Linux-Advocacy Digest #193, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451760 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Andres Soolo)
Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions (Andres Soolo)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451760 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451760 (tinman)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451760 (Marty)
Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux?
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (abraxas)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:56:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 05:57:50 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:43:59 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:01:05 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> [deletia]
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >> >> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the implementation
>in any
> >> >> >> >> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In
>"solving" it,
> >> >> >> >> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same thing.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> pseudo-pnp does.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> That's a BIG difference.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes it does.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC
> >> >> >> is not something you can use for bragging rights anymore.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What are you talking about? Gadzooks... where do you come up with this
> >> >> >stuff?
> >> >>
> >> >> Personal experience, shared experience.
> >> >
> >> >Ah, so you're the one who used to brag about installing "daughterboards".
> >> >What you just did is what psychologists call "projection". I just call it
> >> >"merrily stuffing words in my mouth to cover your own inadequacies".
> >>
> >> You can always use dejanews if you think you'll actually
> >> find evidence of such things,
> >
> >Evidence of what things? I'll certainly not find evidence of myself bragging
>
> ...of your assertions.
What assertions?! You're the only one foisting assertions with no
explanation. Take this one above for example. How ironic.
> Although you don't seem to think that
> that is required of you so I won't hold my breath.
Which "assertion" of mine would you like me to back up? Everything you've
asked me to back up before has been something you made up yourself and stuffed
in my mouth.
> >about installing "daughterboards" and getting a macho thrill out of it,
> >contrary to your baseless assertions.
>
> No, but you will find evidence of your own 'distaste' regarding
> systems that seem to automate too much, or look too much like
> systems that do.
Asshole: For the THIRD time on this point... I have NO PROBLEM with
automation when it works 100% reliably 100% of the time. You know, if you
actually left the context intact, you'd have nothing at all to say, as all of
your redundant questions and challenges have already been answered.
> >> as opposed to the Redhat PCI/AGP success stories that are
> >> likely to actually be there.
> >>
> >> Hell, even in this thread there's mention by me of successful
> >> PNP with ISA under Slackware 5 years ago.
> >
> >Do you just spout off at random? That has nothing to do with what was being
> >stated.
>
> Sure it does.
Here's the context:
"You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC is not something
you can use for bragging rights anymore."
You claimed that this was your personal experience when I asked you what it
had to do with me. As nonsensical as that was, you then suggested that I look
up on Deja to find evidence that it was your personal experience. You then
tell me that I won't likely find such things and instead will somehow
magically find RedHat success stories. And now you're telling me that what
you suggested I search Deja for were my own alleged "assertions" which you
have not identified. That's not wit, that's idiocy.
> It addresses your weak attempt at being witty
> quite squarely actually.
I'm just trying to make sense out of your seemingly random ramblings. You're
not helping the situation by adding to them. It would help if you could
decide what the context is and stick with it.
> >> >> Very little of it indicates any problem with modern pnp.
> >> >>
> >> >> PCI is quite robust. Why seek to avoid it if there isn't
> >> >> some sort of macho stupidity going on?
> >> >
> >> >Now you can dodge the following question through your usual deletion tactic:
> >> >Where have I indicated that I sought to avoid PCI?
> >>
> >> It's an interface that "assumes the end user is a moron" by
> >> automating a process that previously required arcane knowledge
> >> and manual tweaking.
> >>
> >> It is the facility responsible for those aspects of the Redhat
> >> install that are more automated than other older distros like
> >> Slackware.
> >
> >Are you even conscious when you are writing this crap? That has nothing to do
> >with your accusation that I tried to avoid PCI. Do try to keep up with your
> >own absurd accusations.
>
> Sure it does. It relates to "assuming the user is a moron"
Which has nothing to do with your accusation of my non-existant avoidance of
PCI, bozo.
> >> >> Why seek out the extra work? Why seek out the extra trouble?
> >> >
> >> >For me, "extra work" represents having to figure out how to tell 3 different
> >> >operating systems to recognize that a piece of hardware uses a given set of
> >> >resources. I was saved from this extra work by the simple use of a jumper in
> >> >the past.
> >>
> >> Such things are unecessary if you avoid ISA, which is not hard
> >> to do in this day and age.
> >
> >Wrong. Assume I have a PCI PnP sound card. Said sound card has an SB
> >compatible mode. I want to play a DOS game. Now I get to play the "guess
> >which IRQ" game.
>
> Why?
Because the DOS game needs to know explicitly.
