Linux-Advocacy Digest #30, Volume #27 Sun, 11 Jun 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (peter44@-)
Re: Dissecting Microsoft -- Where are all the astroturfers? (JP Smith)
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! (ReivaX)
Re: Linux newbie requires advice..... ("KLH")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Bob Hauck)
Re: No need to take sides ("KLH")
Re: No need to take sides ("KLH")
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! ("KLH")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Gary Hallock)
Re: vote on MS split-up (Mark Bratcher)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Michael Marion)
Re: No need to take sides ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (tholenbot)
Re: No need to take sides (JEDIDIAH)
Re: vote on MS split-up (David Steuber)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:13:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) wrote in <8hvle6$5n5$1
@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>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.
The configuration is a PII 400MHz system with 128MBytes of RAM. Windows 98
SE runs on a 10 GByte disk, Linux runs on a newer 15 GByte disk, in the
same system. I use LILO to select which system to boot.
Why are they suspiciously identical compilers?
Visual C++ V6.0 by Microsoft
C++ Builder V5.0 by Borland
GNU C++
>In another posting there was an indicator of some tuning requiered to
>support some of the obscure boards.
Was that the IDE bug someone reported? I think that came about because I
commented that Linux seemed to hang after the run - but then so does
Windows 98 SE.
>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.
I built and ran the Dhrystone test V1.1. It gave the following results:
Visual C++ V6.0 1000000 Dhrystones per second
GNU C++ on Linux 909090 Dhrystones per second
C++ Builder V5.0 500000 Dhrystones per second
>Run the standard set of benchmarks on a typical machine, not one
>so packed with RAM that you are playing to cache.
128Mbyte machines are fast becoming obsolete machines.
>Linux has been compared quite favorably to comparably equipped
>UNIX systems.
And reviews I've seen seem to indicate Windows runs faster than Linux. My
own test runs appear to support this conclusion.
>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.
Both systems are untuned. This is a Windows 98 SE system with a badly
fragmented disk and NO tuning. Linux is Linux Mandrake 7.0 with some of the
services shut down.
My results (such as they are) indicate Linux is slower than Windows. My own
special interest - raytracing - shows Linux is even slower.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 21:15:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <960739512.375557603@news-
server.mmcable.com>:
>HA! That's where I get Linux is 200% faster.
>
>Try it!
That's interesting...
It strikes me as odd that in my own limited testing I am not seeing a 200%
speed increase on Linux. I would have thought ANY testing, be it simplistic
or complex would show SOME kind of speed increase if Linux was 200% faster.
However it does not.
Pete
------------------------------
From: peter44@-
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 11 Jun 2000 13:48:02 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Spidey says...
>
>MAC OS X will have a command line, if you want it.
>
'if you want it' ????
Heck, I will never ever, let me repeate that, never ever, consider
using an OS that does not have a powerfull shell such as bash build in
it.
Almost everything I write is command line based. If OSX does not
have a powerfull shell like bash, then forget it, I'll never ever
look at it, even if it had every GUI application ever written ported to it.
Knowing apple is anti-command line company, this means OSX will likely
come with no or crippled command line just like their previouse pathatic
OS's.
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:03:11 -0400
From: JP Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dissecting Microsoft -- Where are all the astroturfers?
No Ellison is richer, from day to day, only in terms of stock wealth, his
stake in Oracle, but Gates has another $20b outside of Msft.
Philip wrote:
> > it's richer than any person in the world,
>
> There is a very rich person at oracle. I think he is richer then this
> worm you ar talking about. :-)
>
> --
> Philip van Hoof aka freax _/_/_/
> http://users.pandora.be/skatan _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
> Grow a beard,drink Jolt Cola_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/
> and come join the fun (Alan: _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
> Beginning Linux Programing) _/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/
------------------------------
From: ReivaX <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:15:11 -0300
kosh wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [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.
> >
>
> You might want to look at mandrake 7.0 or 7.1 they are very nice
> distributions. The install is very simple. It sets up everything so that
> it runs out of the box. With
> 7.1 if you install a gui app from an rpm it will set all the links for you
> in the gui. Also
> if you try to run a program not installed it can be set up to ask you if
> you want to install that app if it knows of the apps existance from the
> cd.
>
> Example you forgot to install netscape. If you try to run netscape it will
> know it is not installed and ask if you want to install it.
>
> > 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 run using DDC connectors. Windows can't identify my monitor at all and
> needs to be told however it does not have the information for my monitor
> with windows even though it is a few years old. On the other hand linux
> does. I can select my Panasonic P17 from the list and be up and running
> very quickly.
