Linux-Advocacy Digest #620, Volume #29 Thu, 12 Oct 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Office DLL hole ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (2:1)
Re: 2.4! ("Don W.")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Anybody want to test a widget? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Matthias Warkus)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Wow, someone sure hates Loki Games... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:09:51 -0400
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8s1qbu$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8s01oc$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So, again: where is Compaq's machine that can do 160TPM?
> >> >>
> >> >> > So, again: who cares?
> >> >>
> >> >> Apparantly you only care about performance up to and including the very
> >> > top
> >> >> of compaq's product line.
> >>
> >> > No - I just don't care for the comparison. I don't see the value anymore
> > of
> >> > a large, expensive, monolithic uni-server solution any more in todays
> >> > models.
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Do we say: "Ah, Google with Linux is so pathetic, they
> >> >> > have to use clusters! ahahhaha." then add: "Show me the single linux
> > box
> >> >> > that can run Google"?
> >> >>
> >> >> An IBM S/390 64x64. Theyve even got cool light up blue stripes down
> > the
> >> > side.
> >>
> >> > Again... if the choice is SOOoooOooOoo obvious - Google must be pathetic
> >> > idiots not to take the simple route then eh? I'm sure it's not easier to
> >> > manage thousands of linux boxes intead of one pretty shiny IBM?
> >>
> >> Its alot harder actually, but they had already bought into that
> > architecture
> >> in an extreme way; there would have been an enormous non-hardware related
> >> cost to switch.
>
> > Gee, you mean like moving from BSD and Solaris to W2K ala Hotmail - now...
> > lesse, why was it they had to wait and it took some time? Funny how you
> > can't make that connection when it's good for MS but when it saves unix it's
> > OK?
>
> Idiot, there is an enormous difference in replacing SOME pc hardware with
> OTHER pc hardware and swapping operating systems;
>
> And losing 4,000 computers and replacing them with an utterly different
> (in every respect) platform. If you cannot see the difference immediately
> then you are a fool and a retard and should get the hell out of this industry
> at once.
This is why Dresting Lack-of-facts REFUSES to post his real name.
IF he DARED to sign his real life name, he would NEVER work in the
computer industry again.
>
> -----.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:11:20 -0400
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8s1qj7$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Drestin Black wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > > > news:8rtqq8$1lap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >> >> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you.
> >> > IBM's
> >> >> > 4096
> >> >> > > >> >> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a
> > candle
> >> > to
> >> >> > W2K
> >> >> > > >> >> running on 32 processors.
> >> >> > > >> >>
> >> >> > > >> >> Yep.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > Then why hasn't IBM entered this beast into the running and
> > nuked
> >> >> > > >> > all the competition?
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Because its not a "web solution", though it can be used as such.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > TPC doesn't meter "web solution"s, it meters transactions for all
> >> >> > > > sorts of things. Namely, financial transactions, manufacturing
> >> >> > transactions,
> >> >> > > > just about any type of transactional processing etc. What exactly
> > do
> >> >> > these
> >> >> > > > beasts do if they do not process anything? Granted some due
> > science
> >> >> > > > and mathematical calculations, but is that all? Why would
> >> > transactional
> >> >> > > > processing metrics not apply to them.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >> There are alot of companies which make enormous machines that
> > are
> >> > fully
> >> >> > > >> capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely away.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > But they haven't?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096
> >> > processor
> >> >> > > mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Perhaps it could. But has it yet? Does IBM have a 4096 processor
> > machine
> >> > up
> >> >> > and running and able to actually perform a benchmark so we can
> > compare
> >> > it to
> >> >> > something useful? I mean, if IBM has this killer rig out there - why
> >> > don't
> >> >> > they fire up a TPC score and completely utterly blow both MS and
> > compaq
> >> > (and
> >> >> > sun) so far outta the water that we'll all just cringe at the mere
> >> > mention
> >> >> > of it's name (which you've never stated, by the way).
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ASCI White. Developed and built in the building next to where I work.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.llnl.gov/asci/platforms/white/
> >> >>
> >> >> It was delivered a couple of months ago.
> >> >>
> >> >> Gary
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > That is VERY cool Gary - even the picture is sweet!! :)
> >>
> >> > (there is a picture of the Compaq cluster than set the new TPC-C record
> > in
> >> > e-week this week but it pales in comparison).
> >>
> >> > And I see it's 8192, not 4096 processors....
> >>
> >> I wasnt talking about an ASCII series machine, dresden. IBM makes a
> > couple of
> >> very high end hunks of hardware.
>
> > I wasn't talking to you.
>
> No, but you were talking *about* me. The 4096 figure was mine, and it was
> from a different machine. Your inane attempt at misdirection is pathetic.
>
> >>
> >> > I never doubted there is
> >> > hardware better/faster/bigger than this compaq cluster - but not as
> >> > abracadabra was presenting it and certainly not tested in this fashion.
