Linux-Advocacy Digest #532, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Linux is excellent (was Re: Linux is awful) (mark)
Re: Linux is awful ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: linux on a 486 (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (Rob Barris)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (mark)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Jake Taense)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: Is design really that overrated? ("the_blur")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:32:55 +0000
In article <903862$376c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vv5ce$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vsa0t$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In article <8vr8r9$5a7fd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Same mecanism you get one into a win machine.
>> >> >> >Lure the user to open it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, the user needs to save it, give it executable permissions,
>> >> >> su to root, give it root/suid permissions, put it into the path,
>> >> >> add a script into /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d to get the trojan
>> >> >> started, modify the firewall scripts to open the required ports,
>> >> >> etc. etc. etc.
>> >> >
>> >> >We've been through this before.
>> >> >If the user execute the program, it can handle the rest on its own.
>> >>
>> >> Not without root permissions, it can't. You really don't
>> >> understand the unix security model, which is causing you
>> >> to fully misunderstand why the scenario you describe
>> >> cannot happen.
>> >>
>> >> Please take a look at Eric Raymond's intro to unix, it
>> >> will help you no end with these quite hard questions.
>> >
>> >Oh, I am.
>> >The point I was trying to make that 9x is a *single user OS*
>> >You seem to be unable to understand what a *single user OS* is.
>> >A *single user OS* has no cocept of permissions.
>> >On a *single user OS*, the *single user* has root-like status.
>> >
>> >Now, try to make the same arguement for the NT line, and you fail.
>> >
>> >You really need to understand the concept of *single user OS*.
>> >
>> >If you want to talk about the *disadvantages* of single user OS, that is
>> >another matter, but trying to compare a *single user OS* security model
>> >(non-existant) to a linux or unix is laughable.
>> >Why don't you compare a bike to a motorcycle?
>> >No, that is not a good enough comparition, why don't you compare a
>carrige
>> >carried on the back of a hundred turtles (average land turtles, normal
>speed
>> >400 meters per hour) to a Formola 1 car?
>> >
>> >
>> You cannot install anything on a unix machine without the
>> appropriate permissions.
>
>I know, what is your point?
That you don't understand how unix works, so you don't understand
why what you're saying is silly. You cannot install anything on
a unix machine without the appropriate permissions. This seems
pretty simple. If it's hard, there are some really good books on
sale of the beginner's unix styles.
>
>> To get something started by init, you need to be running
>> with root's permissions.
>>
>> Go and read Eric's papers, that will help you understand.
>
>Read what I said, please.
>And reply in *context* to this.
>How does being unable to install software on unix without having permissions
>has to do with win9x being single user OS?
>
>
>
I didn't say that it did. You said that this could be achieved, I
am saying that it cannot. Please have a tiny go at remembering
what you wrote.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Linux is excellent (was Re: Linux is awful)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:34:09 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Skully1900 wrote:
>Comparing Linux to Windows 2000 is like comparing the Space Shuttle to a bottle
Linux is excellent.
Super stable.
Free
Wonderful stuff.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:42:12 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:09:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Hi Claire!
>>
>>Using the new AOL promo CD you got with the Sunday newspaper?
>
>
> It may be the "only" thing the Penguinista's and me I agree on, but I
> would NEVER infect any of my systems with the AOL virus.
>
> Sorry, but it ain't me.
>
> claire
A cross-platform virus?
Grin.
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an AMD K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:34:51 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Micah Higgs wrote:
>is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with only a floppy drive?
Yes. Check www.debian.org for some instructions.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:43:00 +0000
In article <qx2V5.29$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <emLU5.81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>> >
>> >1. The authorization data field is meant to be used for, yes, you guessed
>it,
>> >authorization data.
>> >2. The field in question is defined by company who wishes to use it.
>> >3. No-one raised a single voice, when IBM used it in their Kerberos.
>> >4. The MS used authorization data in there - yes, NT group GUIDs.
>> >5. There is no unix which uses NT Groups.
>>
>> So, MS wanted to be sure that this would be as unix unfriendly as
>> possible then? Looks like monopoly action to me.
>
>Now, very slowly, please explain to me, what is MS supposed to do with NT
>group information? Provide a NT Group support for all *nix platforms?
Keep it off interfaces. Or, make an interworkable standard with it.
>
>> >6. Nothing is lost or gained by using fields which are not usable by the
>very
>> >nature of the data they contain.
>> >7. Like, whaaaaaat?
>> >
>> >It is not "non-standard". It is used as it is inteded to be used. What the
>>
>> It is proprietary, it is not an open standard.
>
>Yes, NT's user groups are proprietary. They do not exist on unices. Let me
>see. I'll put a Win32 binary file as an attachment to an email message. Now
>you receive that file on a very standard SMTP transport. Say you're using
>linux. Are you now telling me, that the SMTP standard is somehow violated,
>cause the attachment can not be run in your system?
