Linux-Advocacy Digest #390, Volume #30 Fri, 24 Nov 00 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What I dont like about Linux (Matt Soltysiak)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: And yet another satisfied Linux user. (Matt Soltysiak)
Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here... (Matt Soltysiak)
Re: yo (Matt Soltysiak)
Re: I am finding installing a multi-function card needless reading. (Matt Soltysiak)
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: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I dont like about Linux
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:14:06 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JoeX1029
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 14 Nov 2000 20:54:08 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>> 1) Netscape
> >>> The Netscape windows is *always* too tall, fixed easily.
> >>> Well, there it is. Thats what i dont like.
> >>
> >> If you have not tested Konqueror at KDE2, then you are
> >>missing the new world ... taste it and forget Netscape forever.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >i dont use KDE but i might if i can get rid of NutScrape.
>
> konqueror or kfm -w might do it for you. I'm not sure if
> the secure Lynx proxy would work for these (obviously, it
> works for Lynx), but it should work reasonably well. I don't
> know what it's called, offhand, though. (Anyone know? :-) )
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random crypto here
konq, is cool, but i can't get the jave VM to work. I have the VM on my
box, jdk1.2.2, but i can't get it linked with the browser.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:15:10 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:52:07 -0500, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >it you have never installed wine. wine comes with a base wine.conf
> >file that typically only requires a one line change to specify where your
> >Windows C drive is located, if even that.
> >
> >Gary
>
> And what if you don't have Windows installed?
>
> claire
Get a clue, claire. The Windows C drive I was talking about is the name of
the Linux directory that will be used as your Windows C drive. You don't need
Windows installed. What an idiot!
Gary
------------------------------
From: Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And yet another satisfied Linux user.
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:21:52 GMT
>
> Help!
>
> linux newbie about to give up, spec of PC:
>
> Dell Workstation 400, twin PII-266, 256MB RAM, two 2 gig SCSI-3 drives
> with
> Adaptec 2940U SCSI card.
>
> Mandrake 6.5 is so slow it is unusable, takes 15 seconds to put calc
> on screen
> in KDE, produces 4.3 bogomips (whatever they are). There are pigeons
> in my
> garden that can count faster than this Linux turd.
>
> Suse 7.0 just does not work, on boot it always locks up around
> ldconfig or
> memstat. (have now tried three times to get it working)
>
> Suse support is less than useless, if you are thinking of buying
> anything from
> Suse, don't.
>
> I have no idea what is going wrong, there are no probs reported during
> the
> instal of Mandrake or Susel, all h/w is identified OK
>
> Linux is the only OS on the PC, ie no dual boot, with clean
> partitions.
>
> I have spent about three weeks on this and have just about had enough
> - Linux
> easy to install? not in my experience!
>
> Am I unlucky or is it a pile of £$%^ ?
>
> All suggestions welcome, otherwise one more copy of NT Server is about
> to be
> deployed...
>
Your hardware should work w/o question on Linux. Have you had any problems with other
OS's, such as windows with this hardware? If so, then it's your hardware, most likely
the
2940 Ultra card. Otherwise, i can't say why. I have the exact same setup (exept i
have 2 pentium 3 550's in my machine.) And linux hasn't given me any problems.
Computers are
computers; complicated peice of hardware.
------------------------------
From: Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here...
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:28:43 GMT
mark wrote:
> >>>Can't get a mousewheel to work?
> >>>
> >>>Well I'd rather have that than a whole OS that is quite clearly faulty.
> >>
> >>It's amazing what lack of ergonomics and ease of use you Linvocates
> >>are willing to put up with to run Linux.
> >
> >Dumb question, but what would you rather have, a mouse whose wheel
> >doesn't wrk on an ultra-secure operating system, or a wheelmouse
> >which works perfectly on an OS which has more security holes
> >than a piece of Swiss cheese? :-)
> >
>
Most Linux distros are no more secure than windows is. Windows, when
properly configured, can be quite secure, as with Linux. Most newbies, etc,
will not do this, and thus their computers are not secure, regardless of OS.
So, don't get mixed up about Linux and Windows, and any other OS when it
comes to security. Most OS's are configured like fucking Christmas trees,
including Linux Redhat, caldera, etc.
But to answer your question, I'd rather have a fully functional OS that does
anything I want. I use Linux a lot, but i also use windows a lot. Both do
what the other doesn't. Period.
------------------------------
From: Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: yo
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:30:13 GMT
Frank Van Damme wrote:
> In article <nRDS5.21184$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > i like linux
> me too
>
Fuck you. Joking. I like OpenBSD.
