Linux-Advocacy Digest #219, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The MEDIA this year! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Charlie Ebert the LinoShill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Rich C")
Re: The MEDIA this year! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The MEDIA this year! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows98 (Terry Porter)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Christopher Smith")
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:00:09 GMT
Learn to read asshole...
I said Caching (not cashing like YOU prefer to call it) only applies
to repetitive tasks. For example opening the same directory 15 time in
a row.
The first opening will be x time, the subsequent openings will be x -
some factor due to caching (not cashing like you call it)....
The bottom line is, that kfm is several factors slower than Explorer
in opening, for the first time, cold boot, a directory of a similar
number of files.
And in my experience it aint even close....
Explorer is instantaneous and kfm churns on and on and on....
Prove it asshole.....
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:40:59 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>What do you mean I loose?
>I opened that /dev and published the results!
>
>There in this newsgroup idiot! Didn't you read it!
>
>Somebody go get my posting and play it back for the old man.
>
>You lost because Windows doesn't cash anything.
>As I said, you require your Linux customers to re-boot before
>using the file manager!
>
>Well, you might have to re-boot every 10 seconds in the Windows
>world but, we don't have to do that in the Linux world.
>
>The answer was again, 4-5 seconds from a cold start and about
>3 seconds ever after. That was for 2005 files!
>
>And I'll repeat! It takes me 3 seconds to do the same thing at
>work for just under 300 files.
>
>Windows doesn't cash shit.
>
>That's not a good thing Simon. That's a bad thing.
>
>Now, be a BIG BOY and come up with your next argument.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> You lose asshole.
>>
>> The majority of the population is not interested in writing programs.
>> They USE programs....
>>
>> You show how much of an idiot you are with every post.
>>
>> Again:
>>
>> /dev OPEN IT WITH KFM AND SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES...
>>
>> Try a 20k directory under Windows 2k and it is INSTANTANEOUS!!!!!
>> YOU CAN SCROLL FROM SECOND ONE......
>>
>> What is so hard about this for you to comprehend?
>>
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:16:33 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Okay, I'll play....
>> >I think you actually mean business here so I'm going
>> >to entertain you personally.
>> >
>> >Go into C or Cobol or what you have there and write me out
>> >a large serial file with say 80 Byte or what ever length record
>> >you want.
>> >
>> >Write out 20 megs worth.
>> >
>> >Then read it in.
>> >
>> >Repeat the read several times.
>> >
>> >From raw re-boot, the NT box shows no speed difference from
>> >the first read to the last.
>> >
>> >Now, go try it on any Linux. You will find that disk caching
>> >has been observed and subsequent read's are faster.
>> >
>> >This is why you wanted me to do it from a re-boot and I complied.
>> >Then I did it again, point well taken. It is quicker the second
>> >time around.
>> >
>> >And you admitted this being a factor.
>> >
>> >And by admitting that as a factor, you have proven to all of us
>> >that you agree NT IE Microsoft isn't worth it's weight in shit
>> >as it cashes nothing from the drive.
>> >
>> >
>> >And that's true. NT cashes nothing.
>> >It is the most resource abusing operating system I've ever seen.
>> >
>> >I think it takes every meg you have of memory and committe's it
>> >to program memory for working storage issues.
>> >
>> >NT doesn't even know what a disk cache is.
>> >
>> >But I want you and the other's to re-read what you and I've said
>> >so they can see the comments for themselves.
>> >
>> >You make a point of proving Windows is superior and by doing so
>> >show us you know of it's deficiencies...
>> >
>> >That's sort of defeatest on your part, isn't it.
>> >
>> >Charlie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Open /dev via kfm and time how long it takes for the gear to stop
>> >> spinning.......
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:11:02 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Typical LinoNut semantic argument designed to take the focus off the
>> >> >> original point that KDE sucks compared to Windows as far as the
>> >> >> consistancy and speed of the gui is concerned.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The point is like I said above. Who cares what the cause is?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >You idiot. The KDE is several clock cycles ahead of Windows anything.
>> >> >You can also have more sessions open.
>> >> >
>> >> >You know nothing about X or KDE or Gnome.
>> >> >And you know damn little about OS's like NT.
