Linux-Advocacy Digest #814, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Tired O'Shills)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (2:1)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (2:1)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (neJ)
Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (neJ)
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! ("Vann")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tired O'Shills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:19:55 -0700
Simon Cooke wrote:
<snip the BS and get to the subject>
>> Anyway, I provided two solid examples from well established journalists to
>> prove that the quote in question was, in fact, used within Microsoft. You
>> answered with your typical vacuous bluster and bullshit. If you had any
>> integrity you would be sporting a new signature.
>Did it actually lead to anything though? That's the important thing. I can
>say that I'm going to put sugar in your gastank, but until I do so, it
>doesn't mean anything.
Well, if I'm parsing you correctly, you are saying that, even if the phrase "DOS
ain't done 'till Lotus won't run" was used within Microsoft, this is not proof
that any action was ever taken to implement the stated goal of sabotaging Lotus.
This is essentially what Ballmer was saying in the Langa quote, and it's a
familiar defense from the anti-trust trial: it's just "locker room talk", not
intended to be taken literally. Congratulations on identifying and applying the
recommended party line in the appropriate context.
However, I didn't intend to prove that any specific actions were ever taken to
implement the goal. It is not (realistically) possible to prove that, using your
words, "Microsoft did indeed change DOS explicitly so that Lotus would not run".
But note that some circumstantial evidence does exist that Microsoft did make
changes to DOS to break Lotus 1-2-3. Ignoring the importance of circumstantial
evidence is the flaw in your gas tank example. If you say you're going to put
sugar in my gas tank, and latter I find sugar in my gas tank, then you will need
a good alibi, because, if other circumstantial evidence can be found, you could
easily be convicted.
Now, back to the beginning, where you said:
Provide one SHRED of proof that "DOS ain't done 'till
Lotus won't run" is anything more than an anti-Microsoft
FUD mantra. I will gladly post that line, and the
qualifying
proof as my signature for the rest of my Usenet days if you
manage to do so.
On the one hand, I'll say it again: I provided two solid examples from well
established journalists to prove that the quote in question was, in fact, used
within Microsoft. And if you had any integrity you would be sporting a new
signature.
On the other hand, I'll drop the signature thing, and grant your integrity (with
all of the glorious benefits that grant includes), if you will just admit that
it is more probable than not that the phrase in question was used sometime in
the past by managers at Microsoft. No baggage attached concerning the meaning,
context, consequences, rightness / wrongness, etc. Just a simple,
straightforward acknowledgment of the probable reality based on the available
evidence. Simon, my dog says you are inflexible, an ideologue and a shill, and
will never agree with anything that is not in strict compliance with the
Microsoft version of reality. Well, OK, that's what I think. Prove me wrong.
<apply standard unspoken Simon-response to remaining insult exchange>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:21:07 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Linux doesn't 'detect' RAM, it uses the value supplied by the
motherboard
> > bios.
> >
> No it doesn't
>
> Charlie
In the nearest source tree I see (a 2.2.14), arch/i386/boot/boot.S describes
several ways of obtaining the memory, all of which seem to have already
been set up by the bios. Have things changed in newer versions?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:57:44 +0100
"ne..." wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2000 at 14:06, Idoia Sainz eloquently wrote:
>
> >
> > Although some of you would consider me a Wintroll, I am
> >not typing here as one (just as GNU/Linux user), just to say
> >that another thing I don't really like about Redhat is putting
> >all of the packages at /usr (instead of using /opt for things
> >like GNOME, KDE or Netscape).
> Seems you are a prime candidate for reading the FSB.
> GNOME and KDE are built by RH and therefore go in
> /usr. Netscape might be built by RH but I'm not sure
> about that. When _you_ build KDE and GNOME, _you_
> can install them in /opt.
I know that, but I is very time consuming to compile everything on my
computer (it's only a P133).
-Ed
--
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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:16:41 +0100
Jan Schaumann wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Praedor Tempus
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>main problem with it is that its output (lyx and latex) is not accepted
> >>by any of the scientific journals to which I could conceivably publish.
> >>They all accept word, wordperfect, wordstar, pdf. SOME accept simple
> >>ascii text, which lyx/latex can handle, but not a single one will
> >>accept latex or lyx format documents.
> >
> > would pdftext be able to handle lyx output? if not, how difficult would
> > it be to make it?
