Linux-Advocacy Digest #951, Volume #29 Mon, 30 Oct 00 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Astroturfing (Jason Bowen)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I fixed it (was:Can Linux cut and paste?) ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Newbie(?) Linux Question.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Goes Open Source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Claire Lynn ("ostracus")
Re: Newbie(?) Linux Question.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: Steve says he can get there with PPC ("Chuck Swiger")
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Newbie(?) Linux Question.... (Michael Vester)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 31 Oct 2000 01:52:56 GMT
In article <39fe1d3d$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <8tk10o$ib4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 10/30/00
> at 02:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>>Who's the one that is obsessed and angry? You are frothing :-). I only
>>mentioned this in passing when bringing up the kind of person you are in
>>response to the getting paid comment. You never did provide a reason why
>>your cheerleading is different from anybody others. You make baseless
>>attacks and don't like it when you are called on it. Tell me Ed, why should
>>anybody not believe you are petty, immature etc.. when your best lines are
>>grade school insults and claims of being paid because you don't like the
>>message?
>
>
>No I'm not frothing at all. I just say what I mean and I mean what I say --
>You're a complete asshole. I could use other words, but there is nothing else
>in the English language that quite means the same thing when one is trying to
>break through to a moron who refuses to listen to reason. The other problem
>is that you're just like the other asshole who chimed in. You think direct,
>accurate and concise words that point to your personality defects show anger
>-- when in fact it only means I can express the reality here. Even though you
>are too dense to understand it.
So I'm an asshole for being right when sticking to the conversation topic
then? I'm understanding now. And Ed, you use words like asshole
constantly because your vocabularly isn't exactly ripe with much else.
You seemed to have chimed in to a few conversations with not much else but
irrelevant off-topic information or claims that you can't provide proof
for.
>
>I didn't expound on your asinine cheerleading whine, because its the only
>thing you can point to that even resembles cheerleading (and then its only in
>your mind). It was close to year ago, and not a cheer. It was a salient point
>that ou just happen to not like, because it made the little game you were
>playing essentially moot. I also mentioned this before -- but you are too hot
>headed to read or perhaps your pea brain just didn't get it.
Your lost. Your cheerleading is your pro-OS/2 stance. I have as much
evidence as you have for anybody else being paid to support a product so
you must be paid using your logic. See how that works Ed?
>
>The rest of your stuff is simply bullshit and you know it -- or if not, then
>you have a genetic defect. Now, I think the Boys section is in another
>newsgroup. You and the other fool should go there and play. When you get a
>full set of working brains and stop carrying grudges around, comeback.
What grudge? Being right about the topic at hand and then questioning
your logic for being sure that others are being paid for having viewpoints
not favorable to yours? You still haven't pointed to evidence that
proves that people are being paid to post.
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:05:16 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jake Taense in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Said Jake Taense in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>> Almost every linux user i know including myself has used Win9* Win 2000
>>>>> etc... either at work, at school or at home. I used Windows NT/Win 9*
>>>>> four years before i switched over to Linux. I have even tried out
>>>>> Windows 2000, and yes Windows 2000 is pretty good file://by Windoze
>>>>> standards//. So i, and most linux users has had first hand experience
>>>>> with Windoze and know at least the basics. But the morons who write
>>>>> "Linux sucks" have usually not even seen a Linux screenshot. So before
>>>>> you write "Linux sucks" try out Linux for an year or two. Until you have
>>>>> done that shut up!!!
>>>
>>>On what basis do you make this claim?
>>
>>More importantly, on what basis do you question this claim?
>
>He made a blanket statement regarding everybody with negative feelings toward
>linux. Frankly, it's not supportable. That was my point.
So, on the basis of your contrary dictate, you question his claim? You
might want to stomp your feet and swear its a "blanket statement", but
it sounds much closer to a "general observation", to me. Whereas your
is just a naked argument from ignorance, crass ankle-biting. That was
my point.
>>>I really want to know what leads you to
>>>believe that none of these people have tried linux.
>>
>>I would guess your intent is actually to determine which miscellaneous
>>obfuscation you will attempt to use to deny that this is, in fact,
>>common experience, shared by a great many more people capable of
>>reasonably articulating it than the alternative.
>
>No - my intent was to find out if the poster understood that such a claim is
>completely ridiculous.
It is hardly completely ridiculous; whether you agree with it or have
similar experience is a slightly different issue. And one you didn't
bring up. You just jumped in and started trolling, pointlessly.
>>>I know several people who tried linux - an honest, real attempt -
>>>gave up, and went happily back to Windows.
