Linux-Advocacy Digest #649, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why use Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: Why use Linux? (John Sanders)
Re: Why use Linux? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: C# is a copy of java ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (David Steinberg)
Another Anti-Linux Propagandist Is A Right-Wing Bigot -was- Are Linux people
illiterate? (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Why use Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: SPECweb99 results (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:59:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Understanding Race conditions is one of SEVERAL reasons why any
> application
> programmer (at least those who want to achieve excellance) should
learn
> about the process scheduler for the platform on which they program.
Depends on your definition of application doesn't it?
If you're talking a single threaded, single process application, how
do race conditions even apply?
If you're talking multiprocess or multithreaded processing then I can
see why race conditions are important, but I still don't see why anyone
would need to know how the scheduler works.
> > I'm waiting for his response. I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting
for his
> > response to the question "Why do I, an application developer, need
to
> > understand how the scheduler works?". He never did respond.
>
> I already told you: Race Conditions.
Previously you said I would need to know about the scheduler. Now you
seem to think I need to know about race conditions.
Please expand on what you mean. I can't see that every application
needing to consider race conditions - which is what you appear to be
saying.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:04:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried communicating with you on a higher level.
With one liners with no reasoning or explanation. In other notes, you
come up with short questions like:
"Explain how the scheduler works"
"Explain race conditions"
I don't call that communicating on a higher level.
> you failed to respond in an intelligent manner.
>
> Therefore, I switched to a dialect more appropriate for your
> lack of displayed intelligence.
You mean the insults. Ah yes, very good way to communicate that. If they
don't respond to your so called "higher level" then hurl abuse at them!
In another post I've asked you to expand on your comments about "Race
Conditions". It will be interesting to see how you respond.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:09:54 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:02:26 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Everyone seemed to refer to Windows, but nobody referred to
>Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000. Problems with Windows 98 were referred
>to as Windows problems, tarring Windows 2000 with the same brush.
Yet you do _exactly_ the same thing, discussing W2K/NT reliability and
Win98 hardware support under the banner of just "Windows".
I think Win9x is a big steaming pile, while I only mildly dislike NT
most days.
>I figured out most of my problems myself, thank you very much. I'm
>coming to COLA because I thought this was a Linux Advocacy group - I'm
>asking why they are advocates of something that needs improving!
And Windows is perfect? Everything can always be improved.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:13:00 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:10:51 GMT, Bas v.d. Wiel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just my 2 cents:
>
>My Windows 2000 Advanced Server Beta 3 (yes BETA!) has been up and running
>for over 200 consecutive days now... and it won't crash at login prompts,
>won't saturate its memory or do anything else that slows it down or crashes
>it.
>The function of the machine? Www-proxy for about 75 PC's.
>
>
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:19:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > And I'm going to expect that all the software is going to
> > > continue to function without screwing up because they assumed I'd
> > > give them a fair shot at the CPU. From there perspective, it
> > > should look like they're just one of four million other processes
> > > that want time, right? How prevalent is it for typical programs
> > > to get "choked to death" by lack of CPU time? And how does a Mac
> > > manage to run a TCP/IP stack if CMT is so bad when it comes to
> > > background processes?
> >
> > It doesn't use CMT. The TCP/IP stack and several other faceless
> > background tasks are preemptively tasked against each other and the
> > rest of the system. Mac OS has PMT features, they just can't be
> > used by anything that calls the toolbox because many toolbox calls
> > aren't reentrant.
>
> ACK!!
>
> Why hasn't Apple rewritten them?
It would require app rewrites if Apple did. Carbon
(http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/carbon/CarbonOverview/index.html)
is essentially an reentrant version of the Mac OS toolbox, but even that
won't let you get PMT in Mac OS 9. I'm not sure why, but I strongly
suspect it's because Carbon itself calls the toolbox under OS 9, and
Apple would rather require people to upgrade to OS X to get PMT anyway.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:06:18 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (TNT) wrote:
>
> > That's right. It was release last June, so "the last one and a half
> years" is
> > just a make up.
>
> So it was running Windows 98 before Windows 98 SE. Doesn't matter. It's
> been up since the 17th May, that's over a month ago.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
So you're saying that you were running W98, then, at some point,
installed and started running SE with out going down? Wow! Window is
cool! Maybe I'll switch back.
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:23:12 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> I think I was reacting to the lack of qualifiers on Windows, so I
> stopped qualifying Linux. If others could lump Windows together in one
> breath, why shouldn't I?
Qualifying statements seems to be the number one topic of debate in here
lately. Some take it so far as to say if you don't word something
exactly the same way as they would then you are wrong. I don't believe
quite that strongly, but I do think some qualification is in order in a
lot of areas.
