Linux-Advocacy Digest #578, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler review. (spicerun)
Believe the Hype (UnixGeek)
Re: Comparing Linux (mlw)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (Bob Hauck)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is awful (Bob Hauck)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version (Ken Klavonic)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (Bob Nelson)
Re: Comparing Linux (UnixGeek)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:17:17 -0600
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >No, it means that Linux users like this don't give a rip about what
> >consumers want.
>
> Unlike monopolies like Microsoft who are beating down the door
> of the consumer, competing against, err, err, err, well, someone,
> anyway, to sell their product, against, err, who?
Themselves, actually.
In order to keep their profit margins up, they must often sell new versions
to their existing customers. In order to do that, they have to give the
customer something they want. No customer throws away a perfectly good
product for something that they don't want.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:18:40 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you left me in a room and told me to programme, all you would hear
> would be, "bullshit, there are no errors", "year, bloody right, what
> ever ya piece of shit" for the next couple of hours, the computer will
> always come out second best when I get so pissed off I must release my
> anger on it!
That's the way I feel when I have to do something by hand that the
computer should be doing for me - especially if it involves mouse-clicking
through a dozen tabbed forms where you can't see everything at once
or do a simple search or global change through everything.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:21:10 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WneU5.25031$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > And you are positive that there has never been a case where the newer
> > > MS DLL broke another vendor's previously working program?
> >
> > Of course there are. But those programs have typically not followed the
> API
> > and relied on undocumented side effects that went away when the DLL
> changed.
>
> People who say things like that always point to documentation that exists
> now, saying that the competing vendor's programmers should have followed
> it years before it was available. Very convenient.
That's not it at all. Anything that isn't documented is "use at your own
risk". If you rely on the fact that the return value of a function just
happens to coincide with handle to memory, which you can use to examine
structure contents, yet that isn't documented, it's your own fault if it
breaks later on.
> > When an upgraded DLL does legitimately break applications, MS fixes it,
> like
> > they did when SP6 broke Notes.
>
> Could being in the courts about anti-competitive practices have
> anything to do with this new attitude about fixing the problems they
> cause for competitors?
No, Microsoft has always been very good about this for many competitors.
Look at the compatibility section of a Windows 3.1 or Windows 9x machine.
Those are flags which re-enable old behavior for undocumented side effects
(in many cases, it re-enables old bugs).
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:18:53 -0600
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> but i don't believe you so what's the matter.
"I don't care if you do believe me" was written by me earlier in the message
you responded to. Why is it such an issue with you and why are you trying to
make it a bigger issue? Ego-stroking?
> One client of mine has
> realized a mutlimillion dollar savings purchasing Wintel architecture after
> dropping their horribly over priced and underperforming sun boxes. They
> continue to save money in development time developing to a unified API and
> the single most popular programming environment.
Then go work for Billy full time then!
> > Your attempt at an intimidating tone in a newsgroup post really
> intimidates
> > nobody......but it does make you look like a hothead idiot.
> >
>
> your arguments are weak, your proof non-existant and your tone whinny. I
> don't know the temp. of your head but an idiot you are.
Oooh...you can say "idiot". You're just a Wintroll that thinks that you'll win
any argument by bullying. What's really pathetic is that nothing in this
thread has any relevance to the Thread....Other than you getting upset that
someone said that they don't care about "Whistler" or "Netscape on Whistler".
If you're pulling the rough and tough act over this, I'd hate to think how
you'll react over a real tough problem. BTW: You've given no proof either
other than you Huffing & Puffing and trying to blow the poor advocate down.
Won't work.
At any rate....You don't own the Internet, you don't own the Linux advocacy
newsgroup, and you don't own the Mac advocacy group. Windows will not get you
special privileges here.....Learn to deal with it. And you're just a little
Wintroll that has proven you can't stay within your own little newsgroup.
Now let's see your attempt to get the last word. Wintroll control freaks like
you just can't stand not be able to get the last word.
------------------------------
From: UnixGeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Believe the Hype
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:16:15 GMT
Lemme tell you MY story, and why I feel the way I do. And I hope I can
convert some Wintel folks sitting on the fence.
About a year and a half ago, A buddy kept yappin at me about this linux
thing. I was familiar with UNIX, somewhat, due to past activities (we
wont get into that) so I kind of envisioned linux as a watered-down
unix emulator with a cute GUI. But I installed it anyway, on a "crash
box" a conglomeration of parts I had brushed up. I was amazed almost
instantly considering how fast the system ran after a little
configuring. I liked the KDE desktop. Soon I had installed in on a
better system, and I had 1 good linux system, and of course the "main
system" (the one with all of the best components) had Windows
installed. I had stepped on my WIN98 CD, cracking it in half, on
accident (yeah, it was a subconcious action, im sure) but I had
the .cabs on the HD, so I didnt worry too much about it. Then One day,
My hard drive crashed. Kaput. done. Tried everything. I had another
hard drive, but guess what. No windows disk. So I figured I would throw
linux on my "main machine" to get by until I could afford to buy win98
again, or "locate" it. (did I say that out loud?). It would just be
temporary, I thought, I could not live without windows, right? wrong.
