Linux-Advocacy Digest #47, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Boring (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (JEDIDIAH)
Re: No need to take sides (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box ("Rich C")
Re: Boring (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Boring ("Rich C")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Michael Marion)
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box (Secretly Cruel)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Michael Marion)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451709 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Michael Marion)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451709 (Marty)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451709 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:28:01 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:03:49 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jorge Cueto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:u7815.1240$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
>> won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
>
>Well, it might be a concept hard to grasp for a Linux advocate, but not
>everybody in the world is obsessed with MS.
Considering the current MS hegemony, reality would seem to
contradict you on this matter.
>
>The OS of the future will need to be hard real time. Multimedia and
>embedded applications need a real time OS to be any good. For example,
>serious audio work on standard Linux is impossible. Extensions exist but
Prove it.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:32:22 GMT
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:34:12 -0500, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>True surround sound and 3d enviromental mapping are the reasons to use a SB
>live card. For DVD and games a SB live card makes a big difference. For
Enviromental audio doesn't require 4 channel audio, so ultimately
any soundcard should do. The real problem would be hardware
acceleration and whether or not a contemporary CPU is capable of
overcoming the computational overhead involved.
>listening to an MP3 or CD audio a SB 16 id just as good.
>
>
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:40:04 +0200, Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>> ...a SB16 is certainly sufficient to expose the distortions
>> in an mp3 encoded at 128K (vs. 192K) despite some claiming
>> that you need more "expensive" hardware to detect such
>> "subtle differences in sound quality".
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> --
>>
>> |||
>> / | \
>>
>> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
>
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:34:53 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:14:49 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Use the Robber Baron's product or "become Amish" is no choice at all.
>
>To use MS products or not to use MS products is "no choice at all"?
>
>Pretty lame for a linux advocate.
You could only come to this conclusion if you've lived an
immensely sheltered existence. Most of the rest of us would
prefer to be able to interact with the world in a variety of
ways.
One particular Robber Baron's product should not be an essential
facility merely for doing business in the civilized world or for
communicating in the most useful fashion with others.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:04:52 -0400
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:08:37 -0400, Secretly Cruel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:14:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> ..."night and day" in this instance being EYE CANDY.
> >
> >The eye candy made a big difference to THIS newbie, and made me a
> >Linux fan. Not everyone has the skill to be a command line commander
> >in Linux. :-)
>
> Redhat 5.x is no more dependent on the command line than
> is version 6.x. They both have similar levels of device
> autodetection and similar 'wizards'. The 'wizards' in 5.x
> just happen to be rendered in ascii rather than pixels.
>
Um, I have to disagree with you there. Although I didn't install both
versions on the same system, I have installed 5.1, 5.2, and 6.2, and I have
to say that 6.2 IS like night and day compared to 5.x.
5.x recognized my old trident chipset, but didn't install x by default. I
had to manually get KDE, upgrade all the libraries it needed, and install it
using RPM from the command line, because there was a database change between
the version of RPM that came with 5.1 and that which came with 5.2. I had to
manually configure my printer and my network card (no sound or modem on this
machine.)
6.2, on the other hand, installed flawlessly, recognized my somewhat obscure
Matrox Mystique 220, and configured X to start from the get-go. I logged on
and I was in KDE. All without touching a text config file. The ONLY thing I
had to do separately from the install was run sndconfig, because i had
plugged a legacy SB-16 value with jumpers(!) into the machine and had to
manually tell the OS it was there.
I know I went through some weirdness with the install/upgrade on 5.x, but
overall, the installation and setup tools were much easier to use on 6.x.
Oh yeah, 5.x had a somewhat broken version of adduser; I had to add my
users, then go edit the passwd file and remove the password key, then log on
to the account and set a password. The "GUI" version of adduser worked the
same way, I believe. It just wasn't as polished as the new version.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 04:48:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:26:47 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
>>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
>>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
>
>
>I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
Not yet it hasn't.
When Linux and its other cousins (FreeBSD, Solaris [when and if
it becomes freeware], Mac OS/X [ditto], GNU Hurd, and others) get
on the majority of desktops (taken together, that is -- I don't envision
one of them taking over the entire schmeer), as the preferred option
(as opposed to merely dual-booting [*] ), *then* we might be able to
say that Linux -- or at least Unix-like freeware in general -- has won.
But not until then. I'll admit, it looks a lot better now than
it did 5 years ago, both in the realm of desktop presentation
(KDE, Gnome) and in the realm of availability and/or market share.
SLS was a total mess, although it did install using about 30
floppies; today, Linux distributions such as RedHat and Debian install
almost seamlessly over the 'Net. I doubt if even a commercial Unix
can install itself that slickly, although HP-UX wasn't too bad.
