Linux-Advocacy Digest #598, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Darren Winsper)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("James")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("James")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Luxembourg: Kidnapped children and police repression ? ("Jean Antoine")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 11 Jul 2000 19:11:26 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:09:04 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Palmer wrote:
> > ...but LIE-nux has more hoals to plug.
>
> damn, you're dense.
Neutron stars have nothing on Tim.
--
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: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:16:23 +0200
Aaron,
That was really a risky thing to do. Replacing ALL configuration
information on a system. The equivalent will upset any OS !!! Wonder what
the guys in this NG would have had to say if the roles were reversed. I.e.
if someone complained that his Linux/Unix/whatever box was not working
properly after giving it a frontal lobotomy :-)
Anyway, if you must run a MS OS, why don't you use W2k? And run as
non-administrator. Then these things won't happen to you.
James
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Pete. Your posts about how Linux lags behind Windows are amusing to me.
> Here's a little story about how Windows crapped out on me last night,
> and how Linux rescued me. Windows could have never done this.
>
> I have a dual boot system, Win98 and Mandrake 7.1. Last night, I
> decided to restore my Windows registry from a master backup to improve
> the sludgy performance that I've been seeing lately. According to the
> online help that came with my NEC computer, this would simply require
> a few reloads of applications. Like an idiot, I chose to believe
> it...
>
> Anyway, I rebooted and began to restore my drivers. I came to my 3COM
> NIC driver and reinstalled it. What I forgot was that I had added this
> NIC myself; it didn't come with the computer. You can probably guess
> what happened next...
>
> I rebooted and was greeted with an Explorer page fault violation. My
> Windows partition is currently worthless now because I reinstalled a
> driver! The problem was that I had upgraded to IE 5.0 after I had
> added the NIC. Apparently, there is a dll conflict between these.
>
> I hadn't told my wife that I was "fixing" the computer, so when she
> found out she couldn't get to her mail, she was a little annoyed! :)
> Anyway, I created her an account on my Linux partition, mounted the
> windows partition as a vfat drive, and copied all her Windows mail
> over to her new Linux account. Voila! It worked perfectly! She can
> read all her old mail and send mail just like she did under Windows.
> This gives me a few days breathing room! ;-)
>
> There is no way Windows could have done this. First of all, Linux
> would never render a computer unbootable because I reinstalled a
> driver. Secondly, Windows would never be able to read an ext2
> partition the way Linux can read FAT32.
>
> So Pete, when you say Linux lags behind Windows, I can't help but
> laugh. Linux is so incredibly versitile that to compare it to a
> toy OS like Win9X is simply ludicrous to me. Perhaps Windows is
> better for you, as it is for many people. But when you claim that
> Linux is somehow inferior to Windows, be aware that you are referring
> to yourself only. There are very few computer-literate people who
> would agree with you.
>
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
> Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
> Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 19:38:52 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:16:23 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron,
>
>That was really a risky thing to do. Replacing ALL configuration
>information on a system. The equivalent will upset any OS !!! Wonder what
>the guys in this NG would have had to say if the roles were reversed. I.e.
Unix shouldn't even flinch in this sort of situation.
Although, Unix wouldn't be in the position to need
this sort of 'curative' to begin with.
[deletia]
Infact, I've done this sort of thing on a repeated basis
since ~ Slackware '96 and ending with Mandrake 7.1 and
changed more than just mere configuratin files.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:39:37 +0200
Bobby,
Unlike some, I really don't give a damn who make the OS. I also don't have
any particular hate for MS/Billy, although I think they have become a bit
too greedy [an opinion shared by the USA DOJ]. I have certain tasks to
perform, basically all on the desktop. I have tried all the Linux distros
since about the mid 1990's and whilst their has been radical improvement,
the overall usability [IMHO] is still not on par with MS latest desktop OS
(Win2k).
[I use Win2k on my office PC (a P2/350) and my home PC (a P/200mmx) and
Win98 on my laptop. Win2k really runs well on the office PC, runs ok at
home except no DMA or UDMA. Win98/Me runs like crap on anything, but my
laptop is too slow and have too little memory to run Win2k.]
Linux is useful for learning how an advanced and stable OS operates - yes, I
acknowledge that. We use Unix at work for most of our big mission critical
servers (Sequent, HP, etc). What Linux now requires (for those interested
in desktop software) is the final polish and, of course, those corporate
desktop apps. I wonder what would happen to Linux if MS ported all it's
apps to Linux. I will probably get flamed for that statement, but for one
will consider migrating full time to Linux if that had to happen. Maybe
2001 will be the year of the Linux Desktop.
