Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT registry... (was Re:
The Sixth Sense) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bug-time.... where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:40:38 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000
>> >> That is what is known as an "argument from ignorance".
>> >
>> >No, it's not. I'm not arguing that anything *IS* true or false, I'm
>saying
>> >that neither of us know, therefore an argument one way is just as valid
>as
>> >the other way (in other words, neither is valid).
>>
>> This is known as an "argument from ignorance".
>
>No it's not. I'm arguing about the validity of the argument, not about
>whether the argument is correct or false.
Whatever. Same thing.
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT registry...
(was Re: The Sixth Sense)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:40:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
02:19:38 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 19 Nov 2000
>> [...]
>> >Could it be that programs' access to registry is performed through
>> >ClassID which is handled differently from the text string used both by
>> >regedit and by a program trying to gather informations about other
>> >programs?
>>
>> Well, of course, Giuliano. That's precisely how hierarchical databases
>> work. (And why they were superseded for the most part by relational
>> databases.) Don't they teach this stuff in computer sciences?
>
>Maybe they do, today. When I was around there, the main focus was on
>vacuum tubes! It was still debated whether digital computers would
>supersede analog ones or not, and a 4K memory bank was a cupboard with
>fans challenging the noise of a jet at take-off.
>
>However my question was originated by the apparent lack of API's to
>access a registry item in such a way. API's just mimic a hierarchical
>filesystem access: open highest level key, query for subkey, open it,
>query for next level subkey and so on. A couple of "symlinks" are even
>provided to gain access to two intermediate levels, apparently to speed
>up the process a bit!
>
>All of this started from my consideration that if a program wishes to
>associate a datafile with the executable to open it, looking up the
>registry seems to be slow and cumbersome, while the ShellExec API seems
>to perform it in a reasonable way. Therefore some mechanism must be
>hidden there, which aren't available to other applications. Maybe a
>simple look-up table built during the boot process.
>
>It remains to be seen if registry is actually a hierarchical database,
>as you credit MS to have done, or just a cumbersome virtual filesystem
>as MS API's tell.
A cumbersome virtual filesystem is a hierarchical database. MS's
ShellExec API is what it is because the registry is a hierarchical
database, and ShellExec's code utilizes it directly, querying by full
node identifier with each get, and presenting the results in whatever
you describe as "a reasonable way". MS's API for direct registry
access, however, treats it as a virtual directory. I would guess they
were intended for "registry walking" when an app is searching to see if
a an unknown subnode of a known node exists, or something.
That's what I would presume, anyway, from what you've told me and my own
knowledge and experience.
--
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
Subject: Re: Bug-time.... where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:41:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
[...]
>> 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>
>
>And this is why it is so fucked up.
>
>the code-base should EXPAND while preserving backwards
>compatability. This can be done EVEN if you add more
>arguments in later versions of a library call.
>
>Instead, rather than growing the code base, keeping
>distinct lineages for each call, Microsoft instead
>chooses to STIR the code base...
>
>The ONLY reason being to *cripple* competitors products,
>because those writing Word XXX will always know about
>library changes, and even be able to test their code,
>LONG before anybody at WordPerfect.
>
>Same goes for any other software.
Since it was more than one line, and a pretty good argument, generally,
I thought I'd repost a bit of Aaron for posterity. (My killfiles are
temporarily down for maintenance. Some bastard's posting with a weird
bogus email address, requiring me to track down an errant filter.)
--
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: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:40:04 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> The file system was fucked up, the computer had no OS.
> I reinstalled linux so the computer would have an os.
You mean you had a "naked PC"? And you installed, not a
freshly-purchased copy of Windows, but a rogue operating
system?!! You unwitting pirate!!! <grin>
>
> > The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
>
> No, it isn't.
> The only way to access the registry is through the APIs
> And the APIs keeps the registry structure.
I wonder if the Registry has any backdoors or overflow
exploits that haven't been discovered...
Chris
--
Now that's a whore of a different choler!
------------------------------
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: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 17:37:08 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Doh - the market barriers are to high thus there is no
> > > viable competition.
> > >
> > > Please try to understand this - it's fundamental to
> > > how monopolies operate.
> > >
> > > The barriers are not technical so a different technical solution
> > > does not enable to monopoly to be broken.
> > >
> > > These concepts are really not that difficult.
