Linux-Advocacy Digest #920, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451793.jd4387t ("Joe Malloy")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joe R.")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (D. Spider)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Eric Remy)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:51:29 GMT
In article <Oe_s5.32731$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > what do you think "partial-birth abortion" is, other than
> > > infanticide in ribbons and fancy-wrapping paper.....
> >
> > It's an extremely misleading phrase brought to you by the same people
> > who claim that the inheritance tax is "grave robbery" and that providing
> > affordable prescription drugs to the elderly is "risky government
> > spending," while missile defense system that probably won't work is
> > "essential to national security."
>
> Make no mistake, partial birth abortions are infanticide and have nothing
> to do with a woman's right to choose.
>
> "A partial-birth abortion is performed in the second and third trimesters
> and entails (1) inducing a breech delivery with forceps, (2) delivering
> the legs, arms and torso only, (3) puncturing the back of the skull with
> scissors or a trochar, (4) inserting a suction curette into the skull,
> (4) suctioning the contents of the skull so as to collapse it, (5)
> completing the delivery. A partial breech delivery is not considered a
> "birth" at common law, where it is the passage of the head that is
> essential."
>
> ...delivering partially... puncturing skull...suctioning out the brain...
> delivering products of murder
>
> There are few other such henous acts of violence and savagery that
> could take advantage of such innocence.
>
Agreed.
Someone asked one of the Partial Birth Abortion advocates what happens
if the doctor slips and completely delivers the baby before killing it.
I can't remember what they said, but it's pretty absurd that legally,
it's murder if the head comes out of the birth canal, but it's legal if
the head does not.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:53:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe R." wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It is the HIGHT OF ARROGANCE to consider that man has even a noticable
> > > impact on climate,
> >
> > And the height of lunacy to refuse to consider it.
>
> I've considered. Then I've looked at the numbers.
>
> Take ALL CO2-producing human activity on the face of the planet, and
> it amounts to a mere fraction OF JUST THE TERMITES (1/20th, to be
> exact).
First of all, I doubt your numbers. Please feel free to provide them.
Second, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. In fact, it's one of the
weakest. There are materials which have many orders of magnitude higher
greenhouse effect.
Third, you're assuming that greenhouse gases are the only impact humans
have had on the environment. They're not.
Finally, you're assuming that the system can't be upset by even a small
change in the environment.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451793.jd4387t
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:53:25 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Interestingly, he still didn't respond to the
proof of his continuing lies, but engaged in his "parrot" mode again.
Typical. To the digest!
[Nope, nuthin'!]
Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:04:13 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p0t63$8us$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[sorry about the empty followups, it would appear slrn has been hiccuping]
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8outs2$liu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You're kidding, right ? You seriously consider the current method to be
> > *worse* than the ones above ? The only one that anyone might consider
as
> > better is the "trade a manual page for an upgrade".
>
> No I am not kidding, I am speaking with the experience of someone who has
> lived through the times that these other mothods were predominate and I
have
> worked with each of them from both the consumer and producer side of the
> equation.
As I said, I like what little privacy I have. Hence, I consider the need to
register with a software developer to be eligible for an upgrade discount to
be unacceptable.
I daresay the market has changed markedly since that particular method was
in wide use.
> The current method is the worse of the possibilities because of its has a
> failure mode that is its critical weakness. The requirement of readable
> distribution media from a pervious version of the product. All media
> becomes unreadable with time. If someone has been upgrading every year or
> so using the current method for 10 years, then his media to prove his
right
> to upgrade is 10-years or more old.
You don't need the ten year old version to upgrade, you need the version
before the current one - ie the one it is upgrading.
> When it it fails to be radable at all
> and perhaps the company responsible for the software is nothing but a
> memory.
So how are they still releasing upgrades ?
> How can the person again install the most recent version of the
> software from its still readable media?
In the unlikely event that the last verion they have has "gone bad", the
company no longer exists and there are no workarounds, then the customer is
SOL.
Much like they would be using the registering method if the company lost
their database of customers......
> Of course the best possible upgrade would be fair pricing. Price the
> product to provide a fair profit and yet be low enough to be acceptable to
> both old and new users without having to resort to upgrade gimicks.
So let's say Microsoft priced Windows to receive "fair profit". That would
put Windows at about $20, due to its enormous volume.
"Dumping!", they cry.
> If a fair price for a product would be $50.00, don't price it at $200.00
and
> so that providing a $100.00 upgrade deal would seem to be a bargin.
Windows is fairly priced, when you compare it to *comparable* products.
