Linux-Advocacy Digest #930, Volume #29 Mon, 30 Oct 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux in approximately 5 years: (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? (Bob Lyday)
Re: Linux in approximately 5 years: ("Todd")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Tim Hanson)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Tim Hanson)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Todd")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (XYZ)
Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you ("Todd")
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Tim Hanson)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Tim Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:25:07 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande© in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some authority syndrome and insult laced stuff </SNIP>
>
>Ok Max, you win. You detain The Truth, after all.
I've never said I "detain" the truth in the slightest bit. You're still
simply trying to twist my words. I can understand why you might think
that my statement that I am an authority on what is truth might be
defensive consternation, but you really have to double-check why you're
hear, if you're going to keep second-guessing what it is I'm trying to
say when I say that.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:26:33 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in approximately 5 years:
javaduke wrote:
> I have now got Lotus Smart Suite ME running under Linux using WINE, it is
> really cool. I now have a replacement for StarOffice.
>
> javaduke
Great! I haven't tried it for a while, but I always had trouble in the past
getting it to work. What version of Wine?
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:28:28 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > He is a classic example of a person who has
> > NO PRIVATE CONVICTION but rather
> > has sold his SOLE and in it's place has
> > inserted MICROSOFT.
>
> Windows is used by 92% on the desktop, and about 40 % on the server
> market...Windows wins...*nix loose...
--
Bob
"Is our children learning?" George Bush, genius and Presidential
candidate, 2000.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in approximately 5 years:
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:46:58 +0800
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:o13L5.15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here is my vision of where linux will be in around 5 years:
> >
> > 1. Kernel v. 2.6 released
>
> My guess is that there won't be a 2.6, instead a jump to 3.0.
>
> > 2. Many UNIX vendors opensource their version of UNIX and incorperate
many
> > of the good aspects of their version of UNIX into Linux.
>
> My hopes on that aren't particularly high, but I think many may phase out
> their proprietary Unices, leaving only a few (linux, solaris, and a few
> others).
>
> > 3. Two defacto standard desktops, GNOME and KDE, stability and ease of
use
> > increased.
>
> And hopefully interoperable.
>
> > 4. Netscape 6 Finally released.
>
> A year and a half away, tops.
>
> > 5. Journalling Filesystems ready for primetime.
>
> Much sooner than that.
>
> > 6. LSB takes a hold in the Linux industry resulting in more companies
> > willing to port applications to Linux.
> > 7. By this time Linux will be installed on approximately 15% of
computers
>
> Who cares how many computers have Linux installed on them? The 'War' is an
> invention of the media and Microsoft. Everyone else is getting on with
> business.
>
> > 8. Increased devices supported by Linux.
> > 9. OpenOffice 6.05 is a reality, a compact and fast office suite
>
> Definately. Even on Win98SE (circa a week's uptime, amazing - it's still a
> pig with a crap UI, though), SO5.2 is my suite of choice, and I'm really
> looking forward to the new version.
>
> I'll add:
>
> 10. MS Office sales fall through the floor after people realise that they
> don't need a million features that they never use.
I keep hearing this too from anti-MS advocates, but Office sales always seem
to continue there pace. I'll believe it when I see it. BTW, those so
called features that people will never use are very nice when you *do* need
to use them.
I'm impressed with Office 2000... when you are trying to do something that
has an associated built-in feature, the 'assistant' comes up with the
correct way of doing things -- very nice.
> 11. Apache's market share keeps climbing.
By how much? Apache needs to penetrate the fortune 500 companies if they
are to be taken seriously... so far, IIS and the Netscape server suite is
the preferred choice for the high end.
> 12. .Net doesn't work, and ends up in the same pile as MS Bob.
Sorry to break the news to you, but .Net works very well, and converges web
and the Win32 API programming -- makes it a *lot* easier to write native
Win32 applications.
> 13. Microsoft finally converges NT and 9x.
This will happen very soon. The Whistler pre-alpha is a good indication of
this... and it has a new GUI.
> 14. They release a next generation NT: Windows WT (Windows Technology
> (cough, cough)).