> >
> > What prevent the iceland goverment from localizing linux, for example?
> > What bussiness barriers?
>
> Maybe you forget that the only viable alternative to Windows exists only
> because it escapes the normal market rules, being a free product, and
> therefore it is, for a certain amount, protected against monopoly.
Mac, Os/2 are viable alternatives and they follow normal market rules.
> If you develop for free, you don't expect any return from an investment,
> so you may do what no industrial investor in his mind would ever do.
> But this makes the situation quite unusual.
> Can you tell to whom iceland government could have addressed to get a
> localized Linux version? Which cannot be sold, because of GPL license?
Who could the chiense goverment could turn to in order to get a localize
Linux version?
*They* did it, and I think that localizing linux into chiense may be harder
than localizing it into icelandic(? icelandian?).
> Only way is Reykjavik University, provided it has the necessary
> resources available, which, given Iceland size, is rather unlikely.
Mac, Os/2, are two of the options that they could've opt.
Offering a price tag on a localized Linux source is another way.
How much did they pay for localizing windows? I'm sure that there are good
coders in iceland that could use the money.
For that matter, you don't need to localize all of of linux. Only one of the
UI and maybe X.
How hard would it be to localize something like Gnome or KDE?
> If you take a different case, Chinese government has selected Linux, but
> China is large enough to allow for a government subsidized development
> team which may undertake and maintain localized versions. Moreover it's
> possible that China doesn't give a damn about GPL.
Actually, GPL would fit right in with the comunist mindset.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:43:06 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> It's United Parcel Service, btw.
>
> What I don't understand is how a UPS can solve problem in the FS.
> It's like changing a monitor to fix the sound card problems.
I believe the area where my sis-in-law lives has crappy power.
The UPS is there as a prophylactic, not to fix anything. And
I've not had any trouble calls from her since.
I became a believe in UPS's when the power flickered for the
3rd time in a week at my place. I ran out to Walmart immediately
and bought one.
You can get pretty good ones for around $80 nowadays.
Chris
--
Now that's a whore of a different choler!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:46:57 GMT
Johan Kullstam wrote:
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> a lot of people run as admin in nt because of the lack of "su" type
> facility. logging off and logging back in as admin is a large
> annoyance; most people don't want the bother.
>
> there are always plenty of ignorant users to go around, my money is on
> more people (both absolute and proportional to user base) always
> running nt with admin privileges than linux people living as root.
In Win2000, you can run applications "as" a different user. I haven't
tried it myself. But maybe I should take admin priviledges from my
normal login, the next time I boot to Win2000, whenever that will be.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:49:53 -0500
mark wrote...
So much for controlling myself and ignoring you as I should. :=)
So far I've clarified your misunderstandings but you choose to ignore
these clarifications because they don't suit your end. The potentially
misleading statements are far juicier for you. :=)
> >> So no linux (or beos) experience to speak of.
> >
> >I have no BeOS experience to speak of. I have not installed Linux since
> >installing Win2k.
>
> Yet you specifically mention BEOS further down in this post - why?
Why not. I mentioned installing it and removing it after two days. I
spent hours on end fiddling with it. It's a passing experience certainly
worth mentioning. :=) If you don't consider it worthy of mention, then
say so and move on. Don't accuse me of blowing my BeOS experience out of
proportion, because I didn't. I told it like it was. It's for you to
decide whether or not you'll credit it any value.
> >> >During the OS/2 to NT transition, the latter three of the above OS's were
> >> >installed on the same system, as well as RedHat Linux. I did this with
> >> >the aid of PowerBoot <www.blueskyinnovations.com>.
> >>
> >> I don't see the dates further up. This lacks credibility.
> >
> >Look, I don't have to prove anything to you. I cannot prove anything to
> >you in this forum. I certainly have no reason to be lying.
>
> You made the claim in the first place. If you can't back it
> up, then please don't make it.
>
> You have lots of reasons to be lying.
Like? I'd love to hear them. In a way, you've been lying yourself by
deliberately misrepresenting me or misquoting me as I'll show further
down.
> >> >Win2k Jan2000 to present.
> >> >
> >> >I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
> >> >familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it offers.
> >>
> >> So you haven't used it, I guess you haven't had these magic
> >> applications you previously referred to?
> >
> >What magic applications?
