Linux-Advocacy Digest #103, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (mlw)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Pete Goodwin)
Good books on writing a kernel. (Manish Ahuja)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: iMacs--iTegrated with the iTernet (Darren Winsper)
Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux.... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MS Windows WM (Darren Winsper)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Darren Winsper)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Darren Winsper)
Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south) (Marty)
Re: BSOD in the airport (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux & Winmodem (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Server list for the bored (WhyteWolf)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south) (tholenbot)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:12:59 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I see it here so often, and so many Linux advocates get dragged down
> >this path. It wastes your personal bandwidth and it is a classic example
> >of an argument which can not be won, not because it isn't true, but
> >because of the great number of variables in the market place.
> >
> >99% of the machines sold today are sold with Windows. To argue that
> >Windows is not "easier" to install is problematic. Yes you have to
> >reboot after you install each and every stupid little plug and play
> >device, etc. However, chances are that the hardware will be supported in
> >some fashion, because the box shipped with Windows, it only follows that
> >the OEM distributor put the work in to their n x 1000 boxes to ship with
> >all the correct support.
> >
> >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.
Yes, it is an argument which is pointless.
>
> >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.
Normal users, (Statistically speaking) bring the machine back to the
store for such additions.
>
> >
> >Installation is important, but OEM installation is even more important.
> >With OEM installation, the user will never be faced with installation
> >and it becomes a non issue. Unlike Windows, Linux does not need to be
> >"reinstalled" if something goes wrong. It can actually be fixed in
> >place. It can actually be upgraded while running normally!
> >
> >This leaves the real issues, on which the Windows advocates can't touch
> >Linux:
> >
> >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..
Actually, generally speaking, Linux does a better job at scaling than
does NT. The one thing that NT does better is to assign processor
affinity to devices. Other than that, Linux handles process scheduling
and memory management much better.
>
> >
> >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
> better by a PostScript printer), and about 10,000 one-function programs so you can
>shuffal text
> around in 1,000,000 ways and still not manage to do anything useful.
One can name the modem anything they want. Most distributions create the
symlink "modem" to ttySn.
I have yet to use a Postscript printer under Linux, I have not idea what
you're smoking.
Actually these 10K one function programs build one hell of a lot of
functionality. This is a different, and arguably better, method of doing
things than the Windows way. BTW it isn't just text, multimedia,
networking, etc. lots of things that one could only dream of being able
to do under Windows.
>
> >
> >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.
Hey, I don't know what OS you are using, but if this is what you say
about Linux. You are either lying, or using something other than Linux.
>
> >
> >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.
Gimp has an abysmal UI IMHO. However, it is feature complete, and some
people really like it. I use Applix myself and gimp or ee for bitmap
graphics. I never liked photoshop on Windows anyway. I am waiting for
"psp" to come to Linux.
>
> >
> >X11
> >People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
> >limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
> >features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right.
> >A graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
> >both applications and OS.
>
> .and bloated as hell.
What part of X is bloated when compared to something like the GUI
components in NT?
> >Microsoft's terminal server is a resource hog.
>
> X is a resource hog.
Perhaps, and I disagree, comparatively speaking, however for the sake of
argument, there is an important distinction. The X Server, whose purpose
is analogous to Windows NT miniport and display driver, only loads the
machine on which it is running. It does not load the machine on which
the client program is running (unless it is the same machine, of
course). What this means is that terminal server loads the machine
acting as the program server AND the Windows GUI loads the machine
acting as the client. That's a very bad design.
X, on the other hand, is a display paradigm. Very lightweight on the
program side, and moderately heavy on the display side. It is a MUCH
better design by any rational standard. An X server need not be running,
or even installed, on a machine which executes X applications as an
applications server.
>
> >To run an application server means a very expensive service, you would
> >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).
Yes, but it does not need to crash your important web servers. And a
good X server, link any other display device driver, is can be stable,
but it is good to have the choice.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:46:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Actually, multimedia/3D performance isn't that hot on Windows, either.
>It needs a rather large set of extra tools for bypassing most of the
>OS-layers Windows has, just to enable the user to play games on it.
>(I'm talking about DirectX, obviously)
Not to mention the layers that X, Qt and KDE impose! I hear XFree86 V4.0
has a kernel interface (?) that speeds up responsive, just like Windows
has?
