Linux-Advocacy Digest #569, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4 (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Is design really that overrated? (mark)
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:28:49 +0000
In article <90417b$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <903r8k$594r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In article <3a228f5a$0$14371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad
>Rutherford
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >how would you know?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think he knows what's run better for him, which is what he said.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's nothing like :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> wa waaaaa.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Besides, we really don't care whether Ayende likes the colour
>> >> >> scheme of DOS7.3 or DOS8 or whatever this will be.
>> >> >
>> >> >There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
>> >> >You are thinking 9x line.
>> >> >A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Shame really, 'cos the only thing I would actually use
>> >> Microsoft OS for in my own time would be game playing. And
>> >> that's only possible with DOS.
>> >
>> >That is just about the most ridicilous, inaccurate, and idiotic statement
>> >that I've heard since I last read Aaron's posts.
>>
>> Que? My, we are getting personal. Well, 'tis true. I do not
>> run MS OSs in my spare time except under _exceptional_ circumstances.
>> The only one I know of is for a game which will only run under
>> dos. That's that. It's a fact, and I don't really see how you
>> can call it inaccurate.
>
>Because not even a moderatedly successful game came out in the last three
>years or so that didn't run on windows?
When did I say how old it was?
>
>> >> How is it that Microsoft managed to break the only good attribute?
>> >>
>> >> (Okay, I know, ring 0 and all that).
>> >>
>> >> mark
>> >
>> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:28:06 +0000
In article <904172$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <903r8i$594r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vulpl$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > When did you last used MS OS?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Today at Work......Win2K. Performs like garbage compared to the Sun
>> >> >system
>> >> >> in the next cubicle. Performs like garbage compared to my Linux
>> >laptop.
>> >> >
>> >> >How is it set up?
>> >> >On what hardware?
>> >> >What is it doing?
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm not seeking answers to this question, btw.
>> >> >I'm showing that there is a lot more to how well the OS perform than
>the
>> >OS
>> >> >itself.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Ah, a question that's not a question. So glad you could clarify,
>> >> otherwise we might have thought that you *really* wanted to know
>> >> what's wrong with NT5/Win2k
>> >
>> >It's calls a rethoric question.
>> >
>> >I've done phone support before, email support is even worse, because you
>> >don't get real-time feedback.
>> >I'm not going to try and provide you with support you could get if you
>would
>> >find a non - advocacy group about windows.
>> >news://microsoft.public.win2000.general is a good place to start asking
>> >questions.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Whereas you think that cola is a good place to *not* ask questions?
>
>advocacy groups are not the place to find support.
>
>
>
But they are a good place to pose a question and then deny that it is?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:49:24 +0000
In article <9048d4$fta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading wrote:
>matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: I use 2.4 test kernels full time and the only thing that I have upgraded is
>: modutils and ppp. Everything works great and I can't wait until 2.4 is
>: released because then I will be able to try out all the new stuff going into
>: 2.5.
>
>Really? What about the tools that use the /proc system, like 'ps'?
>Aren't they pretty dependant upon matching exactly to the kernel
>version?
No.
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:46:17 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) posted:
>
>| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>| >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>| >
>| >| > Well, if you presume that the monopoly does not do what monopolies do,
>| >| > which is control prices and exclude competition, perhaps. But actually,
>| >| > what you are presuming is simply that the monopoly is not a monopoly,
>| >| > but a competitive business. This is not the case.
>| >|
>| >| IBM is a company comparable to Microsoft, if not larger.
>| >| IBM apperantly had a technically superior OS.
>| >| Why did IBM failed? IBM is more than powerful enough to break MS monopoly
>| >| (which it created, apperantly)
>| >|
>| >| How did MS controled the price of OS/2?
>| >
>| >IBM did an incredibly lousy job of marketing OS/2.
>|
>| Microsoft parted company with IBM. IBM didn't even get their
>| windows license until the eve of the launch.
>|
>| curtis - are you turfing, by any chance?
>
>Yes, I am.
:)
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:51:37 +0000
In article <975543464.253891@marvin>, Frank Van Damme wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mark"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <975494561.344562@marvin>, Frank Van Damme wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Not necessary. Wat if you set your borders fading from pink to orange,
>>>wear an orange T-shirt, and flashy pink pants. Then, set your background
>>>to the one from the win98 sixties theme. So you don't clash with your
>>>computer! With your office of course...
>>
>>
>> Words do not suffice. So: !
>>
>> Mark
>
>So? You mean I have to go to the office dressed like that? Sorry, that's
>impossible. I'm a _student_, and we don't use any user-customisale
>computers.
When I was a student, we couldn't afford user-customisable clothes...
:)
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:02:05 +0000
In article <NHfV5.9533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the_blur wrote:
>> You might start by offering some artwork to the people at Mandrake. Nice
>> OS. Terrible artwork.
