Linux-Advocacy Digest #399, Volume #30 Fri, 24 Nov 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here... (mark)
Re: Small Distro? (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Linux trips over itself once again (Glitch)
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 (mark)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Same old Linux..Nothing new here...
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:23:47 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Soltysiak wrote:
>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.
>
I did not write that - please quote properly.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Small Distro?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:24:52 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Evan DiBiase wrote:
>In article <8vgjuk$23a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "MH"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "> I think debian 1.3 (aka 'bo') was the last libc5 version of debian,
>> so
>>> if you're really strapped for space, it's slightly slimmer. The linux
>>> router project used bo as the basis for this reason, iirc.
>>>
>>> 400M should allow a reasonable installation, however.
>>
>> This is small? My god, I could fit 3 NT 4 installations in that space
>> and have room for, yes I know it's a foreign concept, an application or
>> two!!!
>
>Uh, OK. The base floppies will give you the "NT4" install of Debian. Then
>you can go about doing the applications.
>
>I think the "reasonable installation" referred to here would include a
>great many applications.
It did - thanks!
>
>-Evan
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Mark
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:30:32 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Netmeeting phones home as well. It's kind of unsurprising that Windows is
>> so insecure - it needs to be in order to enable all these bits of soft-
>> ware to phone back to Microsoft Headquarters so they can see what you're
>> doing, or where you are, or who you are, or, well, what, exactly?
>>
>> Incidentally, last time I mentioned this someone responded very fast to
>> say that you could disable this behaviour, but I've not been able to
>> see how. Maybe I need that MCSE :)
>
>And in today's MCSE lesson... how to make the fucking thing work the way
>you want.
>
>Tomorrow: How to stop your computers reporting your hard drive
>contents and bank details to Microsoft.
:-)
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:32:29 +0000
In article <d8jT5.10175$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Well some of us are capable of coaxing extended uptimes out of our
>> >servers. Unix gurus would have us believe that it's rocket science,
>> >but really it's not that hard
>>
>> No, it's very very easy using Linux. Very easy indeed. Rocket
>> science is a little harder, of course.
>>
>> Want good uptime - try Debian GNU/Linux - it's very very stable.
>
>Then perhaps you can explain why Debian's website has only a 35 day average
>uptime.
>
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.debian.org
>
Because it was taken down? This is an interesting feature of
windows people, the idea that a machine might go down because
you actually want it to - I've had similar conversations with
some of our MCSE IS people - they find it difficult to grasp
as well.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:33:22 +0000
In article <nPiT5.10171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vjj2e$kg4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I can - if you don't expect your OS to be up for more than 1 week at
>> >> a time, or so, then 50 days allows a huge margin.
>> >>
>> >Our mail server:
>> >
>> >05/10/2000 15:22:26 Shutdown Prior uptime:104d
>> >1h:31m:32s
>> >
>> >Shutdown for a hardware upgrade.
>> >
>> >Of course, that's using the right tool for the job.
>> >
>> That being the tool you've downloaded from microsoft
>> because the one provided was broken, I guess?
>
>No, NT doesn't provide an uptime tool. The uptimes reported by netcraft
>appear to be returned by a command from the web server, not from a utility.
>
>> How did you know to get it?
>
>Maybe he bothered to look.
>
How did he know to?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:44:45 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux trips over itself once again
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Once again Linux, in this case Mandrake 7.2, has failed to install on
> a system that has easily installed Windows.
So why the hell do you use it? Do u just like complaining? It sounds
like it. U must not have a life or else you would be doing something
other than what it seems like u are doing which is wasting your time on
something you dont like. If you like Windows so much then waste your
time installing that on a Thinkpad.
If that doesn't make sense then maybe you shouldn't even be talking in
the first place.
>
> System:
> Thinkpad 765L with a 3gb drive, external floppy drive and a
> Sigma Data 24x CDROM in the ultrabay. PCMCIA cards include a TokenRing
> and modem. BTW I tried it with and without the PCMCIA cards installed.
> Hard drive is freshly formatted with DOS and is one large partition.
> Since this machine will not boot from the CDROM I had to use one of
> the other methods according to the Mandrake readme.
>
> First method.
>
> d:\dosutils\autoboot\autoboot.bat
>
> CD starts up and messages ask if I need PCMCIA for install. I say no,
> but it doesn't matter if I chose yes instead.
>
> I get a message saying "accessing CD and the entire system hangs at
> that point with a blue screen saying "Initializing CDROM". Funny, it
> was able to read from the CDROM to get this far.
