Linux-Advocacy Digest #260, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A contrived strstream performance test. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux internal books ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How many times, installation != usability. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Roberto Alsina)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:45:02 GMT
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:35:14 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Gotta give you that one. At least you can boot a command prompt from
> >> the CD now though. :-)
> >
> >Hmm, I should try that some time. I won't be impressed if it is the same
> >as the "safe mode, command line only" (or whatever it is called in
> >english) of the W2K boot menu.
>
> You mean boot the GUI with cmd.exe as your shell? No. But it is a
> *very* stripped down rescue shell.
I probably didn't make myself very clear. I meant I won't be impressed
until it is real textmode. Although that would be more important for the
"safe mode" option in the boot menu - so I could fix some damaged GDI
file.
Well, I have a separate rescue installation of NT on any machine I care
about for that reason. It saved me at least once. And it is the reason I
think W2K requiring at least 650 MB sucks.
Booting from CD to try and fix a damaged system probably will do.
> >> Fortunately the GUI doesn't take up a lot of memory when not used.
> >> 16k last time I looked.
> >
> >Ohh, usage of ressources is not the reason to not do it.
> >
> >Having a big hunk of additional code potentially executed is. It may
> >have bugs endangering the stability of the machine. It may even have
> >security holes.
>
> On a Microsoft product? In a GUI app? Never!!
Hehehehe. I see. :-)
> Point taken, but given the code should never be executed on a system
> with any decent security, and that the GUI is local machine only it's
> not that high on the list of bugs to watch out for.
Hmm. RPCs? DCOM? In the future SOAP? What if the admin actually logs in
at the console?
The only harmless code is code that is not installed. Paranoia is
mandatory when talking about security.
> >> Sound - because some server motherboards actually have sound on them?
> >
> >Just because the hardware is there shouldn't mean the drivers get
> >automagically installed. Not on a server anyway (who would have speakers
> >connected? :-).
>
> You don't have the sub woofer on the bottom of the rack? I think the
> option is nice and no, you don't have to install the sound driver if
> you don't want to.
This is not that easy with W2Ks plug-and-pray. It didn't ask me about
it.
> I guess it does make you happier now to see different kernels
> (Pro/Server, Enterprise, Datacenter) turning up?
No. It is however inevitable. At least there will be NT/32 and NT/64 for
purely technical reasons. I have no idea what the differences between
P/S, Enterprise and Datacenter are at the kernel level.
> >> Actually, they do. Generally you do this by taking a set of users
> >> with similar experience and putting them in front of the system and
> >> ask them to use it without manuals. MS, Apple and other major
> >> companies do this a *lot*. Most Linux distros don't. It shows.
> >
> >Sure. But MS, Apple and the others AFAIK do not publish their criteria.
> >Results they publish are tainted in any case. I have no idea what they
> >actually think and do about usability.
> >
> >I only see that it seems to be strongly related to some sales droid's
> >dreams and beginners. IOW must look flashy and try to guess what you may
> >want to do. If it guesses wrong things get complicated.
>
> Yes. Read the UI guidelines for wizard design - if you don't use an
> option 90% of the time it gets thrown out.
Now that is braindead. Or I don't understand what "option" actually
means.
> Some things like that annoy me so I just find other ways around, like
> using the command prompt or scripting.
Fear the day MS decides to revive MS Bob and make it the UI of their
OSs. There will be no way to get a command prompt or script anything.
:-(
Maybe Apple will beat MS to it, in the name of ease of use.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:48:58 GMT
Read Mark S. Bilks posts for the last 2 days.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:26:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:14:15 +0200, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>EMOVEX> wrote:
>>
>>well, linvocates claim linux is 'better' than other os-es, but they also
>>claim linux has 30% desktop share, so...
>
> ...care to actually back that up with a citation?
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:51:45 GMT
The current HP Pavillion and Compaq Internet pc's advertised on TV
(you know the $899.00 model) have Winmodems and Win printers.
On 22 Jun 2000 17:59:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
>> won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
>>
>
>"Half the hardware", eh simon?
>
>Tell me, which half would that be?
>
>And what, specifically?
>
>Shouldnt be too hard for a 42 year old who knows what a punchcard reader
>is, eh?
