Linux-Advocacy Digest #866, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (D. Spider)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Computer and memory (Grega Bremec)
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:10:38 GMT
> >Yes. The word monopoly has its first usage traced to the 16th
> >Century. Source: _Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary_.
>
> Did you read the rest?
I did. The problem that you're having is that when you're
arguing that a definition of the word is no longer appropriate,
you are fighting the simple fact that it is people, in their
usage of the language, who get to define what words mean.
While it is perfectly legitimate for you to proffer a different
definition, you are misfortunately subject to the whim of the
people in general should they desire to use that definition.
For the time being and the likely long-term future, the
primary sense of the word "monopoly" is a company with massive
and near absolute marketshare. That's how people use that
word.
Use of a variant sense is your prerogative, as variant senses
are an aspect of language. If, however, you are using a definition
of a word different than what the average person takes that word
to mean, you can hardly act surprised when miscommunication
arises, now can you?
More the shame on you for ridiculing the intellect of your
peers when such miscommunications occur.
C//
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:29:22 -0500
"Thomas Corriher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 03:42:52 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> This is ridiculously false. Let me repeat *ridiculously*.
>
> > You mean ridiculously.
>
> Correcting my spelling makes you look a little despairate.
> I will check my spelling this time for those with high spelling
> sensitivities.
You mean desperate. The spelling correction was not intended as a cut-down,
just a correction of a mistake. I make mistakes as well and appreciate when
people point them out.
> >> Please educate us on how MS Windo~1 dynamically restructures
> >> memory so that the maximum amount of memory is always
> >> utilized.
>
> > System cache memory is *discardable* under windows. Several
> > algorithms are used, but generally if there is not enough
> > physical memory left to allocate the memory request, Windows NT
> > will do one of three things 1) *Discard* discardable memory
> > segments that have not been used recently (examples of this
> > would be resource data), 2) *Discard* the least recently used
> > system cache pages. and 3) Page out data to the swap file.
> > (generally in that order or precedence).
>
> You still avoided answering: "How does Windo~1 utilize the
> _unused_ memory?". I did not ask about how the cache is freed.
> Also, there is a BIG difference between the words "utilize" and
> "discard". These words are almost complete opposites. You
> have actually proved my point without intending to.
I thought it was obvious. But windows does the same thing (both NT and
Win9x). The system caches increase if there is free memory available to
cache things like files, network data, etc... These caches are at the
lowest priority though, and are discarded when more pressing memory needs
are requested.
> In fact, your whole response just sounds like a description of
> MS virtual memory. (You must have visited the "Knowledge Base")
> You get a gold star for doing your homework. Nevertheless, the
> MS idea of virtual memory is considered piss-poor by the
> majority of those in the non-Microsoft technical community.
No, this was coming from my knowledge. If you think this is a copy of some
knowledge base entry, I invite you to quote which one.
> You can read about the details of the proper way to do memory
> with industry (not Microsoft's) standards at:
>
> http://www.cne.gmu.edu/itcore/virtualmemory/vmideas.html
>
> Here is an excerpt from that page:
> ..
> "Virtual memory not only allows us to have an "unlimited" amount
> of fast memory, but it can easily be adapted to provide a great
> degree of protection. What do we mean by protection? Each running
> process has its own piece of main memory, its own address space.
> We need to make sure that no renegade process can write or read
> into the address space of another user process or even the
> operating system. It would not be a good thing if somebody's
> misbehaving computer game overwrote a program maintaining student
> grades.
>
> (Did you notice the part about protection and renegade processes?)
Yes. NT provides full protection as this describes. Again, you are
confusing NT with Win9x. This discussion is about NT, not Win9x. On top of
that, NT also provides memory scrubbing. It must make certain that memory
it re-uses is set to 0 before handing it back to anyone else. Most modern
Unix implementations and Linux do this as well.
> (continued)
> Another advantage of walling of each process is for system
> reliability. If one process becomes unruly, it can only damage
> its own objects and not the whole system. Many machines that can
> afford to allocate enough memory to hold a process's address space
> often use virtual memory because protection is so important. As
> you can see, unless we provide significant protection, sharing
> memory will be a mixed blessing."
> ..
