Linux-Advocacy Digest #51, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (D. Spider)
Re: Why I hate Windows... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
("Stuart Fox")
Re: [Q] linux on mac? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (Jeff Szarka)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Windows+Linux=True (Jeff Szarka)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:22:22 GMT
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:03:20 -0500,
David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Let's say, hypothetically, that Red Hat sells 10,000 copies of the optimized
: OS. I think this is a fair conjecture, as many companies would like to run
: Oracle, and Oracle for Linux is free, so the relative cost of running Oracle
: on a Linux server is small compared with running Oracle on NT or Unix.
Oracle on Linux != Free. Oracle lets you do *development* on Linux for
free. However, to deploy production systems on Linux is subject to the
same licensing terms as other platforms.
You also do NOT need to "optimized" version. I've got a couple of Oracle
dev machines in my office that were installed on a copy of RedHat that was
on a burnt CD (I dl'd the ISO of RH 6.2).
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:28:05 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:r4uu5.518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > a) Most major corporations have documentation
> >> > b) You don't need documentation to write a script to change DNS
entries
> >> > (unless you've forgotten where your DNS servers are) on Windows
> >machines.
> >> > The change is trivial, so having documentation or not is irrelevant
> >> >
> >> Where do you live? Mars? Jupiter? Sirius? It's not planet Earth for
sure.
> >> a) many corporate networks are undocumented aggregates of undomented
> >> sub-networks, that have just grown over the years without any long term
> >> planning.
> >
> >If you don't know what your network is, and where it goes, you don't
deserve
> >to be doing the job. If you're employed to know about it, you should.
If
> >you don't, you should be fired for non performance.
>
> Sure, sure, yea; we all feel properly chastised because we don't fall in
> line with your fantasies. This is the kind of thinking that 'killed the
> mainframe', you know. Obstinate insistence on the way things "should"
> be while studiously maintaining ignorance about how things _are_.
How things are: a network administrator who doesn't know his network
intimately is an idiot. Period. There is simply no excuse, waving your
hands (one of your favourite expressions) and saying "it got too complicated
too fast" or whatever is bullshit. What do you think happens - people sneak
extensions onto your network when you're not looking?
>
> >> b) anything is trivial if you know how to do it well enough, but how do
> >you
> >> find out how to do it well enough?
> >
> >If you're marginally intelligent, and have a web browser (or news
client),
> >the resources are there to be found. If you can't find the resources,
you
> >probably are in the wrong career.
>
> If you're stupid enough to waste time making up for crappy software, you
> are *definitely* in the right career; buying more Microsoft products in
> the vein hope they'll be less crappy than the last round.
>
> >> This is about the unnecessary problems caused to SOME, not about the
fact
> >> that SOME people will have no problems.
> >
> >So because Unix is difficult for SOME, it's a crap product? Because
Oracle
> >is difficult for SOME, it's a crap product?
>
> It has nothing to do with difficulty, and everything to do with whether
> it causes unnecessary problems.
Unnecessary problems to SOME. Oracle causes unnecessary problems to SOME,
as does <insert product name here>. The fact that SOME can't cope with it
is another matter altogether.
>Work on the reading comprehension
> skills, Stu. You'll need them for the next set of certifications you
> use in place of knowledge and experience.
>
<chuckle>
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:29:11 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Free markets, by the way, are about *minimizing* costs, or rather,
> maximizing efficiency. Pisses the capitalists off, I know, but that's
> why they're 'capitalists' and not 'kings'.
There is no such thing as the "free market" (except in theory). America
claims it to be so, while still operating one of the most protected markets
around....
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:31:26 +0100
"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:e74v5.186$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > But isn't that what capitalism is all about - maximising market share at
> the
> > expense of competitors, and maximising profit? By definition, all
> > businesses must be monopolists...
>
> No... Capitalism is about letting supply and demand set prices on a free
> market and direct resources to where need (demand) is greatest.
>
> This assumes that supply and demand are the factors deciding the price and
> that the price quality comparisons determine purchases. Monopolizing is
> always anti-capitalist in nature because its purpose is to prevent the
> market mechanisms from working correctly in order to make people buy your
> products.
...to make more money, which is the aim of all companies. Just because MS
happened to be particularly effective at it, where their competitors failed
(miserably in many cases), does not make them evil etc.
