Linux-Advocacy Digest #858, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Stuart Fox)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Stuart Fox)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Forrest
Gehrke)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Dale Edgar)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (sfcybear)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (sfcybear)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Pan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 15:57:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse@[127.0.0.1] wrote:
> Notice also that the file name ends with 4 characters since
> I am allowed any file name I choose.
>
> Just like Windo~1, right?
>
Actually Thomas, you've just proved yourself to be completely ignorant
of Windows. You can create a file with any name you like (excluding a
few special characters), with a four (or more) character extension.
Windows (95/98/NT) will generate an 8.3 name for backwards
compatibility, but you can reference either filename.
Where did this myth that Windows can only use three character
extensions originate? Someone used it as proof that a web server
couldn't be running WinNT because "it has an html extension". Is it
because Frontpage generates *.htm files? Or is just that people are
stupid?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:05:03 GMT
In article <39b08bbe$0$26546$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that they have a good point when it comes to DNS. Here is
what they
> have said about it:
>
> "We do have some questions as to what will happen to a company's DNS
under
> the Windows 2000 model. Microsoft has tied in DNS pretty heavily to
AD. In
> fact, Microsoft wants to become the DNS provider in your enterprise.
In a
> multiplatform, multihost environment, you'll need to be very careful
with
> interoperability--and with an eye toward internal politics. Most of
the
> world's DNS today does not run on Microsoft platforms--and fouling up
your
> customers' DNS systems will mess up their Net connectivity. You don't
want
> to go there."
>
Pretty simple to design a system such that the Unix DNS can remain the
root of the companies DNS - e.g. for the Win2K domain use
nt.mydomain.com. That's exactly how we've implemented it, set the
Win2K DNS up to forward to the Unix DNS, let the Unix DNS do what they
like (forward, act as secondary - if they are running the right version
of BIND), no problem. I would have thought that anything that removes
some of the maintenance from the BIND DNS would be received with open
arms...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:15:22 GMT
No, im not a MS employee.
And second..*any* new version *is* more stable than the previous coming from
MS.
FreeBSD -style stability? that vill simply never happen as regard to a MS
OS..why?
'cause (and lets face the hard truth)
*nix system stability is *mainly* due to only a very low-level generic
support for ide-based hardware *and* a minimum multi-media support.
Shure enough if MS would only support scsi and cut down the multimedia
support to a very minimum (as in *nix systems) *and* not having *any*
vendor-specific hardware support (again...as in *nix systems) they would
match *nix system stability for sure.
/IL
PS do take note that it is the intel platform i am talking about DS
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> David Steinberg wrote:
> >
> > Ingemar Lundin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > : Well... NT is a piece of crap!!
> > : Change to Windows 2000 ;-)
> >
> > Wow. What a brilliant solution: declare that what was Microsoft's very
> > best, top-of-the-line, enterprise-ready solution just a few months ago
is
> > crap, and then hand over another $300 to the makers of that "crap" for
> > their newest, best, top-of-the-line, enterprise-ready solution.
> >
> > Say, you don't work in Microsoft's marketing department, do you?
>
> This is so Microsoft.
>
> They always tout that this current version of (pick your product) is:
> stable, fast, etc. unlike that previous bug ridden version. And then,
> with the next service pack or version, they say the same things about
> the previous version.
>
> That is one of my real hard reasons for not trusting Microsoft. You can
> not believe anything they say about their products.
>
> They also have the money to shut the press up as well. Security bugs in
> competitors are announced the minute they are discovered by an
> organization. When security bugs are found in Microsoft products, the
> press waits for Microsoft to have a patch. It is evil.
>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:21:06 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good...here's what Microsoft has been innovating (since 1995)
> http://www.patents.ibm.com/patlist?&like_assc=373780&issuedate_selecte
> d=CHECKED&title_selected=CHECKED&query=Assignee+=+MICROSOFT%20CORPORATION+(3
> 7378 0) &minisd=1995-01-01
No, that's a selection of *patents* that Microsoft applied for since
1995. If you'd bother reading through some of them (have you *ever*
read any of the things you cite?), you'd see that almost all of them are
pretty much non-innovative.
