Linux-Advocacy Digest #37, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Ville Niemi")
Re: How low can they go...? (mark)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (mark)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (mark)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Shocktrooper")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Shocktrooper")
Re: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Stuart Fox)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (sinister-catsup)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (sinister-catsup)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:10:22 GMT
lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin wrote:
>snip<
:> What do you think painted the BSOD on your screen?
:>
: you make my point.
Yah, right.
: NT after it blew up.
Yes and no.
: Ever wonder why it isn't just random pixels of color as it was under DOS?
I know why, exactly. You however, have concept of OS design or
modern hardware architecture.
: So something was still running to paint blue to the video card.
Yes, a small piece of code fired off from a hardware trap. The
OS is dead, all that's left to do is write the obituary which isn't
done by the dead OS.
: Other failures result in just freezing the video.
Crashing a video card does not mean the OS crashed, but it doesn't
open any security holes either.
: BSOD sometimes signals an orderly shutdown of the OS, but not always.
: Freezing the display seems to mostly leave everything else running.
Again, you can crash individual pieces of hardware without taking
the main processor down. Video cards can also be reset on the fly
if needed, although I don't think NT takes advantage of that.
>snip<
: So, as you ask, what painted the BSOD on the screen?
A preinstalled exception handler fired off from a hardware trap.
It's "part of the OS", but it's not the kernel (although the kernel
is what installed it). The kernel is very, very dead at that point.
--
-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: "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:18:16 GMT
> No, monopolization is also the act of *maintaining* monopoly power.
> Without monopolizing, a monopoly disappears, destroyed by the free
> market, just as, without monopolization, it could never appear to begin
> with.
>
Sorry, this is about semantics, and you have to use precision totally
irrelevant in real life.
When you monopolize you are doing something to harm your competition or
threat of competition. The latter is what you, correctly, called maintaining
monopoly power. What you failed to consider is that if someone can threaten
your monopoly power it means they have access, however indirect, to the
market you monopolize. If someone else has access to your market, you are
not a monopoly, just a company thats monopolizing a market.
Of course, companies that are successful enough in monopolizing a market are
often called monopolies, but that doesn't mean that they are.
Ville
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 20:14:07 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said mark in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...a zillion...]
>>How can something which is defined as being indeterminate also be
>>accurate?[...]
>
>Ah, the wonders of abstraction.
>
>Its not the accuracy, its the precision that counts.
Fair enough!
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 19:29:39 +0100
In article <8njud7$qbk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote in
><_Ndn5.6564$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:8njkqu$7mp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
>>> <8nij11$1j1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> >In article <yJ2n5.6518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 8<SNIP>8
>>>
>>> >>That can't be good for the morale of open source developers.
>>> >
>>> >This is a vicious lie that Funkenbusch is spreading, as part
>>> >of his consistent propaganda campaign against Linux, Open
>>> >Source, etc., and in favor of Microsoft. Check his previous
>>> >posts in DejaNews (when the Power Search starts working
>>> >again). Everything he posts reads like it comes straight
>>> >from Microsoft.
>>>
>>> The thing is, folks, I just cannot bring myself to
>>> *PLOINK!* Mark, because his blinding idiocy is just
>>> too damn funny to read.
>>
>>Haha.. I killfiled him ages ago, so I don't see his stupid responses,
>>such as this one.
>>
>>Why is it stupid? Because he's calling my opinion a lie. An opinion
>>cannot be a lie.
>>
>>I'm not sure when he'll figure out that everyone is entitled to their
>>opinion, but until he does.. he'll remain in my killfile.
>
>It sounds as if his posts irritate you a bit.
>That's perfectly understandable.
>
>As for myself, when someone tells me that I'm
>using Microsoft products, because I'm an idiot,
>and I don't have the intellectual capacity to
>use UNIX (which I do also use), and therefore,
>I am a Microsoft whore, yes, I often tell them
>where they can stick their attitude, and then
>I promptly *PLOINK!* them.
