Linux-Advocacy Digest #63, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (tinman)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Boring (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (abraxas)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (TholenBotPro)
Re: iMacs With iTitude ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Boring (Terry Porter)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Boring ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Boring (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:10:32 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tinman wrote:
> >
> >
> > No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that given what I saw back in the day
> > with Apple ][ copy protection schemes, which included half and quarter
> > tracking, and the verbatim thingie, a disk with 40 tracks and 80 tracks
> > doesn't really surprise me.....
>
> Aaaah, all bechomes clear. Still, beats me how they did it. I still
> can't figure out how to read a 40 track FM disk on my PC.
>
FM?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:09:36 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:56:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>So I type in Wordperfect and it works?
>
>
>I think not.......
>
>
>This is exactly the reason why Linux is dying fast...
For once you might have actually stumbled, blindly, onto
a kernel of truth...
This might be why Corel is dying fast.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:10:56 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:57:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I can re-compile "helloworld.c and make it work on any OS you want....
Are you seriously attempting to equate the leading RDBMS
with some trivial C program?
Game over, we can now all go home...
>
>
>
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:45:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:24:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Linux is based on Unix?
>>>
>>>Care to prove that?
>>
>> Oracle 8i.
>>
>>[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 23:11:46 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:58:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Typical jedi "linux is great" by omission statement....
>
>The Linonut loves leaving out those important details....
...so then, what are we missing that you aren't?
[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 13 Jun 2000 23:13:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8hgqbg$sm8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > Um, no. I just believe that if you read the document and accompanying
> PDF
>> > you'll note that no hardware changes are requird and if you read the
> specs
>> > on the hardware you will find nothing special about them. I am able to
>> Umm, you're claiming that a system might be C2-secure if it's running
>> on a PC with known bugging devices attached?
>>
> are you on drugs? where did you come up with that crap?
You said that hardware doesnt matter for an NT C2 certification, idiot.
Are you telling me that I could plug my cute little PC microphone onto a
certified C2 NT machine and keep that certification?
My god man, you ARE an idiot. It must be absolute hell being your kid.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 13 Jun 2000 23:14:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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.
Not laptops. Care to tell the class why, dresden? Go ahead, flaunt
your incredible security knowledge.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:13:20 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:53:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yet another Linux Luser trait....
>
>
>"Oh kind salesman, I want the 686 compiled version of StarOffice"
>
>Yea sure...
>linux a complete joke......
...that the possibility of an optimized product is actually
considered or possible?
Oh, the humanity!
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:20:03 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:43:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:34:30 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>>
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[deletia]
>>> Now, how many years does it all add up to I wonder...
>>>
>>> Pete
>>
>>Note that these developments are mainly details. The main operation of
>>Linux is already far superior to anything Microsoft can offer. (not
>>that it's very hard to do that, but ok)
>
>
>No it's not. I can stream 48 tracks of digital audio with full FFT
Mebbe mebbe not. All we have is your word for it and quite
often you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
48 tracks at once should be an 'interesting' amount of data
for an os like WinDOS to deal with it nevermind filtering it
in real time.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: TholenBotPro <[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: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:23:58 -0700
In article <TLj15.34964$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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?
Because I don't see things that aren't there. Seeing things that aren't there again,
Dave?
> >>> 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.
Open your eyes, Dave.
> >>> How typical.
>
> >> Typical
>
> > What's "typical" about it, Dave?
>
> "See above."
Illogical.
> >> pontification on your part.
>
> > What alleged "pontification", Dave?
>
> CP] How typical.
What alleged "]", Dave?
--
"]"
-- Dave Tholen
------------------------------
From: [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 23:24:21 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:52:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>On 13 Jun 2000 21:27:07 GMT,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:20 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>>That's complete bullshit. Linux is gaining market share at an
>>>increadible rate.
>>
>>On the desktop?
>>
>>Prove it!!!!
>
> try www.idc.com>
And where on this convoluted website do you find this information?
>
>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>/mnt/cdrw and /mnt/cdrom. At least that's how it would work on this
>>>guy's system. Oh, and it would likely be /mnt/cdrom/Fred\ The\ Cat.
