Linux-Advocacy Digest #706, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451742 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: My soapbox (Re: Are Linux people illiterate?) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451742 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451742 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Bob Hauck)
Re: Student run Linux server. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Microsoft ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451742
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:13:50 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> The one you snipped.
Incorrect, given that there was no invective on my part to snip, Tinman.
1> What alleged "evidence," Dave?
See what I mean?
1> Illogical, since your posts are devoid of meaning.
Incorrect, given that my post contained meaning regarding your failure
to recognize the evidence provided.
1> You really don't know what that word means, do you Dave?
I do know what the word means, Tinman. That's how I'm able to determine
that you're engaging in it.
1> What alleged "I"?
Illogical, Tinman.
1> On the contrary, your reading comprehensions problems are well known.
Even more pontification.
1> Then why refer questions to me?
Because you should be able to provide a reference, Tinman.
1> On the contrary.
Even more pontification. You honestly don't know who you responded to?
1> Irrelevent.
Incorrect, given that it deals directly with your recommendation, Tinman.
1> On the contrary, your posts have only entertainment value.
Incorrect, given that the evidence for your lies does more than that.
1> What alleged "truth"?
The truth that you failed to seek out, Tinman.
1> And why do you do post, Dave,
To counter the FUD, bias, illogic, and unfairness that often appears
in this newsgroup.
1> if not for entertainment?
I have far better and sensible ways of entertaining myself and others.
For example, two concert performances in the last 24 hours.
1> I ask for entertainment only.
But you wind up looking like a fool in the process.
2> Blooming well, now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
I've never subscribed to CSMA, Tinman. The only posts of mine that
have appeared there have ALL been due to the crossposting chosen by
the people who have posted previously in the thread. If CSMA wants
me to "go away", then the method is quite simple: have CSMA stay
out of COOA. But that won't happen, because people like you find it
"entertaining" to crosspost and elicit a response from me. Maybe
one day the people who don't like it will discover that it's more
effective to aim their fire extinguisher at the base of the flames,
so to speak. That is, they should take up the matter with people
like you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 16 Jul 2000 01:04:27 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:29:10 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> You can tell which program is not "being nice",
>> so to speak,
>
>How? Does Mac have top?
If an application isn't being "nice", then top won't work very well.
In practice, the answer is MacsBug, I think.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: My soapbox (Re: Are Linux people illiterate?)
Date: 16 Jul 2000 01:20:10 GMT
Jacques Guy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Careful there. For many, English is a foreign language, and a misspelt
: word
: can become unrecognizable (my experience, 45 years ago, when I was
: just
: learning English, buying American week-end papers for practice, and
: struggling to make sense out of Walt Kelly's Pogo. Painful, very
: painful).
Part of the problem is that Aussie and Yank spelling has differences. Also,
the slang systems between Yank (seppo) and Aussie are different, a fact I'm
all too aware of. Then, of course, there's the accent used. I know the hard
way becuse I'm a Yank but also have a controllable Aussie accent. In fact,
come to America and fire up a good Aussie accent and some seppos can't
understand it. The problem comes from both the slight slur of speech plus the
vowel shift. In fact, from chronic use, I have a slight vowel shift even when
speaking normally, which sometimes throws people off. The fix is to
reverse-shift vowels more to the Swedish style to compensate. In a severe
case, I'll fire up temporarily a Norwegian accent which I downloaded from a
Dane and the movie "Fargo:"
My drinking accent is suburban Melbourne. I downloaded it in the spring of
1992 before coming back to America from _Italy_. I'm the only seppo who could
spend 4 years in Italy and come back with an _Australian_ accent! For the
first 2 weeks back home I was unable to shut it off until I re-picked up a
Chicago accent. "Born and raised Chicagoan, mate. Never been to Australia in
my life."
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451742
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:30:21 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. He's back to ignoring the issue about
his alleged reciprocation, choosing instead to make a complete fool of
himself by claiming that I haven't learned to read, while also
pontificating about my alleged misinterpretation. And he's continuing
to ignore the issue about his reason for frequenting "these precincts".
112> Tholen tholenates another pretended and useless digest. Of course, he
112> misinterprets the lines to which he responded, but that's usual with him.
112> To the digest proper, containing all of general interest that Tholen has to
112> thole:
112>
112> [nothing yet!]
112>
112> Thanks!
113> And you still haven't learned to read, Tholen.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451742
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:30:41 GMT
Today's Thorne digest:
1> I have it on good authority that the president reciprocates for Dave
1> Tholen pre-emptively.
