Linux-Advocacy Digest #617, Volume #29 Thu, 12 Oct 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Dustin Puryear)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Re: The Power of the Future! (None)
Re: Video software for linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: I'd rather switch than fight.
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Corel + MS $$ = MS.Net for Linux ("MH")
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: what happens when an old programmer dies? (scrp3)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dustin Puryear)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:44:17 GMT
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:46:44 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:27:23 -0600, David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>conducted with an entirely different philosophy than Windows. Also, Windows
>>95/98 and, yes, Me are still running on top of a real mode MS-DOS, no matter
>>how much MS may try to say that they are OSes, they are not, the DOS
>>underneath is the OS with a protected mode 32bit GUI on top of it. I will
>
>Not quite. DOS has never been an operating system; it is just a program loader
>and file system.
>
>Calling DOS an OS because it loads first is like calling lilo an operating
>system.
DOS is an operating system. It provides file and memory services, and in general
acts as an interface between the system and applications. That's what an OS
does. The analogy between LILO and DOS doesn't really hold water.
--
Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Integrate Linux Solutions into Your Windows Network
- http://www.prima-tech.com/integrate-linux
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:49:38 GMT
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:44:17 GMT, Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:46:44 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:27:23 -0600, David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>conducted with an entirely different philosophy than Windows. Also, Windows
>>>95/98 and, yes, Me are still running on top of a real mode MS-DOS, no matter
>>>how much MS may try to say that they are OSes, they are not, the DOS
>>>underneath is the OS with a protected mode 32bit GUI on top of it. I will
>>
>>Not quite. DOS has never been an operating system; it is just a program loader
>>and file system.
>>
>>Calling DOS an OS because it loads first is like calling lilo an operating
>>system.
>
>DOS is an operating system. It provides file and memory services, and in general
>acts as an interface between the system and applications. That's what an OS
>does. The analogy between LILO and DOS doesn't really hold water.
No it doesn't. Just about every DOS application ever written has to talk
directly to the hardware to get anything done.
My comparison to DOS and LILO holds perfectly well. Once windoze/9x loads, dos
is out of the picture. Windoze 9x doesn't even use dos hardly anything.
You might as well call the BIOS an OS if you really DOS can be considered an OS.
DOS has a file system and can load programs but that's about it.
------------------------------
From: None <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:56:40 -0700
Second sourcing was a very common requirement in the early days of
electronics. Customers would not buy product without a second source.
Second source meant the customer could buy from another producer and
not be held captive by a single source.
Intel had second source agreement with many other companies ( including
AMD ). AMD sold its own IC's which some were faster that what Intel had
at the time ( I don't know if Intel ever used AMD as a foundry when it
could not meet its own demand ). The agreement fell apart at about the
time of the 386 was produced. After many trips to court, AMD was given
the rights to use the microcode of the 386 in its own version of the
386.
This was the end of the cross licensing agreement with AMD.
I would imagine that when a company is producing a product as a second
source, the product would have a copy right mark on it of the copy right
holder. This may be why some people are seeing the Intel name on AMD
parts ( up to the 80286 and posibly even the 386, since it had Intel
microcode in it ).
This is all from memory.
I don't speak for anyone! ( including myself )
Dolly wrote:
>
> Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Here's another link
>
> http://x86.org/articles/computalk/help.htm
>
> Notice the 80386 part that states AMD started
> their clone manufacturing for that line...
> while they OEM'd Intel's 80286.
>
> Looks like according to this site, AMD's clone
> chips started with the 80386... guess AMD
> was manufacturing for Intel during the 286
> period, huh?
>
> Dolly
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Video software for linux
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:03:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:47:27 GMT
<znbF5.1493$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i
>meddelandet news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Martin Svensson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:25:39 +0200
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Hi!
>> >
>> >Does anyone know of any video software which works both in windows and
>> >linux ? I'm thinking of applications such as Netmeeting, CuSeeme etc but
>> >they don't support linux.