>
> A mixed blessing indeed. Without protection a computer can easily
> get "the blues" (screens that is).
Again, we're talking about NT. Learn something before making statements
like this.
> >> Erik, you obviously do not understand how temporary data storage
> >> (memory) works in general, and therefore, not not understand how
> >> it is used in either Windows or Linux. I am not being mean here;
> >> just honest. To the technical people here, who do understand,
> >> your arguments make you look very stupid. You are "the emperor
> >> without clothes".
> >
> > I love how you state this without providing a single reason why
> > it's true, much less any evidence to support such a conclusion.
>
> I did not have to provide evidence. You did. Though, I do give
> you some merit this time for describing the MS Swapping/Virtual
> memory management standard. I underestimated your knowledge
> concerning memory storage in Windows; but I reaffirm what was
> said about your Unix knowledge. It is not often that I must
> admit to someone: "I underestimated you", so it is a real
> compliment.
I am not a Unix expert, but I do have a pretty basic understanding of most
subsystems. You, clearly do not even have such a basic knowledge of NT.
> I do have to demerit you for the spelling correction though.
> That gave the appearance that you did not have a counter
> argument with substance. I am not claiming that you do not
> have valid arguments. I am stating that spelling corrections
> sometimes invalidate you more than the people you correct,
> especially on the usenet.
Because I corrected your error, I don't have a basis for an argument.
That's rich. If my argument had been ONLY the spelling correction then you
might have a point.
> > I'm not trying to tell anyone how Linux or KDE works. I'm not
> > arguing about such. I'm talking about NT and how *IT* handles
> > memory.
>
> No, you did. You were making *ridiculous* and uninformed
> arguments about how much memory KDE needs.
No, I wasn't. I was *ONLY* making arguments about how NT worked, and that
similarly configured systems running similar apps use similar amounts of
memory.
> > You clearly have no idea how NT works, do you? Apart from the fact that
> > you're confusing the VFAT filesystem of Win9x with NT, you also are not
> > getting the name right. Windows is 7 characters and would not use the
> > name mangling scheme you are trying to so cutely portray.
>
> I was not really confused about the file systems for any version
> of Windo~1. I was being funny about the "~" character. I think
> that everyone here realizes that. Concerning the file name limits:
> I am aware the some of the past file naming limitations for some
> versions of Windows have been eliminated. Nevertheless, they are
> still amusing when seen from a historical perspective. I am sure
> that most people realize this too. You are simply selectively
> misinterpreting my arguments because you are in denial about
> them. You never did answer the memory configuration, or memory
> utilization questions either.
No, I'm saying that even under DOS, with it's 8.3 filename limit, the name
"Windows" would not have the name mangling mechanism you are trying to
portray. You could at least use a > 8 character word if you're going to do
it. Additionally, the name mangling works by taking the first 6 characters
then appending the tilde. You only used 5.
>
>
> --
> From the desk of Thomas Corriher
>
> The real email address is:
> corriher at surfree.
> com
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:32:21 -0500
"Anthony Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vExs5.3192$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> look's like I stirred up a few wintroll minds oh well. Here's my answer to
> their claims.
>
> Erik:- if you advocate windows & getting work done, why are you browsing a
> linux group. Is this a bizarre new form of Sado-Masochism?
I don't advocate Windows per se. I use both Linux and Windows. I don't
call correcting misinformation "advocating".
> Also, how can I properly configure a machine when the OS decides FOR ME
how
> everything should be set up - and then leaves me to correct it's errors
with
> basic and non-descript tools (namely Control Panel)
And you don't consider vi to be a basic and non-descript tool?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 4 Sep 2000 00:17:56 GMT
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 19:36:55 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> That would be generally true. Neither would a judge, to start with.
>But he'd figure it out, and I'm capable of doing so if the need should
>arise.
Obviously, for someone who is not skilled in the art, to do so requires
some research.
> Currently, I don't buy development tools. But the point is,
>*any consumer in the market* should be, and is considered to be,
>qualified to properly appraise the market. In fact, they're
>authoritative.
And I don't see developers accusing Troll of "monopolizing".
>No, its a trade secret.
So the only difference between the API and the recipe is secrecy.