No. But you've just wasted my time and bandwidth. And your own.
A standard would have helped us both there, I think?
>
>(and yes, of course you can have wine installed, so no nit-picking, thank
>you.)
Standards are conceptual interface definitions for interoperability.
They naturally fly in the face of monopolies.
This is why they're hard for you to understand, even though you use
so many of them, all of the time.
Mark
------------------------------
From: Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:50:43 GMT
In article <903r8m$594r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <903l4c$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 1500 apps on one machine?
> > > Assuming average install time of 5 minutes, that means about 5 days of
> > > just
> > > sitting there 24 a day, just installing software.
> > > If we assume 8 hour work days, it results in over two weeks.
> > > No one install 1500 apps on a machine.
> > > No one *need* 1500 apps on a machine.
> >
> > I have 1,177 on my PowerBook.
>
> 1,117?
> Doing what?
Rephrase your question?
Generally they launch when I tell them to, do what I want them to do, ad
quit when I am done with them - to be realistic some are far more
popular than others, but they are there nonetheless. The top few might
be:
Eudora
CodeWarrior
Internet Explorer
MT-NewsWatcher
MPW Shell
Photoshop
Excel
Word
Sherlock
SoundJam
AOL instant messenger
less frequently run ones might be things like an animated GIF builder,
an anagram generator, an old sound synthesis program, serial port
tracing tools, TCP/IP network admin tools, telnet, etc.. you never know
what challenges each day will bring.
The poster claimed that having 1500 apps would be a burden due to total
installation time. Here is a data point showing that this need not be
the case. I've probably only done 10 or 15 full blown CDROM installs
since June on this laptop, the rest of my stuff came from the old
system's hard drive or from net downloads.
Rob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Statistic about this bigot group
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:48:51 +0000
In article <901bfn$1uk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MH wrote:
>No, because as has been bandied about ad naseum, linux != decent end user
>internet platform due to second & third rate browsers, news readers, mail
the microsofties post a lot. A frequency distribution of *who*
would be useful, then we can point out the 'same' people and
join them together.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:52:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>I have linux at home, it's very stable and provides an excellent
>gui. It does good multimedia.
>
My God... good multimedia? Linux? You can hardly get a decent video player -
certainly nothing nearly as polished as Media Player 6.4.
If your definition of multimedia means it can play mp3's, the occasional wave
file, and sort-of play videos through codec/front-end combinations that chop
up what little they can render, then sure - linux has WONDERFUL multimedia.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Statistic about this bigot group
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:50:47 +0000
In article <jLZU5.43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bennetts family wrote:
>
>"Mike Raeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Gerson Kurz wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > 91 Users - Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
>> > 121 Users - Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>> > 126 Users - Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
>> > 268 Users - Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
>> >
>> > Of course, you're all on WINE, right ? Yeah sure.
>>
>> Names! We need names! :)
>
>Me, because a) I'm slack, and b) I've had work to do and the like, so I
>haven't really had time to get Linux sorted. I've got 9 weeks off now,
>though...
Names is necessary for this to be meaningful
>
>--Chris
>
>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:55:08 +0000
In article <901094$6664c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:39:23
>
>
>> >For example, a program that rip CD-Audio has every reason in the world to
>> >add itself as an alternative to the CD-Audio menu.
>>
>> Add itself as an alternative? I thought you said they had "every
>> right"; why on earth would anyone want their app to be an alternative?
>
>Because ripping CD-Audio is not a common task with CDs.
>The player should be the default, the ripper as an alternative.
>And I never said "every right", I said it has "every reason" to do so.
>If you are going to qoute me, at least do it correctly.
>
>I don't comment about the rest as I'm tried of talking to fanatics.
>The obivious resort to this would be that I'm fanatic as well, which may or
>may not be the case (and this will also encounrage people to post saying I
>am a fanatic, no may abou it), but at least I am willing to talk to the
>other side and listen to what they are saying.
>
>
>
Don't listen, try out Linux, and learn unix. Before long, you'll
realise how badly treated by the monopoly you've been, and very
pleased to find you can escape.
Mark
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:58:58 +0000
In article <aW7V5.171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>
>"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <kITU5.314$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "PLZI"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Please explain. I am *still* waiting those pesky little technical details.
>> >
>> >> >Of course it is, but not about the MS being a monopoly or not. As it
>says.
>> >It
>> >> >is a answer to question: "tea or coffee?" - "neither, thanks." Now
>which
>> >one
>> >> > I do like more, tea or coffee?
>> >>
>> >> Which do you prefer, obeying the law or breaking the law?
>> >
>> >Now that wouldn't be the US Law you're referring to? Sorry, I'm Finnish.