>
> You can export your document from inside of LyX into a variety of
> formats: HTML, ASCII, PS, LaTEX etc.
> Once you have a ps you can turn it into a pdf with ps2pdf (or other
> tools, such as pstill).
Or, once you export it to LaTeX, run pdflatex on it. The effect's much
the same.
-Ed
> Cheers,
> -Jan
>
> --
> Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
>
> Please add smileys where appropriate.
--
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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:25:09 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > > "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8spa52$snk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <55CH5.13009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a
> > > > simple
> > > > > fact, check it.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe on your planet, Chad. But here on earth, Linux has always
> > > > detected my RAM just right. And my partitions have also been detected
> > > > right, not like Windows 95, which once detected my Linux partition as
> > > > being an "audio CD"...
> > >
> > > It has never detected my RAM just right. 66mb is all it shows. Why?
> > > I take that back - I don't care why.
> >
> > Linux kernel activities will use half the memory for program storage
> > and the balance for file cache's. Swapping begins somewhere
> > at this interval.
>
> You do understand the difference between "detecting" and "usage",
> right Charlie?
>
> Bah... why do I bother educating you...
>
YOU?! Educating someone?
HA.
-Ed
> -Chad
--
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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:26:30 +0100
Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> Funnily enough Linux (or LILO in this instance) *can* detect the amount
> of memory in your computer.
>
> Basically the problem here is that Interrupt 12H returns the amount of
> memory and places it into a 16 bit register. Obviously this isn't good,
> as it limits the size of the memory that LILO can see. The newest
> versions of LILO fix this problem. If you have the older version, there
> are things that you can change in the config file or add at bootup time.
>
> I fail to see how not knowing that LILO can now autodetect memory makes
> you a liar, however.
>
The lie was that almost no Linux computers detect the amount of RAM
properly.
-Ed
> Chris
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
> > > > >
> > > > > Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
> > > > >
> > > > > Microsoft doesn't even have the IA64 working!
> > > >
> > > > They don't? What world are you living on?
> > > >
> > > > Win2K and whistler both have been demonstrated numerous times.
> > > > A cursory search on Google will return the results. There are
> > > > numerous press statements on Microsoft's press site about the
> > > > events complete with links to news agencies covering the
> > > > events.
> > > >
> > > > > Microsoft is NOT keeping up with technology!
> > > >
> > > > At least they can detect RAM in every PC out there. Linux
> > > > can't seem to do this on even a small number of them.
> > > >
> > > > -Chad
> > >
> > > Have you always been a compulsive liar (hint a ow awnser will be funny)
> >
> > "a ow awnser"? Have you always had a 1st grade reading/writing comprehension
> > level?
> >
> > What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a simple
> > fact, check it.
> >
> > -Chad
--
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: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:38:12 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:5OAI5.11392$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:7vrI5.2781$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:yV5I5.164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > How come Windows can't detect all the partitions on a hard drive?
> > >
> > > Which partitions can't it detect? It may not recognize partitions for
> > > unsupported filesystems, but it certainly detects them. Going into fdisk
> > > they show up as non-dos partitions.
> >
> > It doesn't detect the Linux partitions on my hard drive. fdisk, of course,
> > is not Windows. I'm not looking for a utility (fdisk or any other) to
> > detect what's on my drive. I *know* what's on it.
> >
> > The truth is that all this came about in response to all the Winvocates
> > pretending outrage that Linux doesn't detect all their RAM. When told about
> > the one line fix for this, the response was something along the lines of:
> > "But I shouldn't HAVE to edit some config file to get full use of my
> > system." Something like that. I'm paraphrasing, obviously.
>
> You're comparing apples to oranges. If Windows didn't detect the whole
> hard drive, then you'd have an argument.
>
> Linux doesn't detect and mount all partitions. Most Linux distros
> won't mount NTFS partitions without special software. Likewise,
> Windows won't mount ext2fs partitions without special software.
>
> Linux, however, can't even detect the basic hardware situation
> of the computer. This doesn't compare evenly with the logical
> layout of the partition table.
>
Mandrake does just fine. So does Suse.
>
> > My experience with Windows has always been that almost any time I do
> > something to change configuration, I'm asked to reboot. Even installing
> > applications often requires reboot.
>
> > That has always annoyed the hell out of me, so this time my question was
> > genuine. I don't have Win2K and I am honestly wondering if it is the same
> > way.
