Linux-Advocacy Digest #100, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: BSOD in the airport (Cihl)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Cihl)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
Re: WHICH LINUX??? (aflinsch)
Re: Linux Tast Test (aflinsch)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: WHICH LINUX??? (JEDIDIAH)
Is this Steve/Mike or another moron -was- What UNIX is good for. (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: iMacs--iTegrated with the iTernet ("Amorya North")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Phil Burton)
Re: Linux Tast Test (David Steinberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:53:47 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:13:30 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:35:54 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:10:55 GMT, Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>>> PC anywhere blows the pants off some stupid-ass shell script.
>>
>> ...not on a 2400bps connection it doesn't.
>
>How about a 56k or 384k DSL?
>
>I for one would be mildly surprised if anyone still uses 2400bps.
>On the other hand, I'm mildly surprised people are
>still using Win3.1. :-)
There are plenty of people still using crappy serial connections.
Infact, one of the Lemmings was harking upon the lack of support
for AOL under Linux. Add Winmodems to the mix and you've got a
pipe that would be painful for any network GUI.
Plus even with a fatter pipe, you might not want to hog all of
it for remote admin.
>
>>
>>>
>>>PC anywhere also locks you into very few machines and only one OS
>>>(unless it's on Mac too). And you need a fat pipe to the internet to
>>>get any decent performance. With my stuff I can use any OS that exists
>>>with a graphical web browser to view my faxes.
>
>Indeed.
>
>Sigh.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:54:32 GMT
On 15 Jun 2000 11:07:45 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:16:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>And you are missing the fact that folks want an end result, the
>>>easiest path between two points.
>>
>> His end result is actually better than your "end result".
>>
>>>Ecommerce, E-Web, E-banking are all examples.
>>>
>>>Linux is an example of an operating system getting in the way time and
>>>time again.
>>
>> That's why he can access his faxes from anywhere on the planet
>> and you can't.
>
>PC anywhere blows the pants off some stupid-ass shell script.
It certainly does do that in terms of bandwidth hogging...
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSOD in the airport
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:57:34 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Come to think of it, i had the same thing a year ago. I was working a
> : holiday job in a glass factory running an eight-section machine at the
> : hot-end, where the process controlling computer was running NT. (the
> : others were all still running a 20 year old version of Unix, which
> : worked just fine, though)
>
> I have seen very few examples of NT being used in mission-critical
> applications of that particular kind. (It is heavily used in some
> others, where small amounts of downtime will not cause permanent
> damage to persons or property, but I wouldn't use it even there given
> that so many better alternatives are available and always have been.)
Yeah, but what was i gonna do? It wasn't my job to maintain that
computer. I only had to run the IS-machine. (i still don't know what
that abbr. means)
Running a glass-producing machine means keeping the molds greased and,
if needed, change the molds. (quite heavy, i can tell you that)
I also had to keep an eye on bottle quality.
> What really frightens me is this:
>
> : I punched a few keys to get some info on timings, and [startle, gasp]
> : BSOD. This is obviously not a good thing if hot glass will start to
> : fly through the factory if you don't do something quick.
>
> So an NT failure could have caused physical harm to people? (That's
> what I think when I think of hot glass flying everywhere.)
Not exactly. The machines are constructed in a way that keep the hot
glass (more like molten lava) near the machine itself, by having the
parts rotating in a certain way. It's not as dangerous as it sounds.
It's just a lot of work cleaning it all up again. You'd have to see
such a machine to understand.
> Not only is using NT in that situation a bad idea according to me, it
> is a bad idea according to Microsoft itself, and, IIRC, a violation of
> the NT license!!!!
I didn't know that, and i sure hope the people responsible *did*.
> I wouldn't even trust Linux in a life-critical application, and Linux
> is vastly more reliable in most respects than NT. An OS meant for
> life-critical situations must be considerably simpler and redundant
> and fault-tolerant - as must the hardware - than a general-purpose OS
> or hardware possibly could be.
Yeah, it seemed really strange to me that they were actually running a
PC for this. All the other production lines had serial terminals.
(paperwhite, screens burned in, but what the heck, they always work)
The PC display only looked a little better, with pretty little graphs
and such.
