Linux-Advocacy Digest #463, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 2.4! ("Todd")
Re: Hotmail still runs BSD. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? (Darren Winsper)
Re: 2.4! (Gardiner Family)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Gardiner Family)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Gardiner Family)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Gardiner Family)
Re: 2.4! (Jesper Krogh)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 13:32:32 +0800
"Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, I just moved to 2.4 test 9... I must say, I'm impressed! All my
> USB devices working... great... great... great *jaw lying on the ground
> after compilation* ... WOW! I love it!
yawn... Windows 2000 has had USB support since its inception. Also, Windows
2000 has *drivers* for the USB devices so that you can actually *use* them.
What good is USB support with the drivers for the devices?
> Hmm.. with this kernel, and some more work by the GNOME foundation and
> Helixcode Linux can finally kick some real butt on the Desktop (together
> with NVidia hardware, we just need a damn open-source GL driver *g*).
Linux is going to need a hell of a lot more work before it is suited for the
desktop. But then again, don't take it from me, just look at the market
today.
> I'm so proud.
Only a Linux user would be proud of a hacked OS that just got a feature that
has been around on other OSes for quite some time.
BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware runs
OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
Why even use Linux??
-Todd
hehe... I can just see the flames comin' now. It's just so easy to counter
linux with Windows 2000.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hotmail still runs BSD.
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 00:49:42 -0500
It appears that the ad and gfx servers are running FreeBSD. But I think
these are actually part of the bCentral site that MS bought (used to be
LinkExchange). The Hotmail specific LE servers have hotmail domain names.
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>
> "We were premature with last month's comment to the effect that Windows
> 2000 had replaced FreeBSD at HotMail. Markus Senoner was first to point
> out that although www.hotmail.com is indeed running Windows 2000,
> several of the other HotMail front end servers are still running
> FreeBSD."
>
> They give a link so you can see for yourself which ones are and which
> ones aren't.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: 5 Oct 2000 05:38:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>>
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Anyone with any experience knows that you either have a hardware\driver
>> >> > problem, or you're lying. Why perpetrate such BS? Does this help your
>> >> > precious Linux? It only serves to denigrate the weight of any assertion you
>> >> > make, relegating you to irrelevant. Get a clue.
>> >>
>> >> 1. I'm not lying.
>>
>> > OK. You need a new video driver.
>>
>> Actually I did one better, I traded W2K for windowsME. That driver works.
> Even a Windows advocate will concede that Windows ME is reprehensibly bad compared
>to Windows
> 2000. I think you should try a clean install of Windows 2000 and immediately
>install the driver
> from http://www.3dchipset.com/beta/nvidia/631/win2k.html
I dont know about that. I did a nice, clean install of W2K professional, everything
worked
just fine; right up until that very specific potentially driver problem. Also, I
noticed that
my W2K install was noticably slower in the graphics department than the windowsME
install. Yes,
I turned off all unnessesary services, etc. :)
>> >> 2. I gave my specs in detail, and the problem in moderate detail.
>>
>> > Why didn't you give the description of the problem in more than moderate detail?
>>
>> Because honestly, at the time I didnt feel like typing three pages worth of
>diagnostics,
>> and I knew that other people had experienced the problem and was hoping that someone
>> could be a bit enlightening as far as the exact cause.
> Fair enough. I'm sorry. You know you can tell Windows 2000 to save that bugcheck
>in a file
> using the system control panel?
Yep.
>> > Were you
>> > afraid the blame would fall on nVidia rather than Microsoft?
>>
>> I'm more than willing to blame NVIDIA for shitty driver, as has been shown in
>> my previous posts. What I was trying to do here was narrow down the problem and
>> hopefully, again, get some detail as to its specific cause.
> Again -- consider the forum. Folks are always coming in here and looking for ways
>to make
> Windows look bad. Defensive is the norm :-)
Oh I dont think windows needs my help to look bad, but honestly there are very few
operating
systems that (imho) are good at all.
>> >> 5. The NVIDIA driver *may* be a problem, I never said this was impossible. I
>just
>> >> find it interesting that the W2K version of their driver would therefore be
>less
>> >> stable than their windows ME version.