>> >
>> >If you do .. please reply via email!
>>
>> Try comp.os.linux.setup or comp.os.linux.misc.
>>
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy is for those of us who like to shout at
>> each other :-).
>
>...not to say SHOOT at each other...;)
Shout, or shoot? Shit. I shan't. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random SH word here
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:13:41 -0400
You repeat your arguments to yourself and incorrectly seem to feel that
that gives them weight. You have accused me of harassing and
denigrating OS/2 developers. That is completely false (and ridiculous
as well for reasons you are not yet aware of). Glatt accused me of
being on a mission to harass and denigrate OS/2 developers. You have
supported his false accusation by publicly posting that: 1) you consider
yourself to be an OS/2 developer and 2) My statement denying any
harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers is false.
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > You claim that my statement that I have not harassed and denigrated OS/2
> > developers is a lie.
>
> And I explained why.
>
> > You maintain that you are an OS/2 developer.
>
> Because I am. Having trouble accepting an established fact? Not surprising,
> I suppose.
>
> > I have never harassed and denigrated 'OS/2 developers' or anyone else
> > and your claim is disgusting.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim? I already explained my reasoning, which
> you have failed to debunk.
>
> > Apologize or face the consequences.
>
> Do you utilize the same (to quote Joe Malloy) "mythical and ineffective
> lawyer" as Tholen? It's interesting how you can launch 2 threads targetted at
> attacking individuals (Kulkis and Wenham), and yet feel completely justified
> in playing the victim. That hearkens back to what I was saying about your
> hypocrisy.
>
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Your post is off-topic for COOA. Read the newsgroup
> > > > > > > > > >> charter you worthless and clueless poor excuse for an
> > > > > > > > > >> alleged "OS/2 Advocate" (whose primary mission appears
> > > > > > > > > >> to be to harrass and denigrate remaining, active OS/2
> > > > > > > > > >> developers. Are you working for Microsoft?)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >I have never harassed and denigrated OS/2 developers.
> > > > > > > > > >Please delete this post or face the consequences.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Brad Wardell is an OS/2 developer. Marty Amodeo is an OS/2
> > > > > > > > > developer.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Assuming for argument sake that they are active OS/2 developers,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No need to assume in one case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have not harassed and denigrated them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ha·rass (hrs, h-rs)
> > > > > > > v. tr. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1.To irritate or torment persistently.
> > > > > > > 2.To wear out; exhaust.
> > > > > > > 3.To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You initiated a series of "flame" posts, Marty, with attacks on me
> > > > > > that have continued to escalate. Are you now claiming that I am
> > > > > > harassing you, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's what I'm claiming, since you missed it the first time:
> > > > >
> > > > > DTJ] I have never harassed and denigrated OS/2 developers.
> > > > >
> > > > > This statement is a lie.
> > > >
> > > > I will not allow you or Glatt to make the completely false claim that
> > > > I have undertaken a campaign of harassment and denigration against
> > > > OS/2 developers.
> > >
> > > My claim is above. Here it is again:
> > > DTJ] I have never harassed and denigrated OS/2 developers.
> > > This statement is a lie.
> > >
> > > Your interpretation of my claim is not at all equivalent to my claim.
> > >
> > > > > And here's the proof:
> > >
> > > [see end of article]
> > >
> > > > Your proof establishes that I have made personal comments to you in
> > > > Usenet newsgroups.
> > >
> > > Wrong. It matches up your statements with the appropriate definitions of
> > > "denigrate" and "harass".
> > >
> > > > It does not establish that I have harassed and denigrated you
> > >
> > > It establishes precisely that.
> > >
> > > > or OS/2 developers.
> > >
> > > Psst... I am an OS/2 developer.
> > >
> > > > You have avoided my question.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I have directly addressed it.
> > >
> > > > I did not ask you if you are claiming that I am a liar.
