Linux-Advocacy Digest #231, Volume #29 Wed, 20 Sep 00 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Computer and memory ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Stuart
Fox")
Re: Computer and memory (No Name)
Re: Computer and memory (No Name)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Loren Petrich)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:48:37 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:1kWx5.9566$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:l7Sx5.329$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > No wonder 3rd world countries are excited, but when those same 3rd
> > > > world countries try to sell their products in the US they find all
kind
> > > > of protectionist measures, which has been my point in this thread:
the
> > >
> > > It has nothing to do with market protectionism and EVERYTHNG to
> > > do with national defense.
> > >
> >
> > national defence?
> >
> > <LoL> against what?...el salvador invading usa?
> >
> > typical paranoid right-wing thinking...
>
> typical left-wing oblivion and arrogance
>
> How about if a foreign telco company bought out some
> of our major infrastructure companies. Much of our
> telecommunications resources (arguibly the most
> precious resource America has, next to humans) would
> be in the control of another country who, should they
> become hostile or unfriendly decide to flip the switch,
> pull out and leave us screwed. Our nation depends on
> our internal telecommunications. Our external is a little
> differnt despite what "No Name" would have you believe.
>
> Of course you liberals would be just as happy selling off
> everything to the Red ChiComs like Fearless Leader has
> almost done.
>
> -Chad
uh?..yeah!... whatever chad...<LoL>
/IL
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:19:20 +0100
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dPMx5.243$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > It just does it. Unlike the old NT 4 setup which did a slow format to
> FAT,
> > then ran convert on the next boot, it just does a quick NTFS format. On
> all
> > the machines I've done so far it doesn't grind away like NT 4 used to
> doing
> > a slow FAT format, it takes about 20 seconds to do the NTFS format.
> >
> > On all the machines I've done, it's been very quick. This includes
Compaq
> > Proliant servers, and deskpro desktops, as well as a few Dell Poweredge
> > boxes.
> >
> > How long does it take when you do it? And why exactly are you so
> agressive?
>
> <LoL> ...eh?...ok try this one, last time i installed windows 2000 was
> about 3 months ago on my own machine, finally got my company to pay me a
> license for it (never would buy one myself) as i always install from the
> cd-rom, i asked you when you were presented with the option to do a quick
> format...and the only thing you can tell me is that "It just does
> it"....<LoL>
> anyhow, back to my home install of Windows 2000...i have a 15 GIG
harddrive
> and as Windows 2000:s setup finally got to the point were i have the
option
> to wich drive to put it on, there *were* and *are* no option to do a quick
> format, *it takes him about 25 minutes to format the drive* - that
however
> is not a quick format...
That is your experience and I don't doubt it. However, it differs from my
experience.
>
> now, i installed SuSE Linux 6.4 only a couple of days before that, *and*
> there you have a "quick format" option in YaST when it comes to choose
wich
> drive to install it on...
>
> *were* do you have that in Windows 2000:s setup????
>
> (either with floppys or booting from cd-rom???)
>
Like I said previously, in my experience it just *does* a quick format -
there is no option. On an unpartitioned hard disk, use Setup to create the
partition, and choose to format as NTFS. The experience I've had it formats
it in about 20 seconds (4GB partition on 18GB SCSI, 3GB partition on 10GB
IDE). I've confirmed this on about 20 machines so far.
The bit that does take time in Win2K setup is the bit at the end,
registering COM components, and saving settings. This seems to vary wildly
between machines for no apparent reason.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 20 Sep 2000 09:28:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:34:29 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis said:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8q7kvn$jht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > As said in a previous message, the US restricts ownership of any
>> > Telecommunications company to US citizens, so that in
>> > practical terms means that an UK (or any other company
>> > form any other country for that matter) company can not
>> > build a transatlantic link because there would be no way they
>> > could market it in the US.
>>
>> So? Who says they have to market it in the U.S. The whole point of
>> this thread is why aren't Europeans trying to make life better for
>> themselves rather than waiting for America to do it for them?
>>
>> I still don't see any proof as to why European companies CANNOT
>> or are RESTRICTED FROM building such a link. The money they made
>> from Europe alone would pay for the link.
>
>Europeans are mostly stuck in the " they won't let me get a bigger
>slice of the pie" mentality...whereas Americans say, "Hey, I'll just
>go out and bake a WHOLE new pie for myself."