>>
>> > Even though it's less mature code that's been through about a tenth the iterative
>> > development and compatibility testing as the Windows 9x driver?
>>
>> Yes. I didnt say that I found it pathetic, I said that I found it interesting.
> I'm not having trouble with 6.31. Of course I wasn't having trouble with the
>released Det3's
> either...
Heres something interesting; I did hear from one other person that has the same exact
video
card and driver...he told me that he had a similar problem until he *overclocked* the
processor
on the card to 195mhz. Weird.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 00:56:33 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:59:19 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> I bought Solaris 7 both x86 and sparc versions about a year or so ago
> >> for $10 plus shipping. Looks like now they are only selling Solaris 8
> >> for $75. But you can install it on as many machines as you
> >> like. That's certainly cheaper than W2K.
> >
> >Not a commercial license.
> >
>
> From the main page: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/
>
> "For only the cost of media ($75 US) plus shipping, you can use the
software
> on an unlimited number of computers with a capacity of 8 or fewer CPUs."
>
> From FAQ at http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/faq.html
>
> "You can use the Solaris 8 runtime environment at home or at work, for
> business or personal computing."
I see you conveniently forgot that we're talking about Solaris 7 and below.
And since when did the cost of media = $75?
> That's an *unlimited* number of *business* computers for only
> $75. This is certainly *much* cheaper than W2K, which is $4000 for an
> andvanced server license. Now I'm not advocating Solaris, but your
> claim that it's more expensive that W2k is dead wrong. So why can't
> you be a man and admit when you are wrong?? Does it hurt your feelings
> to know you're not a very smart guy?? Tough shit....accept your lot in
> life.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 05:50:02 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rbsj5$29bm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > why? are the linux IDE drivers that bad?
> >>
> >> No, but DMA is often optional. You can turn it on, you can turn it off.
>
> > Why can't you turn it off?
>
> I just said you can turn it off, lightbulb.
He did, Chad. I've already made the mistake of being overly defensive with DOT.
He's either not a Penguinista or is choosing not to appear as one. I, for one,
think his recent posts are both well reasoned and tolerant of my "rabid windosis".
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 06:32:42 GMT
But so much quieter and less interesting I'll bet :-)
Rob Hughes wrote:
> Just do what I did... killfile the lot of them. These groups are much more
> enjoyable now that I no longer have to wade through the ramblings of morons,
> zealots and the generally clueless on either side.
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Today, we live in a world where Windows occupied around 1.2 billion
> > computers world wide.
> > Linux occupies only 200 million or so computers world wide.
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: 5 Oct 2000 06:45:03 GMT
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 15:37:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I'd like to think of a Linux Free ISP as creating
> its own ad-bar software for the "AOL-Effect": by making
> connections even easier than KPPP or EZPPP, coupled with
> free internet software, users are more likely to get
> Internet accounts and expand the testing user base.
> (which leads to faster bugfixes and less downtime for
> everyone, so its a win-win situation)
Well, those of us in the UK have http://www.uklinux.net, and they don't use
an ad-bar thankfully.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Certified 34% bastard, 19% of which is tard.
http://www.thespark.com/bastardtest
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:36:36 +1300
what type of user are you? from the sound of you grammatical sentence
formation, you sound like a very sorry teenager with an extremely big chip on
your sholder. UNIX/Linux is moving from the server to the desktop compared
to Windows move from the desktop to server. Unfortunately, Bill and his friends
have proven too many times that they never deliver on their promises. Back in
1993-1994 (when many users were eager for a copy of Windows 95 that was released
the following year) Microsoft laid the frame work for Microsoft Networks, a
Windows NT server and Windows 95 for each client. However, many business found
Windows 95 extremely unstable, as a result Microsoft released a cut down version
of Windows NT, Windows NT Workstation. Also, Microsoft proclaimed Windows NT
Server as the UNIX smashing server OS, however, bugger all people adopted it as
their main server plaform, and if they did, the majority either moved back to
their original plaform or to UNIX or Netware.
