Linux-Advocacy Digest #572, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Don't believe the hype ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: Linux is awful ("Eric Meyer")
Polish Government's move to Linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: Things I have noticed................ (UnixGeek)
Re: LA Times article re. Microsoft... (Andy Newman)
Update to the internet share via linux senario (A easy solution): (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Steve Mading)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windows review ("Snarf")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:37:32 +0200
"Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:905ung$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Good old shit, the best windows review ever :)
>
> Well I bought it up
> Brought Windows home and tried to boot it up
> But when I load it up
> It says my memory is not enough
> I've been runnin' out
> I need some extra RAM to fix me up
> I have to cough it up
> Open my wallet up
> It never stops, never stops, never stops, never stops
>
> It's Windows 95
> It's sucking up my drive
> It makes a Pentium fly
> But my PC
> Is obsolete
> I'll have to buy myself a brand new machine
>
> Stick me up
> You suck me in and then you got me hooked
> You got me, you got me
> There's so much stuff to buy
> I need a new hard drive
> It's gonna suck me dry
>
> My CPU
> Don't have the speed
> It takes an hour just to bring up the screen...
> <snip>
>
> -Weird Al
>
> PS: This applies to any version of windows, not just 95.
Well, 95 need 4MB of RAM & 386DX
That is less than what linux need. (Linux need 8MB on a 386, IIRC)
You need 85MB free on the hard drive for windows to install itself (maximum,
you might need as little as 50MB during installation) and 76MB after the
install has ended. (maximum, you might need as little as 41MB)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:45:55 +0200
"David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I think that setuping linux is the easiest part of the
> > installation.
> > About the only thing that is hard in it is the repartitioning part.
> > And using it for normal tasks like browsing and email and word
processing
> > is very simple as well.
> > The problem start when you try to go a little beyond this.
> > Due to a very steep learning curve, most users will simply give it up,
> > saying it's too hard, and will never get their computer to its full
> > potential.
>
> Well, the initial software installation can be pretty painless using
> installers such as Mandrake's. The problem comes in when there is
> unsupported (or mostly unsupported) hardware in the computer. The average
> user doesn't look at all the innards of a computer to make sure it's all
> compatible... and the average user doesn't generally know how to get a
> somewhat-unsupported device to work nicely, even if it is possible. In a
> preconfigured box, the hardware would obviously be selected based on
> compatibility (and low cost for most dealers). Readily available
> preconfigured boxes would simplify the process for end users that just
want
> a working computer... Why they decide Microsoft or Linux (or other) would
> be a matter of preference, and not because MS is ready to go and Linux
> involves partitioning and setup and hardware configging, etc.
>
> I have a good test subject here for this stuff. She doesn't want to know
> anything about how a computer is setup, and hated Linux before I had KDE
> 2.0 and nice friendly things for her... when I grabbed that and started
> using it, and setup an account for her to use, she loved it. That's
partly
> why I tend to believe that setup (as easy as it may be for ANY system) is
a
> turn-off, and people tend to gravitate towards what is ready to use.
Using a system which someone else has setup & administer for you is easy
regardless of the platform you use as long as you've GUI.
I agrees about the preinstalled computers for the general users, although I
personally dislike pre-built & pre-installed computers.
It would save a lot of trouble if people would be HCLing their systems
(although I did have some problems with HCLed parts)
Oh, well, as of the last three years, I'm HCLing my computers for both
windows in linux.
Just in case. :)
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 30 Nov 2000 17:03:19 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Leonardo wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > how would you know?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been there!
> > > > >
> > > > > > That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
> > > > >
> > > > > I run Linux because it kicks MSDOS3.x, MSDOS4.x, MSDOS5.x,
MSDOS6.x,
> > > > > MSDOS7.x, Win9x, WinME, WinNT, and Win2K's ass (all of which I've
> > tried at
> > > > > one time or another....and having to use Win2k here at work --
which
> > you
> > > > > would have known if you had read one of my replies elsewhere in
this
> > > > thread.
> > > > > But then again, asking a Winvocate Troll to Read before Posting is
> > futile.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then why don't you tell your boss that You Will Never Use Windows
Again.