>
> Doing an alt-f3 gives me the message's:
>
> *calling mount(tmp/hdb, /tmp/rhimage, iso9660, -1058209791, (nil))
> *removing device file /tmp/hdb
> *method selection complete
> *state saved to /tmp
> *error in exec of second stage loader :-(
> * error: No such file of directory
>
> Real great stuff this Linux is. Man I am learning a hell of a lot of
> useful stuff here. Too bad Windows doesn't give me all of this great
> information when it installs. Of course Windows installs fine so I
> don't need any of this tech stuff.
>
> So I make boot disks and try a different approach.
>
> This time Linux can't even find the CDROM at all...
>
> What " How-To " did I miss this time?
>
> What a piece of junk Linux is.
>
> claire
------------------------------
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: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:52:48 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:48:37 -0500;
>T. Max Devlin wrote...
>> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:04:17 -0500;
>> >Ayende Rahien wrote...
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> They shouldn't, they give shit about what *they* are using.
>> >> Got that?
>> >
>> >That's the practical approach. Why should I care that Windows supports
>> >Japanese? If it does, good for the Japanese, but I don't really care.
>> >It's for MS to care since they wish to market their OS to the Japanese.
>>
>> Now if only MS marketed their product (as in, presented it to a free
>> market), you're ideas might make sense. They monopolize; they don't
>> market.
>
>What the hell does that have to do with their supporting language X or
>not?
I've just explained that. Sorry if you missed it. It has to do with
whether or not supporting language X is a competitive, or an
anti-competitive, act. This describes the *class* of the action, BTW,
not the actual activity involved. It stands to reason that Microsoft
would have the largest language support, even apart from their 90%+
market share, that's all I'm saying. If you're going to defend a
monopoly, your decision isn't so much how to make your product more
attractive (since that's not what provides or defends monopoly power),
but in removing any excuse to seek a market alternative, while using the
90% market power to simultaneously change the market requirements to
exclude those alternatives.
>> There is a cost/benefit analysis that goes in to including
>> support for a language.
>
>Yes. We all know that.
Apparently not, if you think supporting Fiji or some other obscure
language is a profitable endeavor for Microsoft.
>> Ayende's "most people don't speak English"
>> loses some of its punch when you recognize that *most* people do, in
>> fact, use one or more of a very small handful of languages. Microsoft's
>> 'carpet-bombing' approach is obviously keyed towards removing any reason
>> to avoid the software, rather than providing any actual profitable
>> value.
>
>Haha. Neat! :=) A nicely paranoid statement. You take this a step too
>far. Are you saying it's not profitable for them to support all these
>languages?
Of course I am. Did I say they would be unprofitable if they didn't?
Are you saying they would be unprofitable if they didn't? If not, then
why would you ask this question? It is not profit-seeking behavior; if
the company were interested in making the largest profit from the
smallest investment, then adding languages, when you wouldn't be
unprofitable if you didn't add them, is not efficient. Normally,
competition has the effect of ensuring that companies do not allow
inefficiencies in their production. This is why Adam Smith recognized
monopolies as abhorrent, and why Senator Sherman identified them as
illegal.
>> >The same goes for the OS features. I only care about the features I wish
>> >to use and how they're implemented. I couldn't care less about the
>> >features a sysadmin would need. That's for MS and the sysadmins to care
>> >about.
>>
>> Well, then I presume that means you don't care about any features,
>
>You presume too much wise guy ...
>
>> because these are *personal computers*, and there is no real difference
>> between 'sysadmin' and 'user'.
>
>In the context I meant, oh yes they are. I will not however try to
>elaborate because you'll only play difficult since it suites your
>vitriolic arguments.
A good point. Nevertheless, it is quite possible your 'context' is
ephemeral, and you're merely seeking to avoid having me dismantle your
arguments, should you bother to present them.
>I guess if I said Linux is OSS while PGP is not, you'd say no to that
>right? ;=)
No, I am not a pedantic person. I didn't say that there's no difference
between sysadmin procedures and user procedures on personal computers
because it is a pedantic point; I said it because it is a design point.
>> Unless you're in a professional
>> environment, in which case you don't make any choices, so your point is,
>> again, moot.
>
>I agree on that, but that's not what I'm referring to. A large portion of
>PC's in use are not used in a professional environment where they are
>maintained and administered by trained professionals.
Yes, and this is very much the reason often given for Windows to be so
popular with the home market; it doesn't require professional
administration. But, then, that's true only as long as you don't want
any administration at all, and are happy with the default behavior, the
default presentations, and the default configuration. Windroids
routinely also suggest this is true, but it is an obvious fabrication:
people always like having options, even if they don't use them.
Microsoft has gotten very good at providing options that are so
pointless or difficult to use (claiming they are 'sysadmin' procedures)
that the majority of users give up, if they ever even had the idea that
they could treat a computer as their personal equipment.