>
> Good question, though. Many people assume that if a country calls itself a
> capitalist country its market practices are capitalism. This is not the
> case.
>
> Ville
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 09:38:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Besides, I am actually the one who asked "how can you monopolize without
>> being a monopoly"; I did it to illustrate the problem you were having
>> with the word 'monopoly', which is common.
>>
>Actually - you're not. I did - follow the thread...
Perhaps. Ville's software is making following the thread rather
impossible. Crappy Microsoft stuff.
--
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] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:13:35 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:37:38 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Ingemar Lundin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>REALLY?
>
>And what makes that Linux?
What makes what linux? Try to be coherent, at least.
#####################################################
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.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 14:14:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hafta tell ya...
>
> I've had my Windows 98SE up and running without a reboot for almost a
> year now with no problems. I just wish I could see something besides
> that blue screen.
I've had Linux Mandrake up for five months. And it has run with no
probs even when I botched the load of Hylafax. The botched install (my
fault) Didn't trash my system. BUT for the fifth (no lie) time WIn95
crapped out on my system with Via chipset and AMD K6-2 450. Yes I do
know that this is a known problem with Win95 and yes I have loaded the
patches and yes I do know the problem was fixed in Win98. But NO I
don't want 98 or anything higher. Ive gone so far as to use a small 200
meg partition for Win95 that only runs my Juno and anything else
Windows has been reverted to my old 3.1 software (which is only my fax,
the only thing I have yet to convert into Linux setup) or my Dos games.
And once I get a regular internet setup, Bye bye Win95. 3.1 was the
only windows I trusted.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 15:19:45 +0100
"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
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Besides, I am actually the one who asked "how can you monopolize
without
> >> being a monopoly"; I did it to illustrate the problem you were having
> >> with the word 'monopoly', which is common.
> >>
> >Actually - you're not. I did - follow the thread...
>
> Perhaps. Ville's software is making following the thread rather
> impossible. Crappy Microsoft stuff.
Crappy Microsoft stuff handles it OK - I don't often use thread by
conversation but it works OK. I prefer just to read by date received.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] linux on mac?
Date: 11 Sep 2000 14:22:18 GMT
Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8pgu4t$1jt2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Anon Y. Mous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> > if i install linux on a mac, how difficult is the conversion?
:>
:> It depends on what you mean by "conversion". LinuxPPC has become
:> (after quite a long time) incredibly easy to install. Same for
:> Yellowdog. Theyre both redhat based.
:>
:> You of course wont be able to run any of your mac software, but
:> it could be argued that that is a Good Thing (TM).
:>
: Perhaps the hardest thing would be converting that cyclops mouse to
: something with 2 or 3 buttons. You need to middle click to paste in many
: Linux apps. You can simulate a third button with 2 buttons, but how do you
: simulate a third button with only one?
But since all the new Macs are USB-based, it shouldn't be
tough to plug in a nice 3-button mouse to one. I might make my
next box a Mac (for quietness and cool-running chips) when I'm
sure the MacOS can be exorcised completely.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:48:16 -0400
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:11:14 +0200, Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 11:29:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >Any other person that want to add anything are welcome.
>>
>> Do you realize how stupid this test is?
>>
>
>Allow me to comment...
>
>> 1) There is no way to reproduce downloads. Many (most?) ISP's cache
>> data to save bandwidth. Testing various sites doesn't help much in
>> this case.
>>
>
>Even if the sites are cached, the info still need to get downloaded,
>even if it's from the local ISP. In fact, when downloading from a remote
>cache, you should get more accurate time comparisons because all network
>packets now come from the same machine.
Any tests using the Internet's unreliable bandwidth and routing are
invalid IMO.
>> 2) Performance of a dial up modem depends greatly on TCP/IP settings,
>> modem port settings, modem drivers (possibly), line quality, etc, etc,
>> etc.
>>
>
>I think he (fkddan) made it clear that "standard" installations were
>made and that not to much tweaking had taken place. I might be wrong
>ofcourse...
Which at best proves Linux has a better default configuration. The
test pretty much means nothing.
>> 3) Your tests invalidate themselves. Trying to prove the superiority
>> of one OS's TCP/IP stack with a modem is a joke.