>>
>>
>>Yawn..under Windows you need not concern yourself with such tripe.
>
> Only because WinDOS is braindead and underfeatured.
But it works....
>>
>>And what happens when this mounted CDROM is needed by one of the Linux
>>WinAmp Clones (terrible and cheap as they are)?
>
> WinAmp is the cheap one. Why would a shill such as yourself be
> boosting one of the posterboys for the UI hall of shame and
> UI inconsitency?
You didn't answer my question, as usual....
> As far as needing a disk, one could always ask to it by name.
That is not what I asked....
> This is something that WinDOS is incapable of doing. It also
> doesn't bother to lock the CD tray when in action so you can
> really give that 'gem' winamp fits. Of course WinDOS doesn't
> deal very gracefully with this error condition at the system
> level either.
I was talking about Windows not DOS...
You still have not answered my question...
Cat got your tongue?
> ...a classic case of the interns in Redmond not quite
> thinking ahead well enough.
No,,,it's a classic case of Linux not being able to do what Windows
has done for the last 10 years....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Boring
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:27:01 +0800
On 13 Jun 2000 14:03:57 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Uhm, no. Not even close.
So close its correct.
>
>>What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
>
>The government can't do anything to them until the appeals proscess is over. By then,
>this whole
>UNIX revival thing will halve blone over.
Hahahah, Winadvocates have been saying that for the last 10 years,
in the face of *increasing* UNIX usage.
>
>>
>>If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
>>what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
>>
>
>That it sucks. Just like the KDE befor it. You can put Windos like environmant ontop
>of UNIX, but
>thats' still UNIX under theare, and you can't get rid of the limmitations of UNIX
>except by getting
LIMITATIONS ???
Please name them.
I claim Windows is the limited OS here, riddled with Virii, single user,
no remote admin or GUI, no choice, buggy and expensive.
>rid of the UNIX. That is why UNIX+KDE fales now just like UNIX without it did, and
>UNIX+KDE2 will
>continnue to fale in the future.
>
>Just face it: UNIX is the PAST. Leave it in the 1970s whear it belongs.
Lets face it Microsoft is a lawbreaker, unprincipled and untrustworthy.
>
>>I think the Microsoft community realizes that there is no competing with
>>Linux as the Linux community comes out with a new version roughly once
>>every 6-9 months.
>
>Yeah, and you accuse Windwos of making peopal upgrade.
I'm running Redhat4.2, it came out in 1997, I dont have to upgrade
unless I want to, and when I do, all my old apps will still work.
All my FREE old apps, along with all my FREE new apps.
My son just upgraded to RedHat6.2, and hes running all MY old apps on *my*
pc, but theyre displaying on *his* pc, how is this possible ?
They're all GUI, and none of them reside on his pc. When he runs the apps
he uses my CPU, my RAM.
Tell me again how Windows is so *innovative*, and so *advanced* ?
>
>>This in comparison to Windows 2-4 year revisionary
>>history,,, with complete writeups from the ground floor up.
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 12 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:26:50 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:46:57 GMT, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8i64ek$n5n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <m7p15.8124$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> >Make Unix easy to use a very difficult task. :D
>>
>> Unix has an elegant simplicity.
>
>That is not the same thing as being easy for you to use.
MS versions of common tools and protocols don't end up being
any easier to use either and quite often end up being rather
more difficult.
>
>> >MS's little telnet doesn't make any serious effort to do this;
>> >it's a telnet client with a rather second-rate terminal emulator.
>> >That's better than *just* being a telnet client, but not by much.
>>
>> No, it is not a complete telnet implementation. Try running CRT
>> or netterm, or several others that get it right. It isn't just
>> the terminal emulation that makes the difference.
>
>Those may be better telnet programs, but so far what I've
>heard from you is that MS's telnet's problem is that it
>can't do anything better than a lousy vt100.
ms telnet doesn't even do a proper vt100.
[deletia]
>> All
>> of these cleverly make the competition look bad compared to using
>> an all-Microsoft solution when in fact it is the Microsoft code
>> that is incorrect, non-portable, non-standard and causes the problems
>> that you see.