> : I think this was the start of my dislike in Windows. It was the night
> : shift, so it took several HOURS to get the sysadmin out of bed.
> : Several hours of -manually- cranking levers and wheels and reading
> : oily gauges. Yuck!
>
> There is a pretty good job market for IT people in most parts of the
> world. You don't have to put up with that kind of crap if you dont'
> want to.
>
> Joe
It was my job to keep that production-line running, using whatever it
takes. This required both my hands and a surprising lot of brain
power.
It was a one-time-only holiday job, and it paid really well, too. I
justed wanted the experience of having worked at a big machine in a
factory at least once, before turning attention to the desk-jobs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Date: 16 Jun 2000 03:50:12 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>I picked POVray as a benchmark because 3D Photo Realistic pictures
>interests me. It's a Real World application. [...]
>Now if Linux is slower than Windows for this, would that not imply that
>Linux is probably slower for other things as well?
No, it wouldn't. In fact, all your test results imply is that you didn't
pay close enough attention to the numbers printed at the end of the
render.
I went and downloaded both the Povray source code as well as the Windows
executable, compiled a linux version with gcc 2.96, and ran the test you
described, on a Celeron400. And lo and behold, the timings were similar ---
21 minutes for the Windows executable, and 29 minutes for the linux one
(which seems to suggest that the Celeron is actually faster at this than
a P2, and that gcc 2.96 is producing better code than whatever the Povray
team used for their linux executable).
BUT.... that was only half the story. What was also quite obvious was
a vast (factor of 4) difference in the reported number of "Shadow Ray
Tests", and many of the other statistics were significantly different
as well. It seemed as if the two executables weren't actually doing
the same thing!
So I had a close look at the configuration information the renderer outputs
at the start of a run, and found a discrepancy in the "Bounding Threshold" ---
under Windows, it was 3, under linux 25. In both cases, this was obviously
the compile-time default; The original Povray source has 25, so it seems
that whoever does the Windows port decided to change it.
Well, that was easily rectified... simply add a line
Bounding_Threshold=3
to whatever .ini file you are using, and linux will use 3 as well.
Next, I reran the tests, using the "res640.ini" file on both platforms, and
not enabling antialiasing on either (because at quality 9, the default,
it gets disabled anyway). As expected, the Windows version still needed
21 minutes (20:58 to be precise). But the linux version needed only
19:29 minutes, i.e. a minute and a half less. Some of the statistics
were still off in the final digits, but it was quite clear that, apart
for minor variations caused by different rounding, the same thing was
calculated on both platforms.
So, in the end, getting the source and compiling it yourself with gcc
for linux will give you a 7.5% speed advantage over getting the
Windows version (not to mention that the download is considerably
smaller).
Bernie
--
One more such victory and we are lost
Pyrrhus
King of Epirus from 306 BC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: 16 Jun 2000 03:51:38 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>It has meaning. Think about it.
>You have two OS's running on the same machine. With one, it takes 22
>minutes to run a task. With the other, it takes 32 minutes to run a task.
>Which OS do you pick to run that task?
The one that encourages me to look critically at such comparisons?
Bernie
--
To understand the heart and mind of a person, look not at what he has
already achieved, but at what he aspires to.
Kahlil Gibran
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:59:39 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I'm not gonna tell you. Nobody here's gonna tell you.
>
> Aw go on! I wanna know!
>
> >We're really
> >much more advanced than you think. The distro's are actually about 6
> >months behind on the latest tech Linux can offer. We have a 3D-GUI. We
> >have eye-movement control, brain contr...(Oops, did i just say too
> >much?)
>
> Aliens!
>
> --
> ------------
> Pete Goodwin
Yeah, and we've chosen to abduct all the people who post in this
newsgroup who like Windows. You're not wanted on your planet anyway!
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:02:32 GMT
In article <8ib3b2$4p4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > suddenly been tasked with setting up Linux boxes
> > > for web-hosting, newsgroup serving, routing, NAT
> > > translation, and firewalling. I spent more than
> > > 100 hours just trying to comprehend httpsd.conf.
