Linux-Advocacy Digest #520, Volume #27 Fri, 7 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux is just plain awful (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Gary Hallock)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Gary Hallock)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Gary Hallock)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Mike Marion)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: A e-mail client with Outlook-like functionality (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!! (JoeX1029)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NEW! Microsoft NetSpeed Tool for Linux V2 (Cihl)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Mike Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:07:31 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Linux lags behind Windows encompasses much more that hardware (which is
> why I say it).
That is exactly the reason so many people are attacking you too. I'm
not attacking, I'm just saying state what you are arguing more clearly.
What you are arguing is desktop hardware. If you truly believe that
Linux is behind Windows in all areas, then that's your opinion and you
are welcome to it. But you will have a very hard time proving it.
Saying it lags behind in certain areas is believable (third party
desktop hardware support and software support), but saying it lags
behind Windows altogether is not correct. In some things Windows lags
behind Linux. Examples: Support for running on other platforms, support
for mainframes/mini-computers, support for Unix conventions (I know they
don't matter to you, but they do to some users), support for
interoperability with other operating systems, support for scripting,
support for inexpensive development on any platform (with Windows you
have to purchase expensive development environments and are locked into
x86), etc, etc.
If you really mean to imply that there is absolutely no case where
Windows lags behind Linux, then I will stop being polite and join the
attack. I truly do not believe that any one operating system has all
areas covered. I can take some of my above examples and say, in support
for mainframes and mini-computers Linux is lagging behind IBM OSes
(although thanks to IBM this is also changing), in support for
development on AS/400 hardware, Linux is lagging behind OS/400. You
see? The fact is that no one operating system is behind any other in
all facets of computing.
Now, if you are once again going to state that only desktops are what
you are talking about, please say so in your arguments. It isn't that
difficult to add "on desktop hardware" or "on x86 desktop hardware" to
an argument. A few extra keystrokes would save you a lot of the "your
an idiot" type of responses. Unless you truly enjoy those? If so, then
I'll step out of the conversation. I have better things to do with my
time than tell people they are idiots, whether they are or not (and I'm
not implying you are, or aren't).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:19:20 -0500
Cihl wrote:
> =
> WARNING!!! Don't feed the trolls!
> =
> --
> =A8I live!=A8
> =A8I hunger!=A8
> =A8Run, coward!=A8
> -- The Sinistar
Aw, come on now. Everybody likes to keep a pet.
babytalk
Hims a cute little troll isn't him? Hmm?
/babytalk
-- =
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:22:23 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Linux lags behind Windows encompasses much more that hardware (which is
> why I say it).
>
You keep saying that, but you don't say what you mean by Windows. You
have complained about people using the term Windows instead of Windows 98,
NT, W2K. There are many areas where "Windows" lags behind Linux. For
example, no Windows OS currently supports any machine architecture other
than x86. No Windows OS currently supports 64-bit. If you want to talk
about Windows 9x, then Windows lags behind Linux in security and
multiuser support. Should I say Windows lags behind Linux? According to
your logic, yes.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:24:01 GMT
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:04:46 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>
>> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Frankly those who claim that the GPL is free AND want to encumber
>> > redistribution of work that others do ARE repugnent.
>>
>> That work that others have done is voluntarily encumbered, since
>> they chose to use the GPLed code. Why is it repugnant to decide
>> that for yourself?
>>
>Please parse the sentence carefully. The term 'free' and GPL are
>incompatible.
No they aren't. The GPL seeks to ensure certain end user
freedoms in perpetuity. If anyone is lying here it is you.
>
>It is repugnent to lie.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:26:03 -0500
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suspect that you might be mislead... They do expect their
> > audience to be simpletons -- otherwise the myth of the
> > software being free wouldn't have lasted... It is a
> > sad commentary on those who cannot critically think, but
> > have a serial nature to their thought.
>
> What a classic sour grapes statement! Having failed to convince
> anyone of your views, you attempt to justify your failure by
> calling those people simpletons and incapable of critcal thought.
>
Those who understand the license and the law don't need convincing.
