Linux-Advocacy Digest #142, Volume #29 Sat, 16 Sep 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Chad Myers")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Chad Myers")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Chad Myers")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux ("Rev. Don Kool")
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Computer and memory (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ("JS/PL")
Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered. (Jacques Guy)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (Gary Hallock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (The Ghost In The Machine)
Linux leading indicator ("James Yegerlehner")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ("Quantum Leaper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:57:18 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 04:04:11 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >RedHat and Linus himself seemed to think it was. Somehow, the Linux
> >slashdotters got it into their minds that the Mindcraft tests (both)
> >were trumped up and false.
>
> The Mindcraft tests showed a real problem, but one that would only very
> rarely be an issue in a production system. The test was carefully
> designed to highlight a particular strength of NT relative to Linux.
> It was not "rigged", in the sense that the results weren't faked, but
> the thing that was tested was not chosen at random. The whole thing
> was a marketing exercise, nothing more.
Um... so you think that multiple-NICs are never used in a production
system? Multiple-NIC load-balancing, etc?
Well, I supposed you'd never do this with linux because Linux simply
can't do it. It's networking stack neither it's elementary SMP implementaion
allow for it. But for people running grown-up systems, this happens
very often.
> So you are correct that Mindcraft wasn't "false", although it was very
> narrowly focused on one aspect of web serving performance (static web
> pages, SMP machines, load-balanced network cards) and different results
> are obtained if any of the conditions are changed. What was false was
> the simplfied interpretation given it by Microserfs, such as yourself,
> which was that Linux "has poor network performance". At the very least
> that is a vast overstatement of what Mindcraft actually showed, which
> was that in certain SMP configurations NT used the network cards more
> efficiently. It is the case that tests by others showed the reverse
> was true in non-SMP configurations, which are far more common.
Um.. it showed that Linux had NO multi-NIC scalability. It was a huge
design flaw in the SMP and networking implementation of Linux. You
can bullshit all you want about how it wasn't "real world" (which is
false, many, if not most scalable setups have multiple NICs on
a database server or sometimes a web server), but the fact is,
Linux is hugely deficient in the networking and SMP arenas.
>
> >Any intelligent objective person would see that they were clearly
> >legitimate and demonstrated several critical weaknesses and poor design
> >in Linux.
>
> Yes, they were weaknesses. Yes, they were addressed for 2.4. But no,
> they were not "critical" for the vast majority of users. An
> intelligent person would not try to use a single benchmark to indict
> the design of an entire system.
It _WAS_ critical in that it showed that the SMP and networking implementations
in Linux are weak, poorly designed and not scalable in any sense of the
word.
The gross mental absenteeism in Linux's design should concern anyone thinking
about using Linux for anything other than to "hax0r" or run a DNS server,
which seems about the only thing Linux can do fairly well.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:59:20 GMT
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 05:31:06 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> : > And now, a long time later, a similar benchmark shows a much better
> : > behaviour by the Linux network stack. It still sucks a bit, though.
> :
> : Please post a URL, I haven't read about this. I've been taking your
> : word for it, but I would like to read the specifics.
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
>
> : > And why is fixing a problem a joke?
> :
> : Because it's an inherent design problem in Linux.
>
> Oh, and can we assume you've read through all of the networking code in
> the Linux kernel to verify this?
I don't need to. The numbers, RedHat, and Linus have already demonstrated
this.
> What credentials do you have that make you an authority on this subject?
Who cares about me, Red Hat and Linus have admitted this. Do you need
clarification on their Linux authority?
> I'd be very interested in seeing those credentials.
www.redhat.com would be a good place to start.
> They must be pretty impressive, after all, you speak in such absolutes.
I'm just repeating their findings and conclusions.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:05:14 GMT
"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> This is a shining example of what I mean about Mac Advocay illiteracy.
> > >> Heck, it's even better than CLund's utter lack of experience with
> > >> NT/W2k.
> > >Maybe you should tell me what's new in W2K compared to W98...?
> > <boggle>
>
> You're saying there's nothing new? Then I guess I'm as fluent with W2K as
> I am with Win98.
Your question is somewhat on the order of "So, what's the difference
between the Titanic and a speed boat?"
It's so obvious, it's not even worth mentioning, and the fact you
asked the question shows that, even if we did answer, you still wouldn't
comprehend because you don't even have a basic understanding.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Rev. Don Kool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:06:35 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >My brother has been calling for air strikes on MS for at least a couple
> >of years now.
> >
> >If the Justice Department doesn't get 'em, the Air Force can. ;-)
> Perhaps dropping a few thousand copies of linux over
> a few big cities or maybe getting a few newspaper
> companies to give away copies will have a similar
> effect as who is going to spend the prices MS charge
> for windows when they have just had something better
> delivered free with their morning paper - especially if
> it includes eqivalents of all the applications they
> could be considering purchasing.
