Linux-Advocacy Digest #772, Volume #29 Sat, 21 Oct 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Astroturfing ("Les Mikesell")
Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Nobody)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Redhat and TurboLinux announce support for the entire new IBM eServer line
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (Mike Byrns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:17:56 GMT
David Brown wrote:
> Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
> >
> >>
> >> #1. Microsoft has a competitive advantage over others in the
> applications
> >> market.
> >
> >Yes. For the most part their Office Applications are better.
>
> That's always a matter of opinion, of course. The point is that their
> monopoly position gives them a strong marketing and sales advantage
> regardless of any other pros and cons of MS software vs. other software
> (whether it be price, speed, reliability, functionality, ease-of-use, or
> whatever).
>
> >
> >> #2. A Major security risk on the internet.
> >
> >Well ... the biggest hack on the Internet was the Unix worm.
>
> What is "the Unix worm" ?
1988 - 1990
By 1988 the Internet is an essential tool for communications, however it also
begins to create concerns about privacy and security in the digital world. New
words, such as "hacker," "cracker" and" electronic break-in", are created.
These new worries are dramatically demonstrated on Nov. 1, 1988 when a malicious
program called the "Internet Worm" temporarily disables approximately 6,000 of
the 60,000 Internet hosts.
See http://www.pbs.org/internet/timeline/timeline-txt.html
> >And most people
> >spend their time trying to break into Linux boxes because they are easiest
> >to get into out of the box.
>
> A poorly configured Linux machine is easier to break into than a
> well-configured NT server. However, a well confingured Linux box is far
> harder to hack than any NT/w2k box (other flavours of Windows cannot be
> well-configured from a security perspective).
That's just plain wrong, IMO. You claim a well configured Linux box is harder
to hack than _ANY_ Windows 2000 server? Care to post some proof of that or are
we expected to blindly believe the linux myth?
> >In fact, if you read about most hacks they have to do with Perl shopping
> >cart applications.
>
> Perl is a language - Perl shopping cart applications are programs written in
> that language. If these have security holes, then that is the fault of the
> shopping cart programmers - the OS can do nothing to stop them. And exactly
> the same situation will apply if the Perl scripts are running on a NT box
> (Perl is available for a wide range of systems - you cannot easily tell if
> the shopping cart is on Linux, NT, or anything else).
Cool that means that all the VBScript exploits can be thrown out too!
> I think the original author was suggesting things along the lines of the
> fact that virtually every virus ever created has been for MS systems, and
> now the vast majority take advantage of the inherint lack of security in MS
> office and IE. It is a simple matter to write a web page which asks the
> dancing paperclip on a visitor's machine to delete some critical files.
But that's all VBScript. Just like Perl. And anyone running IE5 got notified
of the patch and it offered to install it for them.
> >> #3. Closed Source.
> >
> >See #2. Open source means the source code is available for all hackers to
> >peruse. Scary.
>
> It has nothing to do with #2 - people cannot see the source of Perl scripts
> unless the server is mis-configured or the scripts are badly flawed.
>
> Open source means that people can find the flaws, and either fix them or
> tell people about them so that others fix the flaws. The majority of
> "security announcements" for open source products are fixes for potential
> holes that are found and patched long before anyone has found a way to
> exploit them.
Same thing with Windows. Almost all of the "bugs" that Georgi Guninsky and
others have found have no record of ever being used in a malicious exploit.
Consider for a moment that Georgi Guninsky only targets _Windows_ systems and is
known to be a staunch UNIX advocate. I think it just goes to show just what
kind of guerilla tactics the Penguinistas are willing to stoop to. Doesn't
really matter though. The systems admins in corporate America know what
consititutes a real vulnerability and what's contrived just for the news.
> Closed source means that only MS sees the flaws - if they ever bother to
> look. You only know there is a problem once someone has found
Like all the Penguinista's on their smear campaigns.