Pete
------------------------------
From: Manish Ahuja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Good books on writing a kernel.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:48:52 -0500
What I find most difficult is that it is very difficult to get a BIG
picture when
you look at any OS code. The complexity of the whole thing eludes you.
There
are lotsa good books out there, but reading helps you to clear stuff up
but only when
you write and implement it. Any good books that can help me write an
absolute rudimentary kernel, or maybe parts of it like FS, VMM or proc
to begin with.
Where can i begin ?? Any tutorials ?? Web pointers ?? books ?? I prefer
if the books has
things to do suggestions and exercises in the end.
I am sure there are lotsa folks out there who know a lot on this subject
and all answers
suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks in advance to all who reply.
Manish
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:06:55 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 14 Jun 2000 16:29:12 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:52:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:42:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Tiberious wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [CUT the entire crap]
>[deletia]
>>>>>>Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
>>>>>>does not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Crystal Reports.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Never heard of it.
>>>>
>>>>Some sort of Physic program or something?
>>>>>[deletia]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh that's certainly something Joe Sixpack will remember..
>>>>>
>>>>> Then someone can encapsulate it in a button, menu or
>>>>> an entire pointless little shiny little applet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No that's a demonstration of the ease of Windows and the archaicness
>>>>of Linux.
>>>
>>> As arcana goes, it's actually not bad.
>>>
>>> "scanimage" ...oooh, whatever could that be.
>>>
>>> "/dev/scanner" ...now that's a non-descript name if there ever
>>> was one.
>>
>>You left out the switch you used. And scanimage sends its output to stdout. What
>formatt is it in
>
> -d : -<firstletter of fullword descriptor>
>
> That's not terribly obscure either.
O really? What the hell is a "fullword descriptor", and how many MAN paiges or HOWTO's
do you
have to read to get to that part?
The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX is "easy" and
then you come
back and say you half to type some cryptic-as-hell command to do something simpal. My
favarite is:
rpm -Uvh
>
> As far as the format of the output goes: any reasonable print
> filter should be able to sort that out by itself.
>
>>and how much of the MAN page do you half to read to get to that part? How many
>filters to you half
>>to pipe it thruogh before its' readabal by GIMP?
>
> Once again you demonstrate your cluelessness.
>
> The X version of scanimage that comes with SANE is directly
> employable by GIMP as a plug-in.
>
>>
>>Now, it's tommorro. What happens when the average user doesnt' remember wheather
>it's "scanimage"
>>or "scanpicture" or, worse, yet, when the user does'nt remember what's supposed to
>go in front of
>>the word "scanner"?
>
> They could just use GIMP or StarOffice or Xscanimage or Xsane
> or just have a button or menu in their favorite enviroment.
The averadge user's favorite environmant is Windos. They don't put up with
slow-as-hell substituits
for good Windows apps like ShitOfice or PIMP. Force any non-geak uer to put up with
GNOME and
its endless delay's for even half an hour and they'll DEMAND to halve Windows back and
never
want to even here the word "Linxu" again.
>
> It will certainly be more friendly than anything in DCL.
>
>[deletia]
>
>
>--
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs--iTegrated with the iTernet
Date: 15 Jun 2000 21:50:20 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:33:26 +0100, Amorya North
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux has 4% share, MacOS 5%, Windows around 60% I think.
60%?! I'd say more like 85-90%.
> CNET has the
> figures in the MacOS v Linux head to head. MacOS won but narrowly.
That would mean Linux will overtake MacOS this year according to
current trends.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux....
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:50:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>No singing and dancing paper clip. <G>
No puddy tat!
Seriously, if a package on Linux had a cutesie puddy tat like MS Word 2000,
I'd switch to Linux overnight.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: 15 Jun 2000 21:50:21 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:08:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, when I said flexible, I meant in and of itself. Being able to
> scrap one window manager and use another does not make THAT window
> manager flexible. Remember I'm talking about window managers, not the
> X-Windows system itself. There's no single WM that is as intuitive and
> configurable.
Care to tell me how Sawmill (And E for that matter) aren't as
configurable as Windows?
> But again, that's just MY opinion.