>>
>>Well, if they were happy to begin with on Windows, why were they trying
>>Linux.
>
>Same reason I initially did (although I remained a user) - because if the
>product does indeed prove itself superior for the end-user, then why NOT
>switch? Seems like a valid reason to me. I dual boot because I find both linux
>and windows suitable for different tasks.
Which is to say there are some ways where you still don't have the
freedom to choose which OS to use. The ironic part is, the limitations
of either are due to MS's criminal behavior; Windows is just
"lock-em-in" crapware, and Linux is starved for innovative development
itself, by being excluded from the market by the pre-load monopoly.
>> Or, for that matter, what leads you to believe that if they
>>claimed they were happy on Windows, they were actually making an honest
>>and real attempt to try Linux?
>
>Because I was there. This isn't some kind of made-up scenario - it was an
>ongoing concern. They each quit at different stages.
So its merely anecdotal evidence, as opposed to hyperbole. Hey; I never
said it didn't happen. Just that it wasn't a convincing retort to the
poster's original point.
[...]
>None of them found Linux too difficult to learn. They are all educated
>professionals, and none are computer-shy. It was not the learning curve that
>killed the interest.
>
>I love the way that linux advocates jump so quickly to the assumption that
>somebody who gave up on linux found it tough to learn. Then they deny that
>linux is tough to learn.
I can think of no other reason why any person would have any trouble
using a superior product except they don't wish to learn how to do it.
The circumstances certainly don't make it easy for them, no; I don't use
Linux, either, so I would stipulate that I must, in fact, be sympathetic
to those who "fall back" to the monopoly after having problems on Linux.
The propensity they have for saying "Linux sucks", however, is a direct
measurement of their ignorance. Linux doesn't suck; it just requires
learning how it works.
>You made a lot of assumptions in that paragraph above that were, frankly,
>quite revealing.
>
>Seems to have gone like this:
>
>Quote: "Linux sucks!"
>
>Response:
>
>"It is NOT difficult to learn. Those guys are stuck in Microsoft ways of
>thinking! Linux isn't SUPPOSED to operate like Windows! The users must have
>been stupid! Maybe they can't even use WINDOWS properly!"
>
>Doesn't it strike you as odd that all these things popped out from such an
>innocous claim?
Doesn't it strike you as important that you had to sarcastically
paraphrase my response in order to supposedly point out the
"assumptions" you claim I was making, but obviously haven't had a chance
to point out? What I think is odd is thinking about where all those
exclamation points 'popped out' from my reasoned response to your
trolling.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:11:29 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Well, if it didn't, then why did everyone go to switched Ethernet just
>>about as fast as they could afford to?
>
> Because you get vastly greater gross bandwidth, if you build
>your network right. Just because a shared 100BaseT network is fully
>capable of delivering 70 or 80 usable Mbps of shared gross bandwith to
>a set of, say, a few dozen machines, doesn't mean that people didn't
>want a few gigabits of usable gross bandwidth, at 100Mbps per station.
>
> Geez, that's a gimmee.
>
> You really ought to just concede defeat on this, since you're
>just plain wrong.
<*Smirk*>
So its "gross bandwidth", huh? Yea, that seems pretty obvious, don't
it.
Were you aware that there were maybe a total of five different boxes,
out of hundreds of ethernet products, that ever implemented "shared
100BaseT"? Perhaps you weren't. Perhaps you also didn't notice when I
pointed out that this stuff is pretty easy (obviously, if you think it
is a "gimmee"), until you stop focusing on a single transmission
system's "gross bandwidth", as you put it, and try to deal with the
entire network. To say "hey, more bandwidth can't hurt" is to pretend
that more bandwidth means all other resources are increased, as well.
If you don't need switched ethernet, it does in fact make sense not to
use it. There are tremendous efficiencies in shared media; its
generally only because the physical network ultimately gets blamed when
the network doesn't provide whatever throughput for whatever service is
expected, regardless of whether there are enough bits per second at any
arbitrary point.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I fixed it (was:Can Linux cut and paste?)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:10:49 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a pita especially on a Thinkpad with that track point mouse
> and funky buttons. For a select all text, the menu is easier than
> trying to sweep the mouse.
>
> This has to be some kind of a bug?
No, it's ease-of-use. Once you get used to it, you'll hate going back to
the multi-step way of doing things.
OTOH, I'm speaking parochially, as a user of a "normal" system (real
mouse). I can see where certain mouse-like kludges would make it very
difficult.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Newbie(?) Linux Question....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:24:53 GMT
Mandrake or SuSE.
claire
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:49:34 -0600, Hondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>My question is this. I need suggestions on which commercial Linux
>version would be best suited for learning the OS? I just use my
>computer at home for the entertainment value. I derive my
>
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Goes Open Source
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:16:03 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> unintentionally.
