Linux-Advocacy Digest #405, Volume #30 Sat, 25 Nov 00 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux for nitwits (Glitch)
Re: Microsoft Song (sung to the turn, oh what a wonderful world) a oldie (Glitch)
Relatively new Linux user... (Dudeman)
Re: Bug-time.... where is NT? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Relatively new Linux user... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 05:52:26 GMT
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> T. Max Devlin wrote...
> > Perhaps from your perspective, but I assure you it is merely do to your
> > lack of experience. Anybody who would be satisfied with W2K simply
> > doesn't know enough about using computer *efficiently and effectively*
> > to be able to tell whether my statements are idiotic or not.
>
> You have totally lost perspective and you're too wrapped up in your own
> idiotic self-righteousness to see otherwise. You're really an idiot.
>
> Or is this the typical usenet performance that everyone has to put up
> with?
>
> I won't dive into technical arguments since I'm a medical professional
> who just loves using his computer and loves a challenge. However, I do
> know enough to make a competent choice. I've use Win3.1, Win9x, Linux,
> BeOS, MacOS, OS/2, NT and now Win2k. I used OS/2 in particular for years.
>
> Win2k with Perl installed, a text editor that supports Perl seamlessly,
> as well as a decent e-mail client suites my purposes just fine where
> needing Linux type functionality is concerned. I can then enjoy the rest
> of the Windows apps available, running them in a stable environment.
>
> Don't come here with your crap and think I'm about to fall for it. I know
> personally and have corresponded with many experienced users as yourself
> and find your vitriolic rhetoric quite amusing to read.
True discussion or debate in this newsgroup is the exception rather than the
rule. Most of the threads herein are more spectacle than forum. Kinda like
wrestling or tractor pulls for the literate set. <g>
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:01:54 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
> > Laptop drives don't use the standard 40pin
> > IDE cable that desktops use so your idea
> > won't work.
>
> I'm sorry, I was under the impression I was talking
> to technical people. From a local computer store
> for $10US, I purchased a kit which was labeled
> "Mount 2.5" laptop hard drive in a 3.5" drive bay".
> This included an ADAPTER which allows you to adapt
> the standard 2.5" pinout to the standard 40-pin
> IDE cable. The power connector for the 2.5" drive
> is included in its pinout, and the ADAPTER contains
> a plug and wires to send power to the right pins on
> the 2.5" pinout.
>
> Thus I was able to install Linux onto the old 540MB
> drive and use it in a conventional desktop, but
> for fun I tried it out in the old laptop, and it
> booted up just fine.
ok, u got me there.
>
> > What I did when my sony laptop didn't have a
> > built-in cdrom was use a boot floppy and install
> > linux over my LAN using my 2nd desktop as an NFS
> > server.
>
> What network card? SLIP? PLIP? Parallel Pocket
> Network Adapter? You're leaving out the details
> the technical people like myself CRAVE.
ok ok, down boy.
There is an NE2000 compatible card in the NFS server using the ne2k-pci
driver I believe. It's identified as a Realtek 8029. B/c of that I
can't ever remember if it actually uses the ne2k-pci driver or the
realtek driver. Anyway, I was using CAT5 cable over to my laptop which
was using the eepro100 driver for the built-in Intel chipset of the
ethernet. I loaded the eepro100 module from the Suse modules disk and it
worked flawlessly. After that I followed the instructions and continued
on with the install
>
> > I entered the info the installation program
> > was asking for and I was installing Linux
> > within a few minutes (after I picked out what
> > packages I wanted from the plethora that comes
> > with Suse).
> >
> > > Put it back into your laptop, and Linux will
> > > reconfigure your hardware settings when it boots
> > > up again (at least, RedHat with Kudzu does this),
> > > or you can do it using one of the various "Linux
> > > for Dummies"-type books.
> > >
> > > > > Debatable, for various reasons. One issue is support by a
> > > > > reputable vendor. (I would include Cygwin, now owned by
> > > > > RedHat, as a reputable support vendor, but I'm not sure
> > > > > everyone would, especially since Microsoft has effectively
> > > > > brainwashed so many.)
> > > >
> > > > I have to agree. I was sitting in a coffee shop and
> > > > nearly choked on my coffee when I heard someone state
> > > > quite authoritatively, "Linux, that runs on Microsoft."
> > > > Obviously the person was ignorant about what an
> > > > operating system is.
> > >
> > > Considering the plethora of Linuxes that run using
> > > LOADLIN and no repartitioning, its an easy mistake
> > > to make.
> > >
> > > > >>#3. Linux will never be the OS for nitwits.
> > > > >One advantage for Linux is that nitwits can't screw it up,
> > > > >if they don't have root access. :-) I for one would
> > > > >think that this makes it especially suited for children.
> > > >
> > > > I use it on my notebook to take notes in class and I
> > > > am an Arts major, so I like to think that I am living
> > > > proof that nitwits can learn something about Linux.
