Linux-Advocacy Digest #149, Volume #27 Sat, 17 Jun 00 19:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("TimL")
Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south) (tholenbot)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (mlw)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:15:04 GMT
Trool Skor 2 out of possibl 10.
OK. This person makes it completely obvious that he's trying to look
like a dumbass who can't speel. (come on, scails? ganes? we're to
believe you figured out how to post but can't spell better than a 3rd grader?)
He makes it even more obvious that he's trying to pretend to be a stupid
Windows user who knows nothing about what computers are capable of
doing outside the Windows environment(his sprinkling of UNIX knowledge
throughout the post would indicate otherwise.)
OTOH, this person could be a great big ignoramus who is frustrated that
parts of Linux are beyond his grasp. In fact this persons seems to be quite
fearful of the command-line, like it undermines his idea that he's smart enough
to use a kompewter.
Either way, after all his effort, he fails to compel one to respond to his points
by his appearance of utter stupidity.
You gotta try a lot harder Tim. At least try to make it seem like you have
*some* intelligence! Thanks in advance.
/TimL
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 1. It scails down
>
> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of
> RAM. Windows runs on todays computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run
> on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer from 1991 doessn't mean shit.
>
> 2. It's multi-user
>
> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to
> me is that I have to remember a password just to be able to get into my
> own computer. Users want to get their work done, not waist time "logging
> in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that can't even be
> disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time
> somethign goes wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to
> support through VT100 terminals can get the're own computer, and the
> "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail, news, bin, sys,
> and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
>
> 3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>
> And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows
> is. There is NO REASON to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off
> the desktop, and NO REASON to turn off the Window manager. These are all
> useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos for halvign them.
> Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
> "feature". Now THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
>
> 4. You can logg in remotely
>
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And
> since it's a feature that
> only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need
> a password (see #2) to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if
> they run Windows.
>
> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows
> more usefull to most users. Windows still wins.
>
> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking
> is only usefull to normal
> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
>
> 7. It gives you "choice"
>
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's
> "choice" is MS Windows
> and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never
> give up all that just to run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps
> except if they were tricked into it.
>
> 8. It's "free"
>
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring
> the installation, and
> then more and more time after the installation as one thing after
> annother goes wrong.
>
> 9. It's Open-Source
>
> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they
> can just run Windos
> like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
>
> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that
> alreaddy shipped with UNIX
> to beagen with.
>
> Yawn.
>
> :
> :post
> The post command is unknown.
> :exit
> The exit command is unknown.
> :close
> The close command is unknown.
> :quit
> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
> :save
> The save command is unknown.
> :s
> No previous regular expression.
> :Oh darnit!
> The Oh command is unknown.
> :?
> No previous regular expression.
> :quit
> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
> :!
> Usage: [line [,line]] ! command.
> :! quit
> File modified since last write. bash: quit: command not found quit:
> exited with status 127
> :?
> No previous regular expression.
> :DIE YOU PIECE OF LINSHIT!!!!!!
> The DIE command is unknown.
>
>
------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:20:46 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My last reply to you was generated using the Eliza clone that comes with
> > Emacs. How predictable that you failed to recognize this fact
>
> I did not fail to recognize it.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> You don't catch a fish by jerking the
> line at the first nibble, you wait until it's bitten to hook it.
Fish are irrelevant, Jacques. Your reading comprehension problems are
relevant.
In any event, to use your metaphor, tholenbot always bites when someone
responds to its messages. There is no record, as far as I am aware, of
tholenbot failing to respond to a message. If you had decent tholenbot
comprehension skills, you would have recognized this fact.
> > as well
> > as the fact that the nature of the replies in that last message was a
> > clear departure from my usual posting style.
>
> The usual posting style is similar to the late Hasan B. Mutlu's, with
> the only difference that your corpus is much shorter.
Take it up with Dave Tholen. Or maybe Tholen is Mutlu in disguise, or
vice versa? Do you have any sample Mutlu posts available with header
information? Perhaps a comparison is in order.
> > Does it surprise you that a posting identity with "bot" in its name
> > would behave in a bot-like manner?
>
> Not in the least.
Then why do you seem so proud of your discovery that tholenbot behaves
like a bot?
> We all know how Botticelli painted, how Markos
> Botzaris fought for Greek independence, and how Giovanni Caboto
> found his way on the high seas.
Prove that we all know these things, if you think you can.
> > Perhaps you should try using your
> > brain.
>
>
> I do, I do.
Evidence, please.
> But I have only half a brain and I prefer to use the
> half that's not there, lest I wear out the one that's there.
What makes you think that the half that is there isn't worn out already?
> > You erroneously presuppose that I was ever "with" AT&T.
>
> I was talking to Hasan B. Mutlu.
Illogical, given that you were replying to me, and I am not Hasan B.
Mutlu. Do you understand how Usenet works, Jacques?