James
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James wrote:
>
> > Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> > endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> > Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but
I
> > find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> > push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> > Shame on you MS!!!
>
> They used to have a Web page touting NT as being k time more reliable than
> Windows 9x. (I forget the k, but IIRC it was more like 40 than 13.
Anyone
> remember?)
>
> Anyway, they supported the assertion with their own poll, which still
showed
> a truly horrendous number of people reporting that they lost time or data
at
> least once a month under NT. (OK, by my standards *one* such loss would
be
> "truly horrendous". But this was much worse than that; something like 30%
> IIRC.)
>
> Alas, I can't find *any* of this either on Deja or Google. Does anyone of
> sounder mind remember the details?
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
> p.s. -- Give up WinTrolling, Mr. Bond?
>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:39:19 -0500
Darren Winsper wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:09:04 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> > > ...but LIE-nux has more hoals to plug.
> >
> > damn, you're dense.
>
> Neutron stars have nothing on Tim.
>
How about a black hole? You know, Timmy kind of sucks down anything of
any substance in the surrounding area, just like a black hole. Hmm, I
may be on to something (or on something)....
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Jean Antoine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Luxembourg: Kidnapped children and police repression ?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:37:33 +0200
LUXEMBOURG: STATE KIDNAPPING ???
Luxembourg is a democracy.
But i have to inform so many people as possible
about a situation impossible to understand in a democracy.
http://www.multimania.com/alliedforce
http://www.geocities.com/luxlux_2000 ( mirror )
http://walk.to/luxembourg ( mirror )
http://www.luxembourg.da.ru ( mirror )
http://www.multimania.com.luxembourgchild ( mirror )
Jean Antoine
PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:46:42 -0500
James wrote:
>
> Aaron,
>
> That was really a risky thing to do. Replacing ALL configuration
> information on a system. The equivalent will upset any OS !!! Wonder what
> the guys in this NG would have had to say if the roles were reversed. I.e.
> if someone complained that his Linux/Unix/whatever box was not working
> properly after giving it a frontal lobotomy :-)
>
> Anyway, if you must run a MS OS, why don't you use W2k? And run as
> non-administrator. Then these things won't happen to you.
>
> James
>
Wasn't the entire point of the story that he was told (in the
documentation) that replacing the registry would *help* him? I'm not
trying to start a flame, it's an honest question. I don't know of any
support (documentation or other) that would tell you to replace /etc
with an old copy on any Unix system (unless they were trying to cause
you frustration).
As for your second point, MS themselves are trying to say that W2K is
"NOT" for consumers. And who has $350 to spend every time MS comes out
with something that is suposed to cure all the previous ills (I know
it's cheaper for the upgrade, but only if you have NT to upgrade from).
I still remember hearing that NT 4.0 would end all of your problems with
Windows. Now that there is a new product out (W2K) MS is saying that NT
4.0 has all kinds of problems (and you'd better buy that upgrade to fix
them). Of course, if someone needs Windows, they should consider it.
But there are still some programs that just won't run on W2K. Maybe
those programs aren't important to you, but they are usually the reason
MS themselves say that W2K (and NT 4.0 before it) isn't meant for
consumer computers.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:57:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
>Through your entire post you seem to say that I am defending Microsoft.
Unless I said that, I didn't. I try very hard not to insinuate, so I
apologize if I 'seemed to' be saying you were defending MS. I do
believe you were defending Microsoft's position, and that unknowingly,
not the company. By shifting blame for computers which don't work from
the computers to those running them, and further pointing out that this
is an assumption, because you have never seen a company that runs their
computers well, you defend Microsoft's position as "most popular and
therefore it must be OK, at least, if you know what you are doing."
>I know that the software is crap. I won't use Windows on my systems (or
>my companies network) because of that fact. But it is possible to set
>it up in such a way that it doesn't crash constantly.
Not deterministically, no. Does it sometimes get set up in such a way
that it doesn't crash constantly? Of course. But that is not useful
unless you can come up with some empirical specification for predicting
which way is the "right" way to set up every instance so that it doesn't
crash constantly. A simple and reasonable acknowledgement that this
magic way is not necessarily the exact same way in all cases merely
illustrates the difficulty of supporting your argument.