>
> In Windows 2000, this is not the case. There are older applications which
> say they need to reboot, but, in fact, they do not.
Here we get back to the I HAVE TO UPGRADE EVERYTHING syndrome.
Once Microsoft releases a new OS, suddenly everything in your software
collection becomes obsolete.
How does one avoid a programmed reboot under Windows anyway?
>
>
> Win2K has a newer, better way of replacing in-use or system files that
> doesn't usually require a reboot. They installs say they do, but they
> usually they don't.
>
And someday the rest of the Windows software community will have
this in boxed form also. Hopefully by Christmas of this year.
And for a measly $7,000 I could buy all the new Windows software I needed
to finally match to performance and usability I have in my $65 box of Mandrake
7.1.
But after I got through, I still wouldn't have a machine which wouldn't
occasionally
blue screen.
>
> > > > As for Java, do you mean the bastardized version that Microsoft foisted
> > on
> > > > the public with the utterly meaningless (and unoriginal) name of J++?
> > >
> > > Microsoft, like any other Java licensee was not allowed to use the name
> > Java
> > > for their products. That's why Borland has J Builder, Symtec had Visual
> > > Cafe, etc...
> > >
> > > Don't be so foolish.
> >
> > By "bastardized", I was referring to the changes Microsoft made to make
> > their version of Java incompatible with others.
> >
> > When I said the name "J++" was meaningless and unoriginal, I was merely
> > being insulting.
>
> You mean the J/Direct extensions that you could easily turn off and
> create a 100% pure Java that ran on any machine with a JVM?
>
> Java didn't have any native support for object brokering technologies
> (such as COM) and, as such, MS had to add the J/Direct extensions to
> make up for where Sun left off.
>
HA! Here goes Microsoft inventing everything again!
Here it goes! Sun releases Java a decade ago. Ibm adopts it.
Netscape adopts it. Everybody begins to use it. It works just
fine. There is NO NEED for change as the balance of the world
would have demanded it in that decade.
Then - out of the blue clouded sky comes Microsoft and they
have saved us all again with a cheap ass mod.
>
> Of course, it is very easy to turn off these extensions when you're
> not developing for Windows.
Thank you. This is why I quit calling you a total liar some months back.
>
>
> > > > As for Win32/64...you mean Windows is finally 32 bit, without all that
> > > > kludgy 16-bit stuff they never could seem to get beyond? Hey,
> > > > congratulations. Welcome to the 80s, you guys!
> > >
> > > Win32 is an API. The implementation of it is irrelevant. Windows NT has
> > > never had the 16 bit portions that Win9x had, nor does Windows 2000.
> >
> > I have hope that you're correct about Win2K. Microsoft's marketing claims
> > about Win9x through the years still leave me with a tiny bit of doubt,
> > though.
>
> This only shows your ignorance. The Win2K kernel is an improved version of
> the NT kernel which is fully 32-bit and has never had any 16-bitness at
> all. In fact, the portion of NT that allows 16-bit apps to run is actually
> in user-land and it's a subsystem just like the OS/2 and POSIX subsystems--
> maintained for legacy support.
>
The Linux kernel has been 32 bit since 1991.
Why should Microsoft be applauded for being DEAD LAST in the
32 bit war.
I'm glad they finally got one working. It's just too bad IA64 will
change all of that next year. Linux has a working version of
IA64 I can download and use RIGHT NOW. IT's been there
for one year now and we've all been waiting on Microsoft to
cobble up an IA64 system so Intel could release the chip to market!
Will it be 2010 before we can say that Microsoft finally has
a working 64 bit kernel? WHEN?
>
> > Still, I've seen nothing to make me doubt it, so I'm sure Windows 2000 is
> > completely 32 bit.
>
> Of course it is. There should be no doubt if you know what you're talking
> about.
>
I can say nothing here as he told the truth.
There should be NO DOUBT IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.
Trouble is Microsoft is a CLOSED OS company. We will never see the code
and WE will NEVER know whether they finally achieved this goal.
NT was supposed to be and it was later disclosed that it was not.
And Chad as agreed with this. Otherwise he'd be saying NT was a true
32 bit operating system.
Despite the fact that Microsoft lied on the box to 2 billion users world wide,
no court system ever heard a case for this. It was the fraud of the century
in my opinion.
Oldsmobile can and has sold cars with chevy engines under the hood.
And GM has paid the damages to the consumer for this.
