Linux-Advocacy Digest #205, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Debian (Ed Cogburn)
Re: stability of culture of helpfulness (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Stability of the Culture of Helpfulness (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(James Lee)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux & Winmodem (Shaya)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (John Hasler)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Thread now dead (2:1)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: IE for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Barry Thomas)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:27:00 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Every Linux distribution contains some free and some NON-free code.
> Debian is the only one of many who use .deb files instead of .rpm's to upgrade
> with.
Don't understand this, rpm and dpkg are both designed to do the same
functional thing. There even exists a program to convert between the
2 formats (how well this works depends on how well the deb/rpm was
constructed).
>
> Debian is UNIQUELY different from the others. Their OS works well.
> Debian stands for UNIQUE.
Yes, its the only major non-commercial distribution of Linux, the
only one to make free software and open source a part of their ethos,
but up to now, they have shown a moderate viewpoint by allowing users
access to non-free software integrated in their package handling
system. At least, I haven't heard of any other distro like Debian.
>
> I'm in favor of a ban on non-free for Debian.
> At least make seperate CD's or do something to differentiate
> between free and non-free apps from the way it's being done now
> by directory.
What would be the purpose of this? Is this to punish those who use
Debian along with a few commercial apps, in my case its Netscape
Communicator with Debian (woody)? Will this make Debian more
popular? I don't think so. Will it make Debian more favorable as a
general purpose Linux distribution? No, actually the opposite.
You're just going to aggravate some people without accomplishing
anything. Non-free already can't go on CD distributions. The likely
effect of this decision is to move non-free off ftp.debian.org, but
that will be about it, unless you want to go further by actively
preventing Debian users from using non-free apps. So, for Debian
users who need access to non-free all they need to do is make a change
to apt's sources.list. Something like:
deb http://ftp.debian-non-free.org/debian woody non-free
Its pretty clear that someone will rather quickly host the non-free
portion of Debian on another site. So people will continue to use
Debian along with whatever commercial software they need as they do
now. Due to the way Debian's powerful package handling system works,
the non-free contents from the other site, along with ftp.debian.org's
contents, will be merged, sorted, and presented to the user, in
dselect, *exactly* as it does now, your desire to make some kind of
"distinction" will essentially fail. The only difference is the
damage that will be done to Debian's reputation, after aggravating a
bunch of folks because they have to go to a different ftp site for
non-free, and after the arguments that are already happening about
this move, both here and on /. and lord knows where else.
>
> Debian is special.
>
> I think it merits this vote approval.
Debian will get even more special: instead of a rep as a quality,
main-stream, general purpose Linux distro, it will become the distro
by and for the free software fanatics, no one else need apply.
--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Ed C.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: stability of culture of helpfulness
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:25:48 -0500
Oliver Baker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a delayed crosspost that I first made to alt.os.linux. I've had
> one helpful reply so far, but it would be still more help to hear a
> couple more.
>
> Although I'm neither business savvy nor computer savvy, I'm writing an
> article for a trade magazine on the subject of a big company that has
> chosen Linux for its very big PC cluster. The business people at this
> company consider Linux a great way to save money on computer support
> costs--not just because they believe it to be more trouble-free, but
> because they feel they can just log onto the net and get expert free
> help any time, thus eliminating the need for most of their support
> staff.
>
> I have a couple questions:
>
> 1)Does this make sense--that they could reduce their support staff? (and
> if so, by how much? if anybody cares to make an estimate.)
I do feel that you need more support staff to keep Windows running
properly on the same number of machines as Linux or other Unices. I
know that at a previous business I worked at it required about four
people to keep track of approximately 75 machines. This was a full time
occupation for these four people. All of the machines ran Windows. At
my current position, I keep track of 20 machines all running Linux.