> and exploited
Not necessarily. Most of these "flaws" have no record of ever being exploited.
> the flaw, and then you have to wait for MS to produce a fix (sometimes
> taking a year to do so).
Last one a remember took a whopping 12 hours :-)
> It also means that MS can put whatever they want
> in the code, such as backdoor keys. Scary.
Sure they can. You're being spied on right now since you are choosing to use
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5. If you're so scared why
aren't you using Linux?
> >> companies like Hewlett Packard and IBM are not very likely
> >> to dump their brains into a Microsoft Kernel.
Nor should they. They both sell UNIX for those machines. HP/UX and AIX. They
are not open source.
> The GPL guarantees
> >> everybody equal and unrestricted access to the code.
That's such a bonus to the average Joe! Even to a developer, a lot of that code
is so sophmoric as to be, in fact, a lesson in how not to write C. The X
Window system is a fine example of how not to design a high performance GUI. I
think each Linux developer should be given a copy of Bruce McConnell's "Code
Complete" and be made to comply with it like the programmers at Microsoft are
made to.
> >> Microsoft has 37,000 paid employee's versus Linux's 200,000
> >> free lancing, free contributing programmer/analysts.
I've never seen any of those linux numbers substantantiated? What is the
basis? Even if there are a few thousand of these folks, unless they are
unemployed, they can only spend a maximum of a few hours a day working on
linux. That means that it takes about 3 to match just the time put in by one
full-time Carnegie-Mellon graduate from Microsoft. I've seen code from
Microsoft and code from linux. Of the example's I've seen the Microsoft code is
consistantly better structurally, syntactically, algorithmically and
stylistically.
> >> By using Microsoft you will be guaranteed the HIND END
> >> of technology. You will always be running on obsolete hardware
Really? New hardware is almost always supported on Windows first.
> >> as they simply can't keep up with the needed coding changes.
The careful design of Windows insures that there aren't many coding changes
needed, if any. The driver is all you should need.
> >> Microsoft can't compete with Linux - example in the IA64 project
> >> where HP donates code to GNU/LINUX IA64 to put it over a
> >> year ahead of Microsoft in getting a ready OS. Linux is ready
> >> for IA64 right now - see redhat ftp site! Microsoft will not
> >> be ready until late next year!
It's very possible that the Merced will be the biggest flop Intel has ever had.
Foster, on the other hand, well look out Sun :-) And you'd better believe that
Microsoft is following this closely with their Datacenter server and Advanced
Server lines. The Datacenter hardware partners have elected to pass over Merced
because the IA32 architecture will likely be faster than it by the time Merced
is released.
> >Thats ok. Even HP has lately admitted IA-64 is a prototype and will never
> >actually be in production of any scale.
> >
> >Who wants a 750mhz box with 128k cache when they can buy 1500mhz SMP AMD
> >boxes by Christmas and Hammer boxes at 2ghz next year?
>
> It is interesting that you mention the AMD SledgeHammer - a chip that Linux
> will fully support in all its 64-bit glory when it comes out (simulation and
> testing is going on now),
The kernel will support it. That's like 1% of the code in a linux distro. None
of the apps will support it just because the kernel does. Neither will the
drivers. All that code must be ported to 64-bit. And with the propensity I've
seen for a lot of linux programmers to assume an int is 32-bits wide...
> whereas MS has no plans to support it at all. And
> as for SMP - going the Windows route, you have to buy the expensive w2k
> server to take advantage of two processors, whereas Linux supports SMP on
> every system.
You can tell where this guy's been getting his info! Straight from the linux
adovcacy sites :-) You just tell my ABIT BP6 box that Windows 2000 Professional
(AKA the lowly desktop version) doesn't support both of it's blazing overclocked
366/550MHz Celerons! And the I'd better cancel my order for it's successor --
the VP6 and those two 750MHz P3's (which I will clock to 1GHz each) -- because
Windows 2000 won't use them either. :-)
> For a long time, Linux has been following Windows in hardware support
> because manufacturers did not see it as a major market, and in user
> interfaces because there were few non-expert users. But things have
> changed. Which OS was the first to support IDE66 and IDE100, for example?
