Linux-Advocacy Digest #386, Volume #30 Thu, 23 Nov 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("PLZI")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Glitch)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Stephen Howe")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (B. P. Uecker)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: yo (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: OS stability (Daniel Tryba)
Best used box to purchase for linux system (James Hutchins)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:01:47 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <j1ZS5.428$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
> >This, as always, is documented. Whats more, it is (gasp!) an open
standard,
> >something called CIFS (Common Internet File System). You can pull the
specs
> >out from microsoft.com. And the behaviour is fully controllable. There are
> >two ways to do filesharing things on W2K box, other one is CIFS, other one
> >SMB/NetBIOS. If the other box does not talk CIFS, the W2K peer falls back
to
> >NetBIOS. Or does not, depends how you set things up.
>
> Which standards body is it standardised by?
>
"Microsoft is making sure that CIFS technology is open, published, and widely
available for all computer users. Microsoft has submitted the CIFS 1.0
protocol specification to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as an
Internet-Draft document and is working with interested parties for CIFS to be
published as an Informational RFC. CIFS (SMB) has been an Open Group
(formerly X/Open) standard for PC and UNIX interoperability since 1992
(X/Open CAE Specification C209). "
- PLZI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:18:13 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
GoDrex wrote:
>
> sounds like you have a problem with your configuration
>
oh yeah, that must be it. If Windows isn't working we are too stupid to
figure out how to configure it. If Linux messes up its b/c its too hard
to figure out how to configure it.
unfortunately, based on my experience this is wrong. I have no trouble
working with Linux on my laptop. On the other thand Win98 on this
desktop is worse than anything i've ever used (which includes linux,
nt4.0, win95/3.1/98) I didn't have THIS much trouble with 95. You can't
tell me i dont know how to configure 98 but i do know how to configure
95 can you? They are the same damn thing, just a few more stupid
programs included with 98 with the same price tag as the original. No
matter what i'd do with my configuration it's not going to help Windows'
resource management, that's up to MS to fix (yeah right).
> --
> "...hey it's the *21st* century,
> whatever you can do to have a good time
> let's get on with it,
> so long as it doesn't cause a murder..."
> Frank Zappa (slightly
> updated)
> NP:
> "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > "tklso@pklif" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob says...
> > > >
> > > >http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
> > > >
> > > >Note that in this survey of the longest uptimes, every single one of
> > > >them is running some form of Unix. Not even one single one is running
> > > >any Microsoft OS, even Windows 2000.
> > >
> > > this is not fair.
> > >
> > > windows OS's are designed for ease of use and not for staying up
> longest.
> > >
> > > you really can't have it both ways. If you want a pretty looking OS,
> > > you have to put up with a crash here and there. If you want a solid
> > > OS like unix, you have to put up with not having all those pretty
> windows
> > > on the desktop.
> > >
> > > it is a matter of choice. that is why unix is used for servers, and
> windows
> > > for the desktop. desktop system do not have to stay up too long, unlike
> > > servers.
> > >
> >
> > speak for yourself. I'd *like* to have my desktop stay up for as long as
> > i'm going to use it. I let my system stay on overnight even if i'm not
> > using it as there is no reason why i should turn it off and wait for it
> > to boot up again the next day when I decide i want to use it.
> > Unfortunately Windows likes to take *a lot* of breaks and therefore I
> > have to reboot if i want to keep doing what i was in the middle of doing
> > before the whole system went down b/c of one program croaked. Even if
> > the system doesn't crash I have to reboot b/c Windows likes using up
> > resources but doesn't like giving them back and of course after a while
> > my System resources are "less than 2%".
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Howe" <[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: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:34:54 -0000
Reply-To: "Stephen Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The DOS command line sucks, because it is poorly implemented.
>
> In contrast, the Unix command line interfaces are works of pure genius.
But you are talking about a shell, that is all.
Why put up with COMMAND.COM crap from Microsoft? I have used 4DOS from
JPSoft which has had filename completion via Tab, Shift-Tab for over 10
years, command line history, directory history, directory stack, builtin
move, zillions of dir options, colourisation of files in dir listings etc.
In has tons of features that make working from the command line a joy. See
http://www.jpsoft.com/h4dos.htm
and click on 4DOS 3.00 (7-Mar-1990) to see this.
They do command processors for DOS, OS/2, NT, other flavours of Windows.
And as mentioned by The Ghost in the Machine, older Unix's did not have
this. I would not surprise me to find out that some of the Unix shells have
borrowed ideas from 4DOS and siblings.
Download a copy for OS/2 and see if you like it.
Stephen Howe
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:43:34 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >T. Max Devlin wrote...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> [...]
