Linux-Advocacy Digest #401, Volume #29 Mon, 2 Oct 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: The real issue ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: [ CORRECTION ] Re: The real issue
Re: The real issue
Re: The real issue
Re: The real issue
Re: The real issue ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Photoshop for Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (.)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:05:37 -0000
On 29 Sep 2000 21:41:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
>>>many others have ever seen.
>
>> So. That still doesn't make your Win-centric gibberish any more valid.
>
>Win-centric? You apparantly have misunderstood my entire argument. I am
No, I've understood it all too well.
You seem fixated on this idea that a bad shutdown should necessarily
trash an OS with a non journaled filesystem. That has only ever been
a problem for WinDOS. It wasn't even a serious problem for Win3.x.
>in actuality exceedingly anti-windows in nearly every case. I dont like linux
>much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
You still seem like someone who has only ever seen Win9x and thus
seems to view the rest of computing with a rather biased eye.
--
wolf, n.:
A man who knows all the ankles.
Nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:07:44 -0000
On 30 Sep 2000 06:42:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:8r32b1$12ai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I dont like linux
>>> much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
>>>
>>>
>> Such as?
>
>For unix and unix-like systems, solaris, AIX and freebsd/openbsd...
Except if you pull the plug on solaris it will by default
not protect you either. Until you get into serious computing
that is likely WAY out of your league, this superior robustness
that you attribute to openbsd and commercial Unix is not
something you would ever have an opportunity to experience.
>
>For multimedia, beos, for game console, windows.
Neither of thse are more robust. They might be more
"featurefull" but that is another criterion.
--
Time is fluid ... like a river with currents, eddies, backwash.
-- Spock, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate 3134.0
Can't open /usr/games/lib/fortunes.dat.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:09:52 -0000
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:02:26 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:53:59 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>>On 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>>>>>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
>>>>>> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
>>>>>> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
>>>>>> junior high students.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
>>>>
>>>> That still doesn't answer the question. What is inherent in
>>>> a FAT filesystem that implies that you should expect the
>>>> system to crash more?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't just get that way by magic or fairy dust. There's
>>>> a reason for it that can be determined and explained.
>>>
>>>It doesn't fully shut down the system and come up in BeOS
>>
>> What exactly is lingering around to provide problems for
>> the new kernel? Should you trust an OS that doesn't
>> completely flush the state of the system once it takes
>> control?
>
>It's meant as a demo. You can't really do much with the
IOW: it's a big fat ad.
As such, it reflects upon the full version. If this
"well, it's really just a demo" version is percieved
as a piece of shit than it will certainly reflect
badly on Be and "real BeOS".
>'Personal' edition. As such, it is meant to provide you
>with a basic idea of what the final system will run like.
>
>You would not be trusting the personal edition for much of
>'real' use as it doesn't provide you with a lot of data
>storage capabilities and it doesn't really give you a lot
>of the options of the full version. I'm not sure about
>installing apps on it, as I've never tried installing
>anything more on the personal edition, only on the Pro.
Demos aren't an excuse to be sloppy.
[deletia]
--
My CODE of ETHICS is vacationing at famed SCHROON LAKE in upstate New York!!
A man paints with his brains and not with his hands.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:16:22 -0000
On 30 Sep 2000 06:40:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "." wrote:
>
>>> Thus generating alot of the reasoning behind the arguments of some of
>>> the most illogical and vehement anti-linux people on COLA. Try it,
>>> you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
>>> many others have ever seen.
>
>> Have you even tried any other journalling FS? Reiserfs, xfs, even journalled
>> ufs on solaris come to mind.
>
>Ive used (and use currently) reiserfs and ufs, and neither one of them can
>touch bfs in terms of filesize and speed...
When is that ever a significant concern?
[deletia]
How would you even manage to pericieve the difference?
--
It may be bad manners to talk with your mouth full, but it isn't too
good either if you speak when your head is empty.