> > > > {I use Windows at school, but only because the
> > > > Unix systems are not available to Arts students}
> > > >
> > > > I love Linux and FreeBSD for all the free software.
> > > > I cannot find software with the same capability
> > > > under Windows for free. (Grip is a prime example)
> > >
> > > Do you mean "GIMP"?
> > >
> > > In any case, if you load up the Linux system in GUI
> > > mode and hand it to a child, your child will be just
> > > fine with it. Use something similar to computers the
> > > child may have used in school (such as Enlightenment
> > > or FVWM95, or whatever KDE comes with) and the child
> > > shouldn't even notice much of a difference from
> > > computers s/he is used to using. The "username
> > > password" thing may even get a smile out of the child,
> > > thinking that s/he has password protected files on
> > > your home computer (you can educate them about "root
> > > access" later on in life :).
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:03:02 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Song (sung to the turn, oh what a wonderful world) a oldie
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> I would I want to quite my day job? Are you a little sour because it
> may be true, or someone stole your funny bone. Lighten up for goodness
> sake, unlike you, I actually like to bring a little sunshine into
> peoples lives, if you want to be a sour-puss all your life, then hide ya
> self in a closet, because no ones likes a sour-puss.
^^^^^^^^^
no pun intended right? :P
------------------------------
From: Dudeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Relatively new Linux user...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:14:44 -0500
I finally got a version of Linux running well, and I love it. Mandrake is
very easy to deal with. Folks, you have a happy convert here.
Ryan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Bug-time.... where is NT?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:15:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> >
>> > Really, it is pretty tricky to get software to not leak,
>> > and Microsoft has as much trouble as anyone else.
>> ^^^^^^^
>>
>> you misspelled "more"
>>
>> Can you say "spaghetti code" ????
>
>You really must make your signature more concise, it's
>longer than St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians (who
>probably thought that St. Paul was the new gold vendor
>down the street).
>
>Anyway, I've never had a good feeling about Microsoft
>code in general. It's often ugly, and the APIs
>take wayyyyyyyyyyyy too many parameters, including
>parameters that are pointers to structures or are
>"handles". Definite spaghetti no matter how careful
>the MS programmer is.
>
>It arises from the Microsoft development philosophy,
>as explicated by the former Visual C++ team leader,
>Jim McCarthy. <paraphrase> When you commit to
>develop using Microsoft tools, you commit to a way
>of life. The one thing we will do is change, and
>change rapidly. This forces everyone to work hard
>to keep up, and gives us an advantage. </paraphrase>
>
>Of course, this attitude is merely a formalized
>version of how things work in the real world.
>The price we pay is buggy code.... spaghetti code.
>
>Hell, I've written spaghetti code many a time, because
>I knew I would not be given the time to "do it right".
>I've found that growing an API works quite well for
>awhile. Ultimately, it grows beyond my easy grasp,
>and new projects take longer. At some point it is
>time to throw it out and regrow from a stronger position.
>
>Microsoft does this very well. Again, though, the
>transition is always marked by an efflorescence of
>bugs.
>
>Chris
Precisely!
Microsoft throws just about everything they did
away and writes it from scratch. And each time
it takes them longer to produce the next generation
OS. And in this process they introduce more bugs
and security problems than was produced in the last
release.
Microsoft is not like Linux in the respect that
Linux can build on past sucesses.
Microsoft has no past sucesses to build upon.
All they seem to know how to do is to re-invent
the wheel constantly.
They are more marketing hype than substance.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:20:24 GMT
In article <yqFT5.10221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Fukenbusch wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The "ignorance" being referred to in the term is not the ignorance of
>> which argument is correct, but of any argument at all. If neither side
>> is known to be correct, then one examines the supporting arguments, one
>> doesn't presume that neither alternative is valid. The amount of
>> ignorance Erik insists on maintaining, in order to remain ignorant, and
>> profess ignorance as a logical argument (a fallacy), is beside the
>> point. It is not discussion; it is an attempt to deter discussion, and
>> nothing more.
>
>You are misinterpreting both what I say, and what the Fallacy is. I'm not
>saying that neither position is or isn't correct. I'm saying that the
>ARGUMENT isn't valid. It may be that you are correct, but without any
>supporting evidence, that's pure luck. Even if what you are arguing about
>is correct, your argument is still invalid because it's based on a lack of
>evidence.
>
Mis-interpreting what you said? The Fallacy with this defense is
who can be sure you know what you said? All you ever talk in
terms with is mainly conjecture related dribble.
In your world Fukenbusch, you are the facts.
>> Empirical testing, of course, would be required to *know* it is correct;
>> Occam's Razor is an inductive tool, not a deductive one. But in the
>> post-post-modern world, induction becomes often much more important than
>> deduction, as there is so much which is not known, and it is a grave and
>> ignorant mistake to say "therefore it cannot be known".
