Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #27 Mon, 3 Jul 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (Darren Winsper)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Gary Hallock)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux code going down hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux code going down hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451730 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451730 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Peter Ammon)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451730 (tinman)
Re: OS's ... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond
(was Re: Linux is junk)) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (mlw)
Re: Linux code going down hill (abraxas)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Perry Pip)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Perry Pip)
Re: WINDOWS! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Perry Pip)
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Perry Pip)
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond
(was Re: Linux is junk)) (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 3 Jul 2000 15:00:40 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 07:51:52 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you say Windows, which one do you mean? Windows 98 SE is not the same
> as Windows 2000.Yet everyone here simply uses the term "Windows",
There are aspects of Win98SE and W2K that are common to both platforms.
For example, when I complain about Windows, more often than not I'm
refering to the GUI, which is more or less the same on both platforms.
Other times I make it clear what I'm talking about (Usually Win98,
because that's the other OS on this machine).
> or
> more crudely, WinLose or WinDoze or whatever derogatory term you can
> think of.
The Windows camp is just as guilty of doing that wrt Linux.
> > Then why don't you take some time an try to understand the context in
> > which others are using computers. At work I recently installed some
> > Gnome components on a SGI/IRIX machine becuase we needed to quickly
> > develop some UI's to a custom application and wanted to use glade. Now
> > if I run into some Gnome bugs should I claim they are IRIX bugs?? That
> > would be stupid. Similary, I think it is just as stupid to blame Linux
> > for KDE bugs.
>
> But bugs in Windows 98 are being attributed to Windows 2000! People
> don't say "Windows 98" they say Windows. So I feel perfectly justified
> in using the term "Linux."
Ah yes, the age old "everyone does it so it must be OK" argument. I
guess I can use that argument for, say, nabbing MP3s off Napster, or
grabbing a copy of WinME of a Warez site.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: 3 Jul 2000 18:50:15 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Have you ever loaded a driver on LoseDos?
>
>I write Windows device drivers for a living. You know, with all the crashes
>and stuff (my own fault of course), not _once_ did Windows trash the disk.
I have an NTFS partition that was corrupted when my CPU fan quit
working and the machine crashed a few times before I found
out what was wrong. Scandisk went through the motions of fixing
it and the files mostly seem ok, but now I have trouble getting
setup to unpack the files in self-installing exe files. They
keep telling me that I don't have disk space for the temp files
even though I do. I managed to install service pack 6a by putting
it and the temp directory on a network drive, but I still can't
get a Netscape update to install.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 19:59:37 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> It depends on the machine's use. If it isn't busily writing files
> at the time you lose power or a few seconds before you won't see
> any problems. That's probably the case for most home users. A
> busy file server is likely to have e2fsck move some incomplete
> pieces to lost_found on the way back up.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You've fallen for Pete's trickery. He didn't say Linux, he said UNIX. Pete
wants people to believe that no UNIX can handle power outages, even after I
explained to him that JFS on AIX is a fully journaled file system that can
easily handle pulling the plug at any time.
Gary
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:04:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:28:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:46:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>They don't have to...
> >>
> >>Win2k, even WITHOUT advocating STILL has a far higher market share
> >>than Linsux....
> >
> > ...an interesting assertion considering that Microsoft
> > itself is discouraging it's use as a general purpose
> > desktop OS.
>
> Whatever. The fact remains that it still has far more marekt share
> than Linsux...
Check the scoreboard. Microsoft just announced that they have
sold or given away 3 million copies of Windows 2000 including upgrades.
In the past 12 months.
Red Hat sold 3 million copies,
SuSE sold about 4 million (much of it in Europe).
Caldera is a bit behind at 1 million.
Mandrake sold about 4 million copies (primarily U.S.)
Corel sold about 2 million copies.
Turbo Linux sold about 4 million copies (mostly Asia).
Debian sold about 1/2 million copies.
FreeBSD sold about 1 million copies.
and OpenBSD sold about 1 million copies.
(though FreeBSD and OpenBSD aren't actually "Linux", they share
the same software application and library base).
This puts Linux at nearly 20 million copies.
This is based on a combination of official sales figures
reported by public companies, and market share claimed
competitors.
The figures may be slightly out of date, and are based on
"hype".
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:49:20 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8jokai$82h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
> Any operating system which is either A. BSD or B. System V in design and
> application. Oddly and perhaps ironically, this includes SunOS but not
> Solaris. :)
Just to clear things up Solaris is a total environment. Solaris 1.x is SunOS
4.x + OpenWindows and Solaris 2.x is SunOS 5.x + CDE / OpenWindows (I know
Solaris 8 changed the numbering but the OS is SunOS 5.8)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 01:55:51 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8jomtt$82h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> abraxas wrote:
>> Right, considering SunOS was BSD. I actually preferred SunOS. Solaris
>> calls itself SysV R4, though. So why is it not included in the above
>> definition?
