Linux-Advocacy Digest #318, Volume #29 Tue, 26 Sep 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Alan Baker)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? ("Dan
Jacobson")
Re: High level design "chief" seeks "indians" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: The Linux Experience ("Yannick")
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
("Yannick")
Re: The Linux Experience (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Grant Edwards)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:15:14 -0400
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I just mentioned it because Jedi replied to being asked about buying computers
>with MS software preinstalled with "last I bought was a ST 520". Which, IIRC,
>did have MS software preinstalled anyway, in the form of a basic interpreter.
>
I had a 1040ST and don't remember any built-in BASIC. I do remember an
excellent BASIC that was available separately and definitely *NOT*
Microsoft's. Does anyone remember the name?
Ah, the good old ST. What a waste of perfectly good 68K CPUs. Oh well,
at least you could run MacOS on it :-)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:23:49 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Basically, he's a frustrated loser. If I was a loser, I'd probably be
> frustrated too. It's understandable.
You could never be a loser Donovan, because you'd have to try
to achieve something first.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: 26 Sep 2000 19:39:28 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:59:42 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Bush is proposing a plan to spend more of the available funds on the
>> aristocracy than everyone else. I still don't see how the poor would
>> benefit from this. If he's spending budget surplus, I'd argue that
>> there are ways that would be of greater benefit to low income earners.
>
>Wrong again. The child credit he's proposing goes to EVERY family raising
>children equally,
The child credit does not exist in a vacuum. If someone gives both of
us a dollar, and subsequently gives me a million dollars, it would be
silly to argue that we "benefitted equally" on the grounds that we
both concurrently received $1-
> it does not discriminate on income. But the benefit to the
>poor is huge.
Could you quantify "huge" ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:41:39 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mar, 26 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
> That didn't stop Bill Gates. That didn't stop Linus. That is not
> stopping AtheOS, fer pete's sake!
For DOS you should say "That didn't stop IBM!"
and Linux *is* Unix so it doesn't count. And so
is AtheOS you moron! Are you proposing that
Unix dominance would hinder Unix projects?
> >Wrong. I'm frustrated because even long after I finish my project,
> >Unix will *still* dominate.
>
> So little confidence... or so good forecasting capabilities...
Just a decent understanding of politics and sociology.
> > I have no doubt that most of the venture capitalists you
> >suggested I get in touch with score > 20 and that many of them can
> >be diagnosed as psychopaths.
>
> How many venture capitalists do you know?
Venture Capitalists best exemplify corporate principles, better
even than CEOs I imagine, and all large corporations score about
35 out of 40 on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (and that's
only because one of the questions is non-applicable and thus saves
them an additional 2 points) making them clinical psychopaths.
> > Which is exactly why I'd rather slit
> >my own wrists than be indebted to one. And it does suggest who
> >*you* like to hang around with;
>
> Are you saying I hang around venture capitalists? How would you
> know that?
That was the most charitable conclusion I could make. *Wanting*
to hang around VCs would be much worse. And wanting to *be* a
VC would be worse still.
> > probably "merely" out of crushing idiocy.
>
> You are rarely ever indebted to a venture capitalist. You are confusing
> them with loan sharks and shylocks.
ROTFLMOA!
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:40:48 -0700
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00092616050801.27717@pc03...
> El mar, 26 sep 2000, Simon Cooke escribió:
> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:00092609291302.19788@pc03...
> >> >>>> Why? The Atari 520STe had MS software preinstalled, didn't it?
> >[snip]
> >> >>Didn't it come with a basic interpreter?
> >[snip]
> >> Wasn't the basic interpreter, by chance, a MS basic interpreter?
> >> They had almost a monopoly in basics for that kind of computers.
> >
> >Um... not really. Most people (once they got past doing silly crap in
BASIC)
> >moved to Assembly language for those machines. More software was written
in
> >assembler than anything else.