Having nothing, nothing can he lose.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:16:10 +0100
>Perhaps, but probably not anything based on Linux.
>
Have you ever actually tried either gnome or KDE, both of which are superior
to windows and
will both be even better in their next major release.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:26:03 -0000
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:43:14 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8r63m4$lqb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Sep 3900 15:11:38,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () blessed us with this:
>>
>>
>>> No, he's just a troll. He started out with something inflammatory
>>> and now he is continuing that general pattern. Think of it as some
>>> sort of diversionary tactic.
>
>The problem with a killfile is that your garbage still shows up. A bad
No, this is the problem with an idiot using anything. Even a
shiny happy interface won't completely counteract the effects
of gross stupidity. There is sufficient information in the
message headers to allow you to quite effectively avoid anyone
you choose to hide from.
>experience with linux? MUST be a troll. Go live in your little tiny world. One
The only problem with your rant is that YOU were the wanker that
started out with the gratuitous belligerence. I only responded
to your verbal bile.
>thing that reading COLA has proven is that even true linux advocates do not
>like you, "Jedi".
Your self serving definitions don't alter the fact that your
"anecdote" was flawed. While there are certainly bad experiences
to be had with Linux, I usually don't expect to find them here.
You just don't like the fact that I so trivially blew your little
rant apart.
>
>>Quote from the original post:
>>
>> "Finally the moment of truth- she rebooted. What
>>happpened? The xfs server failed . . ."
>>
>>Was this reboot in fact necessary, or is the
>>narrator just mired in the Windo~1s mindset, i.e.
>>himself not a Linux user at all?
>>
>>Vacuo
>
>As mentioned, she is using RedHat's graphical login. It wasn't really
>necessary for her to reboot, but as she wasn't sure what the steps
That would have been a good time to clue in the user about
virtual consoles and runlevels. Setting the default runlevel
to 3 would have been a good idea at that point.
Then, you could step through the entire "restart process" manually
and see what exploded.
>were offhand, the simplest method was to reboot. Makes sense to me. Shouldn't
>hurt anything. Were I present, the problems would have been avoided, since
>I've been that route before.
It's just very crude and the sort of thing not worthy of someone
that has a clue about Linux. Bad advice can plague users of any
OS.
>
>Incidently, as I've stated numerous times thanks to the inability of people to
>actually read, I wasn't there. Why do you think my habits had a single thing
That is simply a red herring. However you did relate the story
and saw nothing wrong with this. While it doesn't demonstrate
that you were the prime idiot, it does help point out your bias.
[deletia]
--
May you die in bed at 95, shot by a jealous spouse.
There but for the grace of God, goes God.
-- Winston Churchill, speaking of Sir Stafford Cripps.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: [ CORRECTION ] Re: The real issue
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:29:05 -0000
On 02 Oct 2000 13:42:33 -0200, Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Kolbjørn" == Kolbjørn S Brønnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kolbjørn> I mean the second. We should all avoid Microsoft
> Kolbjørn> products whenever possible :-). I must use Microsoft
> Kolbjørn> products because of my work situation, but I'm working
> Kolbjørn> on reducing my use of Microsoft products.
>
> Kolbjørn> -- Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
>
>I don't think Microsoft is the issue. Why is it using Microsoft Word
>any different from using Corel Wordperfect? Both are proprietary
>software, aren't they? Microsoft just manages to have a bigger share,
>that is all.
>
>Fighting agains Microsoft is useless. If Microsoft happens to fall, we
>will still have people using CorelDraw or Adobe Photoshop and all
>that. So how is this going to help?
It will at least have the potential of dissasociating application
level interfaces with operating systems. As things are now, the
msoffice 'monopoly' also happens to bolster the dominance of
windos. OTOH, you can/could get wordperfect for VMS. While one
part of the chain was still there, you had a little more choice
in where to be subjected to the rest of the vendorlock.