> > >
> > > Nonetheless, I reserve the right to point out your lies as they occur.
> > >
> > > > I asked you if you are claiming that I have harassed you.
> > >
> > > And I answered the question directly with evidence.
> > >
> > > > Glatt has accused me of undertaking a campaign of denigration and
> > > > harassment of OS/2 developers. This is a serious accusation.
> > >
> > > What Glatt has accused you of is irrelevant.
> > >
> > > > Are you joining him in this accusation?
> > >
> > > Please reread my claim and comprehend it this time.
> > >
> > > > As for your post, frankly I don't see how you can post this stuff and
> > > > look at yourself in the mirror.
> > >
> > > How ironic.
> > >
> > > > You have repeatedly attacked me over the last week
> > >
> > > What I did or did not do has no effect on the truth value of the statement
> > > which I am questioning. Your statement is a lie, whether I went bowling,
> > > built a pyramid, or made funny faces at you all day.
> > >
> > > > because you did not like the comments I posted on 1)
> > > > Wenham's pattern of posting, 2) The ugly thread falsely suggesting Dr.
> > > > Tholen was insane, and 3)the hundreds of off-topic posts being made in
> > > > COOA. You disagreed with my opinions on these three topics and you
> > > > began making a series of posts consisting of name-calling, insults, and
> > > > various personal attacks.
> > >
> > > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems. I didn't care one iota
> > > about the content of what you posted other than its inherent hypocrisy. I've
> > > stated so on at least 4 occassions.
> > >
> > > > If you are joining Glatt in his accusation that I have harassed and
> > > > denigrated OS/2 developers,
> > >
> > > Please reread my claim again and comprehend it this time.
> > >
> > > > you had better have something better than your definition from a
> > > > dictionary and the quotes you reference below.
> > >
> > > Why? They are all that I need to show that your statement was a lie.
> > >
> > > > If you are not joining him, you should state so clearly and
> > > > unequivocally here and now, because, without a statement to the
> > > > contrary, your two posts here suggest otherwise.
> > >
> > > Only to those with poor reading comprehension skills, such as yourself.
> > >
> > > > > > > den·i·grate (dn-grt)
> > > > > > > v. tr. den·i·grat·ed, den·i·grat·ing, den·i·grates.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1.To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
> > > > > > > 2.To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTJ] I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denigrate: 1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTJ] perhaps you need to reevaluate your surroundings since you fail to
> > > > > > > impress me as being extraordinarily bright, yourself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > > > Harass: 1,3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTJ] H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denigrate: 1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTJ] I doubt that your typical comments can be "dumbed" down any further.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > > > Harass: 1,3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTJ] As for the substance of your comment, it appears to be as garbled
> > > > > > > and confused as Marty's.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > > > Harass: 1,3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTJ] I am starting to feel like I am being flamed by a gaggle of
> > > > > > > fifth-graders.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTJ] I was pointing to Marty's mental confusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > > > Harass: 1,3
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTJ] The entire thrust of your posts over the last week seems to be
> > > > > > > personal attacks. I am losing respect for you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Denigrate: 1,2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Clear?
> > > > >
> > > > > > [Remaining post untrimmed to accomodate your needs]
> > > > >
> > > > > You might try reading it next time, to "accomodate" [sic] yours.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:32:09 +1000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sMcF5.427$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The differences between NT and 9x are precisely because of the windows
edit
> control
>
> The Win9x edit control has a 16 bit heap, which is 64K (the size file that
> Notepad is not un-coincidentally limited to) and the NT edit control has
no
> such limitation.
Presumably it has a 32 bit "limitation" ? ;)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight.
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:37:05 -0000
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:05:58 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you were to see the simplicity that it used in slackware you
>> would probably NEVER go back to RH. I admit I like sysV but I
>> don't like the way readhat uses it.
You know, there are actually some of us that have defected
AWAY from Slackware (to RH even)...