>
> Sorry, but "not really" what, exactly? ;-)
>
> I just mentioned it because Jedi replied to being asked about buying
computers
> with MS software preinstalled with "last I bought was a ST 520". Which,
IIRC,
> did have MS software preinstalled anyway, in the form of a basic
interpreter.
>
> That's all. No big thing :-)
Well... just not really that they had a monopoly on BASIC. There were plenty
of variants from lots of different vendors. And most programmers didn't use
it anyway :)
Si
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:46:38 -0700
In article <39d077f2$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 09/25/2000 at 11:07 AM,
> "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>> Now that is just a DUMB statement. The latest games require a TON of
>> computing power. Just because a machine doesn't do POS or database apps,
>> it doesn't mean that it isn't a computer. Now quit talking out of your
>> ass and make some sense.
>
>The ability to play games is not a definition of a computer as far as I am
>concerned. The ability to do real business world tasks is what a computer
>is as far as I am concerned. Our clients do POS, need DB, need
>Domino/Notes. They do not play games. They have no use for a machine which
>cannot be productive in the real business world environment.
>
You do realize that there are Mac POS systems, right.
There are Mac databases.
Domino and Notes are available for the Mac.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: "Dan Jacobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:51:24 +0800
> Why does Win 98 freeze up all the time?
It's me, they call me the Original Poster, and I'd like to qualify my
question in that whereas I hear tales of the Blue Screen of Death, for me
death is ensured whenever I'm forced to give the three finger salute, and
up comes the box with choices of what to kill, which might be fun to play,
but still one must give the final three finger salute again and reboot
anyway.
I suppose this is some kind of toughness training test to enforce good
file saving habits.
--
www.geocities.com/jidanni E-mail: restore ".com." ¿n¤¦¥§
Tel:+886-4-5854780; starting in year 2001: +886-4-25854780
The Austin Powers of computing
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: High level design "chief" seeks "indians"
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:04:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> Hi. I am a high-level designer. I don't know how to program, but I
> am good at "high level design". I have a high level design for a new
> operating system. It has the following features:
>
> (*) fast
> (*) powerful
> (*) object oriented
> (*) cures world hunger.
If you're serious, I'm all over it, as long as I get to wear the Indian
costume.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:19:46 -0000
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:03:43 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>El mar, 26 sep 2000, Simon Cooke escribió:
>>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:00092609291302.19788@pc03...
>>> >>>> Why? The Atari 520STe had MS software preinstalled, didn't it?
>>[snip]
>>> >>Didn't it come with a basic interpreter?
>>[snip]
>>> Wasn't the basic interpreter, by chance, a MS basic interpreter?
>>> They had almost a monopoly in basics for that kind of computers.
>>
>>Um... not really. Most people (once they got past doing silly crap in BASIC)
>>moved to Assembly language for those machines. More software was written in
>>assembler than anything else.
>
>Sorry, but "not really" what, exactly? ;-)
>
>I just mentioned it because Jedi replied to being asked about buying computers
>with MS software preinstalled with "last I bought was a ST 520". Which, IIRC,
>did have MS software preinstalled anyway, in the form of a basic interpreter.
There's nothing "preinstalled" on an ST besides the BIOS and OS.
There's nowhere else to preinstall it to really.
I suppose one could have been indignant about subsidizing MS
licencing. However I find that an unlikely condition. Besides,
ST's went for 1/3rd the price of lowend 8088 clones at the time.
>
>That's all. No big thing :-)
[deletia]
--
Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would
say that it had merely been detected.
-- Oscar Wilde
Wow! Look!! A stray meatball!! Let's interview it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:22:20 -0000
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:41:39 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> El mar, 26 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
>> That didn't stop Bill Gates. That didn't stop Linus. That is not
>> stopping AtheOS, fer pete's sake!
>
>For DOS you should say "That didn't stop IBM!"
>and Linux *is* Unix so it doesn't count. And so
>is AtheOS you moron! Are you proposing that
>Unix dominance would hinder Unix projects?