And who might that "good authority" be, Thorne?
1> [snip]
2> The Tholy One Tholenfied:
2>
2> Have mercy, O Great Thole! Spare me the fury of your
2> assteriods! Teach me the way of true Tholenment.
You still haven't learned, Thorne.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:34:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:31:13 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 13 Jul 2000 04:28:52 GMT
>>>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:58:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>No, desktop client operating systems need to be more resilient to user
>>>>errors. Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly.
>>>
>>>You're insulting my intelligence with these obvious falsehoods.
>>
>>I'm trying to challenge your intelligence with this lack of assumptions,
>>true or false. Put up your dukes.
>
>You're not giving me a lack of assumptions. You're saying "Programmers
>are assumed to have done their job correctly." That is, however, not
>the case. You keep telling me I'm working with theory, not reality, but
>you're proposing a postulate that doesn't correspond to the real world.
>So which of us is taking refuge in theory, you or me?
I see your point. But I think you're misdirecting the argument.
Programmers are assumed to have done their jobs correctly was a
postulate to an argument of reasoning. You were supposed to consider
the reasoning in light of the postulate, not deny the postulate. I
never indicated it was an actual occurrence, nor was my reasoning
dependant on it being an actual occurrence. Quite the contrary. My
argument is that some of the benefit of cooperative rather than
algorithmic scheduling is premised on the known fact that it is not
programmer's competency, but "developers" distaste for cooperating,
which makes for problem software, as opposed to simple bugs which can be
fixed once detected.
>We're going around in circles here. I'm going to say this one more
>time: PMT systems are more resilient in the face of programmer errors.
>This is a good thing, because the system crashes less.
I agree. But I hypothesize that PMT is "more resilient" than CMT only
in comparison to the current, simplistic CMT implementations. And that
it is possible that a knee-jerk reaction against CMT is not warranted.
And that it constitutes an assumption that *all* PMT is better than
*any* CMT and that it could be considered to be "an easy way out" for
those responsible for the one component to prevent having to deal with a
more complex and difficult, but valuable and even efficient system. The
obvious counter-examples of reasonably good CMT (MacOS) and unreasonably
bad PMT (Window9x, and potentially NT) indicate that programmer errors
are not the most important factor in whether one is naturally superior
to the other.
PMT is good if the system crashes less. But a certain amount of system
crashes are tolerable on a desktop platform, particularly if it
coincidentally mandates that apps be designed to deal with crashes more
elegantly. And assuming they won't occur does not encourage dealing
with them elegantly.
>>Anecdotal evidence to the contrary, if there were a truly substantial
>>greater number of problems on any modern computer system than another,
>>it is worth presuming that it wouldn't be a modern computer system
>>anymore, but a historical one.
>
>You never heard of legacy systems? Give me a break.
A good point. The fact the Mac is a single example, and did have
limited resources, is relevant.
>>>I find it [PMT] to be more responsive. When I use MacOS, I'm forever
>>>waiting on something unrelated to whatever I'm doing. When I use FreeBSD,
>>>running several applications concurrently is much smoother.
>>
>>But you are not controlling for incidental reasons why FreeBSD has
>>better performance and responsiveness than MacOS.
>
>If the sun comes up and light streams in your window, do you control for
>incidental reasons why the light is there?
Do you assume that whenever light streams in your window, its because
the sun came up?
>You're trying to sound like a scientist and failing. I *know* why
>FreeBSD has better performance and responsiveness than MacOS. It has
>a really well-thought-out virtual memory system, with paging to disk; it
>probably has a faster filesystem; and in large part, it's because
>FreeBSD uses preemptive multitasking.
Have you ever used a FreeBSD system with well-thought-out vm/paging, and
the same filesystem, but cooperative multitasking? It sounds like I'm
trying to be a skeptic, and succeeding.
>>Tell me, because I'm not really that familiar with this bit, how would a
>>user that wanted to tell their computer "I want this to speed up" do it,
>>and how would the computer know when that was no longer necessary. How
>>would a user say "I want this app to have a higher priority every time I
>>start it."
>
>These aren't really easy under any OS that I know of, although
>implementing them on unix would be trivial. For the first one, I'd make
>"renice" a setuid program so anyone could run it, then make a GUI
>wrapper for it. Alternately, build it into the window manager, which
>can hide the details of finding out the PID (it can tell by the window
>ID, I believe).
A simple thing, eh? What is this 'rtprio' that someone suggested, do
you know?