> >
> >You seem to be reading what you want to.
>
> I'm reading what you're writing. What are these magical
> applications?
You coined the term 'magical application'. I asked what you meant (see
above) and I ask again.
> >
> >> >BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
> >>
> >> Which is enough time to, err, well, err, not enough to find
> >> these 'equivalent applications' you spoke of.
> >
> >I never spoke of any for BeOS. Where did I?
>
> You mentioned it 4 lines above, not me.
I said I installed BeOS once above. How does that amount to finding
equivalent applications for it. (Lie one)
BTW, let me lay something straight with you. If I use application X in
windows and I manage to find one in Linux that provides at least the same
functionality with at least the same ease of use, I've found an
equivalent application. That's what I meant when I said that. This may
involve using ports of a some applications but this isn't true in most
instances. I've made this clarification before but you choose to ignore
it.
> >> >MacOS, I've used on my friends machines. I've tried every viable
> >> >alternative OS.
> >>
> >> Your friend uses exactly the same apps as you need? I suspect
> >> not.
> >
> >Our basic application needs are pretty much the same. Birds of a feather,
> >flock together. :=)
>
> So what are these applications? Apparently they now run on a Mac
> as well?
There are browsers for the Mac aren't there? There are e-mail clients for
the Mac aren't there? There are WordProcessors for the Mac aren't there?
There are CDR tools for the Mac aren't there? There are image editing
applications for the Mac aren't there? etc. etc. They don't have to be
exact ports of the apps that I use in Windows for them to be useful to me
you know? Why are you being so silly on this?
> >> Indeed - that's what I was referring to.
> >
> >When I say seriously use, I mean, actually did meaningful work with it.
> >I've however done more with Linux that many people have done with
> >Windows.
> >SLRN, Mutt, StarOffice all running. I couldn't get my scanner to work the
> >I installed it, I configured it. I had WordPerfect, The Gimp,
> >last time I tried so that's about when I backed off. I also generally
> >didn't feel comfortable with the apps I tried. This is in contrast to
> >OS/2 where the apps were generally better than the Win95 offerings at the
> >time. I can't say the same now, since Win32 applications are now vast in
> >numbers and some really great picks are out there if you look for them.
>
> Again, lots of words, but no apps referred to.
Really? :=)
> What are these apps,
> you've managed to list some Linux ones, but you've still not said
> at what point in your diary that linux was even installed, or which
> one or whatever.
(Lie Two)
I did say, but you choose to ignore this. Let me see if I can quote it
for you.
You:
According to your own history, you've not used NT, you used
win9x, OS/2 and then Linux.
My response:
This is how it went:
Win3.1 1994-1995
Win95 1995-mid1996
OS/2 mid1996-mid 1998
WinNT mid1998 to Jan2000"
During the OS/2 to NT transition, the latter three of the above
OS's were installed on the same system, as well as RedHat Linux.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I did this with the aid of PowerBoot
<www.blueskyinnovations.com>."
Do you want more clarity that? You are neither reading nor interpreting
correctly.
I then said:
I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it
offers.
I did just, i.e., clarify that for you.
Now, concerning BeOS, this was my initial statement:
BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
>From that simple statement, you're now asking me what equivalent
applications *I said* I installed in it when I made no such claim. (Lie
three)
In fact it's so amusing what this has come to, let me requote all of what
I initially wrote that started this whole thing.
Mr. Presumptuous strikes again. I migrated from Win9x to OS/2 in
1996 because I disliked Win9x. It was too damn unstable and OS/2
provided a better environment to work in. A better shell.
I put aside all the Windows apps I was using and bought OS/2
equivalents. I learnt how to use them. I also learnt OS/2
^^^^^^^^^^^^
itself.
It's that word there 'equivalents' that set you off. I have clarified
what I meant above and you choose to ignore the clarification.
I then said:
Linux provides a better solution today than OS/2 did in 1996.
If Win9x were all that MS offered, I'd either be still running
OS/2 or now running Linux. There's no doubt whatsoever in my
mind about that.
You ignored that part since it doesn't suite your anti-winvocate
obsession crusade. :=) Not to mention your accusing me of claiming that I
migrated from Linux to Win2k when it came along.
Win2k irons out a lot of the hangups I had with NT. I installed
it in January and am yet to experienced a system lockup or BSOD.