Most of what consitutes Unix software these days doesn't
really depend on Unix-isms. This is certainly true of the
sort of software you would seem to be interested in.
[deletia]
Infact, as soon as AtheOS gets a version of SDL all 3 of those
AtheOS users could help port SimCity 3000.
--
spagmumps, n.:
Any of the millions of Styrofoam wads that accompany mail-order items.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends
GREAT MOMENTS IN HISTORY (#7): November 23, 1915
Pancake make-up is invented; most people continue to prefer syrup.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:24:40 -0000
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:49:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message ...
>>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 14:34:25 -0400, Simon Palko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 12:42:02 GMT, Chad Myers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >"K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:avRe5.37215$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> .....
>>>> >> .....
>>>> >> > Because SOAP is W3 standard, it's not os/vendor specific. However,
>>>new
>>>> >> run-time for VB,
>>>> >> > C++, etc. and other elements of development framework (MS
>Developer's
>>>> >> Studio .Net edition)
>>>> >> > will be supplied for Windows only by MS.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Boris
>>>> >>
>>>> >> What Microsoft is attempting to do here is extend their control to
>all
>>>or
>>>> >> much of the internet just like they control millions of users of PC
>>>with
>>>> >> Windows. It might not be vendor but Microsoft will make the
>>>standards and
>>>> >> change them at it's whim.
>>>> >
>>>> >Black helicopters....
>>>> >
>>>> >Give me a break...
>>>>
>>>> Kerberos.
>>>
>>>So many people are so misinformed on this issue, that I'm not even going
>to
>>>correct you except to say that you're wrong. If you want more, let me
>know,
>>
>> BULLSHIT!
>>
>> The extended the protocol (admittedly within the guideline of the
>> spec)
>
>
>Now we into the Jedi law office, and watch as the the knight himself does a
>demonstation with his keen linguistic sword, jedi-style (actually a somewhat
>juvenile fantasy style, no?).
Your own juvenile behavior doesn't alter the manner in which
Microsoft attempted to exclude others from having useful
knowledge of their modifications.
[deletia]
It does nothing to refute the information which can be culled from
a variety of conventional news outlets (namely Microsoft's conduct
in this matter).
--
Everything is worth precisely as much as a belch, the difference being
that a belch is more satisfying.
-- Ingmar Bergman
It doesn't matter what you do, it only matters what you say you've
done and what you're going to do.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:27:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:42:53 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> >
>
> >> How will the average American benefit from massive tax cuts to the
> >> top 1% of income earners, and how will those tax cuts be funded ?
> >
> >That's already been shown. A family of 4 earning $35 K gets a 100%
> >reduction in their federal taxes. A family of 4 earning $50 K gets a 50%
> >reduction.
> >
> >Seems like a pretty substantial benefit.
>
> Games with numbers again. We already discussed this. The dollar amount
> going to the rich is higher than the dollar amount going to the poor.
>
> IOW, more of the extra money that is supposedly available is going to
> the rich than the poor.
And you've failed to explain why a person paying $1,000 in taxes per
year should get a bigger reduction than a person paying $200,000 in
taxes per year.
>
> >> > Especially when the Bush plan helps those at the lower end
> >> >by a greater percentage?
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. If you want to cut
> >> taxes, you have to cut spending. The people at the lower end are more
> >> likely to be hit hard by spending cuts.
> >
> >What spending cuts? The Bush plan has a _higher_ expenditure than the
> >current budget.
>
> Yes, of course, the other alternative to spending cuts is simply reduce
> taxes but spend the same. But ultimately, you're still dealing with a
Does the word "surplus" mean anything to you?
> limited pool of resources, and Bush's policy directs the lions share of
> available resources to those least in need.
You keep saying that, but refuse to support it. Your ramblings don't
count--particularly since you've been so wrong on your other factual
statements.
>
> >Of course, perhaps you're one of those who considers a budget which
> >increases by only 5% insted of 10% to have been cut.
>
> Not at all. I like a balanced budget. But when money is available, I
> think that spending it on millionaires so that they can buy new BMWs
> is not exactly a priority.
