Linux-Advocacy Digest #235, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: slashdot is down -again- (John Culleton)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Darren Winsper)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Darren Winsper)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Windows98 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Kelley)
Re: Windows98 (Cihl)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux, easy to use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Boring (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:07:08 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <8ipf1g$1nok$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [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.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, your mistake in reference to KDE as a "window manager"
> > entirely nullifies all of your previous points. To make such a
> > collosal mistake as this betrays the true amount of unix knowledge
> > you posess, which would be this much:
> >
> > 0
>
> Although its an easy flame for you, I think that for lusers
> like me, its an easy mistake to make. In all the time that
> I've used Redhat, I thought KDE was a window manager, and am
> only just learning that it isn't. Now, if this does equate
> to having a knowledge level of 0, then yes, clearly linux loses
> points here, most windows users can get to work immediately,
> ie., attain a "knowledge amount" significantly greater than 0,
> even if unable to separate the idea of a user interface from the
> operating system, if only because in the microsoft world, there
> isn't that much separation between the interface and the OS.
>
> So one conclusion to be reached is that unix requires too much
> knowledge to be used by the majority of computer users. Score
> one for Bill, attaining a knowledge level greater than 0 is
> much easier for the windows side of the OS wars.
>
> But now that I'm at least clear on what KDE is, how can I give
> KWM a spin without running KDE, so I can get an idea how it (KWM)
> ranks as a windows manager? Specifically, I'd like to install
> KWM without KDE, because, for me, in a purely subjective manner,
> KDE disagrees with me, and from my superficial bit of '0-level
> knowledge based investigation', I can't seem to find a KWM tarball.
>
> TIA!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
There's a file in your home directory called .xinitrc (if not, create
it). Just put the line
exec kwm
into this file, make sure it is executable (by chmod +x .xinitrc) and
run X. This will show you what just kwm is like. Although, if you want
to try out just a window manager instead of a windowing environment,
you'd probably be better out trying out enlightenment or something else
designed to run as just a window manager. KWM isn't really much without
the other components of KDE.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: slashdot is down -again-
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:21:59 -0700
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> It runs Linsux or some deviant version of such (FreeBSD)
>
>BSD isn't a deriviant (or deviant as you put it) of Linux. It
is
>actually much older than Linux and quite a bit different. While
you can
>use them to do the same things, they are not the same system.
>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:46:53 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Of all the sites I frequent, Slashdot is the only one that is
regularly down.
>> >
>> >Why is that?
>> >
>> >Francis.
>> >
>> >
>
>
>Sorry, but I'm a BSD fan too (Open and Free being my two favs at
the
>moment) and I hate to see people say that BSD is a version of
Linux.
>They are different systems.
>
>Nathaniel Jay Lee
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
Oh well, some people used to call all refrigerators "Frigidaires"
and the Brits and Irish still call vacuum cleaning "Hoovering."
The class is Unix and Unix-like systems and the members include
such oddities as Xenix, BSD, Coherent and Linux. Linux is the
most successful member of the class at the moment, at least in
mindshare.
Joohn Culleton
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Date: 21 Jun 2000 21:20:44 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:32:09 -0600, John W. Stevens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (and, yes, for some reason my PII is a little slower than
> the Celeron 400 . . . I'm puzzled by that).
The Celeron has 128K of *full core speed* L2 cache. The PII's, while 4
times as large, is only *half core speed*. I would hazard a guess that
the faster L2 cache is beneficial to POVray more than the larger L2
cache.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 21 Jun 2000 21:20:45 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:20:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What window manager runs when the desktop environment 'KDE'
> is in control?
Normally KWM, but you can just as easily run any KDE compliant window
manager. Enlightenment is one example.
> I'm one of those that thought 'KDE' was a
> window manager. Same with 'Gnome', I now find out that it is
> also a desktop environment as well as an application framework
> for the software developer. What window manager does 'Gnome'
> use?