About two hours a week are spent actually working on upkeep. The rest
of the time I am tuning the servers (programs on the servers actually)
and developing the company web site. We saved a lot on support staff
already by not running Windows. The machines stay in the same condition
as the day you set them up (since users can't fiddle with the software
loaded on them). When updates are necissary you can just do it through
a script (I use a script from cron that automatically updates all
machines at midnight) and you don't have to go and sit at each machine
for the time it takes to load new or updated software. This is a huge
time saver. Even with only 20 workstations, it takes two minutes to
update my script to load up new software, it would take about 5 minutes
to sit at each machine 5x20 = 1 hour and 40 minutes. Not a huge amount
of time, but still an hour and thirty eight minutes that I can use to do
something else. Also, security is much easier to keep track of. Users
can sit at any machine on the network and have exactly the same desktop
with exactly the same files (through NFS mounted home directories) and
exactly the same programs. This helps by not confusing the users when
they need to move, and you don't need to retrain them for each different
load they encounter (as all are the same).
My guess as to how much support staff could be reduced would be
approximately one quarter of the staff would be needed past the initial
set up. Of course, once the users were used to the new system, even
this one-quarter of the staff would be able to spend some time working
on other things. That's the nice thing with Linux, you can set it up
and forget about the software. Your support is either hardware, or user
support. That should be the goal of every IT/IS department. Software
support will always be a small amount of your time (especially with
updates for security and such) but you can focus more of your time on
user support. This makes your network, and your workers more efficient.
>
> 2) Is this culture of on-line helpfulness impervious to a)increasing
> numbers of Linux users, b)increasing numbers of queries from Linux users
> at companies who--it might be perceived--could afford to hire people to
> generate in-house the answers they are instead getting through the
> kindness of strangers.
The first thing to do is make sure you have at least a one person on the
support staff that understand Linux very well. This is extremely
important to finding good information on Linux. When I say understand
Linux, I really mean someone that knows how to find the right answers
when they are needed. My merit is not necissarily in knowing Linux
inside and out (although I think I do a pretty good job), but I know how
to find things out when I need to. You need one person on staff that
can go to the web/newsgroups/chatrooms and ask the right questions to
the right people. You can't just pick up someone off the street, call
them a support person and expect them to actually be able to do the
support just by inquiring in on-line forums. But, with one person to
help steer the rest of the staff in the right direction on finding
things (maybe more than one if the staff is large enough) they can
quickly show people how to find answers themselves.
One of the problems, as your question brings up, is that there are a lot
of people jumping into Linux at the moment that don't really know it
that well. Sometimes in thier eagerness to promote Linux, they give out
misinformation. This isn't really always thier fault. Someone says it
once, they see it and repeat it until they are either corrected, or they
find out the information is wrong. Of course, this is where a lot of
problems arise. The best place to find answers is to go through online
documentation. This, usually, can't be tainted. But, I guess I usually
head for a book or the /usr/doc directory to find answers now. Having a
huge O'Reilly library doesn't hurt either. I probably have about a
hundred O'Reilly books, and about 20 other books on Linux and other Open
Source software. But if you find the right person to help the rest of
the staff learn Linux, they will probably already have this asset, or
know how to find someone that does. I know a few of my Linux using
friends spend a lot of time reading my books for answers. I was lucky
enough to get into Linux before it was "the in thing" and have collected
quite a bit of documentation. You will usually find that Linux
enthusiasts gather somewhere in your area to share information. While
this isn't considered proper to most businesses (as they are usually
just full of geeks spouting forth great amounts of knowledge in a joking
and often self effacing manner), they are huge resources. Find a LUG
(Linux User Group) and get someone that is respected from the group to
talk to you, and they can usually point you in the right direction to
get help on any subject. That's how it was done years ago, and is still
the best overall way to learn Linux. People help eachother out.
That said, with the way Linux is growing, there are some bad sources of
information. Like I said before, just be carefull to have someone that
knows Linux well, and you will probably have a good start. That is the
best way to run any business. Unfortunately, I am also aware that to
save money a lot of businesses will hire people that don't know the
system extremely well (this is especially true of non-tech companies
when hiring technical staff). But, that's another subject.