>>
>> Well, European law as well, the EU is already working on it's own case
>against
>> Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly power. And if the US case proves
>ineffective
>> or too slow they'll be ready to step in.
>
>Don't hold your breath. I know I'm not. Which reminds me, I forgot to
>mention, that we are still talking about an opinion. Mine, to be exact. Mr.
>Devlin so nicely asked, which do I prefer, obeying the law or breaking it.
>
>Now let us see.
>
>If the law finds, say OJ Simpson, not guilty, we can safely say that anyone
>who thinks he is a killer, is somehow against the law, and prefers breaking
>it (as "what do I think about the US Legal system ruling in MS case" would
>lead to the question of do I prefer breaking the law or not.).
>
>Now is that interesting or what?
>
>- PLZI
>
>
>
Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly. Nothing to do with any
sportsman at all.
Good troll attempt, though.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:57:18 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS/PL wrote:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:901091$6664c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:29:10
>>
>>
>>
>> > >You have to all of this this for each extention individually, as this
>is
>> the
>> > >way File Types works
>> >
>> > LOL. That's just the way they work, huh? No sense complaining about
>> > having to do each extention individually; that's an integral part of the
>> > very nature of File Types.
>>
>> "File Types", not file types.
>> File Types is the Tabbed Dialog that handle this.
>> It's an application that provide some basic interface to handling file
>types
>> in windows.
>>
>> > >But I don't see any reason why you couldn't build a tool that would do
>> this
>> > >for several extentions at a time.
>> >
>> > You can; several people already have. They suck about as much as the
>> > system itself.
>>
>> No, the tools sucks, the system works, it's flexible, it's easy to
>> understand and work with.
>>
>> > >If you so wish, I can attach the code of a simple application that will
>> do
>> > >this.
>> >
>> > A "simple application" isn't going to do it, kid.
>>
>> To assosiate multiply file types with an existing or new file type?
>> You consider this a non-simple task?
>> Wow!
>> Makes you wonder what you think is hard.
>>
>> > >That the application that you've used may be badly designed, that I can
>> > >understand, there is no lack of badly designed applications.
>> >
>> > No, it is the OS, and the extension/file type/associtiation part, that
>> > sucks, there's nothing the apps can do about it. Save deal with it
>> > well, which of course none of them do, following Microsoft's lead.
>> > Don't you remember? This is computing for dummies; you fail to see why
>> > I wouldn't just want the software to "take care of it for me", so why on
>> > earth would I want to do it. Its not One Microsoft Way, after all;
>> > what's the point?
>> >
>> > >I just don't see how you reached the conclustion that because the tool
>> you
>> > >used wasn't good enough for you, the entire system isn't good.
>> >
>> > I didn't say the entire system isn't good. I said its a piece of crap.
>>
>> I'm getting tried of talking to fanatic.
>> Bye.
>
>So has everyone else, which is why you see so few responses to Devlins
>posts. Every now and a again the troll gets lucky and gets a bite though.
>
>
Ayende - don't come to a linux group and tell us how great windows
is, then, and you'll find life is much easier. Fanatics take their
message to others, the committed merely respond when asked.
Stop asking, and we won't tell you.
Hope you're leaving.
Mark
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:00:50 +0000
In article <903jtn$568q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >Giuliano Colla wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Netscape 6 supports multiple POP severs, but I've not yet tested it
>> >> >
>> >> > According to a review from one of the more known computer reporters
>in here,
>> >> > it sucks.
>> >> > Of personal experiance (beta, though) it has the stability of a dove
>in a
>> >> > hurrican.
>> >>
>> >> I gave a quick test (under linux) of beta's. Until PR3 they were just
>> >> for fun. PR3 appeared to be a reasonable beta (a little buggy,
>something
>> >> not implemented, but usable).
>> >> You may have different behavior under Windows, because the application
>> >> must handle a lot of issues which under Unix are handled by OS.
>> >
>> >Is that why about all previous versions of Netscape about all Unices are
>widely
>> >regarded by Unix folks as unstable too? Windows Netscape has always been
>the
>> >flagship for obvious reasons.
>>
>> Those reasons being directly related to the monopoly of desktop
>> OS space by microsoft. Says nothing about stability or quality,
>> just monopoly.
>
>You haven't answered Mike's question.
>Why is Netscape's versions on Unix are widely regarded as unstable?
>
>
Because compared to Unix, they are. compared to windows, they are
not.
Simple.
Mark
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:01:21 +0000
In article <PC%U5.18961$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad C. Mulligan wrote:
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I'm not talking about Telnet, though that's been available on NT for
>years
>> > as well.
>>
>> The telnet client maybe...
>>
>> Or did you mean commercial third party addons for NT that allowed telnet?
>> MS's one never appeared to make it out of beta until 2k.
>>
>
>No the resource kit has had a telnet server for years.
Serving what, exactly?