> >
> > Did you at least get through the httpd.conf fairly quickly?
>
> Not really. In addition to being on Linux, it was also the first web
> server I've setup on ANY platform. Took forever to comprehend what all
> those obscure directives were doing.
You should try "Personal Web Sharing" on the Mac. Very, very simple to
set up.
Not so much in the way of performance, but for most beginners, that's
not an issue.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:05:16 GMT
On 15 Jun 2000 10:58:51 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>The argument that Linux sucks because it can't install on XYZ computer
>>is nothing but a wasted argument.
>
>I'm glad you aggree with me.
>
>>To attempt to sustain an argument that
>>any version Linux is easier to install on a system that probably shipped
>>with Windows on it is silly. Because, as good as Linux is, there is
>>hardware out there that it does not support, and in such a debate these
>>will be introduced. It follows, however, that a computer, shipped with
>>Linux from an OEM, will have the correct drivers and kernel modules as
>>well. On that machine, this argument is completely, 100%, winnable.
>
>..untill the user decides to get new preriphrael.
At which time they will need the local guru to hold their
hand through the entire process anyways...
[deletia]
>>Scalibility
>>Windows may "scale" by using a vastly different code base for each
>>level, CE, DOS, and NT. Linux scales using the same code base.
>
>..with the healp of OS/390 it scales. Otherwise it's pittyful at scaleing and NT
>blows it out
>of the water..
That's why NT has no representatives on the 500 top supercomputers
list (even before the OS/390 port) and Linux does. Besides, it doesn't
matter HOW Linux scales past NT if it does.
>
>>
>>Usability
>>Usability is more than just point and click. It is about reducing the
>>amount of repetitive work required to do a task. It is about how easy
>>tasks are to automate. While Linux can drag icons around just as well as
>>any other GUI machine, but behind it you have one of the most powerful
>>OS metaphors available.
>
>Yeah. /dev/ttyS? for the modam (insted of sellectign it by name), lpr to print (and
>by god it
It can be anything you want actually, including:
"SomeLemmingsSimplyTalkOutTheirAss".
>better by a PostScript printer), and about 10,000 one-function programs so you can
>shuffal text
No matter how much you repeat that lie, it won't become any more true.
>around in 1,000,000 ways and still not manage to do anything useful.
>
>>
>>Flexibility
>>You can have your Linux anyway you want, in almost any form you want.
>>You can have very few features, or all of them. And you don't have to
>>install netscape if you don't want too. You don't even need a hard
>>drive.
>
>So it can shuffel text in more ways or less ways, on a whole computer or haff of one.
>
And frames of motion picture film.
And large matrix computations (weather).
>>
>>Reliability
>>I will not say that I've never seen Linux crash, or that I haven't
>>needed to reboot. But, when I have it has been for an explicit reason,
>>that I understood and could take corrective action. It has not been
>>because it was working funny and rebooting it would "fix" it.
>>
>>Applications
>>Windows has a few great applications. There can be no argument about
>>that. However, a few really great ones tend to out shadow the really
>>really bad ones. All in all, IMHO, the applications on Linux tend to be
>>better than those on Windows.
>
>You better be abal to do better than The GIMP.
You better be able to do better than whining about GIMP without
so much as a clue or a detail.
[deletia]
>>not run it on a heavily loaded web server. However, it is perfectly
>>reasonable to run "xosview -display admin:0.0" to get a live visual
>>update of a UNIX web server.
>
>Until X crashes UNIX (my bad.. untill it crashes the console, which makes it just as
>useless).
...that hasn't been likely on Linux for quite some time.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:11:25 +1000
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8iatg5$dp1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But if the system doesn't give you any indication that anything unusual
> > has happened all you'll see is a directory whose contents are no longer
> > what you expected to find.
>
> Exactly how often does this happen? Or is your thesis that there are
> hordes of evil sysadmins rampaging about, changing where directories
> are mounted under everyone's feet?
The point is it can happen at all.
On an end-user (ie not managed by a BOFH) it's vastly more likely too, as
well. Surely you're familiar with Murphy's Law of End Users ?
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WHICH LINUX???