>
Untrue and unfair: the mobile phone revolution was started in Europe,
the digital TV was invented in Japan, unfortunately in both
cases marketing and profiting of those inventions by European
Telco and Media companies in particular, and non US in general,
has been pretty difficult due to the restrictions the US impose
to foreign companies in high tech enterprises.
>
>
>>
>> -Chad
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 20 Sep 2000 09:23:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:39:41 GMT, Chad Myers said:
>
>"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:l7Sx5.329$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > No wonder 3rd world countries are excited, but when those same 3rd
>> > > world countries try to sell their products in the US they find all kind
>> > > of protectionist measures, which has been my point in this thread: the
>> >
>> > It has nothing to do with market protectionism and EVERYTHNG to
>> > do with national defense.
>> >
>>
>> national defence?
>>
>> <LoL> against what?...el salvador invading usa?
>>
>> typical paranoid right-wing thinking...
>
>typical left-wing oblivion and arrogance
>
>How about if a foreign telco company bought out some
>of our major infrastructure companies. Much of our
>telecommunications resources (arguibly the most
>precious resource America has, next to humans) would
>be in the control of another country who, should they
>become hostile or unfriendly decide to flip the switch,
>pull out and leave us screwed.
And which foreign telco would be that may I ask? BT?
Give me a break!
Something else you seem to imply is that a foreign goverment
has a saying in what a company should do when investing
or working overseas. Wakey, wakey! Companies respond only
to shareholders and to the different laws and regulations
of the different countries they work in. How is that other
countries are not afraid of US Telcos but the US are afraid
of Telcos of those same countries?
>Our nation depends on
>our internal telecommunications. Our external is a little
>differnt despite what "No Name" would have you believe.
And what is what I would like him to believe?
My only point has been so far that non US Telco companies
have no access to the US market because their owners are not
US citizens, which you have implicitly accepted citing
"national security concerns" which is another name for
commercial protectionism.
>
>Of course you liberals would be just as happy selling off
>everything to the Red ChiComs like Fearless Leader has
>almost done.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Sorry, but you are confused here. Any book of political history
would tell you that historically the Liberals are in favor of
more State intervention in the economy. What I and others are
advocating is less intervention of the State in the economy
and full liberalization of the markets and to let the
market forces, not economic protectionism, decide which company
will provide for your Internet service. Yhis kind of
policies have beeing usualy supported by the likes of Reagan
and Thatcher, who would clearly be insulted if you would dare
to say that such policies are "liberal".
So please get a clue, and anyway I won the argument because you
accepted that there are restrictions against non US companies.
Cheerios.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: 20 Sep 2000 09:31:36 GMT
In article <8q99ub$ab7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <VKtu5.43238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jesus, for bashing Microsoft so much, you guys sure try hard to
>> copy everything they do!
>I think there's actually a symbiosis going on here. Microsoft has
>recently adopted some concepts from KDE and GNOME for Windows ME,
>and Gnome and KDE have been sprucing up applications to make them more
>like Windows.
>
>Ironically, FVWM95, which provided a "Windows 95 look and feel", never
>really caught on. Most people prefered KDE which was a look-and-feel
>clone of CDE used in AIX, Solaris, HP_UX, and other UNIX flavors.
>Others preferred Afterstep which was a clone of NeXtStep.
Alternatively, some Linux-GUI designers may be copying Windows
because that's what they are most familiar with. Or they may be trying to
make it easier to Windows users to use Linux.
Why not explore new possibilities? Or less-well-known GUI's like
the Amiga one or the Acorn Archimedes RISCOS one or ...
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:34:41 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:39c7db5d$0$261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Great - a totally unsubstantiated rumor spread by Cringley - and people
> actually replied?
>
> ANYONE who has been to the Redmond campus KNOWS that 99% of this is
entirely
> untrue. The only unix running there is NOT running the infrastructure. I
> challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Hows that "Hotmail runs 99% on BSD"
> stand up today? MSN on apache/solaris? hahahaha
>
> This is pathetic - how low does cringley have to go to prove he's a MS
> hater.
>
well...his a penguin geek...what did you expect?