>
> > Does anyone really use an HP LaserJet 500 anymore?
> >
> > How about Sound Blaster Live support?
> >
>
> I use a sblive using the latest drivers from cvs at the creative
> opensource site. I use it with my Creative DTT 2500s. Windows may have
> liveware but my sound on linux is clearer. I also don't get any slowdowns
> in sound under heavy disk io or graphical operations. This does happen
> under windows though. Dragging large windows will sometimes cause static
> in the card. If it were a hardware issue and not a driver issue it would
> affect linux also which it does not. The video card I am using is a
> geforce and it is very fast under linux. I will replace it with an open
> solution later though.
>
> > Linux had the jump on Windows 2k, yet Windows 2k has Livewire support
> > and Linux does not.
> >
> > Why is that?
> >
> > Maybe Creative knows the future and is applying it's resources
> > appropriately.
> >
>
> Creative is working on a product called openal with lokisoft. It is
> similar to opengl but for 3d sound. Liveware for linux was delayed to
> work on this and use this feature to implement liveware on linux. They
> are making a complete 3d sound infrastructure for linux. All sound card
> makers can use it also since it is completely open. I much prefer this
> method to liveware. It helps everyone. It allows us to program to a simple
> 3d sound api and let the sound card worry about the rest. If they just did
> liveware and didn't make a simple open api every game on linux needing 3d
> sound would need to take account for every card.
>
> Sometimes it is actually faster to go slower so that the infrastructure
> can be built. Look at how rapidly 3d video support go added to linux once
> the infrastructure was there. By making it an open situation everyone is
> able to add 3d support not just a select few.
By the way, 3d support for my TNT2 with the nvdia xfree4 drivers, running on
my debian potato, under Quake3 Arena, is much faster (with same quality) than
in windows. If i where in windows and i kill someone, when i pass through the
blood it will considerably slow down my fps, but in linux it works PERFECT!!
it keeps at the SAME fps.
Just a Quote...
>
>
> > Sorry, but Linux is a bunch of promises and Windows 2k delivers right
> > now on the spot.
> >
>
> W2K promises a lot of things also but does not deliver. One example is a
> bug in the task schedular. Under high loads it pretty much dies for a
> short period of time then starts trying to multiask again. This bug did
> not exist in the betas and hopefully will be fixed in that 200 meg thing
> they are calling service pack 1. Linux delives on many things but you
> should not choose and os and then choose what to run on that. That way of
> doing things is backwards. You do no look in your tool chest and see a
> hammer and a saw and figure out how to build a house just using those
> tools do you? Why should choosing an OS be any differnt. First define the
> job you need the os to do. Then find the best tools that fit that job. The
> find what OS or group of OS will support those tools. Under some
> circumstances linux is best under others it is not. But choosing it just
> to choose it is not a rational idea. Choosing windows just to choose
> windows is also not a rational idea.
>
> > Linux will die shortly and WIndows will live on and on and on and
> > on......
> >
>
> You can't kill it since it is not a corporation. No one owns it. No one
> can buy it out, shut it down etc. As long as the code is there linux will
> live and there is no way to get rid of that code. Linux is still growing
> and it is growing faster then any other OS ever. It is not there yet in
> some areas and in others it is far more advanced. Your needs now will
> determine what OS is best for you. However give it time. It won't be long
> before it is ready for almost any application.
> >
--ReivaX
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux newbie requires advice.....
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:01:55 -0700
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Second: avoid Corel like the plague, flip a coin between the other two.
> >
>
> Why do you say this? I saw Corel at a roadshow and it looked ridiculously
easy to install
> and pretty slick as well.
>
I haven't used Corel Linux but I have heard that it does not come with gcc,
which used to be standard on any GNU/Linux system. That is not a good thing,
in my opinion. Even if you are not a coder, gcc is needed to compile
applications that don't come in binary form.
Best regards,
Kevin Holmes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:06:20 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 07:00:33 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>I had to make some changes to get it to build - VC does not have a
>>>function called 'times', so I switched to 'time'.
>>
>>You mean you had to make some changes on _Windows_, not on both. C'mon
>>let's see if we can be a tiny big honest.
>
>I did say VC didn't I?
You didn't make the same change on both. GCC does have time() so you
could have. So the two programs weren't exactly the same. This is
basic error #1 in benchmarketing.
>I ran the Dhrystone test for 55 seconds. The first test ran for 6 seconds
>on Windows and Linux initially.