> > I'll
> >> > look forward to more from IBM...
> >>
> >> You'll never see it. The ASCII series has been around for a number of
> > years;
> >> AFAIK the S/* series alot longer. They have never been put to any of your
> >> tests. They dont need to be; the sorts of people that buy them arent
> > interested.
>
> > I love it: "We here at IBM have machines SO powerful you don't even need to
> > test them or have our claims independently verified.
>
> Thats not what I said. You're twisting words again.
>
> > You don't need to know
> > how we compare to others. We say it's good and we charge you good enough so,
> > damnit, don't use your own brain, just trust us, give us your money. We say
> > it's great! Honest! No, REALLY it is. Testing? Bah! Benchmarks? Who needs
> > them? We're IBM - we can't do anything wrong..."
>
> I'm sorry, did you have an example of something that can compete with an ASCII
> white?
>
> I'll help you out here, dresden, by telling you that there are one or two other
> machines in the same class that are made by different companies. I'm not going
> to tell you what they are or what their architecture is like, instead im going
> to ask you to use that enormous brain of yours to go find them and tell the
False premise.
Drestin Lies doesn't have a brain.
> class all about what operating systems they run, what kind of hardware they
> use and what kind of benchmarks they run.
>
> And then tell the class the same thing about the ASCII series (at least the
> white) after youve found all of its benchmark results.
>
> -----.
>
> k
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Office DLL hole
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:12:09 -0400
Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if MS have fixed up the hole in Office documented at
> http://www.guninski.com/officedll.html?
>
Fuck no they haven't.
> Chris
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:14:58 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Gardiner Family wrote:
>
> I am no win advocate or Linux advocate, however, if I were to design an
> OS these are some of the features:
>
> 1. Linux Kernel
Hmm, I'd rather have a BeOS kernel, or the next, next Linux kernel. The
Linux kernel is great, but it could be better.
> 2. Standardised GUI, either, MacOS or Windows like interface
Nah! I want to chose what I like!
> 3. Simplified Library structure similar to what Amiga had (ie,
> icons.library, fonts.library, printers.library)
Hmm, sounds reasonable, but why?
> 4. ReiserFS as the file system
Yep. Or JFS or whatever, just one of those FAST filesystems.
> 5. A windows interpreter, when a program makes a call it goes through a
> filter (like wine) and matchs the windows dll call with the UNIX
> equivilant.
That's what the new Amiga SDK is all about, precompiled microcode that
gets executed with the correct calls for the OS it's running on.
>
> Both Windows and Linux have great attributes, Linux, opensourced and
> very stable.
Yes.
Windows, easy to use and administrate.
Hmm, nope. I think Windows is a pain in the ass to administrate, all
those clicks, reboots. And it's not at all easy to use, as soon as a
problem arises, you're arsed.
By combining the
> power of a UNIX core and the simplicity of the Windows GUI there would
> be a balance between simplicity, functionality and flexibility. (a
> concept very similar to the MacOS X project).
Get BeOS and wait for the first apps/games written for the Amiga SDK. As
simple as that. I'm very impressed by BeOS, I just think it needs
multi-user (if it's to be my main OS, I want to run a server, which at
the moment is quite open because it runs in "root" mode all the time and
doesn't have any greater security features) functionality and more
software.
>
> feel free to reply, no flaming please.
>
> matt
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:14:39 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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 $$$).
You can run DOS programs full screen under Windows 95.
The fairest test would be on the same hardware. Windows 95 runing with
the program in a full screen DOS box. Linux need not have X running,
since it is unnecessary for a full OS in linux, but the GUI is necessary
to have a full OS under Win/DOS.
OR
Both running in the GUI, both running windowed consoles. IME, this is a
test of the graphics server, not the OS, though.
They really should be running on the same hardware.
-Ed
>
> [deletia]
> --
>
> The Poems, all three hundred of them, may be summed up in one of their phrases:
> "Let our thoughts be correct".
> -- Confucius
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Don W." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:19:27 -0700
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?
You mean without. :) USB support wasn't something the earlier kernel
developers cared too much about, as it wasn't totally clear it would become
a standard over the more-efficient firewire. Considering that Linux is
younger then Windows and has until recently not had any commercial funding
whatsoever, I'd say that it's doing pretty good.
> > 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.
Er...you mean the one that has Windows with almost no growth over the last
quarter? The one where Linux (and, not too suprisingly, Sun) growth has
been steadily increasing? The desktop market (Win95/98/SE/ME) isn't really
where Linux is geared, and since Windows comes pre-shipped on every
IBM-compatible PC, it's no surprise that it has a large amount of market
share. Most of which doesn't make MS much money, anymore.