>>Roberto is an experienced C++ developer, and his ability to identify
>>relevant markets in development tools is vastly superior to yours.
>
>Yea, that would do it. Except for the fact that he doesn't know what
>the concept "relevant market" really means.
In this instance, he seems to understand just fine. You're the one who seems
confused in that you fail to understand what the product is.
>>I don't see how you could argue that QT is a "monopoly" and GTK is not.
>>There is certainly only one implementation of the GTK API.
>
>And so the reason, it seems, that you don't see what I'm saying is
>because you think that being a monopoly means yours is the only
>implementation of something. That's not quite correct, though I'll
>admit it is close.
So can you explain why GTK is not a "monopoly" ?
>Obviously, GTK is a different API, so it would hardly be an available
>alternative for libraries supporting the QT API.
Again, you seem confused about what the product is and hence who the
market is. The argument that the run time library is the product is
severely flawed ( since you could link statically or simply ship
the library with the product. )
The developer is the product. The developer is the customer. A library
that depends on QT is not a "customer". The developer who wrote that
library is. And that developer could choose to use a library other than
QT for the functionality they need. GTK is certainly a strong competitor.
> You are correct that
>the developer's methods and behavior can make the difference in what the
>relevant market is. If the relevant market is "libraries to support GUI
>functions" (if that's an accurate assessment of either QT or GTK), or
>whether the relevant market is "libraries that support the QT API",
My point is that "libraries that support the QT API" is not a valid
market section. The reason why I make this claim is that a "customer"
of QT, namely a developer that requires the functionality provided by
that library, could choose a different library instead.
The point is that you don't need to be a clone of QT to be a competitor.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 4 Sep 2000 00:22:44 GMT
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:58:40 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 23:15:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>still so much debate on the subject. I figure as long as there's
>>>debate, I can't be out of line in debating it.
>>
>>Well apart from your irrelevance, I see no one else flogging this
>>dead horse ( I say dead horse, because harmony is dead due to lack
>>of interest, not due to "legal threats" )
>
>Is that why Roberto still gets hate-mail for being part of KDE?
The people who send Roberto hate mail are evidently more interested
in sending hate mail than they are in developing Harmony ( or doing
anything else constructive for that matter ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:20:05 GMT
It appears that on Sun, 03 Sep 2000 19:35:01 +0200, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Whichever version you have, the key to stability is to avoid
installing anything. Straight out of the box it's stable enough for
desktop use, and if you are *really* careful you can keep it that way.
The main causes of instability are the registry and dll hell, and
those usually become problems after installing and/or uninstalling a
few things. You can still keep it reasonably stable in most cases, but
it means tracking .dlls and the registry yourself, which is not
something the average user is prepared to do. MS *really* doesn't like
you using third party software instead of their broken built-in apps,
so this makes sense from their view - as long as the customers
continue to put up with it.
Personally I *really* don't appreciate that attitude. It wasn't always
that way - there was a time when MS was desperate for people to write
usable programs for their OS and they were happy that people did it.
Then at some point they decided they were ready to market a broken
competitor, and force everyone to use it instead, whether they want to
or not, if they wanted their system to be stable. If MS would go back
to their old attitude, concentrate on their OS and quit trying to
force their apps down everyone's throat, I would be happy with Windows
- as long as it's not on a server, of course.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 4 Sep 2000 00:28:43 GMT
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:53:28 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>No, I'm afraid I can't do that, because I don't know. Perhaps you could
>explain why GTK is an alternative to QT, and what it has to do with
>Eirik's statement?
Suppose I am a potential "customer" of Troll Tech.
The product I am interested in obtaining is a development tool ( namely
QT ). So the set of alternatives to QT is precisely the set of development
tools with comparable functionality. GTK is an example of such a tool.
One might try to claim that the "customer" is the end user of this
developer's product. ( I don't know if you're trying to claim this,
but you appear to do so implicitly ). My counter-argument is that
the developer has the option of linking statically. The user does not
need to license the libraries. For example, I use Netscape but I do not
have a Motif license.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:29:17 GMT
...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
<snip>
>If Americans are so stupid as you imply, then why are you having all
>these problems?
