Linux-Advocacy Digest #833, Volume #29 Mon, 23 Oct 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (Tim Kelley)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (sfcybear)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mlw)
Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Edward Rosten)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Otto")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Edward Rosten)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Andy Newman)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (.)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (.)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Thomas Forlenza)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Claire Lynn (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:30:22 -0500
mmnnoo wrote:
> Maybe debian wouldn't be best for a desktop machine because
> of its slow update cycle, but for my headless home server it's great.
If you feel a need to run the latest versions of things, then you have to
run the unstable branch. This sounds worse than it is, Debian unstable is
better than RedHat's .0 - .1 releases for the most part.
It also help to have a fast internet connection, using Debian on a dial up
and trying to stay current is kind of a bitch ...
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[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: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:39:24 GMT
What I really like about this is thecounter.com is running Apache on
Linux! Guess the don't think there own stats mean much!
http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.thecounter.com
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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!
> >
> > WOW! 21%. WHAT WHAT WHAT 21% WOW!!!!
> >
> > That the growth rate in several countries are consistently over
> > 100% with about 50 being in the 4 digit % bracket.
> > Over 2000% growth!!
> >
> > Linux is just taking off like wildfire across all of Europe, South
> > America
> > and Asia.
> >
> > The balance of power is changing a lot more rapidly than I
anticipated.
> >
> > I think I can say with confidence that by 2003 Microsoft will not
> > be used outside of US boarders to the degree it is today.
> > Microsoft will be a single digit player by 2003 overseas.
> >
> > The United States and Canada are still chugging along at
> > 16% to 40% depending on which graph you read.
> >
> > The other graphs vary but they seem to be consistantly over 500%
growth
> > for Europe, South America and Asia no matter how you slice it.
> >
> > That just astounds me! WOW!
> >
> > Clearly this would simply be dismissed had it not been for all the
rest
> > of the private-commercial statistics groups who backed up most of
> > the numbers!!!!
> >
> > SO, we went from 3-5% to 21% of the worlds computer users!
> >
> > And we did this all in the span from May, 1999 to now.
> >
> > So this explains why Microsoft is running that AD in europe!
> > YES! They must already know then that Microsoft is bleeding
> > to death overseas.
> >
> >
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
> >
> > http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
> >
> > Jeez! They are just taking an ass wiping!
> >
> > Charlie
>
> That's quite odd because the combined statistics of all web sites
(566,000
> of them) using thecounter.com's counter shows Linux OS users to be
about
> "0%" out of 458,991,203 combined visitors last month. Hmm...
>
> September 2000
> 1. Win 98 303539944 (66%)
> 2. Win 95 76819732 (16%)
> 3. Win NT 34527360 (7%)
> 4. Win 2000 15454715 (3%)
> 5. Unknown 12760235 (2%)
> 6. Mac 9667128 (2%)
> 7. WebTV 3114516 (0%)
> 8. Linux 1373239 (0%)
> 9. Unix 888184 (0%)
> 10. Win 3.x 755419 (0%)
> 11. OS/2 64124 (0%)
> 12. Amiga 26607 (0%)
>
> And note that numbers of Linux users are actually DOWN 11% from July
2000
> even though total visitors are up by 9.5% (43 million).
>
> Now lets look at July 2000 502,483,035
>
> 1. Win 98 318538810 (63%)
> 2. Win 95 101594073 (20%)
> 3. Win NT 41047771 (8%)
> 4. Win 2000 11423496 (2%)
> 5. Unknown 11038874 (2%)
> 6. Mac 10700310 (2%)
> 7. WebTV 4098814 (0%)
> 8. Linux 1543963 (0%)
> 9. Unix 1214391 (0%)
> 10. Win 3.x 1168735 (0%)
> 11. OS/2 79389 (0%)
> 12. Amiga 34409 (0%)
>
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 16:56:54 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is what is being use to claim that Windows is an OS, however, if
> > > > doing this does not let products like DesqView, PharLap, and EMM386
> > > > claim OS status, it should not be reasonable to let MS use it to call
> > > > Windows an OS.