The problem is you aren't really demonstrating why your opinion is
valid, apart from what's below.
> All you've got to do is compare the dran-n-drop method of
> creating a shortcut to the manual creation of launcher icons in Gnome
> to see what I mean.
Hmm...<Tries it>. Oh, you're right. I'm surprised you can't do that.
Creating application launchers isn't that bad. Most GNOME applications
install themselves into the menu, and you can add them to the launcher
via a right-click menu. It's a shame you can't just drag a file to the
panel and have it create a launcher though. Perhaps you should
subscribe to the appropriate GNOME mailing list and put your request
forward.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 15 Jun 2000 21:50:21 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:41:32 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1000000 magazines wouldn't make a difference. From my perspective, Linux is
> slower than Windows. My own tests tell me that.
Care to properly document those tests? Maybe I missed them, my ISP
does seem to be missing a lot of posts recently.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 15 Jun 2000 21:50:22 GMT
On 15 Jun 2000 10:58:51 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please fix your line wrapping.
> Yeah. /dev/ttyS? for the modam (insted of sellectign it by name),
pppconfig (In Debian) automatically detects where my modem is, and has
done for over a year.
> lpr to print (and by god it
> better by a PostScript printer),
Hmm...I guess my cheap and nasty inkjet can't print from Linux after
all.
> and about 10,000 one-function programs
> so you can shuffal text
apsfilter set itself up to deal with those automatically for me.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:13:12 GMT
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I have had a look at the few other posts that
> appeared at the same time as this from Tholenbot.
>
> It *is* a bot.
>
> Once upon a time, on soc.culture.europe, there
> used to be a certain Hasan B. Mutlu. Any mention
> of "Turkey" would be promptly answered with a
> quote of the beginning of the original post,
> followed by a lengthy lecture, randomly
> drawn from his database of such lectures, about
> how the Armenians genocided the Turks. Someone
> asking about the traditional turkey of American
> thanksgiving so aroused the interest (ire?) of
> the Mutlu bot. One week, the Mutlu bot managed
> to post half a megabyte (I used to keep weekly
> statistics, which I'd post on soc.culture.europe)
>
> They don't have much to do at Cornell. Or, if they
> are testing the von Neumann hypothesis, their
> AI research has a long way to go before they
> rediscover Eliza.
Apparently the AI experiment is a joint effort with Hawaii.edu. You'd think
with both of these two universities working so diligently that it would have
advanced to something usable by now, but it appears that the fundamental
programming is still too flawed for the AI to learn anything.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: BSOD in the airport
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:04:50 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:57:34 GMT...
...and Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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)
Intermittent Suction?
:))
mawa
--
I made my way through the computer controlled monorail, car by car,
cruising for sentient beings.
-- Mark Leyner, My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:27:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <8hp4k7$la6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > A quick question: I'm thinking of trying
> > out Linux (probably SuSE), but
> > I have a US Robotics Winmodem.
>
> I'm not sure if US Robotics is, but many of the Lucent Technologies
> based "Win"Modems are now supported by Linux.
>
> The good news, you don't have to buy a new modem.
>
> The bad news, performance on both Linux and Windows NT
> gets really slow if you try to put too much traffic on the modem.
But with Linux, it's ONLY the apps that are relying on the PPP
connection.
:-)
> > I know it is incompatible, but is it
> > still worthwhile running a dual Windows (for internet) and Linux
> > system - or does that kind of miss the point?
>
> I do this all the time. I run windows on either an NTFS partition
> or a Fat32 partition and Linux on an e2fs partition and create a large
> FAT partition that can be used to pass information from NT to 95 and
> Linux.
>
> I've been using Linux pretty regularly, but I still need to switch
> to Windows (reluctantly) to access certain applications.
>
> > Any advice gratefully received.
>
> Before you write off using Linux for internet, see if you have
> the drivers you are looking for in one of the archives. Once
> upon a time, Linux had absolutely no winmodem support, now several
> modem makers have leaked out enough information (lucent chips)
> to provide winmodem support.
>
> Modem makers have been discovering that Winmodems aren't doing
> very well. The OEMs install Winmodems when the integrate the
> components, but users are snapping up real-modems at computer shows
> and other sources. Linux users are very resourceful and tend to have
> no difficulty finding low-cost avenues.
