Linux-Advocacy Digest #296, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Henry Blaskowski)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (David M. Cook)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Certification? (Sean LeBlanc)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(James Lee)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 23:56:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I have been in Russia three times.
>
> >What they have is NOT capitalism. It is the newest form of
> >communis (perestroika means "restructuring"...and that is exactly
> >what they did...the RESTRUCTURED COMMUNISM), wherein they pass out
> >all of the economic goodies to a few party insiders ...
>
> Calling that Communism is absurd; there is a name for that
> already in existence: "crony capitalism", which is common in Third-World
> countries.
Regardless of what you call it, the Russian economy, and it's structure,
is still under the COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE control of the Communist Party.
>
> There is a grim joke about this situation:
>
> "Everything they told us about Communism was false"
> "Everything they told us about capitalism was true"
>
> To my mind, saying that they are not real capitalists is like
> saying that the xUSSR had not been run by real Communists. The xUSSR had
> been far from the ideals of Marx's Communist Utopia -- and its government
> was not the sort that could easily wither away.
In genuine capitalism, when large corporations are sold off, the
stock shares wind up in the hands of large numbers of people, NOT
a handfull of Communist Party insiders.
>
> I think that there is an interesting ideological convergence
> between Marxists and capitalist libertarians. Both believe in the eventual
Oh god, you're so wrong.
All of the "Capitalists" in Russia are Communist Party officers.
There is NOBODY in Russia with significant assets who is not ALSO
a member of the Communist Party.
The communists said themselves..they are RESTRUCTURING the economy.
They NEVER said that they were getting rid of Communism...and,
they haven't. The tax rate on profits is STILL near 100%...only
now, Party insiders can get THEIR taxes waived.
> withering away of the state, a utopia where everybody is a virtuous
> anarchist, that there are working and exploiting classes, that economic
> analyses are supreme, etc.
how silly.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: 24 Jun 2000 03:55:29 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:06:32 -0400, Jeff Szarka wrote:
>On 23 Jun 2000 03:43:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
>
>>By the way, RH 5.2 was released November '98. You're still ahead of
>>your time !
>
>Wait... it's 2000 right? Wouldn't 98 be two years ago?
Not November '98. That'd be just shy of 1 1/2 years. Oh, and you said
"2-3 years".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:57:23 GMT
In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>They produce a product. Other people want it. Does the other people
>>wanting it imply that the other people own it? Or do you think the
> I'm not clear on what your point is.
The point is that the producer of a product should own it. Period.
The alternative is to have the products politically owned, and
the result of that form of ownership is well documented.
>>producer owns it and should be able to set the terms for it's release?
>>will you apply the same principles to your life?
> It's dangerous to allow the producer of a monopoly product to set arbitrary
> terms of release. For example, ( the one Petrich already raised ), what
> if $1- from every Windows purchase went to Gore's or Bush's presidential
> campaign ? I'd have a problem with either scenario. I suspect you'd have
> a problem with at least one.
MS is not a monopoly, as I've repeatedly pointed out, since they
have several strong competitors. They are not a monopoly in the
strict definition of the word, or in any meaningful sense, since,
if they started treating customers like crap, people would switch
in a second. What's the lifespan of a computer now? 4 years, maybe?
That's how long MS would last. That is not a monopoly in any sense
except the political you're-not-a-favored-company sense.
I have no problem is MS wants to give all their money to Gore or
Bush. Once I, or anyone, gives them some money, it is MS's money.
After that it's not my business. Curiously, the net result of
this case is that more of MS's money IS going to political causes.
That is clearly not an unintended result.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: 24 Jun 2000 04:09:57 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:52:05 -0700, KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
>interface
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
>inconveniance to users for years.
> * that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like languages
>that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks and
>core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
> * that there are so many ways in which GNU/Linux can be improved that it
>would be useful to start over from scratch and design a new OS light years
>ahead of what we have now.
You seem to be looking for an OS that
* is not a unix (per your first and last items).
* has a "cathedral" style development community (per your second and third
items).
In other words, not Linux. Maybe BeOS would fit the bill?
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:19:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:16:23 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> 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?
>
> "small, tight" is meaningless. You can implement bubble-sort in a couple
> lines of code, but quicksort (particularly a proper quicksort, which ends
> with mergesort for arrays of less than ten in length) is going to be a lot
> longer. Bubblesort runs in O(n^2), and quicksort in O(n log n).
>
> For almost any problem out there, the smallest and simplest algorithm is
> not the fastest. The larger and more complex, the faster, in many cases.
> Just compare indexed files to bags of bytes.
>
> The case of a scheduler is a particularly interesting case, as the running
> time of the scheduler itself is almost entirely irrelevant, but the
> optimiality of its results is what to measure.
if your scheduler takes 9 usec out of a 10 usec timeslice, then
your system is fucked up.