Also illogical, given that above you referred to this person as the
"late" Hasan B. Mutlu. Do you frequently attempt to converse with the
dead, Jacques? More evidence of your illogical behavior. Of course,
that is par for your course.
> You shouldn't eavesdrop on other
> people's conversations.
You erroneously presuppose that I was eavesdropping on someone else's
conversation.
> You ought to go back to your corner in Cornell and write a
> proper bot.
What makes you think I have left my corner? What makes you think I have
not written a proper bot?
> That's rather simple.
Cammon sense makes a cameo appearance. A proper tholenbot could do
quite well by simply building, from Tholen's past posts, an "opening
library" similar to what is found in most chess programs.
>Quite like 777. (I wonder
> if he'll pick that one?)
In order to pick that up I would have to lift my monitor, which is
heavy. I therefore prefer not to pick it up. I could save it to a
floppy and then pick up the floppy, but this computer does not have a
floppy drive.
By the way, your use of "The Tholenbot", suggesting that this is the
only tholenbot, is misguided. There is at least one other
pseudo-tholenbot, which last summer engaged in a long debate with this
particular tholenbot:
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=513110252&fmt=text
And there is the genuine tholenbot written in C by Dave Wang. However,
Mr. Wang's implementation is not very interesting.
--
Prove that it's just a flesh wound, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:23:28 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> 1. It scails down
>
> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on todays
> computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer
>from 1991
> doessn't mean shit.
The big thing these days is scale down. Palm computing, thin clients.
>
> 2. It's multi-user
>
> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that I
>have to
> remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
> done, not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that
>can't
> even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time somethign
>goes
> wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to support through VT100 terminals
>can get
> the're own computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail,
>news, bin,
> sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
No, it isn't the '70's, it is a new century. DOS and dos-isms should
die. Like geo-synchronous satellites, way before their time, UNIX is
here because the hardware technology has finally reached that of
software design.
>
> 3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>
> And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows is. There is
>NO REASON
> to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off the desktop, and NO REASON to turn
>off the
> Window manager. These are all useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos
>for halvign
> them. Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
>"feature". Now
> THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
This simply shows you have no imagination. Linux is flexible.
>
> 4. You can logg in remotely
>
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And since it's a
>feature that
> only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need a password
>(see #2)
> to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if they run Windows.
Again, this shows you have no imagination.
>
> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to
>most
> users. Windows still wins.
And this is why Microsoft spent millions (billions?) making terminal
server?
>
> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking is only
>usefull to normal
> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
Again, if you can't see usefulness, you lack imagination.
>
> 7. It gives you "choice"
>
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's "choice" is
>MS Windows
> and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never give up all
>that just to
> run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps except if they were tricked into it.
It gives you choice. Lots of choice, and in my experience, Windows has a
lot more crappy programs than Linux, any day.
>
> 8. It's "free"
>
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring the
>installation, and
> then more and more time after the installation as one thing after annother goes
>wrong.
When you add it all up, Windows cost you a hell of a lot more time in
reboots, lost work, and instability.
>
> 9. It's Open-Source
>
> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they can just
>run Windos
> like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
What matters is that the people who need access get access.
>
> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy shipped
>with UNIX
> to beagen with.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
--
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?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:09:52 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that shell?
> LiteStep and the other available GUI replacements for Window 9x or NT 4.
Once again Microsoft's dogma is crushed on the heel of reality. I wonder if
the Microsoft supporters will be mature enough to give you a tip of the hat
for that fact?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 10:40:57 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Say what ? Please quote the relevant parts of whatever EULAS you're
talking
> about that says this.
On a piece of paper that came in the "shrink wrap" software envelope in an
upgrade package for a Microsoft product was this passage:
What is a software upgrade?
A software upgrade is a modification converting your installed software into
a new and better version. It is like remodeling a house, when you have
finnish the remodeling, it is a new and better version of the house. You
still have only one house any you can nolonger use you original house. The
same is true for a software upgrade, you have a new and better version of
the software and you may no longer use the original software.
In the license agreement of a Microsoft product upgrade from around the same
time there was this:
...The lincense you were granted by Microsoft for the prior version of the
SOFTWARE is null and void. ...
> What would be the point ? Is there really any significant number of
people
> running Windows 1.x and 2.x apps ?
What is a significant number? Lets say there are only two remaining, one
who has a need for Windows 1.x and another who has a need for Windows 2.x.
Who are you or anyone to say that their needs don't matter.
The question is not should Microsoft do it, it is why shouldn't Microsoft
offer them free of charge to anyone who would like them. Microsoft has no
continuing financial interest in these packages and doing so would generate
some good will amoung users and potiential users. It could also have other
good effects for the company, for one this would be news. Wouldn't you
imagine that the employees and shareholders would like to see Microsoft
honetly mentioned in a favorable light in the news? If they are afraid of
legal entanglement because of incompatibility with some current hardware,
they could release the as is and without warrenty. And don't say that
Microsoft could not afford to do it, many companies with less wealth and
resources have done this with their "obsolete" products. And the results
for them have been favorable, it has even generated sales of their latter
products.