>
>But when someone accuses me of being a part of
>some deep and dark global conspiracy to rid the
>world of UNIX, and dominate it with Windows
>software, and that I'm being paid to lie, and
>sway people falsely to use Windows... well sir,
>that just makes me laugh my ass off, and there
>is now way in _HELL_ that you could possibly
>convince me to deny myself of such incredibly
>mind-blowing humor. :-)
Doesn't make it wrong, though, does it?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 20:24:07 +0100
In article <8oqsdb$ftg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andres Soolo wrote:
>Thomas Corriher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Didn't Abraham Lincoln's computer use core memory? I think
>> I remember that from history class.
>No, but there's a story about using an apple's core to store a
>list of soldiers during the American Domestic War.
>
>On the other hands, on Lincoln ages, `computer' meant a worker
>person who did the computing. The first computing machine was
>IIRC Charles Babbage's Differential Engine. Unfortunately the
>English govrnment didn't grasp the importance of that project.
^^^^^^^
British Government (we don't have an English one), but you're
right, of course.
There's a functional replica of the difference engine, I
believe at the science museum if you're passing through London.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:46:20 GMT
"Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'd need to see the specific implementation. If it's that much trouble,
> > it's probably being done wrong.
>
> Hotline does something like that on the PC. There's a floating window
> that has a little toolbar in it. They did this because Windows doesn't
> permit you to have a menubar without a window open, so you need at least
> one window open for every app.
>
> Of course, Hotline decided it would be a good idea to put their logo, a
> banner, etc. in this annoying toolbar. And even worse, it's present but
> totally unnecessary on the Mac. Fortunately, it can be windowshaded.
>
> In general, I hate toolbars. They take up lots of screen space, the
> icons are generally unfathomable and require hovering the mouse over
> them to see what they do, and they're usually no faster than a menu
> choice, since they're such a small target. They only work effectively
> in web browsers...and I assume the dock in OS X will add to that list.
Toolbars are a godsend for pro's who require a multitude of commands in constant use.
Sure, it may be daunting for a new user. But I
don't care about a new user, i want it optimized for someone with experience with that
application.
I love the ability to place any menu control where I want it, when I want it. *I*
decide what commands I end up using alot.. not
the programmer.
That is how it should be.
------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 15:46:20 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aCAu5.464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In general, I hate toolbars. They take up lots of screen space, the
> > icons are generally unfathomable and require hovering the mouse over
> > them to see what they do, and they're usually no faster than a menu
> > choice, since they're such a small target. They only work effectively
> > in web browsers...and I assume the dock in OS X will add to that list.
>
> Toobar buttons are designed for speeding up certain activities. Those
> activitieis still occur on the menu if you are so included (in most cases),
> but once you become familiar enough with the application and know what the
> buttons do then they can make you more productive.
>
> In other words, they don't slow you down if you don't know them, since you
> can just as easily hit the menu. But they can speed you up since you need
> not open a menu, track through the menu (and possible submenus) to get to a
> function.
I can't believe anyone who has ever used configurable toolbar's has ever actually sat
down and used one for a while on an applicatio
they regularly use. Once you learn them, it becomes *highly frustrating* to not be
able ot use them!.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:09:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ville Niemi in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> No, monopolization is also the act of *maintaining* monopoly power.
>> Without monopolizing, a monopoly disappears, destroyed by the free
>> market, just as, without monopolization, it could never appear to begin
>> with.
>>
>Sorry, this is about semantics, and you have to use precision totally
>irrelevant in real life.
I'm sorry, as well. You don't seem familiar with the lay of the land;
did you lurk at all before posting here? The fact is, I've been
discussing precisely this issue with at least half a dozen people for
more than two months, and we've been dealing with a level of precision
that is far beyond what you're talking about here.
>When you monopolize you are doing something to harm your competition or
>threat of competition. The latter is what you, correctly, called maintaining
>monopoly power. What you failed to consider is that if someone can threaten
>your monopoly power it means they have access, however indirect, to the
>market you monopolize. If someone else has access to your market, you are
>not a monopoly, just a company thats monopolizing a market.
