Linux-Advocacy Digest #36, Volume #27 Mon, 12 Jun 00 08:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Timo Ely")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Full Name)
Re: Different types of linux ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: No need to take sides ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (steve blakeway)
RE: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Jorge Cueto")
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451708 (2:1)
Re: Linux Game Available (2:1)
Re: 3 OS's on one machine win98-win2k-linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (2:1)
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box (2:1)
Re: Coherency (Tim Palmer)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (2:1)
Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Nico Coetzee)
Re: vote on MS split-up (Rick)
Re: vote on MS split-up (Rick)
Re: GNOME.org needs to get their act together... (Tim Palmer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: No need to take sides (mlw)
RE: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight ("Jorge Cueto")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Timo Ely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:15:55 -0400
I'm confused as to who is saying what, but I agree with the person who says
Windows has improved in performance with each new release. I've run 3.1,
95, 95B, 98, 98SE, and W2K thus far. I can honestly <100%> say that 2K is
better than 98SE is better than 98, is better than 95...... One exception
to this is 3.1 3.1 was faster than everything above. The only problem is
it is 16-bit only and can't do shit but sit there. I have despised MS for
years but now I have some respect for the NT dept. 2000 blew me out of the
water when I installed it. I have been utterly impressed with it's
performance, reliability, and stability over anything I've ever used before.
I'd appreciate people stop trashing 2000 until they have used it for 3
months. 9x is shit and always will be, trash it. But at least give 2K an
honest try before you dump on it. MS has done something right for once.
The damn thing works.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:21:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Want to see slow?
Try copying some files to a Mandrake NFS server. We finally patched
the kernel so NFS appeared to work. We later found it still pauses
inexplicably after a few minutes of copying.
Advocating a variant of a Unix operating system which cannot properly
function as an NFS server is at best unprofessional and at worst
criminal.
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:30:30 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Different types of linux
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:46:30 -0500
Barry Kauler wrote:
> >
> > One problem I had last time I repartitioned a dual-boot system was that
> > Windows had a lot of "hidden" files that were not moved by the defragger.
> > This made it impossible for me to create new partitions of the size I
> > wanted. I think there is a way to move those files under Windows, but you
> > should look in to that before you start the partitioning, to save yourself
> > some frustration.
> >
>
> I tackled this problem, and wrote it up:
>
> http://www.crosswinds.net/~goosee/
>
You might want to submit it to the appropriate how-to author.
As for me, I got tired of fighting it and decided I valued the disk space more
than I did Windows, so I just scratched the disk and used the whole thing for
Linux. I haven't looked back.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 02:42:07 -0500
Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
> It's only a computer.
>
> That's all I have to say.
The same might be said of automobiles. "It's only a car." But you'd
rather have this one than that one, eh? And if it breaks down on you on
the way to a hot {interview, date} you get mad at it, right?
There's a very intimate relation between people and their tools, and
trying to brush it of with a cool rational argument isn't going to
change anything.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: steve blakeway<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:58:36 -0500
In article <B5695ACA.1A92Sunday, June 11, 2000 3:06 [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Spidey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in article 8has46$[EMAIL PROTECTED], bo@p at bo@p wrote on 6/3/00 8:02
> AM:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>>
>>> Having just gotten through reading over 7,000 Linux posts in one
>>> sitting, I *still* fail to see the advantages of Linux over Apple's
>>> forthcoming OS
>>> 'X'.
>>>
>>
>> will Mac OSX be free sourced? will it run of something other than the
>> mac??
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, it is entirely open with the exception of the GUI. Rumour has it
> that an Intel port is in the works.
>
> http://www.publicsource.apple.com/
But, except for the curosity factor, why would anybody running Intel hardware choose
OSX-Intel over FreeBSD?
steve
------------------------------
From: "Jorge Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: RE: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:49:58 GMT
> I'm confused as to who is saying what, but I agree with the person who
says
> Windows has improved in performance with each new release. I've run 3.1,
> 95, 95B, 98, 98SE, and W2K thus far. I can honestly <100%> say that 2K is
> better than 98SE is better than 98, is better than 95...... One exception
> to this is 3.1 3.1 was faster than everything above. The only problem is
> it is 16-bit only and can't do shit but sit there. I have despised MS for
> years but now I have some respect for the NT dept. 2000 blew me out of
the
> water when I installed it. I have been utterly impressed with it's
> performance, reliability, and stability over anything I've ever used
before.
> I'd appreciate people stop trashing 2000 until they have used it for 3
> months. 9x is shit and always will be, trash it. But at least give 2K an
> honest try before you dump on it. MS has done something right for once.
> The damn thing works.