Microsoft has nothing too loose and everything to gain by doing this.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 11:39:48 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yep. MS is about the best at the moment for BINARY compatibility.
> Try loading a 2.0 kernel module on a 2.4 kernel. Boom.
Lets turn that around and look at it this way: Try recompiling all the load
able drivers for Windows 95 to run on Windows 2000. That is not possible
because you don't have access to the source code. So, since Linux provides
the soruce code for the modules, it is not nessary for them to be binary
compatible.
Once hardware manufacturers feel they are safe from the nondisclosure and
noncompetition clauses. Their drivers could be supplied in source code form
as well. Since a hardware manufacturer makes money from the hardware sales
and not from the drivers, it would benefit them to offer the driver in
source code form so that the public could not only have it optimised for
their particular platform, that the public could port the drivers to other
platforms. This would expand the market for their hardware without and
expense or efforts on their part. The public could also improve the drivers
in ways that the manufacturs either did not have to desire or foresight to
consider.
A problem in purchasing hardware more so for rare or expsnsive hardware is
the worry about if the drivers will be available for it with the next
versions of the operating systems. If the source code is out there, the
users could update it for the next version of the operating system even if
the manufacturer would abandon the product. So this wouldd relieve this
worry on thr part of the potiential customer base. The less worries the
more potiential customer may become actual customers.
By requiring the nondisclosure and noncompetition clauses, Microsoft has
slowed innovation rather than support it. That put the lie to so many of
the claims of the supporters of Microsoft.
As long as you have source code availability, there is relativly little need
for binary compatibility. Linux has no binary compatibility what so ever
between its installations across different processor families. But that
makes no difference at all, a user of Linux on one platform would be right
at home on any other computer.
x86? ppc? 68000? alpha? Any differences between the hardware can be handled
by the kernel and each platform would behave the same way. If they don't
see the computer that they are using most ordinary users would not even know
which platform they are using.
So you comment of binary compatibility show you lack of knowledge or
reasoning in this matter.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:22:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8igl2f$6c9$10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [Snip]
> > The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
> > Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
> > speed? ;-)
>
> I hope this never will!
I concur fully with this sentiment, NEVER! Why lock Linux into X? What
about any other windowing system that may be devloped. X is sepperate from
unix, always has been and I hope always will be. X can run on almost any
operating system and it not dependent on unix. Unix can run X or can run
without it, unix can run any other GUI written for it as well.
> > The 386 was out, but the target platform was the 286. Windows 3.x
> > just introduced 386 enhanced mode which provided most of the things
> > standard mode did with a few extra bonuses.
>
> Wasn´t there Win/386 or what it was called?
There was no Windows called Win/386. There were three modes that Windows
3.0 could be run in, real mode, standard mode and 386 enhanced mode.
Windows 3.0 could run in real mode on any PC from a 8086 / 8088 and up.
Windows 3.0 could run in standard mode on a PC with a 80286 and up. WIndows
3.0 could run in 386 enhanced mode on a PC with a 80386 and up.
By the time Microsoft began developing Windows to take advantage of the
80286, the state of the art Intel processor was already the 80486 and Intel
was designing the 80586 This means that they already knew the future
requirements for the Windows line and had no valid excuses for their
designed errors.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:58:43 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually I read it as WOULD, and I missed the "have to" too.
> Sorry about that.
Understood. Sometimes the finger type a little too fast, eh? ;-)
> No need. The user's home directory would always be pointed to by the
"Home:"
> logical device. Like the $HOME env variable. When I was in the equivalent
> of high school we had a novell system that we logged in to, and our home
> directory was always H:.
Same with the Novell NetWare networks I have been the "Supervisor" for. A
user's home directory tree for their personal files is one this, but what
about those join project directories that grow and evolve dynamically.
> Why? Because it worked OK without using the Unix-way? :-)
No, because of the operating systems have special support for handling the
library directories. The same is true for the binary directories. I was
trying to refer to a normal and well know directory to discuss the normal
feature of the operating systems. The special support for the library and
binady directories defeat this goal.
> First thing I'd do would be find Dr.Forbin and make them shoot him instead
> for making such a mess out of his project.
No need, some day when Colousus thinks it does not need him any more, it
will order his execution.
> I think you would agree that
> hard coded filespecs in a mess of directories here and there is no way
> to run a project.
Yes, but we often have the responsibility to provide support for things like
this, and don't have to authority to enforce the sensible designs and
operatiions. Organizational politics and things like that.