>
>Do you know how receptive they are to this sort of thing? I came here first
>because I wanted to get a feel for your reaction in general, I think I got
>away fairly unscathed. I'm not worse for wear. But how do I do it? Do I just
>send along pics? or maybe set up a website they can check out?
Yes, just send along pics.
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:07:01 +0000
In article <9040fb$6if4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>OE can do this, and that is what it does on my system.
>You download all the messages from a big newsgroup with long expiration set,
>and you would easily find yourself with tens or hundreds of thousands of
>messages.
>
>
So, what newsgroup has 100,000 messages in it?
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:05:46 +0000
In article <9040fg$6if4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Power management has nothing to do with Word running or not.
>It's an icon "Power Options" which control the way windows do is configured.
>APM is configured from there, frex.
>That is a starting point to look at when you have troubles such as you are
>describing.
>
>
>
>
So how can power management issues stop Win98 from shutting itself
down. It is not shutting the machine down, merely stopping itself.
Is this some major kernel design problem?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:25:27 +0000
In article <pAgV5.20$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bennetts family wrote:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:90417j$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Really? How do they get the OS from the CD to the HD, then?
>> You do realize that when I'm talking about installing Linux I'm talking
>> about installing the OS, right?
>
>You install once, and then you learn how to use RPM. The only time a Linux
>system needs to be restarted is a) after you have recompiled the kernel; b)
>when you are installing non-USB/Firewire hardware, especially the
>motherboard, or c) after a power outage.
Power outage? Never had to do that.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:27:22 +0000
In article <904176$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <903nuc$4etg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vupqd$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3a22e1cf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Well you fuck off you GUI dependent mumma's boy. So, not only you
>can
>> >use
>> >> >a
>> >> >> GUI but a mouse ooooooooooo you must very bright, you fucking
>nittwitt.
>> >> >
>> >> >As a note, Whistler should give you the option to turn off the GUI.
>> >> >Which is something that can be very useful for a server machine.
>> >> >I'm not sure if the workstation has it, or if it has, how to do this.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Er, what use is that with something with no cli?
>> >
>> >It has cli.
>>
>> You said it didn't. Are we now saying that there is a cli?
>
>When did I said it didn't have CLI?
>When I mentioned that it doesn't have dos? Dos isn't mandatory for cli.
>
>> >> I know that's the hook you're looking for - go for it, Ayende!
>> >> What colour is the 'new' cli?
>> >
>> >Any color you like, of course.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> What's the shell?
>
>What do you mean here?
>
>
If we have no dos command processor, then what is the shell?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:38:12 +0000
In article <90417n$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <903l4f$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:Vn%U5.25827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:900dr0$5pbqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Corneil du Plessis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:900d6e$kaq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > > Only Microsoft expects their customers to upgrade everything when
>they
>> >> > make
>> >> > > a change.
>> >> >
>> >> > I still have a win95 running word 6 on a 486 & 12MB
>> >> > It's being used daily.
>> >>
>> >> Word 6? Hmm, hardly the first version of that product. Did you come
>> >> to the party late or are you just conveniently forgetting the cycle
>> >through
>> >> the earlier versions - and the fact that for quite some time after
>Word97
>> >> came out and was shipped bundled with a lot of new machines you had
>> >> no way to access documents in that format?
>> >
>> >To Word, yes.
>> >I used a dos based Word Proccessor call Einstien until almost 1996.
>> >It loaded of a 5-something inch floppy and had a white on blue color that
>> >from took me a while to shake of in regard to word proccessor (my first
>> >reaction to my first BSOD was "Who loaded Einstien?")
>> >I've been loyal user to this application (and this version, for that
>matter)
>> >for almost 6 years.
>> >
>> >About the documents, I can read documents made in office 97 or 2000 with
>> >Word 6.
>> >File > Save As > Word 6.0
>>
>> That conversion takes forever and doesn't properly convert everythingl
>> as anyone who's been unfortunate enough to have this microsoft overt
>> 'upgrade or else' conversion filter imposed on them by the monopoly
>> we so love to suffer from.
>
>Forever? No longer than normal saving.
It takes considerably longer than normal saving. If Microsoft didn't
want you to upgrade and pay again for more or less the same package,
then it wouldn't. It also doesn't properly convert everything.
The thing is, I actually *have* to use this stuff, I'm not just
turfing.
>As Word 97/2K have much more features than word 6, the things that word 6
>can't handle are being stripped.