------------------------------
From: Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am finding installing a multi-function card needless reading.
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 04:33:06 GMT
>
> Well, since you're bright and you know C++, why dont you write a nice
> easy to install driver for it and share it with the rest of the class?
>
> -----.
I got a better idea: why don't you shut up and get a godamn life. Many
programmers don't feel like doing the job for another company that should
have done the job right in the first place. In fact, why don't you right the
damn driver? I doubt you could, because you're stupid, and you wouldn't know
where to start, eh smart guy?
------------------------------
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 23:49:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[...]
>Having set an upper limit for time measurement of the order of 1 year
>and a half means that you expect the system do be shut down once a year
>for maintenance, which may be reasonable, in a DP environment. Mostly
>thinking at the time Unix was designed
>Having set an upper limit of the order of one month and a half means
>believing that the system isn't expected to run continuosly for more
>than one month, which may be even be optimistic (as far as NT is
>concerned) but it's not what you'd expect from a professional server. NT
>design is almost 30 years "younger" than unix.
As much sense as this might seem to make, it is simply not true. The
uptime counter mechanism doesn't reflect any anticipated duration; it is
a continuity indicator, not a clock.
--
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 23:49:52 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Marty in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> sfcybear writes:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You're confusing range with accuracy. Both clocks could be equally
>> accurate. Range usually comes at the expense of precision. That is,
>> the same number of bits can provide a greater range if the precision
>> is reduced.
>
>Is it "accurate" to report that a system has been up for 0 days when it has,
>in fact, been up for 49.7 days?
The question is simply bogus. It is accurate to report the counter
value; all counters have rollover. It is not an indication that the
system has been up for 0 days; it is an indication that the counter was
at zero zero days ago. Whether it was 4294967295 or non-existent a
hundredths of a second before is a more easily answered question than
whether or not the "clock" is accurate (or, more correctly, precise).
--
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 23:49:54 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <8vgnag$nv3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Still the point that I have been trying to make is the same. The
>choice
>> to set the Uptime limit to 49.7 is an example of the poor programing
>> choices that are made at MS. I can see NO valid reason to put in an
>> uptime clock with an upper limit of 49.7 days, it's just plain stupid.
>> Before you pull a funkenbusch and fly off the handle about no reason
>to
>> set the time at 497 days, please read some of my other posts. 497 days
>> makes a sh*t load more sense than 49 days!
>
>But still is an arbitrary use of a number. Why not make it 4970? Or
>some other arbitrarily large figure? Whether it makes sense or not,
>both systems are affected by the same issue, just one is affected a lot
>sooner. Obviously collecting uptime information *from the TCP/IP
>stack* is not a priority for MS operating systems.
>
>
>>
>> All unix? wrong. Take a look
>>
>> http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
>>
>> The BSD's are showing greater than 497 days.
>>
>OK. So Linux suffers from a problem with it's uptime counter. It's
>obviously useless and broken.
>
>
>> >
>> > I don't know of many (any?) NT Admins that feel it is a priority to
>> > collect uptime information from the network.
>>
>> Of course not. If the uptime stats were known they would be forced to
>> switch to Unix.
>>
>
>Go back and read what I wrote again. Think, then reply. A clue: the
>bit where I said "uptime information from the network" is the important
>bit. This bug only affects the uptime information that is displayed by
>the network stack. See the next bit of my reply for more details. I
>know you are sometimes challenged by your comprehension skills, but it
>helps to read in context sometimes. (another hint: not an insult, an
>observation)
>
>
>> If they want NT uptimes,
>> > they download the correct tool for the job - the uptime utility.
>
>Did you convieniently ignore this bit because it doesn't fit with your
>world view?
>
>> >
>> > > For TIME mesurements, the linux clock will give accurate time for
>> ten
>> > > times the time period of NT. There you happy? For all your BS, the
>> NT
>> > > clock is still worthless.
>> > >
>> >
>> > ...after 49.7 days.
>>
>> Yeah, I guess an Uptime clock of 49.7 days is all you need in NT. No
>> reason to have it set much higher than the longest the system can stay
>> up.
>
>49.7 isn't a huge length of time to keep an NT server up for at all.
>
>>
>> It was just plain stupid to set an uptime counter upper limit at 49.7
>> days. One of the few things I think is even dumber is trying to make a
>> case that an Uptime counter of 49.7 days is usefull.
>
>I'm not saying that it's useful, I'm saying that I don't actually care
>what the TCP/IP stack reports the uptime as. If I want the accurate
>uptime information, I'll use the uptime tool.