>>
>
> Because it seems to me to be a hybrid of both...instead of one or the
> other.
Well the latter SunOS 4.x releases had lots of SysV functionality to help the
migration to SunOS 5.x. SunOS 5.x is based on SysV but there is a lot of SunOS
4.x functionality available. For me Linux has most of the best BSD & SysV
functionality as default. Thats why I like it so much (it also has features
which are an improvement / missing from BSD and SysV).
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,nl.scouting
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451730
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:41:11 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> Why not an answer, Dave?
I'm ready any time you're ready to provide one, Pascal. It was,
after all, my question.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451730
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:43:42 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> On the contrary.
Typical pontification.
1> Nope, just reaffirming your continued error.
Repontificating, you mean.
1> ('
What's that supposed to mean?
1> Your alleged logic defies explanation.
Typical unsubstantiated claim, as well as irrelevant, given that
we were talking about your alleged logic.
1> Perhaps, but if you're not, get back to work!
You're erroneously presupposing that my work consists of polishing
a mirror.
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:43:42 -0700
Shock Boy wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Cant use this, IRQ conflict, cant use that, IRQ conflict. Its a
> > nightmare.
>
> Would you please define what an IRQ conflict is? I've never experienced one, on the
>Mac or PC side of life..
An IRQ conflict occurs when the Windows demon-gods arbitrarily decide to
prevent your various pieces of hardware from working together until you
prove your devotion. You can prove this by spending several hours in
the Device Manager changing obscure numbers and rebooting to see if it
works. Watch out: the demon-gods will throw obstacles in your path.
Some pieces of hardware can't use certain IRQs. Others require multiple
IRQs. Some combinations of IRQs won't work. Sometimes the IRQs have to
be in a certain order. And if, in the end, your tortured sense of the
rational survives, then all the bounty of Windows shall be yours...until
you want to install something else.
I have much less PC experience than you, and even I've been there. Rick
is right: it is a nightmare.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:48:48 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the 03 Jul 2000 01:56:45 GMT...
> ...and Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The Windows "window mannager" (if Windows has such a thing) runs fine on the
> > >computers its encluded with.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. I've seen the Win95 GUI weird out to the point it requires
> > driver replacement. I've never had to replace an XF86_S3V that I didn't
> > delete/overwrite myself.
>
> Windows' window management hangs if a client hangs. That sucks
> design-wise and you need to work around it by making your clients
> multi-threaded with a thread dedicated to keeping the window
> management working.
>
> Clients of a decent windowing system should not even need to know
> about window management.
>
> > >Then why does KDE have a tascbar?
> >
> > Give people what they're familiar with. The taskbar actually has some design
> > merit, as a convinent list of all available windows.
>
> Additionally:
>
> AFAIK, the KDE taskbar does not necessarily look like the Win9x
> taskbar all the time. Actually, it can take on the form of the BeOS
> taskbar and such if you want to. Maybe you can turn it off completely
> if you want to.
Yes, one can. Also, KDE supports having eight desktops OTOB, and
so the taskbar is handy here.
>
>
> With GNOME, I know that our task list can take the strangest forms and
> that you can remove it from your panel if you think it sucks.
>
> Now how is that cloning Windows?
>
> mawa
> --
> "One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451730
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:53:15 -0400
In article <2ra85.17678$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Typical pontification.
On the contrary.
> 1> Nope, just reaffirming your continued error.
>
> Repontificating, you mean.
Do you know what pontification really is?
>
> 1> ('
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
Don't you know?
> 1> Your alleged logic defies explanation.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated claim, as well as irrelevant, given that
> we were talking about your alleged logic.
Typical pontification.
> 1> Perhaps, but if you're not, get back to work!
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that my work consists of polishing
> a mirror.
What else could it consist of?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 20:56:48 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 09:45:08 -0400, Chris Shepherd
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Actually, in '95 any of the Unix could go toe to toe with NT5
> >> > on the desktop. The only problems on the Unix side would be
> >> > lack of graphics design or "running everything".
> >>
> >> ...and also that UNIX still maik's you work hard like a slaiv TODAY (imajin
> >> UNIX in 1995 HAHA!) wile Windo's
> >> does all the work for you.
> >
> >Actually, OS/2 made you go through setup once, and foom! Everything was
> >easy (easier than NT IMO) and GUI-based. So no, you didn't have to 'work
> >hard like a [slave]' in '95. Sorry, but you should probably do a little
> >looking into the various versions of unix and unix offshoots that were
> >available at the time.
>
> OS/2 is really Windo's NT, not UNIX.
Didn't OS/2 predate Windows NT? So if OS/2 is really NT, then we have
another example of Microsoft "innovation". Note to OS/2 fans: the
antecedent in the previous conditional is merely being advanced for the
sake of argument. I am not claiming that OS/2 is really NT.