>> >> >
>> >> >Charlie
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
>> >> >> Browne) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jeff Szarka would say:
>> >> >> >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> >>wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
>> >> >> >>>> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
>> >> >> >>>> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
>> >> >> >>>no on is forcing KDE on to you...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>The sad part is... KDE is the best window manger for Linux.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The sad part is... Clueless idiots that think KDE _is_ a window
>> >> >> >manager, despite _vast_ quantities of evidence to the contrary.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >How many times do you need to be told that KDE is not a window manager
>> >> >> >until it will penetrate deep enough into your pea brain to take
>> >> >> >sufficient hold that you might feebly wonder: "Is KDE a window
>> >> >> >manager? Maybe not..."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >When you state that it is, you simply make evident your ignorance, so
>> >> >> >as to demonstrate that what you say is based on ignorance and
>> >> >> >apparently complete apathy to educate yourself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:00:43 GMT
> You're an idiot who can't back up his sources.
>
> So where are your sources?
>
> You come into this group and make all kinds of wild ass claims but
> never back them up.
>
> Where is the proof?
>
> simon
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:46:54 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> You're an idiot who can't back up his sources.
>>
>> So where are your sources?
>>
>> You come into this group and make all kinds of wild ass claims but
>> never back them up.
>>
>> Where is the proof?
>>
>> simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:02:47 GMT
So now we have this Charlie Ebert person, who has YET to back up any
of his wild ass claims with any proof.
Come on Charlie?
Where's the Beef?
How about some proof for all of these half assed claims you keep
spouting here?
We are waiting...................................................
Somehow I think we will be waiting a long time.........
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:09:17 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daughter graduating middle school this week and going into high school
> and I thought a nice desktop computer system would make a worthwhile
> graduation present.
Excellent idea.
>
> I have ALWAYS built every single one of my systems in the past all the
> way from DTK motherboard based PC clones up to the Abit based system I
> have now. Never, ever,ever, bought a pre-load.
And you should continue to do so. Do NOT patronize the cheapie hardware
people unless you want those trends to continue.
>
> This time, possibly due to laziness or just a wearing down by all of
> the glossy advertisements in the Sunday NY Times, I decided to go out
> and look at all of these "ready made" systems that the typical Joe 18
> pack will buy.
>
> BTW my daughter wants an iMac. Anybody know anything about them?
If she is an artistic person, more right brain than left, you should get her
one. She will be able to exchange information with other youngsters like her
more readily.
>
> Anyway, I went to CompUSA, Staples, Electronic City and several local
> places, the kind of places I would avoid like the plague on my quest
> and here is what I found.
>
> 1. Win Hardware is EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!
> Motherboards have built in modems, Ethernet, SoundChips, video
> and so forth. Much of this is Win hardware.
Exactly, and you will need to buy an 800Mhz system just to keep up with it
all, when with REAL peripherals you could get away with 500MHz. Plus good
luck upgrading it (Hint: YOU CAN'T!)
>
> 2. The included printer is usually some POS Win printer. Same for
> scanner and USB devices are sometimes included as well.
Not worth the price. If you add up ONLY the salvageable hardware in those
systems, you would see what a rip-off they are.
>
> 3. The operating system is always Win 98SE and no credit is given for
> not getting it.
Probably because 80% of those Windows copies are illegal.
>
> 4. Internet bundles (you are hostage to Compu$erve for 3 years) are
> typically used to lower price.
Not all that bad IF you pick a deal with a decent ISP. After all, you need
internet access anyway. If you already have a good ISP, why not ask them if
they'll give you a computer for a 3 year deal?
>
> 5. You get a bunch of low priced software and nothing of real
> substance. The exception was MS Works which is pretty decent.
>
>
> The iMac is starting to look better all the time :)
Or building your own from scratch. Or building a client a new computer and
taking their old hardware in trade for a decent homework system.
That's how I get most of the hardware I use in my low-end systems. Use them
for Linux web servers and CAD workstations that don't need state of the art
graphics or sound or really big hard drives for games.
>
> Anyway, my point is that this is the typical way that a user buys a
> computer. They are not like you and me who build our own, they walk
> into a chain store and buy what seems, to them, to be the best value.
>
> My question is, how is Linux going to realistically overcome this?