> > > > Looser, HAH
> > >
> > > Every time I go into an interview, I tell them:
> > >
> > > "I will NOT take responsibility for any system which uses, or is
> > > dependant upon any platform running crud produced by Microsoft."
> > >
> > > And yet....I keep getting contracts for more and more pay.
> > >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > BECAUSE YOU ARE LYING!
> >
> > I know NO ONE in the entire world that would hire someone who is as
arrogant
> > to go to an interview and TELL the hirer what they will or will not take
> > responsibility for, unilaterally. Then again, companies that would hire
you
> > after such a statement are probably so small and broke that we'll never
have
> > heard of them.
> >
> > besides, you have to go on interviews...? My recruiter calls me to tell
me
> > who wants me next.
>
> That must be why I'm pulling down over $100k / year.
You missed the part where I say you are lying. Your CO doesn't make
$100k/year and no one at your GS level does either.
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Don't believe the hype
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:09:09 +0000
In article <9062os$bri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have now used Linux for 6 months (Redhat 6.0)
>
> According to the press its a stable operating system - YOU MUST BE
> JOKING.
>
> yp / ldap (take your pick - you will end up trying both!) just don't
> work.
>
> Gnome leaks and locks up frequently, machines reboot and run out of
> memory.
Don't mix up memory leaks with efficiënt memory management.
A general rule in Linux is: you cannot have too much ram.
I didn't hear anything about bad performance. So there's no speak of
dozens of megabytes being swapped to disk, right? Well look:
if linux has some ram left after loading programs and data, it will use
the mem left to cache up stuff. However much ram you have, it
will get filled.
Even stronger. Even if your system is comfortable with your amount of
RAM, small amounts will get swapped out to disk if they're not used for
some time. This will allow your system to free mem for caching and thus
improve performance. Who will know how long it will last till you're
gonna use that program (or whatever) again? In the meantime, it's using
valuable system resources.
Example. Currently I'm running 2 kde sessions at a time; kde being one of the
heaviest window managers. I have 128 MB RAM. and 105 MB swap assigned
>From the 128 mb, at least 50 megs is cash mem.
> In short most of the software may be free but it certainly isn't
> finished.
>
> If you value your time then Linux is not free.
>
> Oh yes and I haven't even touched on gdb (use Visual Studio then try gdb
> ; its like the dark ages - again IT DOES NOT WORK).
>
> I would have loved to have found linux was stable and usable however the
> truth is it lacks quality.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an AMD K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
From: "Eric Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:11:52 GMT
>They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or the like),
but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
Em
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Polish Government's move to Linux
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:18:23 GMT
The link below explains it all:
http://linuxnews.pl/news.html?id=32718
who said Linux wasn't ready for primetime.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: UnixGeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed................
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:12:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> > 3. So-called ex-linux users using the excuse, "it is too hard" as
an excuse
> > for not continuing to use Linux. Down the road at my local book
store there
> > were hundreds of books, from linux for beginners up to programming
linux on
> > servers
>
> That just goes to prove that Linux sux. If it didn't you wouldn't
have
> hundreds of books on the shelves: they'd all have been bought out!
>
Wow, definetly one of those ignorant Wintel Users you were referring
to, kiwi. Just because the sheep migrate one way, to him, that is the
best way. Because the books arent best sellers, than "linux sux".. What
a dumbass. besides, most linux users by books on C, networking, etc, we
got the OS down. If you dont know what those stand for, ask a grownup.
> Frogguy, standing in for Lynn, as every gentlemanly frog should
> for a lady. (***smoooooch*** Claire darling!)
>
--
J.C. Morgan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: LA Times article re. Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:29:51 GMT
I wrote:
>Good does of reality.
Must be a deer, possibly Christmas related. The Good Does of Reality.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Update to the internet share via linux senario (A easy solution):
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:22:50 GMT
Follow the instructions on this page, confguring etc totally graphical,
for the CLI impitant.
http://cpwright.villagenet.com/mserver/
kiwiunixman
PS. This post in directed mainly at Claire Lynn
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:29:31 GMT
One of lifes mysteries,
1. What is the meaning of life?
2. Why does Microsoft include a browser with Windows NT Server
3. Who is really Claire Lynn?
4. Why is there the belief that GUI based OS's are superior to ones that
allow both?
and there are plenty more un-aswered questions
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>> A follow up question, why does Windows NT Server install a web browser?
