Linux-Advocacy Digest #904, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why use Linux? ("Spud")
Re: Why use Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows98 ("Spud")
Re: Why use Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows98 ("Spud")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:46:30 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : The Soviet oil max-out happened in 1988. The collapse was in 1989.
> : Coincidence? Not hardly. Just keep swinging in the birch branches, fool. The
> : same fate awaits us. We already see the writing on the wall. The non-OPEC oil
> : production worldwide is about maxed out now. Why else does OPEC have to up
> : production to keep petrol prices stable? Just wait for the fun and games when
> : OPEC maxes out.
>
> The world's capacity to produce oil, or any other commodity, is not a
> constant. It is determined by price. We can produce a great deal
> more oil than we do, if buyers are willing to pay more for it than
> they do now. However, it takes a lot of time and a lot of money to
> bring new capacity online, or to restart previously idled exploration
> and production efforts. It would take a much longer and/or bigger
> jump in oil prices than anything we've seen (thus far) to justify this
> cost.
>
> The world will not run out of oil. However, the oil that exists may
> become more expensive to produce, if consumption in the long term
> outpaces new discoveries. (This has never happened, but someday it
> very well might.) If that happens, then prices will rise, and demand
> will fall along with the rising prices, as people consume less and
> develop other alternatives that become more economically attractive by
> comparison.
>
> Doom and gloom is not warranted. Caution is. Oil is probably not a
> renewable resource, and we should welcome, rather than fear, the day
> when the laws of supply and demand force us to seek and find a better
> alternative.
You must understand Bloody Viking, he is a mental midget and
professional
viiiiiictiiiiim (despite spent half of his life as a petty officer
in the navy).
>
> Joe
--
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: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:50:51 -0700
[snips]
"Oldayz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I see what you're saying but I have to disagree - what we were doing
was
> definitely typical home usage (unless you consider multitasking to
be
> outside of that field).
> >> That's not acceptable. If everyone had a dualboot system to start
with,
> >> linux/kde|gnome and win98, do you really see people using win98?
> >
> >Absolutely; if nothing else, as a games platform.
>
> I agree - at first, people who play alot of games would keep booting
back
> to windows for them. But not everybody plays alot of games, and
linux
> has several better games - like homm3, mythII, quake3, civ-CTP.
> But in a matter of one year, game manufacturers would switch to
linux,
> seeing that everybody uses linux with the exception of playing
games.
Everybody? Funny; in our office, I can count on one hand the number
of people who use Linux outside of work; there are two, out of about
90 people. Three if you count me, but I don't really use it, I just
play with it.
Let's see. That's 2 out of 90. Add in my family, my gf's family, we
have another dozen-odd computer users, none of whom use Linux. Got a
buddy of mine who's a Linux consultant... he just installed Win2K and,
somewhat abashedly, concluded he really liked it; now he's still
working with Linux, but apparently prefers Windows.
Okay, so we're up over a hundred, three of whom use Linux. Where's
this "everybody" nonsense coming from?
> >Ahh, notice anything? I do. NT didn't crash. This tells me she
was using
> >the _right_ tool for the job. She's in an office environment, so
she's
> >running NT, where IE crashing doesn't also bring down her other
apps and
> >documents. Again, right in line with what I was saying.
> >
> >Do, please, keep up with such stories - they just help prove my
point.
>
> The point of the story was to prove that people keep using MS
software
> even if it's quality is unacceptable
Which part? The part where NT stayed up, didn't crash, and let you
get on with your work? Must be; the fact that IE crashes occasionally
isn't relevant; I've had NS crash as well, both under Windows and
Linux, so the issue of the browser crashing is just noise; the only
relevant point is whether or not - as was your initial complaint - the
OS crashed when the application died. It didn't. Voila; you've just
supported the notion that MS OSen can, in fact, be quite acceptable,
based on the criteria you yourself have related.
Your point?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 00:56:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Spud in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Not quite; what I'm saying is, it was really intended as a single-user
>desktop system, where crashes were at best annoying, not fatal... so it was
>designed more for ease-of-use than stability. In those environments, is it
>stable enough? Yes. In more critical environments, such as an office, is
>it stable enough? Possibly not - but then, why are you running it in that
>environment anyway?
Christ. And here I am getting flamed for suggesting that CMT might be a
good idea. If you want to know why we're running it in environments it
isn't usable for (all), don't ask us. Ask the OEMs that agreed to
per-processor licensing agreements.
[...]
>> too. I was _shocked_. My impression before that was that win98 is quite
>> a bit slower and bigger but stabler and has more drivers and stuff, but
>> it seems that it's ridiculously unstable. My guess is that people in
>> general don't multitask much (especially fat programs like photoshop and
>> homesite, dreamweaver) and use IE only by itself and use autosave feature
>> all the time (if a said program has it).
>
>Again, depends on the use. We have a Win9x box we run a server off... but
>the server's only purpose in life is to host a webcam. The box is also used
>for games, minor web maintenance, e-mail, and other light-duty stuff.