By OEMs providing custom systems that THEY build, with Linux preinstalled
and configured, so the average person can boot it up, follow the
instructions in the one-time script to assign their root password and
accounts for the spouse and kids, and bingo! it goes on line and never needs
to be rebooted again! :o)
>
> Looking at the specs for Compaq, HP, Sony VIAO and others, absolutely
> NONE of these would run Linux and support all the I/O devices the
> person paid for.
>
> This IS the computer hardware market, like it or not. And I for one
> DON't like it.
Then change it. DON'T buy systems with win-peripherals in them. Don't buy
win-peripherals period. Go to the web sites of mfrs who build this shit and
ask them:
Will this hardware run in any other operating system besides Windows? When
they say no, your response is: "That's pretty short-sighted, don't you
think?"
>
> Comments?
>
>
-- Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, some people appear intelligent,
until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:06:32 GMT
I never said anything about server market, and in fact I support Linux
in that area Salvador.
We are in agreement on that fact, and at least you DO post facts
unlike Charlie who spouts off fantasies...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:54:07 -0700, Salvador Peralta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> Oh crap! Pick up any computer magazine at your local office they have.
>> I want other people to post to this and give him your side of it.
>>
>> Charlie
>
>I would, but everytime that I post some factual data which sheds some
>light on the fact that linux is the fastest growing os in the server
>market, WinTrolls like simon777 start scurrying under the floorboards.
>
>*sigh* Here's some links...
>
>Here's one that gives a figure for how many IT managers planned to
>replace existing systems with linux:
>
>http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q2&99245030.htm=on
>
>Here's one which says how many it managers intend to put linux on the
>desktop in the next 12 months:
>
>http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q2&99245030.htm=on
>
>Here's one which charts the growth of the linux userbase from 1995-1998:
>
>http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q1&99145016.htm=on
>
>Add those to the others that I posted on Saturday in the "How many linux
>users thread.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:08:14 GMT
Facts Charlie how about some facts...
do you want for me to play Mark S. Bilk and go into Deja and bring up
all of the wild claims you have made and ask for proeef?
I can prove my .3 percent Linux market share...
Can YOU prove ANYTHING of what you have spouted here?
I doubt it......
I highly doubt it......\
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:55:15 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I would like everyone to note the flaring testicles of
>the Simon777 creature as he's being cornered for the kill.
>
>It's a colorful sight.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>
>Salvador Peralta wrote:
>>
>> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> >
>> > Oh crap! Pick up any computer magazine at your local office they have.
>> > I want other people to post to this and give him your side of it.
>> >
>> > Charlie
>>
>> I would, but everytime that I post some factual data which sheds some
>> light on the fact that linux is the fastest growing os in the server
>> market, WinTrolls like simon777 start scurrying under the floorboards.
>>
>> *sigh* Here's some links...
>>
>> Here's one that gives a figure for how many IT managers planned to
>> replace existing systems with linux:
>>
>> http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q2&99245030.htm=on
>>
>> Here's one which says how many it managers intend to put linux on the
>> desktop in the next 12 months:
>>
>> http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q2&99245030.htm=on
>>
>> Here's one which charts the growth of the linux userbase from 1995-1998:
>>
>> http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q1&99145016.htm=on
>>
>> Add those to the others that I posted on Saturday in the "How many linux
>> users thread.
>>
>> --
>> Salvador Peralta
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:09:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I never said anything about server market, and in fact I support Linux
> in that area Salvador.
>
> We are in agreement on that fact, and at least you DO post facts
> unlike Charlie who spouts off fantasies...
Gee. Then I guess these links are from fantasy island then.
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:54:07 -0700, Salvador Peralta
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh crap! Pick up any computer magazine at your local office they have.
> >> I want other people to post to this and give him your side of it.
> >>
> >> Charlie
> >
> >I would, but everytime that I post some factual data which sheds some
> >light on the fact that linux is the fastest growing os in the server
> >market, WinTrolls like simon777 start scurrying under the floorboards.
> >
> >*sigh* Here's some links...
> >
> >Here's one that gives a figure for how many IT managers planned to
> >replace existing systems with linux:
> >
> >http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q2&99245030.htm=on
> >
> >Here's one which says how many it managers intend to put linux on the
> >desktop in the next 12 months:
> >
> >http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q2&99245030.htm=on
> >
> >Here's one which charts the growth of the linux userbase from 1995-1998:
> >
> >http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q1&99145016.htm=on
> >
> >Add those to the others that I posted on Saturday in the "How many linux
> >users thread.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:03:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> 1. Win Hardware is EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!