>
>
>
Ie., a full and proper conversion *does* *not* take place. As I
recall, it breaks in some basic ways, like the table support. This
is not some major new feature issue, this is monopoly practise at
its nastiest for the consumer (others :) and user (me :(
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:34:32 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josiah Fizer wrote:
>
>
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <903l4c$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> > >> >Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> <very large snip because Aaron doesn't understand the first thing
>> about
>> > >> >> replying to posts or how to use usenet or even how to change
>> underwear
>> > >more
>> > >> >> than monthly 100+ lines to write unrelated stupidity at the bottom -
>> a
>> > >> >> typical @yahoo.com user, almost as bad as an aol.com user>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will
>> be
>> > >as
>> > >> >> good
>> > >> >> > > from win2k as win2k was from NT.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Wow....look at this car
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > It's great
>> > >> >> > It's fantastic.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > They painted it at the factory!!!!
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > No, I don't know anything about whether the engine is any good,
>> > >> >> > or how it handles in turns....or even going in a straight line
>> > >> >> > down a highway at a mere 60 km/h (US 40 mph)...i only got to
>> > >> >> > drive it 5 feet forwards and back..
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Yeah...I know there's no locks on the doors...and you can't
>> > >> >> > roll up the windows...and...you know...it doesn't have any
>> > >> >> > rear view mirrors...or seat belts...and that hand-crank in
>> > >> >> > place of the usual steering wheel is gonna take some getting
>> > >> >> > used to...and...yeah, it's kinda strange how they put the
>> > >> >> > radio upside down mounted on the floor...it's got a really
>> > >> >> > leaky fuel system...but...it's got a custom paint job...and
>> > >> >> > when I crack up on the highway, and die in a ball of fire...
>> > >> >> > well, it's gonna look really cool!
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > And...looking cool THAT's what's REALLY important...
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Here's a hint, Ayende....GROW THE FUCK UP
>> > >> >> > --
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Hey Aaron, want YOUR hint?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Hey, look at this car.
>> > >> >> Well, it's not really a car yet, it's just a bunch of parts made all
>> > >over
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Really?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >I've done full-installs of Linux from various makers.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >ONE reboot, and the system is up and running...with ALL hardware
>> drivers
>> > >> >installed, and ALL applications available immediately.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Getting the same hardware configuration to work on a Windows machine
>> > >takes
>> > >> >MANY reboots (1 for the sound card, one for the graphics card, one for
>> > >> >the monitor, one for the printer, one for the mouse, one for the
>> scanner,
>> > >> >one for the network card, another for the network configuration.....
>> > >> >
>> > >> >And then...installing the software...
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Lets see...If you installed 1,500 apps on a windows machine....how
>> long
>> > >> >would it take?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >A day? don't be foolish!
>> > >> >
>> > >> >2 weeks?
>> > >> >3 weeks?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Just exactly how many WEEKS would it take to install 1500 apps on a
>> > >windows box?
>> > >> >
>> > >> Exactly why my company uses pre-made images on CD. Problem now is that
>> > >> Microsoft want paying twice. One for the OEM version, then once
>> > >> for the CD.
>> > >
>> > >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.
>> >
>> > Ah, you know so little. Look up debian and see what you can have,
>> > fully automatically installed. A mere 1500 is nothing. You really
>> > have swallowed the microsoft line here.
>> >
>> >
>> > You can have as many as you like with linux, no arbitrary limits.
>> > No 'no one *need* 1500', no '640M is enough for anyone'.
>>
>> Why would you need 1500 applications?
>> Give me a good reason why would you need 1500 application installed.
>
>The trick is that he's counting things like grep, ls and man as "applications".
>By that logic I have 1200 or so "applications" on my NT workstation, 1500
>wouldn't be much of a stretch.
>
I'm not counting binary executables, I'm counting packages.
On this particular machine, that's of the order of 79,000 binaries.
The packages typically contain *many* binary executables.
Grep certainly does *not* come on its own, as suggested. here.
Whilst its true that the grep family of binary executables come
as one package, ls is part of the gnu fileutils, and includes a
range of fileutils.
You guys just don't know what you're missing.
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:42:10 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >turfing?
>> >How does grass has to do with computers?
>> >
>> If you have to defend microsoft, I imagine its probably essential.
>
>Yes, when I have to use an MS OS, I like to smoke a bit of the old grass
>beforehand to ease my pain...
Exactly ;)
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:45:48 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla wrote:
>mark wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>
>> You said he'd used a screwdriver on it. I didn't believe that then,
>> and I don't believe it now, because I can't see why anyone would.
>>
>
>Sorry to interrupt your interesting attempt to reconstruct the crime,
>with a hardly helpful witness, but this part has IMHO opinion the ring
>of the truth.
>
>A screwdriver is the most gentle tool I've been tempted to use quite a
>number of times on a Windows install CD. Had it been a hammer or an ax,
>I would believe it even more heartily!
Ah, relief :)
A local saying you might like:
When all you have is a hammer, then all problems look like nails.
This proverb also applies well to OSs.
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
******************************