>
>
> >
> >BTW, do you really think that IBM uses Windows in their support call
> >centres?
>
> I bet they do. Do you relly think they use LIE-nux? Or OS/2? The support peopal
>probly couldent even vigure out BASH
> much less VI.
>
Bash isn't that hard, and as the support people aren't sysadmins, they could
use emacs, which is pretty easy to learn.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not
resond (was Re: Linux is junk))
Date: 3 Jul 2000 20:08:06 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Linux is a competantly built multi-user, multi-tasking OS.
>
>Then why does it have so many problems?
Because there is so much to it - and you are doing odd things with
it. You'd spend many thousands of dollars putting together the
equivalent functionality on commercial systems and since it would
come in dozens of different packages you would expect to spend some
time configuring each package correctly and making it all work
together on your particular machine. Since it's free and all
together on a couple of CD's, you seem to think it should be simple
as a result, but there is no reason it should be simpler than
all those individual packages.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:14:18 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >> It supports the hardwere only after you force it to. In Windo's it just works.
>You half to fight with LIE-nux to make it do annything.
> >
> >Have you ever loaded a driver on LoseDos?
>
> You just popin CD and it lodes the driver no plobem not like UNIX where everything's
>a plobem and you half to recompial.
>
Except when Windows doesn't find the drivers. And how does one recompile
a binary driver?
>
> >--
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:10:59 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On 30 Jun 2000 18:44:10 GMT, Brian Langenberger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I went out and bought a nice Logitech PS2/USB one, plugged it in,
> >adjusted a couple of config files and had no trouble since.
>
> No... There is where you are wrong. You're not susposed to edit any
> config files. As far as I'm concerned, Linux does not support wheel
> mice unless they just work.
>
> Windows has been doing this for many years now.
This is not entriely true either!!
Try, just try, configure your system for a MS Bus mouse, then install a
PS/2 mouse.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 4 Jul 2000 01:33:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8jomtt$82h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> abraxas wrote:
>>> Right, considering SunOS was BSD. I actually preferred SunOS. Solaris
>>> calls itself SysV R4, though. So why is it not included in the above
>>> definition?
>>>
>>
>> Because it seems to me to be a hybrid of both...instead of one or the
>> other.
>
> Well the latter SunOS 4.x releases had lots of SysV functionality to help the
> migration to SunOS 5.x. SunOS 5.x is based on SysV but there is a lot of SunOS
> 4.x functionality available. For me Linux has most of the best BSD & SysV
> functionality as default. Thats why I like it so much (it also has features
> which are an improvement / missing from BSD and SysV).
For me, I prefer FreeBSD. There is nothing that I can think of that I cannot
do under FreeBSD that I can do under linux, with improved stability, process
management and memory management to boot. Add to that the incredibly well
organized CVSup utility and Ports collection and you have an operating system
that exceeds linux by leaps and bounds...
I cannot understand for the life of me why it hasnt been adopted for the
desktop en masse.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:28:54 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:46:20 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8jq9qu$kb2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>I've run a process that grabs all the memory in Windows NT and yes it does
>slow to crawl. You do get a message, though, about lack of Virtual Memory.
>Then when I killed the process, the system recovered.
But you knew how to kill the process, i.e. ctrl-alt-del -> task
manager. You are an experienced Windows user and you know these littly
tricks. You are new to KDE and thus you don't. Thus you comparisons
are totally unfair.
>>And thirdly, it's strictly KDE, not Linux, that has this bug. Linux does
>>not have to run KDE. KDE runs on other OS's the KDE bug can manifest on
>>other OS's. You have been told this a dozen times over an you still
>>don't get it. It's no wonder people are calling you a moron.
>
>I call it Linux because people use expressions like LoseDOS and WinDOZE.
And I see people calling it Linsux and Lie-nux. But I don't stoop down
their level.
>>Overall, the fact that you are using this one obtuse non-critical KDE
>>bug to protray linux as unstable shows that you are nothing but a liar,
>>FUDster, and a troll.
>
>If it is true, how can I be a liar?
It isn't true. A KDE bug is not a Linux bug.
>The loss of the complete desktop is non-critical. Oh wow!
We showed you how to recover your system from a KFM crash. It's non-critical.
>I'm trying to point out to you that Linux is lagging behind Windows.
That is a gross generalization. How many people are running
supercomputers on Windows??
>Is it the policy of COLA to insult people - is that the best response?
So you generalize and call Linux advocates "children", "pedantic
souls", and "simpletons", you're not doing the same??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:29:29 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:48:23 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8jq5e9$h63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Which Windows are we talking about here?
>
>Windows 98 or Windows 2000?
>
>Which active directory are we talking about here? The Windows 2000 thing or
>just "active directory"?