That's a mighty big "if", Nigel. Applications support under LINUX
is a joke.
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:07:56 GMT
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : And that suppose to diminish the validity of the actual news how? Maybe you
> : should look at the following link, CERT released the warning about Linux and
> : DDoS on Friday:
> :
> : http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
>
> Oh wow. It cites two vulnerabilities that have had patches available for
> quite some time, all within 24-48 hours after being found.
>
> How about all of the Windoze users out there that have (and continue) to
> fall prey to Netbus|BO|SubSeven|remote access trojan du jour? My firewall
> and IDS logs here at home can attest to the widespread use of those. My
> machines get scanned ALL THE TIME.
You're comparing users and supposedly supperiorly intelligent Unix sysadmins?
The patches exist, but has anyone used them? Apparently not as it's becoming
an issue now.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:23:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Sep 2000 19:18:24 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : Why is it the US's fault that there's a small link between here and
>> : there?
>>
>> It's two countries fault. If one of them (US) is unwilling to help build
>> a better link, there isn't a damn thing the other country can do about
>> it, whether they have the money or not.
>>
>> : American companies have no incentive to build one because the UK laws
>> : are so restrictive that demand for Internet in the UK is low -- or rather
>> : the availability and fesability of getting Internet access is low.
>>
>> : Besides, why is it completely America's responsibility to build a bigger
>> : link. What have the brits done besides bitch that we don't spend all our
>> : money and build them a bigger link to us?
>>
>> You must be speaking a strange language that is almost but not quite
>> entirely unlike English, seing as how in your language the word "all"
>> means something different than it does for the rest of us.
>>
>> : Who's stopping the Brits? Like I said, quit whining about us and just do
>> : it.
>>
>> So are you advocating that they trespass on US waters and build the whole
>> cable themselves?
>
>Satellites are cheap.
Unfortunately, for technical reasons mostly related to retransmission delay
(I'd have to look up the details; I'm not expert on this stuff),
my understanding is that satellites will not work horribly well
for Internet (TCP/IP) transmissions. I'm not sure if this is a
surmountable problem or not; obviously, for non-live transmissions
it's merely a matter of mirroring, but for live transmissions, it
could be a problem.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:31:36 -0400
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pua6q$hp6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : On 15 Sep 2000 03:16:33 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> :>: On 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> :>:>
> :>:>: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> :>:>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :>:>:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> :>:>:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine))
wrote:
> :>:>:>
> :>:>:> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an
existing OS
> :>:>:> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download
for
> :>:>:> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
> :>:>:> >in later. :-)
> :>:>:> >
> :>:>:> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
> :>:>:> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
> :>:>
> :>:>: That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line,
in
> :>:>: stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best
fits your
> :>:>: situation.
> :>:>
> :>:>I generally prefer to buy an off-the-shelf copy at a store, for two
> :>:>reasons: 1 - $50 or so is worth the savings in time (downloading
> :>:>an entire CD's worth onto hard disk, then burning my own CD from
> :>:>that is an annoyingly tedious task, and takes up lots of disk space
> :>
> :>: ???
> :>
> :>: Even doing all of this stuff at the commandline is hardly
> :>: tedious. There are a plethora of gui tools available for
> :>: burning an Image to disc under Linux. Downloading those
> :>: images is also not something that can be reasonably called
> :>: tedious. It may take a long time. However, that's merely
> :>: a matter of having a file transfer dialog open on your
> :>: desktop for a few hours.
> :>
> :>Errr - "few hours"? Ever try downloading a 650 Mb over
>
> : Mind your grammar. It was not merely the download process
> : that you were implying was tedious. Correspondingly, it
> : was not merely the download process I was commenting on.
>
> Adding more steps to a manual process cannot decrease its tediousness,
> it can only increase it. Therefore a manual process cannot be less
> tedious than its most tedious component step. If the download is
> tedious, then the manual process that contains the download inherits
> that tediousness.
>
> : Follow your own advice.
>
> : [deletia]
>
> : I shudder to think what you would have done in the 1200 bps era.
>
> The 1200 bps era? I certainly wasn't sitting around thinking, "gee,
> I sure wish I could download a Linux distro - too bad it's only 1990
> and it doesn't exist yet."
But if the Mandrake distro (1gb) HAD existed.... it would have taken about
100 days of solid downloading to get.
I guess thats still faster than transcribing it from a printout.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:46:23 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered.
MH wrote:
> I can't copy text off a page in NN and paste it into any of KDE's editors.
Select the the text in NN, position your mouse pointer where you
want to insert it into your document in whichever KDE editor,
press the mouse middle button. BTW, I learnt that 15 years ago on
a Unix box, long before Linux existed. It hasn't changed.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:46:43 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Cut the nonsense. Linux ( in particular, KDE ) has file associations,
> and if you actually used Linux, you would know that.