>
>The issue is not using proprietary software. Simple.
>
>regards,
>-- Roberto.
--
It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters.
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)
"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it."
-- Marvin the paranoid android
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:30:10 -0000
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:50:40 -0400, David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
>
>> People who say that Netscape doesn't crash are idiots. But Linux as a
>
>Hehe. Apparently I got some special snapshot edition of Linux Netscape or
>something. I don't really use it anymore, but for some reason I've never
>run into any of the problems everyone else seems to have. 'Course,
>difference here is that I don't think everyone is lying just because it
>hasn't happened to me.
OTOH, this whole situation holds true for MS Exploder.
--
Hofstadter's Law:
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take
Hofstadter's Law into account.
Secretary's Revenge:
Filing almost everything under "the".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:32:32 -0000
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:01:16 GMT, Kolbjørn S. Brønnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:30:02 GMT, Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Hi all!
>>>
>>>I just wanted to say that I am a bit fed up with some of the advocacy
>>>for Linux that I have seen here. People who say that Netscape haven't
>>>crashed at all, people who claim Linux is a good desktop OS, compared
>>>to W2K.
>>>
>>>These are not the important issues. It's obvious to me that Windows has
>>>the best desktop environment, the best applications and so-on.
>>
>> Bullshit. It's not obvious at all.
>>
>> There are other systems much more deserving of the "best desktop
>> enviroment" title.
>
>Perhaps, but probably not anything based on Linux.
Nothing I stated requires that.
Besides, there's quite a of variety on Unix.
There's even an OpenStep implementation. Linux
desktops aren't merely limited to GNOME & KDE.
Plus, exploiting the benefits of GNOME or KDE
don't require "running" GNOME or KDE either.
The situation is much more subtle than many make it out to be.
>
>>
>> You've just been brainwashed by decades of MS marketing and the
>> MS lemming FUD brigade.
>
>I don't think so. I'm not pro Microsoft at all.
Bullshit. You're claiming that MS has the best desktop
and all the best apps. You can't get MUCH more pro
Microsoft than that.
--
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
-- Groucho Marx
When confronted by a difficult problem, you can solve it more easily by
reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:33:56 -0000
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:16:10 +0100, Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>>Perhaps, but probably not anything based on Linux.
>>
>
>
>Have you ever actually tried either gnome or KDE, both of which are superior
>to windows and
>will both be even better in their next major release.
...don't forget GNUstep...
--
Love the sea? I dote upon it -- from the beach.
Nonsense. Space is blue and birds fly through it.
-- Heisenberg
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:52:48 -0500
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rajoo$hclfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Perhaps, but probably not anything based on Linux.
>
> Have you ever actually tried either gnome or KDE, both of which are
superior
> to windows and will both be even better in their next major release.
I doubt that even the Gnome or KDE developers would admit to that. Unless
of course you mean that "superior" means "not made by MS"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 2 Oct 2000 18:37:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2000 21:41:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>>you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
>>>>many others have ever seen.
>>
>>> So. That still doesn't make your Win-centric gibberish any more valid.
>>
>>Win-centric? You apparantly have misunderstood my entire argument. I am
> No, I've understood it all too well.
> You seem fixated on this idea that a bad shutdown should necessarily
> trash an OS with a non journaled filesystem. That has only ever been
> a problem for WinDOS. It wasn't even a serious problem for Win3.x.
>
Ive never been fixated on that idea actually, "jedi". You have me confused
with someone else. I think youve misattributed.
>>in actuality exceedingly anti-windows in nearly every case. I dont like linux
>>much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
> You still seem like someone who has only ever seen Win9x and thus
> seems to view the rest of computing with a rather biased eye.
Actually, im typing this on an ultra-1 running solaris 8, sitting next to a
freebsd 4.0 machine (mp3 database server and library) and on top of a windows2000
machine specifically designed for looking at a special corporate 'intranet' which
includes blowtus and microsoft exchange. The windows machine hasnt been turned
on in about two weeks.