--
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:22:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Work on a high throughput database, and get back to us.
>
> Yes, done that. Your point? I still didn't need to know anything about
> how the scheduler works then.
>
> At the time, it was more interesting to me to know how to present 50,000
You call that big???
Try half a BILLION (thousand million to you Brits) and get back to me.
> records to the user in such a way that he didn't have to wait for ages
> loading _all_ the records, but only the first 20 or 30 and then grabbing
> the next page. All done on a Windows GUI.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your masochism is your problem.
>
> --
> ---
> 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.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Certification?
From: Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:27:31 GMT
Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> "Sean" == Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anyone here who has gotten a cert (LPI, RHCE, etc)? I see there
> > is a book coming out in Sep about LPI, and there is one
> > published last December covering quite a few of them, how is
> > that one? Any tips/pointers on passing?
>
> I haven't gone for my LPI exams yet but I do have the General Linux
> book for LPI exam 101 published by Coriolis [ISBN #: 1-57610-567-9]. I
> find it quite comprehension and well written.
>
> Charles
Thanks for the info, Charles I didn't see that book.
Did anyone else use/buy the book Get Linux Certified and Get Ahead
(ISBN: 0072123338)?
Cheers,
Sean
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:29:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree that it is important, particularly for MP, but I would also argue
> that knowing assembly language is at least ten times as important to
While knowing assembly language is still a very useful skill, it is
not nearly as important as understanding how your system's task
scheduler works.
> knowing how to effectively program. Ironically, I have met MANY Unix
> programmers who do not know assembly language for the machine they work
I haven't written a line of assembly code in over 10 years.
Hasn't hurt me a bit.
> on. In fact, I'd say that a majority of Unix programmers I know are
> completely dumbfounded by the sight of assembly language on their native
Are you alleging that YOU are not dumbfounded by the assembly
language produced for LoseDows?
> machine. The excuse is usually some cruft about how assembly language
> isn't portable, which has nothing to do with the ability to read it ...
> (and the scheduler is not portable either of course).
There was a time, back in the 1980's, when you could give me any
C code, and I could tell you EXACTLY what the compiler would produce,
on 6809, 8080/8085/Z80, 68000, PDP-11 or VAX-11.
In those days, there was a clear-cut in-order translation of the
C code into assembly.
That was before the advent of decent optimizers, pipelined CPU's,
out-of-order execution, and pre-execution on both BOTH possibilities
at a branch.
--
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: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:30:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:58:24 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:01:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>In fact, I'd say that a majority of Unix programmers I know are
> >>completely dumbfounded by the sight of assembly language on their native
> >>machine.
> >
> >I'd say that a majority of programmers in general are dumbfounded by
> >the sight of the assembly language of any machine. This is not a Unix
> >specific disease (if it is a disease). Your trying to portray it as
> >such is, well, silly.
>
> Then again: not all assembly languages are created equal.
>
> If one's primary experience with assembler is x86, then I
> could certainly see why that programmer would be scarred for
> life and have a horrible fright anytime they see assembler
> of any kind.
Damn straight.
Oh for the wonderful VAX-11 model :-)
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
--
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: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: 24 Jun 2000 04:30:24 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I figured Winmodems were definitely the worse of the two. What is the
> Winmodem like when you are actually connected? It must freeze the
> mouse because of some timing issue in the connect?
It wasn't great at all, but then my line is lousy and won't get pass
26.4K. I quickly got an external modem and it works much better, even
though it is still that crappy connection. Managed to even use X over
it when absolutely necessary.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:31:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't matter, S/390, 9672, 3090 MVS/XA, ESA, VM all things that
> > Linux may run with/on/under but things that the desktop people could
> > care less about.
>
> Desktops are starting to decline. The wave of the future is the
> information applicance.
>
> Oh, sure, there will still be desktops and workstations, but the future
> is in small, simple appliances.
>
> > Linux in the back room or in some geeks wet dream yes.
>
> In other words, Linux will be *THE* operating system of the future, as
> more and more servers are neccesary to support the proliferation of
> info-appliances.
>
> > Linux on the desktop in mass?
>
> The desktop will soon be irrelevant. Linux, however, since it is not
> tied to the desktop, will still be going strong.
>
> >
> > Forget it.
> >
> > .3 percent speaks for itself.
>
> What is the .3 in reference to?
Microsoft FUD.
>
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:47:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:06:41 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Quite possibly, but first you have to find one.
> >
> >Purdue had hundreds on the clerical staff as early as 1988.
> >
> >Imagine what it is now!
>
> Running Latex????
> Or Tex?
TeX. LaTeX had not been invented yet.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:48:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charles Philip Chan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Dave" == Dave Vandervies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Editor, mail reader, news reader, web browser... Have they put
> > in a compiler yet, or does it still call an external program for
> > that?
