Linux-Advocacy Digest #120, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
....... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Alpha vs Intel (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Mingus)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Coherency (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Drestin is not worthy! (abraxas)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("John Hughes")
Re: Linux app spec... (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you
do .......
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:41:06 -0500
James wrote:
>
> Please note that this newsgroup is intended for arguments FOR and AGAINST
> Linux. Steve often identifies real (as opposed to imaginary) shortcomings
> of Linux. Yes, perhaps he does have too many aliases, and perhaps he is
> wrong from time to time. But this newsgroup will be very boring if everyone
> just praises Linux. IMHO Linux has established itself as a server OS, but
> has many miles to go before it qualifies as a decent Desktop. Critics, like
> Steve, are there to point out these shortcomings.
> It is all about democracy - and calling a spade a spade!
>
> James
>
I have no problem with someone actually bringing up a real problem with
Linux and discussing it rationally. My problem is with the guy (like
Simon/Steve/Mike/Whatshisfuckingnametoday) that comes in here screaming
at the top of his lungs (figure of speech) that Linux doesn't support
anything but Postscript printers or another made up bunch of lies. Then
when someone points out he is wrong and backs it up with proof, his
response is always the same "Linux just sucks, it doesn't matter if you
know how to do something, because Windows is better." Well, too bad. I
agree with the original post of this thread. This dick has got to go.
Killfile him, whatever you want, but the best you can do is ignore the
stupid SOB. Sometimes I read his posts just for entertainment, but then
end up pissed off at him and responding because of how ridiculously
uninformed the SOB really is.
That said, I also get pissed at people that come in here with very
little, if any knowledge of Linux and scream that Linux roolz and then
procede to make up a bunch of shit that it's supposedly good at. These
people anger me because they can't provide proff. You are right. Linux
does have a ways to go. And no matter how many times someone says we
should be happy with it the way it is, it will continue to evolve (thank
god). But these people that just attack Windows users that have real
complaints about Linux, I think they are doing a great disservice to
Linux in general. It is much better to take the legitimate complaints
and talk them out. Of course, some people deserve fully to be attacked
for coming in here just to piss people off. People like this dumbass
are just an embarassment to the species. It's sad to see such stupidity
and bigotry in another human. But, sometimes that's the way it is.
Whatever.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,linux.redhat,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Alpha vs Intel
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:43:04 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:49:15 GMT, Ben Chausse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, we will have RealServer 7.0, plus about 3000 MP3's to serve to 600
>employee, 3000 static web pages, about 500 php and perl web applications, a
>huge database...
...then that sounds like you need a huge database machine and
a minor file server/shoutcast server and that your web service
may or may not be fully exploited on such a machine (alpha).
>
>
>Mark Rafn wrote:
>
>> Ben Chausse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I build a Intranet WebServer on Linux with Apache 1.3.12, mod_perl 1.49
>> >and PHP4 and I would like to know what will the best between a server
>> >with 2x667 MHZ Alpha Processer and a 4x700 MHZ Xeon Processer ??
>>
>> Lordie! What are you doing on your intranet that you need such power?
>> Unless you've got a pretty specific task that's very processor-intensive,
>> you'll bottleneck on I/O long before CPU on either of these platforms.
>>
>> In general, for webserving, you'd rather have multiple
>> load-balanced/redundant machines over one monster machine.
>> --
>> Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
>
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mingus)
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:23:45 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>As for me, I'll stick with my arcane 1970s, useless, uncool, not shiny
>commandline, and spend all day `shuffalling text fials'.
That's terribly exciting... just how many text files do you have?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:45:08 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:43:51 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>[snip for brevity]
>
>>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.
>
>Unix is not easy. Unix is in fact quite difficult.
The simple is harder, however the complicated is at least possible.
[deletia]
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:50:12 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one
>network card
> ought to be enough for anybody!"
>
Must be my imagination. I could have sworn that I have 3 OSA cards attached to Linux
on my S/390 G6
and it drives them just fine.
>
>
> And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the shortcut.
>
If by "Linux's version of DOS" you mean the CLI, that simply is not true. Try
clicking on the
picture of a phone on the control panel.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:55:41 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700, Stephen Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>>There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news groups by
>>the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not reconcile
>>with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss one of
>>them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system, since
>>there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is nothing more
>>than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating system.
This isn't quite correct.
Unix is an actual operating system and X is a graphical shell
that runs on top of it. However WinDOS is a different sort of
beast. The "whole OS" does not exist in DOS. Most of the OS is
embedded into the GUI shell making the boundary between system
components murky and DOS itself crippled.
They aren't quite comparable... Unix/X vs. DOS/Win.
>
>
>This is incorrect. WindowsNT runs a modified
>microkernel design. Windows9x is a tad more like
>your description, but there is an awful lot more to
>it, that doesn't quite fit with your contention.
>
>BTW, you were aware that Linux running X is "nothing
>more than a graphical environment that runs on an
>actual operating system", weren't you?
>
>I'm not going to waste my time explaining it, as it's
>obvious that you have a lot of homework to do, regarding
>operating systems design.
[deletia]
>>Windows 1.x software no longer ran under Windows 3.x. Most Windows 2.x
>>software still ran under Windows 3.x (with warning to upgrade the software),
>
>
>That's because real-mode never made its way into Windows v3.x.
