Linux is gaining market share
> alright......Not!!!!
I have seen this post a couple times, yet every time I go to CompUSA, I
*never* see Linux anything in the discount bin. I do see lots of Windows
programs, but never a single Linux distribution or program.
So, the story, at least from perspective, is one of two things. Region
dependent or a lie. We must leave it to the humble reader to make up
their own mind.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: "Alistair G. MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux newbie requires advice.....
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:15:54 +0100
Sorry about the HTML formatting before - just so used to using it!!!
Is there any recommendations besides Mandrake and SuSE?
--
Alistair G. MacDonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Alistair G. MacDonald" wrote:
>
> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: quoted-printable
First piece of advice: post real text, not attachments.
Second: avoid Corel like the plague, flip a coin between the other two.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:18:22 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Adaptec Toast (CD burning utility on the Mac) lets you burn as many
> > separate partitions (Toast calls them "Sessions") as you want, as long as
> > the sum total of the data stored is less than or equal to 650 megs. Also,
> > all of the Mac OS X CDs came with two partitions, one HFS+ and UFS (which
> > was where most of the installer program was stored.) Don't ask me how
> > they did it, but that's how the CDs for both Mac OS X Server and the
> > Developers Previews are set up.
> >
>
>
> The ultimate "how the fsck did they do that?!?" was on a 5.25' disk,
> half formatted at 40 track and the other half formatted 80 track. How in
> $DEITY's name did they do that?
>
Hmmmm, given the half tracking and quarter tracking used as copy
protection back in the day, doesn't seem so wierd to me. At least not as
wierd as that "holographic" image used by Verbatim on the Apple ][ floppy
drive diagnostics disks....
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux newbie requires advice.....
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:30:01 -0400
"Alistair G. MacDonald" wrote:
>
> Sorry about the HTML formatting before - just so used to using it!!!
>
> Is there any recommendations besides Mandrake and SuSE?
I don't think it really matters. I have tried older versions of Mandrake
and SUSe and didn't like them. Then again, I use RedHat and people
criticize that.
All I can say is that Corel does not come with as many options as SUSE,
Mandrake, or redhat. Corel will install beautifully on systems it fully
supports, but does poorly on systems it does not.
>
> --
> Alistair G. MacDonald
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Alistair G. MacDonald" wrote:
> >
> > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> > Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> First piece of advice: post real text, not attachments.
>
> Second: avoid Corel like the plague, flip a coin between the other two.
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
> sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:23:54 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:25:57 -0400, Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> No version of any microsoft software has ever been as fast as the
> previous
>> >> version.
>> >
>> >
>> >What?! WHAT?!! are you on drugs??
>> >
>> >EVERY version of MS software I can think of is faster than the previous.
> Can
>> >you name a specific issue of a new version slower than a previous
> version? I
>> >can't think of a single one!
>> >
>>
>> windoze 3.1 vs. 95 vs. 98 vs. nt vs. W2K.
>>
>> All were slower than the prior version.
>
> and your proof?
> Because W95 was definately faster than 3.1 and 98 was definately faster than
> 95
>
> NT4 smokes W98's ass in every test I can think of and W2K is faster than NT4
> on most tests.
Does it reboot faster?
Its important...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:26:25 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:NeXY4.1007$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > and your proof? Because W95 was definately faster than 3.1 and 98 was
>> > definately faster than
>> > 95
>> >
>> > NT4 smokes W98's ass in every test I can think of and W2K is faster than
>> > NT4 on most tests.
>> >
>> Are you $#$#@#$& insane? I really hope your kidding. Please tell me you
> are.
>> I mean come on, your talking out of your bunghole.
>> I guess this is just a trolls bait, and I took it... but anyway if you
> really beleive that
>> you are a complete ignoramous.
>> Come on, I dare you to say it, Windows 2000 is faster than Windows 95. Do
> you
>> have half a brain in your head?