Matt
Todd wrote:
> "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, I just moved to 2.4 test 9... I must say, I'm impressed! All my
> > USB devices working... great... great... great *jaw lying on the ground
> > after compilation* ... WOW! I love it!
>
> yawn... Windows 2000 has had USB support since its inception. Also, Windows
> 2000 has *drivers* for the USB devices so that you can actually *use* them.
>
> What good is USB support with the drivers for the devices?
>
> > Hmm.. with this kernel, and some more work by the GNOME foundation and
> > Helixcode Linux can finally kick some real butt on the Desktop (together
> > with NVidia hardware, we just need a damn open-source GL driver *g*).
>
> Linux is going to need a hell of a lot more work before it is suited for the
> desktop. But then again, don't take it from me, just look at the market
> today.
>
> > I'm so proud.
>
> Only a Linux user would be proud of a hacked OS that just got a feature that
> has been around on other OSes for quite some time.
>
> BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware runs
> OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
>
> Why even use Linux??
>
> -Todd
>
> hehe... I can just see the flames comin' now. It's just so easy to counter
> linux with Windows 2000.
>
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:51:34 +1300
adam, gid-day from a fellow kiwi. Here are some sites that use linux/UNIX for
their website:
WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand)
New Zealand Government Website
Telecom
ihug
zfree
majority of proxy servers in New Zealand
RNBNZ (IBM AIX)
the list goes on and on, Windows NT is a product that never lived up to its
supposed "UNIX Smashing" reputation that was originally declared by bill gates
back in 1993-1994.
Matt
Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi Chad,
>
> >> 1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
> >> computers.
> >
> > Windows 2000 professional will do all this.
>
> I wasn't aware I could set up software RAID using Win2k Professional. The
> only ability I could find was to set up a larger logical partition.
>
> >
> >> 2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
> >
> > MSDE (essentially a free copy of MS SQL Server 7.0 limited to 2GB of db
> > size) is free and runs on everything from Win95 to Win2000 DC server.
>
> What does "essentially a free" mean? Will this mean I won't be able to use
> the server to also serve content?
>
> >> 3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
> >
> > Win2K has ICS (with NAT functionality) built in.
>
> Odd, I wasn't aware it came with firewalling, which was part of the
> requirement.
>
> >> 4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
> >
> > Outlook Express is free and comes with IE which is free. FrontPage is
> > not necessary for web development, in fact, it's not recommeneded unless
> > you've never written one line of HTML in your life.
>
> I did ask for a "full MS solution" (probably unfair).
>
> > So the list actually comes down to:
> >
> > 1.) 2 x copies of Win2K Professional at ~ $200ea. You can get OEM prices
> > since you purchased new hardware, contact your vendor.
> >
> > That's it!
>
> Jason addresses the licensing issues.
>
> <snip>
> > Sure, it's anecdotal, but then, you really haven't provided any evidence
> > to the contrary.
>
> Funny, I don't need anecdotal evidence, they're working right now!
>
> >> Or more importantly, who really believes MS can sustain a lower TCO if
> >> a MS solution is indeed more attractive at this point in time?
> >
> > Everyone who has deployed an MS solution properly and is reaping the
> > benefits.
>
> Well you'd have to because the costs are so great :-)
>
> <snip>
> >> and the development rate appears much faster.
> >
> > And quality has fallen through the floor as a result. Cite: Red Hat
> > 2500+ bugs in a rushed 7.0 release.
>
> Haven't noticed any significant ones yet (apart from being hacked off that
> they didn't compile in the IDE backport, making the installation rather
> difficult. They will finally be officially included in the 2.4 kernel
> though).
>
> Rushed? I've been waiting for it for ages.