I thought I saw six zeros in your number (meaning I read "five
million", not seven. Sorry if I misread it. The fact that it came out
to a nice round number and the Linux one didn't seemed suspicious too.
>>I use -O2 at least for gcc "release mode". Not that I really give a
>>damn about your results since VC++ won't compile for 68331 or 68hc11.
>
>Your 68331 or 68hc11 are irrelevant to my Intel box.
The fact that one compiler is very portable and can generate code for a
huge number of platforms, and the other isn't and can't, _is_ relevant
to a fair comparison. Especially since your test is cpu-bound and
makes no system calls except to get the time. It is really testing the
compiler rather then the OS.
>>>What does this prove?
>>
>>Nothing.
>
>It shows that Linux is 10% slower with the Dhrystone test than Windows
>98 SE.
Actually, it shows almost nothing about the OS. At best it shows that
VC++ generates slightly better code than gcc for this test with the
compiler options you used. This is not a terribly exciting result.
Since there are no OS calls in dhrystone, it is hard to see how it
directly shows anything about the _OS_ used to run one copy of this
benchmark on an idle system.
Perhaps you could try again with gcc on both platforms. Or maybe you
could try running six copies of this on both and see which handles the
load better. Or, shit, if you're going to play benchmarketer you could
at least get a real benchmark and compare like to like. I believe the
Bytemark suite has been ported to both Windows and Unix.
It is very hard to show that one OS is "faster" than another,
particularly since there are lots of ways to interpret that. Is it
faster at task switching? Interrupt response? Interactive response?
What? If some fanatic said that Linux is "3x faster" without any
qualification as to _what_ is faster, well, nobody with a clue is going
to pay any attention to that. It is just so much sales talk.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:03:34 -0700
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.
Make that *two* of the largest software companies in the world :)
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:08:40 -0700
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.
>
And you are taking these thing way too seriously and out of proportion. You
have been hanging out on CODA too much. Go for a walk, take a trip, see the
world.
GNU/Linux is only marginally better or worse than other OSes in different
respects. The purpose of this newsgroup is to be specific about the previous
paragraph and to lend advice to others.
Life goes on without a computer. Or so I've heard.
Best regards,
Kevin Holmes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 11 Jun 2000 22:07:10 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On 11 Jun 2000 13:48:02 -0700,
peter44@- <peter44@->, in
<8i0tu2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ Knowing apple is anti-command line company, this means OSX will likely
+ come with no or crippled command line just like their previouse pathatic
+ OS's.
Do you even know the roots of MacOS X? one of its ancestors is NeXTStep,
a BSD-based OS.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:15:09 -0700
I agree with you whole-heartedly. Especially this:
[snip]
> Linux has to be far superior to take over that market place.
That is so true. GNU/Linux still has a good chance, I think.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:28:59 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>
> I thought I saw six zeros in your number (meaning I read "five
> million", not seven. Sorry if I misread it. The fact that it came out
> to a nice round number and the Linux one didn't seemed suspicious too.
>
There were only size zeros. You didn't misread. Was it a typo or did he
really only run only 5 million iterations? 5 million would explain why
Windows came out with such a nice even number..
Gary
------------------------------
From: Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:23:31 -0400
WhyteWolf wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick wrote:
>
> [sniped for her pleasure]
>
> >History and Microsft have proven the market cannot kill M$, even when
> >the market is more innovative.
>
> 25 year history has proven that ...
> 10,000 history has proven that tyrants always
> fall sooner or later
I don't have that long to wait. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:33:48 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <960739512.375557603@news-
> server.mmcable.com>:
>
> >HA! That's where I get Linux is 200% faster.
> >
> >Try it!
>
> That's interesting...
>
> It strikes me as odd that in my own limited testing I am not seeing a 200%
> speed increase on Linux. I would have thought ANY testing, be it simplistic
> or complex would show SOME kind of speed increase if Linux was 200% faster.
>
> However it does not.
>
> Pete
Your tests are extremly simple. Try doing something like starting up a few
dozen threads that have to interact with each other. The type of work I do
requires that a context switch between threads be as fast as possible. I
think you'll find Windows looses here.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:35:11 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:42:59 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:15:56 GMT <8hup84$jt5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>
>>> If you're going to do a decent benchmark, then go get a
>>> decent benchmark. Dhrystone comes to mind, although that is
>>> a CPU benchmark, as opposed to a disk I/O throughput one.
>>> But there should be one out there somewhere. I'd have to look.