>> It's a web fucking server, not a workstation, hence, why have a web
>> browser installed?
>
>
>
> Nobody knows.
>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:VxYU5.35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
>>>>> "Ilja Booij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>> One of the nice things of Linux (or other UNIX-es) is that you can
>>>>>> run without GUI. Many people like this and use it. Now, if MS
>>>>>> implements this in it's systems, is that bad? i wouldn't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like it too, and it would be good if MS did (re)implement it. But they
>>>>
>>>> are
>>>>
>>>>> never going to do it. Just watch them. It isn't in their interests, they
>>>>> killed the command line (or at least swept it under a particularly big
>>>>
>>>> rug)
>>>>
>>>>> and bringing it back would be an admission of defeat. Never.
>>>>
>>>> Admission of defeat? Why?
>>>> Beside, why does a server need GUI?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ask microsoft. they seem to think it's an essential.
>>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: 30 Nov 2000 23:21:19 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <904c40$g1u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Please describe how to get Windows to run on any of the following
:> machines:
:> 1 - A Sun Sparc workstation.
:> 2 - A Macintosh PPC-based machine.
:> 3 - An IBM AS/400.
: Of the three machines you mention, how many might I, a home user, buy?
: A Sparc workstation? Unlikely.
: An IBM AS/400. You're joking!
: A Macintosh. Maybe.
: I was referring to Intel machines. I thought that was obvious.
Yes, it was. I was trying to make a point that that doesn't make
for a very fair comparasin, given all the hardware that Windows
doesn't even try to be able to run on. If you limit your scope to
only intel PCs, then and only then does Windows support more
hardware. Yeah, I know - you don't care becuase you don't mind
living in a world where the hardware archetecture is being held
back by unportable software. But, some of us recognize that it
might be nice if hardware manufacturers actually had the leeway
to redesign things from time to time. A Pentium-only world is a
rather short-sighted way of looking at the home computer market.
Even if it works okay for now because of the large dominance of
Pentium PCs, it doesn't allow for much improvement in the future
if you use tools that aren't ever going to be available for anything
other than Pentiums.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:50 GMT
Mark, you're confusing the poor Wintrol, ya better give Ayende Rahien a
run down of the different terms used in OS's and what an OS does.
kiwiunixman
mark wrote:
> 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: "Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:32:53 -0500
Reply-To: "Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Win95 on a 386 with 4 megs of RAM? You might be able to install it, but do
you really think it will run? Looks like yet another one has fallen for
Uncle Bill's Windows propaganda.
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:906m99$57ba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:905ung$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Good old shit, the best windows review ever :)
> >
> > Well I bought it up
> > Brought Windows home and tried to boot it up
> > But when I load it up
> > It says my memory is not enough
> > I've been runnin' out
> > I need some extra RAM to fix me up
> > I have to cough it up
> > Open my wallet up
> > It never stops, never stops, never stops, never stops
> >
> > It's Windows 95
> > It's sucking up my drive
> > It makes a Pentium fly
> > But my PC
> > Is obsolete
> > I'll have to buy myself a brand new machine
> >
> > Stick me up
> > You suck me in and then you got me hooked
> > You got me, you got me
> > There's so much stuff to buy
> > I need a new hard drive
> > It's gonna suck me dry
> >
> > My CPU
> > Don't have the speed
> > It takes an hour just to bring up the screen...
> > <snip>
> >
> > -Weird Al
> >
> > PS: This applies to any version of windows, not just 95.
>
> Well, 95 need 4MB of RAM & 386DX
> That is less than what linux need. (Linux need 8MB on a 386, IIRC)
> You need 85MB free on the hard drive for windows to install itself
(maximum,
> you might need as little as 50MB during installation) and 76MB after the
> install has ended. (maximum, you might need as little as 41MB)
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
