Linux-Advocacy Digest #849, Volume #27 Fri, 21 Jul 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Mike")
Re: Help with printer ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Which Linux should I try? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Re: Which Linux should I try?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:08:37 GMT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:16:10 -0700, Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, James
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:52:29 +0200
>> <39761535$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Well, from the top of my head : "Visio Pro" (compiling diagrams &
>> >business/system processes). Is there a Linux equivalent? Also
>give us a
>> >decent browser (with plenty plug-ins & decent fonts & wysiwyg
>printing) in
>> >Linux.
>>
>> There may be a few; the one I'm familiar with is xfig. Not
>> quite as pretty, but it's easy to work with once one figures out
>> its idiosyncracies.
>>
>> As for "decent browser", Netscape is one of them
>
>No, no, you misread that. He said "decent", not "horrific piece of
...Netscape is about as "decent" as IE is.
They share a common heritage: and it shows.
>total stinking, steaming turd". Especially with their latest
>abortion... er... abomination... er... browser.
This is merely post factum argumentation meant to manufacture
an argument around a conclusion you would like us to gullible
enough to buy into.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:01:18 -0400
KLH wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > KLH wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KLH wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Iko wrote:
> > > > > > > > A linux server is made in about 3 hours...even my girlfriend
> can
> > > > > > > > do the job..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Oh boy, do you have a lot to learn. Either you think poorly of
> your
> > > > > > > girlfriend or women generally. Either way, someone's sex has no
> > > bearing
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Data processing is oftentimes best represented in the mind as
> > > > > > 3+ dimensional processes. On the average, men's brains are MUCH
> > > > > > more adept at this sort of thinking (in the same way as on the
> > > > > > average, women's brain's are much more adept at acquiring and
> > > > > > using linquistic skills)
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I find the differences between the thinking of men and
> woman
> > > > > similar to the differences between KDE and GNOME; not very
> interesting
> > > and
> > > > > far too slight to really matter.
> > > >
> > > > Evidently, you are not well-read on the subject.
> > > >
> > > > Catch up, and get back to me.
> > >
> > > I *do* know there are many authors of books, editorials, and magazine
> > > articles who love to dwell on the subject about the differences between
> men
> > > and women. Often this content is on the subject of dating, marriage, and
> > > divorce. As interesting as this may be for some, it does not make it
> > > significant. Men are *not* from Mars and Women are *not* from Venus,
> rather
> > > we are both from Earth; but the title of such a book shows how the
> >
> > And John Gray is an idiot.
> >
> > That's NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about peer-reviewed
> > studies about the differences between male and female brains
> >
> >
> >
> > > differences are so exagerated. But a statistic I heard in class once was
> > > that Men and Women are greater than 90% alike (sorry, I do not recall
> the
> > > exact percentage) .
> > >
> > > So attempting to classify a person's ability at linguistics or math
> based
> > > upon gender seems to be an act of futillity---or segregation.
> > >
> > > My feeling is that the trend of women not taking up occupations in
> computers
> > > is because of enviroment rather than any sort of inherent capacity.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Keep believing the politically correct line, and you'll never learn the
> > truth.
>
> If what you say is true, and I have no evidence to beleive otherwise, what
> does it mean? Do I treat women differently than men? Do I say, "You know,
> you're women so I have the advantage over you in computers" ?
Of course not, you treat each INDIVIDUAL according to their abilities.
But, if you have a group of females, don't expect to find too many
who will ever be able to develop into good programmers, likewise,
if you have a group of males, don't expect to find too many who will
ever develop into good poets.
>
> That just doesn't seem right to me. That is why I choose the politcally
> correct line.
That's because you foolishly believe tht you can apply statistics
to individuals. You can't. You can only apply statistics to groups.
>
> But I must ask you, are the differences that vast that it matters?
Yes.
> Does a slight edge cause an inferiority in certain subjects?
For large enough sample sizes, yes.
Example: the Marine corps insists that EVERY person can shoot
in the highest marksmanship category ("Expert"), which on the
50m - 300m pop-up silhoutte course of fire is 36+ hits out of 40,
and demands that all Marine Corps recruits achieve this standard
at least once before getting out of basic training.
The army is satisfied with mere "marksman" of 22/40.
Now, when the annual All-Services marksmanship matches are held
each year, is it surprising that, despite being only 1/10th the
size of any of the other services, the winning team is usually
the Marine Corps team?
Go back to, say, 1975, and take a randomly selected sample of
men, and another randomly selected sample of women. Now, take
these groups, put each group through programming classes, and
make a group project to come up with a significant piece of
software, and see which group completes the project quickest,
and closest to spec.
The fact is, most men have very distinct advantages over women
with the mental manipulation of arbitrary topological structures.