>
> So far, one person has said it doesn't matter what the affliation is of
> who is asking (though their perceived attitude does).
>
> I'd be grateful for any comments.
>
> - Oliver Baker
Good luck on the article.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 14:34:53 GMT
In article <8il6s4$gkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And the Mac OS is cheaper to support? I'll tell you this: I don't have
> to pay $75 for a damn printer cable...
If you're paying $75 for a printer cable, come see me. I have a bunch for
only $50 (that I of course picked up from CompUSA for less than $20. Buy
cheap, sell dear....)
> > and since businesses are stupid, and don't mind losing money, they
> keep
> > using the darn OS anyway.
> >
>
> Nonsense. It's all in what you're familiar with.
Nope, it's what the guy making the purchasing decision is familiar with.
Everybody else is stuck using what he buys. Fact of life.
> > Moreover, The same operation are made in a totally intuitive and
> superior
> > way in the MacOS, even if they seem equivalent on both MacOS or
> Windows
> > [clicking on icons and menus] they are not, not by a long shot,
> thereby
> > dramatically improving their productivity.
> >
> > Ok, I'm tired, I'm going to bed.
> >
> > Paul 'Z' Ewande
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Stability of the Culture of Helpfulness
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:40:30 -0500
pac4854 wrote:
>
> This is bound to be as successful as fielding a new W2K network,
> firing all your MCSEs, and just giving the end users the URL for
> the MS knowledge base.
>
> I hope this little endeavor goes tits up, and the morons in
> charge end up homeless and unemployable.
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
The only way I see this happening is if they are actually clueless
enough to get rid of anybody with a clue in the support staff. Also, as
previous posters have said, they still need someone that actually knows
the system in order to keep it running. If they were stupid enough to
actually think they could get by without having anyone know anything,
then yeah, I agree with you whole heartedly. But considering the number
of companies running with clueless idiots in charge of the
computer/network support, they might not be as dead in the water as you
would think. Food for thought.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: James Lee <[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: 20 Jun 2000 14:47:52 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you ever installed a minimal Red Hat configuration (ie less than
> 100M install) and then figured how much junk you need to get XFree86
> 4.0 with Gnome or KDE to run? I know it's not false because I've done
> exactly that a few times and been left each time wondering how Linux
> zealots can call Windows bloated.
You don't have to run Gnome or KDE. I run blackbox on this x86 solaris.
Also, if you don't like XFree, try one of the strip-down commercial X
servers. They are much smaller and also faster because it strips out
other things it doesn't need.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Date: 20 Jun 2000 09:56:59 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That doesn't make *any* sense. That would mean that going from Threshold
>>3 to Threshold 25 adds less than 6 minutes under Windows on your Windows
>>installation.
>>Meanwhile, on my generally faster Celeron400, it adds more than 11
>>minutes.
>>
>>Do you have an explanation?
>
>No. Do you?
Why don't you guys exchange binaries by email and let us know
if this is a hardware (or concurrent processing) quirk, or
if you are using different compilers/options?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shaya)
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:10:50 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:23:27 -0400, Secretly Cruel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:15:58 -0400, John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>This is how people get pissed off about Linux. The modem thing is easy
>>to solve, but what about the 'win-printer', 'win-scanner', 'win-camera',
>>et al?
>
>People need to be pissed at the cheap bastards that manufacture the
>Windows-only stuff, not pissed at Linux.
I must admit that what really puzzle me is that if the
win-modems/scanners/cameras/whatever worked on linux it would increase
the sales. In most cases the company does not even have to spend time
on writing the drivers, if the protocols were known someone would
probably write the drivers herself.
Yet for some strange reason those protocols remain secret .... I just
can't get it.
If I get sick at a bus station would it be considered a terminal illness?
Shaya can be reached at mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
or ICQ# 5709245
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:32:17 GMT
Oliver Baker writes:
> As a science journalist, one doesn't always get to write about what one
> knows about or get the time to walk 1000 miles in every relevant persons'
> moccasins. You solicit quotes about what the bottom of their moccasins
> look like, build a story out of those, and hope for the best.
