Linux-Advocacy Digest #628, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Growing dependence on Java
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John S. Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John S. Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (David Steinberg)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:11:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
>[...]Someone says that it
>isn't possible to make an MS OS run with any stability, and I will say
>it is possible, but not common. If that makes me an MS supporter in
>your eyes, well, whatever. Personally I'm sick of MS and the crappy
>software that I constantly have to support (where-ever I work I get to
>support some idiot visitors laptop, or some dumbass calling me up
>telling me that he does business with my company, therefore I owe him,
>I'm in a wood working business for god sakes). I want MS to die just as
>much as the next guy, but I'm not going to bullshit my way through life.
Well, maybe this will help you see why what you might think of as
badgering on my part is really just trying to be helpful. Based on the
conceptual glitch I see in your thinking, I'd say it is quite possible
that you will find, should MS dry up and blow away any time soon, that
your problems will remain essentially unchanged. You will still be
frustrated by having to support crappy software. Because the problem
isn't necessarily that MS writes crappy software. The problem is a
conceptual glitch on our brains' part.
The problem is that "it is possible, but not common" for an OS to be
stable, this implies, whether you want it to or not, that the uncommon
occurrences are purposeful and deterministic. If, as I've said, this is
not the case, and which systems will run stably and which will not
cannot be predicted or empirically designated, then the phrase is not
accurate. It would be appropriate, under those circumstances, for what
you intended to mean to be expressed 'it is possible, but unlikely'.
And I submit that if you don't believe the difference is important, then
it is likely that your common experience with any other consumer OS will
be very similar to the problems you're having now. Just because Windows
is crappy software doesn't mean it is responsible for all of your
problems.
[...]
>OK, nitpicking. I can live with that. Although I think it's a rather
>easy tactic to take (I can find something wrong with any statement if I
>look at it long enough), it's at least a valid one.
It is an instructive one, whether you think of it as nitpicking, or
merely being accurate, consistent, and practical, as I do.
>I missed a few
>points.
Is that to say you learned a few things? No, it means you think I'm
nitpicking and that you can refute my statements by additional
exceptions, examples, and changing your phrasing to cover your ass,
instead of to make them more correct and supportable. Damn. I've
failed.
[...]
>Six months without a reboot is better than one month. That is not to
>say that it's perfect, but it's better.
Its settling. I want to decide when to reboot, and not have the
software mandate it by being unstable, and that is an achievable goal.
But it won't be achieved by voodoo troubleshooting. I have explicit and
extensive experience with networks and Windows, and I don't think you
are addressing the real issues.
>One of my problems in the real world (and what allows me to write
>good fiction at times) is the ability to see a situation from all
>sides. It causes people around me to think I'm nuts (as I'm sure you do
>at this point) because I can actually argue both sides of a debate.
Tell me about it. Or better yet, prove it, and stop seeing this
situation only from your side. I don't think you're nuts; not by a long
shot. Considering the misconception which you are having trouble with,
I think you're being very reasonable. Other than the fact that you
refuse to address the misconception you're having trouble with, because
you keep thinking I think this is a Microsoft issue, because Microsoft
is an obvious and even extreme example which illustrates the point.
[...]
>OK, I may have slipped a little in saying "it is possible" when instead
>I should have said "in theory", but the fact is you will see a lot of
>people saying that it happens.
Which is why it isn't a "little slip" and a modest change in phrasing,
but a misconception, a conceptual glitch, which is causing the problem.
It isn't that you should have said "in theory" instead of "it is
possible". It is that you should have *meant* "in theory" instead of
"it is possible".
[...]
>I do know that one big
>reason MS operating systems have so much problems is that they encourage
>absolute computer illeterates to think of themselves as network
>administrators because they can point and drewl (I know, I've seen it
>happen).
Microsoft's encouragement of computer illiteracy is a separate issue
from what you described, which is simple administrator arrogance.
--
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: [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: 12 Jul 2000 17:11:17 -0500
In article <8ki26f$9am$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK, the only problems that Linux has with IRQs is people who don't
>> understand them, whereas Windows seems to mostly have problems with
>> people who do understand them, as it seems to resist dealing with them
>> simply and easily. I'm not saying they are a simple issue; I'm well
>> aware of the problems which occur on any OS using the archaic and arcane
>> IRQs which are part of that platform.
>
>IRQs are a pretty simple issue. If you have cards that cannot share IRQs,
>then they must each have a unique one. If you have more cards than IRQs,
>you're stuffed.
They are note quite that simple. ISA cards can't share IRQs, but
with PCI it is up to the driver software. Linux drivers
don't like to share them.
>The average PC has about 5 free IRQs. The logic behind determining whether
>or not a given IRQ is used or free, and thus whether or not it can be
>assigned, is not difficult.