> >> >The fact is that you could do it with win95 quite easily, and I
wouldn't be
> >> >surprised if you could do the same with win3X
> >>
> >> Being able to do something, and being able to get any practically
> >> effective value from it, is a distinction which routinely escapes
> >> Microsoft fans.
> >
> >That's a nice broad statement that makes you look good and MS fans look
> >bad. :=) Care to give some practical examples?
>
> Ever tried to adjust your file associations? Ever tried to organize
> your desktop, only to have Windows "forget" where things are supposed to
> be? Ever sent someone a script that would configure their computer for
> them as a launchable email attachment? These are off the top of my
> head. Feel free to check Deja News for T. Max Devlin; I'm sure you'll
> find plenty more examples. I'll try to keep the thread updated with
> immediate examples as I come across them.
Yes, yes & yes.
What is your point here?
File associations are configurable from many places, the registery being my
pick, but I could choose File Types or Assoc.
------------------------------
From: B. P. Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 14:47:13 -0600
Matt Gaia wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>You've obviously never heard of hardware probing, have you? Any OS will
>probe whatever hardware is on your system to see what is on there (like
>your BIOS, etc.) By your previous posts, I can probably assume that you
>don't have any knowledge of it besides maybe seeing the word "probing"
>on your screen during a Windows setup, if you can even do your own setup
>that is.
Yeah, it probed your battery and broke it. Was this before or after
you dropped acid?
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:48:01 -0000
>Mmmmm, interesting one. Which distro was that?
>
This was on Mandrake 7.1 (version given away with Maximum linux mag if
different to standard version).
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:52:54 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vhjjf$gh7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >You mean it has nothing in common for those who haven't been using OSes
like
> >MacOS and Windows their whole life.
> >
> >That would be, erm, about 2% of the population, if that.
>
> Considering the Windows and DOS have only been around over the
> last couple of decades, that would require everyone to be under
> 20. They're not.
Your logic is flawed, computers only became wide spread in the 80s.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:59:52 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > The chart is meaningless. Again, Netcraft says categorically that NT4 SP4,
>> > 5 and 6 are either completley incapable of providing uptime information or
>> > give completely inaccurate results. Since SP4 includes the Y2k patches, it
>> > seems likely that Starbucks could have only been running SP5, since SP4 and
>> > SP6 don't give uptime information at all. And SP5 gives random uptime
>> > results (not even counting the 49.7 day problem). Thus, you can't draw any
>> > conclusions from the NT4 graph other than NT4's uptime is inaccurate.
>>
>> Translation: Microsoft is incapable of writing an accurate "uptime"
>> program for LoseDOS Neutered Technology.
>>
>> Why is that?
>
>Well, neither is Sun or or the Linux developers either. Since both of those
>give incorrect results after a ceratain amount of time as well.
I think its possible you might be just entirely confused on this. All
systems, including NT, give correct results after a certain amount of
time. Its just the counter has rolled over, so a single sample doesn't
tell you what the value is, because you don't know when it started
counting, and how many times it has rolled over.
Unless, of course, you keep track of it. Perhaps these results don't,
but to say that the system gives "incorrect results" (except possibly in
the case of Microsoft systems, I don't know) is inaccurate. Just
because *you* don't understand a number doesn't mean its incorrect. The
reporting might give incorrect results (and that may, indeed, skew
NT/W2K to lower numbers, since it wraps every 50 days, while Unix wraps
every year and a half. If you don't know what you're doing, or what
you're reading, this could be an issue.
>When will you learn that you should watch what you say, since the same
>argument can be used against you?
Oh, I don't know, if he's like me, it was about 35 years ago. And it
was only about twelve years ago I realized that this is nothing more
than post-modern posturing, most of the time. Just because the same
arguments can be used against you does not make them reasonable
arguments, except to the ignorant.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:59:55 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said sfcybear in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>The Linux Unix uptime has always been as accurate as the system clock
>for up to 497 days. As you have pointed out that not only is the length
>of time that NT records it 1/10th of that, it also was not accurate
>(reporting random times). The statement was about ACCURACY. The Linux
>and Unix programers have proven them selves far better than the NT
>programers in this regard
Do we really know that it reports _random_ times, or are you just
presuming they are "random" because you don't know what they mean unless
you know how many times the counter has wrapped? It wouldn't surprise
me if NT uptime reporting exhibits undefined behavior after 49.7 days,
but it is not actually an issue of accuracy at all. You forget, you are
co-opting a counter as a continuity indicator, just because it happens
to measure hundredths (or tenths, in Unix) of a second. AFAIK, neither
NT nor Unix are inaccurate in doing this. They just don't provide a
"here is how long I have been counting", the way people ingenuously wish
it would. Instead, uptime counters provide something that a 'time since
boot' indicator cannot provide: validity. "Here is the count I am
currently up to" is the strongest you can rely on, due to matters of
precision, more than accuracy.