> > >
> > > Do those products also do everything else an OS does, like provide
> hardware
> > > support, APIs, process scheduling etc ?
> >
> > Some do, yes.
>
> So why can't you call them an OS ?
Because they are not in complete control of the system.
>
> And which ones *do* provide as much OS functionality as Windows ?
It isn't a matter of quantity of functionality, lets face it, if it
were, Emacs would be considared an OS. ;-)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:50:45 GMT
In article <8sl162$k2m5f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
> >and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
> >
> Time to recalibrate that sig then Rex -
> 183% per year is at least double
> your 5% per month ( can't be bothered to
> work out exact percentage due to
> forgetting formula for compounded percentages
> - e.g. each month you have to
> add 5% + 5% of the previous montht percentage etc).
Actually it would be 9%/month (gives 2.81 x previous year).
In the past I have estimated
10%/month but was accused of being to aggressive.
IDC's estimate is averaged out over a longer period. Current
indicators are that we are still running close to 10%/month.
It's nice to be hammered for being to conservative :-)
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[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: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:55:14 +0100
Relax wrote:
>
> > Graphics drivers reduce the stability of the system. Graphics are not
> > needed for servers.
>
> As mlw rightfully points out, graphics are needed for printing. Probably
> also for Terminal Services since apps runs on the server.
Sorry, that's true in a sense, but only for a print server. Graphics are
not needed for (say) a fiel server. If you have a file and print server,
you'd want the printing (and therefore graphics) to be done in user
space, so a dodgy print driver won't bring down the fileserving.
On another note, I thought in windows that print rendering was done
locally: the NT machines here seem to need a print driver in order to
print to a network printer. If rendering was done remotely, then
wouldn't they only need to send the drawing commands?
-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: Edward Rosten <[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: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:00:53 +0100
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> El lun, 23 oct 2000, Relax escribió:
> >"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:00102312013601.15259@pc03...
> >> El lun, 23 oct 2000, Relax escribió:
> >> >> Graphics drivers reduce the stability of the system. Graphics are not
> >> >> needed for servers.
> >> >
> >> >As mlw rightfully points out, graphics are needed for printing. Probably
> >> >also for Terminal Services since apps runs on the server.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> They are not needed for printing on UNIX, why are they needed for printing
> >> on windows?
> >
> >Probably because Windows [NT/2000] printing is a little more than a screen
> >dump. Printing is device independent and the rendering is done on the
> >computer where the printer driver and the printer itself resides.
>
> Amazingly enough. the exact same thing happens on Linux (at least if you
> program using Qt). Again, why is the graphic driver needed anyway?
You may want a driver with the same interface, then what you get on the
screen comes out on the printer. Even so ,the driver does not need a
graphics hardware end, or the need to reside in kernel space.
> After all, I assume GDI can create a graphic context for the printer without
> creating one for the display!
>
> >> They are not needed for remote displaying apps in unix
> >
> >It's a design flaw.
> >
> >http://catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html
It mad me laugh. Besides, it claims terminal handling is not done in the
kernel. Some of it is (termios and all that).
> That has nothing to do with anything.
True.
> A local graphic driver should not be needed to create a graphic context
> running on the remote display. After all, the remote display already has its
> driver, doesn't it?
Again true.
-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: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:11:15 GMT
"the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ArWI5.1868$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > Linux does detect the memory correctly, although it uses only the first
64
: > MB of it until you change some configuration files. Chad might've meant
: > that. The only distro I've seen which detects and uses all of the memory
: was
: > Caldera 2.4.
: > As for the "audio CD" part.... nah, no comment.
: >
: > Otto
:
: You have _got_ to be shitting me...
No, not really...
: lol...this is worst than I thought. I installed Corel Linux 1.1 a while
: ago...which is the ONLY linux I've been able to configure X on
(admittedly,
: I don't want to pore through 200 pages of docs to get my video hardware
: working I sure as hell don't have to in Win98). I was unimpressed, windows
: felt and looked faster. The net browser in Linux (netscape 4.5 I think)
: really bit ass (slow through my cable modem, illegible fonts), the GUI
feels
: unfinished and "flaky", the Font rendering was garbage and it didn't
detect
: my live sound board. That it only uses the first 64MB of memory unless
: "special" steps are taken is absolute crap. DOS sees all the memory you
have
: with default settings for christ's sake (it loads himem.sys and emm386.exe
: by default). Want a nice fast and most of all, good looking unix on your
PC,
: try QNX. Much, MUCH nicer interface/graphics/document/font rendering.