>
> There is the bite compiler for EMacs Lisp. There is also, I think,
> actually a kitchensink.el ;-).
Just a spigot, or sprayer, too?
>
> >> >>> Hey, I use and like them both. Can't we all just get
> >> >>> along?
> >> So do I, I use VIM for quicky jobs at the console.
>
> > *ahem* This *is* an advocacy newsgroup, gentlemen; if you're
> > going to agree, take it somewhere else. :)
>
> Sorry, I think this is about the end of the thread.
>
> Charles
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:48:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:58:36 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Tim Palmer wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> It supported the modams that came with it preinstalled.
> > >
> > >What is a modam?
> >
> > If you don't know what a modam is then you are stupid.
> >
> > >
> > >Gary
> > >
>
> I know what a modem is. I just don't know what a modam is. My post was to
> illustrate your total inability to spell.
Clue for the fucking clueless:
Typo flames went out in the 1970's.
> Gary
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:52:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:11:17 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:18:06 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>or even a good LOGO interporator.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Oh yeah, I want Win2K just to allow kids to program in LOGO!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Brilliant!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >(IMO, one would be better off buying a used Amiga for that sort
> >> >> >of thing, or perhaps an old Mac II.
> >> >>
> >> >> But not UNIX beacause LOGO is far too advanced for UNIX!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Logo is available for Linux. I have ucblogo-4.6-2. Now, MicroWorlds
> >> >might be a problem.
> >>
> >> Photoshop is avallable for Windows.
> >
> >I never claimed that is wasn't, but you said that Logo was not
> >available for UNIX.
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> 5 years ago.. Did this have anything to do with the rellease of Windows 95?
>Wasn't enough to
> >> >> get rid of VI, though.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I would suspect not. As for getting rid of vi, isn't that why we have emacs :-)?
> >>
> >> EMACS is no better then VI, and besides, Liunx still comes with VI, so EMACKS
> >> do'esnt. get rid of it.
> >>
> >
> >Didn't see the smiley, did you?
> >
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> So you went out and found the obscure hardware that Linux does support. Good
>for you. The rest
> >> >> of us want an OS that supports the hardware we alreaddy have. Linux doesn't
>even come cloase
> >> >> in hardwair support. Windows beats _any_ UNIX hands down.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Almost any external modem is supported. In fact, all I had to do for mine
> >> >was plug it in and use modemtool to set the symlink for /dev/modem.
> >>
> >> EXTERNAL? Did Linux not suppoart the inntermal modem that came with your PC?
> >>
> >
> >No. It was Winmodem. Should I blame Linux for not supporting such.
>
> Yes. Windows supports all hardwhare just fine.
LoseDOS won't install on the RS/6000 at work
LoseDOS won't install on any of the Suns.
LoseDOS won't install on any of the SGI's
LoseDOS won't install on any of the HP PA-RISC machines.
LoseDOS won't install on the CRAY.
> Your problem was a Linux problem not a problem with the modam.
The problem is a LoseDOS problem, not a problem with the RS/6000,
the Sun Sparc, the SGI, the HP, nor the Cray.
>
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
> >
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:55:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mikey wrote:
>
> Tim Palmer beat his keyboard with a dead cat and out came:
> >
> > UNIX is very good at shuffelling text aroumd. LinoNuts call that "powerfull". I
>call it
> > "pointless".
>
> You just don't know Unix very well. Windows *still* isn't really
> multi-user. It took them till 2000 to finally figure out that file
> quotas would be pretty handy.
>
> > However, doing annything else with UNIX is a chalange. It's not fast enough to be
>any kind
> > of server, so if you realy want to shuffel text around and then send it out to
>Windows 2000
> > sevrer where it can be axcessed by users, you still nead 20 UNIX boxes just to
>keep up with the
> > servor. You can save the money you would spend on the 20 UNIX boxes (and the days
>it would take
> > just to figure how to make it shuffall text and send it to Windos) just by doing
>everyting on
> > the Windos 2000 server.
>
> That's nice if you need the bloat of a GUI & mouse because you're still
> dithering over which one's the return & which one's the enter key. :)
> Funny, M$ tried to run Hotmail on Windows swervers and (surprise)
> Windows couldn't handle it, so they went back to FreeBSD Unix. Now it
> runs fine.
>
> > So what is UNIX good four? Prettending its' the 1970s,
>
> Windows *still* relies on DOS (don't beleive me? Just delete your
and DOS is based on CP/M...which was never designed for anything more
significant than the inventor's BASEMENT!
> c:\windows\command directory). So I wouldn't ponder too much on
> "out-of-date".
>
> --
> Since-beer-leekz,
> Mikey
> Best comment in a kernel /*Drunk...fix later*/
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