>In order for Microsoft to move forward, they had to leave some
It doesn't matter what the excuse is. The 386 was out by then,
they had more than enough information to plan ahead with. They
just chose not to.
>things behind... real-mode applications were one of those things.
>By your logic, we should all be driving cars that still have
>oil lamps on them.
...not quite. Computers much like cars are using the same
core technology they have been from nearly their inception.
Windows is a bit younger than DOS and can't use the same
excuses for it's design myopia.
>
>Would you suggest that every software company simply cater to
>every single old-timer out there who doesn't want to upgrade
>their ancient OS/application installations? That makes no
No, they should design for the future more than the have
been (in the case of Microsoft). Software doesn't wear
out and OS vendors shouldn't be essentially sabotaging the
capital investments of both companies and home users.
>sense at all. Progress is the nature of things, and it's
>necessary if a business of any kind wishes to survive.
>
>>by Windows 3.1, most of them were non-functional, by Windows 95, none that I
>>have tried would run at all anymore. Only some of the Windows 3.x software
>>would run on Windows 95, i can only imagine what would happen if I tried to
>>run them on Windows 98 or 2000.
>
>
>Well, it's silly to think that you should be able to run every
>single piece of legacy software out there on each progressive
>new version of an OS. If your software is that old, then it's
It depends on your OS vendor. Some vendors are simply
better than others when it comes to this sort of thing.
>simply time for you to upgrade it. That is the nature of
>computing. If you don't keep up, you simply get left behind.
That is a foolishly restricted notion that sounds suspicously
devoid of any awareness of the theoretical aspects of computing.
[deletia]
Win32 is not "standardized" across all 'platforms'. One glaring
example would be threads.
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:56:40 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:30:18 +1000, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:22:35 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I also meant to say (but forgot) that the lifespan of other consumer
>>products is longer thasn 8 years. TVs, fridges etc can have lifespand
>>over 20 years. Technology may have improged, but they have become no
>>worse. Software is not different
>
>You need an Oxford dictionary
Would you fail a Turing test?
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Coherency
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:58:22 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:25:20 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Having one icon format is absurd? That's probably why KDE is so bloted.
>> It has to be abal to read every immage format out thear (except the
>> pollitically incorrect once like GIF).
>
>That need not cause bloat. Linux already has the capability to let
>almost any app read almost any image file. The pnm utils.
...it is not bloat to merely allow something like KDE to exploit
facilities that were on the system long before it was. Infact,
that would be the OPPOSITE of bloatware (code reuse).
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
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: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:59:24 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:50:31 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:42:10 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:43:03 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> "Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
>> >> >
>> >> >Because you *thought* it was mounted.
>> >>
>> >> In which case you should get a permissions error.
>> >
>> >Not in all cases. It just might copy.
>>
>> jedi@dementia /tmp >cp *txt /cdrom
>> cp: cannot create regular file `/cdrom/LICENCE.txt': Permission denied
>
>Of course, I'm running as root.
Here: have some chainsaws to juggle while you're at it... '-ppp
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:04:12 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:01:09 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Linofreaks don't run games. All they run is text fillters and C compialer. Real
>"powerful" stuff.
>>
>
>And how would you know this? I've wasted many a CPU cycle on Eric's Ultimate
>Solitaire.
My current favorite is CivCTP and I am anxiously awaiting SimCity
3000 Unlimited. Reel Deal Slots is also kind of cute. I also indulge
in an occasional Quake III fragfest whenever I feel like being
viciously humiliated...
[deletia]
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin is not worthy!
Date: 16 Jun 2000 16:05:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8id9i5$iv0$17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> BTW, is it normal for OE to crash, when shutting down RealPlayer?
> When SuckPlayer..er... RealPlayer is involved, nothing is sacred.
> You're lucky it hasn't destroyed your whole system from the inside
> out.
When realplayer dies on my linux machine, nothing at *all* happens
to the operating system or any other process.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:14:55 +0100
"WhyteWolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8icsuj$4og$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <DZf25.1219$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Otto wrote:
> >
> >"Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >: If a product has increasing market share each year (which Linux has
> >: achieved in the server os market), they are taking over.
> >
> >And if you look at which platforms were loosing market share during the
same
> >time periods, then you have the looser platforms. Hint, it's not NT....
>
> well that depends on how far you look ...
> NT had a 70% market share in 1997, that droped to 35% in 1999.
> while NT didn't change it's market pattern from 1998-1999
> Linux did ... in fact linux went from a mere 17% in 1997 to
> 30% in 1999.. in fact the two market leaders right now
> are NT and Linux ...
>
> now while it maybe true that NT didn't *loose* market share
> it is also thusly true that they didn't *gain* market share
> which in fact places them in the ripe for loosing catagory
>
>
The latest IDC stats show that Linux, Unix and NT all grew their market
shares. Novell was the big looser.
As I remember NT had 70% and Unix went from 31% to 33% which was not
expected for Unix.
I cannot remember the exact figure for Linux but Unix has a greater market
share.
------------------------------
From: abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: 16 Jun 2000 16:08:24 GMT
Mingus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't use Linux and I don't know anyone who does.
*snip*
> Anyway, here are my thoughts on the standards:
*snip*
Go away.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