>
> At least I can be rather optimistic that bugs will be fixed, and rather
> rapidly. And am actually able to converse with developers. And won't be
> told to buy the next version to get bug fixes.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:10:44 +1300
Chad, not be rude, have you ever used UNIX in your life? I consider, in my humble
opinion, 30 years of development to be a great legacy to builder apon. For
example, look at the development process of Windows Datacentre. A complete
re-write for each version. UNIX can scale from a Workstation (such as an SGI or
Sun Ultra Sparc 5) up to a mainframe class system. The fact that Windows NT has
gained it popularity is not because of technical superiority but because any old
twit who can use a mouse can setup a Windows NT server. I currently have SuSE
Linux installed on my machine with ReiserFS and I experience no problems,
completely stable, fast, when I kill a process, it actually dies, does hang around
like in Windows, rip out a PCI card whilst computer is running, Linux doesn't give
a toss, Windows 2000 crashes to a black screen of death. Before you post, run a
server with UNIX on it. Then after several years experience then comeback and
stand on your soap box.
matt
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rgkl7$d9d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Hi Chad,
> > >
> > > Howdy from Texas!
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Please keep your ignorant slants to yourself.
> >
> > Gee, amazing how you can be so nice and so condescending all in the same
> > post.
>
> Same with you. Your post started out friendly and objective, but as it
> progressed, it became apparent that you weren't interested in learning
> anything, merely bashing Microsoft with misinformation.
>
> > I expressed myself wrongly when I posted "And won't be told to buy the
> > next version to get bug fixes."
> >
> > I meant to say that I won't be told to buy the next version to get fixes
> > to functionality errors that are Microsoft's own fault, but could properly
> > be called bugs.
>
> Examples? You're still talking out of your ass. Both statements are crap.
>
> I hear the same thing coming from penguinistas about the majestic Kernel 2.4
> which will magically fix all of Linux's problems.
>
> Show me a piece of software, and I'll show you one that has to be upgraded
> to get the newest features.
>
> > There are other impairments in this "powerful" email combination
> > (including not being able to reply within the body of a message while
> > using Word as my email editor). Will Microsoft fix these before Office
> > 2001? I very much doubt it.
>
> Don't use Word as your email editor.
>
> And if you do, I never had a problem replying in-line. It always highlights
> my text and prefaces it with [Chad Myers]stuff stuff stuff and highlights
> it blue.
>
> > I bet you in the Pronto mail client that I am using from Linux that an
> > unintended functionality impairment could be fixed within weeks. Users
> > post in bug reports and have discussions with developers because they know
> > the license provides security that the developer cannot turn around and
> > make them pay for the beta testing they have contributed.
>
> Pronto also only does POP3 mail. Outlook is expected to, and does, do much
> more, so you're comparing apples to Mac trucks. Outlook is designed to
> be a client to Exchange. Period. It _HAS_ POP3 support only as a secondary
> support, but it's sole purpose is to be a client to Exchange. If you want
> a decent MS POP3 client, use Outlook Express. It has many more features
> for Internet-only (POP3, NNTP, SMTP only) services. Outlook, for example,
> doesn't even have NNTP support.
>
> > Why should I continue making submissions to a MS web form where
> > submissions aren't even replied to? Take this for an ignorant slant: The
> > open source development process appears to be superior to the Microsoft
> > proprietary software development process.
>
> But the "bugs" you've mentioned aren't even bugs. No one else seems to
> have this problem. I just said you can reply in-line even with Word as your
> email editor. The fact that you can't figure out how to do it isn't
> necessarily MS's problem. It's there you don't know how to use it, maybe
> you should get a book or take a free CBT course on Outlook.
>
> > Six months ago I couldn't find a stable enough graphical email client on
> > Linux that satisfied me. Now there is one and it is improving at an
> > incredibly rapid rate. There have been 8 new RPM releases since June. In
> > some aspects it is already superior to MS Outlook.
>
> Outlook Express has several features superior to Outlook. Like I said,
> Outlook is a client to Exchange and should only be thought of as such.
> Pronto probably doesn't do collaboration, PIM, scheduling, or any of
> the things that Oulook does, above and beyond email, at all, or at least
> better than Outlook.
>
> > What will the mail client be like in 6 months? 12 months? Microsoft is not
> > up against a static target. It is "competing" against software that is
> > just getting better, and its traditional method of buying superior
> > technology and incorporating or shelving it just doesn't work.