Windows was the first to support it. All it needed was a driver.
> Not Windoze, but Linux.
OK. Prove it.
> Which UIs support advanced theming? Serveral wm's,
> and especially KDE and Gnome, have supported theming for a long time. MS is
> trying to catch up with themes for the windmill media player.
What are you talking about? Oh themes -- try looking at Windows 98. It has
themes -- good one's too :-) KDE and Gnome were barely even around then. I
think it's a tad more important to support global usability features like cut
and paste and drag and drop before fooling with "window dressing" like that.
Actually I have this theory that a lot of Linux users don't really use it for
anything. It's just an OS for it's own sake. It makes them feel special,
superior because they could figure out how to install it and they get a big
charge out of the challenge of building their own software with make. All those
geeky build messages flow by and you end up with a program. How cool. Start
with text, end with program. That lost it's novelty for me a decade ago.
> >>> #5. The cost. At Microsoft's current rate of inflation, by 2005 the
> >> cost of the Microsoft operating system will be over $1,000 a copy.
> >
> >Hmmm. Linux people have math problems.Besides, I see Red Hat plans to sell
> >people Red Hat subscriptions that will make it more expense than Win2k.
>
> With Linux, you can pay for what you get (support, installation help,
> printed manuals, etc.), or you can get most of it free. Even if you buy a
> Linux distribution, you can still install it on as many machines as you
> want. You have zero cost for client access to a server, unlike MS.
It takes longer to develop business systems in linux, the expertise is more
expensive and most solutions involve "roll-your-own" shell script programming.
The plenitude of software available for Windows means that if you want to do it,
someone has probably already written it. Off-the shelf. Supported. When an
80K UNIX sysadmin writes a script that takes him 10 hours to author, debug and
test. That software costs $385. The same thing's probably available in Windows
for $49.95.
> >> And at that time, the US court system will break Microsoft into
> >> two separate companies, one the OS company and one the
> applications
> >> company. This will cause you to have to BUY your Microsoft
> >> Operating system rather than just have it handed to you on your
> new
> >PC.
> >
> >Well, I wouldn't bet real money a Microsoft breakup.
>
> It may fall apart by itself before that time comes.
And you _may_ be eaten by a dragon. Slim chance in either case. BTW, what the
hell makes you think that the breakup would affect preloads? Dell would just
preload Windows .NET 2.0 (AKA Blackcomb -- it'll be available by the time any
break-up could happen :-) and you'll get Office components ala carte as you need
them from Microsoft directly.
> >> #6. The upgrade problem. In not one instance, since the inception of
> the
> >> company has Microsoft recommended you stick with last OS's
> >> applications
> >> when you upgrade your OS.
> >
> >Everything ran pretty good on Win2K when I upgraded without changing any
> >applications at all.
>
> Experiances vary widly on that.
Well most folks that have made the leap are happier with Windows 2000 than any
other operating system that they have ever used. Analyst's agree that as long
as you make sure your hardware is supported you shouldn't have any problems.
You have posted pure FUD.
> >In fact, a lot of games that wouldn't work on NT now work just fine on
> >Win2k.
> >
> >I know you are just envious of the fact that Microsft plans to unfork
> >Windows with Whistler while people twiddle their thmbs waiting for the 2.4
> >kernel to come out knowing full wwll that forking in Samba and other
> >applications is inevitable.
>
> MS have planned to "unfork" Windows for 8 years, so don't hold your breath.