>
>They do make non MS products look bad, and I think that is
>the point.
>
>But failure to stick to the limitations of Unix is not 'incorrect'
>in my book.
What limitations, exactly? I have colleages that have no problems
using open protocols to achieve the same end result as FrontPage
without any thing being any "less easy" on them.
>
>> >They probably thought this wasn't important to their real
>> >users, but I wonder if this will change. Unix seems to have
>> >become Windows NT/2000's main competitor.
>>
>> Yes, it will be interesting to see if the pattern of subtle
>> breakage is repeated in the unix add-on pack for w2k. It
>> was a touch of brilliance to make the posix subsystem
>> for NT unusable for any normal networking programs so
>> people wouldn't be able to easily use it to write
>> portable code and escape their vendor-lock. Have they
>> done it again?
>
>I assume so. The idea of using POSIX on NT was very silly
>to start with; intended, I think, to check a checkbox on somebody
>list and no more.
What's so silly about it? NT is supposed to be a microkernel OS?
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:37:24 GMT
So exactly how is Linux going to unseat the already 90 or more percent
of home/SOHO/desktop users from Windows and entice them into running
Linux?
How about Office suites?
Sure StarOffice is free, it is free for Windows users also but
virtually nobody uses it. Why is that? MSOffice carries a hefty price
tag but is still the standard by which all office suites are gauged.
Why is that?
Figure it out for yourself.
How about hardware support.
Still using that Daisywheel printer? Dot-Matrix job you bought at an
IBM fleamarket? I doubt it. Today's PC's come with state of the art
hardware built in to the system. Sure some of it (modem?) might be Win
hardware, but who really cares? It works...
Try that same combination under Linux and see what happens.
How about all that fine software that was included with the price of
your Walmart special PC. Guess what!! It won't work with Linux!!!!
So you have to try and acquire equivalent versions of everything near
and dear to you.
Let's talk ISP's.
Talk to Earthlink, Worldnet, FreeWeb, AOL, Compuserv and see what they
think of Linux.
Try it yourself and see. Hint,,,,they are not happy......
How about Napster, Digital Audio, Digital Video and so forth. Think
the best programs and hardware are supported under Linux?
Think again....
Windows has all the major players and Linux has nothing but a pile of
promises.
Come to think about it Linux is all about promises and no
deliveries....
Point is there is absolutely no reason to run Linux on your desktop
unless you are too cheap to buy a real operating system.
And again, isn't your time worth something?
Run Windows and come home to the family......
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:41:12 GMT
Errrr.....
I would say that db2 blows away Oracle for whatever it is worth.
And before you jump on the fact that db2 has announced Linux support,
I would ask how many users are actually using it?
It will be gone in 2 years or less.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:10:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:57:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>I can re-compile "helloworld.c and make it work on any OS you want....
>
> Are you seriously attempting to equate the leading RDBMS
> with some trivial C program?
>
> Game over, we can now all go home...
>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:45:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:24:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Linux is based on Unix?
>>>>
>>>>Care to prove that?
>>>
>>> Oracle 8i.
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:43:42 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:00:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:07:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:19:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:58:01 GMT, Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>So I post a true account of an installation of some hardware and
>>>>software, and how it is so superior under Windows than under Linux, if
>>>>it can even be done under Linux and this is the result:
>>>>
>>>>1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
>>>
>>> Winmodems and parallel scanners were called crap here long
>>> before you 'graced us' with your 'valueable pearls of wisdom'.
>>
>>Called crap only by virtue of sour grapes meaning Linux users need not
>>apply.
>
> Nope, slow hacks are simply not appreciated by those of us that
> have any understanding of the technology or interest in quality.
Crap only to the small number of Linux users that can't use them. The
rest of the world, 90 percent or so, are doing quite nicely using them
under Windows.
>>
>>I used to call Chevy Corvettes crap back when was 18 and couldn't
>>afford one.
>
> I can afford one and I still think they're crap.
My Impala SS will blow you away......