>> Considering the ideas you've presented here, I'd say your
>> best choice would be a Mac.
>
>Nope. My best choice is Win2k at present. You don't know what I need,
>therefore you cannot make my choice.
Quite blowing smoke up my ass. I already knew your "choice" was W2K.
And the "at present" just means "because its the newest version of
monopoly crapware". It doesn't matter what you need: you haven't made a
choice. You just went along with the least-effort option that was
handed to you, thanks to the illegal maneuvering of the least
competitive producer.
>Would you please stop making these
>assumptions about what I think and what I need. You're doing terribly. Is
>this your level of performance with respect to what you think people need
>after 12 years studying this?
Which is to say, I have you pegged, but you don't want to admit it.
These are "assumptions", they are presumptions, and until you provide me
some reason to revise them, they are certainly correct, and have proven
to be entirely accurate so far.
>> Treated in this kind of hopelessly over-simplified way, you have a
>> choice to present a clear ethical underpinning to your thinking, or
>> become deluded into thinking that monopolization is "just" doing
>> business.
>
>My arguments have nothing to do with monopolizing perse. But since you're
>so fixated to an almost pathologic level with MS and their monopolizing,
>you tend to twist any argument with the word Microsoft in it, into one of
>defending the fact that they don't monopolize. I agree that they
>monopolize OK? There's no need to build the strawman.
It isn't a strawman; it is the reason your arguments "have nothing to do
with monopolizing per se". Why did you include "per se" in that
sentence? Apparently, it was because you realize that providing
"reasons" for why a monopoly product is "chosen" by the market is
nothing more than empty posturing. A strawman itself, you might say.
My point is, agreeing that they monopolize, but not recognizing that
this means, _by definition_, that their products are not competitive,
and generally not as good as any potential alternatives (they don't have
to be, in order to keep the alternatives little more than potential, and
they don't have a reason to be, because it is not required for
"success", as long as the monopoly is maintained) means you just aren't
thinking hard enough.
>> It is not. That last bit, btw, where you indicated that a
>> customer has a different perspective than wanting to meet their needs or
>> preferences, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
>
>Read again. A customer will buy what suites their needs .... to the best
>of their ability. Now PLEASE ..... this is not about MS alone. This is a
>general statement. Please ... No more MS is a monopoly argument.
This is a general statement, which is about MS alone, within the context
of this discussion. The customer's choice isn't being based right now
on what suites their needs. Its being based on is available to the best
of their ability. IOW, MS software is crap, because if it were any
good, it would have competition, and if it had competition, it might
possibly be good. It is simply not credible to discuss MS software and
avoid 'the monopoly argument', since that's what MS software is.
>A customers concerns are not the same as those of the service provider or
>vendor. The customers concerns are selfish. The vendor has to consider
>different customer types and their concerns. The vendor will be concerned
>about multiple language support if they wish to market internationally.
>The customer is concerned only about his language being supported.
The customer concerns are selfish, the vendor's concerns are selfish,
the producer's concerns are selfish. Everybody's concerns are selfish,
yet a free market will still work to ensure that the highest efficiency
in production is brought to bear to provide the most products (and the
greatest variety of products) to market at the cheapest price. Funny
how that works, huh? Of course, when someone monopolizes, then there
isn't a free market anymore, and NONE OF THIS IS TRUE. You are very
focused, I must tell you, on pretending that these rules still apply,
that whether a product is "better", or whether a consumer can "choose"
the best product for their needs or the best price for their choice, can
be determined, even when the market is not free, but monopolized. This
simply isn't the case. This is why monopolies are illegal, and why
discussing the relative technical merits of a monopoly product is just
plain silly.
[...]
>> >> Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their own
>> >> language, btw.
>> >
>> >I think you missed what T. Max was really saying but that's OK. It's not
>> >worth it. :=)
>>
>> I think you missed what T. Max was really saying. That's not OK,
>> because it was important.
>
>I haven't missed a thing. :=)
>
>You will not listen. You're too busy being preoccupied with yourself and
>what you think. :=) It's pretty amazing.
You misunderstand the circumstances. I'm happy to see that you are
satisfied with yourself, but you are, in fact, still missing the point.
>While the world continues on it's course there'll always be quirks like
>you in the corner somewhere, muttering tantrums.
Or idiots like you buying monopoly crapware and trying to defend their
"choice" on false technical merits. Luckily, there won't always be a
monopoly, as the government is currently sitting in the corner
somewhere, about to mutter a remedy.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:52:52 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:02:45 -0500;
>Curtis wrote...
>> > >I think you missed what T. Max was really saying but that's OK. It's not
>> > >worth it. :=)
>> >
>> > I think you missed what T. Max was really saying. That's not OK,
>> > because it was important.