What does 2K have that NT (I use Pro and workstation) not ? Weren't the
2K
goals multimedia, PnP and DirectX ? Well, multimedia is okay, PnP too, but
DirectX (the most important to home user to be able to play besides doing
some
work) sucks ... most cards need manufacturer drivers (uncertified) to work
at
full power, and even so, most games can't run (at least in here), so, why to
switch
from NT WK + SP6 to 2K as a workstation ? NT runs even better some things
like Office.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451708
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:06:03 +0100
For $DEITY's sake, stop `digesting' each other and advocate something
useful!
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Game Available
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:18:42 +0100
Normal flaming should be personal, but this is an advocacy (read flame)
newsgroup. Anyone is fair game :-)
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3 OS's on one machine win98-win2k-linux
Date: 12 Jun 2000 06:19:22 -0500
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> ... the problem is, since FIPS changed the MBR, windows2000
>> freaked out, and didn't know where to find it's root directory, so win98
>> boots up fine, but when I try to load win2k I get the message
>> "ntoskrnl.exe could not be found in the following directory
>> <windows2000root>\system32\ntoskrnl.exe please verify the file is not
>> missing or corrupt and replace"
>
>A little advocacy ... linux would never have this problem because
>of the enormous flexibility the boot loader gives you. The "/"
>changed? no problem. Just type
>
>LILO: linux root=/dev/hda(blah)
Did you even rede the artical? Linux IS having this prolblem. Linux
is screuing up Win2000. LILO has nothing to do with it. LILO ca'nt
boot windows 2K and you calnt boot Linux without LILO!
>--
>
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:23:52 +0100
tinman wrote:
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....
It wasn't copy protection, I have a copied version of the 80 track side.
Simply, some of the customers had 80 track drives, some had 40 track
dirves. They didn't want to fore everyone who had upgraded the computer
to upgrade the disk drives as well.
-Ed
>
> --
> ______
> tinman
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:27:09 +0100
> >
> >You're exactly right. For the average user, Linux is not ready for
> >prime time just yet. I'm pretty new at all this myself, having bought
> >Redhat 5.2 several years ago.
> Really ?
> Considering Redhat was producing 4.2 in 1997, which was only 3 years ago
> I find this a little innacurate.
RH5.2 was out by 1998.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Coherency
Date: 12 Jun 2000 06:34:47 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 08:20:16 GMT, Jorge Cueto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Have nothing to say against GNU/Linux, just liked to improve it if
>>possible. What would you think about a kind of standarization about
>>for example places and formats for icons, for pixmaps, and the so used
>
> There's no need for a standard. Just set a path. As far as there
> being no 'standard' icon format, I think this is a GOOD THING.
Of coarse. Why shoud KDE be abal to read GNOME's icons?
> You don't need to be restricted to a corporate standard and various
> image formats have all the needed information supported.
>
>>system wide ? Example /usr/shared/icons/ (with subs png, jpg, ...),
>>/usr/shared/backgrounds/ (with subs png, jpg, ...) ... any comments ? It
>>would be nice to have a lot of icons available for each window manager
>>I like to use, and common place for backgrunds, ... I know all of that can
>>go at user directory, but ... is there any against having a consistent
>>shared
>>one to ?
>
> Really, your particular WM should be flexible enough to be set
> up to use any combination of paths, standard or not. Besides,
> a single icon directory doesn't scale up very well.
>
>--
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:41:42 +0100
pie@nowhere wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> >But you don't know the design goal of the program. If the main design goal
> >was portability,
>
> Why do not you guys just use Java and be done with it?
>
> All this stupid talk about this might be portable and that might not,
> is a waste of time. C sucks and so does C++.
>
> Use Java. Be smart. Who cares about C any more.
You are really stupid.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:40:04 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
I don't know if I'm just lucky or what but I have installed about 12
Linux Workstations the last two weeks. The Package: RedHat 6.2. I had
*no* hardware problems. Some of the PC's still give trouble under NT -
especially the Packard Bells (which seems to be designed only with Win9x
in mind). But even they have no problems.
At home I have the same thing. I don't even bother anymore to check the
Hardware Specs. The RedHat installer does everything. The only thing
that takes a while is to pick and choose all the packages you want -
because there is so many.
So far I can install an average Linux Workstation quicker then a NT
Workstation (basic OS plus a Office Suite)
The hardware I used was anything from a P166 to PII333 and AMD K6-3.
So... Am I just lucky or what is this about hardware?
O, before I forget - if you want to reply negatively - just keep in mind
that these are *training* PC's and therefor don't need DVD and all these
fancy stuff. In fact, I still don't understand why people use
SoundBlaster Live except if they are in the music industry. I just
coupled my ESS card to my hi-fi and I think I have pretty good sound.
What is the rest of the groups feeling? Is Linux finally winning with
hardware?
Cheers all,
Nico
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
"I said I hope it is a good party," said Galder, loudly.