(I don't know about Solaris, since I've never tried to install
anything on it.)
There are some real problems with Linux -- and possibly the
rest of the freewares. Eventually, I think the documentation issue
will be addressed nicely through the Web, but as of now it's a bit
of a mess (man? info? less /usr/doc/HOWTO/whatever? TeX/dvi? WWW?).
Other issues include various problems with the ix86 hardware
(the dominant platform), which may evolve themselves away, or may simply
vanish if Apple gets its act together and brings out a "G5" which
will be a multiprocessor box so architecturally advanced it will blow
Wintel, Lintel, and probably a number of low end Unix server boxes away.
Oh, and it'll run Linux and FreeBSD too. :-)
Assuming they actually do it, of course. (Maybe if they merged
with SGI? :-) )
Or maybe Compaq will develop a hot new Alpha chip (one hopes),
or Sun a new UltrySuperDuperHyperSparc Cheapie. :-)
Or perhaps a dark horse -- Commodore II? -- might come on the scene
and do things everyone didn't know they needed, with open source and
full interoperability (including Microsoft data formats), and hardware
that rivals the Amiga's compared to everyone else circa 1984 or so.
(It would have to be damned good hardware at this point, though.)
I suppose that's a dream, though...still, we'll see. :-)
>What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
IBM isn't dead yet. [+] :-) I seriously doubt Microsoft will die
catastrophically, either. Too many shops are tied into IIS/ASP,
Excel, and other proprietary Microsoft solutions to permit
a quick changeover.
And Microsoft can port, and already have, in fact, ported, their
moneymakers over to Unix (specifically, Solaris), IE and OE both.
This is not to say they're good, admittedly, and there are probably
some ugly little questions, such as what happens when one double-clicks
on a something.txt link within IE or OE -- but it can be done.
There are also Unix solutions that can parse Visual Basic (the
VB part of IIS/ASP) and do something intelligent with it.
So yes, Linux has made some major headway. But no, I wouldn't
say it's won the desktop, or even the server, market.
Yet.
[rest snipped, as I agree with it :-) ]
[*] In my case, I am a dualboot. However, I spend most of my time
in Linux; the only piece of functionality I'm missing is
is Kiplinger Taxcut -- and that won't be an issue next year,
I suspect, as I've already proven that not only can I *run*
Kiplinger Taxcut, I can *install* it, using WinE. This, for
me, is a major breakthrough. :-)
See http://www.winehq.com for more details on this
(IMO) interesting freeware product.
[+] One might recall that IBM had its own problems with monopolistic
allegations from the Department of Justice. I do not recall
what the resolution was, though -- and it's hard to be impressed
when a lawsuit drags on for 10 years. Microsoft's suit was
not quite as long, but one does wonder how relevant issues with
Win95/Internet Explorer 3 are in today's Win2k/IE5 market --
2 revs behind!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Obsolescence? What obsolescence?" :-)
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:56:59 -0400
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:03:49 -0300, Francis Van Aeken
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jorge Cueto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u7815.1240$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has
finally
> >> won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
> >
> >Well, it might be a concept hard to grasp for a Linux advocate, but not
> >everybody in the world is obsessed with MS.
>
> Considering the current MS hegemony, reality would seem to
> contradict you on this matter.
>
> >
> >The OS of the future will need to be hard real time. Multimedia and
> >embedded applications need a real time OS to be any good. For example,
> >serious audio work on standard Linux is impossible. Extensions exist but
>
> Prove it.
>
He's right about that....however he doesn't mention that serious audio work
is also impossible on ANY Windows OS, none of which are realtime either. The
ONLY way a windows OS provides ANY kind of decent audio is to throw so much
hardware at it that you don't have any streaming underflows. Even with a
fast system, a good sound card, and decent software, you can get the audio
to hiccup if you do enough other stuff in the background.
Vanilla Linux (and ANY UNIX) is even worse in this regard. It is not meant
to be a real time system. However, because Linux IS open source, and despite
Linus' reluctance to incorporate them, there ARE extensions in existence
that can make Linux truly real-time (at least as real time as any
interrupt-driven system can be.)
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:16:38 GMT
Tim wrote:
> BTW, that reboot is just a setting, you can choose to have it let you
> stare at the blue screen and then reboot manually. Not that that
> makes it any better.
I saw that setting.. but what annoys me is that sometimes a BSOD (and
yes, I've seen at least 50 over the last weekend) sits there until I hit
reset.. other times it immediatly reboots. Nothing like consistency eh?
:)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Yo' momma's so fat she makes emacs look like pico!
-- Another stolen from /.