> Now, if you want
>to continue to rant and tell me what a fucking idiot MS supporter I am,
>feel free.
You are reading into my words. Perhaps you are being a bit defensive
and having a knee jerk reaction to my criticism of your position. The
only directly anti-MS thing I recall saying was something about Windows.
>Just because I don't say MS sucks at every third word in my
>posts doesn't mean I think they don't suck. It is possible to be
>subtle. God, I really get sick of this. Anybody in the Linux camp that
>sees someone that doesn't just scream what absolute crap shit MS is is
>duped as a fucking MS supporting lackey. Great, pull the other one.
I do not belong to a camp. I argue with the Linux guys as often as with
the Mac guys. I argue against the Windows guys a lot more because there
are more of them, and they tend to present the weakest arguments, much
of them based on assumption. Perhaps I did over-generalize the case,
and intimate that you were a Windows guy, since you were saying that it
is possible to set up Windows or NT or whatever in such a way that you
know in advance that it will not crash routinely. This is an
unsupported assumption, I hope you'll agree, regardless of whether you
support MS or not.
>I have avoided MS software for the last five years. I've used it when I
>have to. Believe it or not, I have been able to make it run on a couple
>of machines without difficulty. Those machines were by far not the
>"normal" MS behavior, but it happened. Am I supposed to deny that
>happened at all just to support my personal belief that Linux is
>better? Well, I won't. I don't lie just to serve my views up. I tell
>the truth. If it hurts that bad, don't read it.
Calm down. I wasn't attacking you, just your theory. That you've been
able to set up MS software and that it didn't crash is not something I
would suggest you're being dishonest in saying. That is true for a very
large number of people. But my point was that you weren't really in
control of whether this was the case with your systems; "normal" or not,
each instance seems to have unique capabilities to either work or crash,
without any apparent correlation, let alone deterministic predictive
ability, possible. So you are not lying when you say that properly
administering a PC with an MS OS will prevent it from crashing; you are
merely mistaken.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:01:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>But I won't lie about MS products just to make Linux look good. I
>haven't seen too many systems running Windows that are *stable*, but it
>has happened occassionally.
But even that makes Windows look good, unless you are willing to admit
that there is no way to predict which ones will run stable, and which
will crash. Obviously, you can lesson your chances by using "the right"
hardware, but even then you can only determine that in retrospect.
Newer stuff has more chances of having previously undetected glitches,
older stuff has more chances of having newly introduced glitches.
Bog-standard equipment runs the risk of being "cheap PC crap", high-end
equipment runs the equal risk of being "unusual". Even identically
outfitted PCs have been known to exhibit differing crash behavior.
There just is no way to predict before the fact if you will have
problems, and that is much much worse than simply having the possibility
of having problems.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:02:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (void) wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:45:02 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >If being "state of the art" is more important to you than getting your
> >work done, then pat yourself on the back.
> >
> >It's called buzzword compliance.
>
> If you read my posts from the last several *years* in this group, you'd
> see that getting *my* work done *requires* state-of-the-art operating
> systems.
Then be happy with a buzzword compliant system.
No one's telling you to choose anything else. It's the Wintrolls who are
trying to get rid of the options.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:03:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 12:45:02 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (void) wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:11:36 -0400, Rick
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Hmmm.. then DOS was not (is not) a real OS, huh? in order to be a
> >> >REAL
> >> >OS you have to have pre-emtive multitasking huh?, Well, if I dont
> >> >have a
> >> >REAL OS on my mac, whats controlling it?
> >>
> >> Jedi answered this well.
> >>
> >> Allow me to take back my hasty statement. MacOS is a real OS; so is
> >> DOS, to a lesser extent. What I should have said is this: any OS that
> >> pretends to be "state-of-the-art" includes preemptive multitasking.
> >
> >If being "state of the art" is more important to you than getting your
> >work done, then pat yourself on the back.
> >
> >It's called buzzword compliance.
>
> That is just a very lame copout to avoid the fact that what
> the MacOS does wrong is a very well understood problem domain
> and has been successfully solved since before MacOS existed
> and has been solved adequately well on hardware (including the
> overhead inherent in including a GUI) that MacOS itself has been
> deployed on for over ten years now.
And yet the Mac still meets the needs of millions of people, still
provides better TCO and higher productivity than Windows.
So I guess your vaunted buzzwords aren't the only thing that
matters--are they?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