>
> Outlook is competing against GroupWise and Lotus Notes in which every aspect
> it's WAY better. It's not competing against POP3 clients because it's not
> a POP3 client. You're frustrated at MS because you're using the product
> incorrectly.
>
> > Microsoft doesn't have to just try to be as good as open source software
> > development projects, it has to be better.
>
> It is, so why are we arguing. There is no decent collaboration and
> enterprise information management solution for Linux. Exchange is lightyears
> ahead of anything Linux has to offer in all areas of information management
> and collaboration. Enterprises don't run on Email or POP3, they run on
> the ability to collaborate and share their information and make it readily
> available to decision makers.
>
> > TCO is a difficult concept to compute. But we do know one component of TCO
> > is the cost of the software. MS is clearly at a disadvantage here, and has
> > to do better than OSS in other components of the measure.
>
> Many studies by respected groups (including Gartner Group) showing that the
> initial costs of the software (software itself, licensing, etc) is less
> than 30 or 25% of the TCO of a software product or platform.
>
> Training, workflow, ease of use, ease of administration, support and
> maintenance costs, and performance of the platform are among the largest
> expenses, all of which Linux falls flat except for performance, perhaps,
> but it still isn't even on the map with the Big Boys(tm) (IBM, Sun, MS,etc)
>
> No one's even attempted a TPC submission. However, if you look at the
> TPC rosters, Windows ranks top in price/performance and in performance
> beating out IBM big iron, Sun, and Fujitsu. In fact, IBM AS/400 is #5
> and Sun falls flat on it's face at #7. Windows owns #1-4, and 6.
>
> > If freedom and security is also a part of the total benefit of ownership
> > then Microsoft is also at a grave disadvantage.
>
> Microsoft's security implementation is far more advanced than the 30 year
> old archaic Unix implementation in linux. Unfortunately, most people deploy
> Windows and don't give enough consideration to security, this is a problem
> in all platforms. If you look at Security Focus' cracks/platform you'll
> notice NT and Linux are neck and neck in cracks each month. Sometimes
> Linux has more, sometimes NT.
>
> Windows has the potential, when configured properly to have a better, more
> robust security implementation because it has concepts such as DAC with
> explicit deny and inheritence, full auditing capabilities as required by
> the DOD's trusted security evaluation council (TSEC), directory-based
> enterprise-wide policy execution and auditing, and many more. These
> concepts are foreign to Linux. You basically have Group/User/Everyone and
> that's it. There are 3rd party add-ons to gain some or a fraction of the
> implementations of security in Windows 2000, but they're risky and untested.
>
> If half of the people who use Windows 2000 got serious about security, the
> number of cracks would drop considerably.
>
> On the contrary, people installing Linux are generally more aware of these
> solutions as you have to be a Unix expert to even consider deploying
> Linux in a production system that the Linux numbers are unlikely to take
> a down-turn anytime soon.
>
> Windows is so easy to install and configure (lessening the TCO) that sometimes
> less-educated administrators don't consider all the factors, such as security.
>
> This has been addressed, and yes, Microsoft can do way more on that front.
>
> The capability is there, just not the mindset. MS is trying to educate people
> but many have expectations of Windows, so it's hard to get it into their heads.
>
> Linux is still immature. It's not enterprise ready, nor is it suitable for
> many production environments. It's good enough to be a DNS server and maybe
> a mail server, but has yet to prove itself effectively in any other area.
>
> Web serving is an up-and-coming strength of Linux and my hats off to the
> developers, but it still needs a ton of work; they'll probably be the
> first to tell you this.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:15:42 +1300
I have used BeOS in the past and the app server is not very stable, the net server (in
charge of network cfg) is extremely unstable. I have switchd completely to Linux with
no regrets.
matt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesper Krogh)
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:58:38 +0200
> Why even use Linux??
If you re happy with using microsoft products, then fine with that.
Some other havenīt sold their soul to microsoft.
But, I guess you have never felt the power of a unix workstation in your hands,
thats why you can clain this. When you have, you wouldnīt even think about
turning back.
--
./Jesper Krogh.
The Goal is world domination, no more, no less.
This means that your PC should run linux too.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