The 'time since boot' indication, such as MS's uptime.exe from the
resource kit provides (according to Mr. Funkenbusch) would say "now is
now; the reboot was then, therefore I've been running so long." This
might seem to the human cognizance to be the best thing, but when
dealing with technical reality, it has flaws. How does the system know,
for instance, when now is? Wouldn't a more fundamentally reliable
uptime indication come, therefore, from the system clock which
identifies when "now" is?
In SNMP, where counters used as uptime indicators seems to have been
most widely implemented, each piece of information must be *atomic*. It
must be a single, indivisible piece of information, relying as little as
possible on any other piece of information (save its index in the MIB)
to be meaningful. If the system were to send you a report of "this is
what I've calculated is my uptime", it would only be as reliable as your
ability to get the numbers the system used, and verify its calculation.
The system clock may be wrong about when now is, or the recorded value
(recorded by the system itself...) of when then was may also be in
error, slightly or extremely.
Therefore, the most robust solution (and I suppose others must agree
that this value extends outside of SNMP, as whatever web-reporting
statistics are using the same mechanisms, save Unix using hundredths of
a second, instead of the SNMP standard thousandths of a second) is to
get the numbers yourself, and simply perform the calculation, without
wasting resources on the target system in senseless effort. Thus,
counters, for all their limitations, provide the only truly reliable
uptime mechanism, by supplying a "continuity indicator" which can be
tracked to see when a reboot occurs. The idea that you can know what
the value of uptime is without tracking it all the time is preposterous,
regardless of the mechanism, anyway, so this is the simplest way of
doing it.
Now the only question is, does Mr. Funkenbusch's presumption that these
statistics that are being reported do not take counter wraps into
account, but merely report the literal value of the counter, hold any
water?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:59:57 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said sfcybear in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate for
>49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
>remaining accurate for 497 days. BTW, I thought service pack were to FIX
>problems, not create them! looks like the programers that worked on
>service pack 5 didn't get that training.
Service packs are to:
a) maintain at least a minimum acceptability to cloak the lack of a free
market choice to continue using monopoly crapware
b) main-line churn and app support and exclusions
c) prevent any third party application from ever really being sure that
they don't have a problem, to release Microsoft from having to take the
blame for any failures; they can always just change things in the next
service pack (see 'a' and 'b') in a way that "fixes" things by becoming
bug-compatible.
Anyway, the reason I posted is to point out that you're now really
mangling the concept of "accuracy". Unix clocks are not 10 times more
"accurate", and that's not merely just a pedantic point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:59:59 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8vc416$i6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Only one version of NT ever had random uptime reporting problems.
>> SP5. It
>> > jus so happens that SP5 is probably the most common service pack being
>> used
>> > on most web servers.
>>
>> That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate for
>> 49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
>> remaining accurate for 497 days. BTW, I thought service pack were to FIX
>> problems, not create them! looks like the programers that worked on
>> service pack 5 didn't get that training.
>
>It's the same bug. The only difference is that the Linux clock is less
>precise.
Its not a bug, its a feature! :-D
Really! :-D
>I can't believe you're gloating over an issue that is essentially identical
>between both platforms.
Hardly. If you are going to use the uptime counter as a "clock" that
literally identifies the boot-time, its certainly better to have one
which doesn't "become inaccurate" (wrap) for more than a year than it is
to have one which is useless (for that purpose, which is frivolous)
after less than two months.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:00:05 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said sfcybear in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
> Now, The statement I made was that the use of 479 days was based on a
>reasonable thought process at the time the OS was writen. It may be
>outdated But it was not an error or a flaw. There is NO reasonable
>thought that I know of that justifies a 49 day uptime clock at the time
>NT was writen. Memory was already getting MUCH cheaper and Computers
>were already running far longer than 49 days. This means that the 49 day
>uptime was an error or flaw.
Sorry for droning on about this with late posts, but there is a
reasonable thought that justifies a 49 day uptime *COUNTER* (AS IN NOT A
CLOCK) at the time NT was given the ability to provide it. Which was
quite a bit after it was written (in the current form being
implemented). NT utilizes the standard SNMP mechanism, sysUptime, a
timeticks MIB counter. Timeticks MIB counters are in thousands of a
second. When querying a Unix server via SNMP, it also reports in
thousands of a second. Neither of these is a "clock", but a continuity
indicator, so it really doesn't matter. (Other than that weird bug in
the first version of NT which had the SNMP integrated with the registry,
in about 1997, IIRC, which caused the system to reboot when the counter
rolled over.)