/IL
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:26:52 -0400
No Name wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:39:41 GMT, Chad Myers said:
> >
> >"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:l7Sx5.329$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > No wonder 3rd world countries are excited, but when those same 3rd
> >> > > world countries try to sell their products in the US they find all kind
> >> > > of protectionist measures, which has been my point in this thread: the
> >> >
> >> > It has nothing to do with market protectionism and EVERYTHNG to
> >> > do with national defense.
> >> >
> >>
> >> national defence?
> >>
> >> <LoL> against what?...el salvador invading usa?
> >>
> >> typical paranoid right-wing thinking...
> >
> >typical left-wing oblivion and arrogance
> >
> >How about if a foreign telco company bought out some
> >of our major infrastructure companies. Much of our
> >telecommunications resources (arguibly the most
> >precious resource America has, next to humans) would
> >be in the control of another country who, should they
> >become hostile or unfriendly decide to flip the switch,
> >pull out and leave us screwed.
>
> And which foreign telco would be that may I ask? BT?
> Give me a break!
>
> Something else you seem to imply is that a foreign goverment
> has a saying in what a company should do when investing
> or working overseas. Wakey, wakey! Companies respond only
> to shareholders and to the different laws and regulations
> of the different countries they work in. How is that other
> countries are not afraid of US Telcos but the US are afraid
> of Telcos of those same countries?
Simple...we recognize an inherent danger to national defence
when we see one.
>
> >Our nation depends on
> >our internal telecommunications. Our external is a little
> >differnt despite what "No Name" would have you believe.
>
> And what is what I would like him to believe?
>
> My only point has been so far that non US Telco companies
> have no access to the US market because their owners are not
> US citizens, which you have implicitly accepted citing
> "national security concerns" which is another name for
> commercial protectionism.
No. Any prudent government which takes national defence
seriously will make damn sure that telephonic communications
are wholely owned by its own citizens.
Allowing such a critical chunk of infrastructure to be in the
hands of foreigners is setting yourself up for major sabotage
if you ever go to war with the country whose citizens are on
the Board of Directors. Even if they don't sabotage it..neither
do you want to be paying your enemy to provide you with phone
service.
>
> >
> >Of course you liberals would be just as happy selling off
> >everything to the Red ChiComs like Fearless Leader has
> >almost done.
> >
> >-Chad
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, but you are confused here. Any book of political history
> would tell you that historically the Liberals are in favor of
> more State intervention in the economy. What I and others are
> advocating is less intervention of the State in the economy
> and full liberalization of the markets and to let the
> market forces, not economic protectionism, decide which company
> will provide for your Internet service. Yhis kind of
> policies have beeing usualy supported by the likes of Reagan
> and Thatcher, who would clearly be insulted if you would dare
> to say that such policies are "liberal".
>
> So please get a clue, and anyway I won the argument because you
> accepted that there are restrictions against non US companies.
>
> Cheerios.
It's quite obvious that you don't understant the strategic
importance of critical infrastructure such as telephone
companies.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 06:28:34 -0400
No Name wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 17:34:29 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis said:
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> "No Name" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8q7kvn$jht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > As said in a previous message, the US restricts ownership of any
> >> > Telecommunications company to US citizens, so that in
> >> > practical terms means that an UK (or any other company
> >> > form any other country for that matter) company can not
> >> > build a transatlantic link because there would be no way they
> >> > could market it in the US.
> >>
> >> So? Who says they have to market it in the U.S. The whole point of
> >> this thread is why aren't Europeans trying to make life better for
> >> themselves rather than waiting for America to do it for them?
> >>
> >> I still don't see any proof as to why European companies CANNOT
> >> or are RESTRICTED FROM building such a link. The money they made
> >> from Europe alone would pay for the link.
> >
> >Europeans are mostly stuck in the " they won't let me get a bigger
> >slice of the pie" mentality...whereas Americans say, "Hey, I'll just
> >go out and bake a WHOLE new pie for myself."
> >
>
> Untrue and unfair: the mobile phone revolution was started in Europe,
Because the landlines suck, and it's easier to get around your
overly burdensom government overhead.
> the digital TV was invented in Japan, unfortunately in both
Exactly when was Japan towed to Europe?
> cases marketing and profiting of those inventions by European
> Telco and Media companies in particular, and non US in general,
> has been pretty difficult due to the restrictions the US impose
> to foreign companies in high tech enterprises.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -Chad
> >
> >
> >--
> >Aaron R. Kulkis
> >Unix Systems Engineer
> >ICQ # 3056642
> >
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