At home I run windows millenium for games and word capabilities, and bsd for
everything else.
Now then, what exactly was it that you were saying about my opinions and sources?
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 2 Oct 2000 18:43:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2000 06:42:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>>> news:8r32b1$12ai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I dont like linux
>>>> much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Such as?
>>
>>For unix and unix-like systems, solaris, AIX and freebsd/openbsd...
> Except if you pull the plug on solaris it will by default
> not protect you either.
I dont think ive *ever* used a 'default' solaris installation (which by the way,
also drops swap in /tmp; a security hole you can drive a spaceshuttle through)
> Until you get into serious computing
> that is likely WAY out of your league,
You apparantly wouldnt know.
> this superior robustness
> that you attribute to openbsd and commercial Unix is not
> something you would ever have an opportunity to experience.
Oh really? And what is it that you think I do for a living, anyway?
And besides that, I qualified my argument with 'for unix and unix-like
systems'. I understand as well as the next educated individual that if
you want ROBUSTNESS OBJEKTIVE, you use MVS (VM, etc) or something along
those lines.
But we arent talking about mainframes.
>>
>>For multimedia, beos, for game console, windows.
> Neither of thse are more robust. They might be more
> "featurefull" but that is another criterion.
BeOS actually is *perfect* for pulling betacam signal, dumping it to a small
drive array, compressing it into mpg, rv, AND avi on the fly and subsequently
pushing it to a huge solaris streaming video server cluster with a total from-
live buffer of about 6 seconds.
But you probably wouldnt have known that.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Photoshop for Linux
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 14:01:13 -0500
"Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Most likely because they don't believe there is much profit in such a
port.
> > After all, Linux is all about "Free software" and no matter what your
> > definition, Photoshop is not it.
> >
> > Honestly, how many sales of Photoshop do you think Adobe would get at
$500+
> > a license?
>
> Hmm.. I do think that Linux users are more likely to pay for
> professional software than windows users. They would get a very similar
> amount of sales as they do for the UNIX version, you see, there are a
> lot of webdesigners using Linux as their primary operating system, but
> the still have to work with Windows to do their work. So if Macromedia
> would be nice enough to get their upcoming Dreamweaver 4 to Linux, and
> Adobe came by with their next release of Photoshop, sales would be nice.
> Well, I would spend the money without even thinking about it...
>
> Linux just has a great amount of professionals working with it in
> desperate need of graphics and webdesign programs (yeah, WYSIWYG is
> lame, but it's fast, and time is money). Well, you get the idea. Correct
> me if I'm wrong.
I have to wonder why a professional would be using a platform which doesn't
support his or her needs.
Most professional web designers seem to use Macs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 2 Oct 2000 18:47:34 GMT
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El lun, 02 oct 2000, . escribi=F3:
>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> El s=E1b, 30 sep 2000, . escribi=F3:
>>>>Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>>>>> news:8r32b1$12ai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> I dont like linux
>>>>>> much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Such as?
>>>>
>>>>For unix and unix-like systems, solaris, AIX and freebsd/openbsd...
>>
>>> I've crashed Solaris x86 10x more than I've crashed Linux,=20
>>
>>If id meant solaris x86 I would have said solaris x86.=20=20
> Solaris is solaris. Solaris for sparc is solaris for sparc.
No, actually it isnt. Theres tons of hardware specific functionality that=
exists
in solaris that doesnt exist in solaris x86. Sounds like you could have u=
sed it.
>>> and using it 1% as
>>> much. Solaris Sparc, on the other hand, is a reliable beast. Slow as h=
ell in a
>>> Ultra5,=20
>>
>>Depends on the ultra5. The 440s are due out any second now.
>>
>>> but in a ultra10 and higher, it's usable. Once you get rid of most of
>>> the Solaris userland, of course. Come on, a vi with 2048 line width li=
mit? In
>>> year 2000?