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:27:29 -0400
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:17:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:08:37 -0400, Secretly Cruel
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:14:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> ..."night and day" in this instance being EYE CANDY.
>>
>>The eye candy made a big difference to THIS newbie, and made me a
>>Linux fan. Not everyone has the skill to be a command line commander
>>in Linux. :-)
>
> Redhat 5.x is no more dependent on the command line than
> is version 6.x. They both have similar levels of device
> autodetection and similar 'wizards'. The 'wizards' in 5.x
> just happen to be rendered in ascii rather than pixels.
Well, 5.x never could detect my sound card and setting my video up was
a pain. It didn't have KDE or Gnome, either, and getting it to work
with my modem and the Internet was confusing. 6.x seems to have
removed most of the rough edges from the installation process.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:32:10 GMT
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> Didn't happen when I tried it.
Not only did it happen to me, but my Hauppage Wintv card won't work at
all! I've changed PCI slots, tried older and newer drivers, etc..
nothing. Box hangs when I open the TV app (or WinVCR). What really
sucks is that if I set my mobo's "Plug and Play BIOS" setting to Yes,
then W2k BSODs on boot! It's a newer mobo too.. Asus k7v with latest
Bios flashed on it.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
If at first you don't succeed, you must be using Windows.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:36:51 GMT
Chris Pott writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>>>>>>>>>> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>>>>>>>>> The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very
>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
>>>>>>>> started it.
>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that the characteristics of said spiral are not
>>>>>>> dependent on whom initiated it.
>>>>>> Illogical, given that the said spiral was given a name.
>>>>> Incorrect,
>>>> Balderdash.
>>> I see that lacking a logical response,
>> Did you bother to read my response, Chris?
> Yes.
Then how did you manage to miss my logical response?
>>> you're resorting to Tholenesque context butchering again.
>> What alleged "context butchering", Chris?
> See above.
The above does not contain any "context butchering" on my part, Chris.
>>> How typical.
>> Typical
> What's "typical" about it, Dave?
"See above."
>> pontification on your part.
> What alleged "pontification", Dave?
CP] How typical.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451709
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:44:29 GMT
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.
>>>> But we're talking about the irrelevance of your statement, not
>>>> about USENET posts in general.
>>> Illogical.
>> Incorrect.
> Nope.
Again incorrect.
>>> My reference was to my gardening, not to usenet.
>> Your posting was on USENET, not in your garden.
> Yes, the posting was on usenet, but the reference was to my garden.
Which is why it was irrelevant. We've gone full circle.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tinman writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Typical inaccuracy,
>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>>>>>> On the contrary.
>>>>>>>> Is that the best you can do, merely stating contrariness?
>>>>>>> Can you do better?
>>>>>> I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
>>>>> I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
>>>> Classic evasion.
>>> I learned from a master of evasion.
>> Who might that be?
> Who do you think?
I'd rather not presume.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's tinman.
>>>>>>>>>> Which is how I spelled it to begin with.
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect, you spelled it Tinman,
>>>>>>>> Same spelling.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>> None required,
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> Don't you know?
>> Why do you think I asked?
> Irrevelant.
Then why did you ask?
>>>>> you spell it incorrectly with a capital "t",
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> See your attribution above, you use a capital "t," which is incorrect.
>> On what basis do you call it incorrect?
> Why do you think I call it incorrect?
Tell me your basis first.
>>>>> I spell it correctly with a lower case "t."
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> See my sig, I use a lower case "t," which is correct.
>> On what basis do you call it correct?
> Don't you know?
Why do you think I asked?
>>>>>>>>> and you did it again above.
>>>>>>>> I'm being consistent in my spelling, which is consistent with your
>>>>>>>> spelling.
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> Incorrect. Compare the spellings.
>>>>> I have, thus I recognize your errors.
>>>> Incorrect, given that both spellings are the same.
>>> Illogical,
>> Incorrect.
> Nope.
Again incorrect.
>>> they are distinguishable,
>> Not the spellings, given that they are the same.
> Incorrect.
On what basis do you make that claim?
>>> and thus not identical.
>> On the contrary, the spellings are the same.
> Incorrect.
On what basis do you make that claim?
>>>>>>> But if you prefer, you made a capitalization error--
>>>>>> On what basis do you call it an error?
>>>>> On the basis of the knowledge of how it should be done.
>>>> But I spelled it the same way.
>>> Incorrect
>> Balderdash.
> Non sequiter.
What is "sequiter"?
>>> and irrelevant,
>> On the contrary, the spelling is quite relevant.
> Incorrect.
Then why did you bring up the matter?
>>> since even if I agreed that the error was not a spelling error,
>>> it is still an error (of capitalization).