That this is how science journalism is done more often then not is
painfully obvious to anyone who has read a few articles on subjects with
which he is familiar.
> Yes, there's something to be said for not getting in over your head, and
> sometimes you can avoid it.
Yes. You can buy a Linux CD set (or download one if your editor won't
spring for the $39.95). You can then install it and come here with
specific questions.
> My intuition is that I'll squeek by on this one.
In other words, your article will contain the usual howlers and misleading
statements, but nobody who matters will notice.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:24:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> > <snip replies>
>
> Taking more context restoration lessons from Curtis Bass?
-- snip --
> > <snip>
>
> Taking more context restoration lessons from Curtis Bass?
What's the deal, Marty? Are you agreeing with Tholen that I equate
snippage with "context restoration?"
Just curious.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Thread now dead
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:44:03 +0100
Should this thread die, as the subject suggests?
Let's have a vote...
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:50:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <knowbodies-A33A39.15452619062000@news>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >This is probably a result of you getting a lot of half-working used
> > >junk
> > >off ebay.
> >
> > Are you sure that's where Joe bought his copy of Win2K?
>
> I meant, (huge surprise) the hardware.
Of course, the hardware works fine.
Read the post. The problem was with the two Windows operating systems I
had available.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IE for Linux
Date: 20 Jun 2000 15:50:48 GMT
JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it will come out for Linux but hey, it could happen. As reported
> on slashdot though, it is coming out for FreeBSD
Dont look forward to it. Its a straight port from solaris, and its absolutely
terrible.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:53:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > > I'm just starting up a new PC and having fun with more of the
> > > > Windows
> > > > garbage....
> > > >
> > > > Celeron 566
> > > > Abit BE6-II
> > > > 192 MB PC 100 RAM
> > > > Voodoo3 video
> > > > Creative Labs Soundblaster 128
> > > > And so on.
> > > >
> > > > Here's where it gets interesting. I installed everything in a new
> > > > case
> > > > and everything seems to work OK. When I use my old drive (which has
> > > > Win98 on it), it starts and everything's OK. But now, I install a
> > > > new
> > > > DMA-66 drive. Here's where it gets fun.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't install a floppy drive. I figure--who needs one nowadays,
> > > > but
> > > > I
> > > > did order an LS-120 drive. Unfortunately, it's not here yet. No
> > > > problem,
> > > > you can boot from a Windows CD, right?
> > > >
> > > > I set the BIOS to boot from CD.
> > > >
> > > > Install Win2K CD. Boot. It boots OK from the CD (other than the
> > > > silliness of asking me if I really want to boot from a CD). Win2K
> > > > loads,
> > > > and asks if I want to install. I hit 'enter'.
> > > >
> > > > Oops. Win2K won't recognize a DMA66 drive.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, well. I'll try Windows Millenium (latest beta). Go through the
> > > > same
> > > > process.
> > > >
> > > > Oops. Boot failure. Apparently, you can't boot from the Millenium
> > > > CD.
> > > >
> > > > So much for ease of use......
> > >
> > > This is probably a result of you getting a lot of half-working used
> > > junk
> > > off ebay.
> > >
> >
> > Really? Is that your attempt at a rational argument?
> >
> > Which of the items above are junk?
> >
> > Since all the hardware worked, you must be referring to Windows as
> > junk.
> > That's one of the first things you've ever said that I wouldn't
> > disagree
> > with.
> >
> > (None of them came from eBay, anyway).
>
>
> Then you bought this Voodoo3 for grins?
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=346422363
>
> And all the other junk you recently got off ebay..
Oops. Forgot that one.
I purchased the case from Haggle.com.
The motherboard, cpu, and slocket from KD Computers.
Etc.
But all of that's quite irrelevant. The hardware works fine. Read the
post above and explain how it's the hardware's fault.
>
> And you expect ANYONE here to believe your sob stories about how Windows
> never works for you?
I never said that it _never_ works. I just point out the times when it
doesn't. Like this one.