Do I need better stability that this for my purposes?
Now tell me; how in heavens name does that testimony on my personal
experience with Win2k's stability, amount to this being the ONLY reason
why I use Win2k over any other OS? You see, this is the sort of very bad
interpretation of what I wrote that get's you into so much difficulty.
You must not assume. It makes an ass out of you.
> >Another important thing. Can I now sample sound from various input
> >devices in Linux. I sample music from my tuner, old vinyl's and tapes. I
> >then burn them to CD. I didn't see any means of doing this in Linux. This
> >is a recent requirement over the last year and a half or so. :=) I do
> >this quite easily with DartPro (ever heard of it)?
>
> Does this mean that you've been using Linux over the last year,
No it doesn't. How could that statement imply this. I also said in one of
my previous posts:
I have not installed Linux since installing Win2k.
Would you please remember what you read? Or do you remember as it's
convenient to you?
> but now
> that Win2k is here, it's just so much better? This reads as I noted
> above to me.
Oh, hush now. This incessant need for you to read negatively in my
statements to suit your agenda, is getting tiresome.
Would you please answer the question if you can, because I'm genuinely
interested. Can I sample old vinyl and tape recordings, clean them up and
burn said samples to a CD in Linux?
> >> >because I've never had it doing everything that I'd want to do with my
> >> >computer. If you've found decent sanctuary in Linux, I doubt you'd
> >> >migrate to a MS solution since Linux is improving.
> >>
> >> You mentioned finding equivalent applications, you seem to be
> >> backing away from that.
> >
> >As I said, I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe
> >me, that's your prerogative.
>
> You made the claim, not me. I think you can't prove because you
> haven't actually done what you claimed.
You aren't reading and assimilating. You're being stubborn. You're
twisting my words to suit your anti-winvocate agenda. Most of all, you're
ignoring my clarifications!!!! What *is* your problem?
> >> >> I really couldn't imagine making a rational OS decision on whether
> >> >> I've _yet_ had a BSOD.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, come on Mark, don't play the ass and say something like that.
> >>
> >> You made the suggestion, I find it rather silly.
> >
> >I suspect you're a kid or something.
> >
> >English isn't perfect.
> >
> >Look, if what I suggest implies something silly but could have a more
> >meaningful meaning within the context of what I'm saying, I expect you to
> >take the cue. But of course, since you're all riled up to play the
> >difficult, asinine kiddy, you choose the silly interpretation to
> >capitalize on. Furthermore, I clarify the situation, and you insist on
> >carrying it further. That's a very weak way to argue and it only earns
> >disrespect as you now have with me.
>
> You've not clarified this at all. You specifically stated that you'd
> 'not yet had a BSOD' and listed this as a good reason for using Win2k.
I did just that. Now explain to me how that translates to being the only
reason why I use Win2k over the other OS's. I guess, only in your biased
head, it would.
> Where is this clarification?
>
> >
> >This is my last post directly to you on this matter. Of course, like a
> >typical kiddy and in true form, you'll very likely say that I'm backing
> >out because I can't stand up to your questioning, but as I've said to Max
>
> I've some kiddies of my own, 4 and 6 years old. I'm rather older than
> that and may be older than you.
Oh dear. This only gets worse. If you were indeed a kid it would reflect
better on you. :=(
> I suspect you're backing out because you don't have the information
> to back up your claims.
:=) There's nothing to back out of. All this is really pointless.
> >> >I only brought that up because the Linux advocacy mantra is 'oh it's so
> >> >stable .... I've never had an unscheduled reboot in XXXX days" :=)
> >> >Stability and reliability are two very important ingredients, both of
> >> >which I have no problems with, when running Win2k. Does that mean that's
> >> >all that concerns me and the only deciding factors? If you wish to play
> >> >the ass then that's what you'll think.
> >>
> >> Linux is extremely stable. This is one of its major capabilities.
> >> Of course, if these apps which you need but never mention are not
> >> available, then that might be a problem. According to your timetable
> >> above you've not actually run Linux at all, but then in a separate
> >> para you imply that maybe you actually might have had some Red
> >> Hat. Which rpm was doing your package thing, then?
> >
> >Wow! But I can't remember. Do you expect me to remember that?