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:54:06 GMT
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef:
>snip<
:> What legal reasons do you have for not being able to create DVD software
:> for, say, Linux? The legal issues are that you have to license to stuff
:> and keep it closed source.
:
: What if you link with a GPL program, as most are on linux?
: You do know the GPL right?
Applications that run on Linux do not need to be GPLed, and may
aren't (Netscape, Oracle, Sybase, etc, etc).
However, a GPLed DVD player is impossible for all practical
intentions as the holders of the DVD encoding algorithm patent (not
copyright, AFAIK) do not want the algorithm public in any way,
shape, or form. See www.2600.org for details of what happends to
you if you attempt to make said algorithm public...
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:56:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Make no mistake, partial birth abortions are infanticide and have
> > nothing
> > to do with a woman's right to choose.
>
> It has something to do with her right to choose, but what
> right to choose is that, you ask? Answer: the right to live.
Except that by the time a partial birth abortion is done, the baby could
just as easily have been delivered and, in some cases, lived a normal
life.
>
> Partial birth abortions aren't used as a form of birth control,
> you know...
That's true. Birth control prevents births. Partial Birth Abortions
merely ensure that the birth is a dead baby.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:57:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <Bt_s5.32780$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > However, by the 3rd trimester, C-sections become more and
> > more possible and with todays medical technology, children
> > as small as 3-4lbs can live to see long healthy lives
> > which makes the need for PBAs unecessary and, in fact,
> > counterintuitive and unethical.
>
> "can" live to see long healthy lives, but depending on the chances that
> this will happen it's not clear to me that it's really unethical. My
> understanding was that for most of these children the likelihood of a
> normal life is not very good.
Not really. In most cases, it seems to be "I changed my mind and don't
want to have a baby after all".
>
> (Note, I don't like PBAs, but I would defend their use to protect the
> life of the mother, and I support bans with such exceptions.)
There is virtually alway such an exception in every proposed law to
regulate abortion.
------------------------------
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: 5 Sep 2000 12:59:48 GMT
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:52:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>OK then may I offer a couple?
>
>The Standard C Library and the standard iostreams classes of C++. On many
Both of these have something in common -- they are standard libraries.
( meaning ISO standards ). This isn't really the same as Qt, which is
a vendor product. A fair comparison would be something like MFC or
OWL
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:59:27 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 07 Aug 2000 17:03:37 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In
The Machine) wrote:
>In a similar vein, the logic copied above doesn't work, either.
>DOS has a number of capabilities, but multitasking is not one of them.
>Therefore, DOS and Linux are not equivalent. (DOS is also lacking
>in a lot of other stuff, but multitasking is arguably the most
>obvious.)
>
>This doesn't mean that DOS is better than Linux, it just means
>that they are quite different. (I would contend that Linux is
>better than DOS, but that's merely my opinion, backed up by a
>few issues such as memory usage and ease of development and
>deployment.)
Actually DOS systems could multitask quite well if set up properly.
Quarterdeck did a great job of making that work (with Desqview/X you
even got an X server in the deal,) and NovellDOS (DRDOS) supported
multitasking as well. DRDOS is still available from Caldera, and I
believe it's seeing some use still, but primarily in embedded systems.
>>>unix/Linux provides a unix/Linux in a window solution through xterms. That
>>>would mean the Linux is inferior to Linux.
>>>
>>>Linux also provides a Windows in a window solution through wine.
>>
>>Windos can run Lienux thru VMWARE.
>
>I wouldn't doubt it, actually, since VmWare simulates a PC.
>Why anyone would want to do so is an interesting question, admittedly. :-)
>
>>
>>>
>>>Linux also provides a just about anything that can run on a PC (including
>>>Linux) in a window solution through VMware. Meaning that just about
>>>anything that can run on a PC (including Linux) is inferior to Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>>Conslusions of these expansions of Tim's position:
>>>
>>>Windows can be viewed as an application that runs under Linux.
>>>
>>>Windows is so bad that it is inferior to the undesireable Linux which is
>>>inferior to even itself and is the equivlent of Dos.
>>>
>>>Windows is inferior to Dos.
>>
>>No Windo's is better than DOS.
>
>I have to agree with you on that one. Windows is superior to DOS.
Perhaps you'll be surprised that some of us don't agree? ;^)
DOS for PCs is pretty well dead, admittedly, but that's because MS got
all the development shifted to their GUI API. If the programs were
still available, I'd much rather have a DOS PC with Desqview/X than
any version of Windows. Might well even prefer it to my Linux box, not
as stable, but still a lot more stable than windows, and a bit of
instability can be tolerated in a workstation.