>For the latter, well, again, it should really be built into the window
>manager. But I've done it myself using a cheap little shell script
>hack:
>
>$ mv program program.real
>$ cat > program
>#!/bin/sh
>nice --10 program.real $*
>^D
>$
>
>This would give a nice value of negative 10; I could do more or less if
>desired. Sometimes it helps to renice the X server, too, as an X program
>won't get much done if the X server doesn't get to run too. This is all
>assuming that the X programs are run locally -- since you're so concerned
>about performance, I figure that's a reasonable assumption.
Actually, its not the case. I would probably be running remote X
programs with some regularity. All the more reason to bump up the X
server, obviously. Do all programs start out at the same level of
niceness?
>>If these are easily understood and manipulated controls,
>>than half of my argument disappears.
>
>These controls could be easily understood and manipulated, if anyone
>bothered to implement them. Nobody's found them necessary. Feel free
>to write them for Linux and see if anyone wants them.
I think others are beating me to it, to be honest. It would take me
quite a while to program anything. But they do seem appropriate to
facilitate, if not integrate, into a desktop window manager, don't you
think?
>>The other half remains, because if the problem is that the apps don't
>>know what else is running, than the apps should be written with no
>>necessity or desire to know or care what else is running.
>
>That's more like it! It's the OS's job to manage resources, including
>CPU time. The OS may be configured by a user or administrator, but it
>nevertheless does the actual management. Having applications manage
>system-wide resources has been shown by wide experience to be a bad idea.
>It's a large part of why DOS and Windows 3.x and 9x and MacOS are so
>unreliable and slow.
And yet the existence of "desktop platforms" are written with such toy
operating systems. There may be some lessons to learn if Linux is to be
a desktop platform. And one of them, I think, is to realize that the
user should have control of the desktop as much as possible. My
off-handed defense of CMT was merely a reflection of that, if only to
contradict that it is a non-issue.
>>Since the
>>engineers are the middle-man between the technology and the consumer's
>>goods, I'd like to hear some awareness that someone's paying attention
>>to the end user's requirements, not just the technical ones.
>
>There's plenty of that awareness reflected in the literature, but you
>haven't read it. What do you want, a personal visit from a systems
>programming team?
I was under the impression that this is what I had, by way of these
advocacy groups, yes. Imagine my surprise when I get ridiculed, not for
being so clueless as to ask questions, but for knowing enough to ask
them in ways that contradict the easy answers.
[...]
>You make a lot of talk about asking questions, but you spend more time
>making indefensible assertions. Next time you write a post, read it
>before you post it and ask yourself, "do I know this statement to be
>true?" and "do these two data points really correlate, or am I assuming
>that they do?"
Sorry, I thought that was your job. If my assertions are indefensible,
then I wouldn't be able to defend them logically and reasonably, and
that I try to do. I may be very very incorrect in my assertions, but I
haven't relied on any tricks or dishonesty in trying to defend them. I
have failed to defend many of them, and for that I am eternally grateful
to the community at large. But for you to suggest that I am not well
founded, if not well educated, in my assertions is in error. I spend
weeks at a time explaining just what "correlation" means in a practical
sense when working with technology, and I will continue to believe that
I don't make assumptions about what is related and what is not. At
best, I go along with other's assumptions until they become an issue.
For the most part, it is my lack of ability to assume which hinders
these exchanges, as I'm too blamed ignorant to go along with the
assumption that what you say is true is true for the reason you believe
it is true. That, I'll admit, often makes me seem trollish.
>>I'm advocating that engineers not assume that something is stupid just
>>because that is what they were taught.
>
>Nobody taught me "CMT is stupid". I learned what CMT is and what PMT
>is. I watched CMT systems break and break and break again, for
>CMT-related reasons (and often other reasons as well). I watched PMT
>systems work and keep working, even under heavy load. I drew my own
>conclusions.
Which CMT systems are you referring to? Because I've seen some PMT ones
that break and break, too. Windows9x and NT prove that CMT is not the
only thing that makes something a "toy operating system". If I am not
mistaken, when you learned what CMT was, PMT systems had already become
accepted as the standard way to solve the problem. So you were, in
truth, taught that CMT was stupid. And you may have simply assumed that
the coincidentally similar problems you saw on toy operating systems
which used CMT were caused by CMT. Unless you specifically studied the
subject, you're just trying to sound like a scientist, and failing.
Which is not to say that you were wrong, because it is possible your
assumption was correct.
>>But if someone can't question the assumptions without being ridiculed,
>>maybe that's all they are.