For example, "Heightened realism for computer-controlled units in
real-time activity simulation" seems pretty useful, on the face of it.
Until you read the text, and find out that it's just moving AI concepts
that have been around for the last twenty years onto a flight simulator
combat model.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:34:15 GMT
david raoul derbes wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >david raoul derbes wrote:.
>
> >So while their AGI was 17.4% of the total AGI reported by all taxpayers,
> >they paid 33.2% of all tax revenue garnered by the IRS. Their average
> >tax rate was 27.6%. Compare this with the bottom 50% of filers whose
> >AGI share was 13.8% on which they paid 4.3% of total revenue at an
> >average tax rate of 4.5%. Any mystery why many polls tell us that
> >most Americans don't give a rat's ass for a tax reduction?
>
> But most Americans do pay federal income tax. My guess is that even
> the guy who pays a couple of hundred dollars would prefer to pay
> less, especially as it is likely that the guy doesn't make very mcuh.
It wouldn't be too much of stretch to estimate from the IRS data of 1997
that 60% of Americans pay less than 10% income taxes and that this
item would not be at the top of their list of concerns.
> >I think David makes too much of "rich" people paying zero taxes.
>
> Waitasec. The main thing that exercises me is not a comparative
> handful (my very poor memory of some talking head one Sunday morning,
> Cokie Roberts on ABC to be precise, was several hundred) of well off
> people paying nothing, but that deductions which result in substantial
> savings are available more to the wealthy than to the poor.
I have no idea where Cokie Roberts got her information. Since you are so
positive that there are very high income zero income tax filers, find some
data (after the AMT application) that supports your claim.
> >It is important to keep in mind that this data is dealing with AGI (Adjusted
> >Gross Income), that is, reported earnings AFTER all deductions.
> >BTW this data also provides the totals for the number of filers in each
> >percentile group including the grand total for all filers.
>
> Right, and thanks again for pointing this out. I don't know, and even
> with your excellent sources I haven't been able to find out, what the
> gross income of the top 1% is. I would be grateful to Forrest or anyone
> else for this number.
David, short of being able to see the specifics of individual filers all you
can learn from the 1997 IRS data is that to be within the top 1% of taxpayers
the gross AGI income had to be more than $250,736. You also know that
there were 1,215,000 such fortunate persons and that their total AGI was
$872,834,000,000 from which you can compute a meaningless average.
> I do not want to "soak the rich"; likewise I don't want large tax cuts
> to go to people who really don't need them.
David, that word 'need' always attracts my attention. The important
all-encompassing decision is: Who gets to decide what I need?
I'm dubious of the trust I can put that decision to that 60% of Americans
who pay less than 10% of the tax revenue. We are already at the
stage where those who are getting a relatively free ride get to steer
the ship. What happened to the 14th Amendment's equal protection
of the laws that I am guaranteed?
//
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:35:28 GMT
Reality is a point of view wrote:
>
> +---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (Sun, 03 Sep 2000 14:56:42 GMT):
> | "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> | > Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> | > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> | > [...]
> | > >Left to their own devices, markets correct themselves. Individual
> | > >companies don't stay focused long enough to stay on top long term.
> | <snip>
> | That was a really nice soliloquy, but you didn't come up with an actual
> | example
> +----
>
> OBJS?
>
That's called a correction. The company was stupid, and died
> --
> Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Privacy on the net is still illegal.