The only argument I have is the fact that the DOS can not use more memory
than 64 MB, much less detecting it. When I say DOS, I mean DOS 6.22. Other
than that, I agree with your assesment of Corel Linux.
:
: I guess when it comes to OSes you really get what you pay for.
Without a doubt....
Otto
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[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: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:07:56 +0100
> Your point is valid but fails to materialize in real life because printer
> drivers need _not_ to be in kernel space with Window 2000, see[2]. In fact,
> most printed drivers (taking advantage of Unidrv5) actually are user mode
> drivers, see [3]. That said, we live in the days people are putting _web
> servers_ in kernel space. Not "serious about the enterprise" either.
No one seems to get the point of the tux thing, so I'll do my best to
explain it again.
If you are running a dedicated web server, you want it to give the
fastes web serving possible. If it only does web serving it makes no
difference if the web server or the OS tanks: the effect is the
same---no web pages are served. Since it does not matter, you may as
well put the web server in the kernel to get the best performance.
If the server is doing other things as well, it is very silly to use
tux.
The point is, you have a chioce: web speed at the expense of stability
(not an issue of youre only serving web pages) or stability at the
expense of speed.
You can choose not to have a kernel mode web server if you wish.
For a machine dedicated to a particular task and that task only, it
makes sense to put things pertinant to that task in kernel space for
performance.
For a general purpose machine, it makes sense to have as little as
possible in the kernel, for stability purposes.
That's my take on it, anyway.
Just to prove I mean what I say: if a Windows box was dedicated to
graphics tasks only, it makes perfect sense to have the graphics
subsystem in the kernel.
-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: Edward Rosten <[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: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:10:28 +0100
> > They are not needed for remote displaying apps in unix
>
> It's a design flaw.
No its not: it allows graphicsless computers to use graphics. i remember
running some CFD software with a GUI on a cray without a graphics card.
That is a good thing.
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:26:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>It isn't a matter of quantity of functionality, lets face it, if it
>were, Emacs would be considared an OS. ;-)
It is!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: 23 Oct 2000 21:33:07 GMT
FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> While I've always been tempted to try FreeBSD, I have a
>>> reason to keep my system Linux-compatible and am too busy
>>> to fiddle around with a system instead of using it.
>>Read up on it. FreeBSD supports full linux-binary compatability
>>(as well as BSDi and SCO) and actually runs most linux applications
>>FASTER THAN LINUX DOES.
> But that doesn't mean I don't need to learn how to maintain
> it, need to check if all my hardwares are supported (I doubt
> it) and figure out what to do with all these softwares that
> don't come nicely in FreeBSD packages (or whatever those
> are). And if anything goes wrong, I'm more likely to be left
> in the dark, simply because I know much less about FreeBSD,
> and frankly, can't afford to spend too much time learing a
> new system. I'd also think that FreeBSD is much less
> commonly used as a workstation and its desirability in that
> capacity is debatable.
Certianly not by you, knowing absolutely nothing about it.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [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: 23 Oct 2000 21:34:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2000 19:21:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> And YOU have been EXPOSED as a BULLSHIT ARTIST.
>>
>>You lied about plonking me in your killfile, you have other people
>>write your posts for you when you want to sound intelligent, you
>>know absolutely nothing about linux WHATsoever, and youve been
>>attempting to fake everyone out this entire time.
> I've "Un-Plonked" you so I can continue to expose you as the BULLSHIT
> ARTIST you are.
You never plonked me to begin with.
>>> Next time at least do some research before you try to toss around
>>> jargon that you know nothing about and expect people to just accept
>>> it.
>>
>>Like what, exactly? Lets have some specifics, claire. I wont even
>>mind if that guy who wrote those posts for you (where you appeared
>>to know something about linux) does it for you. Seriously.