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:53:30 GMT
Linux and punched cards are a match made in heaven.
Oh yea, one other thing. What's with all the S/390 crap? Do you think
anyone in this group even knows what you are talking about? Or is that
the only feature of Linux you can find that Windows doesn't have?
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:10:45 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>abraxas wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
>> > won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
>> >
>>
>> "Half the hardware", eh simon?
>>
>> Tell me, which half would that be?
>>
>> And what, specifically?
>>
>> Shouldnt be too hard for a 42 year old who knows what a punchcard reader
>> is, eh?
>>
>> -----yttrx
>
>I suppose tek (aka simon) wants to connect his card reader and 1403 printer
>to Linux. Of course, for someone so knowledgeable with this ancient
>hardware, he should be able to write the necessary drivers in a couple of
>hours :-). After all, I managed to boot up Linux for S/390 on my PC
>running the hercules S/390 emulator with virtual 3505 card reader, 3525
>card punch, and 1403 printer.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:54:54 GMT
Great info?
So now you Linonuts want to emulate a 3505/3525 and a 1403?
It would probably be an improvement based on the state of Linux today.
On 22 Jun 2000 22:10:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>*snip a bunch of great info*
>
>> Unfortunately, you just missed the deadline for registering for the install
>> fest, but you might still find this interesting:
>>
>> http://www.s390.ibm.com/linux/installfest/
>>
>
>Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: A contrived strstream performance test.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:55:35 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:28:40 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>Followup: Yes there is an sstream file, which contains the classes
>basic_stringbuf<>, basic_istringstream<>, basic_ostringstream<>,
>and basic_stringstream<>. Each of these classes takes the three
>template arguments '_E' (usually a char), '_Tr', which defaults to
>char_traits<_E>, and '_A',which defaults to allocator<_E>.
What compiler do you have ? I only seem to have strstream.
I have egcs-c++-1.1.2
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:55:53 GMT
idiot....
Bring your Linux CD to anyone of the current HP, Compaq internet
machines and see how well you fair.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:35:07 -0700, Jacques Guy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
>> won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
>
>It's more like 90% of the hardware won't run Linux: the keyboard, the
>mouse, the monitor, the disk drives, the mouse mat... in fact
>the only thing that will run Linux in those machines is a
>piddling wee silicon chip the name of which escapes me right
>now. Why, even the power supply won't run Linux! Make that
>98% then.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux internal books
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:58:23 GMT
"The Anarchists Cookbook" is a good one.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:02:09 -0400, "bmeson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi, I'm interested in Linux and I have certain experience in UNIX (as a
>user, not system administrator). Is there a good book which explains Linux
>internal codes? I have already got the classic 'design of UNIX operating
>system'. Is it good helping reading Linux source code? Thanks.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:04:54 GMT
One example...Big deal..
I'd rather have decent looking video and sound and be able to use ANY
scanner, ANY printer, ANY modem and virtually ANY device my little
heart desires, under Win98 without looking at HCL lists like I have to
with Linsux.
On 22 Jun 2000 18:14:19 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:14:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Then explain how Linux got ATA-100 drivers *before* Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:07:08 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:41:10 +0100, John Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Tim Palmer wrote in message ...
>>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:19:21 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>On 19 Jun 2000 06:01:22 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On 18 Jun 2000 07:18:42 GMT, Marada C. Shradrakaii
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>>>
>>>>But moast peopel don't USE it, and it can be turned off.
>>>
>>> You can also make passwords in Unix blank if you like, if you
>>> or your family members are unable to remember a simple password.
>>
>>Thanks for the tip. I woant need it because I'm running Windows 98SE..
>>I woant need the
>>Blank-Password-HOWTO for it either.
>
>Oh dear - you poor demented creature. You obviously have the same
>grasp of Linux as you do of spelling.....
He might have a sliver of a point here.... but only because
of the sort of facilities he likely advocates.
IOW: if you find it difficult to NULL a password in Linux is
likely only because the system is trying to protect you from
yourself.
[deletia]
OTOH, most of the Linuxen I've tried will gladly let you give
yourself a trivially secure password that is remarkably easy
to remember.