> <a href=http://www.squeak.org>Tired of selfish technology monopolies?</a>
--
James A. Robertson
Senior Sales Engineer, Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 12:43:54 -0400
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Good...here's what Microsoft has been innovating (since 1995)
> > http://www.patents.ibm.com/patlist?&like_assc=373780&issuedate_selecte
> >
d=CHECKED&title_selected=CHECKED&query=Assignee+=+MICROSOFT%20CORPORATION+(3
> > 7378 0) &minisd=1995-01-01
>
> No, that's a selection of *patents* that Microsoft applied for since
> 1995. If you'd bother reading through some of them (have you *ever*
> read any of the things you cite?), you'd see that almost all of them are
> pretty much non-innovative.
>
> For example, "Heightened realism for computer-controlled units in
> real-time activity simulation" seems pretty useful, on the face of it.
> Until you read the text, and find out that it's just moving AI concepts
> that have been around for the last twenty years onto a flight simulator
> combat model.
Yes I admit it - I haven't read all 1300 or so patents MS has secured in
the last 5 years. Have you?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: 3 Sep 2000 17:00:03 GMT
On 3 Sep 2000 15:05:02 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: If there were, in fact, teachers that hate you, they can't give you a bad
>: grade simply because they feel like it. If a student feels that he/she has
>: been given an inaccurate grade, they can make a complaint to the school
>: administration. The teacher would have to show the bad work that justified
>: the grade given. If the entire administration hated the student for some
>: reason so that complaints go unanswered, one has to wonder what the student
>: did to get so many people on their bad side.
>
>
>Expressing politically incorrect beliefs will do the trick nicely at
>any state "university" around here.
Nonsense. The chance of the entire administration hating a student is
approximately nill.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 3 Sep 2000 17:01:02 GMT
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 09:34:45 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>
>Good...here's what Microsoft has been innovating (since 1995)
>http://www.patents.ibm.com/patlist?&like_assc=373780&issuedate_selected=CHEC
>KED&title_selected=CHECKED&query=Assignee+=+MICROSOFT%20CORPORATION+(373780)
>&minisd=1995-01-01
Applying for patents is not "innovating".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:12:38 GMT
I (aarrgh!) agree with Eric...
Have a Win98(original)/Win2k/SuSE Linux PC, last week i had Windows 98
non-stop going for 3 1/2 days without rebooting and it worked like a charm.
BSOD? *never*, had one last year with my old Intel 740 graphics accel, but
after shifting to a TNT 2 -based card i've never had one singel BSOD.
Windows *can* function properly *if* you know what you're doing.
/IL
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:Lxrs5.8680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Anthony Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZUqs5.2417$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > After using Linux for many months now, I have recently had to use
W*ndoze
> > for a couple of days. These are just a few things that made me realize
why
> I
> > started to use Linux in the first place
> >
> > 1. I have had to reboot many more times in one day of W*ndoze use (4)
> than
> > many months of Linux use (0)
> > 2. Linux does not crash when you attempt to browse your OWN hard drive -
> let
> > alone a network one
> > 3.Linux does not kill itself when you try to run an old console app,
> unlike
> > w*ndoze with DOS
> > 4. Linux dialup connections do not mysteriously stop working whilst in
> use.
> > 5. Linux does not suffer massive disk fragmentation in basic non
demanding
> > use
>
> Of these 5 things, only number 5 applies to a properly configured machine.
> My windows 98SE box hasn't been rebooted in almost 3 weeks with regular
> useage. My NT4 box over a month. My 2000 box I just rebooted a few days
> ago for SCSI driver update.
>
> And as for #5, if your task is so undemanding, fragmentation shouldn't
> matter. If you're so anal that you must check your disk fragmentation
after
> only using Windows for a few hours, then I suggest you actually try to get
> some work done instead.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 10:08:26 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)) wrote:
>
> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
> >in later. :-)
> >
> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line, in
stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best fits your
situation.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 10:05:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You don't *need* to say more, but a lot more can be said :-)
> Eg Takes ages to load/shut down, Requires 64MB ram to run properly, has
> error messages which don't mean jack schitt, Costs hundreds, No
> source code, monopoly, etc etc etc....