You over-value the strictest sense of the meaning of the word
'monopoly'. Its a common mistake. You just aren't using the term very
precisely. "Monopoly" means a company that is monopolizing, and
therefore does not have 'competition'. There may be other vendors in a
market with similar wares, but they aren't 'competition', because
monopolizing is not competing. A company is 'a monopoly' when it uses
market power anti-competitively, not when it has 100% market share.
>Of course, companies that are successful enough in monopolizing a market are
>often called monopolies, but that doesn't mean that they are.
Yes, it does. What you call something means that's what it is. What
you're thinking of isn't a 'monopoly', but a vendor with 100% market
share. Its a common mistake, because the word "monopoly", and its verb
form 'monopolize' derives from the English Common Law 'monopoly' of
centuries ago which was a grant by the King of exclusive rights to
conduct trade in a particular market. Free markets don't allow that
kind of 'monopoly', so, as the courts define the term today,
'monopolization', 'monopoly power', and, hence, 'monopoly', mean "the
power to control prices or exclude competition". Neither must be
absolute; even a monopoly cannot charge any price at all nor exclude any
possible competition or threat of competition, just as none could, by
that very logic, hold 100% market share.
--
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: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:22:42 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> [...]
> >> >> It is the nagging suspicion that you are too stupid (and/or
dishonest
> >> >> and lazy) to work with real technology and this is your motivation
for
> >> >> spewing naive and ridiculous attempts to hand-wave the known
> >> >> difficulties of using Microsoft's software as uniquely crappy and
> >> >> problematic amongst all software, none of which is perfect which
causes
> >> >> us to attack you so briskly.
> >> >
> >> >Is that why you are attacking him? I thought that it was because he is
> >doing
> >> >what you are claiming can't be done.
> >>
> >> No, I'm attacking him because I never claimed it couldn't be done, but
I
> >> claimed it couldn't be done reliably (and still know, for a fact, this
> >
> >and how is this a fact Max? because you have declared it so?
>
> No, as I said, it is a fact because I know it to be true. The
> distinction is subtle, I'll grant you, but its rather important. I've
> seen frequent attempts to do implement such solutions reliably, and I've
> seen them generally fail, and I've examined (and in some cases,
> professionally determined) what prevented success. Thus, I know the
> fact that they cannot be reliably implemented to be true. As soon as
> someone can convince me otherwise, I'll declare I no longer believe the
> fact to be true. I know these abstractions play on the edge of where
> people have been trained to start going to post-modernist thinking, but,
> no, I don't consider whether I or anyone else declares something to be
> what makes it a fact.
>
> >> is true) in enough environments to be considered a usable product. His
> >> anecdotal evidence only provides justification for more people to be as
> >> stupid as he is, in not recognizing the inherent problems and flaws
> >
> >And what evidence do you have to prove that he is stupid? because
> >he doesn't see the truth according to Max?
>
> No, because he believes the truth according to Microsoft. That's a
> stupid thing to do; an intelligent consumer does not rely on information
> provided by the person who is trying to sell them something.
>
> [...]
> >> When someone like Stuart posts pathetic pablum, I feel more than
> >> justified in pointing out that fact and doing whatever seem appropriate
> >> for encouraging him, and anyone reading his words, to be reasonable and
> >> reasoned or not bother posting.
> >
> >Then let me point out that since Stuart has done what he has claimed and
> >since you have never provided any evidence of anything that you claim,
> >your postings don't even reach the level of pathetic pablum, merely
wishful
> >thinking and rudeness.
>
> Sorry, no, *that's* post-modern thinking. Stuart has *claimed* that he
> has done what he has claimed. If he wants to reduce his claim to 'it
> didn't crash the computer every time I tried to use it', then we might
> be close to getting to where his claim is not contradictory to the
> facts. The facts are (I don't think you realize how broad and
> substantial my experience is in this matter) that any implementation of
> this kind of 'featuresome' Microsoft technology which doesn't
> drastically reduce its scope of work all through the development in
> order to satisfy any and every redefinition of 'success' necessary to
> claim it, they fail. ALL of them.