I'm not implying _ALL_ (or most, for that matter) of the Americans are
stupid, I'm implying they're being willingly ignorant of the state of
the world address. You know, there's an ancient Japanese proverb that
says,
"Don't give the beggar the fish he wants - teach him how to catch them
instead."
Think about it for a moment, Chad. Do you happen to sense a shade of
wisdom in it? Could you apply a tiny fragment of it to your statement?
>> "Noooo, we won't tell you how to encrypt your data using 8192-bit
>> strong encryption. But it's not our fault if you can't figure it out
>> on your own..."
>
>What the hell are you talking about?
It's called "paraphrasing". Abstracting one's sayings so far that they
tell us nothing in particular, everything in general about the problem
we're discussing, and then applying them to a practically different
problem, which is similar in key aspects. The (optional) special catch
is that the reapplying can be done in such a way that the original
speaker is presented with the atrocity of their original statement,
but we could say some cynicism is being utilized in that, so it isn't
really pure paraphrasing any more. Useful though.
>Look, I can understand if you're sore because you got left in
>the 20th century, but don't try to blame it on us.
I didn't get left anywhere I wouldn't want to stay, I'm not
complaining about my situation anyway - the ban on exporting software
that used strong cryptography had long before been lifted for my
country. Besides, the mere assumption of everything non-American being
plain obsoleted 20th century crap tells us all a great deal about your
attitude, so I doubt that bothering myself any further would be in
place.
Regards,
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:50:09 -0500
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8oug5k$ne7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh comeon Ingemar. Not even NT that i use stays up two days without a
> reboot.... it just gets slower and slower and slower and finally i have to
> reboot to make it faster.
I posted some screenshots of my task manager a few days ago. It showed that
the distributed.net client on my machine has been running for 707 hours (or
about 30 days). It's now 798 hours. And this is an NT4 machine, the
supposedly unstable version (I do have SP6 applied). I use this machine
daily for software development, internet useage (I have IE 5.5 installed),
and several other tasks. This machine get's heavy useage. It's running a
Diamond Stealth 3D video card (2MB, rather old) at 1152x864 in 16 bit color,
a PII-350 on an ABit BX6 motherboard (over 2 years old) with 196MB of RAM
(of which only about 70MB is used in typical scenarios.
This machine is rock solid solid stable and has never BSOD'd and never
suffers from these mysterious slowdowns people talk about.
> With Win98 forget. If what you say is correct then you have a fresh
install
> and only use 2 or 3 programs. This is actually the secret to run Win98
> stable dont install and deinstall too many programs or otherwise the
> registry acts funny.
My 98SE install is about a year old. My girlfriend uses it daily for
Office/net surfing/game playing. I also have distributed.net running on it
24 hours so it's never shut down. dnet has been going for over 3 weeks
straight now.
> Win 98 is not as unstable has claimed but it is very close and certainly
no
> OS for "real work" - whatever that is :-)
It's certainly not rock solid, but only the most broken apps can bring it
down (that includes faulty drivers).
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 20:32:07 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> >> http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker30_20000830.htm
>
> >Ok, we all know your lame excuse for your sig. What's your
> >lame excuse for starting a totally offtopic thread in
> >c.o.l.a? If you gonna be offtopic, at least do it in
> >the thread where this subject already surfaced, so you
> >don't mess people's score files.
>
> It's because he lives in a grove of birch trees.
>
> A special kind of birch trees, in fact.
>
> John Birch trees :-)
So says the communist agitator
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 19:57:02 -0500
"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
I've had lots of people tell me their machines were unstable. I went to
their machiens and found that they were generally pretty screwed up.
Loading dozens of utilities, several aborted installations (this is a common
one. Someone aborts an installation and then you have some DLL's that are
one version, and some that are another). Antivirus software that really
sucks (these programs, by their nature are designed to interfere with you.
When they don't work properly, they screw everything up).
> > 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.
Once you defrag, files don't magically become fragmented again unless you
are writing to them. Applications stay defragged, which is what most users
are concerned with. Who cares if their word document takes 3 seconds longer
to load unless they are constantly opening and closing them.
> 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.
Not if you don't have apps (and there are lots of apps in lots of markets
that simply do not have Linux equivelants (or equievlants with enough
features to be useable). Non-linear editing for instance.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