>
>We also have a Win2K box. Guess which box we run the heavy server off, the
>server that actually makes us some money? Guess which box we use to
>maintain >1Gb of web content?
Guess which server costs hundreds of dollars more and provides thousands
of times less reliability than Linux?
>Again, let me reiterate; if you're doing typical _home_ use things -
>maintaining your 10 page web site, writing letters, doing home accounting,
>etc - then the occasional crash isn't a big deal; at most it's annoying,
>you're not losing any data likely to cause you financial hardship.
For home users everywhere, allow me to summarize our response: fuck you.
We paid for the sucker, we expect it to work. None of this "oops; your
problem" shit.
>If
>you're working on sensitive data, anything that will cause you such
>hardship, then you're using the wrong tool for the job.
That isn't what Microsoft said. Are you lying, or were they?
>> That's not acceptable. If everyone had a dualboot system to start with,
>> linux/kde|gnome and win98, do you really see people using win98?
>
>Absolutely; if nothing else, as a games platform.
Not if there's dual boot. Windows is a crappy games system. It just
has the majority of gamers using it because of that little pre-load
per-processor thing. You fucking lying bastard^w^w^w^w.
>> One more story from my work: I had to come over to a coworker's system to
>> go to some website and show her something. I looked for Netscape but she
>> didn't have it. I started IE and went to the site. Crash. It was NT so IE
>> crashed alone and I simply had to restart it. Go to that site again,
>
>Crash!
>
>Yeah, I've run across a couple of sites like that.
>
>Note a couple of thngs here, though...
>
>1) The discussion was about Windows 98.
>2) Now you're discussing IE and NT.
Now if only IE was not force bundled with Windows 98....
>3) The main issue with Windows 98 was stability.
The *only* issue with Win98 is its a piece of crap.
>4) NT didn't crash when IE went down.
That's because it isn't DOS. It isn't because its not crap, though.
Win98 may have improved on DOS, but NT certainly didn't improve on VMS.
>Ahh, notice anything? I do. NT didn't crash. This tells me she was using
>the _right_ tool for the job. She's in an office environment, so she's
>running NT, where IE crashing doesn't also bring down her other apps and
>documents. Again, right in line with what I was saying.
And right line with MS, now, too. Charging hundreds of dollars, rather
than $40-$90-$180 dollars for DOS-based Windows, is now the "oh, you
should have..." line from Mickeysoft, as well. Those fucking criminal
bastards.
>Do, please, keep up with such stories - they just help prove my point.
Your point is most certainly and definitely moot. I'm the *rational*
side of this argument. Most here would not give you the time of day,
and wouldn't be so civil in telling you where to shove it.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:01:52 -0700
[snips]
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >In general, if Windows dies - which can happen;
>
> Can it ever. Windows dies all the time; almost routinely.
Twaddle; my Win2K box has gone down twice in the last year, and in
neither case was the OS at fault.
> >I had a
> >server keel over and die last night, actually... thanks to a faulty
> >drive.
>
> Thanks to faulty design and a possible bug in a driver.
Nope; thanks to a hardware failure. Here, tell you what - I'll set up
Linux on an HD, make sure it all works... then pull the cover off the
HD and fry it. If you're going to tell me Linux will keep working
reliably, well, sorry, you're just lying through your teeth. Linux
won't - nor will Windows.
> > Arrgh! - you probably will have to reinstall your apps. One
> >of the nice things about MSI, Microsoft's new installer technology,
is
> >that it makes the process ridiculously easy and quick - especially
for
> >clients - and more so when managed by a 2K network.
>
> And more so when you sell your soul to Bill Gates.
Soul? Sorry, wasn't aware I'd sold my soul.
> What kind of a moron
> would excuse, let alone celebrate, that you can only use the full
> capabilities (I use the term 'full capabilities' guardedly, at best,
in
> this context) of their installation package if you are using a W2K
> server?
Downtime minimization is _not_ simply a matter of installing software;
it involves a lor more. MSI manages the installation portion of
that... along with some other handt bells and whistles - but it is
_not_ the totality of the picture of network management and downtime
minimization.
> >Example: I drop a bomb on a client PC. Oops. Drop a new client PC
> >in, with Win2K Pro (or even Win98+2K client tools) installed -
which I
> >can do from a drive image in a matter of a few minutes. Log onto
the
> >server and voila! There's your desktop, just the way you left it.
> >With your applications ready to use.
>
> Drop an identical computer from the same OEM batch with identical
> hardware and firmware on the desktop, or your "drive image" is going
to
> make you want to drop another bomb on a client PC. "Oops."
Twaddle. We do it with different boxes regularly. Oh, yes, that's
right, I forgot... you have to have a netadmin with a half a clue...
something you apparently seem to be in short supply of. Well, when
you get one, you'll witness the wonderful world of reduced downtime.
> Only happens once under normal circumstances. Of course, that
includes
> Windows PCs frying themselves without the necessity of dropping
bombs on
> them. So when you start up your PC on a W2K 'network', it will take
> twenty minutes copying all of the apps (using NetBIOS, I'm sure)
from
> the server (with no user controls, I'm sure).