Try these on for size:
Unreconized Operating System Error
Illegal Error
[Continue] [Cancel]
The second message will BSoD if you celete Continue but it you select Cancel
it will BSoD instead.
Does anyone know what they mean?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 09:54:39 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What does one need to do to properly configure their machine to prevent
> #'s 1-4? How does one reconcile the 10% of "properly configured systems
> against the 90% that aren't? On the plus side, since win98se, I don't
> get BSOD'd anymore. I guess Bill was sick of that joke and decided to
> quit giving information on a winfreeze. Now when windows crashes, it
> just locks out all i/o ( keyboard, mouse, modem ) without any
> explanation.
Is that an improvement?!?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Edgar)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:21:44 GMT
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:20:03 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[SNIP - Stuff about corporations matching psychopathic criteria]
I take your point about corporations being a good match to the
psychopathy test criteria. However, a case could be made that
pschopathy is the normal state of affairs and altruistic/cooperative
behaviour to others is not.
For example, many other groups of entities would match the psychopathy
test as well. Ant hills, a pride of lions. They just don't give a damn
about anyone outside the group and even individual members are
expendable.
But these are meta entities. To focus on specific individuals the
alpha male in a gorilla/chimpanzee/bonobo troop could also be
considered psychopathic by much the same criteria as a CEO.
So perhaps it is possible to be psychopathic and yet still be a useful
member of the larger (eco)system as long as the appropriate checks and
balances are in place.
It may even be more stable. I suspect an economy composed of
altruistic cooperatives would soon devolve back into the
"psychopathic" form as competitive pressures are applied. Perhaps the
litigious business environment we currently see is an example of the
appropriate checks and balances evolving.
Regards
Dale Edgar
==============
Powerful, Useful, Free Tools for Internet Explorer
Check Out MantaDB http://www.mantadb.com
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:08:15 GMT
In article <8otsra$emi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <39b08bbe$0$26546$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that they have a good point when it comes to DNS. Here is
> what they
> > have said about it:
> >
> > "We do have some questions as to what will happen to a company's DNS
> under
> > the Windows 2000 model. Microsoft has tied in DNS pretty heavily to
> AD. In
> > fact, Microsoft wants to become the DNS provider in your enterprise.
> In a
> > multiplatform, multihost environment, you'll need to be very careful
> with
> > interoperability--and with an eye toward internal politics. Most of
> the
> > world's DNS today does not run on Microsoft platforms--and fouling
up
> your
> > customers' DNS systems will mess up their Net connectivity. You
don't
> want
> > to go there."
> >
> Pretty simple to design a system such that the Unix DNS can remain the
> root of the companies DNS - e.g. for the Win2K domain use
> nt.mydomain.com. That's exactly how we've implemented it, set the
> Win2K DNS up to forward to the Unix DNS, let the Unix DNS do what they
> like (forward, act as secondary - if they are running the right
version
> of BIND), no problem. I would have thought that anything that removes
> some of the maintenance from the BIND DNS would be received with open
> arms...
In many companies that would require a complete overhaul of DNS and
re-addressing of their workstations. Many places I have worked did _not_
all their MS stuff to one network, Unix and Mac to another. Poor design,
Maybe, but this is the REAL world and not everything is clean or well
designed. The SysAdmin that forgets that is in for big problems rolling
out W2K's DNS.
And what about those multi boot (linux and W2k) boxes????
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:13:47 GMT
> I would have thought that anything that removes
> some of the maintenance from the BIND DNS would be received with open
> arms...
But anything that makes the job managing DNS MORE complicated (i.e.
forcing the use of different servers with different OS for each OS on
the network) is NOT removing some of the maintenance, it is ADDING to
it!
Arms closed!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:15:37 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Good...here's what Microsoft has been innovating (since 1995)
(long tedious URL deleted)
> Yes I admit it - I haven't read all 1300 or so patents MS has secured in
> the last 5 years. Have you?