>It's also more complicated, graphically aware (anyone else remember
>Borland's BCI? :-) ), and doesn't have some of the other issues
>that used to bedevil DOS, mostly the issue of conventional memory
>versus extended/expanded, which was worked around in a number of ways.
>With Win32, it ceases to be much of a worry at all; one just allocates
>memory in a flat 32-bit address space -- a major convenience.
But, as you reference in passing, there were quite workable ways to do
that with DOS as well.
#####################################################
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: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:10:11 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p2p3i$kff$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : records are used to locate the various Active Directory service
providers
> : (such as Domain Controllers), obviously A records (dynamically created
by
> : Win2K hosts) are used to locate machines.
> : So as long as BIND supports
> : 1. SRV records
> : 2. Dynamic updates
> : 3. Incremental transfers
> :
> : it will enable all the features
> :
> :
>
> You still did not address Guillano Colla's points:
Done in a previous post, do give me a chance to keep up...
>
> > I tried to follow the discussion, even if I'm not really
> > expert on networking issues. What I got is that in order to
> > have a standard network feature like DNS work with W2K you
> > must figure out how to do it, then modify something, install
> > something, write scripts etc. in other components of the
> > network. In my textbook knowledge, the basics of networking
> > are that you may interconnect different users and servers
> > without anyone being aware of what are the insides of the
> > other, in order to avoid countless problems. That's
> > something having even a standard name: "interoperability".
> > If Microsoft has achieved to foul that with W2K, the only
> > conclusion is that W2K is crap, not a debate on how to make
> > this crap work.
>
> To recap. To get DNS to work with DNS you have to:
> (1) figure a work around
> (2) modify several things (e.g. workstations) or
> (3) install something (e.g. get the latest version of BIND?)
> (4) write scripts
No. You have to find the best architecture for your environment, which
could involve all or none of those things. You can't just leap in and
implement it without understanding the technology and the environment you're
implementing it in.
>
> On the final point, you say writing scripts is trivial even without
> documentation. You mean Joe six-pack of the street could figure
> out DNS for W2K using scripts, without any documentation whatsoever?
> Thats RUBBISH. Any scripting language requires some learning. Its not
> something you are born with.
Matt claimed documentation was not available as well (but convieniently
failed to specify what documentation)
Documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting
http://www.perl.org/
http://www.activestate.com
Depends on what scripting technology to use
>
> The BASIC issue you are failing to grasps is that DNS should be trivial,
> seamless, and cause little disruption as possible. But you maintain
> your ESOTERIC solution is "trivial", which is why Max said you are
> just spouting a press release.
My "esoteric solution" was based on red herrings and objections thrown up by
Matt. I provided workarounds (simple, manageable) to the issues he raised.
Like I've stated in many posts, there is no one size fits all solution, a
lot will depend on your current architecture.
Seriously guys, if I'm going to have to solve all your problems for you,
I'll have to start charging you. I'll give you a discount cause you're COLA
readers...
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:14:49 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>What do you expect from the guy who said that software products can't
>>be damaged because it's all just bits?
>
>What, they get dented in shipping;
>
Ah, so getting dented in shipping is the only way for a product to
become damaged, eh Max? Who's using "common wisdom" now?
Look, you're welcome to continue formulating theories about things of
which you're totally ignorant. Don't be surprised, however, when those
theories end up being ludicrous and people let you know about it.
>
>how many months ago was that, or is
>it just something you're misquoting from recently, or just entirely
>making up?
>
Me: BTW, because Windows had shipped with a componentized IE for
quite a while before the case went to court, MS is *ENTIRELY*
correct when they say that removing it is impossible without
damaging the product.
You: That's bullshit. Its software. Nothing can "damage" it.
http://x65.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=651284099&CONTEXT=968159314.680525832&hitnum=0
>
>What the hell are you talking about? Stop being an ass; if
>you don't have an argument, shut your stupid trap.
>
Heh. Looks like your flames need as much work as your theories.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:17:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>> Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >What a voucher system does is separate those people who care about their
>> >kids' education from those who don't.
>>
>> Well, unless you're going to insist on punishing a child for their
>> parent's neglect...
>>
>> I can't go on. That thought by itself is just *so* reprehensible. Give
>> me a moment....
>>
>> What a voucher system does is benefit those who are in the best position
>> at the cost of those who are in the worst.
>
>Do you even have a vague understanding of how vouchers work?
Yes.