It really depends. GNOME was designed not to be tied to a particular
window manager (OK, neither was KDE strictly speaking, but KWM was
designed specifically for KDE, so it became the default).
Enlightenment became the default originally, but I now believe Sawfish
is the default. It is with Helix GNOME anyway.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: 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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:21:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta wrote:
> >
> > In article <8il6cp$gg7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Says who? You? Don't go making claims like this without having
> > > proof,
> > > or at least a credible source to quote. Otherwise it's just hot air.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such
> > > > dramatically
> > > > higher productivity level?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I've been providing highly credible,
>
> Translation: he believes what they say,
Not to mention lots of independent magazines.
>
> > independent
>
> Translation: Their financial interest in proving the MacOS superior to
> Windows is indirect . . .
Uh huh.
Like Microsoft and Intel?
>
> > third party
>
> Translation: Not Apple.
Like Microsoft and Intel.
>
> > sources for
> > at least 5 years.
>
> Translation: I've posted some stuff, then claimed it proved something
> that not even the muck I posted claimed to have proven.
Nonsense.
>
> > But I see _you_ haven't provided any evidence to support your
> > position......
>
> I did, but of course, you failed to accept it . . . say, that's pretty
> much the exact same thing people do to you, isn't it?
>
> Such incredible nonsense. . . obviously, the Windows OS is superior to
> the MacOS. Anybody who understands even basic evolutionary theory knows
> that. And anybody who knows even basic evolutionary theory would know
> that Linux is going to continue to grow, but that it is unlikely to ever
> displace Windows on the desktop.
Windows is superior to Mac OS? Really? In what way? Care to provide some
specifics so we can laugh ourselves to death?
And I'd expect that anyone who knows even basic evolutionary theory
would know that it applies to biological organisms -- not commercial
software. Too bad you don't fall into the category of people who know
anything about it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:27:03 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:05:57 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jedidiah,
>
>The desktop user is not worried about whether (a) is a desktop issue or not.
>S/he requires a solution.
No, the "desktop user" is just plain clueless in general and
would be lucky to merely USE a new device after it has been
installed for them, nevermind installing it themselves.
The "market leader" doesn't address the "target user" any more
effectively than Linux does.
PC's are random collections of spare parts, and it shows.
OTOH, Bughat will gladly autodetect devices it does know about
and step you through it's associated configuration wizard. This
bit managed to surprise me when I upgraded to my Voodoo3.
>
>I can go into great detail regarding (b) but perhaps the kde/gnome/xfree
>teams need to do some usability/user studies. This is one of those soft
Mebbe they could use some of the various Microsoft entries
at the User Interface Hall of shame as a guide what NOT to
do.
>issues that MS has addressed in their OS', which makes them a commercial
>success, unlike Linux.
This is no less assinine when you repeat it for the googole+nth
time as it was the first time it was stated:
DOS, or WinDOS exists where it is not because of any
aspect of product quality but because of an association
with the previous computing monopoly and network effects.
Otherwise, you would be drawing these comparisons to Macintoshes.
>
>James
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:33:25 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >See my post above. Most importantly :
>> >
>> >a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support & management (not
>> >just a desktop function).
>>
>> Actually, this has NOTHING to do with the desktop.
>>
>> >b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
>> >appearance).
>>
>> This is just another generalization split into smaller generalizations.
>>
>> >c) Improvements to X (speed, presentation, etc).
>>
>> Same as b.
>>
>> Although, as far as fonts go there are plenty that can be used
>> effectively in place of their Windows counterparts. That's just
>> a common bit of FUD shared amongst Lemmings.
>>
>> >
>> >James
>> >
>> >"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> James wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > David,
>> >> >
>> >> > Even though Win98 is a much more usable desktop in many respects
>> >(including
>> >> > games) than Linux it is, agreeably, highly unreliable. Therefore
>your
>> >post
>> >> > in this NG will have no credibility, even though it deserves some.