Those who are religiously indocorinated don't care about reality.
>
> It's obvious that the inside of your brain must be green, or you
> would never stoop to such a claim.
>
Continuing to beg the issue with characteristics about me don't
help anyones cause. I am agnostic, not religious. My only beef
with GPL has been the lie about it being free. Some previous
arguments have been on the premise that the GPL is free --
since it isn't, then those arguments are gone.
The key here is to find the simplest explaination of the problem,
and evaluate that. The problem is the deception about the GPL
being free.
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:26:12 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> Please explain my ignorance.
>
> I make the statement "Linux lags behind Windows" based on what I've
> observed. Please explain how that equates to ignorance.
>
Exactly. Without qualifiers, that statement is false and idiotic. If
you insist on constantly repeating such nonsense then you must be an
idiot.
Gary
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:28:05 -0500
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You are a master of circular reasoning :-). That, of course, doesn't
> > require intellect, because it is easy to be circular.
> >
> > You are certainly choosing an easy short-term route, but I fear for
> > your future in honest dealings with people. Eventually, when the
> > rubber meets the road, you have to deal in fact, rather than virtual,
> > contrived reality. You will be in for an unfortunately painful
> > awakening.
> >
> > Please refer to reality, and you will really be able to deal with
> > me better. Sorry, I am stuck in the real world, and cannot grok
> > extreme disassociative thinking.
>
> In the reality I inhabit, the word "free" is used in many contexts
> where restrictions are imposed on the free thing, and yet the use
> of the word "free" is accepted without dispute.
>
Your statement begs the issue of free software. You continue
to describe what you think but don't define it. Since software,
by default, isn't free, it is your job to prove it.
I claim that the lie about being free is only deceptive.
John
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:28:48 -0500
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The inconsistancy is that claiming that the software is 'free' and then
> > adding restrictions on it's use (or reuse) partially by explicitly
> > enucumbering future work by others is very inconsistant.
>
> No more so than the restrictions applied to other things which are "free".
>
Those other things that are free have few counterparts that are more
free.
In the case of GPL, there are certainly licenses that are MUCH MORE
FREE.
Next,
John
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:30:35 -0500
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The problem here is that the GPL keeps the code from being used in free
> > software also. The GPL, not being free, is the issue that is operative.
>
> There is no problem using GPLed and BSDLed code together, for example,
> so you are clearly wrong. GPLed code can not be comingled with *some*
> other free code, as a consequence of attempting to keep derivatives
> free. The would be combiner can attempt to get special permission.
>
You show only one example where the GPL and BSDL code might be used
together. The original BSDLed code was much more free than GPLed code,
and there were severe redistribution restrictions caused by the GPL.
> > Morally justify the GPL itself all you want, but continues to beg the
> > issue about the GPL just not being free.
>
> It's free but with restrictions, like many other free things.
>
It's 'free' with onerous and unncessary restrictions, like other things
that are lied about.
John
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 15:30:42 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> Your post does not even address the basic issue: Linux lags behind
> Windows. You make gross assumptions and grandiose statements, but no
> substance to the point.
>
> I think your post is what is truly pathetic.
>
Wrong. Windows lags behind Linux. Windows has no support for any machine
architecture other than x86. It has no 64-bit support. Without third
party software it lacks multiple desktops. Windows 9x has no multiuser
support and security is a joke. Windows 9x crashes much more often than
Linux. Windows lacks good interoperabilty with other OSes. Shall I go
on?
Gary
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 14:32:00 -0500
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > No it doesn't it. It grants lots of freedom to a particular group, and
> > > grants less freedom to another.
> > >
> > And as such, you make the software non-free.
>
> No, it is free but with restrictions, as so many other things are.
>
More accurately, and honestly:
No, it is free with unnecessary and rather rude restrictions,
as so many other things are when they are lied about :-).
If you are honest, then we can really talk. I don't think that we
have a basis to talk.
John
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:06:56 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> And this is one reason I keep going on about Linux lags behind Windows.
