Linux-Advocacy Digest #49, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 07:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Lawrence D'Oliveiro)
Re: iMacs With iTitude (Lawrence DčOliveiro)
Re: iMac: the iFormation Appliance (Lawrence DčOliveiro)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Tim Scoff)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux fails - again (Full Name)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (Full Name)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Full Name)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: 13 Jun 2000 09:03:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The function is passed a pointer to a virgin pointer. This virgin pointer
> is immediately set to NULL. The virgin pointer, when realloc'd the first
> time, does the same as a malloc - it gets new memory.
>
> Apparently you do not understand the basic function call realloc. When
> passed NULL, it is the same as malloc.
Not universally, it isn't. On some platforms it gets you a nice,
juicy SIGSEGV (or was that SIGBUS? I don't recall, and care less)
instead. I know this since I've had to fix it in real code. You
could argue that the implementation on that platform was broken. You
could well get my agreement with you on that position. But the bug
clearly existed, and I've not got the time or inclination to fix bugs
in a commercial OS's libc.
(I don't recall if it was IRIX, SunOS or Solaris that had this bug.
Another of them had some nasty features to memcpy() that made work for
me; I clearly remember *that* was 64-bit IRIX's fault...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 13 Jun 2000 04:35:03 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i0etn$iqa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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...
w2k is the fastest booting OS I've used, except MS-DOS :) but Windows ME
boots faster (but it's still in beta)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 13 Jun 2000 04:35:26 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i0f2e$iqa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 $#$#@#$& insane? I really hope your kidding. Please tell me you
> > are.
> >> I mean come on, your talking out of your bunghole.
> >> I guess this is just a trolls bait, and I took it... but anyway if you
> > really beleive that
> >> you are a complete ignoramous.
> >> Come on, I dare you to say it, Windows 2000 is faster than Windows 95.
Do
> > you
> >> have half a brain in your head?
> >>
> >
> > there is no question that NT is faster than W95 and W2K is faster too.
Try
> > running some business benchmarks and others and see for yourself.
> >
> > Show me a benchmark running W95 faster than w2k?
>
> <CTRL> + <ALT> + <DEL>
Fails: Ctrl+Alt+Del works more reliably and faster in W2K than Win9x.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 13 Jun 2000 04:40:40 -0500
"Jorge Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:an215.1066$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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 ?
80% rewritten code! and millions of lines of new code. There is no
comparison between NT4 and W2K - it's a new beast!
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.
I have to disagree, completely. WITHOUT exception, every single application
I've run so far runs better under W2K. I mean everything! I can't find a
game I can't run. Of course you need to have the right drivers for your
card. I mean, why would you even list this? Can you suggest an OS that works
properly if you use the wrong drivers? ACPI support (and PnP interrupt
sharing) works so well, I almost cannot believe it. Interrupt conflict days
are gone. I don't even think abou them anymore, I just plug in some USB/PCI
device and it works. Period. And office 2000 runs much better/faster under
W2K (we've benched it and use that as one of our biggest carrots to get
people to upgrade their desktops, that and the no-reboots and no crashes
ever promises).
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 13 Jun 2000 04:41:42 -0500
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i33r0$2nba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8i2273$rt3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Timo Ely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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.
>
> I almost have to agree, but it hasn't existed long enough to trust
> yet. Still, how can you deal with this company when the best thing
> you can say about their current product is that it doesn't seem
> to be as horrible as their previous ones. Other things have worked
> for 20 years now.
but nothing has worked this well. W2K is not anchored to previous products -
their failings do not bring W2K down. Those 20 year old things that worked
can't keep up. There are Model T's that still work - but I would rather
drive a new car, wouldn't you?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 13 Jun 2000 04:43:07 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
..
> On 10 Jun 2000 10:45:06 -0500, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Did I say it *needed that? No, it's just what I have. I think the
> >minimum for Server is 128 megs, 64 megs for Win2000 Pro.