Most men can very quickly pick up, retain, and mentally traverse,
insert into, and remove from, a structure like a hash table
pointing at doubly-linked lists which are also doubly-linked
vertically as well as horizontally.
Most women will have some difficulty doing mental manipulations
of this data structure.
Have you ever noticed how men seem to be superior at map-reading
compared to women? This is because women primarily navigate off
of landmarks. If they cannot associate the map with known
landmarks in their mind, they have a VERY difficult time
navigating from a map.
Conversely, men care very little about landmarks, but they are
VERY good at maintaining an internal sense of "my current (x,y)
coordinates compared to my starting point and my destination
(which men also think of as being offsets from their point of
origin. i.e.
for men
My starting point is; x,y\
My destination is: x+x', y+y'
My position is: x+x", y+y"
Relative to my position,
My destination is x"-x', y"-y'
Now, of course, you don't EXPLICITLY do this math in your head,
but that is the overwhelming majority of males navigate.
Conversely, VERY FEW females navigate this way.
Females navigate by traveling in an arbitrary direction
until seeing a landmark (say, a purple awning on a store),
and then heading off into a new direction until encountering
another landmark.
Conversely, men only tend to use landmarks to ascertain a
known direction (this landmark is to my left, and that landmark
is to my right...OK, I must be facing west).
> Or can everything
> continue the way it is and we judge the differance smaller than what it
> would take to really matter.
>
> In another post, you mentioned "The Bell Curve". If I recall correctly, many
> psycologists have disputed its findings, though that may have something to
> do with its controversial nature. Also, doesn't that same book also show the
Yeah, a lot of Democratic Party hacks, and others with a vested
interest in the perpetuation and growth of welfare decried the book
to no end.
The reason is because the Bell Curve confirms what most of us
already know... almost everybody on welfare is a fucking idiot
(literally), and almost everybody who has achieved great success
in life is quite intelligent.
There are exceptions in both categories, but that is the rule
of thumb.
Tooo many people...Wwaaaaaaaaayy too many people in this country
are dependant upon the welfare system. And I'm not talking about
the welfare recipients... they are merely the "necessary evil"
which must be allowed to exist for the SYSTEM to remain in existance.
Too many case workers and bureaucrats are scared to death of what
they will do if welfare were ended, and *THEY* too, had to go out
and find real jobs.
> intelligence of Blacks to be less than Whites, and the intelligence of
> Whites to be less than Asians?
>
> Lets just say that we are all equal and be done with it.
Absolutely not!
That's like alleging that Autralian aborigines are just as tall
as Kenyans.....a bald-faced lie, which serves no purpose but to
decieve everyone...especially those who are most effected by
the truth.
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
>
> Best Regards,
> Kevin Holmes
> "extrasolar"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:08:20 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Tim Kelley wrote:
> > Well I don't particularly like the government or the military so
> > I don't care. Actually it's pretty funny.
>
> Get back to us the next time there's a national emergency in your
> area, and you want people who are willing to ignore the danger to
> rescue your sorry ass.
Think about when the last time there was a national emergency "in
your area".
What is the US military really used for Aaron?
"National emergencies" of US propped up dictatorships.
"Economic emergencies" of multi-national corporations.
"Moral emergencies" against it's own population (the drug war in
case you were too dull to figure that out).
> You are a pitiful excuse for a man.
Now what would you know about being a man?
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:12:07 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l8lo9$3lf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Stratus (for one) is able to supply systems with availability of
> >99.9999%.
>
> No, they aren't. Or at least Status won't come out and say that they can
> get downtime down to 30 seconds per year. 99.999% they say, which is
> 5 minutes per year. And they are not doing it on PCs, either, but rather
> on HP/UX machines.
Wrong, but I'll take some responsibility here. I pointed you to the index
page. You'd have to have followed a link through to their news page to find
it:
http://www.stratus.com/news/2000/2000417hw.htm
They do claim 99.9999%, specifically with regard to their triple redundancy
ftServer Windows 2000 machines.
What the press release does not say is that the system _and_software_ are
that reliable, partly because they can't (having no control over the
software), and partly because they aren't. Nor does their claim include
things like monitors, which may not be so important if you're running a
database server, but if you're driving the displays in a war room, might be
pretty damn critical. The issue that got this subthread started was
regarding PC hardware reliability. My intended point was that although
standard PC hardware may not be terribly reliable, there's nothing that
keeps you from developing reliable PC hardware.
> >Stratus web page also has some discussion of their Windows 2000 systems,
and
> >the things they offer to improve reliability over the standard OS.
> >http://www.stratus.com/products/nt/index.htm
>
> Yes. Notice how in the whole NT discussion, they never put a percentage
> on availability figures? They go to great lengths to explain how they
> improve upon "normal" NT (which kinda makes you wonder how reliable that
> "normal" NT is in the first place), but never come right out and say
> "And doing all this, we can now offer NT machines with 99.99% uptime" or
> anything similar.