The uptime counter doesn't have anything to do with the TCP/IP stack.
>> > Where does the definition of worthless kick in Matt? 50 days? 495
>> > days?
>
>No response? I'm still wondering where it kicks in? Obviously the
>Linux stack is also worthless, as the BSD's don't show this bug. The
>information must move from worthless to meaningful sometime after 497
>days then.
It would be just as valuable if it were only 4 days. As long as its
larger than one poll period, it is irrelevant when the counter rolls
over.
--
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 23:49:56 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>It depends wether you're speaking of clock accuracy (which is a hardware
>issue, not OS related, and therefore off topic), or of uptime estimate
>accuracy.
Sorry, Giuliano, but you missed this one. Uptime is either known or not
known; it is not estimated.
>Whenever uptime estimate is completely wrong you may well say that
>accuracy of the measured value is not so good, even if clock accuracy
>comes from a caesium primary. In that case with Unix you have an
>accurate measurements for a time 10 times longer than with NT.
This is actually why it doesn't matter if the counter wraps in 5 days,
50, or 500. (Particularly, it also explains why the difference in
accuracy and precision between 49.7 days and 50 days is irrelevant.)
The problem isn't the accuracy of the measured value, but the
misinterpretation of the measured value. Even *below* the wrap value,
uptime counters are continuity indicators, NOT clocks. They just happen
to be more easily analyzed if you *assume* they have never wrapped.
>> > But if someone comes to your home to measure the floor in order to
>> > deliver you the wall to wall carpet,
>>
>> That's a matter of fitting some material into a space. Rather different
>> from an uptime measurement, which is open-ended.
>
>That's an abstract notion. Any value may be open ended. Writing a
>program you must decide what will be your upper limit, and reserve space
>accordingly. If your decision is wrong, then you've made a silly
>mistake.
And if you write a program which recognizes that there is no "upper
limit"; then what do you do? You recognize that an upper limit to the
counter is not an upper limit to the metric. After all, 497 days isn't
the 'upper limit' to Unix uptime any more than 49.7 days is not entirely
impossible for an NT server. (Unless you use it or something.)
[...]
>Maybe you don't grasp it, but if you select a word size and a time
>resolution, you set your upper limit. If the choice is poor you end up
>exactly like that. Using milliseconds to measure uptime isn't much
>smarter than using a gauge to measure a floor. If you think differently
>I'll address elsewhere whenever in need a) to measure my floor, b) to
>measure uptime.
Actually, I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. Using a gauge to measure
a floor if a) its the most precise way of doing it, and b) its the only
tool you have. Both of which are true in terms of using a millisecond
(or centisecond, which I'm still not sure is a "Unix" thing, so much as
an apache thing, or maybe a Linux thing) uptime counter as a continuity
indicator. Anything else would be generally bogus, if not fatally
flawed. As silly as it might sound, counters are the only way to do
things right: a calculated metric from a remote system is only as
reliable as the values from which it is calculated, *including*
factoring in the reliability of the calculation itself, *and* your
understanding of the context of the resulting metric. By having the
system just give you the value of a regularly incrementing counter, and
comparing the relative value of the counter over time (not the absolute
value at any one time; it is uninformative), you get the most accurate,
most consistent, and therefore most useful value.
You can say it is a poor choice, or even that it was a historical one,
based on a presumption of limited resources which is no longer valid (an
empty assumption, always, essentially). But you'd be arguing with the
standards defined by consensus in the Internet Engineering Task Force
Working Group on Network Management.
--
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 23:49:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:14:14
[...]
>I was rather unaware that collecting uptime information from the
>network was a requirement of an OS.
Not an OS, generally, since most OSes don't expose themselves directly
to the network. Obviously, an OS is "required" by design purpose to
provide uptime information to local applications, though the value is
actually more important for network information purposes. The Netcraft
figures I think are being discussed are actually web server information
(though the statistic may or may not be an OS uptime value or a server
value), and, of course, any device supporting SNMP is required to
provide uptime statistics of at least (and at most, though not everyone
gets this or likes it) the management subsystem.
>The uptime tool reports accurate
>information, but I can't see how MS having a 49.7 day limit or Linux
>having a 497 day limit on information gathered from the network is a
>fundamental design flaw.
It isn't, ironically enough. You seem to have stumbled into the correct
side of an argument, Stuart. It appears it was quite accidental, but
that's no bother.
--
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 23:50:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:06:08
GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > I was rather unaware that collecting uptime information from the
>> > network was a requirement of an OS. The uptime tool reports
>accurate
>> > information, but I can't see how MS having a 49.7 day limit or Linux
>> > having a 497 day limit on information gathered from the network is a
>> > fundamental design flaw.