> Motherboards have built in modems, Ethernet, SoundChips, video
> and so forth. Much of this is Win hardware.
This is really a great deal for the peripheral manufacturers. Microsoft
builds the core protocols into the OS, the manufacturer signs an NDA
with MS to get the API, they build a board for $5 that they can sell for
$30 into a market where the going price is $100 for an OS agnostic
device. A side benefit of this is that non-Microsoft OSen won't run the
hardware, and the manufacturer can't disclose how to make it work.
> 2. The included printer is usually some POS Win printer. Same for
> scanner and USB devices are sometimes included as well.
This is the price you pay for vendor lock-in. And the sub-$500 PC.
> 3. The operating system is always Win 98SE and no credit is given for
> not getting it.
The OSS community refers to this "feature" as the "Microsoft tax".
> 4. Internet bundles (you are hostage to Compu$erve for 3 years) are
> typically used to lower price.
More typically MSN. They've got you by the throat, now they want your
balls too. And otherwise intelligent people fall for this shit.
> 5. You get a bunch of low priced software and nothing of real
> substance. The exception was MS Works which is pretty decent.
I got more than 500 different utilities and apps with my copy of Linux,
most of it not as slick as Microsoft, but a helluva lot less expensive.
> The iMac is starting to look better all the time :)
And not a bad choice, either. If I get a bonus this year, wife may get
one. Have they dumped that shitty mouse yet?
> Anyway, my point is that this is the typical way that a user buys a
> computer. They are not like you and me who build our own, they walk
> into a chain store and buy what seems, to them, to be the best value.
Your sterotype of the "typical" user is vanishing. The "Y" generation
is getting ready to graduate soon, they've been weaned on home
computers, they're more knowledgeable than a lotta CIOs, they've got the
knowledge and they want the power that comes with it.
> My question is, how is Linux going to realistically overcome this?
Traditionally, by reverse engineering. But the double whammy of UCITA
and the DMCA (both heavily sponsored by Microsoft) promise to put an end
to that. Look for MSFT to start suing anybody and everybody who
attempts to interoperate with their software. Streaming multimedia has
already felt the wrath of the Redmond legal department.
> Looking at the specs for Compaq, HP, Sony VIAO and others, absolutely
> NONE of these would run Linux and support all the I/O devices the
> person paid for.
Damn right. That's why there's companies like VALinux. And now Dell
and IBM seem to finally be getting their act together. Won't be cheap
to run a non-MSFT box, but it'll have a greater life expectancy, and
better performance. That's part of ROI and TCO to you corporate folks.
> This IS the computer hardware market, like it or not. And I for one
> DON't like it.
You don't like it? The current state of the hardware market is actually
a product of Microsoft, whom you've arduously promoted and defended
here. With mass quantities of FUD, I might add.
> Comments?
Congratulations. You've landed on Boardwalk with a hotel. This is what
we Linux users are complaining about, and the DOJ is litigating about.
This is what the consumer gets when a monopoly abuses its power.
Welcome to One Microsoft Way; its not just an address, its a goal.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:10:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So now we have this Charlie Ebert person, who has YET to back up any
> of his wild ass claims with any proof.
>
> Come on Charlie?
>
> Where's the Beef?
>
> How about some proof for all of these half assed claims you keep
> spouting here?
>
> We are waiting...................................................
>
> Somehow I think we will be waiting a long time.........
And as I said before Simon777.
Just pick up any computer magazine from your office or Grocery store.
Now, is that so hard.
That's a BIG BOY.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Jun 2000 10:11:40 +0800
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:25:43 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David,
<snip>
>
> But is still has miles to go as
>a desktop. Linux is for tinkering. W2k is for work.
So you keep saying James, yet you have not supported your claim in any post
I've seen.
Your use of emotional words such as "tinkering", is pointless, you smell like
a Wintroll at this point.
>
>James
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 15 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:14:07 +1000
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8im4s5$12u4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless
(a
> > > > > >feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and
stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does that mean there is some version of windows now that
> > > > > will find it's mouse without rebooting if you happen to have
> > > > > had the console switch directed elsewhere as it comes up
> > > > > (or any other reason it wasn't seen at boot-up)? I know - I
> > > > > should just buy the expensive KVMs that fake the mouse
> > > > > for windows when the switch is in a different position, but...