> Just ask the BIOS where your soundcard is.
"Hello Mr. BIOS. Where is my soundcard?" Every time a new piece of hardware
is added or changed, or I disable or enable an on-board COM port for example,
I have to change these settings in all of the DOS apps after figuring out
where it moved in each operating system (which my BIOS cannot tell me
accurately because it is subject to change when an operating system is
loaded).
> You really have no clue at all.
Yet another time you leap on your high horse asserting, without proof or
reasoning, that I don't know what I'm talking about while demonstrating a lack
of thought on your part. Don't you get tired of embarrassing yourself?
> >> Even if you don't, such things are only necessary for legacy
> >> devices. Even so, the likes of Slackware will still "treat you
> >> like a moron" because such "treating you like a moron" features
> >> have been in the core kernel since at least 1995.
> >>
> >> Redhat or !Redhat has little to do with it.
> >
> >Asshole: Listen loud and clear for the THIRD time. I said NOTHING about PnP
> >support in Redhat. I said RedHat gets in my way during the installation and
> >setup the same way PnP gets in my way for configuring hardware. How thick is
>
> No it doesn't.
I'll be the judge of whether or not something gets in my way, thanks just the
same.
> It doesn't 'get in the way' because it is not based on a 20 year
> old bus that never had any notion of autodetection or automagic
> resource allocation built in.
That doesn't mean jack shit. As usual, you've completely missed the point I
articulated several times.
> Short of a lack of IRQ's available, everything is going to be
> correctly and reliabily sorted out by the BIOS.
What color is the sky in your perfect world? Regardless, it still gets in the
way of compatibility with older applications that require static IRQs, as I've
already described.
Look at the big picture:
I was perfectly capable of not being a bozo and assigning the same IRQ to two
different pieces of hardware. What has PnP solved for me? Nothing. What has
it done to get in my way? It abstracted these details from me when I could
find them useful. It allowed my system configuration to change without
notifying me. It forces me to install drivers for devices such as modems
which had not previously required device drivers. And worst of all, it
requires PnP support in every operating system that I intend to boot, each of
which could wind up configuring the devices differently. If I could buy a
system without PnP support, I'd do it gladly. Unfortunately, this would mean
giving up the throughput and compatibility of the PCI bus, so I have to
swallow PnP to get what I really want.
> ISA is another matter, but ISA should have been dead and gone
> 10 years ago....
Too bad the Upgrade Nazis didn't go around grabbing all the functional ISA
hardware and burning it in bonfires in the center of town. Why should I need
to throw out my 56K modem and SB32 sound card when I upgrade my system? Are
my new PCI modem and sound card going to perform better? Not at all.
> Bughat's eccentricities are certainly annoying, and certainly
> something that could be a matter of taste. However, someone
> capable of meaningfully jumping between 9 Unixen shouldn't
> find them too much of a burden or challenge.
As I stated in the beginning, it wasn't impossible, just more trouble than it
was worth. And to me it was worth next to nothing, as I already have an
operating system that meets my needs, both work-related and hobbyist/gaming.
> You should have an interesting reaction to Xfree 4.
When it gets ported to OS/2 I'll have no need to download it. I've already
got a version of XFree86 in OS/2 that meets my needs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:47:35 GMT
Not to discourage debate here, but they've already got a head start on
this over at slashdot.
Moody's arguments are pretty much given the complete overhaul on the
discussion after the article. Unfortunately, there's a major pro-Linux
flavour to most of them (I use both myself, and I would have liked to
have seen a more objective ensuing debate), but for the most part, the
slashdot discussion did a pretty good job at pointing out how premature
his conclusions are, as well as questioning his use of the statistics.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:59:52 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:13:31 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 06:01:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:27:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> Otherwise your rant makes absolutely no sense at all.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >It tends to be difficult to follow when you delete the explanation
>> >> >>> >and fill in the blanks with what you wanted to read.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >See what I mean?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Note: no response.
>> >>
>> >> The best you've come up with is ~ "it automates stuff".
>> >
>> >The best response you can come up with isn't even vaguely appropriate to the
>> >question. Not surprising. Please reread the context again to glean what it
>> >was I was commenting on. Do you read past a 5th grade level? I don't mean
>> >that as an insult. You're honestly scaring me.
>>
>> You scare far too easily.
>
>Apparently not easily enough, as I'm still responding to your vapid tripe.
>Meanwhile, you've still failed to account for how your response could have
>been even esoterically related to my question and the context.