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:13:46 -0500
David Steinberg wrote:
>
> I've heard that often, and I must admit that my desktop is starting to get
> there -- it's starting to look more like "my" Linux than the Linux-Mandrake
> 7.0 system I installed 5 months ago.
>
> Last night I downloaded and burned the iso's for Mandrake 7.1, and I'm a
Great, I upgraded to it last weekend, works great.
> little bit worried. If I do an "upgrade" of the system, what will happen
> to all the customization that I've done? Will it survive, get replaced by
Both are likely to occur. Mandrake 7.1 is now using the debian menu
system, and this is a significant change to the system. Your desktop
will stay the same, any configuration file changes should stay put,
but all of your menu changes will be gone. On the other hand, any menu
changes you make in the new system will be reflected across all window
managers, which is nice if you like to play around with wm's once in
the while.
Depending on exactly how customized you got, it might be worthwhile to
just upgrade individual packages.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Tast Test
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:15:02 -0500
Cihl wrote:
>
> Does this go for new versions, too? Or only older versions, like
> RH5.2, or something.
It goes for whatever they have in stock, in fact some of the older
distros might be yours for the cost of shipping.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:20:26 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:02:32 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8ib3b2$4p4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> > > suddenly been tasked with setting up Linux boxes
>> > > for web-hosting, newsgroup serving, routing, NAT
>> > > translation, and firewalling. I spent more than
>> > > 100 hours just trying to comprehend httpsd.conf.
>> >
>> > Did you at least get through the httpd.conf fairly quickly?
>>
>> Not really. In addition to being on Linux, it was also the first web
>> server I've setup on ANY platform. Took forever to comprehend what all
>> those obscure directives were doing.
>
>You should try "Personal Web Sharing" on the Mac. Very, very simple to
>set up.
>
>Not so much in the way of performance, but for most beginners, that's
>not an issue.
I'm not sure about his distro, but setting up Apache on Bughat
should have been simply a matter of installing the distribution.
Also, Bughat comes with a nice enough gui configurator for apache.
Although, I'm still not entirely sure what someone would find
difficult about a well documented configuration file. This is
not exactly a Windows style INI file we're talking about.
# Port: The port the standalone listens to. For ports < 1023, you will
# need httpd to be run as root initially.
Port 80
# HostnameLookups: Log the names of clients or just their IP numbers
# e.g. www.apache.org (on) or 204.62.129.132 (off)
# The default is off because it'd be overall better for the net if people
# had to knowingly turn this feature on.
HostnameLookups off
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:21:46 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 04:11:25 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8iatg5$dp1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > But if the system doesn't give you any indication that anything unusual
>> > has happened all you'll see is a directory whose contents are no longer
>> > what you expected to find.
>>
>> Exactly how often does this happen? Or is your thesis that there are
>> hordes of evil sysadmins rampaging about, changing where directories
>> are mounted under everyone's feet?
>
>The point is it can happen at all.
...if you've got someone with an agenda...
>
>On an end-user (ie not managed by a BOFH) it's vastly more likely too, as
>well. Surely you're familiar with Murphy's Law of End Users ?
If they're abusing the SuperUser account, the permissions of
mountpoints are the least of their worries. They're juggling
with chainsaws any you're talking about mosquito bites.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: WHICH LINUX???
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:24:08 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:13:46 -0500, aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Steinberg wrote:
>
>>
>> I've heard that often, and I must admit that my desktop is starting to get
>> there -- it's starting to look more like "my" Linux than the Linux-Mandrake
>> 7.0 system I installed 5 months ago.
>>
>> Last night I downloaded and burned the iso's for Mandrake 7.1, and I'm a
>
>Great, I upgraded to it last weekend, works great.
>
>> little bit worried. If I do an "upgrade" of the system, what will happen
>> to all the customization that I've done? Will it survive, get replaced by
>
>Both are likely to occur. Mandrake 7.1 is now using the debian menu
>system, and this is a significant change to the system. Your desktop
This wouldn't happen to be wmconfig by any chance?
That has been available in Bughat for quite some time now and
Mandrake is at it's core a dressed up Bughat...