I could see how this could be something unfathomable to the
sort that is more likely to interact with their machines in
terms of "Do steps X, Y and Z" rather than "What are the
possibilities given the tools present?".
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:16:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:30:03 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> >> The "classic" Unix scheduler in something like Version 7 is extremely
> >> primitive and does nothing more than round robin scheduling, where a
> >
> >Describe how this is accomplished.
>
> Are you trolling? If you have a clue about Unix, you'd ask something more
I'm trying to determine if you have a clue about how even something
as simple as "round-robin" scheduling is done.
> specialized, like how and when a TLB shootdown is done, or how bottom half
> handlers are queued and executed.
>
> The classic Unix scheduler interrupts the current process when it has
> exceeded its time quantum, puts it at the end of the running queue, and
> switches to the task at the head of the queue. The implementation in
> Version 7 is five lines of code. Newer systems have multiple levels for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And you can't see the advantage of a small, tight, queing system?
> each priority, but still have the queue.
in other words, maybe..what... 8 lines?
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:18:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Explain the Unix task scheduler.
>
> Why? What relevance does a task scheduler have to an application writer?
If you don't understand how your processes and/or threads get scheduled,
then you effectiveness as a programmer is severely limited.
>
> Pete
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:18:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Why? What relevance does a task scheduler have to an
> > application writer?
> >
> > Its extremely relavent. Understanding the scheduler and and how
> > it affects your process running at different priorities in (for
> > example) multithread and SMP environments is something that
> > should always be understood to some degree by the coder.
> >
>
> Actually it's extremely irrelevant. Why should how the scheduler works
> affect how I write applications. In most OS's the scheduler works
> transparently without my knowledge.
Work on a high throughput database, and get back to us.
>
> Of course, if you're talking about writing high speed applications then
> yes it may be relevant, but most of what I write doesn't come into that
> category.
>
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:20:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I'd see if I could get my money back on that course also Pete.
> >Think they ripped you off.
>
> What course was that? It was on the job training, i.e. self taught.
>
So, basically, you learned the bare minimum needed to accomplish your
task.
As I said in the beginning, you never truly learned Unix.
Thanks for the confirmation.
> Pete
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:08:58 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2000 20:51:48 GMT, Brian Langenberger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Christopher
> >: Browne) wrote:
> >
> >:>KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
> >
> >: Call it whatever you want... it's still a pathetic clone of the
> >: Windows 9x style UI that's ugly and slow.
> >
> >I agree. The Windows 9x style of UI is ugly and slow.
> >Fortunately, KDE doesn't have to look or act like it.
>
> Right... instead of the "Start" menu you have a "KDE" menu in the same
> exact location.
Actually, we call it the "K" menu. And if you don't like the position,
move it. And you can have more than one menu. Is that the same in
windows?
> Instead of the system tray you have a... KDE Tray?
We call it the dock area.It's a rather good idea. Why not use it?
> In
> the same exact location. Instead of a "Quick Launch" you have a place
> to quickly launch your programs... I'm not sure what KDE calls it.
We don't call it anything. BTW: KDE had that a few months before
windows, IIRC.
BTW: those "quick launch" thingies are older than sin, fvwm had
"goodstuff" around 1993 or so.
And did you notice the things in the panel that are NOT the same
as in windows? Say, the option to stop without starting, to lock the
screen, the virtual desktop switcher, the buttons to fold the panel?
Did you notice that when the panel is folded you get something a bit
similar to MacOS's apple menu?
Did you notice the disk navigator in the menu? (Of course you can turn
it into a button, too).
I think you see a superficial similarity and from it deduce that both
things are equal.
> Instead of using a web browser style interface to browse local
> locations you use... uh... well... a web browser style interface to
> browse local locations.
Use kruiser. Or use konqueror in KDE2. Konqueror, while able to work
as a web browser, is an entirely different beast.
> Instead of having a task bar you have a.... bar of... tasks in the
> same place.
Or not have it. Or use middle-click-on-desk. Or have it somewhere else.
or use a pager.
Again, you are blinded by surface.
> KDE deviates from the Windows UI about the same amount that Microsoft
> deviates themselves with various versions of Windows since 95. KDE is
> a pathetic clone.