PCI cards have the IRQs assigned by the motherboard bios at
start-up. You don't get much control beyond being able to
reserve some for the ISA slots.
>> The relative statement that Linux
>> 'doesn't have' IRQ problem obviously refers to whatever prevents Windows
>> from working correctly.
>
>The same thing that will stop Linux working correctly.
This depends on the drivers' ability to share. I recently had
a PCI ethernet and SCSI card sharing an interrupt under
Win98 but had to free up another one by disabling the motherboard
serial port to make it work with Linux. On the other hand,
now I've swapped the network card and the new one came up
right under Linux/ipchains but the Win98se internet sharing
is completely screwed up.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:21:22 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:01:00 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> ...the latest Star Office is 260M. A few more megs for an embedded
>> Java enviroment is not going to make much difference.
>>
>
>While I agree completely, this seems to be the one little sticking point
>with Star Office where they actually seem to *care* about adding MB.
>Maybe there is some licensing issue I'm not aware of or something. But
>they really seem to dislike the idea of bundling in a Java
>implementation. Of course, it could just be because they want people to
>have their own choice of what Java run-time they want to use (if only
>more Java apps did this).
They could still bundle in Sun's own implementation and still
offer the end user a choice to use the already installed version.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 21:39:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The consensus is that this doesn't prevent, but, indeed, is mandated by,
> the fact that GPL software is free.
>
Grunting that the GPL software is free (as you continually do), doesn't
convince and certainly denies the truth.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 21:41:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Mike Stump from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
> 08:03:20 GMT
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Your counter-example is fallacious. An example of a GPL-like parking
>>>lot is that it is marked 'free parking', but that means that it is
>>>'free' to park there. However, a GPL-parking lot requires that you
>>>pay to leave the lot with your car.
>>
>>A pretty good analogy, but I think I can provide a better one. A GPL
>>packing lot would be one where it prohibited someone parking an RV
>>next to the exit and collecting money from the people on the way out.
>
> Well, this is bait I can't pass up. You know how I love the image of my
> own typing.
>
Since you keep on calling the GPL free, you all are being inconsistant
because of the cost. (Even though the analogy is wrong.)
Grunt Grunt :-).
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:23:27 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:26:24 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:46:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:50:58 GMT, Roberto Alsina
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> You're a lying dishonest ass, that's so what.
>> >> >
>> >> >You could make a very compelling case for such a statement if
>> >> >you could show where I lied.
>> >>
>> >> You imply some necessity or likelihood of the GPL being used
>> >> for a shared library. This is in stark conflict with reality.
>> >
>> >With your skewed idea of reality, maybe.
>> >
>> >There are libraries under the GPL: libreadline, libgdbm, for example,
>>
>> That only means there are exceptions to the norm.
>
>So, what? You know, the old latin proverb doesn't say that the exception
>proves the rule, but that the exception TESTS the rule. Meaning that
>if the exception is real, the rule is not universal.
I never claimed it was actually. You're the one using
rhetoric that requires such broad assumptions.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 22:25:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>You mischaracterize the issue, inadvertently. Having this be tested in
>a court would not "put the matter to rest".
It would all depend on how the decision of the court addresses such
a claim made by the plaintiff. If the decision stated something like:
Plaintiff contends that a program is a derivative work of a
second program if it can only be run with that second program.
That is not a correct interpretation of copyright law.
Such a decision would certainly put the matter to rest.
>But you lost the benefit of that doubt when you closed your source; the
>law is not above assuming that when something is being hidden, it is
>because someone has a reason to hide it.
[Snip}
> The easiest way to defend
>against such cases, in case you're worried, is to open your source.
>Whether under GPL or not, it will enable the FSF lawyers to read the
>source code to determine if you have created a derivative work, in their
>opinion, instead of relying on the indirect library issue.
You seem to have the idea that if your source is a trade secret, that
it won't be available to be examined by the plaintiff's attorneys and
experts. That is not the case. It will be produced under a protective
order during discovery.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 22:27:48 GMT
Pete Goodwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Wrong. If you think virtual desktops are useful to you, then its useful to
: you. I've never found them useful myself, however, I don't conclude that
: "Linux lags behind Windows (desktop)" just because of this _one_ feature
: but because of others.
Right. You say this when this case is clearly isolated for you, but most
of your claims against the Linux desktop boil down to "it's different from
Windows."
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:30:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Yannick from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:31:32
[...]
>I meant that some people in the linux community "use lies and half-truths to
>foment Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt". Which according to you is the
>usual definition for the acronym "FUD". So I did not make a mistake.
>I was teasing, in saying my ideas that way, but, teasing or not, I still say
>that some people in the linux community use FUD, as explained by the few
>sentences before that affirmation in my original post.