>
>No, I'm not saying "it cannot be known", I'm saying "It *IS* not known",
>therefore your argument is invalid. Your position may or may not be
>correct, but without evidence, it's simply your belief.
>
>Occam's razor is largely irrelevant in situations like this. There isn't
>enough evidence to even support Occam in making a judgement about
>likelihood.
>
Let me repeat this last sentence for you.
It is a grave and ignorant mistake to say "therefore it cannot be known".
I saw no opinion Fukenbusch.
Fukenbusch,
You are a ledgend in your own mind.
>>
>> --
>> 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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 25 Nov 2000 06:20:46 GMT
On 24 Nov 2000 17:03:13 -0800, pete@nospam wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw says...
>
>>
>>I would love to have the time to write an OS. It would be fun. I have
>>written a few embedded kernels for Z80 products, doing it in C++ would
>>make it really fun.
>>
>
>you sure have a weird taste for what is fun.
>
>c++ is one of the most convoluted, hard to use, easy to make bugs in,
>complex, and unsafe language there are.
Completely baseless claim. It's considerably safer than say C or assembly.
THe amount of manual memory management required is fairly minor and easy
to encapsulate in automatically managed data structures.
>if you love to spend all your nights in the debugger, then I see
>why you think c++ is fun.
I don't spend all nights in front of a bugger. I certainly wouldn't be more
productive with C either.
>no wonder Java,
Hahahahahaha ... no thanks. I write programs to do statistical analysis on
brainscans, and the last thing I want is an ugly interface and dog slow
software.
> in only 5 years, have now more programmers using it
>than C++
That's funny, where's all the java software ?
> (which has been around for about 15 years now). Programmers
>in Java are more productive, and produce more robust applications.
The memory management is not a silver bullet and it is not without
a price. It results in applications that run considerably slower than
their C++ alternatives.
And the lack of proper support for generic programming constructs means
that javas collection classes are considerably more error prone than
those in C++ (javas fail at runtime, not at compile time. They rely on
the C++ equivalent of dynamic_cast)
>Even C is a better choice than C++.
Better choice for what ? Blanket statements like this support nothing
besides ignorance on the authors part.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Relatively new Linux user...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:25:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dudeman wrote:
>I finally got a version of Linux running well, and I love it. Mandrake is
>very easy to deal with. Folks, you have a happy convert here.
>
>Ryan
Great! Good to see people write in.
I'd just guess that for every 1,000 people who get Linux installed
and "feel like you do" we have 1 write in about it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:27:23 GMT
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> T. Max Devlin wrote...
> > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:34:10
< snip >
> ....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. They can get
> the same level of stability using Win2k. ........
Without resorting to flames and other foolishness, I disagree. Most of the
vitriol statements like that draw come from years of hearing "Just wait
'till the next version" and "Oh, we've fixed that SR<insert number here>".
I've been hearing it ever since Windows V1.0 (I never used it, but, had to
sell it). The botched up MS-DOS v4.01 STILL sits sourly with me. In short, I
can't believe this statement and most others, with a bit of experience under
their belts, won't either. Microsoft OS's are, IMHO, released WAY too soon.
The balance between profit and quality, historically, has been out of
kilter. Their dominance in the marketplace is such that this needn't change.
Their past attitude, in regards to complaints or honest bug reports, was
dismal and some of us don't forget that. To their credit, they've come a
long way in the support department. However, some of us are a bit hesitant
to pick up soap in the shower a second time.
Rant Mode Off.
PS: I'm having a bad NT day, so sue me!
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
Disgruntled NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions*
GET A LIFE!
* Presently re-evaluating this stance...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:49:15 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pUET5.10217$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:%OqT5.2513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Press shift when you click the OK button on the shut down screen, this
> > would
> > > give you quick shutdown.
> > > BTW, ctrl+alt+backspace doesn't restart X, it terminate it, and then
> start
> > > it, there is quite a difference here.
> >
> > The point is, the entire OS doesn't go down in flames as a consequence
of
> > the GUI crashing... Sure, you lose whatever it might have been you were
> > working on, but core processes other systems on your net might be using
> > don't have to be interrupted by the recovery. Plus, you don't have to
deal
> > with the corrupted file system and registry nonsense.
>
> To the average user, the GUI *IS* a core process, and usually the only
thing
> they care about on a desktop machine. Who cares if the telnet server is
> still running if you just lost all your work in the 5 open X applications
> you had going?
If said desktop machine was also host to a CVS repository that was currently
being updated or hosted a printer that was in the middle of a large print
job, someone would, indeed, care if the machine were hopelessly locked up or
rebooted.
>
> And corrupted file systems don't usually happen with NTFS since it's
> journaled. And I have never experienced a corrupted registry except when
> the hard disk developed bad spots.
Key word being USUALLY.
You've been very fortunate in regards to the registry. I've experienced
registry corruption on two occasions. Both occasions involved drives in
pristine condition. Both were lockups that occured during service pack
updates. They were on separate machines that normally displayed quite sane
behavior.
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