> The same goes for scanners hacked onto an interface never designed
> to be a bus, and modems that really aren't that. As far as UNmodems
> go, the serious non-shill Windows using crowd agrees with us, not you.
Again, the majority, 90 percent or more are using these devices
successfully....
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
>>>>linux on 486 machines.The hardware works fine under Windows and none of
>>>>it is Win* hardware. Of course there will always be some command line
>>>
>>> Where are the NT drivers? How about the BeOS drivers? Are there
>>> any OS/2 drivers? Howabout some Solaris drivers? Can the devices
>>> even be hooked up to a Macintosh of any kind.
>>
>>Fully supported under Win 2k.
>
> What about NT4, it's not been very long since it was obsoleted.
> That means that a few months ago, buying a Microsoft product
> didn't buy you any more in the way of being "universally compatible"
> than would buying an iMac.
>
>>
>>Audio support for BEOS is dying, see the groups for details. BEOS will
>>be dead soon.
>>
>>OS/2 is dead..Ask IBM....
>>
>>Why doesn't Winfax work under MVS ESA?
>>
>>Your argument negates the fact that only Linux is trying to equal
>>Windows
>
> If I need to print or scan something, it has been that for
> quite some time already. Trying to be DOS, is something else
> entirely.
>
>>
>>
>>>>nut who will conjure up some oddball application where he needs 200
>>>>scans re-scanned multiple times in succession. Command lines were made
>>>>just for yahoo's like that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>2.I'm called an idiot for not knowing how to manipulate files and data
>>>>types. Sure...... Maybe Linux users have to do that but under Windows
>>>>point and click and it works. Fax from your scanner program, links added
>>>
>>> ...assuming everything is set up just so beforehand and every
>>> fileytype that you're going to encounter EVER is already accounted
>>> for.
>>
>>Windows does that automagically. Excepting of course the odball
>>filetype that some LinoIdiot will send now and then.
>
> IOW, you're full of shit just like you've always been.
>
>[deletia]
>
> Poor frightened moron...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:45:00 GMT
www.cakewalk.com
or news.cakewalk.com if you prefer a news server.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:20:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:43:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:34:30 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[deletia]
>>>> Now, how many years does it all add up to I wonder...
>>>>
>>>> Pete
>>>
>>>Note that these developments are mainly details. The main operation of
>>>Linux is already far superior to anything Microsoft can offer. (not
>>>that it's very hard to do that, but ok)
>>
>>
>>No it's not. I can stream 48 tracks of digital audio with full FFT
>
> Mebbe mebbe not. All we have is your word for it and quite
> often you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
> 48 tracks at once should be an 'interesting' amount of data
> for an os like WinDOS to deal with it nevermind filtering it
> in real time.
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:46:02 GMT
It is ASSUMED....
Exactly why Windows is succeeding and Linux is failing.
You guys ask too many questions.....
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:13:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:53:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Yet another Linux Luser trait....
>>
>>
>>"Oh kind salesman, I want the 686 compiled version of StarOffice"
>>
>>Yea sure...
>>linux a complete joke......
>
> ...that the possibility of an optimized product is actually
> considered or possible?
>
> Oh, the humanity!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:53:07 +0800
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:58:01 GMT,
Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So I post a true account of an installation of some hardware and
>software, and how it is so superior under Windows than under Linux, if
>it can even be done under Linux and this is the result:
Sure its **true** "Heather/keys88/Steve" !!!! LOL.
Its as *TRUE* as your false identity, which as all us old timers here know,
has not one iota of truth to it.
>
>
>Steve, an old joke, a current joke and the joke of the future.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 12 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:54:27 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:46:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It is ASSUMED....
>
>Exactly why Windows is succeeding and Linux is failing.
The numbers simply don't support your hyperbole as of yet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:53:11 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:41:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Errrr.....
>
>I would say that db2 blows away Oracle for whatever it is worth.
>
>And before you jump on the fact that db2 has announced Linux support,
They're shipping CD's actually.
>I would ask how many users are actually using it?
Such things are hardly "it's best because X million cluebies
are using it" sort of product.
>
>It will be gone in 2 years or less.
...the voice of an armchair sysadmin.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