> >
> >It just runs faster (as *any* real OS will) with more memory.
>
> Bullshit. There's a point when no pages are swapped and everything is
> resident. Adding more memory won't have the slightest effect.
BULLSHIT! The extra memory is then used for file system caching.
>
> Unless the OS is such a pig that it needs more than 128MB in use.
And once upon a time someone might have written that an OS is a pig if it
uses more than 16 kb of memory....
>
> Those of us who don't use mickysoft operating systems know of this concept
> of having memory left over for APPLICATIONS.
And those of us that understand advanced operating systems know of this
concept of having memory left over for BOTH applications and system
operations and enjoy having the OS dynamically allocate memory where needed
most, adjusting this balance in real time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: 13 Jun 2000 09:11:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> pie@nowhere wrote:
>> Use Java. Be smart. Who cares about C any more.
> You are really stupid.
Why, O eloquent fount of boundless wisdom?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Linux+Java, the best combination of techologies
Date: 13 Jun 2000 09:28:21 GMT
In article <8hndgq$2e60$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is the new GUI toolset. The only problem is that you
> can't count on the JVM to have it yet. I think it is
> 'pure' java so you can include it, but it is bigger than
> you would want in a downloaded applet.
I suppose one way to work around this is to try loading your fancy
Swing-based user interface class by name/deserialization, and if that
fails (due to a lack of Swing, you'd tend to assume) load the
non-Swing interface class by name/deserialization instead.
> Anything can have bean wrappers.
Though GUI components are the most common, since beans are meant to be
visually manipulable.
> I'm not sure who was involved, but the bean interface should let
> you work with a GUI class browser to glue components together.
True. I've not had the time to delve into the detail of this yet
though.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 13 Jun 2000 04:46:45 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > Now, perhaps I'm being a bit naive here, but sticking a floppy
> > > into an otherwise C1- or C2-compliant system breaks a lot
> > > of assumptions. Similarly for CD-ROMs.
> >
> > Unless access to these devices is controled, which it has to be and is
(for
> > NT).
>
> So . . . NT will override the reset and power switches?
>
> Wow. NT has some capabilities that no other OS in existence has!
kindly tell the class exactly what your comments have to do with a floppy or
CD-ROM?
If the file system is encrypted, what good does booting from a floppy or
CD-ROM do?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 13 Jun 2000 04:48:29 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > p.s., it is impossible for an operating system _alone_ to be C2
certified.
> > It is ALWAYS a complete system that's evaluated and certified. NT enjoys
> > another advantage in that it's C2 certification can be achived through
> > software alone, not requiring any special hardware.
>
> Don't sentences one and two contradict each other Drestin?
no, I said not requiring any special hardware. What I mean is what I've
written. NT enjoys the fact that it can gain certification on most any
readily available hardware.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 13 Jun 2000 04:50:20 -0500
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:24:04 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> > Now, perhaps I'm being a bit naive here, but sticking a floppy
> >> > into an otherwise C1- or C2-compliant system breaks a lot
> >> > of assumptions. Similarly for CD-ROMs.
> >>
> >> Unless access to these devices is controled, which it has to be and is
(for
> >> NT).
> >
> >So . . . NT will override the reset and power switches?
> >
> >Wow. NT has some capabilities that no other OS in existence has!
> >
> >;->
>
> Modern x86 computers seem to have brought back a capability I first
> saw on an Apollo DOMAIN DN-660, which has apparently some sort
> of switch to allow for the computer to control the power supply,
> rather than the user. Simply put, the power switch is treated as
> though it were a suggestion. :-)
>
> Linux also has this capability, I think, at least on x86 boxes.
>
you can define what the power switch (ACPI Power switch function) can do -
true. But, at least on most motherboards, the BIOS controls what happens
when you HOLD the power switch in for more than a few seconds. The BIOS can
decide if it will continue to trigger the ACPI OS function or should it
preform a power off. That BIOS level power off cannot be overridden by the
OS.