Only if your netadmin is an idiot; otherwise it shouldn't take more
than a minute or two, tops.
> >All told, the process of removing the old machine, dropping in a
new
> >machine and getting the user back to work should be readily
> >accomplised in under an hour, if you've spent a little time up
front
> Could have done that thirty years ago with Unix. Still can.
Whoopee; you can do it with Unix, you can do it with Windows, you can
probably do it with other platforms. Some silly fart, though, was
suggesting that somehow Windows falls down in these areas.
> >In a home-user environment, it's not quite that simple. Then
again,
> >in a home-user environment, it's also not usually that critical.
>
> Because in a home environment, people are used to getting screwed by
> Microsoft and blaming it on their own incompetence.
What, like Mnadrake's inability to configure something as basic as a
sound card without locking solid? Oh, yeah. I forgot, Linux has _no_
bugs or issues at all. The whole argument here is pathetic; "Windows
is bad... because it offers solutions to problems which other
platforms offers, and has some bugs, like other platforms."
If you want to play this game, at least _pretend_ that your arguments
don't attack Linux just as readily as Windows... or you end up looking
silly.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 01:06:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Spud in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[snips]
>
>"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Spud wrote:
>
>> But should a bad app be able to take down the system? I have had
>> Netscape crash in Linux, but Linux keeps right on going.
>
>In an ideal world, nothing short of CPU failure should bring down the
>system. Microsoft does offer platforms which prevent applications bringing
>down the OS; if that's a criteria for your decision to use an OS, why are
>you using one of the OSen which _doesn't_ offer that?
Sorry, you're over-doing the point. NT still doesn't prevent
applications from bringing down the OS anywhere *near* as much as any
Unix does.
>"Gee, I need a car that offers me some protection against my being totally
>mangled during crashes. This one has air bags, crumple zones and several
>other related features. That other one doesn't. I'll take the second one.
>Hey, why doesn't this car have the safety features I wanted?"
More importantly, why did you buy it? Perhaps the car dealership had a
per-processor contract with Microsoft, who has a monopoly on car safety
systems, and their safety systems *suck*. And have been marketed for
*years* as including air bags, crumple zones, and several other related
features.
[...]
> Was Win9x designed for anything besides lining Microsoft's pockets?
>
>Absolutely. As an easy-to-use, friendly home-user platform. Compare NT4
>and 98; which one plays most games? It ain't NT; it was intended for use in
>environments where stability, not playtime, was the key feature. 98 went
>the other way. Picking 98 and then complaining it lacks the stability one
>needs is silly; if you needed the stability, why didn't you pick NT?
That is such a load of utter crap, I'm almost too nauseated to respond.
Your "98 is for games" bullshit is a pathetically regressive defense of
DOS-based Windows, because that is, in fact, where the games are
produced. It doesn't have anything to do with which OS "supports"
either gaming "playtime" (whatever the hell *that* was supposed to mean)
or 'stability'. Its because Win98, and its DOS based predecessors, were
forced on the consumer market, which includes the home market. There is
no *way* MS could have forced NT on the home market, at the outrageous
prices they're charging (particularly considering its only marginal
capabilities beyond what DOS-based Windows can provide, which is mostly
a familiar GUI), so nobody has it at home, so nobody plays games on it a
lot, so no game developers bother to support it.
I've seen some asinine trolls before, but entirely inverting the
marketplace as most self-serving to such a pathetic line of MS droid
bullshit has got to take the cake.
>The usual answer is one of two: 1) It doesn't play the games or 2) It costs
>more. Both of these show that stability was _not_ the feature sought after;
>in one case it was entertainment value, in the other, it was purchase cost.
>Fine, those are reasonable bases for making decisions... but if you use them
>and decide not to get the more stable platform, don't whine about it not
>being stable; you had the choice, you chose not to go that way.
I don't even think its worth bothering to try to figure out what line of
bullshit you're prattling on about at this point. You have it so
ass-backwards, you couldn't have a point if you stuck your cock in a
pencil sharpener.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 22:08:18 -0700
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Example: I drop a bomb on a client PC. Oops. Drop a new client
PC
> > in, with Win2K Pro (or even Win98+2K client tools) installed -
which I
> > can do from a drive image in a matter of a few minutes. Log onto
the
> > server and voila! There's your desktop, just the way you left it.
> > With your applications ready to use.
>
> Wow...just like what Unix had in 1985!
Fine; if you're working on a machine in 1985, choose Unix. If you're
working on a machine today, the fact Unix had it first is totally
irrelevant. Oh, and if you figure out how to get back to 1985 in
order for your comments to mean something, let me know; I'm sure the
world would benefit from a time machine.
Anyone who chooses a platform or tool based on who had it first is in
bad shape; what matters is what's here now, and whether it does what's
needed now. I'd hardly pick a Ford because they happened to be the
first ones to adopt air bags (if in fact they were); it's a stupid
basis for choosing a vehicle.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