Thank you for staying with me long enough to make your statement. I
agree; some users in the Linux community use FUD. And I recognized the
teasing, even light-hearted, tone you originally used. Nevertheless,
your original comments were false in stating that the poster you were
responding to was having problems because "some people in the linux
community used Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, so the guy considered
switching". In point of fact, he considered switching because he wanted
an alternative to Windows. He was unhappy with it, we find. But your
insistence that it was because of some limitations or issues with Linux
rather than it was because he had little understanding of computers and
was ill-prepared for the experience based purely on his familiarity with
Windows.... That's FUD tactics, not light-hearted comments.
>[...]It's difficult
>not to get trapped ( I do not mean the "traps" are intentional ) by your way
>of saying things since English is not my native language...
Christ, I must sound like a moron! My manner of speech is often hard
for even advanced English users to keep up with; I make the standard
array of errors, and use typical ones on purpose quite often, but within
my long, intricate, often complex thoughts, a trivial grammar glitch can
make the whole thing so much gibberish. But a non-careful reading can
do that as well. I appreciate your trying to keep up with me, thanks.
[...]
>I was only meaning that you can hardly expected less from any other company.
>Which is precisely the point. It's not "MS is a company that wants to
>suck you money" that must be said to convince people to use linux,
>because it's a form of FUD. Saying "We are not sucking money from you
>because most of our offer is free of charge" to convince people to use linux
>is OK... Understand what I mean ?
If it weren't for the fact that there seem to be no end to the number of
defenders of Microsoft who are more than happy to insist that "MS is a
company that wants to suck your money", I might agree with you. ;-)
They will, I'll point out, immediately go further and say "that's true
of every business". I am not sure if I would say that this qualifies as
FUD. Merely a misinterpretation of reality, a mistake, not a dishonest
strategy.
>> >> and control the customer
>> >"Control the customer" remains to be seen...
>>
>> Only if you're blind.
>Not a question of being blind. Depends about what you mean
>saying 'control the customer'.
We already knew this to be the case; it is the nature of language. In
the context I meant it, which is the context I must assume you meant if
you didn't indicate otherwise, it does not depend: one is blind if one
does not see a clause in a license which must be accepted to receive the
software which says "you cannot decompile the software or use it in any
other way which we have not explicitly allowed" is "controlling the
customer", in fact, in deed, in context, and in reality.
[...]
>> They don't *GET* a "market share". NOBODY does. The market is not a
>> pie chart.
>As for every use of mathematics in reality, the concept of "market size" and
>"market share" are concepts used to represent a reality, but have to be used
>carefully.
You are mistaking my comment. My point is that the market is not a
mathematical issue. The sum of buyers does not make up "the market";
just the pie charts that people selling to those people which are
labeled "the market".
>So yes, there is such a thing as a market share.
Yes, there is such a thing as "a" market share. There is no such thing
as "their" market share.
I'm not going to go into this further, and it truly is pedantry beyond
the remarks I've already made. Obviously, the use of "market" in the
colloquial pie-chart meaning does exist, and I cannot deny that it is
"correct". I can point out that it is counter-productive, however, and
should be avoided by conscientious participants in "the market" (the
real one, not the pie-chart representation of one business's current
level of sales, or another's, or both in comparison.)
--
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:40:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>And yet again you chose to carefully ignore the part where I did in fact
>say, "I worded the statement incorrectly and here is my correction:"
You've missed the part where *I* said: the re-statement is still
incorrect, and for reasons you refuse to examine.
>Go back and re-read my last couple of messages. If you insist in
>telling me that my statement is wrong, then insist on ignoring me when I
>actually make the correction it doesn't exactly look like your goal is
>to teach. It would be very difficult to consistantly ignore where I am
>admitting I made a mistake in wording. Yet you do.
You made a correction. You didn't make the correction which would have
made your statement accurate, consistent, and practical.
>Your goal appears to be to continue telling me my statement was wrong.
My goal continues to be to try to teach, even if you refuse to learn.
>Even when I admit where it was wrong and what the proper correction was
>you come back saying that my statement was wrong. Very well,
Because it wasn't the proper correction.
>I WAS WRONG.
>
>OK.
OK. So what is the correct statement?
>I honestly tried. But what's the point. I feel like I'm working for my
>uncle again. I would do a job exactly the way he told me to do it, he
>would come yell at me and say to do it *this* was next time. I do it
>exactly *this* way next time and he yells again and says, no goddamn it,
>why the hell didn't you do it (the way I did originally). Blissfully
>ignorant that I actually had previously.
I'm sorry if I'm pushing buttons. There's not much I can do about that.
>I may occasionally be a dumbass, but I have no problem admitting my
>mistakes. Your instance that I am not admitting my mistakes (and going
>up three or four levels in the thread to prove that I didn't) really
>undermines your position of telling me you are out to teach. Try again.