>
>Could you give me a link to some description of the system used in
>Slackware: I'm interested. I might convert my linux system to that (my
>system is gatting less like the default RH system as the days go by...)
[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:38:49 -0000
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:34:15 +0100, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> Linux is a hack upon a hack upon a hack upon a 30 year old archaic OS that has
>> none of the features of a modern OS.
>
>This is a factual error. If I asked you to list the "features of a modern OS", I'm
Not entirely.
The fact is that Unix is "hackable" by design.
Any sufficiently modular device is really...
[deletia]
--
Complex system:
One with real problems and imaginary profits.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:41:06 -0000
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 07:50:52 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And LinuxTrolls complained about my generalisation "Linux lags behind
>Windows" yet here we find one doing exactly the same as I did: "Linux
>outperforms Windows".
>
>You don't mention wether you are running on the same hardware or wether
>you are running consoles on Linux under X or without X.
Why should that matter. The point would be that one OS is
squeezing more bang out of the buck than another. Inherent
modularity that allows running with or without X is simply
one of the engineering advantages that allows that sort of
thing (stretching $$$).
[deletia]
--
The Poems, all three hundred of them, may be summed up in one of their phrases:
"Let our thoughts be correct".
-- Confucius
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:42:07 -0000
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 07:50:52 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>I did my own tests and found both Linux and Windows ran at about the
>same speed. Running POVray on Linux without X compared to Windows
>revealed Windows was faster. All done on the same hardware.
It was also revealed that the Windows version of POVray
itself was taking it's own shortcuts, with the output.
[deletia]
--
APL hackers do it in the quad.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Corel + MS $$ = MS.Net for Linux
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:45:22 -0400
Microsoft using Corel to ease into Linux, documents hint
US$135M injection
David Akin
Financial Post
Corel Corp. may be the tool Microsoft Corp. uses to ease itself into the
open source community, according to regulatory documents filed late
yesterday.
In a 531-page document filed by Ottawa-based Corel with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, Corel said it has granted Redmond, Wash.-based
Microsoft the option to direct Corel to port part or all of Microsoft's
next-generation .NET architecture to run on the Linux operating system.
Linux is the open source operating system widely seen as a credible and
serious rival to Microsoft's server operating systems, particularly
Microsoft NT and Microsoft 2000 Server.
Moreover, the Linux and Microsoft software development philosophies are
diametrical opposites. With Linux, an army of Internet-connected volunteer
programmers share the source code, improve it and pass on improvements to
that source code, all under the stewardship of Linus Torvalds. Microsoft, on
the other hand, uses a proprietary development model in which source code
and development strategies are fiercely guarded secrets and viewed only by
Microsoft employees.
Last week, Microsoft said it would invest US$135-million in cash-strapped
Corel. In exchange, Corel said it would commit to developing products
consistent with Microsoft's next-generation .NET architecture.
But it is now clear Microsoft will use its investment with Corel -- which
distributes its own version of Linux and has converted some of its software
products like WordPerfect to run on Linux -- to ease into the Linux
community. Neither Corel nor Microsoft officials could be reached last night
for comment.
In the event Microsoft exercises its option -- and the option runs for three
years -- to have Corel port part or all of the .NET architecture to Linux,
Corel has agreed to put 20 full-time developers and 10 full-time testers on
the project.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:45:43 -0000
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:10:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I never said any of it was a MS invention. Winamp certainly isn't. I
>am saying that Linux movement is cloning interface,applications etc
Winamp itself is hardly original when it comes to the
basic controls. Actually, it's visual arangement is
quite nasty and counterproductive.
>all in an effort to compete with Windows. Sure there are WM's and cli
>applications that don't look anything like Windows (Wmaker or some of
>the cli players) but it is obvious where Linux is going and who they
>want to take market share from.
It's interesting that you don't detect the inherent hypocrisy
of that statement.