So what do you do? Give people back more than they paid in taxes? That's
what you're advocating since the Bush plan completely eliminates taxes
for lower middle class and below and that's not enough for you.
>
> >> Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. For example, if I have a family of
> >> four kids, and I get a $1000- tax cut, but $1000 less is spent on the
> >> education of each of my children, then I'm not a net winner.
> >
> >Of course, that's not what Bush is proposing, so it's irrelevant.
>
> Bush is proposing a plan to spend more of the available funds on the
> aristocracy than everyone else. I still don't see how the poor would
> benefit from this. If he's spending budget surplus, I'd argue that
> there are ways that would be of greater benefit to low income earners.
You don't see how the poor would benefit because you refuse to look at
the facts.
Anyone making less than $35 K per year would pay ZERO in federal income
taxes under the Bush plan--that's a 100% reduction. Those earning $50 K
would see their taxes reduced by 50%. How do you reconcile that with "no
benefit"????
Now, it's plausible that you're advocating a direct Robin Hood approach
where money is taken from the wealthy and given directly to the poor. If
so, please say so. But don't try to lie about other people's position.
Saying that Bush's plan doesn't do anything for anyone except the rich
is a blatant lie.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 26 Sep 2000 20:33:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> when? every year since 1990... you?
Lie.
What was so neat (or retarded, depending on your point of view) about a soda machine
on the first floor of building 4, what happened to that soda machine, and whats the
cluster of buildings that building 4 is a part of called?
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:36:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:44:23 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> >
>
> >> Spending cuts also "mean more" to the $35 k family of 4. BTW, that's
> >> about
> >> $7- a week per family member. Enough for them all to buy a Coke a day.
> >
> >So we shouldn't give them anything?
>
> I'm simply pointing out that Bush's policy does not offer them very much.
> Sure, given a choice between a Coke a day and no Coke a day, I'd probably
> take it. But I'd hardly act like I'd won the lottery because of it.
First of all, your numbers are way off.
The Bush plan basically waives income taxes for those under $35 K.
That's an average of $1500 per year -- or $30 per week.
That's a lot of money for someone in that income bracket.
But what do you want him to do? How much more can they offer than
eliminating taxes? GIVE them money?
>
> >> The fact remains that the net effect of Bush's policy ( compared to
> >> the
> >> status quo ) is a redistribution of resources to the wealthy.
> >
> >Considering that you keep making things up (such as education spending
> >being reduced), you're hardly a reliable source.
>
> Complete and utter nonsense. You are the one making things up now. My
> example was a hypothetical to demonstrate that the tax cuts do not take
> place in a vacuum. Tax cuts obviously mean less revenue ( than would be
> available without tax cuts ) which means less spending ( than would
> be possible without tax cuts )
>
> >How about some evidence?
>
> I think it's for Bush to come up with the evidence that his policy has
> something to offer ordinary Americans. I haven't seen any such evidence.
Because you refuse to look.
The average family making $35 K today pays $1500 in taxes. Bush's plan
eliminates that.
The fact that you refuse to even look at his plan is pretty interesting.
>>And how do you call it a redistribution to the wealthy when the lower
>>middle class families will be paying 50-100% less than they currently
>>are paying, while the cut for the wealthy is a much smaller percentage?
> The dollar amount that goes to the wealthy is greater. Suppose I am
> wealthy and you are not. George Bush's plan allocates more to me than it does
> to you.
I don't think anyone's denying that.
But it seems plenty fair.
Let's look at it this way:
Percent of family income paid in taxes (estimated)
Family salary Current plan Bush Plan
$35 K 4% 0%
$50 K 5% 2%
$75 K 6% 4%
//
/
/
$1,000 K 30% 29%
So, even though the millionaire saves more dollars, he's still paying
far, far, more than the lower income person. The lower income person
sees more percentage benefit.