Not only did my system run faster, and crash less, but I found I could
do everything and more with linux, with the exception of games, which I
rarely play anyway. I loved the control over the hardware, and I have
been windows-free since then. Its been a great year, let me tell you,
after 10 years of putting up with Microshaft's shit, I am finally free.
No more overpriced software, licensing bullshit, OS reinstalls, buggy
code (there is some, but much less) lockups, etc. I love it. I would
advise it to anybody. If you dont agree with me, thats fine. But thats
my stance. Take it for what its worth. If you are thinking about it, do
what I did, set up a seperate box, dont give up windows, until you are
comfortable. you wont regret it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparing Linux
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:37:30 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:09:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Why is (almost) everybody out there comparing Linux to other Operation
> >Systems ??
>
> I don't know. Maybe they're bitter little dweebs with small penises.
> Seriously, most of the people who are obsessed with making "comparisons"
> are like this. You also get a lot of people like this who program in certain
> programming languages.
It isn't as simple as you would like to think.
I direct engineering efforts, I am constantly having to defend
engineering decisions to those that believe hype. Take Java for example.
Those who use it claim all sorts of wonderful things about it. The fact
is that it only works on platforms supported by big companies. It is
proprietary, slow, and a bad idea if you want to use non-main stream
operating environments. And no, Kava is not an option and every one
doing a rational evaluation knows it.
Java may be a pretty language, filled with all the things that
programming mediocrity demands, but is never the less a proprietary API
for a proprietary byte code interpreter. No different than VB.
If you use Linux, you should understand exactly why Java is bad, because
it wasn't long ago that Linux did not have a viable Java VM.
The comparisons are necessary because the hype is unavoidable. We often
have to defend technical decisions to non-technical people. When some
market dweeb says we should do something in (fill in your favorite buzz
word here) you have to beat them back with comparisons and statistics.
Like it or not, Windows, Windows NT, Linux, FreeBSD, etc. work on the PC
platform. When similar applications need to be evaluated, comparisons
are inevitable. If you do not have clear reasons why you use something
(and comparisons are often part of this) then why do you use it?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:38:25 GMT
In article <905616$kq4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Neither Microsoft nor Microfocus seems to
>> have an answer for this other than their
>> use.
>>
>Interesting that Microsoft wouldn't send someone on site to work with
>you to fix it. We had a problem in NZ with a single Exchange server
>with a major MS client, we had a Microsoft engineer on site for several
>days working it out.
>
Were not big enough for that problem.
>> Our servers will stop and start 5000 programs
>> per day. At ususally the 6500 pid level
>> they will start failing, one by one.
>
>Why so many? (Curiousity factor here...)
>
>>
>> And the man is correct.
>> Microsoft is a peice of shit for a server.
>>
>> The workstations we have aren't much better.
>> You can edit and compile programs for 3-4
>> days before the same thing happens with them.
>>
>Our developers don't seem to have the same problem.
>
>
>> Now, I've told you the truth. We have
>> complaints filed with Microsoft.
>
>As have I.
>
>>
>> And you've been given the straight stuff
>> here. And I already know your going to
>> act like a baby and call me a liar,
>> but he other people reading this won't
>> think so.
>
>Why would I call you a liar? Don't hold me to your low standards. All
>I can say is that our experience with NT as a server is different from
>yours.
>
>>
>> So you have it. I answered your question.
>> They don't handle heavy loads very well
>> at all.
>
>OK, so the next question is: Given that you are having so many problems
>with the NT servers, and this must be causing interruption to the
>business, why haven't you migrated to Unix?
>
>Stu
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.a
Lack of adequate Cobol compiler for Linux.
And we'd also have to mate up the FEP system
and get our other vendor involved.
But it could be done.
Or they could choose FreeBSD possibly.
Recently MF came out with a Linux compatible
Cobol compiler but it's nothing compared
to NET EXPRESS which has features
necessary to make this a reality.
But the BIG thing is the Cobol compiler.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:43:46 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:45:22 GMT, PLZI
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>By god, intelligent reply. Thank you very much, saved my day.
You're welcome.
>However, if I've understood correctly, the GUIDs coming back in the
>Auth_data field inside the ticket can be discarded silently.
Yes, but that doesn't solve the other problem of interworking with an
existing Unix kerberos. That won't provide the GUID to NT clients, and
there is apparently no way for them to get it except to have them
authenticate to an NT kerberos server. Thus, you either have to move
all kerberos to NT or have separate databases for Unix and NT. That is
what people are complaining about.