Word has it that when the hackers saw the code, it was so scary that
they immediately declared it "Halloween IV".
I wonder what surprise MS will have for us *next* Halloween?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:23:17 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said ostracus in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
> [...]
>>While this is good that your not surrounded by "goobers" one of the
>>harder things is keeping abreast of what a good solution is. Today's
>>good solution is tommorrows archaic.
>
> Only if you're ignorant of what a "good solution" is.
Ah the famous T. Max. As I mentioned in my post to Mr Ebert that's what
knowledgeable people are for. They (hopefully) relieve that "ignorance" if
you will.
> [...remainder of apologetic defense of goobers snipped...]
>
> :-] Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
Very much it did. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Newbie(?) Linux Question....
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:21:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hondo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I question my status as newbie since I don't even have Linux yet but
> am seriously considering a change.
>
> I've made the progression (regression?) through Windows 3.11, 95, 98,
> Me and am fed up with MS Crashware.
>
> My question is this. I need suggestions on which commercial Linux
> version would be best suited for learning the OS? I just use my
> computer at home for the entertainment value. I derive my
> entertainment from researching on the web, email, mp3's and the most
> important value comes from learning new computer skills. I'm looking
> at either Linux Mandrake or Corel Linux as a starting point. Any
> suggestions would be most helpful.
>
If you're a "newbie", I'd go for ease of installation over any other
feature.
I'm a long-time Caldera user, and am extremely satisfied with their
installation software. Easy to use, and detected all of my hardware.
Corel has a very good installer as well, but I wasn't as impressed as I
was with Caldera's "Lizard". I've read that Mandrake is an easy config,
but starts to show problems once you become a bit more experienced. Some
problem with re-compiling kernel modules, or some such....
You might check out cheapbytes.com or linuxmall.com; they sometimes sell
Linux by the pound, so you can get a chance to try all of them for a
very small investment. I've been on Caldera since version 1.3, and what
with all the rebates and so forth, I've been able to stay current for
several years for less than the cost of the single Win98 upgrade.
I think full retail for Caldera 2.3 (with install support) is only
US$30. If it doesn't work out for you, it's still less than the cost of
a virus checker for Windows. Start cheap, you can always spend more
money later....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:36:29 -0500
"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Get the NT Option pack , nice little utility there called Kill.exe
> > But 90% of the time you can make do with "net stop" or simply End Task
from
> > windows task manager
>
> What good will kill.exe do when the machine is totally locked up,
unresponsive,
> and you can't type in the kill command? Remember that the original poster
was
> complaining that all he could do was pull the power plug? Amazing just
how
> many Windows Gurus are always saying to run a program or just hit the task
> manager no matter how many times a person is telling them that the machine
is
> completely unresponsive and that hitting alt-ctl-del will do absolutely
nothing
> when the machine is unresponsive. Makes me think that Windows Guru just
can't
> grasp what happens with system lockups. I wonder how long many of the
Windows
> Gurus wait for that Task Manager dialog on a locked up machine before they
> themselves figure out that the machine is locked up?....(Even then, The
Gurus
> seem to freak whenever they can't get the Task Manager Dialog Box to
Display).
Windows 2000 does have small problems, but mostly on my machine it runs
without a hitch. Of course it just could be a bad install. But I am no
expert.
>
> > Hold power button for 6 seconds, it will turn itself off.
> > It was build this was so you wouldn't accidently turn the computer off.
>
> Not every machine is an ATX machine and some ATX machines have the power
button
> suspend delay completely disabled in the bios, therefore pushing the power
> button will immediately power done the machine. Non-ATX machines power is
> never software controlled, so the power supply on the machine will power
off as
> soon as the switch is pressed....and no software will ever change this.
Very
> arrogant of you to assume that the power button is under any software
control
> on all computers.
Well the original poster did say that hitting the power switch did nothing.
Of course I guess that his machine does not have a reset button. That
usually works for me.
>
>
I know that Windows has problems, and of course ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS have
problems, but just because you can program (I can) does not mean that you
know how to design operating systems. IMHO If you have not any clue on
Operating System theory and design, then you have no business mucking around
in the source code for the Operating System. That does not mean that you
cannot look at the code, you just have no business changing the code.
------------------------------
From: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Steve says he can get there with PPC
Date: 31 Oct 2000 02:38:28 GMT
[ ...COLA added to newsgroups...]