Think about it. All you need to do is query the server once every 49
days. And as long as it says it's been running for 49 days, the only
way you could be missing any uptime is if they rebooted at precisely the
rollover. And you'd still get a measure of the amount time it took
before it was up again, plus or minus the accuracy of the clocks
involved as an offset. The only time the number is at all "inaccurate"
(in the way you mean, which I would call 'inconsistent') is the very
first time you poll it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: yo
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:34:36 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gerson Kurz wrote:
>This is from the crew that was able to post 497
>(fourhundredninetyseven at last counting) comments on the world
>shattering subject "New Baby in the Torvalds Home" on /. (see
>http://slashdot.org/articles/00/11/21/1711236.shtml). Has anyone of
>your ever heard of the Bad Linux Advocacy FAQ ? If not, go there:
>http://www.softpanorama.org/OSS/bad_linux_advocacy_faq.shtml
>
Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov seems to be trying to make a name for himself
by criticising ESR. That's fine, of course, but doesn't make his
comments particularly credible in my eyes.
Has Bezroukov actually contributed any code to anything?
Just wondering,
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:51:57 -0000
>I believe it's such a known bug to be called a feature! If
>you use the Time Tool (or something like) X utility to
>change time, a box will tell you: changing system time may
>bring havoc to applications relying on system time. You may
>be forced to reboot. Continue? Slightly cryptic, but you're
>prevented.
I don't think the time change was the problem - it only kills X if
it is done inside an Xterm running under X. Under normal terminal
it leaves X running as normal. Maybe it's only a problem under
mandrake 7.1 on some systems?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:55:44 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vht5b$4mtbe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >Why *should* I care about language that I'm neither using nor likely to
use.
> >Linux has *bad* support for the launguages that *I* need. I don't give a
> >horse's ass for those that I don't need
> >Guess who has the best support for those languages that I *do* need?
> >
> Ah, so your attitude is that so long as you're happy, nobody else matters?
>
> It's hardly surprising that Linux is continuing to grow, with this kind
> of viewpoint espoused by the windows folk.
Why would I care for lanagues that I don't use or need?
I don't even *know* anyone who need those languages, I doubt that I've ever
even chatted with one.
Windows support a lot of languages, including full translations of most of
the popular software from Microsoft. (Windows & IE & Office the most notable
of them, but not the only one.)
Linux? I don't know.
I *do* know that to the languages that *I* need, Linux is no alternative
unless I plan to make a dist of my own.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[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: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:58:40 -0500
"Stephen Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vjv1d$lc1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The DOS command line sucks, because it is poorly implemented.
> >
> > In contrast, the Unix command line interfaces are works of pure genius.
>
> But you are talking about a shell, that is all.
>
Although I don't think much of the command line shell in NT, it's not really
the shell so much as the lack of familiar tools to do scripting with. Prior
to making NT my main OS I'd used UNIX for the best part of twenty years and
frequently write one-off shell scripts at the command prompt to perform
one-off tasks, I'm fluent in the ksh and all the other tools found on a
typical UNIX system, that's why I put a UNIX command line and tools on any
NT machine I run. It's simple, I find NT makes me more productive than UNIX
and NT+UNIX command line makes me even more productive, as far as I'm
concerned its the best of both worlds.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: 23 Nov 2000 21:01:53 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Actually, you can run fsck on a mounted root partition.
>> I take it one merely remounts it read-only after killing all daemons,
>> then does the fsck, then remounts it read-write and restarts
>> the daemons?
> correct.
Why kill all daemons, just use alt-sysreq-u to tell the kernel to
remount/readonly all partitions 8-)
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Hutchins)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Best used box to purchase for linux system
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:53:30 -0500
Hi,
I'd appreciate opinions on the pros and cons of purchasing (on Ebay) a
used Intel, Sun, or Silicon Graphics (or ?) box to run Linux. I want to
learn/program OpenGL, but know most graphics cards now for all machines
support it. What other factors matter among the different machines?
Thanks
--J
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 21:04:24 -0000
All of this reminds me of an old win95 bug (may also be in 98 and NT/2k):-
Place any file on the desktop then rename this file to use all 255 available
characters (win9x supports 255 char filenames so I would expect them to
work reliably). Then try to delete the file (or do anything with file from
any
application). This causes a GPF error in whatever application tried to
access the file. Another case of MS incompetance.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:07:26 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What is a quick shutdown - is this a real shutdown or something else?
It's when windows doesn't bother to shut down the hardware first.
It won't actually reboot, it would go to real mode and shutdown/restart from
there.
Usually much faster, and 99% of the time, has the same affects as real
shutdown/reboot
Put this as the path of a shortcut and use it for quick shutdown
c:\windows\rundll.exe user.exe,exitwindows
c:\windows\rundll.exe user.exe,exitwindowsexec
will restart the computer
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