>
Well, since we don't know what the original scope of the work was, nor
do we have any great knowledge of the people involved, we are not fit
to judge either way then are we. It is entirely possible that the tasks
that
they set themselves, and their implementation of them entirely meet your
standards of success.
As for your statements regarding "post modern thinking", I read it, which
is giving it more credence than I think that it deserves.
> Perhaps I just have a more demanding concept of what is necessary for a
> technical implementation to be 'successful'. I expect *operational
> functionality*. Which means it isn't enough for the system to work, or
> even work reliably. It has to produce the benefit that was envisioned
> as the purpose of the implementation. This would include all those
> 'wish list requirements' that are based on feature sets, possibly, but
> may even be limited to simply providing consistent and unadulterated
> benefit in comparison to the previous mechanisms which might have been
> used.
>
> The fact is, my demands are not even my own; they are the requirements
> of my customers. And very demanding customers they are. I work with
> network management implementations, which should be recognized as, by
> definition, the trickiest and most difficult part of modern networking.
> Because however tricky the network gets, the network management
> implementation has to get trickier than that. These systems are
> notorious for meeting all the theoretical promises (when you take into
> account the quibbling of 'that's not what we meant when we said it
> would...') but ending up being little more than lip-service door-stops.
>
> Just like Microsoft software. And to be perfectly honest, I see a link.
> Microsoft's suppression of competition makes crappy software seem
> acceptable, and deludes people into thinking that software is some sort
> of magic that can do the impossible, if you just keep buying new
> versions long enough.
>
> --
> 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: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:11:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> >>
> >> >> >It is trivial - I learned to write basic VBscripts in about an
hour.
> >> >Doing
> >> >> >the registry changes I suggested is a pretty basic feature of
WSH, and
> >is
> >> >> >trivial.
> >> >>
> >> >> Microsoft's own SMS can't even get it to work reliably.
> >> >
> >> >Can't get what to work reliably - WSH?
> >>
> >> See, there, you've done it again.
> >
> >Hold on, you made a statement with no apparent context or meaning, I
know
> >from reading some of your other posts this is a common technique of
yours.
> >Can you explain what the statement "Microsoft's own SMS can't even
get it to
> >work reliably.", and what exactly you meant by it?
> >
>
> I meant SMS is a piece of crap which cannot, itself, work reliably,
thus
> preventing any feature of it (the 'it' here, which is to say the end
> result of having WSH available, which is to say WSH) from working
> reliably.
So then you are confused. Regardless of whether SMS is or isn't a
piece of crap (I'm of the opinion that it was a piece of crap when
first released (2.0), and is slowly verging on not being a **complete**
piece of crap now after two service packs - IME 1.2 was more reliable),
WSH is **not** a component of SMS, and does not require SMS to run.
WSH is Windows Scripting Host, which is available either with IE, or as
a separate download from http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting and can be
implemented completely independently of SMS or IE.
If you wish to use WSH in a login script (as proposed ages ago), all
that has to work reliably is the login script running reliably, which
does.
>
> By 'reliably', I mean 'in all possible ways in all possible
> implementations', not simply 'if you spend enough time and money you
can
> get three things to work repeatedly', which is, AFAIK, the pinnacle of
> success when trying to implement SMS.
>
It would appear that you're not as familiar with MS products as you
claim.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
From: sinister-catsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:26:26 -0400
>=20
> Had Commodore packaged and marketed the Amiga as an office system
> rather than a kid's toy, they could have blown the IBM/Microsoft team
> right out of the water.
not to be a negative nelly (Sorry, I hate flanders to) but,
coulda-shoulda-woulda: You can argue the same thing towards Mac, if jobs =
had
aggressively pushed the mac when he had his window of oppurtunity, we'd a=
ll be
using macs now, but Mac never did get pushed, OS/2, same thing, technical=
ly the
superior product of it's time, but IBM is a hardware company and lacked =
the
ability to push it's poduct. Amiga is before my time.