>will stay the same, any configuration file changes should stay put,
>but all of your menu changes will be gone. On the other hand, any menu
>changes you make in the new system will be reflected across all window
>managers, which is nice if you like to play around with wm's once in
>the while.
>
>Depending on exactly how customized you got, it might be worthwhile to
>just upgrade individual packages.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Is this Steve/Mike or another moron -was- What UNIX is good for.
Date: 15 Jun 2000 18:29:00 GMT
Check this guy out in DejaNews. He's only existed for two
weeks, and has only posted to c.o.l.a. The content and
stupidity is pretty much identical to Steve/Mike's; the
only difference is the very bad spelling.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>UNIX is very good at shuffelling text aroumd. LinoNuts call that "powerfull". I call
>it
>"pointless".
>
>However, doing annything else with UNIX is a chalange. It's not fast enough to be any
>kind
>of server, so if you realy want to shuffel text around and then send it out to
>Windows 2000
>sevrer where it can be axcessed by users, you still nead 20 UNIX boxes just to keep
>up with the
>servor. You can save the money you would spend on the 20 UNIX boxes (and the days it
>would take
>just to figure how to make it shuffall text and send it to Windos) just by doing
>everyting on
>the Windos 2000 server.
>
>You can barely do anything with graffics in UNIX. The Gimp is a joke when you compare
>it to Adobe
>PhotoShop (by it and see for yourself if your not to chepe), or even a good LOGO
>interporator.
>And if you do anything with grafix, you can only save a JPEG or PNG (forget GIF's!
>their
>"pollitacolly incorrect", like everything ealse that doesn't work on UNIX!) and
>immbedding or
>intergrating anything is a no-no (un-P.C. again), so you halve to have the text in
>one file and
>the graficks in another fial, or use HTML (another joke excuse for what you can do in
>Windows
>with Office, or even WordPad, and the text and graffix still half to be in different
>fials),
>and NO ANIMATIONS OR ANYTHING THAT CANT BE REPARSENTED BY TEXT OR A BITMAP!!
>
>So what is UNIX good four? Prettending its' the 1970s, i gess. Look mommy, I'm the
>Sysadmin! You
>can be my user. Type "elm" if you wan't to rede your e-mial, e-mails you write get
>sent once a
>week thru UUCP, and look at this it's real kewl! If you want to chat, with the other
>users you
>can type "write", but you'll always be the only user logged in anyway. Oh, and the CD
>drive,
>sound card, scanner, printer, modem, graffics card, and floppy drive arent' working
>annymore
>like they did when we had Windoas, but thats' only because they were all propietrary
>and bad
>and stuff. We just half to get new ones, thats' all.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Amorya North" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs--iTegrated with the iTernet
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:33:26 +0100
Lawrence DčOliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [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.
>
> I'm not aware of any figures showing any significant market presence for
> Linux on the desktop. Do you know differently?
Linux has 4% share, MacOS 5%, Windows around 60% I think. CNET has the
figures in the MacOS v Linux head to head. MacOS won but narrowly. They're
both great OSs, but for different purposes.
Amorya
------------------------------
From: Phil Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:35:35 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Michael Marion wrote:
& 2:1 wrote:
&
& > Install drivers if it will let you [1]
&
& Ah.. the fun one is to replace your mobo. Win98 will ask you to insert
& the CD with the drivers for the ATAPI and/or SCSI drivers... so that it
& can load the driver which will allow it to see your CD drive! Figure
& that one out. :)
Which reminds me of the joke:
Keyboard not found. Press F1 for help.
Or:
Mouse not found. Click OK to continue.
p/b
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Linux Tast Test
Date: 15 Jun 2000 18:47:54 GMT
aflinsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > Does this go for new versions, too? Or only older versions, like
: > RH5.2, or something.
: It goes for whatever they have in stock, in fact some of the older
: distros might be yours for the cost of shipping.
And they pretty much always have the current release of every distribution
in stock.
If you thought you actually have to pay more than $5 to get the most
up-to-date version of a Free operating system, I guess this news is a
pleasant surprise! :)
(On the other hand, there are still obvious benefits to buying a distro
with a manual and support.)
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