No, but I know enough about the patent system to know that merely owning
a patent has nothing to do with tru innovation, and a lot to do with
writing down things that might not be obvious to a patent examiner and
getting a piece of paper for it. There have been a lot of cases over
the last few years that have pointed out that the Patent Office has no
real clue about computer software and hardware when it comes to being
non-obvious. You might remember the case a while back where someone
"patented" searches by computer - a completely obvious case of prior art
- and were threatening legal action against practically everyone who
used computer searches in software.
The big question isn't whether or not you've read all of Microsoft's
patents. The question is whether or not you've found any evidence of
real innovation in any of the ones you *have* read.
Remember - a patent only reflects something that is "non-obvious," not
"innovative."
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 19:35:01 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Anthony Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZUqs5.2417$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > After using Linux for many months now, I have recently had to use W*ndoze
> > for a couple of days. These are just a few things that made me realize why
> I
> > started to use Linux in the first place
> >
> > 1. I have had to reboot many more times in one day of W*ndoze use (4)
> than
> > many months of Linux use (0)
> > 2. Linux does not crash when you attempt to browse your OWN hard drive -
> let
> > alone a network one
> > 3.Linux does not kill itself when you try to run an old console app,
> unlike
> > w*ndoze with DOS
> > 4. Linux dialup connections do not mysteriously stop working whilst in
> use.
> > 5. Linux does not suffer massive disk fragmentation in basic non demanding
> > use
>
> Of these 5 things, only number 5 applies to a properly configured machine.
> My windows 98SE box hasn't been rebooted in almost 3 weeks with regular
> useage.
I know manny people that would like to know how you accomplished this! I
have now seen too many people struggling with stability. And I'm talking
about using 98 in a working/business environment. 98 was not designed
for long working in business environments. That's the domain of NT WS
and W2K.
> My NT4 box over a month. My 2000 box I just rebooted a few days
> ago for SCSI driver update.
>
> And as for #5, if your task is so undemanding, fragmentation shouldn't
> matter. If you're so anal that you must check your disk fragmentation after
> only using Windows for a few hours, then I suggest you actually try to get
> some work done instead.
Point is that if your PC starts to fragment in only a couple of hours it
is something to worry about. It also depends on the job being done. Most
of my clients that still use 9x, must defrag at least once a month to
avoid slower performances. While we're on the topic - got a machine in
the other day. The user said it couldn't understand that the machine
just get's slower all the time. They added RAM, totaling about 256MB
over a period of two years - the hardware stores solution to slow PC's.
I then showed them Scandisk and Defrag which was never done. The defrag
status was on 43% on a PC just over 2 years old. Even more interesting
was the fact that this system is an office PC and all work done is
mainly MS Office stuff.
My home system running Linux also does a lot of Office work - in
StarOffice. I don't keep this PC running for long periods of time -
mainly to save electricity. On boot-up yesterday it showed 0.7%
fragmentation on the root partition (/, /usr, /bin etc.) and 2.9% on the
user partition (/home) - Not bad for a system now just over one year in
use...
The other points are also very valid. In the end the fact is: You can do
more work on a Linux system in the same time period then on a Windows
system. Why? Points 1 to 5 as the person mentioned.
It's as simple as that...
Nico Coetzee
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
Never have so many understood so little about so much.
-- James Burke
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 10:43:25 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From miscrosofts's pov, perhaps. It means no more BSOD jokes.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What does one need to do to properly configure their machine to prevent
> > #'s 1-4? How does one reconcile the 10% of "properly configured systems
> > against the 90% that aren't? On the plus side, since win98se, I don't
> > get BSOD'd anymore. I guess Bill was sick of that joke and decided to
> > quit giving information on a winfreeze. Now when windows crashes, it
> > just locks out all i/o ( keyboard, mouse, modem ) without any
> > explanation.
>
> Is that an improvement?!?
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