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:55:35 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Marion
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Full Name wrote:
>
>> We recently had a Mandrake box rendered unusable when the machine that
>> was used as a backup failed to answer the mount request.
>
>Why don't you configure it properly...
Ah... the usual UNIXhead answer whenever someone complains about falling
into yet another UNIX misconfiguration trap: "It's not the fault of
UNIX, it's the fault of the user for not configuring UNIX properly."
And they wonder why the Linux companies have fallen on hard times...
------------------------------
From: Lawrence DčOliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:20 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
>>
>> a) Drive letters (all versions of Windows OT and NT, including Windows
>> 2000).
>> Verdict: Stupid 1970s way of doing things that should be ashamed to be
>> still showing itself in the 21st century.
>
>The same goes for all the other filesystems in use today.
Except MacOS HFS and HFS-Plus. They have features like unique IDs for
filesystem objects, and a fast (non-hierarchical) catalog search, that
have still not been successfully copied on other systems to date.
For example, I once did a partial filename match against all 15,000
files on my hard disk in just 3 seconds (no pre-indexing, remember).
This was in 1993, and the Mac in question only had a 40MHz 68040
processor.
>> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
>> Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
>> focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
>> of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
>
>Why fix it if you can work around it? :-)
This is what I mean. UNIX has been around so long that people have given
up trying to even think about fixing its fundamental flaws. And they
wonder why new users are so put off by it all, and why Linux is
completely failing to make any headway on the desktop...
>> c) Per-volume filespecs (MacOS, though I think it was originally
>> invented on the original UCSD p-system).
>> Pros: System-independent file specifications. A reference to a file on a
>> removable/hot-pluggable volume doesn't depend on the location of its
>> "mount point", drive ordering or any other system-specific
>> configuration: The same reference will work on any other machine
>> mounting the same volume. The reference can also be used to
>> automatically request the mounting of the correct volume on demand.
>
>I had to read this several times to understand. Doesn't sound that
>different from Unix, to me.
Under UNIX, the mount point is part of the file path, remember. Consider
a CD-ROM called "My Photos", with a file on it called "Fred the Cat". On
a UNIX system, you might or might not be able to use the pathname
"/cdrom/Fred the Cat". And what if you have both a CD-ROM and a
CD-writer drive attached (as I do), and you put the CD in the latter?
What's the standard mount point for that? On a Mac, you could use the
pathname string "My Photos:Fred the Cat", and have that work on *any*
Mac, no matter what drives they've got attached.
>> Cons: Can't think of any.
>Try harder, this time without any bias.
In view of the above, maybe you should try harder...
>> Verdict: MacOS-style file specifications definitely seem to be the way
>> to go in the next computing millennium. Why are other systems still
>> using such primitive ways of doing things?
>
> I AM NOT GOING TO BUY A NEW COMPUTER, AND CERTAINLY NOT A FSCKING
>MAC!!!
Thank goodness Macs don't fsck, then--only UNIX systems...
------------------------------
From: Lawrence DčOliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMac: the iFormation Appliance
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:22:28 +1200
In article <394325c0@news>, "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bnw05.471$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> IIRC: CDs can be partitioned into different volumes, as they are just
>> another form of disk medium. An example is a data/audio CD - the data
>track
>> is mounted as a volume, and the audio track is accessable from within CD
>> Player. Also, those countless presentational CDs containing Macromedia
>> displays that are given away with everything nowadays often contain an
>> HFS
>> partition which my Mac uses, and a FAT partition which contains an EXE
>> for
>> PC-using people to play with. Although my Mac correctly read and mounted
>> both partitions on the desktop, my PC didn't reveal the HFS partition -
>>
>
>CD sessions (volumes as you call them) are NOT the same as partitions on
>a
>hard drive. When you insert a multi-session CD into a CDROM drive, you get
>ONE drive letter. Since there is only one data track on a multi-session
>CD,
>that's all that is required. The CD player can read the audio tracks from
>the other sessions, and so can the [windows] file manager, but they are
>displayed as being on the same drive letter.