Only problem is that I don't use KDE, and *KDE* having file
associations is not the same thing as Linux having them. I should
be able to run a file in the shell without specifying any program
so long as it has only one association. And nothing KDE does
can change the fact that I can't.
> The only users who are "lacking control" are the ones too lazy or
> stupid to learn how to use the features provided.
The only thing you're proving is that programmers do indeed
hate users. You certainly seem to.
Here's a clue, shitehead; users have better things to do than
finding all the arcane, bizarre and arbitrary ways to do what
should be obvious and automatic. MIME types? Kfm? Give
me a fucking break.
> If I refuse to learn how to do file association under Windows, it doesn't
> work very well there either.
Wrong. When you install applications, they inevitably try to
associate themselves with certain file types. When you open
a file of an unknown type, Windows associates that file with
the application you choose. There is no way to avoid associa-
tions in Windows without jumping through a lot of hoops. I
haven't even seen associations in Unix.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 17:48:32 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > The question is: why the hell are Linux UIs so shitty? Are you so
> > uncomfortable with the obvious answer that you need to change the
> > debate ASAP?
>
> Why the hell are sledge hammers so shitty?
>
> The other day, I was trying to change my sparkplugs, and the
> damn thing was absolutely fucking worthless for unscrewing the
> plug out of the engine head.
>
> The Linux UI is quite good for what it's designed to do.
> It's shitty at doing things it's not intended to do.
I agree completely. I'd just like to point out that "things it's
not intended to do" includes "being used by any human being".
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:54:34 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
"Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
>
> I don't trash LINUX, my son. It is a good little system for
> students, hobbyists and tinkerers. I merely pointed the original
> poster to a more suitable newsgroup for his questions.
>
Uh, yes you do. You are just too blind to see it. Some hobby OS, Linux. I have
been running it on a 12-way S/390 for a few months now. Windows can't do that. Oh,
and by the way, I am not your son.
>
> What color is the sky in your world, Gary?
Right now, gray. Is your sky filled with the MS Windows logo?
>
>
> Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Take your fake religion elsewhere.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:00:29 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
However you want to interpret the Mindcraft tests, it is old news. Linux beats
W2K hands down now.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:11:53 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I guess you could write an "openfile" command that does this using the
> existing functionality. The reason why no one's written such a thing is
> more lack of interest than anyone else.
Which is quite telling. But it's not a big surprise that programmers
wouldn't be interested in helping users, even if they are (technically,
not mentally) users themselves.
And writing an "openfile" command would not be sufficient for
consistency. The shell would still treat "executable" and "non-
executable" files in completely different ways for no justifiable
reason whatsoever.
There is no conceptual reason between executing a program
and opening a file. In both cases, the shell is ordered to process
an object so it must 1) identify the object type, and 2) find the
associated process. In some OSes, the creation of a process
from a program is done through a separate server process
and the identity between opening and execution is obvious.
> The people who care about file
> associations usually prefer to do this kind of thing via a GUI.
> And the problem has been addressed at the GUI level.
You wish.
> Well if that's what you want, just don't close the program ( duh ! ). I
> don't see the benefit of forcing the user to leave the program open.
That's because you've never heard of Persistence before.
And not closing a program is *not* the same thing as having
useful persistent process. Unix processes are designed to be
one-off entities and Unix counts on this fact.
> Well yes, there is. Even a web server typically starts a seperate process
> for every user. There is no clear benefit to running everything in a single
> process.
There is in running everything in a single *task*. A single input queue for
one. And instead of creating a new process for each user you can create
a new thread instead. The important thing is that users don't have to know
anything about starting processes; whether a new process is actually
started is an implementation detail completely invisible to the user.
> >And of course, this does not work in the shell; there's absolutely no reason
> >why it shouldn't but that's that.
>
> What do you mean by "doesn't work in the shell" ? Several applications, like
> vim, emacs, a2ps, etc respond to the file type they're given appropriately.
<rolleyes> Which has nothing to do with the shell.
> >But this would be Design,
>
> Stay away from design, you are not very good at it.
Considering the source ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:29:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 15 Sep 2000 23:32:09 GMT
<8pubhp$hp6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Linux strives to be more like Windows in every iteration.
>
>: Case in point?
>: http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/previews/2285/1/
>
>: Let's look at the screenshot up in the upper-right
>: corner of this web page.
>
>: - At the top of the screen, we have a MS Win95-ish
>: task bar, completely with pop-up menus, shortcuts
>: on the bar (like IE4 shell integration or Win98),
>: a SYSTRAY-like program notification area on the
>: right-hand side. It's bad enough they copied everything
>: lock, stock, and barrel, but they even had to put it
>: in the same positions. Linux developers are copying off
>: of the $millions of research Microsoft did to develop the
>: Win95 interface to make it efficient and conducive to
>: productivity.