>
>>
>> But then, telnet isn't too useful on a system with a hampered command
>> line either...
>
>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:02:45 +0000
In article <903jti$568q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <900vml$60h74$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000
>02:33:16
>> >> [...]
>> >> >When was it, exactly?
>> >> >Because prior to late 1998, Netscape *was* a monopoly in the browsers
>> >> >market.
>> >>
>> >> Well, they were the market leader, and had well over 50% of the market.
>> >> But that has nothing to do with being a monopoly. It is
>> >> anti-competitive behavior, not market share, which makes a monopoly.
>> >
>> >No, a monopoly is a monopoly whetever it abuse it power or not.
>> >
>> >> >MS didn't have a fighting chance in the browser market until IE4. And
>the
>> >> >reason that I moved to IE wasn't because he was better, it was because
>> >> >Netscape was bloated and heavy and buggy.
>> >> >I don't think that I would've moved if they were of comparable
>quality.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not going to bother trying to convince you that your ability to
>> >> determine the quality of a piece of software is obviously flawed. I
>can
>> >> even agree with the sentiment that Netscape was (is) bloated, heavy,
>and
>> >> buggy. But the last version of IE which could avoid the same, and
>> >> worse, label was before version 3; since then, they've been equally fat
>> >> and stupid. IE just has the added disadvantage of being monopoly
>> >> crapware.
>> >
>> >Netscape 6 ate 65MB of my RAM in less than 30 Minutes of *very* light
>> >operating. It only released them after I *terminated* it. Simply closing
>the
>> >program didn't work, it stayed in memory.
>> >OE & IE has yet to take 65MB of my RAM from 30 minutes of heavy surfing.
>> >OE occationally does this, but this is when handling tens or hundreds of
>> >thousands of messages.
>>
>> What on earth do you mean by that? Are you doing mass emailing or
>> something? That's a lot of messages or did you just mean headers?
>
>Mass emailing someone is not a task I would give to OE.
>I meant handling newsgroups with tens to hundreds of thousands messages
>stored locally (both headers & message body)
>
>
OE does not do this. News servers do this.
Mark
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:04:38 +0000
In article <903jte$568q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
>wrote:
>> >Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:33:16
>> > [...]
>> >>When was it, exactly?
>> >>Because prior to late 1998, Netscape *was* a monopoly in the browsers
>> >>market.
>> >
>> >Well, they were the market leader, and had well over 50% of the market.
>> >But that has nothing to do with being a monopoly. It is
>> >anti-competitive behavior, not market share, which makes a monopoly.
>> >
>> >>MS didn't have a fighting chance in the browser market until IE4. And
>the
>> >>reason that I moved to IE wasn't because he was better, it was because
>> >>Netscape was bloated and heavy and buggy.
>> >>I don't think that I would've moved if they were of comparable quality.
>> >
>> >I'm not going to bother trying to convince you that your ability to
>> >determine the quality of a piece of software is obviously flawed. I can
>> >even agree with the sentiment that Netscape was (is) bloated, heavy, and
>> >buggy. But the last version of IE which could avoid the same, and
>> >worse, label was before version 3; since then, they've been equally fat
>> >and stupid. IE just has the added disadvantage of being monopoly
>> >crapware.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >>IE has a tendecy to take a 9x down with it when it die. (Not on NT,
>usually.
>> >>And 2000 & Whistler has an option to launch IE & Explorer as seperated
>> >>processes, a little slower to launch {*mcuh* faster on Whistler, a
>> >>difference of almost 2 seconds, but it's not fair comparing a
>workstation to
>> >>a server} but it increase system stability.)
>> >>Netscape only takes itself down (usually, at least, there had been
>> >>exceptions), but it takes as much time to load it as it takes to reboot
>> >>windows.
>> >
>> >Hmmmm....
>>
>> If I could actually manage to *stop* win98 then that might seem
>> like a sensible statement.
>>
>> Chad's not taken up my request to get Microsoft tech support to
>> fix that, and Mike? seems to think its something to do with the
>> machine's BIOS.
>>
>> Fyi I've rebooted Win98SE once today, and my wife has rebooted
>> Win95 3 times. Each time took *far* more time than loading
>> netscape.
>
>I'm not aware of your computer's setting, but you might want to take a look
>at Power Management.
There is nothing wrong with power management. Power management is *not*
an issue whilst eg., word is still running. I would expect you, as
a self-proclaimed windows expert to have slightly more technical
understading than this. I'm beginning to think you know as little
about windows as you do about unix.
fyi - the machine shuts down fine with linux.
call support - jeez.
mark
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:08:27 -0500
> I think that there's going to have to be a facing up to a reality
> that this guy is kind of trolling here.
>
> Mark
Euh...no. I'm most certainly am not. I'm just not scared to throw
firecrackers into the tent so to speak.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