>>
>> I haven't missed a thing. :=)
>>
>> You will not listen. You're too busy being preoccupied with yourself and
>> what you think. :=) It's pretty amazing.
>>
>> While the world continues on it's course there'll always be quirks like
>> you in the corner somewhere, muttering tantrums.
>
>I forgot, that a couple will turn out to be real visionaries, but sadly
>you're not one of them. You're just a hippy type.
Guffaw. :-D
--
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)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:46:18 +0000
In article <8vm8rq$567km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:55:44
>> [...]
>> >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.
>>
>> So you're just going along with the monopoly, haven't even examined
>> whether other systems meet your needs, and expect us to give a rat's ass
>> about your opinion of operating systems?
>
>Yes.
>Because the language thing is only a small reason why I like Windows.
>Unlike most people, I've a good knowledge in english, and I can handle all
>english system.
>I've experiance with several OS, including half a dozen or so linux dist
>(excluding versions), I choose windows because it's the one best suited to
>my need.
>
So why are you complaining about language support then?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:37:15 +0000
In article <8vltcb$1ei$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>> In article <8vjj2e$kg4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I can - if you don't expect your OS to be up for more than 1 week
>at
>> >> a time, or so, then 50 days allows a huge margin.
>> >>
>> >Our mail server:
>> >
>> >05/10/2000 15:22:26 Shutdown Prior uptime:104d
>> >1h:31m:32s
>> >
>> >Shutdown for a hardware upgrade.
>> >
>> >Of course, that's using the right tool for the job.
>> >
>> That being the tool you've downloaded from microsoft
>> because the one provided was broken, I guess?
>
>No, they don't provide one with the distribution of NT that's easily
>queried by a client.
>
>>
>> How did you know to get it?
>
>Because I subscribe to mailing lists which announce new tools/utilities
>etc.
>
I just got an announcement today that our exchange servers
will, from now on, be rebooted for 'housekeeping' reasons
on a monthly or more often basis.
I'm fairly relieved, in fact, because the response times
were getting to be a bit of a joke (there's even a note
on an internal web-site accepting this).
I mention this because it seems so far away from the
exceptionally long (for NT, at least) times you're
quoting above, and I'm wondering why your times seem
to be so much better than anyone elses?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:43:33 +0000
In article <wMiT5.10169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Is that the one which came with the machine, or one you had to
>> >> add later? My debian machines have the capability as part of the
>> >> distro.
>> >
>> >Ahh.. the Unix advocates last resort "But it doesn't come with the
>> >distribution!"
>>
>> Ah, so you have to get that separately then. Is there a
>> broken one supplied with NT5/win2k, or none at all? How do you know
>> where to get it?
>
>How does one know where to get kernel updates or patches? One must assume a
>certain level of competancy if they want to do more advanced things.
>
>uptime.exe is available in the resource kit, or downloadable from microsoft.
>
>
This is probably a microsoft thing which I'm not really familiar
with.
Since major upgrades have to be paid for with large sums of money,
it's not really clear what stuff is free and what's not, and how
it is differentiated between.
I expect Debian's stuff to be a) there and b) free of charge.
I don't know about Microsoft's, but I'm always surprised that
anything is free, since they're so expensive in general.
It's very clear with debian when something needs upgrading or
can be upgraded since dselect or apt-get will tell me automatically,
so I don't need to read mailing lists, look in resource kits
or anything like that, just cron and package-list update.
So yes, I don't really have the experience to go to all that
effort to do it the microsoft way.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:49:14 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>T. Max Devlin wrote...
>> >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?"
>
>The longer shutdown method takes the time to save applications as well as
>explorers recent configuration changes.
>
So why does it hang so frequently at that point?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:52:11 +0000
In article <8vlnrb$4tvic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:w_rT5.14$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>Talking about the registery.
>
>>. I think MS could have done
>> a far better job by taking the dedicated partition approach. It'd be a lot
>> safer kept from the OS's file system.
>
>You are probably correct, the problem is that it's *much* more convenient
>and easier to handle files than partitions.
>
Convenient for whom?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:58:50 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>T. Max Devlin wrote...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:34:10
>> [...]
>it.
>
>Most will benefit from the stability that Linux offers. But that's all it
>has to offer that's worth mentioning to the typical user.
Not at all. It's an excellent cost base, it runs fast and reliably
on inexpensive hardware. It's immensely configurable, it's completely
recoverable from any failure, since you actually get the original
binaries and source, you can make a boot disk, it co-exists with other
OSs well, it has a huge range of window managers etc., etc., etc.
>They can get
>the same level of stability using Win2k. If they hear that another OS
The jury is out and will be out for a long time on that.
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