>
>Irrelevant, since Windows copied the start menu idea from X windows'
>root menu in the first place, and it copied the taskbar idea from
>the iconbox available with so many X window managers.
>
Uh...pedant point, X doesn't *have* a root menu; that's
a function of the window manager the user is currently running.
The X Windows System proper might have an example window manager
(I'd have to look), but doesn't require it for operation, although
from the user's point of view it might look very crippled
as windows would not be movable under user control.
Mwm has/had a desktop popup menu; I don't remember whether it had
a different iconbox window popup menu. (I doubt it.) Other window
managers have their own ideas as to menus, root and otherwise.
Another pedant point: I start up my X system by using a customized
.xinitrc, which fires off an xterm and that's pretty much it.
I then type in 'fvwm' in there and get window management; I set it
up that way so that I can in fact write a window manager if and when
I have time; the backwaters of X can get interesting while doing so! :-)
I suspect Windows may have a capability that's vaguely similar
(there's an old hack that allowed one to replace the old desktop of
Win95 with Internet Explorer; IE itself used it to replace the old
desktop with IE 4; of course, now I can't seem to find it in an
old registry dump I have :-/ ).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "James Yegerlehner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux leading indicator
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:32:46 -0600
In the Oracle analyst's conference call on Thursay, Larry Ellison was asked
about the mix of Linux in their products. His answer:
Larry Ellison [ my paraphrase, but this is pretty much his wording]:
=============
In July there were 4 times as many linux downloads as win NT downloads
amongst developers. This compares to July of the prior year where there were
fewer Linux downloads than Windows downloads. It is a leading indicator. It
is staggering. It is a significant erosion for Microsoft in the development
community.
==============
The exchange happens about 42 minutes into this conference call:
http://www.nasdaq.com/reference/broadcast_oracle.htm
Regards,
James Yegerlehner
====== 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: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:40:25 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8pua6q$hp6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > : On 15 Sep 2000 03:16:33 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > :>: On 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT, Steve Mading
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > :>:>
> > :>:>: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > :>:>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > :>:>:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> > :>:>:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine))
> wrote:
> > :>:>:>
> > :>:>:> >If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an
> existing OS
> > :>:>:> >(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download
> for
> > :>:>:> >RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is
sucked
> > :>:>:> >in later. :-)
> > :>:>:> >
> > :>:>:> Emphasis on "UN-metered" connection.
> > :>:>:> You should see what I have to pay for my Internet connection.
> > :>:>
> > :>:>: That is why Linux is available through so many channels. On-line,
> in
> > :>:>: stores, free with books, etc. You can pick the method that best
> fits your
> > :>:>: situation.
> > :>:>
> > :>:>I generally prefer to buy an off-the-shelf copy at a store, for two
> > :>:>reasons: 1 - $50 or so is worth the savings in time (downloading
> > :>:>an entire CD's worth onto hard disk, then burning my own CD from
> > :>:>that is an annoyingly tedious task, and takes up lots of disk space
> > :>
> > :>: ???
> > :>
> > :>: Even doing all of this stuff at the commandline is hardly
> > :>: tedious. There are a plethora of gui tools available for
> > :>: burning an Image to disc under Linux. Downloading those
> > :>: images is also not something that can be reasonably called
> > :>: tedious. It may take a long time. However, that's merely
> > :>: a matter of having a file transfer dialog open on your
> > :>: desktop for a few hours.
> > :>
> > :>Errr - "few hours"? Ever try downloading a 650 Mb over
> >
> > : Mind your grammar. It was not merely the download process
> > : that you were implying was tedious. Correspondingly, it
> > : was not merely the download process I was commenting on.
> >
> > Adding more steps to a manual process cannot decrease its tediousness,
> > it can only increase it. Therefore a manual process cannot be less
> > tedious than its most tedious component step. If the download is
> > tedious, then the manual process that contains the download inherits
> > that tediousness.
> >
> > : Follow your own advice.
> >
> > : [deletia]
> >
> > : I shudder to think what you would have done in the 1200 bps era.
> >
> > The 1200 bps era? I certainly wasn't sitting around thinking, "gee,
> > I sure wish I could download a Linux distro - too bad it's only 1990
> > and it doesn't exist yet."
>
> But if the Mandrake distro (1gb) HAD existed.... it would have taken about
> 100 days of solid downloading to get.
> I guess thats still faster than transcribing it from a printout.
>
The problem is in 1990, I sure there were 2400 bps, and I thought 9600 bps
modems had been out already. Either way it still way too much for a
regular modem to handle even today, unless you a few days to spare.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