All in the name of hardware vendors getting up to speed and software
compatibility. When little Johnny's CD-ROMs won't play on Windows people get
cranky. Give it a couple years like Microsoft have done and many of those
problems are solved by time. There's the old adage about how to cook a frog:
you can't throw the frog into a pot of boiling water because he'll just jump
out. To cook the frog you put him in the pot of cool water and slowly turn up
the heat. Frog soup. In a way Millenium is turning up the heat on vendors. It
grafts on many of the potentially incompatible features from 2000 and forces
them to fix them so they will work in 2000.
> The dozen versions of windows that are currently in common use have huge
> differences and compatibility problems.
There aren't a dozen versions of Windows in common use. The few programs that I
still use back from the Windows 95 days that haven't been updated run fine on
Windows 2000.
> And as everyone says, 2.4 will be ready when it is ready, unlike MS
> releases.
But when Windows 2000 slipped and Microsoft said the same thing you are about
your precious kernel 2.4, they were a bunch of vaporware fuck-ups. FUD, FUD,
FUD. You folks are amazing.
> >Say ... has Linus ever admitted how much stock he owns in Transmeta? ANn
> how
>
> Transmeta is a hardware company which makes CPUs.
They hired Linus for some reason. He doesn't design CPUs :-)
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:24:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <lMZH5.112376$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Microsoft is not a monopoly not matter how stupid some judges are.
> [snip]
> > But, since over 90% of desktop computers are running a form of Windows
> [...]
>
> Make up your mind.
A monopoly is when you have all of them.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:24:23 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:p8XH5.9635$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > The Celeron boxes all use the 810 or 810e chipset, and the PIIIs use
> > > the 815 or 815e chipset, which isn't too much different.
> > >
> > > Shall I now explain to you why water is wet?
> >
> > No, but you might mention whether the bios in all of these boxes
> > misreport the memory size if that is what you are trying to imply.
>
> What does that have to do with anything? Windows on these same
> boxes detects the RAM perfectly.
>
> -Chad
It has everything to do with the problem you brought up. If the bios
reports the memory size in the old standard way, Linux will see
the correct values up to 64M. If it uses the new standard way
Linux (newer than around 2.0.36 or so) will see larger values
correctly. If the bios doesn't work, perhaps windows is using
some proprietary mechanism obtained under an NDA.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:26:12 GMT
I've finally installed Win2k after using Windows 3.1/95/98/98se all of
these years. I am still using Windows 98SE for all of my digital audio
work though.
I have never used NT or Win2k before so this was completely new
territory for me.
Win2k installed perfectly and created a boot manager under BootMagic
(already was installed) that allows me to boot Win98SE, Win2k or
Mandrake 7.1 (Shudder).
Unlike Linux, ALL of my hardware worked perfectly the first time.
Ultra-DMA was enabled by default during the install but it took me a
while to find it (under the controller instead of the drive like in
Win98).
My Matrox G-200 card was set up perfectly and even the SBLive worked,
digital input and output included.
Network card was set up, the DHCP for ICS worked and the other
computers recognized the ICS and worked as well, but they did need to
be re booted.
It was a simple matter to install Agent, Blackice, Norton Internet
Security (the ad blocking works great), MusicMatch Jukebox and
Napster/AudioGnome/Gnutella and so forth.
Everything worked perfectly the first time.
No playing with hosts files.
Screwing with fonts and True-Type servers with instructions from
Darren's web page trying to get Netscape to be readable without a
microscope.
No screwing around trying to find a Ghost. or Apps (SuSE) filter to
make the printer work.
No living without a scanner because it is a parallel port model.
No updating a kernel to support USB.
No having to turn on IP forwarding (or even knowing it has to be
turned on).
No screwing with X because the display (a Sony 21") looks like crap.
No setting up 3 programs and editing text files just to read news
offline.
And you know the best part?
I didn't have to read one page of instructions and I've never had to
open the manuals for any of the programs I use, except for my digital
audio programs which are very complex.
And again, I have never used any variation of NT before.
With Linux, I spend more time reading poorly written documentation and
less time using my programs all to achieve a second rate end result.