>>
>
> there is no question that NT is faster than W95 and W2K is faster too. Try
> running some business benchmarks and others and see for yourself.
>
> Show me a benchmark running W95 faster than w2k?
<CTRL> + <ALT> + <DEL>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael J. Stango)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sealand in the news (was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:35:11 GMT
In article <8hvb80$cvt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Loren Petrich) wrote:
> Not exactly a floating city, but the same basic idea.
Yeah, there's a whole article on them in the latest Wired... that platform
doesn't look big enough to hold Gates' ego, much less the whole of
Microsoft's operations, though.
~Philly
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
Michael J. Stango --who is known as 'mjstango' at his ISP, 'home.com'
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy defines the marketing division
of Microsoft as 'a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be first against
the wall when the revolution comes.'" -- Apologies to Douglas Adams
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:20:05 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Opening the same mailbox in mutt takes roughly 22 seconds, including the
> >>sorting and threading.
> >How long would it take to delete message #3219 (including time to write
> >the new mailbox back to disk)?
> The action of "deleting" it --- no time at all (all it does is to mark it
> as deleted in memory). Writing it back will take quite some time, but then
> again, that's *why* you don't actually have to do that. Every now and
> again, I "resynchronize" my mailbox (i.e. make it write it back), usually
> just before I go to bed --- so why would I care how long it takes.
> Also, as has been pointed out, there are other mail storage formats supported.
> If you often need to quickly delete emails, and to have those deletions
> committed to disk, then you should use one of them.
Exactly - that's one reason you might choose an MH or Maildir
mailbox format over mbox format. Both of the mail clients I've
used most (XFMail and Mahogany) will support either MH or mbox
format on a folder-by-folder basis.
BTW, most Windows mail clients (eg Pegasus, Eudora) use an mbox
style format (the kind where deletes can be very slow). IIRC,
MS mail clients also use a single monolithic file for storing
messages. Which is another reason I use Linux - choice is nice.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:41:11 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Otto wrote:
: >
: > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > : Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
: > : >
: > : > It's only a computer.
: > : >
: > : > That's all I have to say.
: > :
: > : That depends. On COLA, whose existence is for the taking of sides for
: > : Linux, it make sense. Advocating a community developed product, which
is
: > : free, makes sense. Advocating a poorly developed, closed source,
: > : proprietary set of (and I use this term loosely) operating systems,
from
: > : the largest software company in the world, with billions for
marketing,
: > : on the other hand does not make sense.
: > :
: >
: > COLA, or COMNA isn't about advocating either of the OSs, it's about
flaming.
: > The true advocate would list the pros of the particular OS and helps
others
: > with problems. Not the "your OS sucks more, therefore my OS is better",
: > which are the majority of the postings in these newsgroup. Just like
your
: > posting. For the success of either of the OSs, it makes no difference
what a
: > relatively small number of people are bickering about in these
newsgroups.
: > Matt is right, "It's only a computer".....
:
: It is much more than "It's only a computer," It is far more comlicated
: than that. That would be like saying "It's just a phone call" or "I's
: just gas." It is about how we choose to make a living, it is about who
: sets tomorrows standards, it is about who is allowed to be successful.
: Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or kidding themselves.
:
In certain respect you are right, most of the things what you listed are
more complicated than just a whatever device. However, for most people it
makes no difference what actually happens, when they pickup the phone to
make a phone call. Nor should they be concerned about it, unless they work
for the phone company. For that matter, computers are handled the same way.
Success of a product seldom depends on the actual quality of the product in
question. It depends on usability, price, ease of access to the product,
pretty much in that order. Anybody, who can provide a product which is
easier to use, cheaper, and accessible by the masses, than the someone's
existing product, will be successful. Right or wrong, this is the generic
sentiment of the masses.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant or kidding themselves.
Otto
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:40:59 +0200
Check out the movie "The Matrix" ...
"Matt Chiglinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8hve4g$mob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> It's only a computer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's all I have to say.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