>>
>>You can change that you know. :)
> Hm? Or you mean, change that vi?
Goddamnit, I typed *exactly* what I meant.
>>>>For multimedia, beos, for game console, windows.
>>
>>> Nah, for game console, Sony.
>>
>>Sony doesnt do 1600x1280 in 16 million colors :P
> On the other hand, I don't have a 26 inch monitor ;-)
21" is more than enough when youre sitting 10 inches away.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: 2 Oct 2000 18:49:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2000 06:40:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "." wrote:
>>
>>>> Thus generating alot of the reasoning behind the arguments of some of
>>>> the most illogical and vehement anti-linux people on COLA. Try it,
>>>> you might like it alot. BFS is the most incredible filesystem I and
>>>> many others have ever seen.
>>
>>> Have you even tried any other journalling FS? Reiserfs, xfs, even journalled
>>> ufs on solaris come to mind.
>>
>>Ive used (and use currently) reiserfs and ufs, and neither one of them can
>>touch bfs in terms of filesize and speed...
> When is that ever a significant concern?
When youre dealing with high end media application. You know, the stuff that sun
keeps trying to convince people like Pixar to use solaris for.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:01:14 -0300
El lun, 02 oct 2000, . escribió:
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> El lun, 02 oct 2000, . escribió:
>>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> El sáb, 30 sep 2000, . escribió:
>>>>>Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>>>>>> news:8r32b1$12ai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>> I dont like linux
>>>>>>> much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such as?
>>>>>
>>>>>For unix and unix-like systems, solaris, AIX and freebsd/openbsd...
>>>
>>>> I've crashed Solaris x86 10x more than I've crashed Linux,
>>>
>>>If id meant solaris x86 I would have said solaris x86.
>
>> Solaris is solaris. Solaris for sparc is solaris for sparc.
>
>No, actually it isnt. Theres tons of hardware specific functionality that exists
>in solaris that doesnt exist in solaris x86. Sounds like you could have used it.
Uh.... sorry man, but if you gonna say that Solaris x86 is not Solaris, we will
just not agree.
>>>> and using it 1% as
>>>> much. Solaris Sparc, on the other hand, is a reliable beast. Slow as hell in a
>>>> Ultra5,
>>>
>>>Depends on the ultra5. The 440s are due out any second now.
>>>
>>>> but in a ultra10 and higher, it's usable. Once you get rid of most of
>>>> the Solaris userland, of course. Come on, a vi with 2048 line width limit? In
>>>> year 2000?
>>>
>>>You can change that you know. :)
>
>> Hm? Or you mean, change that vi?
>
>Goddamnit, I typed *exactly* what I meant.
Pardon my english, but I am not sure you meant "change that limit" or "change
that editor". And even if you meant "change that limit", it could still be done
by changing the editor.
I just made a question. How do you do that?
>>>>>For multimedia, beos, for game console, windows.
>>>
>>>> Nah, for game console, Sony.
>>>
>>>Sony doesnt do 1600x1280 in 16 million colors :P
>
>> On the other hand, I don't have a 26 inch monitor ;-)
>
>21" is more than enough when youre sitting 10 inches away.
Since I don't have a 21"monitor either, it makes no difference to me.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:04:08 -0300
El lun, 02 oct 2000, . escribió:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2000 06:42:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>>>> news:8r32b1$12ai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> I dont like linux
>>>>> much either; I tend to enjoy more robust systems.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Such as?
>>>
>>>For unix and unix-like systems, solaris, AIX and freebsd/openbsd...
>
>> Except if you pull the plug on solaris it will by default
>> not protect you either.
>
>I dont think ive *ever* used a 'default' solaris installation (which by the way,
>also drops swap in /tmp; a security hole you can drive a spaceshuttle through)
Actually, it does almost exactly the opposite. I am starting to doubt your
knowledge of Solaris.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