> Every single statement you made in the thread. It got funnier and
> funnier the more you talked the more you exposed yourself.
Like which ones, specifically?
> Next time don't try to get involved in a thread you know absolutely
> NOTHING about.
Uh huh. Nice soundcard.
>>Id rather talk to him anyway.
> You've been talking to me the entire time. And making quite an ass of
> yourself at it.
I dont think so. I think ive been talking to one of your male
superiors.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Thomas Forlenza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:39:19 GMT
Actually, I know many Attorneys (not that anyone cares) who use Word
Perfect. It is largely used in the legal circuit. So, now that Claire's
world theory is false, we can not trust much of anything else she say's.
You can however get Word Perfect for Linux - it works fairly well (just save
often). I use StarOffice and produce some good documents with it. I am not
sure about Applixware, but it got decent reviews in Maximum Linux.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tell that to your boss when you hand in your report and it looks like
> crap, all because you used Linux and he, along with the rest of the
> world, is using Word.
>
> Maybe Linus will give you a job at Transmeta.
>
> claire
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:52:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Burgiss) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:47:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>It sucks and is even more bloated than MSOffice.
> >
> >Yea, but at least it doesn't have that funny smell about it, and infect
> >itself into every nook and cranny it can.
> >
> >--
> >Hal B
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:45:46 GMT
On 23 Oct 2000 21:34:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>You never plonked me to begin with.
Stop trying to take the focus off the fact that you spewed your guts
and got caught....
>Like which ones, specifically?
Your entire posting in the thread, and I'm not going waste time
repeating it to you.
Juding by the way you misuse terms (VM for instance), it looks like
you have never even seen a CMOS or Raven or SP/2 cluster.
Idiot..
>> Next time don't try to get involved in a thread you know absolutely
>> NOTHING about.
>
>Uh huh. Nice soundcard.
Are you incabable of reading?
Here is the post I replied to MLW with....
******************************************************************************************
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:50:30 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Snip..some irrelevent stuff
>Like buying a car. The purchase process has nothing to do with driving.
>So what, it was easy to install (this time). This is because you had a
>machine that had all the components on the HCL.
I never even looked at the HCL and have pretty standard stuff, and no
Win hardware. Here is a list.
Abit BH6 with 256 meg (Linux doesn't recognize it all)
Pentium II 450 mhz
Maxtor EIDE DMA 100 drives.
IBM SCSI-3 drives
Adaptec 2940UW
HP 9310i CD
Plextor CDROM
USR V.Everything Courier Modem
Canon FB 630P scanner
Lexmark Z42 Printer (real nice!! at 2400 dpi)
MidiMan Delta 1010 (http://www.midiman.net/m-audio.htm )
Soundblaster Live
Matrox G-200 w 8meg
Pretty typical system with the exception of the Midiman card.
>I have had many an easy install with Linux, in fact, truth be told I
>have fewer problems installing Linux than I have installing Windows, in
>an over all sense.
So have I, but later versions of Windows have been much, much better.
So have later versions of Linux as well.
Snip again.................
***************************************************************************
You really are a dense one.....
>
>I dont think so. I think ive been talking to one of your male
>superiors.
errr.
nope.
Loser.
claire
P,S So when are you going to provide the proof that FreeBsd runs
applications faster than Linux?
Or are you BULLSHITTING AGAIN??
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: 23 Oct 2000 21:47:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 15:43:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
:>And I'm sure the "geeks" prefer it that way just as much as you do.
: Sure they do.
: They are an anti-social bunch.
: Some don't even come to the company picnic, but prefer to go to work
: instead.
Having been in this situation myself, I can say that it wasn't because
I'm anti-social in general - quite the opposite. I enjoy fun company,
which does not include the management, sales, and marketting androids
at most companies.
:>Why does the company keep these "geeks" around anyway? Do you suppose
:>that they have some skills that the compnay needs?
: Of course they do and the company drains their brains and then let's
: them go and hires a new bunch of geeks at less salary.
Uhhm - telling someone something doesn't cause you to forget it.