>Other than that I would have to say that this is an example
> where hte unix way prevails and the others fail. However if Dr.Forbin (or
> whoever) had put some thought into the structure of his project and used
> logical assigns for different parts of the project things would have
worked
> out fine.
Granted but in this case Dr. Forbin started out controlling the project and
then the project startedd controlling Dr. Forbin and the rest of us.
> You see, using a different system you will also have to structure your
things
> differently. If you do, things work fine.
Yes, but we often have to inherit lemons and try to make lemonaide out if
them.
>
> The only reason, BTW, why I can't expand Dr.Forbin's project is the lack
of
> softlinks on my system. There's really nothing in the design keeping them
> from being implemented either
Softlinks are not needed for this under Linux, turning some directories into
mountpoints would do the job.
.
> How do you get unix to tell an user to insert his floppy or zip disk
> labelled "MyFiles"? And how do you tell the user that he inserted the
wrong
> disk (if he did)? Even if it had a file with the name and in the place
your
> program was looking for, but the disk had the wrong label?
>
> Or put in the spirit of your example above;
> You have two floppies with the same dir structure, but one file contains
> different data. They are unmarked. The program asks for the file "a" on
Disk1
> but will make the computer explode if you mount Disk2 and it gets to read
file
> "a" from Disk2. What do you do?
> On a system where the disks have a name the system will ask specifically
> for Disk1 and refuse Disk2 before the program gets to it.
There are many filesystems available on unix hosts including kernel support
for non unix filesystems, some of them support volume labels others do not.
For a computer that is in a remote location and/or have no video, keyboardd,
or mouse, it would be more difficult. There are many situations where this
would not be possible or at least very efficient (Imagine you get a disk
change request on you login terminal in your office on the Pacific coast and
having to go to the computer on the Atlantic cost to change the disk ;-) )
There are unix solutions for these problems. Given a disk volume label or
some other way to have the computer identify it, an automounting daemon
could be configured to request the required disk and then verify the correct
disk had been installed. For a multiuser system there could be an operator
who has access to the system console and handle media change requests.
There are also auto loaders that can have a number of a given media, say
floppies, cdroms, or tapes. They operate like a jukebox had mount the
required disk on request by the system. Of course on a single user host,
with a local user, it could be configured to behave the way you would expect
for the Mac by way of an automounter daemon.
> In unix those references would be softlinks I presume? It can be done
> but in my opinion it's more messy since the logical assigns are not part
> of the file system on the disk.
I think I am missing something in the last half of this paragraph of yours.
I will try to answer this point anyway. Depending on the situation, the
references could be implemented throough softlinks, hardlinks, wrapper
scripts, mount points, or auto mounters daemon, depends on the requirements
of the sitation, facilities of the given unix and it filesystem, and the
policy of the installation.
> >>I'm not saying the unix way is bad, it's not, but I do say that other
> >>solutions exist and they are not bad either.
> >Of course the unix method is not bad, that is why it has been around
longer
> >that most other methods, and why it has already out lived so many of them
as
> >well.
> >
> Well, it hasn't outlived Windows, and that has the larger marketshare
> and the worst system of all. Also, I think that the filesystem isn't
> the main reason unix has been around for so long.
For that let up just say that unix had not outlived dos/Windows, yet---off
course unix has been around much longer than Dos/Windows. That is why so
many of the innovations of Dos 2.0 was a weak implementation of some of the
features of unix. Since unix is much older that most of the unix
filesystems, I agree that is not the reason for it lasting power. but the
way that the vaious filesystem support the unix methods is and has been
since the beginning of unix. The original Dos filesystem was a varation on
the theme of the CP/M filesystem. Then with Dos 2.0 it inherited some unix
features as well.
Now if you want to talk about bad file systems and disk operating system,
think back on those of the Apple ][ and Apple ][+.
> It's good, but I don't think it has all the solutions. Neither does any
> other system of course, but every system has solutions to things the
others
> don't.
You are correct on this point and as someone who has worked on so many
different systems and computers, I quite concur. At the same time my
experience with this large varity, has led me to feel that the unix files
systems and the unix file handling paradigm is the best overall
implementation that I have yet encountered. It is not perfect, but I have
not experenced anything better. Those that may hove one or two better
methods also have too many short commings when compared to unix.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:35:51 GMT
Doesn't matter, S/390, 9672, 3090 MVS/XA, ESA, VM all things that
Linux may run with/on/under but things that the desktop people could
care less about.
Linux in the back room or in some geeks wet dream yes.
Linux on the desktop in mass?
Forget it.
.3 percent speaks for itself.
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:38:38 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Yawwwwwnnnnn.
>>
>> A 9762 in every living room I say......
>>
>> And people wonder why Linux has peaked and is fading fast...
>>
>
>Curious. He forgot to mention S/390 and yet that's what you key off of in your
>response. You are right about one thing. Yawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn. I'm
>getting bored with you.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