>
> Unfortunately, although Winmodems are popular with Win 95 and Win95
> users, even when NT and Win2k support is available, users aren't
> willing to accept the performance hit.
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 5%/month!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 15 Jun 2000 22:28:56 GMT
Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
Please, don't tell me that it's superior because "Microsoft is
buggy and bloated, because we've heard that tripe far too often
to take it seriously anymore.
2.) You have absolutely zero figures present to back up that silly
statement with. What is the basis of your claim?
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Subject: Server list for the bored
Date: 15 Jun 2000 22:19:07 GMT
ok one day While i was bored reading posts from simple simon
I decided to see just how much linux/solaris/etc.
is in use on the web ... so going to www.netcraft.com I started
punching in a few web sites ... here are some of the results
Hotmail ... FreeBSD
will they ever port it to Win2K?
AOL ... Solaris
Yahoo ... FreeBSD
royal.gov.uk ... Linux
I guess acording to Simple simon The British royal Family
can't afford a decent network tech?
apple.com ... Solaris
not bad for a company started on april fools day
www.linuxsucks.com ... Linux
LOL this one always cracks me up
google.com ... Linux
4000 computers clusstered and growing
Dogpile ... Linux
a nice little search engine I use searches most
search engines .. I"m sure some of yeah heard of it
Deja News ... Linux
I'm sure most of you use this ;-p
Real NetWorks ... Linux
Real Audio anyone?
Etoys ... Linux
do you want to play a Game?
Lycos.com ... Compaq Tru64 UNIX
{as a side note there angelfire servers run linux}
Vatican ... Compaq Tru64 UNIX
I guess UNIX is sponsered by GOD now
Amazon ... Compaq Tru64 UNIX
books books and more books
IBM ... AIX
Big Blue strikes microsoft out
Ebay ... Solaris
wanna buy a $10 Win2k computer?
Fortune ... Solaris
were they list the fortune 500 ...
playboy ... Solaris
<eg>
BMW ... Solaris
nice cars i must say ...
Jack In The Box ... FreeBSD
Excite ... Solaris
whitehouse ... Solaris
Navy.mil ... Solaris
if you can't trust the governments of the world
who can you trust?
White Wolf Games ... MacOS
Borland ... Solaris
motorola ... Solaris
Sprint.com ... Solaris
AT&T ... Solaris
bell.com ... Solaris
--
-=-=-=-=-
We must remember the First Amendment which protects any shrill jackass
no matter how self-seeking.
-- F. G. Withington
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:38:58 -0500
Stephen,
Since when has a Linvocate ever had to back up any claim
with anything remotely close to the truth?
-Chad
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8iblb8$1pt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
>
> 1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
> Please, don't tell me that it's superior because "Microsoft is
> buggy and bloated, because we've heard that tripe far too often
> to take it seriously anymore.
>
> 2.) You have absolutely zero figures present to back up that silly
> statement with. What is the basis of your claim?
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:44:44 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> I have had a look at the few other posts that
> appeared at the same time as this from Tholenbot.
When did you first know that appeared at the same time as this from
tholenbot?
> It *is* a bot.
What makes you believe it is a bot?
> Once upon a time, on soc.culture.europe, there
> used to be a certain Hasan B. Mutlu.
Maybe your plans have something to do with this?
> Any mention
> of "Turkey" would be promptly answered with a
> quote of the beginning of the original post,
> followed by a lengthy lecture, randomly
> drawn from his database of such lectures, about
> how the Armenians genocided the Turks.
Does it bother you that the armenians genocided the Turks?
> Someone
> asking about the traditional turkey of American
> thanksgiving so aroused the interest (ire?) of
> the Mutlu bot.
Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>One week, the Mutlu bot managed
> to post half a megabyte
I don't understand.
>(I used to keep weekly
> statistics, which I'd post on soc.culture.europe)
You mentioned that the armenians genocided the turks?
> They don't have much to do at Cornell.
Is it because of your life that you are going through all of this?
> Or, if they
> are testing the von Neumann hypothesis, their
> AI research has a long way to go before they
> rediscover Eliza
Eliza? Hah! I wish you would continue.
--
Prove that it's just a flesh wound, if you think you can.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