As an example: When BlackIce stops an attack I can click on it and get
a pretty good technical description of what happened. I can also paste
the IP address into NeoTrace and get all kinds of information even so
far as emailing the ISP the information all in one place.
With Norton I can use the firewall rules agent to create rules
automatically (or manually) without ever editing a text file and
possibly rendering the system useless.
The performance under Win2k seems faster as well. My modem transfers
are a bit faster and things just seem smoother.
Time will tell, but my only regret is that I didn't switch sooner.
Linux is crude compared to a professional, user friendly system like
Windows 2k.
Linux should stay in the back of the glass house in the server room
where the pencil necked misfits can oohh and ahhh over it.
I'm going to try Mandrake 7.2 when it is released but I suspect it
will be the same old stuff, so at that point I will most likely
reclaim the 10 gig I have allocated to Linux.
After just a brief exposure to Windows 2000 it becomes painfully clear
how pitiful Linux is as a home desktop environment.
claire
------------------------------
From: Nobody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:38:35 -0700
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:58:02 -0700, "Simon Cooke"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Tired O'Shills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>Oooh! I'm being taunted by an anonymous person! Better get that flameproof
>suit on. Or phone my mummy.
>
>> It's easy to verify the fact that this phrase was regularly used by Steve
>> Ballmer. As reported by Fred Langa (in his 09/02/98 column titled
>"Reasonable
>> Doubt?"):
>>
>> Years ago, I asked top Microsoft executive Steve
>> Ballmer about the stories that claimed he'd shout
>> "DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run" at DOS
>> product manager's meetings. He said the statement
>> was out of context, and that it referred to adding
>> legitimate new features to DOS (a perfectly legal and
>> good way to compete); it didn't refer to planting
>> software booby traps to create artificial barriers to
>> competing products (a sleazy and possibly illegal
>> way to compete).
>
>Really? He's the only person who seems to be able to 'verify' it at all.
>Interestingly, not much detail is given ('years ago'? what kind of crap is
>that?).
>
>Do a search for "Lotus won't run" and "Ballmer" -- you'll get just one that
>makes any claims that Ballmer ever even said it.
>
>I'd say that one article for such a well-known phrase is kind of odd,
>wouldn't you?
>
>Who the hell is Fred Langa anyway?
A longtime industry scribe. He was editor of Byte in the late eigties
and I heard him speak at a few trade shows around then. I beleive he
started a few Windows magazine's in the early to mid-ninties but I
haven't heard of him for quite a few years. I don't see why he would
make up this story as his reputation was solidy pro-Microsoft.
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:28:28 GMT
Otto wrote:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ncXH5.9636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :
> : "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:HSMH5.31016$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : >
> : > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : > news:QDCH5.13035$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : > :
> : > : "Mike Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : > : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : > : > "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : > : > > The industry started out with Unix and along came NT beating the
> crap
> : > out of
> : > : > > the "xNIX". When the 64-bit version of NT becomes available
> sometimes
> : > in the
> : > : > > next year, it'll be lights out for the "xNIX". All of the "real
> : > : > > professionals" will be flipping burgers somewhere and they can
> keep
> : > : > > wondering about what hit them.
> : > : >
> : > : > I'd rather flip burgers in hell than aid and abet in Redmond.
> : > :
> : > : With that kind of attitude, it won't be long then...
> : >
> : > You'll be ordering burgers using CLI pretty soon.....
> :
> : $ordrbrgr -p dill -t ripe -c american -b low-fat -bn sesame-seed >
> : grill -medium-well < money -value $5.00
>
> Nah, that's like Windows scripting, it'll be more like this:
>
> *nix_rulz:>./make -vfz brgr.ltossb.ver_moe.tar.gz
> *nix_rulz:>./ccc -co.cc.pc_m<$.gz
> *nix_rulz:>gnurpm
And all the while the guy at the drive through is wondering what the fsck is
taking so long just to get a damn burger. The McSoft burger is pre-built, hot
and ready to eat in seconds right from the drive through. And they taste
better too. The BurgerTux burger is kinda bland and varies from burger to
burger.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Redhat and TurboLinux announce support for the entire new IBM eServer
line
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:32:52 GMT
Fair enough.