>In
>> >the
>> >> > company I work for we run Win95 on most desktops (some 20000+) and of
>> >course
>> >> > experience the usual problems - mostly users corrupting their own
>> >systems.
>> >> > The company will in the next 2-3 years upgrade all desktops and
>backends
>> >> > (from Novell & GroupWise) to W2k. Linux, with its limited and crude
>> >desktop
>> >> > apps, its complicated man-machine interface (for average users), is
>> >simply
>> >> > not an option.
>> >>
>> >> If all the apps you need are available in linux than linux is a
>> >> far better choice than any version of windows. The problem is
>> >> application availability. The UI available for linux are far
>> >> better than windows and give the administrator a greater amount
>> >> of control.
>> >>
>> >> The wintrolls keep repeating this lie that windows "has a better
>> >> desktop" even though it is blatantly false ... when you press
>> >> them then you see what the problem always was: linux doesn't
>> >> have this program, doesn't run this game ... this has nothing to
>> >> do with windows being a "better desktop".
>> >>
>> >> What features does the windows GUI have that you would like to
>> >> see in, say, KDE?
>> >>
>> >> > Linux is for tinkering. W2k is for work.
>> >>
>> >> Oh bullshit
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
>> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
>> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
>> |||
>> / | \
>>
>> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
>
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:24:02 -0500
James wrote:
>
> See my post above. Most importantly :
>
> a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support & management (not
> just a desktop function).
at this point linux already has better hardware detection and
support than windows - for the hardware that has drivers. The
kernel sees it at boot and loads the module. No hassling with
stupid driver installation. How much easier do you want it to
be?
I've never had to "install" hardware in linux as in windows.
I've never spent hours trying to set up an ethernet card in linux
as I have in windows. And if you have never had to spend hours
setting up hardware in windows then you just haven't worked with
it enough - it has nothing to do with how much you know.
> b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
> appearance).
KDE at least has windows beaten into the dirt here, with the
exception of true type fonts which are fairly easy to install. It
takes about 1 minute to get all your windows fonts in linux.
KDE and GNOME both are vastly superior interface over windows'
explorer. Everyone says it's a "copy of windows" but I really
find that absurd. They don't look anything like windows to me,
and neither acts like windows in any way imaginable.
The windows UI is in my opinion one of the WORST user
interfaces. It's klunky, limiting, and full of stupid features
that get in your way. I don't see why anyone would want to
imitate it.
> c) Improvements to X (speed, presentation, etc).
Seems good enough to me, but your mileage may vary depending on
your version of X and your video card.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:28:26 GMT
James wrote:
>
> Ok, some examples :
>
> 1) Installation
> After installation of Redhat 6.2 / Mandrake 7.1 my Rockwell 56K modem is not
> properly configured, and my USB Epson 900 and Perfection 610 scanner do not
> work. Play around with pnptools and setserial to get the ISA modem card to
> work. No problem with W2k pnp. Another way is to set the OS to non-pnp in
> BIOS, but this is a hassle for W2k. Linux requires better pnp.
> Poor system configuration compared to W2k start>settings menu. Eg where in
> Linux is there a full and accurate list of detected/configured hardware,
> well-presented, which can be easily printed.
ISAPnP is in the development kernels and stable. Wait for kernel 2.4.
> 2) Presentation
> Fonts are ugly. I know it is an old issue (since I first tried Linux in the
> mid 90s). I understand that this is a patent X problem. Saw some paper on
> the xfree website to improve matters, but no real action. Won't be
> surprised if it takes another few years to solve this problem.
Do your fonts look ugly? Strange. I'm using X with KDE. My fonts don't
look ugly at all. I'm using a standard install of Mandrake 7.1.
> 3) Printing
> After getting my modem to work I browse the internet and read mail with
> Netscape 4.7. I open a page and then print it (thru /dev/lp0 as
> /dev/usb/usblp0 does not work). Guess what? It is not wysiwyg or even the
> same as the screen fonts, and looks ugly. Not even in colour. Compare the
> printout to that produced by IE5. In Linux printing often do not match the
> app screen presentation.