And, lacking any rational response, you resort to ad hominem attacks and
say it's all my fault.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:53:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:43:11 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> >
> >> You've still yet to demonstrate what's really "so modern" about
> >> the way MacOS does things...
> >
> >Robust filesystem object references, that don't depend on which drive
>
> ...which are also fail if you should be unlucky enough to
> decide to name your volume something someone else has.
Huh?
Please be more specific. I can easily change my Mac's hard drive name
and nothing breaks.
>
> >you put a volume into, or the precise idiosyncrasies of how your system
> >is configured.
>
> That's less a feature of the filesystem and more a feature
> of how abstracted from the filesystem the rest of the OS
> is.
Whatever. The Mac implementation is still superior.
>
> >
> >Of course, if I interpreted your query more widely, I could mention
> >other things, like the low-overhead, fast QuickDraw graphics engine,
> >closely integrated into the kernel (something that UNIX folks are still
> >incapable of grasping...).
>
> Close integration are precisely the sorts of things you want
> to try to avoid in these situations. That's what makes the
> various bits of X modular and interchangable and MacOS something
> that even Apple is going to abandon.
------------------------------
From: Barry Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:00:53 GMT
In article <8in40h$2cv4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie
Mikesell) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Lawrence DčOliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Infact, such "stable references" don't
>>> seem to provide for any sort of namespace collisions.
>>
>>Definitely too accustomed to the Windows/UNIX way of doing things:
>>you're still thinking in terms of pathname strings, whereas MacOS
>>supports "aliases", which have more information in them than just name
>>strings. Result: robust references that aren't confused by superficial
>>similarities of name.
>
>How does the user find out about these so he knows how to
>reference the file he wants, given 2 identical disks in
>different places?
Sorry, but I'm sick of this kind of meaningless drivel.
Tell me, what point is there in naming your volumes the *same*??? I
don't get it. If you want to be able to reference files uniquely via a
path, use different volume names. If you have a situation which demands
volumes with the same name(s), then don't use an incompatible system.
My point: no single platform is, will, or should be, the be all and end
all.
Platform advocacy is sooooooooooooo 1990's.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:04:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger
<roger@.> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:19:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
> wrote:
>
> >> So, then you can point us all to, let's say, a dozen of these studies
> >> specifically comparing the 9x interface? Why did you not post
> >> pointers on your website? All I ever saw there was 3x...
>
> >They were there. I pointed them out many, many times.
> >
> >Your inability to read isn't my problem.
>
> Nor is your lack of ability to support your claim mine. I say again:
> plenty of studies vs. 3.x
>
> None vs. 9x
>
> Please feel free to post an URL which proves me wrong.
I did--for years and years.
Use dejanews. I'm tired of wasting my time on idiots.
>
> >I turned the site over to a csma regular and he'll be reposting it some
> >day (soon, I hope).
>
> And of course, have no other records of these mountains of studies...
Ever hear of dejanews?
>
>
> >> >They did mountains of studies when WinNT 4.0 was current. Same
> >> >result.
> >> >The press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored
> >> >them).
> >>
> >> Ditto -- a dozen here.
>
> >Yep. you chose to ignore all the studies then, so why should they print
> >new ones?
> >
> >And why a dozen studies? You have no evidence, so even a single one
> >should be sufficient.
>
> Except that one would not support your claim of "mountains" of
> studies.
Except that my web site had 300 kb of links.
>
> >> Of course, since I've not stated a position, this can hardly be
> >> considered extraordinary...
>
> >Your position is that Macs don't have better TCO--in spite of mountains
> >of evidence. Where's yours?
>
> How nice of you to inform me of my own opinions. BTW, how do I feel
> on gun control? Since you seem to have complete knowledge of my
> mindset and can even articulate those positions I' no even aware I
> hold, you could sure save me a * bunch * of time...
>
> Oh, and Joe?
>
> I'm * still * waiting...
for your brain to generate a rational thought? I thought so.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