Huh?? I didn't know Win98 had and active directory!!! Is there any
other "active directory" than the one that comes with W2K server??
>Do you see what I'm getting at?
Yeah, you're struggling to defend your misrepresentation of truth.
>You're doing it too!
And your losing!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: WINDOWS!
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:33:53 GMT
A most illuminating demonstration of the results of legalized
hallucinogenics on a national scale.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 3 Jul 2000 20:33:51 -0500
In article <LX885.385$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shock Boy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > No, because hardware support is inferior in linux.
>>
>> Strange. My SCSI discs work FAR more efficiently on Linux.
>
>We're talking about more than one simple part..
Sure, Sparc's, Alpha's, IBM 390's, and many more work
great under Linux.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:32:47 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:58:53 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8jq8c9$ja9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Yes I've read some of these articles. I would point again that generally an
>application dies, you get an error dialog not a BSOD. Saying that _all_
>application errors results in a BSOD is pure FUD.
No one said that. You are the one who has claimed apps never crash W2K.
>And I tried to point out that such fork bombs are somewhat difficult to
>stop if you don't expect them to happen. The system defaults appear to be
>wide open. Settings limits after the event appears to be closing the barn
>door once the horse has bolted.
And it was determined that on most Linux distributions default limits
are set. Even on Mandrake some high but bearable limits are set. You
just didn't wait long enough for our system to respond due to
thousands of processes competing for the CPU. And a competent
sysadmin needs to know how to set limits on a critical system.
>That's because NT has a much higher overhead than Linux on creating
>processes. So has most other operating systems, except UNIX ones. Have you
>seen what OpenVMS does on creating processes?
And so that's a bad thing. When a concurrent server uses threads one
thread can crash all the other threads. When a concurrent server uses
processes, they are protected from on another.
>I'd have to read these first. Get back to you on this one, if anything
>seems relevant.
Don't waste your time. My point is you can't use on non-critical bug
in a Unix desktop environment as a claim that Linux is less stable
than W2K. Such reasoning is utter bullshit.
>I've heard of long uptimes of NT, though I couldn't quote a year or longer.
>I can't help thinking that saying that NT does not cope well with long
>periods of uptime is FUD.
>
Well it doesn't where I work. We've got hundreds of NT servers and a
thousand or so *nix machines. I don't think you find anyone there that
would say NT is a reliable as Unix. Not even close.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this!
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:40:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 03 Jul 2000 22:06:50 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Marion) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>A couple of questions:
>>1. Is your box known by a FQDN?
>
>What's a FQDN?
Fully Qualified Domain Name.
An example would be www.leginfo.ca.gov.
Most user boxes aren't known by an FQDN, however, because
it tends to be dynamic -- although there used to be
services that could handle that issue, and make
somename.someorg.org point to whatever IP address the
user desired -- subject to login verification and such.
See RFC1034 and RFC1035 for (lots!) more details; there are also a
large number of updates.
>
>>2. How long did you wait before rebooting?
>
>About five minutes.
>
>>Mail programs tend to take a long time to timeout if they're trying to
>>verify name/IP. I've seen them hang on boot and shutdown for up to five
>>minutes. Of course, if you configure them properly, this doesn't
>>happen.
>
>Don't use EMail on Linux.
Yeah, you're right, we should all use Win2k instead;
we'll all be *much* happier. :-P~
Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
>Pete
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:33:42 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 22:03:58 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8jq79t$ig3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Exactly, because as he says, you are a novice KDE user. But as an
>>experienced Windows user you know how to type ctrl-alt-del when an app
>>hangs your system and needs to be killed by the task manager. A novice
>>windows user doesn't.
>
>I repeat, how could I possibly know kfm died? Nothing on the system even
>remotely showed me that!
If you were an experienced user you would know. You should know now,
If you have listened. You are an experienced user of various MS
OS's. You are not an experienced KDE user. Thus your comparisons are
invalid, period. Spend as many years learning Linux/X/KDE and other
*nix environments as you have spent learning and developing for
various Windows OS's. Then try to tell us you still think Windows is
more reliable or easier.
>So is the usage of Windows (or WinDoze or LoseDOS) I see around here.
Window == Windows ; W2k == W2k ; KDE != Linux. You are the one
stretching terminology. Show me one post were someone used "windows"
in a misleading context.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not
resond (was Re: Linux is junk))
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 01:35:10 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:30:20 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Where can you get LOSE98? It's not in the shops.
Same place you get LIE-nux.
>>Linux is a competantly built multi-user, multi-tasking OS.
>
>Then why does it have so many problems?
>
All of the so called problems you have posted on this NG are minor and
could be fixed if you would listen to the responses you get, or,
better yet, post to the technical newsgroups. Problem is you are more
interested in whining than you are fixing problems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