That, and the new Macintosh is becoming very popular. It's cute, a hell of
a lot simpler then Windows, it works quite well for a home machine, and it's
very easy to fix (tech support for a Mac is a hell of a lot easier then for
_ANY_ version of Windows...believe you me, I know).
> > 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.
Erm...when did Windows support useful features like symbolic links? Oh,
wait, it _still_ doesn't. Windows didn't even get a TCP/IP stack built-in
until 1996...how long has *nix/Macintosh had one come stock with the OS?
What about decent memory protection? Windows2000 has it, about twenty years
after Unix. And Windows2000 can't run decently in less then 256M of RAM.
My system has half that, and I have yet to use more then 60% of my free
memory, even with Netscape+Gimp+KWrite+Apache running.
What I think he's proud of is that he has an OS that suits his needs, costs
him nothing, from which he can learn valuable skills, and that can fit with
all it's wizardry in less than 800M of space with a full graphical
environment (X, KDE), office apps (Corel Office2000), graphics programs
(Gimp), a web browser (Opera or Netscape both work just fine for me).
> BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware runs
> OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
Had you bothered to actually _read_ the report and give an unbiased opinion,
you would also have stated that it beat it narrowly, and that the Linux
NVidia driver was lacking a bit page-flipping feature present in the windows
driver, which accounts for quite a large performance hit. The NVidia driver
is also not open-source, so it's not like it's really an integrated part of
the OS.
> 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.
No flames. But, since it's "so easy" to counter Linux with Windows2000, I
offer you this challenge:
Your equipment is three old HP Vecra P150 PCs with 48M of RAM a pop, a 650M
SCSI hard drive in each, and a built-in CrapTastic ethernet card. You have
a few spare 3Com PCI NICs that will fit in the boxes, a CD-ROM to load
things with, and two 10G IDE hard drives that will also mount in the
aforementioned systems. Oh, and a hub. :)
Now, with this equipment, set up a router/firewall, a web server, a mail
server, an IRC server, windows and NFS services to a LAN, a proxy and NAT
server, a file server, and a server to stream audio to RealPlayer clients.
No additional hardware with the exception of cabling may be purchased.
I doubt that the ultra-glorious-mega-incredible Windows2000 will even _run_
on one of those boxes. Yet that's my home network, on which I serve web
pages, mail, and a whole bunch of other crap (did I mention a SQL database
serving about 50 people?). The equipment was donated for free as leftovers
from a state agency, and I have never had a single crash, glitch, or problem
configuring things. And I'm no linux guru -- I've only been using it for
three years, and only recently has that been on a continuous basis.
I'm sure that a "big corporation" can spend more, but the question is --
why?
PS: Most of my web stuff is offline right now, as I'm preparing stuff to be
moved across the country.
===============================
Don Werve <don at agentsix dot net>
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
This is the way the world ends,
Not with a bang, but a whimper.
- T.S. Eliot
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:44:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:49:38 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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.
Incorrect. There are a few not-so-essential services that Win95
vectors down to DOS -- time of day, for one, if memory serves.
Of course, most of the Win95 calls are vectored away from DOS.
Protected-mode interrupt gates are interesting things.... :-)
>
>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.
True enough, admittedly.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Anybody want to test a widget?
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:40:38 GMT
I coded a GTK+ help browser widget last night. It's not full-featured
yet and it hasn't been proven to work on any machine but mine, but if
you've got nothing to do and a recent distro of Gnome on your machine,
maybe you'd like to help out? It's tarballed and gzipped and takes up
about 6.3 KB...
(I ain't posting my email until someone says yes. Last time I did that
the worms found it and spammed the living hell of me...)
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:25:12 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:18:54 +1300...
...and Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both Windows and Linux have great attributes, Linux, opensourced and
> very stable. Windows, easy to use and administrate.
*WHAT*? Easy to administer? Windows?
Windows cannot be administered, at least the consumer Windows can't.
All you can do is pray, fix registry corruption and such, and
reinstall frequently.
mawaa
--
In case this message is about a non-technical subject, read it to the
tune of Gerry Rafferty's _Baker_Street_ or a Beethoven piano sonata of
your choice.
This was a public service announcement brought to you by mawa.
------------------------------
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 15:59:50 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Why don't you just threaten to shoot him, Rambo?
> > >
> > >
> > cause he can't get that right either... ask his CO
>
> I have a BETTER idea....coward.
>
> How about YOU ask my CO.
>
> Bet you won't....COWARD.
>
> heh heh heh
Why don't you just threaten to shoot him, Rambo?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Wow, someone sure hates Loki Games...
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:51:13 GMT
Check out this kuro5hin article on Loki... either this guy got burned or
he's got a major bug up his *ahem*...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory&sid=2000/10/11/17627/363
Afterburner... because I burned out *after* you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 21:06:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It was also revealed that the Windows version of POVray
> itself was taking it's own shortcuts, with the output.
Yes, and I corrected that and Linux still ran slower.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