They already have... it's called Windows 2000 - a ton better than NT in
almost every way. Of course, far better than Linux given that it is better
than NT.
-Todd
>
> --Chris
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 04:44:52 GMT
"James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
> >
> > > Eventually I will learn Linux, but it will take time, but I
> > > have to get my lab reports done, and my drawings finished.
> >
> > Free clue: Windows has to be learned as well. And sometime re-learned
> after a
> > new release.
> >
> I did not have to learn Windows, I made since after looking at the
> interface. I am constantly doing things that I have not learned to do in
> Windows, where I have yet to find simular functionality in Linux.
> >
> >
> > > BTW what comes with Linux
> > > that Windows does not have on the CD?
> >
> > Tell us what comes on the Windows CD, and we'll start a list.
> Well I guess that there is a difference there, in Windows functions are
> built into the Operating System where as they are applications or services
> in Linux.
> >
> > Actually, your last question sounds suspiciously like a Linux fan playing
> the
> > straight man, to solicit an answer to edify the lurkers.
> >
> I am a Linux fan, but not a complete user yet. I have decided that I would
> like to learn more about the Linux system before entrusting my computer to
> it fully. After all who would not like not having to keep paying every other
> year or so to use their computer. I am not going to keep paying. I just need
> to figure out what Linux applications can replace the Windows applications
> that I have now.
Seriously, (and I hope you're being serious) you won't find exact
replacements to anything, which one wouldn't expect since it has been
developed with a different mind set. I can be just as productive on
Linux, in different ways, as I am with Office on NT4, which is mandated
at work. For me, if the tools were just like Windows tools, with all
the strengths and weaknesses, there wouldn't be a reason to switch.
Those looking for exact drop in replacements are on a fool's errand.
I just got a firewall, with IP masquerading and a dhcp client, working
for a small home network. I upgraded a couple of Linux desktops and a
laptop plus updated my Windows 98 file storage (a Linux directory which
Windows sees as just another drive) for the cost of a SuSE upgrade, one
set of CDs to make the rounds. Nothing crashes. This setup would have
cost me a couple thousand had I been stuck with Windows-only answers.
The desktop isn't there yet. I still keep one lonely Windows computer
around to do Quicken every couple of weeks, but heroic efforts are being
expended by competing groups to move us there. You and I are the
beneficiaries.
--
"The Right Honorable Gentleman is indebted to his memory for his jests
and to his imagination for his facts."
-- Sheridan
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 04:47:48 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > >
> > > Free clue: Windows has to be learned as well. And sometime re-learned
> > after a
> > > new release.
> > >
> > I did not have to learn Windows, I made since after looking at the
> > interface. I am constantly doing things that I have not learned to do in
> > Windows, where I have yet to find simular functionality in Linux.
>
> That's amazing. I'm a Linux user, and thus presumably not at the very bottom
> rung of computer cluebieness, and yet for some reason nothing is intuitive at
> all when I sit down in front of a Windows box.
>
> I rather suspect that you are deluding yourself about not having to learn
> anything to use Windows.
>
> > > Tell us what comes on the Windows CD, and we'll start a list.
> > Well I guess that there is a difference there, in Windows functions are
> > built into the Operating System where as they are applications or services
> > in Linux.
>
> Oops. You forgot to answer the question.
>
> > I am a Linux fan, but not a complete user yet. I have decided that I would
> > like to learn more about the Linux system before entrusting my computer to
> > it fully. After all who would not like not having to keep paying every other
> > year or so to use their computer. I am not going to keep paying. I just need
> > to figure out what Linux applications can replace the Windows applications
> > that I have now.
>
> That's sensible. In fact, that's exactly how I started. I set up a dual-boot
> system so I could boot to Windows to get my work done while learning the basics
> of using Linux and finding Linux-based applications to do that work with.
> After a few weeks I had the most basic of the basics down, but my progress
> started stagnating, so I switched my default boot to Linux as a psychological
> self-deception: "this is what I use now". Then I started learning faster,
> because there is always a certain impatience with having to reboot just to run
> that one app or play that one game; I found myself saying "maybe a Web search
> would be easier than a reboot, and if I find something, maybe I won't have to
> reboot anymore at all".