Why has Microsoft NEVER paid damages to the world for this?
>
> > > > > Post proof of X being more stable than Windows 2000 please.
> > > >
> > > > Post proof that Microsoft has ever had an operating system as stable as
> > > > Linux. You obviously can't since they never have. And since they have
> > > > always lied about it and *claimed* stability superior to that of Linux,
> > > why
> > > > should we believe their current claims? We've heard it all before.
> > >
> > > X has nothing to do with Linux. I've had X lock up on me many times, and
> > I
> > > don't use it all that often. Netscape can bring it down faster than
> > > anything else.
> >
> > I agree. X is not Linux.
>
> So, when it suits the argument (i.e. "Yes, Linux is a modern OS with a GUI!")
> then X is part of Linux. When it doesn't suit your argument (i.e. "X is a
> big pile of shit that never works right, crashes the whole system regularly,
> and doesn't hold a productivity candle to Windows") then it isn't, huh?
>
My uptime logged into X is now 8 months. If the power company cooperates,
I might actually make it a full year.
However, in a controlled environment with a UPS for backup power, Linux
systems have been up and operating for over 4 years now straight.
No Microsoft system in the planet can ever claim this kind of UPTIME in
a business anywhere.
Take a look at the silly failures Road Runner cable has with Microsoft in
just handling E-mail. They have been down 12 times this year on their
E-mail systems using Microsoft servers to perform the work.
Entire blocks of customers have reported OUTAGES when the central
control facilities knew nothing about the loss until the phone rang.
And as far as the argument about Windows being more productive
than Linux, maybe you should ask Chad HOW? What does windows
offer that any Linux distribution doesn't? Drag and drop? Nope.
File mangers? Nope? about a dozen good free wordprocessors in
W2K? Nope? Tremendous UPTIME? Nope. Best price on the market?
Nope. Ability to run it on IBM-PC, SUN SPARC, SPARC II, APPLE,
AMIGA, OS390, AS400, HP-9000??? NOPE,NOPE,NOPE,NOPE,NOPE,
NOPE,NOPE,NOPE, and NOPE to a dozen more. Windows has a very
narrow field of vision.
And his calling X a big pile of shit considering that many countries in
Europe are experiencing 2000% growth patterns in Linux replacing
Windows only goes to show the crowd that he's lost.
>
> > It's an application that runs on Linux (and other
> > operating systems as well). And I too have had many X lockups . But I have
> > always been able to shut down and restart X without affecting Linux, or
> > anything else that was running on Linux, in the least. I think there have
> > been 2, maybe 3 exceptions in the last 4 years, and all of those times I was
> > running some highly experimental alpha/beta version of something as root.
> > Stupid, I know, but sometimes I do it anyway.
>
> Hmm, I've had basic XFree86 that comes with RH Linux 6.1 and 6.2 lock up
> and hose the whole system. No keyboard input was processed. The CTRL+ALT+
> F1-8 or whatever didn't work at all. CTRL+BACKSPACE didn't do anything,
> the whole system was froze. I am not alone in this regard, many, including
> penguinistas themselves have stated they've experienced this before.
>
Hey, or whatever. You've sold us. Your a dumb shit okay.
>
> X is a pile of junk, why won't you guys just admit it and move on and
> develop something worth-while?
>
> -Chad
What's funny is this guy knows Linux is just creaming Microsoft
in the European Markets. Also South America and Asia.
America will be dead last thanks to the likes of these kinds of people.
They want to CLING to the old shit. Microsoft is OLD SHIT which
never worked right. And that's the truth.
The world would not be fleeing Microsoft as we speak if there were
ANY value in staying. And there isn't.
Every time you see a Mercedes Benz automobile fly down your street
just remember that they guy who bought that car wanted the
highest quality car he could buy. And the people who made that
car in Germany understand quality.
That's why Suse is extremely popular with Europeans as a windows
killer.
And the MORE Microsoft dies the more we will hear from idiots
like Chad who simply can't face the facts that Microsoft is dying!
It's dying in the marketplaces and it's going to be cut in two by
our own court system.
So Chad,
Why don't you be a BIG BOY and take up wood work or
some other hobby. There's really no point in being an
asshole over this any further.
You have convinced ZERO people on this newsgroup
to return to Windows from Linux in the year that I've
been on. ZERO people have went back.