Your probably very well founded confidence that you have no problem
admitting mistakes is, quite possibly, part of the reason we are having
trouble. You may be more than willing to admit your mistake, but you
must first recognize it, and I still don't think you recognize your
mistake. It is a subtle one, and very difficult for most people to see.
But that is why I seem to be belaboring the point, even after countless
attempts on your part to extract yourself from my attention. I'm not
picking on you, Nate, honest. But I am using your very useful example
of this common but subtle conceptual glitch. It is in no small part
responsible for much of the trouble we see in the industry today, and it
is not Microsoft's issue. It is the issue of mistaking voodoo for
troubleshooting. If you can say exactly *how* to implement a system so
that it (and no example of it, even if a thousand different cases with
typical variance between them) doesn't crash, then you're recommending
voodoo, not troubleshooting. Because if you come upon a system that
crashes, and "properly administer" it, and you don't have problems which
were present before, then you are assuming that it is the "proper
administration" which corrected the problem, when it could have simply
been a change in the circumstance which happened to coincide with the
change in administration. Not that it can be assumed one way or the
other. But that is my issue: stop assuming it one way, but not the
other!
There are thousands upon thousands of far more obvious and explicit
cases of this issue. Which is why I liked yours; it identifies that,
even if some cases are obvious, it is not an obvious issue.
Professional Unix developers who have used computers for longer than
I've been alive are quite capable, I know from experience, of making the
same mistake and relying on voodoo instead of troubleshooting.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:18:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:36 -0700, KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wow. Every reply to my post said about the same thing. I feel like I'm
>talking to a cult or something :) But I hope to reply to most of the
>comments in one post---I hope everyone reads this.
I think there are a large number of issues here.
One part of this is the "chicken or the egg" problem. In order to come up
with a new OS, we need a compiler and development tools. How do we come up
with these? And they need to be "free," or the new OS won't be a
replacement for Linux. What free development tools are available? Well,
they're mostly GNU utilities. That kind of limits us right there, and it
tends to push the new OS into the same design paradigm as the current
ones.
Next we have familiarity, tradition, and backwards compatibility. But you
basically said that you don't want this. So, how will you get the good
programmers to work on it? They're going to want the tools they are used
to, and to be able to use clever code from previous projects.
There is also the problem of trying to do everything from scratch to
conform to your ideas. How long will this take? What new things will be
developed while you're working on this? Will it be able to build up enough
momentum to actually succeed? Remember, this has been tried before. Every
few years I see someone post something almost identical to your post, and
it never goes anywhere - no "critical mass" to get it going.
A better idea is to look at what else is out there. BeOS is new and
different. How about Plan9? GNUStep? How about MacOSX/Darwin/
OPENSTEP? (They don't use X, so that should make you happy.)
Another problem is that all of the people you will need for the low-level
stuff, the experts on kernels and drivers, are C programmers. That's
what's being used - like it or not. C may not be great, but it has been
proven to work. You will need a large group of experts in whatever new
language you decide to write your OS in. And I bet it takes 10 years of
arguing before you even decide which language to use. :-)
Maybe you should just see what can be done to improve unix?
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:41:43 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:29:50 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kihru$1eq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Yeah but how much USAGE are they getting??? A home file server? A test
>>webserver that no one useses? BIG DEAL! An unused computer that stays up
>>is no big trick. Now, when you can show LOAD over time...
>
>It's a work machine.
>
>It's used as a file server for about half a dozen people. We keep all the
>demos of various games on it, along with other tools, utilities etc. As for
>usage, it can be sitting there grabbing files from the internet or serving
>several people.
>
I recently set up an obselete Pentium 233 machine with Linux/Samba for
a dozen people sharing a database, resumes, client profiles,
etc. etc. for an executive search firm. It's also running
ipchains/masquerading for their Internet access. Whenever I SSH into
it, it's at less than 1% CPU load!!! Half a dozen users is *nothing*
for a file server.
There Win98 desktop machines crash alot though.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:41:53 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:49:06 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote in
><8kimpa$a3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>And so you will, no doubt, conclude that they are a useless feature, and
>>that Windows lacks nothing in not offering them "out of the
>>box." Meanwhile, because of all the useful features Linux lacks, "Linux
>>lags Windows on the desktop."
>>
>>Right?
>
>Wrong. If you think virtual desktops are useful to you, then its useful to
>you. I've never found them useful myself, however, I don't conclude that
>"Linux lags behind Windows (desktop)" just because of this _one_ feature
>but because of others.
You really are TOTALLY ARROGANT. You conclude "Linux lags behind
Windows" becuase of features that are important to YOU only and thus
it's YOUR OPINION. Then you push your OPINION on us as fact, as if the
things that important to others simply aren't important. In other
words, you make yourself more important than others. That by
definition is arrogance.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