That's what I did, although since my OS/2 days I haven't been fond of
dual/multi-booters. It wasn't long before I was piecing together a
computer for dedicated Linux, buying the networking I needed to run both
economically.
>
> In the event, it was two whole years before I scratched Windows off my disk
> altogether, although for most of that period I was just keeping it around to
> play games on. A few months should get you working on Linux unless you have
> very special needs that still aren't supported there.
>
> And of course, having friends who run it makes it much easier to learn, because
> there is some positive feedback between the learns. (I suspect the
> near-universality of friends running Windows is what made learning to use it
> seem so effortless to you. So if you want to learn Linux, or the Mac, or VMS,
> or whatever, get some friends to take the plunge with you, and you'll probably
> reduce the apparent difficulty by a couple of orders of magnitude.)
>
> Good luck,
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
--
Did you know that if you took all the economists in the world and lined
them up end to end, they'd still point in the wrong direction?
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:50:33 +0800
Sorry to break the bad news to you, but even if MS where split (almost no
chance now), the apps. company will not make applications for Linux.
The economics just don't make sense. Think about it... MS OSes will still
be the #1 OS by far on the desktop. Linux on the *desktop* consitutes very
*few* users... where would the ROI come from?
Bottom line? There will be no MS apps. for Linux regardless of whether they
are split or not.
-Todd
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:EZ3L5.116860$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Timothy Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8ti7n7$mv23f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> MS don't care if files created by their applications can be read by
the
> > >huge
> > >> numbers of users who don't use their operating system as if Unix /
> FreeBSD
> > >/
> > >> Linux / Apple don't exist in MS's world.
> > >
> > >Whan was the last time the Unix world did anything to make life easier
> for
> > >Microsoft?
> > >
> > >Get real.
> > >
> > >As for Apple, without Microsoft it would be dead, dead, dead. Without
> Word
> > >and Excel there would have benn zero reasons for anyone in the business
> > >world to allow Apples in.
> > >
> > When the Gore DOJ gets through with Big Software, the Word and Excel
> > Corporations, no longer having an O.S. monopoly to enforece, will port
> > their product to linux/unix.
>
> No. It's unlikely your fantasy world will come to place ... but if it
does:
>
> If they have to they will come out with Microsoft Linux and make sure Word
> and Excel ports only work on that version of Linux. It will look a lot
like
> Corel Linux, the most user friendly Linux.
>
> And it will run Microsft .NET real well.
>
> And the stock value of the two companies will be much greater than the
> current value of Microsoft.
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:44:14 +1000
"Caldera OpenLinux User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > It doesn't. He said same scenario, not same events. THe scenario is a
> > trojan, and any OS is vulnerable to them.
>
> I'm not speaking in absolutes. No OS is perfect.
> I want to know what other OS so tighly integrates the DATA, APPS and OSs
such
> that it has as many points of failure as Windows.
Explain what you mean by integrating the data, apps and OS.
> As I have been saying, the design relies too much on users to correctly
> decide to enable or not macros and "run" attachments.
Duh. Just like every other OS.
> > > I use those OSs and wonder what risks I am at for this QAZ trojan
> > infection.
> >
> > About as much risk as a Windows OS wouldb e to a Unix trojan.
>
> Nope - that's not correct. Windows is more so since it has more points of
> failure.
Explain.
> I have to decide when I open an excel sheet if I want to enable
> marcos or not. If I'm wrong I get infected.
Just like Windows. Unless you've changed the *default* settings wrt to
macros.
> > > What other OS vendor is tightly integrating their OS and apps and
data?
> >
> > Makes no difference to a trojan. But, pick any vendor trying to sell a
> > similar sort of package to Windows - Apple, Redhat, Be etc.
>
> It makes a large difference.
Explain what you mean by integrating the data, apps and OS, and why it makes
a "large difference".
------------------------------
From: XYZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 04:53:23 GMT
My thoughts on Windows 2000....