> > > >
> > > > NT has always been able to do it. Win9x should be able to with any
USB
> > > > mouse, and you shouldn't be plugging PS/2 mice in with the machine
> > powered
> > >
> > > Why not? Now I do leave X windows because I can't run it wothout a
mouse.
> >
> > Because you can blow the keyboard controller chip on the motherboard
(no, I
> > didn't believe it either until I actually did it).
>
> But what about the mouse? I would not want to do it with the keyboard
because I
> might not be able to restore the keyboard/shutdown properly.
PS/2 mice & keyboards use the same chip on the motherboard - kill one & you
kill em both.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:12:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > You're an idiot who can't back up his sources.
> >
> > So where are your sources?
> >
> > You come into this group and make all kinds of wild ass claims but
> > never back them up.
> >
> > Where is the proof?
> >
> > simon
Ohh! Is this a demonstration of superior Newsgroup handling by
IE?
OR
Are you just showing us all that your a BIG BOY!
Charlie
>
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:46:54 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> You're an idiot who can't back up his sources.
> >>
> >> So where are your sources?
> >>
> >> You come into this group and make all kinds of wild ass claims but
> >> never back them up.
> >>
> >> Where is the proof?
> >>
> >> simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:14:01 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:59:29 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Check their webpage.
>>
>> Suffice to say you are getting 1/4 of the cards true power running
>> Linux.....
>
>Let me get this right, just for the sake of argument.
>
>What does an SBLive card cost? What does W2K or W98SE cost?
Don't know, I got mine for free as an Eval... I would guess $50 for
the bare version?
Somebody help?
Win 98Se is a free upgrade not including Internet sharing which you
can get from the same company that provides it to Microsoft and I
apologize but the name escapes me at the moment. Anyway you get 3 free
shred gateways...Otherwise the $89.00 upgrade (a ripoff) is
essentially the same as what you can download from the web.
>Is this really an important thing? There are many sound cards supported
>by Linux, buy one of those. It is still cheaper than an SBLive card and
>your choice of W2k or w98se.
The point is NOT the card, it is that the LinoNuts are always claiming
support from this manufacturer or that vendor, I am only exposing the
fact that Win2k drivers were out, full function Livewire drivers, long
before Linux ones (which don't even exist yet) and therefore showing
that Win2k is a money maker for vendors and Linux is, as always taking
a backseat.
>Linux will not run all hardware, nor will w2k. Big f%5ing deal. That's
>what "Hardware Compatibility Lists" are for.
Tell that to the 10's of 1000's that buy pre-loads at CompUSA.
You think you can convince THEM to switch to Linux?
You're a dreamer if you do...
>
>>
>> On 16 Jun 2000 15:38:40 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>Yawwwnnnn...Same old Linux lies...
>> >>
>> >>And I'm sure you get to use all of those features that work under
>> >>Windows with your shiny new SBLive under Linux?
>> >
>> > Beats me. Send me a SBLive and a copy of Windows and I'll be happy to
>> > do a feature comparison for you.
>> >
>> > ____
>> > david parsons \bi/ It is admirable that you can reel 'em in this easily,
>> > \/ but you're still shooting fish in a barrel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:14:44 GMT
And in all that time it has still not taken over the desktop. What
makes you think it will now?
On 20 Jun 2000 20:59:50 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The point is, which you have missed, is that I have seen more come and
>>go in my lifetime than you have.
>>
>>Linux will fade just like the 2821 and it's attached 1403 and 3525
>>card punch.
>
>No, it will be more like the unix that ran on the PDP11's. And
>I'm not sure I'd call that fading.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:15:52 GMT
IOW.
Unix,Linux, *nix missed the boat a long time ago and it isn't doing
anything that I can see to change that situation.
On 20 Jun 2000 20:59:50 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The point is, which you have missed, is that I have seen more come and
>>go in my lifetime than you have.
>>
>>Linux will fade just like the 2821 and it's attached 1403 and 3525
>>card punch.
>
>No, it will be more like the unix that ran on the PDP11's. And
>I'm not sure I'd call that fading.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