>> On what basis do you call it an error?
> Don't you know?
Why do you think I asked?
>>> Regardless of which tack we take, you have (persisted) in making an
>>> error.
>> Incorrect.
> On the contrary.
Is that the best you can do, merely state contrariness?
>>>>>>> regardless, it's still incorrect.
>>>>>> On your part.
>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>> An example of pontification.
>>> Also incorrect.
>> Another example of pontification.
> An example of pontification.
Namely yours.
>>>>>>> And you keep repeating this error.
>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that it is an error.
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Prove it.
>>> I already have.
>> Where, allegedly?
> Above, hence "already"
Your answer lacks specificity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>>>>>>>>>>>> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>>>>>>>>>>> The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very
>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
>>>>>>>>>> started it.
>>>>>>>>> Incorrect on two counts--
>>>>>>>> Balderdash, for reasons given below.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>> None required, as there is no content in your sentence.
>>>> Incorrect, given the content of my sentence.
>>> What alleged "content"?
>> DT] Balderdash, for reasons given below.
> That is not an answer.
On the contrary, it is.
>>>>>>>>> I didn't start this thread,
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say that you starting this thread.
>>>>>>> Typically incomprehensible, "given that I didn't say that you starting
>>>>>>> this thread" makes no sense.
>>>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't realize what I didn't
>>>>>> say.
>>>>> Typically incomprehensible, is English your first language?
>>>> Irrelevant. You're just trying to evade the issue.
>>> Not at all,
>> Then why haven't you addressed the fact that I didn't say that you
>> started this thread?
> Because there is no reason to address something that hasn't been said.
Then why did you bring it up?
>>> I am pointing out your lack of control of the English language
>> You are failing to point out my control of the English language.
> Incorrect:
>
> t] Typically incomprehensible, "given that I didn't say that you starting
> this thread" makes no sense.
The above is what you consider to be my control of the English language?
Then why did you previously consider it my lack of control of the English
language?
>>> and seeking information as to others of which you might have better
>>> control.
>> Irrelevant. You're just trying to evade the issue.
> On the contrary.
Is that the best you can do, merely state contrariness?
>>>>> What are your others, perhaps we could try them?
>>>> Unnecessary.
>>> Incorrect. You've demonstrated a lack of control of the English language.
>> On the contrary, I've demonstrated control of the English language.
> What alleged "control"?
Read my postings.
>>>>>>>>> and it is clearly in a tholenesque mode of discourse.
>>>>>>>> An example of pontification.
>>>>>>> Correct, but uninteresting, since all tholenesque modes of discourse are
>>>>>>> examples of pontification.
>>>>>> Classic circular reasoning.
>>>>> Another feature of all tholenesque modes of discourse.
>>>> Illogical, given that you are the one engaging in it, thus it would be
>>>> a "tinmanesque" mode of discourse.
>>> Incorrect, this is not my normal mode of discourse.
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> Experience of my normal mode of discourse.
I am.
>>> I have adapted to your native mode
>> Incorrect; do you even know what my "native mode" is?
> Yes, this thread provides a ready example.
Illogical, given that you haven't adapted to it.
>>> for the purposes of my entertainment.
>> Which qualifies you for digestification.
> Incorrect. Pepper and salt would qualify me for digestification.
Illogical.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:45:01 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Terry is correct; the mbox format is horrible. It not only requires
> the agent to re-write the entire file, it uses a single lock for the
> whole file and uses
I'm not arguing that mbox isn't an old format that should go away, I'm
arguing his notion that it takes several minutes to open an mbox spool
on a sparc using pine or elm.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Favorite error message: "Out of paper on drive D:" This was produced by
a
timeout error on a slow WORM drive and a defective AT/IO card.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451709
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:49:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Tinman writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> and it is clearly in a tholenesque mode of discourse.
>
> >>>>>>>> An example of pontification.
>
> >>>>>>> Correct, but uninteresting, since all tholenesque modes of discourse are
> >>>>>>> examples of pontification.
>
> >>>>>> Classic circular reasoning.
>
> >>>>> Another feature of all tholenesque modes of discourse.
>
> >>>> Illogical, given that you are the one engaging in it, thus it would be
> >>>> a "tinmanesque" mode of discourse.
>
> >>> Incorrect, this is not my normal mode of discourse.
>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
> > Experience of my normal mode of discourse.
>
> I am.
Yet another example of Tholen's reading comprehension problems.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451709
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:57:02 GMT
Today's Thorne digest:
1> Tholen tholed:
Taking made-up word lessons from Joe Malloy, Thorne?
1> Yet another example of your pontification.
Illogical, Thorne.
1> Don't you know?
I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