You keep saying that.. yet I have my box at home that Mandrake 7.1
installed on and work just fine out of the box. W2k on the other hand
would BS as soon as I installed my Hauppage and video drivers. Had to
swap out the Hauppage card for a different tv card to solve that...
cards worked just fine together under Linux though.
> I thought Adaptec were _the_ best company for SCSI adapters.
Don't know who gave you that idea. Adaptec has been very much like MS
in the last few years, buying up their competition, then dumping the
product so that Adaptec is almost the only one left.
I've got Advansys, Symbios and Adaptec controllers in my various boxes,
and the symbios is actually the best of the group (and was the best
price too).
Adaptec has long been hated by many Linux people because, other then
their nasty business practices, they have this habit of changing bios
revisions on cards without warning, or changing device names. This
wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that those bios changes
often make fundamental changes in the device's API which would break
drivers.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
_Gina_: "Oh no, Debra, don't be bitter, surely with your ever
growing collection of flesh mutilating silver appendages and your
brand new neo-nazi boot camp makeover the boys will come a-runnin'!"
- From _Empire Records_
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:22:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Sanders) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've posted this before. I'll try again. I use ext2fs. I have
> lost
>power while editing a file in vi. When I reboot, I get the "You have
>mail" message. It's vi telling me I can recover my edits with the -r
>command. I do so, and have lost not data.
OpenVMS had this feature - editors would try to recover data. They
succeeded mostly but there was always the chance you might lose one buffers
full of data.
>
> A journaling file system does not mean you don't lose data on a
> power
>loss. A non-journaling file system does not mean you do lose data on a
>power loss.
Yes, I don't know that.
> Do you know how my data from vi was preserved? I mean, do you know
> the
>mechanism? Can you picture a scenario in which you can lose data in a
>journaling file system?
I don't know the exact mechanism, but (oh golly) its called journaling.
>Do you know anything?
More than you credit me for, that's for sure.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:25:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8k3nqo$rr0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In what way? *I* certainly feel restricted every time I have to use
>Windows, and don't feel that way nearly as much when using Linux. So
>if you want to make a blanket, universal statement of "Linux lags
>behind", then you have some explaining to do.
Lack of support for hardware is one area.
>And last but not least, you might want to try all this on a machine that
>isn't broken. When you need 6 seconds to do one million fprintf's on a
>PII-400, and my Celeron400 needs 1.6 seconds to do the same, using the
>same code, and despite having the 1/3 slower memory interface, then
>something is badly wrong with your machine. If my Celeron400 is 5-10%
>faster than your PII-400 in Povray, both under Windows and under Linux,
>using the exact same code, despite its slower main memory interface
>*and* its smaller (albeit faster) cache, something is really really
>wrong.
My tests results of POVray didn't match yours. Mine indicated Linux was
slower, even fixing the area you pointed out.
Someone has already pointed out how a Celeron 400 can be 5-10% faster than
a PII-400.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:27:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Marion) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I belive that was the one where a linux and NT box were setup to see
>which was hacked more. They didn't apply any security patches to the
>Linux box saying that admins/users don't like to have to apply numerous
>patches.. and therefore left the box wide open. Yet they seemed to have
>no problem applying all the NT SPs and other patches. That was the
>lamest "test" I think I've ever seen.
I think PCworld tried to repeat the Mindcraft tests rather than a hacking
test. Their results were lower than Mindcraft, but Windows still out
performed Linux.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:28:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8k3mj2$rpo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Would you be referring to the recent SpecWEB results? In that case,
>you'll have to explain how using *fewer* disks in a *software rather
>than hardware* RAID setup gave linux an unfair advantage....
I thought it was the case the disk controller on NT was half as fast as the
Linux one.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:30:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Barry) wrote in
<20000706.23115400@localhost.>:
> Are you lonely? Would like a friend to help you feel less
> inadequate? It
>seems you remain here long after you welcome has expired primarily
>because you obviously have nowhere else to go. It's OK Pete. We
>understand. Shhhh...Shhhh.... It'll be OK, buddy. Sometimes things are
>hard to grasp at first, but if you really try, I'll bet even you can
>figure it out ok. It doesnt have to operable by a moron to be superior,
>and this is what's got you stumped. It's alright petey, just calm
>down... Say, isn't it time for your nap?