>
> Also, I originally saw Linux + KDE (substitute your favourite desktop
> here!) as a complete package, rather than a series of discrete bits, as
> it made more sense in comparing that with Windows. One person, I think,
> picked up that idea and ran with it, the rest, well... you know the
> story.
>
Yeah :(
> You put people with diametrically opposed views in the same area, you
> can expect a shouting match, I guess.
Pretty much always. One person from one side will fail to believe that
there is even the possibility to think the other way and BOOM! You got a
fight.
> I do think Windows needs improvement, I just think Linux needs more.
>
> Hmmm... I don't see too many people rising up to contradict Charlie or
> others. So, I took the silence to mean acceptance of what has been said.
> "Tactical" mistakes! Sounds like I'm fighting a war here, doesn't it?
> 8).
Maybe you are. I think the lack of "real" things to believe in a fight
for is what leads to a lot of the "word wars" on usenet and IRC (and
slashdot and etc, etc.) So we fight about whatever we see as important
at the moment. Some people use more discreet tactics (I'm trying to
anyway) and some use the blatant "drop a nuke and see what the fallout
is" tactic. But, in some of our minds it is a war. Human nature is to
fight what you don't understand. I try not to do that but haven't
always been successful.
> > I'm just trying to help out. Hopefully I do.
>
> You are, you are.
>
Thank you, thank you.
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:30:03 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>SB16 doesn't work I have to massage the configuration files to make it
>work.
>AHA152x doesn't work, I have to add a string to LILO.
>Voodoo 5 doesn't quite work, I have to massage the configuration file.
>These are all examples of the way Linux lags behind Windows.
These are all examples of things that *do* work, by your own admission.
>Windows installed all these products without batting an eyelid.
So what?
I installed a BT-848 card in a Windows box a long time ago. That was
*real* fun! Windows kept insisting that it couldn't find the driver
files, even when I rubbed its nose in them --- it always added some
silly string to the filename, and then couldn't find that new name
(big surprise, there!). This was using the floppies supplied with the
hardware. Once I finally had it installed (don't ask!), it would crash
the whole machine whenever I moved the window partly offscreen.
Under linux, I downloaded the driver, compiled it, had a look at the
hardware, told the driver about the tuner that was on the card, done.
A couple of weeks ago, I wanted to hook up my new digital camera to a machine.
So I dug out the SCSI card that came with my scanner, searched through Google,
found out who manufactured it, found out where a full ASPI driver could
be found, downloaded it, installed it, hooked up the camera, downloaded
its latest software from Polaroid (the floppies that came with the camera
had the Japanese version of the 1996 software on them ;-), started it
all up (i.e. rebooted), and lo and behold... "No scsi boards found". Huh?
Great! Tried a few things, but due to Windows' uncooperativeness when it
comes to troubleshooting, I ended up pulling an unused old BusLogic
controller out of another machine, put it in there, and at least that
one had a driver on the CD, and installed OK. Then the camera worked.
Of course, all I needed to make the BusLogic work under Linux was
"insmod BusLogic". Done. And if I didn't remember to switch on the camera
before doing that, I can rescan the bus without a reboot.
Of course, then there is the sad tale about two machines with identical
SB Pro cards --- one of which would work just fine, the other would work
sometimes, maybe, but most of the time not. Under Windows, that is.
Under linux, neither machine had any problem.
Don't talk to me about Windows' great hardware support. I still haven't
gotten over the Win98 PCI NE2000 driver that would lose about half of all
incoming packets. I spent hours "fixing" my proxy setup until I realized
that the problem lay in the client. Of course, the hardware was OK ---
I had just used linux to copy half a Gigabyte through that very card,
at pretty close to the theoretical wire speed, so I never suspected
it to drop packets under Windows.
Bernie
--
A kind word and a gun can do more than a kind word alone
Al Capone
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:21:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:59:17 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jedi said there was no likelyhood or necessity of libraries being
GPL.
>
> ...a claim rather well supported by the fact that the one
> trying to undermine it infact works on a large generalized
> framework that is not, which itself exploits many facilities
> that are themselves not.
Oh, my goodness. Are you drunk or something? You can't create
generality out of examples.
"no likelyhood" of something that already happened is just stupid. Live
with it.
Claims are not supported by who is undermining them, they should stand
on their own against what the "underminer" says. Your claim doesn't.
Give it up. Find another hobby.
Guess what? The FSF produces lots of software. They intend their future
libraries to be GPL. It is very likely that there will be more GPL
libraries in the future because of that.
I'd say it's almost a certainty that more libraries will be GPL in
the future than now. How can there be no likelyhood of that?
> Otherwise, KDE would be restricted to the GPL rather than the
> LGPL.
Only if what I said was that all or most libraries are GPL. I never said
that, because I am not a moron, and I am not a liar.