Ah, you're accustomed to a system which treats CDs as something
fundamentally different from hard drives. On the Mac, a CD is just
another kind of filesystem volume, and you can have HFS- and
HFS-Plus-formatted CDs, in a way that you _cannot_ have FATnn- or
NTFS-formatted CDs under Windows, or UFS-formatted CDs under UNIX.
On the Mac, ISO 9660 is just another installable filesystem. If I put
in, say, a Zip cartridge that was in ISO 9660 format, it would mount on
my Mac exactly as though it were a CD. The Zip driver doesn't need to do
anything special to support this: it's handled at the filesystem level,
not the disk driver level.
To clarify the partition-versus-session issue, consider the cover CD
from the latest issue of Future Music magazine. This has an ISO
partition for Windows users, an HFS partition for Mac users, and some
audio tracks. When I put it in my drive, I see two volume icons appear
simultaneously on my desktop: one is the HFS partition, containing all
the Mac-specific goodies for this issue, and the other is the audio
partition, where I see each audio track appear as a file. I can access
either or both, depending on what I want to do with the CD.
------------------------------
From: Tim Scoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 06:25:02 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Lawrence
D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Marion
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Full Name wrote:
> >
> >> We recently had a Mandrake box rendered unusable when the machine that
> >> was used as a backup failed to answer the mount request.
> >
> >Why don't you configure it properly...
>
> Ah... the usual UNIXhead answer whenever someone complains about falling
> into yet another UNIX misconfiguration trap: "It's not the fault of
> UNIX, it's the fault of the user for not configuring UNIX properly."
>
> And they wonder why the Linux companies have fallen on hard times...
Unix is wonderful if you're an expert. If you're not there is a
steep learning curve involved in order to get to the point where you can
administer it successfully.
It's all in how much time you're willing to spend learning the OS of
your computer. Unix requires time.
--
Tim Scoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.scoff.net/Tim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 13 Jun 2000 18:41:13 +0800
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:12:23 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 13 Jun 2000 15:33:55 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:47:32 GMT, Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>
> Redhat has gotten fat in it's old age. 100M just won't
> hold it these days...
Yeah
>
>>Slackware wouldnt run.
>
> This is unexpected. I thought Slack was trimmer than that.
It was the fact that the pc has 8 megs LESS 640k RAM to use, and
Slackware kept bombing.
I'm sure if it had 8 megs for Slackware, it would have been fine ?
>
>[deletia]
>
>--
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 22 hours 11 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:43:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:44:32 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>He's real name is David Smyth and he's a student living in Australia. He
>trys to give the impression that he works/spends time at some company but
>fails miserably.
>
This is simply a lie.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 17 May 2000 21:05:26 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Great stuff.
>
>If you used your real name of David Smyth then you would even be famous :-)
>
>Cheers David
This is simply a lie.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:45:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is simply a lie.
On Thu, 18 May 2000 22:04:53 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Full Name wrote:
>> After three Linux experiences, two on notebooks the other on a desk
>> top, our central computing supervisor has withdrawn support for Linux.
>
>Listen kid.. youre posting from 130.102.95.155 wich correlates to
>something near bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au .. Same IP is used by David Smyth
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Posting style is even the same as yours.
>Conclusion youre David Smyth!
>
>Yore probably sitting in some room where students have access to PC's (i
>have sat in the same kind of rooms).
>Conclusion: Youre completely full of shit and do not work for any company
>even if you want to give that impression. Your company is some dorm with
>some PC's and has not a "central computing supervisor" .. youre just a sick
>kid sitting in a dark room!
>
>Any "computing supersvisor" i know would prefer Linux installed simply
>because there is less work for them with it and because the users of those
>systems normally are capable of resolving their own problems.
>
>David, go out with some girls and have sex.. its more fun than Windows
>computing.
>
>Cheers David
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