>>
>>I will be happy to provide you with the results of VMS and Linux
>>benchmarks running on identical hardware. I would provide you with
>>Windows vs. Linux (which also demonstrates Linux to be inferior), but I
>>don't currently have a dual boot Linux/Windows machine. I have
>>Whetstone here. Let's see. The two machines are identical, except that
>>the Linux machine has 32 MB more memory.
>>
>>VMS -> 61.168 MWIPS
>>Linux -> 23.973 MWIPS
>
>Not bad, but is this on the same Alpha hardware?
If there's any FPU stuff in there to skew the number than this
"benchmark" really isn't very interesting. GNU has certain
handicaps that are readily acknowledged under Alpha.
[deletia]
Although, even despite this: absurd OS licencing can still make
Linux the genuine engineer's prefered choice in the end, even on
Alphas.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:43:02 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> That's why I increased the test to 5000000 Dhrystones. It runs for about 55
> seconds, giving 1000000 Dhrystones/sec on Windows and 909090/sec on Linux,
> falling to 877192/sec. These results show a 10% speed loss on Linux.
> Incidentally, I tried Borland C++ Builder as well as VC. It ran at
> 500000/sec, approx half the speed of VC!
I'd be interested in another test. I don't have a compiler for my win98
right now or I'd do it myself. What kinds of results do you get if you
spawn many copies at the same time? i.e. I just (using the dhry21
prog/code I found at ftp.nosc.mil) spawned 20 simultaneous copies on my
linux box and got a little variation from a single run. Also, how long
does it take to run them on each OS?
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Adolescence is a surreal world: kids who don helmets and practice
banging into
one another for hours each week are deemed healthy and wholesome, even
heroic.
Geeks are branded strange and anti-social for building and participating
in one
of the world's truly revolutionary new cultures - the Internet and the
World
Wide Web. -- Jon Katz / Slashdot.org
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:44:44 +1000
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:19U05.170143$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Life goes on without a computer. Or so I've heard.
That's just a nasty rumour.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 18:45:38 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> In article <eIF05.32603$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Tinman writes:
> >
> > >>>>> [oh well, it's hot out there anyway]
> >
> > >>>> Irrelevant.
> >
> > >>> Not to my garden.
> >
> > >> This newsgroup is not your garden.
> >
> > > Irrelevant, the reference is to my garden, not this newsgroup.
> >
> > Illogical, given that the posting is in this newsgroup, not your
> > garden.
>
> Usenet posts need not be solely self-referential.
I see that, having found it hot "out there", you have taken over the
tending of Chris Pott's balderdash garden. How predictable.
--
On what basis do you claim that many facts about the square of the
hypotenuse are "cheerful"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:46:49 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:13:26 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Matt Templeton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
>>
>> > It's only a computer.
>> >
>> > That's all I have to say.
>>
>> You're right, it is only a computer. But I want _MY_ computer to do what
>> _I_ want the way _I_ want it to. I can do this with Linux but NOT with
>> MS software,.
>
>Then go ahead and do it, and stop missing his point...
His point is inane.
We are forced on a daily basis to content with a vast array
of product either as an element of our work or as an element
of our recreation. Being forced to use SHIT that we would not
otherwise put up with is actually quite relevant to one's
life.
Sometimes, it can even be quite relevant to your safety either
physically or merely your livelihood and standard of living.
Computers and data processing are so far entrenched into Western
Society that merely calling it "just a computer" is absurd in the
extreme and seems to rather strongly imply that the cluebie making
the comment already "has theirs" and just doesn't give a damn
whether or not the rest of the universe is getting screwed over in
some fashion or another.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:00:02 GMT
Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' ... only becasue the governemnt was able to M$ into court, and the
' resulting very real legal threat to M$'s continued existence .
Yeah, Big Brother is watching out for you. Trust Big Brother. He
knows what's best for you and can solve all your problems and give you
everything you need.
Give the FSF and other open source groups and people some credit, why
don'tchya?
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:09:29 +0200
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
8i0o5b$73f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > > Only wintrolls have trouble understanding this, and only they defend
it.
> >
> > Well, obviously. The short definition of "wintroll" is "defends
> Microsoft".
>
> No, that's wrong. The short (and long, ie only) definition of "wintroll"
is
> "doesn't hate Microsoft". :D
AKA "paid M$ shill".
Paul 'Z' Ewande who still awaits for his check, dammit.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages)
Date: 11 Jun 2000 16:53:49 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 07:11:00 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The detail on one man page has gone backwards - man tar used to have a lot
> more information, now it is just a reference.
info tar is what you are looking for.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