You are just ignorant. That's not serious. Don't worry. People get
over it with generous doses of education. Hope this message works as a
first one.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:10:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Right... instead of the "Start" menu you have a "KDE" menu in the
same
> > exact location. Instead of the system tray you have a... KDE Tray?
In
> > the same exact location. Instead of a "Quick Launch" you have a
place
> > to quickly launch your programs... I'm not sure what KDE calls it.
> >
> > Instead of using a web browser style interface to browse local
> > locations you use... uh... well... a web browser style interface to
> > browse local locations.
> >
> > Instead of having a task bar you have a.... bar of... tasks in the
> > same place.
> >
> > KDE deviates from the Windows UI about the same amount that
Microsoft
> > deviates themselves with various versions of Windows since 95. KDE
is
> > a pathetic clone.
>
> Many many years ago I started using Unix running mwm and X. It had a
> root menu with the same function that the Windows Start menu now has.
> Only you could access it from anywhere in the root window. By the
way,
> KDE 2 has finally brought the root menu back.
Actually, you can configure KDE1 to use the left button on root window
for the menu. It's just not available from the GUI.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:22:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hoobajoob wrote:
>
> > I know that in the case of a missing DLL, Windows 98 will tell
> > you that your program (or one of its components) is missing,
> > and might give you the name of the missing DLLs before the
> > Fatal Exception Error occurs. Win2K can't be much different,
> > unless it automatically knows how to generate the missing DLLs.
>
> It asks for the Windows 2000 CD. Then the problem goes away.
Why should an installed DLL ever disappear?
It's inexcusable!
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:22:52 GMT
Thank you.....
I say just walk around in Fortune 500 companies and ask the IT people.
Sure you might see Linux in the backroom running a server, but on the
desktop?
No way...There is always the oddball bucking the system, but in any
number? No way.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:38:39 +0300, "Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This only means that 10% of companies are using Linux and 90% are not.
>This does not mean that 100% of the users at those 10% of companies are
>using Linux.
>Actual figure can be between 1-100%.
>Indeed, if you presume that 3% of those users are actually using Linux today
>then you get the same figure as in all the other recent studies, and that is
>0.3%.
>
>--L
>
>
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8itpr4$1s6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I don't disagree on the 30 percent number if it is applied to servers.
>> >Mark said 30 percent of all BUISNESS'S. In that statement he said
>> >nothing of servers.
>> >
>> >My points (sblive, crappy fonts etc) are directed at desktop. I have
>> >no problems with Linux as a server and in fact think it is a great way
>> >to save a lot of money.
>> >
>> >Same for a development platform for those not fortunate enough to fork
>> >over ridiculous prices for those vertical applications.
>> >
>> >However if you take the entire picture, desktop and server as a whole
>> >Linux use is so minuscule compared to Windows it can barely be
>> >measured.
>>
>> http://www.infotechtrends.com/freedemo.htm
>>
>> 99Q2 - Percent of information technology managers using
>> or planning to use Linux as a general purpose desktop
>> or workstation operating system. ^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Currently Use 10% <<<
>> Use Within 12 Months 20% <<<
>> No Plans 68%
>> Don't Know 1%
>>
>> JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE
>> VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 54 InformationWeek/
>> *GENERATION LINUX - NEXT STOP: DESKTOP
>>
>> One year ago, when KDE and Gnome, along with hardware and
>> installation support, were much less developed than they
>> are now, Linux was already in use on the desktop/workstation
>> computers of 10% of all businesses. The figure may now
>> be 30%, if the managers planning to switch to Linux have
>> followed through.
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 22 Jun 2000 23:23:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> It seems very clear that Microsoft has committed fraud against
:> competitors, customers, and end users alike. (Examples abound in the
: I know you think this an obvious fact, but I have yet to see anything
: that MS did that differs significantly from what every other
: successful business in the US does. Feel free to 'rehash' this
: issue, since it has never been 'hashed' in the first place.
I won't debate the FoF. They are a matter of public record,
self-explanatory, and extremely well documented, largely by
Microsoft's own testimony.
I will concede that many other large corporations in the U.S. as well
as the government itself practice fraud with impunity; however, the
wrongful actions of one entity do not justify those of another.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