But in the present, I see the Be people and even the BSD people doing the=
same
thing wrong, QNX to for that matter. I personally think BSD is not leavin=
g the
geek level any time soon, but both BeOS and QNX have easy to use interfac=
es and
the potential ability to port a shitload of linux apps to their system as=
well
and build their own, but I dont see them pushing their poducts hard enoug=
h and
I do think there is a market for disgruntled Mickeysoft users looking for=
an
alternative.=20
I like seeing bigger companies embracing linux, and the biggest obstacle =
to
folks like QNX and Be are things like driver support, lack of apps and ha=
rdware
compatability, they need to work on these things.
Rambling aside my point is simple, there are potentially good operating s=
ystem
alternatives out there, but what got Mr Gates where he is today is not hi=
s
technology, it was his sales force. Think about it.
------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 11:36:14 -0500
Geez, you must suck. We have NT servers that have been up since last July,
and 2000 servers that have been up since the release date. At the moment
though, most of the Unix machines in the organization are down. And it's
not Windows guys administrating those Unix servers, they're really Unix
administrators. Unix can be broken just as easily as Windows. It's just
that a lot of unskilled developers write apps for Windows that don't behave.
I can crash a Unix machine with C++ just as easily as I can crash Windows.
- David
"MrTroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8okgn0$kl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Jure Sah wrote:
> : >
> : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : > > Reminds me of the microsoft FUDsters touting how great windows 95
was,
> : > > invading the os/2 newsgroups.
> : >
> : > Hey, Windows'95 works just fine and fast,
>
> : That's a funny way to spell "crashes alot"
>
> : > you just have to care about it a little.
>
> : you misspelled "constantly"
>
>
> : > For instance, I fixed 2 computers at my previous school from a very
deep
> : > dungeons to nice functionality with Windows'95 and all my friend's
> : > attempts to ruin the system again have failed so far.
>
>
> : Try using a NON-windows Operating System, and get back to us.
>
> : Unix was more stable in 1975 than Windows can manage today.
>
> I use both FreeBSD and Win2k server. I setup my Win2k box about a week or
so
> after setting up my FreeBSD box.
>
> FreeBSD - Last Crash...Never
> Time Up as of now...92 days 22 hours
>
> Win2K - Last Crash...4 days ago
> Time Up as of now...4 days
>
> Results like these speak for themselves. You just don't get more stable
and
> reliable that Unix.
>
> P.S.
> Win98 - Up for about 28 hours. Hasn't crashed lately, but only because I
reboot
> it every couple of days so that it won't.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Joe Otterson | When walking in open territory, bother
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | no one. If someone bothers you, ask him
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
> | -Anton Szandor LaVey
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
From: sinister-catsup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:35:49 -0400
jabali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >jabali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
> >> Linux is currently the only end-user system alternative to windows o=
n a PC=20
> >> (IBM compatible in older terminology). Of course you also have Mac-O=
S.
> >
> >And what about BeOS? Or Net/open/FreeBSD? Or Hurd?
> >(OK, Hurd's not ready yet, but I here it sorta works ish).
>=20
> BeOS & FreeBSD are around for years. As OS they are certainly good. But=
as an
> alternative desktop to Windows - well, does anybody really take them th=
at
> seriously ?
>=20
> --=20
>=20
> jabali
Imho, no, for the following reasons.
BeOS is a good system with alot of potential, but it lacks some fundament=
al
hardware compatiblity and driver support and lacks the range of apps with
windozians have come to expect, likewise there are too many little hardwa=
re
gizmos they have come to be accustomed to that are not yet supported, And=
again
I feel the Be salesforce needs to be a shitload more aggressive, same rea=
sons
apply to QNX, a similar system with similar potential and similar limitat=
ions.
BSD is on the other hand, just too damn advanced for the typical user, I =
cant
see the typical nonpower user being willing to compile c code everything =
they
install something new. (I know some hate rpm, but that is Linux's alterna=
tive
to winzip, and does help newbies shy away from the tedium of compiling c =
code.)
Just a thought for the BSDers out there
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