No, you just wish it were so.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451760
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 01:06:53 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest. Note how he still doesn't understand
the difference between replying to someone and taking their advice.
1> Why do you ask, if you believe that question wasn't directed at you?
1> On the basis that I wanted to know.
1> But relevent.
1> On the basis of the amount of time you spent talking to him, obviously.
1> You, Davie, it's all you. ('
1> Could have sworn I just said that. ('
1> Who said anything about taking advice, pookie?
1> Not at the time I said it, you've been avoiding me, and now my feelings
1> are hurt. ('
1> Given that you prefer to spend time with reasonable people, and you
1> spent a good deal of time with me.....
1> Aw, pookie, don't you care?
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 00:31:09 GMT
[no more crossposting to comp.lang.java.advocacy]
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Show me an NT box with 80 GB/sec bandwidth
>> Show me an NT box with 700 GB/sec bandwidth.
> who gives a shit if I could or could not - what does that have to do with
> the topic at hand? Who cares if a single nt box could do this or not. You
> miss the point COMPLETELY, again.
You mean nobody cares whether you've to get one, two or ten $15,000
boxen to handle the load?
>> > Sun is beaten by 3 times the performance on hardware that costs 1/2 the
>> > price! Over and over it's proven that sun hardware costs too much and
>> > delivers squat. The pierced masterbaters who worship sun hardware have
>> > failed to recognize their idol has been left behind...
>> Crack addict....
> oh really? I've got the facts - you don't .
Don't you refer to dot-truth again?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions
Date: 3 Aug 2000 00:36:44 GMT
Des Dougan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know little about FreeBSD, other than its background and that it is
> a closed development rather than the open environment Linux flourishes
> in. That said, I am working with a client who has been led to believe
> that FreeBSD is more secure (as a web hosting platform) than is Linux.
It might likely be true.
Still, FreeBSD isn't developed in a closed circle--just the deciding
people are different.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pain is just God's way of hurting you.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451760
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 01:11:00 GMT
Today's Thorne digest. He still hasn't learned.
1> Tholy Tholenfication Tholed forth:
1> Today's Tholenfication:
1> Prove it, if you think you can.
1> Were you disappointed? Had you rushed right over to get
1> your "package?"
1> Liar.
1> The context is gone. I don't know what it was that I couldn't
1> see, and you haven't elaborated.
1> There's no "verification" in this out-of-context digest.
1> No, I don't see what you mean. What haven't I learned? How
1> does asking me "see what I mean" answer my question?
1> Right, further proof that I haven't learned you're incapable of
1> answering a direct question with a direct answer.
1> That you're incapable of answering a direct question?
1> That you're incapable of answering a direct question?
2> can remove context from what I write? Of course that's why!
2> Irrelevant. He asked you why you want to know the reason he
2> changed his mind. The fact you're not worth his time has
2> nothing to do with asking you why you want to know the reason.
2> No, he stated that he changed his mind, and you asked what the
2> reason was for changing his mind. He then asked you why you
2> want to know the reason. I see why you answer in "digests," it
2> takes your answers away from the actual conversations, and lets
2> you say anything you want, devoid of context.
2> Incorrect, my context removing friend.
2> Tholen: wrrrr... does not compute... danger, Will Robinson,
2> danger...
2> I'll tell Radar, and he'll pass it on to Col. Potter.
2> If so, he has something in common with you, although to a much
2> lesser degree.
2> How about that! You said your statement is ironic yourself.
2> Your honesty is refreshing.
------------------------------
From: tinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451760
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 21:22:20 -0400
In article <NA3i5.1247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest. Note how he still doesn't understand
> the difference between replying to someone and taking their advice.
But Davie-kins, you've clipped all the context, so your point remain
unproven. ('
> 1> Why do you ask, if you believe that question wasn't directed at you?
>
> 1> On the basis that I wanted to know.
>
> 1> But relevent.
>
> 1> On the basis of the amount of time you spent talking to him,
> obviously.
>
> 1> You, Davie, it's all you. ('
>
> 1> Could have sworn I just said that. ('
>
> 1> Who said anything about taking advice, pookie?
>
> 1> Not at the time I said it, you've been avoiding me, and now my
> feelings
> 1> are hurt. ('
>
> 1> Given that you prefer to spend time with reasonable people, and you
> 1> spent a good deal of time with me.....
>
> 1> Aw, pookie, don't you care?