>
>If you were questioning, I wouldn't dislike you. Instead you're telling
>me that I'm wrong, even when you admit that I know more about this than
>you do. You also insult "engineers" generically. And let me make this
>clear -- my father is an engineer. That means he went to school for
>engineering. He did a lot of math, and worked his ass off. Me, I'm
>lazy. I am not even a big math fan. I read a few books, mostly from
>the Addison-Wesley Professional Computing Series, and followed some
>mailing lists where smart people post, and read some web pages, and
>spent a lot of time playing with unix, and now people pay me to play
>with unix because I do it well. But I am not an engineer.
I never meant to insult engineering as a whole. It is the very fact
that many people in the IT field are called engineers, when they do not,
in fact, share any more traits with your father than you do which
frustrates me, in fact. My father was not an engineer, though he was a
computer programmer, and a rather good one, I've been told. If he were
in the field today, you can be sure he would never refer to himself as
an engineer. I never meant to insult engineers generically. I am
certainly over-generalizing the term, though, when I use it to tweak the
posters here; I apologize for any unintentional insult. It is a
colloquel idiom, particularly within networking, as to be a "network
engineer" means you've been to a Cisco course and you draw a paycheck,
in many cases.
>>I know that to you PMT/CMT looks like a no-brainer. I can understand why.
>
>Maybe you can understand. Do it for real and we'll see.
>
>>But it is still possible that this
>>is the archaic notion, and that the Apple didn't fail to use PMT, but
>>actually decided not to, because it was intended to be a desktop client,
>>and PMT "wasn't necessary".
>
>Close ... more like at the time, they figured the benefit it provided
>wasn't worth the cost it imposed.
Well, that would make it "better", wouldn't it? Aren't all engineering
decisions supposed to be trade-offs?
>However, the cost has become negligible, and the benefits more widely
>recognized. So the cost/benefit analysis comes out differently, and the
>new Apple OS will have PMT, like every other new operating system.
>
>>But I'd appreciate an honest assault on my reasoning, not an assault on
>>my intelligence for offering my reasoning, or questioning yours.
>
>I can't assault your reasoning, because it's fine; it's your axioms that
>I have a problem with. Axioms can't be proven, by definition. When I
>try to correct yours by flat assertion, you either ignore me or tell me
>I'm speaking of "theory". What options does that leave me? If you were
>here, I'd hit you on the head with a stick, but you're not, so I'm stuck
>with insulting you.
I'm sorry, I hadn't seen it in that light. Thank you for taking the
time and being able to explain it to me. If you have been correcting
axioms by flat assertion, perhaps I took it to be a simple contradiction
without explanation. I'm happy to hear you haven't yet found fault with
my reasoning, and it seems as though we may have an understanding of
common ground. What axioms do you believe I am relying on
un-deservedly?
>>>What does it mean to "have priority"? I think that your conception of
>>>the problem domain is too fuzzy and metaphor-dominated.
>>
>>No shit. I've been waiting for just one of you geeks to give me some
>>goddamn data to work with.
>
>If you want to learn, start with an open mind and a closed mouth.
I tried that for twenty years; it got me no where. Finally I decided to
keep both my mouth and my mind open, and I find it is far more
efficient. My problem is I'm impatient. The first approach I got
frustrated waiting around for someone to tell me something I didn't
know. But this way, I find myself getting angry waiting for people to
stop telling me what I already do know. It appears we've reached the
level where most have realized that I'm not willing to assume that their
potentially valid arguments are simply true because that's what they'd
always assumed. I've over-exhibited my own ignorance, as well, and
several have asserted that the answer to my issues lay in great tombs of
knowledge which, once digested, have left them unable to point me more
directly to the heart of the matter with, to them, casual research.
I don't mind your suggestion that I limit the opening of my mouth nearly
as much as I am incensed with the intimation that I have a closed mind.
>>What is "priority"? How do you control
>>which program gets which slice of the pie. If you can't use any
>>metaphors or illustrations, then just say "I'm too much of a specialist
>>to explain it; sorry for wasting your time."
>
>http://unios.dhs.org/std-sched.html
>http://bsd7.starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu/~stark/CSE506/Lectures/lecture4.html
>
>The first one's in plain English, and you should find it quite readable.
>The second one is more challenging. When I read things like that second
>URL, I just skim over the parts I don't understand, and usually when I
>reread it later, I find I understand more than I did the last time. I
>recommend that you follow the same strategy.
>
>(See? You asked a question, and you didn't get insulted.)
I asked, I was insulted, I insulted back and I asked and didn't get
insulted along with the answer. Much. But I truly appreciate the
effort. I will digest both of these before posting further on the
subject.