I was just asking because I know that RAS is key to these platforms
and while Linux does run on these machines, how can hot swapping and
concurrent maintenece be done on them using Linux?
RS/6k running AIX interface with PSSP to allow the tech or customer to
run diagnostics, repair and replace hardware without upsetting the
system. It even says so in the ad for that super-server they released
last week.
IBM is advertising extremely low downtimes, and there is no doubt they
can do it, with AIX.
Presently, I don't know how they can do it with Linux (not that Linux
isn't just as stable), but due to above.
I am sure it is being worked on though.
claire
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:59:46 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> What does that have to do with how Linux is going to handle RAS,
>> concurrent maintenence, swapping and allocating CP's and storage via
>> PSSP?
>>
>> You didn't answer my question.
>>
>> claire
>>
>
>Well, that's because I don't know the answer (do you?) - my area of
>expertise in S/390. But I do know the RS/6000 people quite well -
>I've traveled to Austin to many times and they visit me. And I am
>confident that what you seem to think are problems, are not.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:38:53 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <8snp6v$1grh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:00:59 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I never had any problems with my Voodoo3, or Voodoo2, or Intel
> > 740,
> >> >> or S3Virge, or Matrox G400.
> >>
> >> > Is the Matrox G400 FINALLY fully supported under Linux, or is it
> > still
> >> > single head only support?
> >>
> >> Its not "linux" that supports video cards, brainiac. Its the X-
> > server.
> >> You're probably referring to XFree86, and yes it does.
> >>
> >> Though AccelleratedX has for a bit longer.
> >>
> >> Funny, you seem to have claimed repeatedly that you have lots of
> > experience
> >> running linux. Even someone with very limited experience would have
> >> known that linux doesnt support ANY sort of video hardware directly,
> > and
> >> that all of that happens inside the X-server.
> >>
> >> I suspect that youve been lying quite alot, claire.
>
> > To people that care about video card compatibility X is Linux.
>
> They are quite simply incorrect. You can redefine terms all you like, and
> it will never, ever make you correct.
>
> > What
> > comes in the box at the store or the ISO image they download is all
> > linux to most folks.
>
> "claire" put herself apart from "most folks" by listing a fairly impressive
> (though a lie) list of linuces shed had experience with.
>
> > You'd probably be first in line to say that
> > Notepad.exe is Windows.
>
> No, because I know that it isnt.
>
> > What I like is how when people
> > criticize "Linux" in this regard, the Penguinista's turn coat and say
> > things like "but that's not Linux".
>
> Correclty of course.
>
> > Without X and all the things that
> > technically aren't linux you'd have a machine that cannot boot since
> > LILO isn't techically Linux either :-)
>
> You can boot linux without LILO, you diminutive-brained maroon.
>
> XFree86 is an X-Server that works on a ton of unix and unix-like operating
> systems. It is developed independantly of linux and what linux is doing.
> If theres a problem with a video driver, it has everything to so with the
> good people over there at XFree, and nothing to do with anyone working on
> the linux kernel or filesystem. This is the correct viewpoint, yours is
> absolutely wrong.
Like I said. Not ready for the desktop or anyone else. Users do NOT make
these kind of distinctions. Shall I remind you of "Jurassic Park"? You know
when the little girl goes up to the GUI on the computer screen and says "I know
what this is -- It's UNIX!" or some such piffle. You know how many dialog
editors that kinda thing has to go through? Michael Crighton himself, a fairly
technical guy, wrote those words. Consider that all commercial UNIces run X.
I say you can pick whatever the fuck you want and call it linux but it doesn't
matter since everyone else calls the whole shebang by that name.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