What a bug-ridden piece of shit. If I burn an audio CD, everything works fine,
but don't try burning another after it! The CD Writer driver (or something in
the subsystem) fucks itself up after the first burn...when you're burning the
second CD, it gets all the way to the end, then when it is 75% through burning
the last track, the whole application just disappears, and the CD Writer locks
up and won't let you eject the CD. Then when you play it, it plays fine,
except for the spot where it stopped writing on the last track. What absolute
dogshit. So I have to burn a CD, reboot, burn another, reboot.
I'm using beta video drivers...and due to the shitty design of the Win2000
kernel, a problem in the driver will just spontaneously reboot the computer
without any fanfare.
Did I mention that you *still* can't reliably kill a hung process in Windoze?
I have to physically unplug the goddamn machine from the wall when a process
gets hung...I can't even reboot...and I can't hit the reset button on the
hardware because of the power-management crap. I thought one of the
fundamental jobs of an operating system was to manage processes...how the FUCK
did that requirement slip past the Winblows engineers?
Try running an old DOS game under Win2K? Forget about it. Alt-TAB out of it
and you're done. If you're lucky, it'll reboot automatically. Otherwise, yank
that plug again.
Fucking Windows 2000. None of the myriad of serious design flaws in the
previous versions of Windows have been addressed, but at least in this version
I have animated menus, a fancier taskbar, a new recycle bin icon.
You know, Linux was a bit buggy at first...so was Solaris...but over time they
get more and more robust and stable and foolproof...but not Windows. It's the
same piece of bug-infested dogshit that it was from day one.
My Solaris box has been up for 72 days. The last time I rebooted it, it was
for maintenance reasons. This fucking Windoze 2000 box needs to be rebooted at
least once a day. The only time it stays up for any length of time is if I
don't use it to do any actual work.
But don't worry, Bill G., there will always be plenty of cretinous drooling
assholes to buy your piece of shit wannabe "operating system".
-X
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hullo, Claire, James? Here's another dork for you
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 12:57:04 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Actually you've got me wrong on that count. I find it hysterical that
> MS gets hacked. Sorry, I don't sing the MS line, never have. I use the
> OS because it works for me. I play Flight Simulator because I like it.
> Those are the only MS programs on my machines.
> I also agree with MS pulling dirty tricks especially with Digital
> Research and Stac, and I lived through the campaign to destroy OS/2.
Please. I used to use and advocate OS/2 since version OS/2 2.0 beta. OS/2
was not destroyed by MS. It was destroyed by IBM.
IBM failed to fix many of the problems that its very own users (including
myself) identified. For example, the infamous SIQ problem (no, don't tell
me that Warp 4 fixed it because it *did not*.)
There are so many other examples as well. IBM gave up. MS pushed on.
If you want to compete with MS, you need to be determined, aggressive, have
good people talent, etc. Of course, today, many people hire lawyers since
they can't complete with MS.
Oh well.
-Todd
>
> claire
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 00:47:11 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Windows is SOOOOO GOOOOD Claire_Lynn that
> >they stole the whole W2K code base.
> >
> >It's good to the last byte.
> >
> >And it makes a wonderful communist operating system.
> >
> >
> >Charlie
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I know that. No OS is immune and there will always be somebody who can
> >> come up with a better mouse, despite state of the art mousetraps.
> >>
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:43:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 16:51:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>You post an entire YEARS worth of security problems with Windows.
> >> >>
> >> >>I post ONE WEEKS worth with Linux, and my list is still longer than
> >> >>yours.
> >> >
> >> >If you were to subscribe to BugTraq for a period of time, you would
> >> >quickly discover that Windows does not have significantly fewer
> >> >security problems than Linux. To think otherwise is to stick one's
> >> >head in the sand.
>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 04:58:41 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0k5L5.116868$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Do you think there is some challenge in tricking an
> > average user?
>
> No I don't. Thats why Open Source is scary. The source code means you can
> create a binary with a back door that has the exact same functionality as
> the original binary.
What does open source have to do with this capability? Rename the
original,
replace it with a trojan of the same name that does some dirty deed, then
runs the original and you are all set. In fact, that is basically the
description
of the way Microsoft was recently hacked. Or you can replace a dll.