>
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 01:23:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was not aware at all that we were talking about single box versus single
> box. I didn't see that mentioned. I will be interested to see how 32 way
> boxes
(for those who have actual computer experience, "32 way" means 32 processors)
> from Compaq, unisys and others perform again these *nix boxes...
I guarantee, hands down, no contest, that a sun enterprise 10000 running
solaris would absolutely kick their ass.
Compaq doesnt even know what hot-swappable logic boards and gigabit backplanes
are yet.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 01:24:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> oh give me a break - this is from the gay poster child of self-mutilation?
>
Another confirmable lie from dresden black; I am not gay.
:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451760
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 01:22:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Here's today's Tinman digest. Note how he still doesn't understand
> the difference between replying to someone and taking their advice.
Hypocrite:
DT> Witness his continued responses to me, which means that I obviously
DT> am worth his time.
Has Mark Kelly taken your advice?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fred Moody and BugTraq: Is Someone Lying About Linux?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 01:25:32 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:47:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not to discourage debate here, but they've already got a head start on
>this over at slashdot.
>
>Moody's arguments are pretty much given the complete overhaul on the
>discussion after the article. Unfortunately, there's a major pro-Linux
>flavour to most of them (I use both myself, and I would have liked to
>have seen a more objective ensuing debate), but for the most part, the
>slashdot discussion did a pretty good job at pointing out how premature
>his conclusions are, as well as questioning his use of the statistics.
Just examine the per distro breakdown.
Even by itself Redhat only has about half the reported problems
as NT5 with the other distros coming in with about 1/3rd or
less of Redhat's problems.
[deletia]
One could also bother to acknowledge the figures for the other
Unixen in the comparison.
His 'rah rah windows' rant also ignores those numbers.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 3 Aug 2000 01:26:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Have fun with that registry crap
>>
>
> no, YOU have fun with it - *I* never worry about it. Ever. at all. period.
>
It would be particularly in character for a moron like you to think that
a binary configuration file that the entire operating system absolutely
relies on is a good idea.
> hahahaah - kookus, everyone in here except your gay
You lied again; im not actually gay.
> lover
And again, the fact is ive never met this person in my life.
> abracadabra have
> put you in your place and pointed out your lies and fud and trolling but you
> continue to try... you really crack us up...
Another lie; you have actually not disproven anything ive typed.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 01:28:38 GMT
On 3 Aug 2000 00:52:43 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:55:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>>What's the difference between Microsoft's Extortion and Racketeering,
>>and Government Extortion and Racketeering?
>
>The government throw you in jail for tax fraud if you don't pay your
>federal tax, but Microsoft can't do anything if you opt out of the
>Microsoft tax ? Subtle difference.
You can avoid paying taxes the same way you can avoid
paying the microsoft tax: opt out of the system.
Either forego retail computing or forego computing entirely.
In both situations you tend to have a "play the game our way
or do without" kind of alternative.
Apple is affliated with Microsoft now and Linux/BSD circumvent
the old market structures entirely. OS/2 is on it's last leg
and BeOS is yet to really get rolling both due to the 'must
replicate Windows and all 3rd party suppliers' problem.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 01:30:05 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 00:56:53 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 05:57:50 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:43:59 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 23:01:05 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> [deletia]
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> >> >> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the implementation
>in any
>> >> >> >> >> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In
>"solving" it,
>> >> >> >> >> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same thing.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> pseudo-pnp does.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> That's a BIG difference.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes it does.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You're just grousing because adding a daughterboard to a PC
>> >> >> >> is not something you can use for bragging rights anymore.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >What are you talking about? Gadzooks... where do you come up with this
>> >> >> >stuff?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Personal experience, shared experience.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, so you're the one who used to brag about installing "daughterboards".
>> >> >What you just did is what psychologists call "projection". I just call it
>> >> >"merrily stuffing words in my mouth to cover your own inadequacies".
>> >>
>> >> You can always use dejanews if you think you'll actually
>> >> find evidence of such things,
>> >
>> >Evidence of what things? I'll certainly not find evidence of myself bragging
>>
>> ...of your assertions.
>
>What assertions?! You're the only one foisting assertions with no
>explanation. Take this one above for example. How ironic.
>
>> >> >Ah, so you're the one who used to brag about installing "daughterboards".
>> >> >What you just did is what psychologists call "projection". I just call it
>> >> >"merrily stuffing words in my mouth to cover your own inadequacies".
That is most certainly an assertion.
[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
******************************