>Obviously not.
Why do you say that?
>Vouchers would allow many people who can not currently afford private
>schools to use them.
That would be another way of describing it. What makes you think this
conflicts with my description?
>> >If demand for private schools exceeds available space, more schools will
>> >be created.
>>
>> If demand for private schools exceeds available space, then they should
>> be shut down and the money diverted to public schools. If better public
>> schools are needed, better public schools will be created.
>
>I see. So you're opposed to people being able to choose how to educate
>their kids?
>
>Not surprising given your penchant for having the government control
>every element of everyone's lives.
I just recognize the importance of public schools. Get a grip. Or
should I say, "Get your head out of your ass." The validity of my
position is not dependant on nor indicated by how ludicrous you can be
when you misrepresent it.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: [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: 5 Sep 2000 13:18:09 GMT
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:14:31 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>No, the customer is the customer who wants KDE. They chose that over
>GNOME, for whatever reason, we won't second-guess them.
KDE vs GNOME usually boils down to Qt vs GTK. You say "we won't second
guess them", but in a scenario that is hypothetical, we must be prepared
to assign reasonable motives to our characters.
> He has to
>develop a KDE app, which is an open platform, which the customer
>demands, and he needs a library that supports the QT API. When KDE (by
>proxy for Matthias, et. al,) promoted an open platform, equally
>accessible to all application producers to provide a competitive
>environment for GUI Linux software, they did not have the right to
>shackle any who approach their offer with a demand from Troll Tech,
>merely because they used QT's API. This provided a business opportunity
>to Troll Tech, yes, but also to anyone else who wished to also support
>the QT API, which Troll Tech defined, but does not own.
Nice idea in theory. In practice, KDE requires Qt. Not just "an application
that supports the Qt API", but Qt, as released by Troll Tech. Why is this ?
Because the reality of the matter is that developing drop-in replacements
for complex APIs is not terribly feasible.
>How's that for a verdict from the street?
It sounds like a verdict from someone who is ignoring the technical realities
of the matter.
>>I don't believe it would be that much different. GTK is similar enough
>>to Qt that a Qt programmer could start coding immediately if they had
>>the GTK docs in front of them.
>
>Why would you assume coding is a once and done deal and all decisions
>are final? This is *soft*ware. What is important is how costly it is
>to *switch* from one to the other after the fact, I think, when you're
>talking tool choice.
Well I don't see why anyone would want to switch from Qt to some other
"compatible" toolkit midway. If they did want to do so, a switch to
GTK would be possible. It would require recoding, but most probably
would not require redesign.
>Regardless, a QT-clone is a zero-cost change from QT, or vice versa.
No, it is not zero-cost, unless you are prepared to assume that the
so-called "drop-in" replacement really is drop-in. Again, you are
conveniently ignoring the technical realities of the matter.
>Obviously, switching from GTK to QT or vice versa is not going to be
>considered anywhere near as efficient.
It's not that obvious. And it's certainly not obvious why anyone would
want to switch between two versions of the same toolkit, especially
when the switch is a move away from the toolkit's designer.
>As I said in an earlier post, discussing the QT GPL, this was a great
>case study. The market provided a demand, possibly quite different from
>what was expected, and TT decided to compete.
Nonsense. TT do not have any competition on their API, and they never did.
Just as no other GUI toolkit vendor had competition on their API.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 09:31:25 -0400
In article <8p226u$brd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(abraxas) wrote:
>Another anecdote. I've never seen it, and id like to know *exactly* why
>its happening, if it is at all. Got a corefile?
You know, I've never seen W2K crash due to anything other than an easily
traced hardware problem. (I.e., bad driver, overclocked, etc.)
Thus, W2K must not crash. Anyone who says otherwise is just spouting
anecdotal evidence.
My Netscape + SunOS problems were several years ago: I don't keep
corefiles around.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 13:33:40 GMT
In article <VXZs5.64055$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If you had any clue about the issues Max is babbling about, you'd see
> > how foolish he is.
> >
> > That's exactly my point. He posts drivel which is absolutely wrong and
> > couches it in terms which make it sound reasonable so the gullible are
> > fooled.
>
> Kind of like how you banged the drum about how one *HAD* to, absolutely..
> reformat the harddrive to do a clean install of Windows?
>
> Anyone, who ever had done it, knew instantly that you were absolutely
> wrong.
>
No, electroshock boy.
The issue was whether you could do a clean installation and still use
your existing apps without reinstalling them.
Macs can handle it. Windows can't.
End of discussion.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