> [deletia]
>
> You continue to make claims contrary to your own immediate experience.
And you continue to say stupid things just to disagree with me.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:30:05 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Also, I did not think people had a problem comprehending me with I said
>"Linux", instead "KDE desktop on Linux" because I thought the context of
>a sentance/paragraph ought to inform a reader of that. I have started to
>change my statement from "Linux lags behind Windows" to others, but it
>is annoying to still see statements like "Linux is three times faster
>than Windows" - which Windows and under what circumstances?
I asked for this before, I ask again --- could you provide a reference
to such a statement? In particular, to one that wasn't prompted by you
saying "you guys all say this"?
Methinks you are hitting strawmen.
Bernie
--
The aging process has you firmly in its grasp if you never get the
urge to throw a snowball
Doug Larson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:30:11 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>For instance, I installed XFree86 4.0.1 on top of Linux Mandrake 7.1. I
>found after installation a lot of the tools that I would use in 7.1
>don't really work too well now.
Just checking --- you *did* install it via an RPM from Mandrake's Web
site, right?
Bernie
--
Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value
Marechal Ferdinand Foch
Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:30:13 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I'm well aware of the instabilities of Windows 98 SE. However, it gets
>annoying when people overstate their case, like Windows 98 SE requiring
>a reinstall every so often. If I say I have two machines I've not
>reinstalled in the last year, I mean it!
And if you have a need to say that, and in particular a need to quantify
the number of machines you haven't reinstalled in a year, that says more
than any linux advocate ever could ;-)
Bernie
--
My own view is that taping of conversations for historical
purposes was a bad decision
Richard M. Nixon
US President 1969-74
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:30:14 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>mlw wrote:
>> Obviously, one should end the source module with .cpp or .cc. Are there
>> any environments in which if C is available, C++ is not?
>Apple ][ ?
For a while, linux/Alpha had Compaq compilers for C available, but not
for C++. Nowadays, you can get both.
Bernie
--
You have not converted a man, because you have silenced him
John Morley
British Liberal politician, 1838-1923
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:30:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>That is no excuse. They could at least have someone proof read it.
I take it you just volunteered?
Bernie
--
Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with
what happens to him.
Aldous Huxley
English novelist, 1894-1963
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 17:30:35 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:59:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Hmmmm, I did a search on deja and did not find your post to a technical
>news group (looking for more info) and found nothing. You might try
.misc. Not strictly a help group, but it's high traffic and has a lot
of help posts.
>*posting* to the linux networking news group. Off hand, I seem to recall
However, posting a blatantly troll-like subject line on advocacy draws
very quick responses ! Yeah, call me cynical. I know ... (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 17:33:27 GMT
Pete Goodwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Different? If it was different, I'd be happy.
: However...
: SB16 doesn't work I have to massage the configuration files to make it
: work.
: AHA152x doesn't work, I have to add a string to LILO.
: Voodoo 5 doesn't quite work, I have to massage the configuration file.
I appologize. You have TWO kinds of complaints: one is that certain
pieces of hardware are not supported or require some manual configuration
to work; the other is that the interface and features are different frm
Windows.
As for the hardware complaints, I think that anyone here will concede
that, through the efforts the manufacturers of desktop x86 hardware,
Windows 9X has support for more of such hardware than Linux does. Nobody
claims that you can stick Linux on any collection of hardware and expect
all of it to work. It is strongly advised by anyone worth listening to
that a user check the HCL before buying new hardware for Linux or
attempting to install Linux on existing hardware.
If you wish to make the point that "Linux is not a viable desktop for
someone who is unwilling to buy according to an HCL or for someone who
already owns and wants to use hardware not on that HCL," I think most
people here will accept that -- I certainly will.
But forget about concluding that "Linux lags behind Windows"; it's too
great a generalization.
As for your problems installing certain pieces of supported hardware,
they don't impress me. At least there WERE documented configuration files
to edit that allowed you to fix the problem. When I have seen Windows
choke on hardware, a solution is never so easily found. It always comes
down to large numbers of reboots, removal and re-installation of unrelated
drivers, just randomly changing things, and hoping for the best.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Another Anti-Linux Propagandist Is A Right-Wing Bigot -was- Are Linux people
illiterate?
Date: 13 Jul 2000 17:34:38 GMT
The "redtyrel" who began and is continuing this thread
("Are Linux people illiterate?") has posted some other
notable articles:
http://deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&authors=redtyrel*&showsort=date&maxhits=100
If that URL doesn't work, just go to DejaNews and do a "power
search" with author = redtyrel* and results per page = 100
Like Steve/Mike/Simon, who fervently hopes that all the
homosexual people in the world will die of AIDS, "redtyrel"
is a full-blown Right-wing bigot -- in this case a racist.