This problem was solved recently, although i don't know exactly how
they did it. I guess it should be in the next series of distributions.
> 4) App setup
> Eg download Nescape 6 trial, but cannot print from it. In addition it is
> very slow. It also does not have a proper setup program that I could see.
> With WinApps there is almost always a simple setup.exe to get started.
> Apps, including system apps, often have their own config files which use
> incompatible syntax. Many of these config files have to be manually
> configured, or configured by crude little apps - which were an afterthought
> to the app (like apache configuration).
Duh! Netscape 6 is a beta-program. Also, these 'simple setup.exe's
often spew files all over your system, and very often you can't get
rid of them.
> 5) Lack of apps
> In Linux I don't have access to powerful, industry standard, desktop
> applications. Do I need to elaborate here? The apps bundled with gnome/kde
> are really very crude. For example, the newsreader where I cannot quickly
> find a particular newsgroup and the sorting is limited (compare this with
> OE).
This is not Linux' fault. You should be thankful that those KDE people
are actually willing to put together an office-suite for you at no
cost. With most OS's you pay lots of money for those.
> Can you provide me with a list of Linux apps to match the following in BOTH
> power and usability :
>
> Office 2k
> Adaptec Easy CD creator
> Adobe Acrobat
> AudioCatalyst
> GetRight
> Windows Commander (an excellent prog, unlike mc)
> MS Bookshelf
> MS Money
> Napster
> Visio
> AutoCAD
> IE5
> PGP Desktop
If it's Windows you want, then it's Windows you should use. I could
name several replacements for all of the above, but then you would
start whining about them not being the same as in Windows.
> 6) Usability
> Many small things, like having to specify a DNS when setting up my ISP.
> Poor error messages, eg "modem is busy" when ppp cannot find unconfigured
> cua port. Like getting an error message from linuxconf about my system
> clock, just after I have installed the system. Constantly getting garbled
> output in a terminal (which has to be cleared with ^L).
[Sigh] You ALWAYS have to specify a DNS when setting up your ISP. In
Windows some installation programs from the ISP's do this for you,
though.
> 7) Consistency and interface design
> Inconsistent and poorly designed user interface, and poor utilisation of
> screen space. Screens/forms appear and function differently from one app to
> another. Icons and other widgets are often overly large and inconsistent.
> Like not being able to see the full song title in the CD player pick list.
Interface design is excellent! You can choose your own! The only
reason you're whining is because it doesn't look EXACTLY like Windows.
Some people can't even take the *slightest* bit of change.
> 8) Speed
> X still feels sluggish, and programs load slower than in W2k (I only have a
> 200MHz machine), even though I have a TNT video card.
Argumentation == Outdated! XFree86 4.0 is almost as fast as Windows.
With DRI it even equals the speed of Windows. MediocreSoft needs to
update it's Linux trolling manual.
> And the list goes on. I can cite many other examples - some small, others
> more substantial. In the end however the consumer will be ultimate judge -
> and that verdict is currently crystal clear.
Yeah, the standard troll list has some more outdated or false point
you can copy. I'll bet you've never even had a single look at a recent
version of Linux.
Remember, if you WinTrolls make a valid point, somebody will usually
fix it in a matter of a few months. The fonts *were* a valid point,
ISAPnP *was* a valid point, speed of X *was* a valid point. Interface
*was* a valid point. Samba *was* slower than NT 4.0. (the last one
took about 3 hours to fix)
I'm looking forward to your people's next set of rants. We can always
use some more boosts like that. Just don't keep repeating the old
shit, if you please.
--
¨I live!¨
¨I hunger!¨
¨Run, coward!¨
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:27:31 -0500
DeAnn Iwan wrote:
>
> peter wrote:
> >
> > I'm setting up two 486 linux systems, one will be a small web sever,
> > firewall, and ip masq.
> >
> > The other will be a machine to write perl programs on.