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Raffael Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MS would be perfectly free, from a copyright perspective, to release
> "Microsoft(TM) BSD," and charge whatever they like for it, kernel and
> all. This is what Apple has done with it's Mach/BSD core. The BSD
> licenses _allow_ proprietary, even closed source, forks, unlike the GPL.
Exactly-- very nicely put.
The BSD folks would like people to submit any worthwhile and non-proprietary
changes back to the community, but there is no obligation to do so.
> Why would MS risk a legal fight trying to pervert Linux and the GPL,
> when they can get a kernel just as good (some would say better) and no
> license problems, by using a BSD kernel?
Linux has a somewhat cleaner kernel in some senses because it has somewhat
less historical cruft and is a "second implementation" of a Unix kernel in
some senses. On the other hand, I've heard that the Linux sources have some
fairly grotesque dependencies upon gcc and the rest of the GNU toolchain,
which is unlikely to appeal to Microsoft. :-)
As to the quality, few people who have used the following would deny that
FreeBSD outperforms Linux, or that OpenBSD isn't more secure. I'm not sure,
but I also suspect that NetBSD runs on more different types of hardware.
-Chuck
Chuck Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Spin VBHY?
-------------+-------------------+-----------
"Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggy',
while searching for a rock." -- Talleyrand
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:39:50 GMT
In article <g%oL5.244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> I started reading this group (COLA) a couple of weeks ago in hopes of
making
> a decision on what distribution to upgrade to. I'm using RedHat 6.1
right
> now, and I thought I'd give one of the others a try. I thought this
would
> be a good place to look.
>
> Ha.
>
> I was shocked to find that this group is utterly infested with Windows
fans
> whose only purpose seems to be to bash Linux, no matter what. They
also
> spend a lot of time insulting Linux advocates.
>
> It turns out that this is a one-way street. I checked out
> comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and the only windows bashing I saw there
was
> from cross-posted articles. No articles that were confined to COM-WA
> contained any Windows bashing. There *are*, however, quite a number
of
> COLA-only threads, started by Windows fans, that do nothing but bash
Linux.
>
> In other words, some Windows users, for whatever reason, camp out in
COLA
> and spend hours and hours bashing Linux and insulting its users.
Maybe they
> do it in macintosh and os2 groups, too. Haven't looked in there.
>
> What this says about hard-core Windows fanatics, I will leave to the
reader
> to determine.
Pretty much the same here. I lurked this NG for quite awhile and was
absolutely aghast at the venom and vitriol that the Winvocates had for
their Linonut cousins. I was at the time an NT admin, and some of the
absolutely incredible statements about NT's capabilities versus Linux
convinced me to give Linux a try. I've had a lot of fun with Linux since
then, and can only say "thanks" to the MSFT crowd who pointed me in this
direction.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie(?) Linux Question....
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 19:37:49 -0700
I found Suse to be a good choice. It has just about
everything on 5 CD's. The setup, in my case, was trouble
free. I use a cable modem so I don't know how difficult it is
to setup dial up. The configuration files are different in
Suse world compared to the other Linux distributions. The
setup manual is pretty good but it is only a setup manual. If
you are new to the world of Linux, you should invest in a good
book.
Whatever your distribution, check out the supported hardware
list. If your hardware is supported, the install should be
quite easy. And you don't have to reboot a dozen times just to
load an OS.
The only application I run that ever crashes is Netscape. It
runs much more reliably than Netscape or IE under any version
of Windows. When Netscape does crash, about once a week, Linux
is unaffected. In fact, my Suse system, Linux 2.2.10, has
never crashed in the 7 months I have been running it. It is
my primary computer.
My Redhat system has run for 18 months without any problems.
It has been down only because of lightning storms which caused
lengthy power outages.
Linux requires an investment of time to learn but it has
certainly rewarded me with reliable service. Also, almost
everything you learn in the Linux world is applicable to any
other Unix system.
Michael Vester
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A credible Linux advocate.
Hondo wrote:
>
> I question my status as newbie since I don't even have Linux yet but
> am seriously considering a change.
>
> I've made the progression (regression?) through Windows 3.11, 95, 98,
> Me and am fed up with MS Crashware.
>
> My question is this. I need suggestions on which commercial Linux
> version would be best suited for learning the OS? I just use my
> computer at home for the entertainment value. I derive my
> entertainment from researching on the web, email, mp3's and the most
> important value comes from learning new computer skills. I'm looking
> at either Linux Mandrake or Corel Linux as a starting point. Any
> suggestions would be most helpful.
>
> Ken McFelea
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