And by 2005 there won't even be a Microsoft OS on
the market anyway. If marketing forces don't kill
Microsoft then the U.S. Courts will.
So again Chad. Be a BIG BOY. Go find a hobby
which you can agree with and leave us in peace.
We are tired of hearing your dribble.
And this kind of dribble isn't shaping the world anyway.
I've converted 4 windows users to Linux who've written
me privately. They are all using Suse and Mandrake
and out of the 4 one said he did so because he knew
you were full of crap anyway.
Anyway you cut it your just hurting Microsoft be
being their press spokesman.
People don't respect assholes as press spokesman.
Linux has won and Microsoft has lost.
Accept this fact and find peace in your heart.
Thank you.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[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: 22 Oct 2000 15:42:05 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Relax wrote:
> >
> > > The first indication that Microsoft was not serious about the
enterprise
> > > was Windows NT 4.0, when they moved GUI code down into kernel space.
> >
> > GDI != GUI, troll!
>
> What exactly does the GDI do, if it doesn't draw the GUI?
>
my point is, the windowing system is not in kernel space, only the graphical
primitives are.
> So hey moved PART of the GUI in to the kernel.
>
Following that logic, the disk driver and the file system driver are parts
of your applications.
That said, I fail to see why putting low level graphic primitive at an even
lower level indicates that Microsoft is "not serious about the enterprise".
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:36:41 +0100
Otto wrote:
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yV5I5.164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> : Post proof that Microsoft has ever had an operating system as stable as
> : Linux. You obviously can't since they never have. And since they have
> : always lied about it and *claimed* stability superior to that of Linux,
> why
> : should we believe their current claims? We've heard it all before.
>
> Linux is a wide definition, it can mean some sort of X-Windows running on
> Linux or just the kernel, any combination of the two. Not to mention all of
> the different flavors of Linux. Comparing just the Linux kernel without the
> X-Windows to the MS Windows with the GUI makes no sense at all.
Yes it does for the simple reason that you can't remove the GUI from
windows. If you want to run a server, you run Linux without the GUI and
windows with.
> Once you put
> X-Windows on Linux the stability of the Linux box is out the window. Not to
> mention the performance hit what the Linux box will have. Windows 2000 is a
> lot more stable than X-Windows on Linux.
Do you have anything to back up this assertion?
> MS DOS 6.22 is as stable as Linux
> without the X-Windows for simple reason. Neither of them doing anything
> without applications.
1 That's bollocks. An app under dos will crash the whold computer. That
is rare under linux.
2 That's bollocks. There are plenty of things which run wthout the GUI.
All the server stuff, compilers, editors, news clients, MP3 ecoders, CD
recorders, etc, etc.
--
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: neJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 22 Oct 2000 15:55:10 -0500
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:46:42 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>http://counter.li.org/
>
>GEEZE look at this thing.
>Look at the growthrates!
>
>They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up that
>21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
Umm, don't you mean web *servers*?
And just for your info, Microsoft servers are actually *gaining*
market share, albeit not anywhere near the growth rate of Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux)
Date: 22 Oct 2000 20:55:14 GMT
Jeff Szarka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Most people who use software use it to make money. This is probably a
: forbidden concept in this group but paying X amount for software that
: will make you Y amount of money, where Y is greater than X is a value.
But to come out ahead, you had better be awful productive with the software.
For some people, using software to make money is not an option.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: neJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 22 Oct 2000 15:56:13 -0500
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:46:42 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
The above story has been *unposted*??? What's the deal??
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 20:59:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft has admitted to the German public with this ad that Linux is
> superior and a super threat to Microsoft.
>
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
>
>
> I found it interesting that they actually spent money on this one. Who
> was their Ad man?
>
> Why is a guy like Bill Gates who practically owns the world even worried
> about Linux? I mean, Windows is at least
> 10 times the size of the Linux user base. At least.
>
> Would you panic and spend money on an ad against an opponent which was
> probably 1/20th your size as a company?
>
> You know, Solaris has taken a beating from Linux and they never ran even
> one ad against Linux.
>
>
>
> Charlie
>
>
Well, Microsoft Germany is a different entiry from Microsoft here in the
USA. They have their own CEO, IIRC. Microsoft Germany ran this ad, I'd
guess, is because in Germany, SuSE is pretty big, as it is throughout
Europe. Just because linux isn't big in the USA doesn't mean it isn't big
across the Atlantic.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