Both of them post anti-Linux propaganda using untraceable
identities.
According to this story in the San Jose Mercury News,
"Microsoft execs spend time at the Heritage Foundation."
http://www.mercurycenter.com/columnists/nolan/docs/cn012199.htm
The Heritage Foundation is one of the largest Right-wing
propaganda mills in the country.
Microsoft is known to have paid several Right-wing organiza-
tions to publish astroturf propaganda for it regarding the
antitrust trial. Perhaps it also pays some of them to post
anti-Linux propaganda to Usenet, in which case the people
they'd choose for the job might very likely turn out to be
racists or homophobes; those attitudes are quite common
among Conservatives.
In article <8kklln$gpq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nice try, typical Linux user trying to skirt the issue.. My post is not
>Linux Documentation. If you are posting technical documentation on the
>web site, it should be at least readable. How lame.
>
>
>In article <8kif2e$qqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> : A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
>>
>> That sentance has no verb.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> : --- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much
>time
>> ^
>> Your punctuation needs work. Also, the phrase "you all" is redundant,
>> unless you're from the southern U.S.
>>
>> : geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills?
>Well..
>> : rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
>>
>> Maybe you mean "*I* rest my case", unless you're instructing us to
>> rest your case for you.
>>
>> I'm fairly certain the Linux community doesn't take you seriously.
>> The rest of the world doesn't give a rat's ass about the occasional
>> typo since they're so prevalent on the internet anyway.
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 13 Jul 2000 17:34:48 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:34:50 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmmm... I don't see too many people rising up to contradict Charlie or
>others. So, I took the silence to mean acceptance of what has been said.
Maybe. Or it could mean no one bothers to read their posts ( or possibly
they're in everyone's killfile ! )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:32:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:20:24 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >[snip] I won't debate with you anymore.
> >
> >> >Honestly, I was in it for fun. People like you make me doubt it's
> >worth
> >> >the trouble.
> >>
> >> Why is that? Is free inquiry a bit too scary for you?
> >
> >No, it's the part where you asked me to die, bozo, and that you
deleted
> >in your response. I need not take shit from you.
> >
> >Now, what have you done for this "free software community" you seem
> >to like so much? What have you done to pull your own weight?
>
> If he's countering the FUD and lies you are spreading that
> would be a considerable service.
You know, you keep calling me a liar and not point to any lies I say.
Are you lying?
I know you don't like me, but could you at least keep an appearance of
honesty in your actions?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:40:22 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:21:28 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:59:17 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Jedi said there was no likelyhood or necessity of libraries being
>GPL.
>>
>> ...a claim rather well supported by the fact that the one
>> trying to undermine it infact works on a large generalized
>> framework that is not, which itself exploits many facilities
>> that are themselves not.
>
>Oh, my goodness. Are you drunk or something? You can't create
>generality out of examples.
[deletia]
Just give it up already. You are simply full of shit.
Now anyone else can make up their own mind if they wish to bother.
The vast array of support libraries that come with a Linux
distribution, including KDE and those that it depends on are
a far more meaningful indication of what is 'likely' with
Free Software.
As I've stated before, those that actually control the course
of large software development (rather than twits such as yourself)
projects have already been quite happily and effectively exploiting
Free Software to their own benefit.
I'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Subject: Re: SPECweb99 results
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 Jul 2000 11:45:37 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven W. Mentzer) writes:
> >
> >I don't believe I've seen the latest SPECweb99 results mentioned here yet.
> >They are truly spectacular. Three Dell servers with 1, 2 and 4 processors
> >and running a new open source Linux web server simply wiped the floor with
> >the competition: 1270, 2200 and 4200 simultaneous connections, respectively.
> >For comparison, similar Dell boxes running IIS with 1 and 4 processors
> >managed just 732 and 1598 connections, respectively. The only
> >configuration that came close was an IBM RS/6000 with *8* processors;
> >it managed 3216 connections. And one can't help noting the Netcraft
> >result; on a ProLiant DL360 with 2 processors running IIS, just 1020,
> >less than the Linux result with a single processor!
> >
> >Full details at
> >
> >http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
>
>
> Amazing....
>
> redhat wraps in a kernel-mode web server and no-one sees the potential for
> security issues and panics.
>
> microsoft wraps the GDI in the kernel and everyone flames them...
It's *optional* under Linux; not so under Windows NT. Most people
will never use khttpd for that reason; in fact many people *do* think
it is a bad idea (and they don't have to use it). Linux also has the
frame buffer device now (ie, the GDI is in the kernel just like it is
under NT) -- but again, you don't have to compile it in unless you
want to.
> i give up.
Give up what?
Everyone should know that benchmarks are meaningless gestures.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