Oh goodey goodey, will you be my cyberdaddy for me den? Goo goo gaa gaa.
8)
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:38:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>That is exactly the reason so many people are attacking you too. I'm
>not attacking, I'm just saying state what you are arguing more clearly.
>What you are arguing is desktop hardware. If you truly believe that
>Linux is behind Windows in all areas, then that's your opinion and you
>are welcome to it. But you will have a very hard time proving it.
>Saying it lags behind in certain areas is believable (third party
>desktop hardware support and software support), but saying it lags
>behind Windows altogether is not correct. In some things Windows lags
>behind Linux. Examples: Support for running on other platforms, support
>for mainframes/mini-computers, support for Unix conventions (I know they
>don't matter to you, but they do to some users), support for
>interoperability with other operating systems, support for scripting,
>support for inexpensive development on any platform (with Windows you
>have to purchase expensive development environments and are locked into
>x86), etc, etc.
Oh I'm well aware than Windows lags behind Linux in some areas. The
stability of Windows 98 SE compared to Windows 2000 is pretty poor indeed
(I can't comment on the stability of Linux, I don't use it enough).
>If you really mean to imply that there is absolutely no case where
>Windows lags behind Linux, then I will stop being polite and join the
>attack. I truly do not believe that any one operating system has all
>areas covered. I can take some of my above examples and say, in support
>for mainframes and mini-computers Linux is lagging behind IBM OSes
>(although thanks to IBM this is also changing), in support for
>development on AS/400 hardware, Linux is lagging behind OS/400. You
>see? The fact is that no one operating system is behind any other in
>all facets of computing.
I agree with you. There are cases where Linux leads and Windows lags, but I
think overall, in most cases, Linux still lags behind Windows.
The thing that interests me is that you feel you can "stop being polite and
join the attack". Why do you feel that, I wonder?
>Now, if you are once again going to state that only desktops are what
>you are talking about, please say so in your arguments. It isn't that
>difficult to add "on desktop hardware" or "on x86 desktop hardware" to
>an argument. A few extra keystrokes would save you a lot of the "your
>an idiot" type of responses. Unless you truly enjoy those? If so, then
>I'll step out of the conversation. I have better things to do with my
>time than tell people they are idiots, whether they are or not (and I'm
>not implying you are, or aren't).
So far I think it's true of desktops and desktop hardware. There are other
areas too.
As for multiplatform support, that's a tricky thing. I remember the promise
of various toolkits that promised multiplatform support (XVT for one) but
failed to deliver because they only supported the lowest common
denominator. Like Java did, in its first incarnations.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 7 Jul 2000 20:20:55 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:42:09 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Except Macs--where things just work.
Tell that to my friend, who bought an iMac and had a hard time getting
his SCSI Zip drive to work over USB.
Now, my friend is pretty clueless, but he had someone more knowledgeable
look at it, and they couldn't get it working either.
I'm not anti-Mac, but be realistic. Things do not "just work" 100% of
the time on any hardware platform that I know of.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:43:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It's expensive.
> It's a relatively poor performer.
> It's bleeding edge. (a potential problem even for supported OSes)
The Riva3D fan site did an interesting review of the Voodoo 5. In most
areas the Voodoo 5 is slower, but in some limited areas it works out
faster.
> Why not the V5?: an artificial situation not meant to actually
> reflect reality (like buying "the cheapest" or buying "the best"
> or buyin the "most popular"), meant only to fail in the manner
> you wish it to fail when perfectly working better alternatives
> are present.
>
> It's simply FUD.
You're assuming I bought it to show a hole in Linux. I did not. You do
realise that there are now drivers for Linux and Windows 2000 now, did you?
> You can buy the best performing Windows game cards and have them
> be well supported under Linux despite your artificially staged
> scenario.
See above, I did no staging.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 22:49:17 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A e-mail client with Outlook-like functionality
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I though this would be the best group to post in because you'll all be up on
> the play with the latest and greatest Linux software.