The only way to do more than Bush proposes is to PAY those making under
$35 K in addition to not collecting any taxes. That's absurd.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:38:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:59:15 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
> >
> >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >> You are being evasive. Why don't you just be honest and admit that the
> >> people who have the most to gain from Bush's policies are the top 1%
> >> of
> >> income earners ?
> >
> >Because it isn't true. The people who have the most to gain are the low
> >income families who would pay NO tax because of Bush's plan.
>
> A coke a week, according to your own numbers.
Nonsense. The numbers he provided (from Bush's web site) said a family
earning $35 K per year would save $1,500.
Do the math. That's almost $30 per week--which is a bit more than "a
coke a week".
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:39:12 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:23:19 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't think the documentation is "bad". On the contrary, it is excellent
> ( especially if you compare it to 'doze, which has docs that border on
> completely useless )
>
> The problem is that it's not terribly well organised.
A nice euphemism :-)
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:39:13 GMT
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Butler) wrote in
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>But linux itself hardly ever freezes up (or in my case, never has). And
> >>if something does freeze (application, not linux), it's a matter of
> >>about 5 seconds to kill and restart it (rather than rebooting).
> >
> >True, but Linux can still freeze up. I've managed to see a hang on system
> >shutdown (a kernel oops! in fact).
>
> I've not seen that. Win98SE generally won't shut down whenever I've used
> the Outlook client (which used to be every day); now that we've got a
> web-client, I can use my browser (and linux for that matter) - work
> recently became far more pleasant. I find Win98 very unreliable, whereas
> the linux router/server it connects to has never frozen (I've been using
> it about 3 years now).
I remember that time period when I saw more crashes of a linux machine than
a Win98 one. Of course, the Win98 was mostly used for gaming and websurfing,
and the linux machine was a DNS+Web+Mail server. :-) On the other hand, I
don't think the NT machine did hang during that time. (But still, I consider
Win98 to be reliable enough for personal use when you have no hardware
conflicts).
The problem rather was the time to get the linux server running again...
first try to telnet to it to kill the faulty process(es), fail to do so
because of the machine had become so slow it would have required an hour to
enter the commands, crash rebooting, checking the partitions on the three
xxGB hard drives with hardware RAID... about 20-30 minutes downtime. On
NT/2000 or 98 I would have crash-rebooted at once. (Or perhaps tried to
telnet first). That's because I have found 98, and especially NT, to be
quite resistant to crash reboots (though I have not tried on a server, yet).
And don't answer "so, it never hangs but you had to crash reboot". The
hangups (or instant crashreboots) I speak of were all due to bugs and/or
limitations of video drivers, which necessarily have privileged access to
the hardware ; those bugs occuring on some precise occurences not found on
normal use of the system.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: 26 Sep 2000 17:53:01 -0300
>>>>> "Yannick" == Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yannick> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le
Yannick> message : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:23:19 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> wrote: I don't think the documentation is "bad". On the
>> contrary, it is excellent ( especially if you compare it to
>> 'doze, which has docs that border on completely useless )
>>
>> The problem is that it's not terribly well organised.
Yannick> A nice euphemism :-)
Indeed :)
However, talking about documentation, Linux docs have one *really* big
advantage over Windows docs: they are written by people who actually
_know_ what they are about. And that is a big plus.
Most documentation is written by people who don't really know much
about computers, they are writers! Linux docs (HOWTOs and guides) are
_usually_ written by experts in the area. I think that's very good.
-maragato.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:02:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:59:42 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
> >
>
> > it does not discriminate on income. But the benefit to the
> >poor is huge.
>
> Could you quantify "huge" ?
He already has. You just refuse to read what he keeps writing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:03:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, D. Spider wrote:
>>> Really? Which ones were those that came with the source code?
[...]
>Don't forget CPM.
I don't remember having sources to CP/M. The versions I used
(1.4 and 2.2, IIRC), came with CBIOS sources, but not sources for
CP/M itself.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Intra-mural sports
at results are filtering
visi.com through th' plumbing...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