"AT THE MOMENT IT IS," said Death levelly. "I THINK IT MIGHT GO
DOWNHILL VERY QUICKLY AT MIDNIGHT."
"Why?"
"THAT'S WHEN THEY THINK I'LL BE TAKING MY MASK OFF."
-- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:08:40 -0400
David Steuber wrote:
>
> Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ' ... only becasue the governemnt was able to M$ into court, and the
> ' resulting very real legal threat to M$'s continued existence .
>
> Yeah, Big Brother is watching out for you. Trust Big Brother. He
> knows what's best for you and can solve all your problems and give you
> everything you need.
>
> Give the FSF and other open source groups and people some credit, why
> don'tchya?
>
> --
I give them a lot of credit. I USE Linux on my home machine, BUT, unless
Microsft is hobbled, no other OS is going to get a chance to really
compete. That has been proven. The ONLY reason inroads have been made is
that no companies have been able to go public with Microsoft's
"business" techniques.
--
Rick
To reply by email remove the obvious from my address.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:10:16 -0400
"David .." wrote:
>
> David Steuber wrote:
> >
> > Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > ' ... only becasue the governemnt was able to M$ into court, and the
> > ' resulting very real legal threat to M$'s continued existence .
> >
> > Yeah, Big Brother is watching out for you. Trust Big Brother. He
> > knows what's best for you and can solve all your problems and give you
> > everything you need.
> >
> > Give the FSF and other open source groups and people some credit, why
> > don'tchya?
>
> It wasn't the DOJ that started MS's Problems.
> Enough said.
>
Then who was it? And why has M$'s marketshare problems just happent to
coincide with the lates antitrust action?
--
Rick
To reply by email remove the obvious from my address.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNOME.org needs to get their act together...
Date: 12 Jun 2000 07:08:19 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 19:30:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>You don't have to....
>
> Sure you do. Where do I get that Solaris/x86 version of IE?
> How do I support a version of Solaris/Sparc that the IE
> developers weren't aware of during their coding?
Why would you ever want to run Solaris?
>
>>
>>
>>And how do I watch all 8 of the pistons in my Chevy Impala SS go up
>>and down?
>>
>>Answer: I don't have to...And why would I want to?
>
> ...so that you can actually drive a Ford instead of a Chevy.
>
And you can show everyone how slow your Mustang is compeared to a Commairo. Those
things can FLY,
and you DON'T need to sea the pistons go up and down!
>>
>>
>>You guys just don't get it do you?
>
> No, you're the one that doesn't get it.
>
>[deletia]
>
> Plus, rebuilding a bit of source via makefile isn't the
> brain surgery anti-literate types like you make it out
> to be.
>
Of course not. Everyone should half to edit their "config.h"'s to tell there program's
wheather
SendMail is in the /usr/lib folder or the /usr/sbin one.
>--
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 11:27:12 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39441974$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[snip]
> >No, that's wrong. The short (and long, ie only) definition of "wintroll"
is
> >"doesn't hate Microsoft". :D
>
> No. I don't hate M$. I just see them for what they are; an organization
that
> holds back progress in a quest for their own greed.
I think it ironic that you say this, while I argue with others on this
thread
that it is *not* wrong for Microsoft to make improvements to their file
formats and protocols, rather than sticking with decades old Unix
technologies.
Okay, I guess you and Leslie aren't obliged to agree about the
desirabiliy of progress or MIcrosoft's role in it. But I still think
it's ironic.
> No rational, ethical and
> moral person can like or support them.
I dunno. Your conviction that no-one can disagree with (unless he is
irrational or evil) smacks of, shall we say, strong emotional commitment.
Maybe it isn't hate, but it plays it on Usenet.
By the way, in your opinion, am I irrational or am I evil? I do like
and support Microsoft. ya know.
As somebody once said- I forget who- "I ask only for information..."
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 07:40:40 -0400
KLH wrote:
>
> 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.
There are things that are important in life. If you do not see the
global flow of information and who owns the format in which it is stored
as important, then you are not paying attention.
>
> 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.
The issue is ownership. The issues are patents, reasonable usage, access
to information.
>
> Life goes on without a computer. Or so I've heard.
Yes it does, but as computers increasingly become more important as
infrastructure and a way for individuals to participate in a free
society, these issues MUST be addressed. You don't have to take it
seriously, but don't kid yourself that it is not important.
--
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: "Jorge Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:47:24 GMT
Most hardware uses to work; in fact at my machine I have no problem
except HP DeskJet 710c (winprinter), and even this, can be used with
ppa drivers. Anyway, the last hardware is always unsupported until
about six months (more in some cases). But, talking about NT or even
2K, they have even more problems with hardware. As an example, can't
still watch TV correctly under NT/2K while under Linux is is long I can.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