Having source means you have a reasonable way to check the differences
from a reference copy. Having the source cvs repository available is
even better since you can check differences between any versions ever
committed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 04:59:38 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:22:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
> > > > Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I wouldn't mind variou various benchmark information on this as well.
> > > > >The FreeBSD community isn't as visible as the Linux one, but it's clear
> > > > >that, if there's an advantage to FreeBSD, it should be touted.
> > > > >
> > > > >And this looks like an advantage. :-)
> > > >
> > > > I was simply asking him to prove his statement, I don't know if it is
> > > > true or not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > FreeBSD is the FASTEST OPERATING SYSTEM in the WORLD.
> > > It just runs away from Linux 2.2 kernels.
> > >
> > > It still walks away from a linux 2.4 kernel but not fast enough for
> > > me to give up all my driver support for the hardware.
> > >
> > > FreeBSD is limited on hardware support where Linux practically
> > > supports everything Windows does today. There is little left
> > > Linux doesn't support.
> > >
> > > FreeBSD just has that hangup BSD license which would theoretically
> > > allow BSDI to close the source and that's why I don't trust it.
> > >
> > > Linux uses GNU/GPL and you can trust that license.
> > >
> > > It's just that simple.
> > >
> >
> > That's pretty much it, bottom line, isn't it?. Sometimes I wish *BSD
> > was as popular or more so, but it isn't. Whatever the reason, whether
> > it is the past strings to AT&T, past court problems, or the license,
> > Linux has the momentum right now, and it's snowballing.
> >
>
> I don't think I would have much argument for the performance of FreeBSD.
> FreeBSD could wip Linux's ass in a heartbeat. Linux could support more
> hardware than FreeBSD however and has a better license.
>
> But FreeBSD is a bolt of lightning and it's only it's license which
> holds it back. That's it.
It's too bad, too. I have a lot of respect for the *BSD
accomplishments.
>
> >
> > > Now if somebody would just explain to me WHY Yahoo is dumping
> > > FreeBSD in favor of Linux then I would know everything....
> > >
> > > Why the Google contract?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >You could be nicer about it, you know. :-)
> > > >
> > > > He chose to BS ( in another thread) and unfortunately he got caught
> > > > tossing around terms he knows nothing about.
> > > >
> > > > I don't try to argue programming, or network servers, because "hello.c
> > > > was as far as I got.
> > > > Even Ebert at least post's proof, albeit sometimes a little stretched,
> > > > of his comments.
> > > >
> > > > yttrx lies, lies and lies again. He gets caught all the time.
> > > >
> > > > claire
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>claire
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>On 23 Oct 2000 19:19:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >[snip]
> > > > >
> > > > >>>http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/x18762.html
> > > > >
> > > > >This is not a benchmark, but it does look interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > >[snip]
> >
> > --
> > Surprise! You are the lucky winner of random I.R.S. Audit! Just type
> > in your name and social security number. Please remember that leaving
> > the room is punishable under law:
> >
> > Name #
>
> How did Claire get on this one!
>
> I thought I was talking to a dude on here!
>
> Tim Hanson I thought!
>
> Would you people just stay in your own threads please!
>
> Charlie
--
Did you know that if you took all the economists in the world and lined
them up end to end, they'd still point in the wrong direction?
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:02:53 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> In article <8t801v$1c2l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Also, that awful netscape bus error bug which exists in the linux
> >version appears to completely disappear when run under linux binary
> >emulation under freebsd...:)
> >
> >Proof of this?
> >
> >It doesnt ever crash.
>
> The opposite case exists in Solaris... the bus error bug appears "from
> time to time" whereupon it crashes :-)
>
> It never takes out the OS, though, and so you simply restart. Just a
> nuisance factor, that one.
>
That it is. I hate it when I have a bunch of Netscape windows open,
including email, a couple of message replies working, a couple of
websites on different desktops, etc. Close one window, and it all
disappears. That's just when they plugged the memory leaks enough so I
can leave it running for a few days at a time.
Better alternatives are coming.
--
Did you know that if you took all the economists in the world and lined
them up end to end, they'd still point in the wrong direction?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