[...and that includes this response, though there are other points I
wanted to address...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:38:41 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> Efficient according to whose definition? If you're going to say 'there
> is only one', then I'm going to be forced to accuse you of "thinking
> like an engineer". There is another, the Mac used it, apps *did*
> "behave properly", and the system worked. That the "next generation Mac
> OS", which has passingly little to do with the original Mac OS, does not
> use it is *not* an assumption that CMT doesn't work; it does and it did.
>
> And there is some reason to believe, whether you can understand it or
> not, that it provided efficiencies that were vastly under-utilized,
> simply because of the limited development that CMT was given, since
> every engineer apparently were taught in school to think that it is
> really bad idea.
>
What is it with you and engineers? Did anyone ever tell you how arrogant
you are. You claim to be extremely intelligent, more intelligent than the
rest of us. But it has been my experience that people you make such claims
are in fact covering up for a lack of intelligence. How old are you? You
sound like some rebellious kid who has never experienced life but thinks he
has all of the answers. It's time to learn from your elders.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:39:28 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:19:10 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can I say "renice this every time it runs?" Can I say "renice this if
>this other program is running?" Can I say "nice this as long as these
>aren't trying to get that done?"
With some simple scripting, yes. Renice isn't actually used much in
practice though, as the scheduler does a pretty good job by itself.
Mainly it is used for long-running compute-intensive background tasks.
Things like seti@home. If you nice it, then it doesn't bother your
foreground responsiveness so you can leave it running rather than
starting and stopping it.
>But what I am saying would be useful, and that CMT approximates and
>that is why it was successful on the Mac
The reason CMT was successful on the Mac and early Windows really had
more to do with the limited hardware early on than any particular
decision that it was "better" on the part of Apple. Early Macs had
very limited memory and because of that couldn't multitask very much
anyway. It was important to minimize overhead and I suppose that
making everything event-driven seemed like a good idea at the time.
Once the design was done, it was difficult to change without breaking
compatibility.
>But can you prioritize on things more complex than "an integer value
>manually entered by the operator through a command line utility?"
The scheduler does. For example, apps that are awoken because IO is
ready are often given a temporary priority boost. Different OS's do
this differently, but most of the general-purpose ones have some sort
of automatic priority adjustment.
>http://www.uk.research.att.com/~dmi/linux-srt/wm.html
I'll check it out.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:40:09 -0400
B'ichela wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Pontus Lidman wrote:
>
> > There are some non-violent titles from Loki games,
> > http://www.lokigames.com. I can recommend Railroad Tycoon II, or the soon
> > to be released Sim City 3000.
> >
> Railroad Tycoon II, is that for Linux or under the Windows
> emulator?
True Linux. As is Eric's Ultimate Solitaire.
> If its true Linux.. I might just give it a try (I am a model
> railroader btw).
> I think I heard that Sim City is under Linux. I never
> tried Either game so I might give both a look if I can ever get a bigger
> HD. (still running on 4 Scsi Hds giving me a total of ~1gb of storage. and
> 20 MB of ram on my 486.
>
You can also try freeciv.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:44:47 -0400
KLH wrote:
> RealCea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <snip everything>
>
> Aren't you posting to the wrong newsgroup? I beleive there are Newsgroups
> for bashing Microsoft. This isn't one of them.
>
> Your post had nothing to do with GNU/Linux whatsoever.
As Microsoft is the leading competitor of Linux companies,
(leading in market share, not necessarily technical quality)
bashing Microsoft might well be Linux advocacy.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 21:52:40 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> I never meant to insult engineering as a whole. It is the very fact
> that many people in the IT field are called engineers, when they do not,
> in fact, share any more traits with your father than you do which
> frustrates me, in fact. My father was not an engineer, though he was a
> computer programmer, and a rather good one, I've been told. If he were
> in the field today, you can be sure he would never refer to himself as
> an engineer. I never meant to insult engineers generically. I am
> certainly over-generalizing the term, though, when I use it to tweak the
> posters here; I apologize for any unintentional insult. It is a
> colloquel idiom, particularly within networking, as to be a "network
> engineer" means you've been to a Cisco course and you draw a paycheck,
> in many cases.
Bull. You have repeatedly used the term "engineer" in a derogatory fashion.
You repeatedly apologize for it. And then you do it again. You obviously don't
mean a word you say. Perhaps I should start using the term "Devlin" whenever I
want to insult someone. Of course, I doubt that would matter to you since I'm
sure that's not your real name, and even if it were, you are too pig-headed to
care.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