>
> I did some extensive searching and and testing of many e-mail clients and I
> couldn't find a Linux e-mail client with this functionality:
> Multiple pop3 accounts and smtp servers
> Filtering and the ability to run filters on the current folder
> Ability to read HTML e-mail (not essential, but would be nice)
> Rudimentary spell checking
> A reliable database.
>
> Frankly it's unbelievable that Netscape Messenger doesn't allow more than
> one pop3 address (and that goes for StarOffice as well).
>
> I also went the way of using Fetchmail but then couldn't find a graphical
> client that could reliably filter the e-mail after it was downloaded by
> Fetchmail.
>
> It may require a paradigm shift (like when I discovered Lyx). It may also be
> that a powerful and reliable e-mail client is only a few months away.
>
> I didn't try kmail again recently because it appeared to previously eat
> data. But I did try (from memory) Mahogany, CSCMail, Pronto, Ishmail,
> XCMail, xfmail, Spruce, etc. I didn't try others that did not include
> filtering (e.g. I think Balsa, etc.).
>
> Regards,
> Adam
I know it's a lot of work, but if you play a bit with sendmail you will
be surprised at what power you have over your e-mail. If you set up
sendmail nicely, you will get sendmail to get all your external mail and
deliver it to the local machine's mail system. Then set up, for example
Netscape Mail, to only collect locally.
Take a look here: http://www.sendmail.org/faq/section3.html#3.23
Cheers,
Nico
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
He's just like Capistrano, always ready for a few swallows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: 07 Jul 2000 20:45:34 GMT
OK they have turned out some decent stuff if you don't want to do alot of
upgrading. I tried to add a second hd, either i must remove the CD or 3.5"
drive. None of the cables are long enough, not enough room in the case etc.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:47:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>That pretty much says it all, Pete. It's your premise. Just a premise,
>a foregone conclusion that is taken for granted, ie. not proven. Thus
>your taking of the facts and twisting them ass backword just to defend
>your premise.
Unless of course its true. At which point your argument falls to pieces.
>And why?? Because you tried Linux and have discovered you are
>either unwilling or unable to learn new things. So you attempt to
>disqualify it. I understand the Summers in the UK are very short,
>Pete. Why don't you go outside while you have a chance. Go out and get
>a life.
Incorrect.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,be.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.os.linux.dailup,aus.computers.linux
Subject: Re: NEW! Microsoft NetSpeed Tool for Linux V2
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:47:40 GMT
CyberSurfer wrote:
> =
> Woooauuuw...an improved version of the Ultimate Netspeed Tool
> for Linux by Microsoft.
> Download it here:
> =
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/next/tuxlife
> =
> note: this program uses an Xwindow!
Great! Now where getting somewhere.
//- Microsoft's code for this program, in Java -//
import ms.csharp.proprietary.extensions.*; //- Copyright.Notice
import ms.csharp.bloat.*; //- Buggy.Dialog, HighResourceUsage
import ms.csharp.instability.*; //- StandardBSOD, RandomCrashing
import java.awt.BorderLayout; //- Not ours, must get it out soon
public class Netspeed extends Buggy.Dialog
implements HighResourceUsage, RandomCrashing {
BorderLayout MSLayoutAttempt =3D new BorderLayout();
Netspeed() {
try {
this.setLayout(MSLayoutAttempt);
this.add(Copyright.Notice, BorderLayout.SOUTH);
this.show();
} catch (Exception e) { //- Standard exception handling routine
StandardBSOD.setMeaninglessHexadecimalCrap(e);
StandardBSOD.show();
StandardBSOD.waitFor(StandardBSOD.ONE_FINGER_SALUTE);
}
}
}
//- End program -//
-- =
=A8I live!=A8
=A8I hunger!=A8
=A8Run, coward!=A8
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:48:01 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I think PCworld tried to repeat the Mindcraft tests rather than a hacking
> test. Their results were lower than Mindcraft, but Windows still out
> performed Linux.
Might be.. I forget which test was which.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Homer: "I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save
me,
Superman!" -- Simpsons
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