> >
> > I have two 250 meg drives, I don't plan to install X, so which distro
> > is out there that will allow me to do what i want to do on the 486's
> > ???
> >
>
> Any major distribution will probably work. Note that how much
> memory you have and whether or not you have a CDROM drive enter into
> play here. The latest RH, SUSE, and other graphical interfaces like
> lots of RAM (RH 6.2 will complain about 32 MB RAM, but will install,
> etc.). I have been unable to get SUSE 6.1 or 6.4 to do an NFS install
> from machines even with 32 MB RAM; they seem to get caught thrashing
> between trying to load appriate parts of YAST, the install packages and
> so forth and eventually freeze up. After 2 weeks, I've given up. (I
> had done NFS installs with RH 5.0 very smoothly. I suspect it has to do
> with distros taking advantage of the new kernels ability to preload one
> kernel/OS and then finalize with another. If they are finalizing across
> NFS and do not have enough local RAM/storage, then they tangle.)
>
> Unless you have lots of RAM and a local cdrom, moving to Debian or
> Slackware can be good. Both distributions allow you to install a small
> Linux system from around a dozen floppies. You can then download the
> rest of what you want via ftp, NFS, etc.
SuSE up to version 6.3 will install over NFS on machines with as little
as 8 MB of RAM. I know, I've got two at home set up that way. You just
have to pass the lilo line:
manual vga=normal
and set it up via the old YAST1 method. Not too painful, and it allows
you a lot more options.
Although, I'm not going to dispute you that Debian and Slack have a lot
of merit on an older/smaller machine. I'm planning on doing a Debian
install on one of the aforementioned machines when the next version is
"stable" released. Hopefully soon.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:28:28 GMT
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At any rate, is it SOOO hard to look in the rpm package file list
> (very easy with kpackage)
God, what would we do without kpackage?
Oh...I know! We might have to learn stuff!
--
Eric 'Alibut | If you don't understand how things are
at | connected, the cause of problems is
Esmond, R.I., USA | solutions. -- Amory B. Lovins
www.ruptured-duck.com |
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:33:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
> >>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
> >>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
> >
> >
> >I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
>
> Uhm, no. Not even close.
>
> >What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
>
> The government can't do anything to them until the appeals proscess is over. By
>then, this whole
> UNIX revival thing will halve blone over.
With Unix on top.
>
> >
> >If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
> >what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
> >
>
> That it sucks. Just like the KDE befor it. You can put Windos like environmant ontop
>of UNIX, but
> thats' still UNIX under theare, and you can't get rid of the limmitations of UNIX
>except by getting
> rid of the UNIX. That is why UNIX+KDE fales now just like UNIX without it did, and
>UNIX+KDE2 will
> continnue to fale in the future.
>
> Just face it: UNIX is the PAST. Leave it in the 1970s whear it belongs.
>
> >I think the Microsoft community realizes that there is no competing with
> >Linux as the Linux community comes out with a new version roughly once
> >every 6-9 months.
>
> Yeah, and you accuse Windwos of making peopal upgrade.
>
> >This in comparison to Windows 2-4 year revisionary
> >history,,, with complete writeups from the ground floor up.
> >
> >Charlie
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:31:08 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >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.
>
> You were the one that claimed Linux is three times faster than Windows.
> Care to justify that statement? I did some tests of my own and found Linux
> is _slower_ than Windows!
>
> Pete
We never did hear if you took any of the suggestions on tuning and
retried your tests. Or is this one of those Mindcraft type of
examples? Tune windows perfectly and let Linux sit with non-optimized
settings.
I don't agree that Linux is tree times faster than Windows, but for most
things it is somewhat faster. I'm not a benchmarking person, so I don't
have solid numbers, but I am interested in if you ever re-ran your test
with any of the suggestions that were given to you. This to me would be
the equivalent of running your test under Windows without loading the
proper drivers to your motherboard/IDE controller/vide card/etc. Tuning
and driver loading are essential to get a well optimized system.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[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
******************************