Absolutely. The issue was with the Navy system, and it seems fair to assume
that they are running a closed system, and that they are able to control the
software, drivers and hardware that are used. This could, and probably does,
significantly change the comparative reliability of the software / OS.
One of the traditional problems with defining OS reliability is that an OS
tends to be amazingly reliable when it's doing nothing (even my old CP/M
system would run forever if I never touched a key). That measure is no good,
so reliability has to be defined with the OS and the software you're going
to run. It also seems fair to assume that the Navy system is most likely
running a small number of applications (maybe only one?), and that the
system could be tested for a long time under a variety of conditions in its
final configuration.
Given the closed, limited nature of the system, it's probably not
unrealistic to expect vastly different reliability of both hardware and
software than a consumer machine can achieve.
The original poster expressed concern about the reliability of the OS and
the hardware, based on consumer hardware and software installation. That's
probably not the case here at all.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:03:16 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:19:39 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >Are you, Tim Palmer, drooling on your keyboard?
> >> >
> >>
> >> No the lienux poepal are the ones drueling because they wish they had Windo's.
> >
> >If I wish that I had Windows, then why do I not reinstall it on my computer?
> >It's an OEM copy, so I can't use it for anything else.
> >
>
> Because it's not broaken like you LIEnux LIARS clame.
No, it's merely pining for the fjords.
[Dead parrots, anybody?]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:04:12 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:15:23 GMT, cpliu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >With all the hype about Linux, I'd like to give it a try.
>
> You'll find that hipe is just about all thear is to LIE-nux.
>
> >There are so
> >many vendors on Linux, red hat, mandrake, caldera, TurboLinux, etc. Which
> >one should I try? Are there any major differences? interface? How about
> >compatibility between different venders?
>
> Nonexistant. You cant' run a programmm from one distrobutian on another one.
>
That's a lie. I routinely take apps from a Mandrake distribution
and run them my SuSE distribution.
> >
> >This must be a FAQ. Please give me a pointer or two before I get started.
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >
> >CPLIU
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:05:15 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:11:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >On 20 Jul 2000 02:42:38 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 18:52:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>On 5 Jul 2000 13:31:31 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
> >>>>
> >>>>Why? We don't all have to agree.
> >>>>
> >>>>>It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
> >>>>>useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
> >>>
> >>> The "usability issue" with GNOME and KDE are pretty much manufactured.
> >>> Most of the percieved problems with either have more to do with them
> >>> not being exact clones of the current Microsoft interface more than
> >>> any particular failing of either desktop.
> >>>
> >>>[deletia]
> >>>
> >>> AS far as neither being required to have a functioning drag & drop
> >>> graphical desktop: that allows more end user freedom to determine
> >>> for themselves what sort of desktop interface would be most suitable
> >>> and it also allows genuine competition between diverse approaches to
> >>> the same problem.
> >>
> >>
> >>Freedom...you meen moar work!
> >
> > On a daily basis, my system is most certainly LESS work than
> > yours being tuned specifically to my tastes and being rather
> > automated with respect to some of it's frills.
> >
>
> Thats' only because your a FERAK that actually LIKES typing commands.
> all the normall poepal out thear hate Lixnu and will never give up
> Windo's just to use it.
Timmy, are you drooling on your keyboard again?
>
> >--
> > Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
> >
> > That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> > |||
> > / | \
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:14:53 GMT
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:01:27 -0700, Spud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snips]
>
>"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>> > Don't invoke it in the first place.
>>
>> >
>> > Just don't log into the server at the console.
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > Choose not to log in at the console. Telnet in and use the CMD
>CLI.
>>
>> None of these suggestions "disable" the GUI. It's still up, it's
>just
>> running on the login screen. How do you bring up NT in text mode?
>
>It can be done, but the real question is... why do it? Or rather, why
AVOID those "buggy" NT video drivers.
[deletia]
That and it's likely considerably more than 4 Megs that you
are wasting on the Windows GUI.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 15:16:22 GMT
On 21 Jul 2000 03:51:14 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:15:23 GMT, cpliu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>With all the hype about Linux, I'd like to give it a try.
>
>You'll find that hipe is just about all thear is to LIE-nux.
>
>>There are so
>>many vendors on Linux, red hat, mandrake, caldera, TurboLinux, etc. Which
>>one should I try? Are there any major differences? interface? How about
>>compatibility between different venders?
>
>Nonexistant. You cant' run a programmm from one distrobutian on another one.
You are just so ignorant.
Binary package excepted, there aren't any significant
differences between distributions. What differences
there are are more like the variances between individual
Windows machines.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