>> >
>>
>> Your unawareness on Internet standards tells on you, but
>> doesn't add anything to the topic.
>
>What standard are you referring to?
RFC 1213, and its descendants, though in this aspect it is still
unsuperceded. Pointedly, 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.3.0 provides the value of the
sysUpTime timeticks, a 32 bit counter representing hundredths of a
second since the initialization of the management subsystem. HTH.
>> If you believe that an uptime information of one month and a
>> half is more than enough. it means that you're accustomed to
>> MS crapware.
>
>I never said that I thought it was enough. When I wish to see the
>uptime of my NT boxes, I use the appropriate tool - uptime.exe. I'm
>not particularly interested in what is reported to me by the network
>stack.
It isn't the network stack, but the management subsystem, or the kernel.
Or some arbitrary tool which provides a different value, which
represents approximately the same thing, except for all the important
parts of such a value, as whether or not it is known to be valid.
--
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 23:50:03 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:48:43
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> It was, as clearly stated, a textbook example. If your bank
>> uses an NT server you'd better bank elsewhere, I agree with
>> you.
>>
>I have a problem with textbook examples, given that textbooks very
>rarely fail to relate to the real world. I live and work in the real
>world, and I rather expected a real world example.
[...]
Save us your laborious and vapid protestations, Stuart.
>Again, using a server uptime statistic is a really stupid way to ensure
>transactional integrity.
There is no transactional integrity without system integrity; system
integrity requires a continuity indicator, the uptime counter. This
isn't a textbook issue, Stuart. Whether you are aware of the reasons or
ramifications or not, yes, any OS purporting to be a server system must
provide a valid continuity indicator across the network.
You happen to be correct that whether the counter wraps in 50 days or
500 isn't really anywhere near as much of an issue as the anti-MS
advocates are making out. But that doesn't make you any less annoying,
or you any more so, it seems. Apparently it doesn't really matter what
"side" you are on; you either are a troll or you just a regular poster.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:50:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:42:22
[...]
>Press shift when you click the OK button on the shut down screen, this would
>give you quick shutdown.
Wow, that's a new one. Is it just 98SE? And of course it begs the
question, "why isn't the shutdown always quick?"
>BTW, ctrl+alt+backspace doesn't restart X, it terminate it, and then start
>it, there is quite a difference here.
Oh there is?
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:50:18 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:44:12
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8ukj1n$241f1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >I can't tell. Reason is, KDE (and linux, for that matter) has *really*
>> >> lousy
>> >> >support for the languages I need.
>> [...]
>> >I don't care.
>> >I don't live in china.
>>
>> So you're going to complain because something doesn't support your
>> language (something middle eastern, I recall), but when somebody uses
>> china as an example in a discussion of language support, your response
>> is "I don't care, I don't live in china?"
>
>Why *should* I care about language that I'm neither using nor likely to use.
Because you want others to care about languages that they neither use
nor are likely to use, but that you use. Get it? Its called being
civilized.
>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?
Monopoly crapware, of course. Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever,
but you're too dumb to know 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: T. Max Devlin <[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 23:50:35 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:31:48
+0200;
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Man, I thought for a second (in a later reply to your post -- I read these
>> things chronologically backward) that you were talking about programming
>> /languages/, in which case I was gonna flame ya.
>
>AFAIK, the only language which I use for programming which isn't supported
>by linux is VB, and KBasic should solve this problem, to some (probably
>limited) extent.
>
>> Seriously, Microsoft seems to have some decent support for languages,
>> in the sense that many are supported, including ones with big
>> character sets. Is Microsoft the best at this? Who knows?
>> They do certainly have the most money to put into "non-essentials".
>
>I know that some Japanese fonts (in unicode) wieght more than 50MB.
>But I've to disagree very strongly about the "non-essentials" part of your
>post. Just saying this proves that you probably never had to dealt with
>language differences.
>The majority of the people in the world don't speak english, or
>speak/read/write it very poorly.
>Without translating software to other languages, a *lot* of people would be
>stuck without any way to access the computer.
>And you call *that* "non-essentials"???
And so now suddenly you're suggesting that others should give a shit
about languages they don't use, even though you just said previously
that you see no reason to do that yourself.
Of *course* Microsoft supports as many languages as they possibly can.
When you're trying to ensure that nobody who uses a computer can avoid
using your product, its worth putting quite a bit of (non-efficient,
from a competitive free market production standpoint) investment in
removing any excuses they may have for avoiding 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