>>
>
>Not really. A modem is still a network device, isn't it?
A network device pushing well under 10k/sec. I can't consider that a
good test of network performance.
>> 4) Browsers commonly report incorrect speeds and file sizes while
>> downloading.
>>
>
>It didn't look to me like they used the Browsers to report the speeds.
>It seems more like they used a stop watch or something - again I might
>be wrong.
Maybe...
>> 5) What exactly does the swap file have to do with tests of a modem?
>> What makes you think comparing paging files between two entirely
>> different OS's is a valid comparison>
>>
>
>It was interesting though...
>
>> 6) By these "tests' I can prove that Linux slows down the longer you
>> download and Windows speeds up the longer you download. (hour 2 of
>> your redhat test shows Linux downloading 4MB less the per the 2nd
>> hour, while Windows downloaded nearly 1MB more per hour) See how
>> stupid your tests are?
>>
>
>Real life situations. The fact is that Linux was still faster.
>
>> 7) Why did you use CuteFTP 2.6? That's what.. 3 years old? 4? As far
>> as I know it contained some horrible bug that caused it to download
>> slowly.
>>
>
>At least we agree on something...
>
>
>> This might be the dumbest "test" I've ever seen.
>>
>
>
>Not really - I think this will maybe lead to some more "official" tests
>to see whats cooking between the various OS's. As you know, dial-up
>connections is the most popular in most countries to connect to the
>Internet, and therefore this test IS important to help customers decide
>on what OS to use to get the most out of their Internet experience.
The test is stupid mostly because there are just SO many variables. If
the tests had been done using a private PPP server it would cut down
on the possibilities of network traffic issues tremendously.
====== 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: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:51:13 -0400
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 04:14:32 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Linux machine ALWAYS wins.
SuSE on my machine constantly drops my dialup connection. We can make
"tests" prove anything and they're pointless.
====== 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: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:54:54 -0400
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 08:31:40 -0700, Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>What does one need to do to properly configure their machine to prevent
>#'s 1-4?
Windows 9x is a pretty terrible OS but if you're getting crashes when
trying to browse your hard drive... there is some issue, somewhere.
Also, a quick fix to 1-4 is to actually want to get it working and not
want to build yourself fuel for a stupid, pointless usenet post.
====== 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: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:58:27 -0400
On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 15:03:18 -0400, ken klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, but don't you think that there's something terribly wrong with a
>situation where the OS (Windows) is marketed as being "easier to use"
>and "more stable than before!!" and (shudder) "more fun!", and yet only
>works correctly "*if* you know what you're doing."????
My boss summed it up perfectly once...
"Sure NT might be better software but if I have to spend 1 mintue
learning it I've already wasted time. I've learned to use what I have
now (Windows 95 on a very old laptop) and it might not work perfectly
but I can use it. I own a lot of things that don't work pefectly."
It was something like that... I thought it made a valid point.
====== 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: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:01:08 -0400
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000 20:27:38 +0100, "Anthony Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik:- if you advocate windows & getting work done, why are you browsing a
>linux group. Is this a bizarre new form of Sado-Masochism?
What did you expect? An open source circle jerk?
====== 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: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 11:07:39 -0400
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:54:47 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No we have not. Windows GUI is slow, illogical and inconsistent. Look at
>the fancy newer stuff like Actide Desktop ans Channels..
Windows 2000 has no channels bar...
Active Desktop, whatever it was, isn't "ON" by default. At least to
the extent there are no web pages on your desktop by default.
====== 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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:08:44 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said sfcybear in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >In article <8p4t5a$c8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> > b) You've just screwed up the corporate DNS
> >>
> >> Funny - Internet browsing works just fine. If DNS was screwed, it
> >wouldn't.
>
> Every failure causes all failures, right? Typical Microsoft-inspired
> 'idiot troubleshooting 101'. I didn't say you'd screwed it up in a way
> that you are currently aware of. Others may be aware of it, or may
> become aware of it, or incidental failures which it caused. There is no
> 'statute of limitations' on this kind of stupidity. You aren't at all
> aware of how you might screw it up, so you figure you couldn't have
> screwed it up, right?
>
Wrong. It works. Full stop. Internet browsing works. Local name
resolution works. For everyone. It works. Get it yet?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