Besides, cloning winamp isn't cloning windows: it's cloning
winamp. WIMP applications aren't a entity that are exclusive
to WinDOS.
>
>claire
>
>
>On 12 Oct 2000 01:12:47 GMT, Steve Mading
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>: I'm an old CDE person so I know all about title bars :)
>>
>>: CDE (under aix) never had a Winamp clone.
>>
>>CDE predates MP3's, so of course it didn't have such a clone.
>>This has nothing to do with whether or not it was trying to
>>"copy" MS as compared with Gnome and KDE.
>>
>>: A dial-up networking clone like Gnome/kde does.
>>: And so forth.
>>
>>Oh, puh-lease. PPP is not a Microsoft invention, nor is the
>>idea that maybe you could put a GUI configuration tool in
>>place to set it up. Next you'll be crediting MS with
>>the creation of the ergonomic split keyboard, based on the
>>fact that they happen to have one on the market.
>>
>>Are you going to give MS exclusive credit for every single
>>technology that they happen to have an instance of, regardless
>>of whether others had the idea too? Seems so. Might as
>>well give them credit for inventing the web browser.
>
--
Never trust an automatic pistol or a D.A.'s deal.
-- John Dillinger
------------------------------
From: scrp3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.life.internet,alt.obituaries,alt.society.funerary,alt.windows98,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.society.futures,gnu.misc.discuss,sci.geo.satellite-nav
Subject: Re: what happens when an old programmer dies?
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:48:12 -0400
Hmm..never thought of it that way. I'm actually graduating college soon, and I'm
going into web design (glad I didn't read this four years ago). At least
programmers leave some code or some advancement behind...web designers' work gets
replaced in a matter of months...
I guess I'll be printing out and framing all of my future websites...(at least it
LOOKS better than strange programming languages)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:50:56 -0000
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:48:51 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I use linux, and I donot use OpenGL, so therefore this agument does not effect me
It's also simply wrong.
How well an OpenGL driver performs in Linux relative to
it's WinDOS cousin is strictly a matter of developer effort.
If you are a serious FPS freak, then you shouldn't be
dissapointed by Linux performance.
HELL, the Linux driver might even be more stable. <chuckle>
>
>> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Windows 2000 has shown itself to outperform Linux is almost every benchmark.
>> > Even Linux' traditional strong points such as OpenGL performance is
>> > outclassed by Windows 2000.
[deletia]
--
"Life is like a buffet; it's not good but there's plenty of it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:52:30 -0000
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:54:37 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Really? That's the best test?
>
>How about instead, I give you a budget of $10,000,000.00, including your
>time and the time of any other people involved in the project. Now, build a
>web site that will generate $1 billion dollars in revenue.
>
>How much are you saving with Linux?
At this point, Microsoft becomes irrelevant.
[deletia]
Besides, someone with a $5000 budget or even a $50000 is far
more common. Your "test" is somewhat like the Mindcraft test
in terms of it's general applicability.
--
In spite of everything, I still believe that people are good at heart.
-- Ann Frank
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:04:40 -0500
joseph wrote:
>
> Dolly wrote:
>
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > > Show me where it says that Intel ever sold AMD fabbed chips under the Intel
> > > nameplate.
> >
> > Gladly... give me a day or two. If a scan isnt
> > sufficient proof, I will gladly send you the whole
> > board it is on... keep in mind, I originally
> > said chips... I am not sure if I have any CPU's
> > that old... but lotsa boards with AMD manu'd Intel
> > chips.
>
> This claim is credible. Intel wasn't always the "chipzilla" powerhouse - they were
> once so weak IBM had to buy 20% of the company. Intel once licensed "chip"
>technology
> to AMD to help Intel meet demand. That was the basis for the AMD clones of Intel
>CPUs.
> if tehse were branded as Intel chips then the claim is correct.
But they weren't. And Dolly has yet to prove otherwise.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