Unlike physical items like cars and appliances, giving someone
information does not deprive you of that information, in fact it
makes it stay in your head longer, since you tend to forget knowlege
if you don't excercise it often. It simply copies the information.
(This is why I've never approved of calling software piracy "stealing"
- while piracy is wrong, it's wrong for an entirely different set of
reasons than the way theft is wrong. Traditional theft involves
taking someone else's stuff away from them so they don't have it
anymore. When someone copies your stuff, you still have your stuff.)
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:40:08 -0400
"David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > Hey. That's an excellent point.
> > Linux stat's are showing a massive Microsoft beating
> > and YET they have had a smaller percentage of Linux
> > users come in and stat for them.
> >
> > This means the figures for Linux's growth are even
> > greater than posted. How much greater is anybody's
> > speculation but certainly greater than that posted.
> >
> > Very good.
>
> Uhm. Ouch. My head. What the hell did you just say??!?! I'm having
> difficulty discovering where you arrived at that assumption, and even
> greater difficulty deciphering your explaination...
Your problem is that you are looking for logic and forgetting that Charlie
exists in a logic free zone.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [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: 23 Oct 2000 21:57:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2000 21:34:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>You never plonked me to begin with.
> Stop trying to take the focus off the fact that you spewed your guts
> and got caught....
And where was that exactly?
Oh, that must have been while I was off enjoying my life while you and
your little friend (the one with the brain) were posting to usenet all
day.
>>Like which ones, specifically?
> Your entire posting in the thread, and I'm not going waste time
> repeating it to you.
Translation: "I dont have a point, but I hate you anyway"
Thats lovely.
> Juding by the way you misuse terms (VM for instance), it looks like
> you have never even seen a CMOS or Raven or SP/2 cluster.
Uhhmmm....yeah.
Tell me, whats the easiest way to fire up 64K concurrent linux machines
under VM?
> Idiot..
Uhhmmm........yeah.
>>> Next time don't try to get involved in a thread you know absolutely
>>> NOTHING about.
>>
>>Uh huh. Nice soundcard.
> Are you incabable of reading?
Nope.
> Here is the post I replied to MLW with....
>
>******************************************************************************************
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:50:30 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Snip..some irrelevent stuff
>>Like buying a car. The purchase process has nothing to do with driving.
>>So what, it was easy to install (this time). This is because you had a
>>machine that had all the components on the HCL.
> I never even looked at the HCL and have pretty standard stuff, and no
> Win hardware. Here is a list.
> Abit BH6 with 256 meg (Linux doesn't recognize it all)
> Pentium II 450 mhz
> Maxtor EIDE DMA 100 drives.
> IBM SCSI-3 drives
> Adaptec 2940UW
> HP 9310i CD
> Plextor CDROM
> USR V.Everything Courier Modem
> Canon FB 630P scanner
> Lexmark Z42 Printer (real nice!! at 2400 dpi)
> MidiMan Delta 1010 (http://www.midiman.net/m-audio.htm )
> Soundblaster Live
> Matrox G-200 w 8meg
> Pretty typical system with the exception of the Midiman card.
Nice soundcard.
>>I have had many an easy install with Linux, in fact, truth be told I
>>have fewer problems installing Linux than I have installing Windows, in
>>an over all sense.
> So have I, but later versions of Windows have been much, much better.
> So have later versions of Linux as well.
> Snip again.................
> ***************************************************************************
> You really are a dense one.....
I liked it much better when you were lying about having plonked me.
>>
>>I dont think so. I think ive been talking to one of your male
>>superiors.
> errr.
> nope.
Oh, I think youre lying.
> Loser.
Moron.
> claire
=====.
> P,S So when are you going to provide the proof that FreeBsd runs
> applications faster than Linux?
Oh, is that what you wanted? Dejanews, claire, dejanews....(thats that neato
website where you can go look at articles posted a long time ago!!!)
While im not aware of any benchmarks supporting this, simply testing it
yourself usually convinces most people.
I dont expect you to do such a thing though, since im quite certian you
could never figure out how to even install FreeBSD.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