>
> I expect you to be able to give me some clue as to what magical
> package was available for all these different systems at the dates
> you claim. Or some functional equivalent. I still haven't seen
> the answer.
I covered that already.
BTW, you didn't answer my question. Do you expect me to remember the rpm
package or not. Do you think it reasonable that I would forget
considering this was over a year ago.
> >> >> I'm fascinated by exactly what applications were available for
> >> >> Win9x in 1996,
> >> >
> >> >A lot.
> >>
> >> you cut the 'and which were also available for'...
Now that I've reread my posts, would you care to do the same and show me
where I said "and which were also available for". I can't seem to find
it.
> >A more decent question would be what applications were available for
> >OS/2. If I'm labelled as being a Winvocate as you did later, I'll not
> >waste time writing those down. My knowledge of those are a given being a
> >Winvocate and all. :=)
>
> That was not the question, nor was it your claim.
My original claim was stated above, which has been clarified. Will you
persist?
[..]
> >I'll leave the Windows applications from way back then alone, OK? Not
> >worth mentioning. :=)
> >
> >> and you missed (ie., cut) 'and also available for'
Where did I cut 'and also available for' from.
> >> >> Linux at some undetermined point after 1996 and
> >> >> up to and including today, (wonder which version & which
> >> >> distro?), and now Win2k with its somewhat restricted set of
> >> >> available apps?
> >> >
> >> >Restricted apps for Win2k. Hehehehe. What apps are you looking for that
> >> >gives you this impression? Or is this second hand information that you're
> >> >stating?
> >>
> >> So, to put the words back - what were these applications which
> >> you claim were available on Win9x, had functional equivalents
> >> on OS/2 (all this in 1996), and at some undetermined point after
> >> 1996 had equivalents on Linux, and apparently have equivalents
> >> on Win2k today?
> >
> >Are you still referring to apps that were ported from one OS to the
> >other. I never meant this if that's what you meant. Anyway, I already
> >listed the main applications that I went out of my way to try in Linux.
> >These were some of the apparently viable replacements to what I'm using
> >in Windows at present.
>
> I am still waiting for this list of magical apps which was
> available for all of those systems at the times you claim.
I have already clarified what I meant by equivalent.
> >When I'm not liking what I'm seeing I don't go any further. I'll choose
> >to learn Linux itself more, when the applications I can run appeal to me
> >more, making the whole change worth my while.
> >
> >Linux carries with it a steep learning curve if you wish to have to
> >administer your machine and run your apps, i.e., use the platform. If I
> >don't like the apps, I will not waste my time getting down and really
> >dirty with the OS.
>
> My 4 and 6 year old kids have no problem with Linux at all.
I wouldn't expect otherwise. Mine wouldn't have a problem with any OS you
place them in front of either, considering the context in which the OS is
being used.
> With
> all your claimed experience of all these OSs over this huge period
> I would expect you to be capable of running anything.
That's not a huge amount of experience. That's only 5 years of computing.
:=) Are you now going to claim that I said I have a huge amount of
experience with the OS's I've had the opportunity to run at some point?
That would be typical of you.
> >> >> I'm kind of suprised you haven't worked Solaris in somewhere.
> >> >
> >> >I have never even *seen* Solaris running.
> >>
> >> I'm still surprised you didn't try to work another OS in
> >> there somewhere. Maybe cpm?
> >
> >I have never even *seen* Solaris running.
> >
> ><reads any better now?>
>
> Perhaps minix, or one of the BSDs?
Nope. I've never even seen those running either. :=)
[..]
> That's better, thanks.
What's better? :=)
> >BTW, I'm not a Winvocate. I'll defend Linux when appropriate. It's just
> >that there's so much crappy generalisations being made about Windows,
> >that I'm busy enough talking about them. Afterall, I chose to use Win2k
> >and disagree that it's merely unstable monopoly crapware. :=)
>
> Ah, yeah, you used to use Linux, but now that Win2k is here, win2k
> really rocks, right?
Using Windows, doesn't make you a Winvocate. Ask T. Max about it. He
posts here using Forte' Agent. Saying that Win2k is a better solution
than Linux as a desktop OS and defending this claim doesn't make you a
Winvocate. There's way more to Windows and MS than using Win2k as a
desktop OS. In fact, it's really a minority of individuals that use
Windows as a desktop OS, that use Win2k. Most use Win9x/ME.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