The two-step scheme I outlined allows for complete interoperability.
You can authenticate both NT and Unix (and others as well) with either
Unix or NT (and others too) and NT clients can get their GUID info
regardless of what system did the initial authentication. You'd still
need an NT server for the second step of course, but nobody minds that.
It is having to change an existing infrastructure that people are
complaining about.
As things are, it at least appears as if MS has purposely designed the
scheme to be "one-way interoperable". Maybe there's a technical reason
they did what they did, but if so I haven't seen it explained anywhere.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Statistic about this bigot group
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:43:48 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:35:32 GMT, Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> echo `uptime | cut -c11-24` hours `uptime | cut -c26-27` minutes
Yeah, but you didn't do the seconds <g>.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:43:52 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:01:02 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>I originally started as an Electronics Engineer, then switched to
>Software.
Me too.
>I have some idea of how machines are designed. I do understand
>(from OpenVMS) how IRQ and DMA are implemented and how they work.
You would understand from OpenVMS how a sane person would implement
them, not how PC's do. I am _not_ saying that you don't know this (six
years Windows experience and all that), just that OpenVMS experience
will not clue you in on the oddities of PC architecture.
>> If the experience levels were reversed, you might find
>> that you'd have more trouble making Windows work than Linux.
>
>Actually, anyone with problem solving experience shouldn't have too much
>difficulty.
Come one Pete. Two weeks vs six years and you want to claim it doesn't
matter? Good problem-solving skills mean you can climb the curve
faster, not that there isn't one.
>I remember what happened with SB16 and AHA152x on my other system.
Yes, you have to manually configure them. I knew that having had both
of those cards at one time or another. You didn't know and had a hard
time finding out how to find out. Six years vs two weeks.
Linux 2.2 kernels don't support ISA PnP all that well, you're right
about that. Fortunately, ISA PnP is going away quickly and 2.4 is
supposed to improve this area a lot.
>Windows 98/ME certainly has more driver support.
Fine, except that Linux is more comparable with NT in terms of feature
set and target audience.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:43:58 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:41:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. It's just that _every_ single post I see
>here making complaints about Linux is immediately blasted.
Well, after you've had "claire_lynn" running around posting the same
complaints over and over again under fake names, you start to think
that a lot of them are just trolling.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:43:54 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:00:36 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Having run KDE 2.0 Pete, I haven't found anything
>> wrong with it so far.
Well, sorry to say that there are in fact some things wrong with it.
Nothing fatal, but it does have bugs. It will get better.
>I've reported four bugs to the KDE database, about broken functionality.
A couple of which I ran into also (e.g. the smb: one).
>Other people are finding the same bugs as me, others are finding crashes
>and instability.
That's why they're issuing a 2.0.1 in a few days. Version 1.0 of
anything always has more bugs than you'd like.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Ken Klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:26:45 -0500
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3937182.html?pt.ms..feed.ne_home
>
> I can't blame them, lack of interest is why MS dropped support for other
> chips in W2K.
>
> Just amusing to see RedHat following the dollars and not technology for
> technologies sake.
Redhat != Linux. SuSE, Debian, Mandrake, and Caldera support Sparc
(others?). For something slightly different, NetBSD and OpenBSD also
support Sparc, and are likely to continue to do so for the forseeable
future. Of course, if it's fairly recent hardware, Solaris is probably
the way to go anyway.
Besides, if I wanted to run Linux on Sparc, I still can (6.2), and just
do my own upgrades to the kernel et al along the way. Personally, I run
OpenBSD and Solaris on my Sparc boxen.
It's all about choice. What choice does M$ give you??? You can run on
x86 and... x86. And, don't pity those poor 'slobs' that were running NT
on Alpha/PPC/MIPS... They can all run Linux and *BSD too...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:46:57 GMT
In article <906op1$iju$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading wrote:
>Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>:> Our servers will stop and start 5000 programs
>:> per day. At ususally the 6500 pid level
>:> they will start failing, one by one.
>
>: Why so many? (Curiousity factor here...)
>
>I don't want to speak for Charlie here, but I just wanted to
>point out that no admin in the Unix world would consider 5000
>processes per day to be "many". It's fairly normal, and not
>a big deal at all. (Granted, many of them are very small
>processes that don't actually end up doing anything.) For
>example, I just set up a CRON job that checks for new files
>every 2 minutes in a directory, and if there are some, it
>moves them elsewhere. It's a very simple script, but since
>it runs every 2 minutes, that script alone is run 720
>times per day. (30 per hour * 24 hours). It's pretty easy
>to get a total 5000 processes per day without the system
>breaking a sweat. (Much of the design/evolution of Unix
>involved using lots of little tiny processes to do various OS
>tasks instead of one large monolithic process. As a result,
>the process management techniques of UNIX are fast and leak-free,
>such that the system doesn't mind having oodles of little
>processes all over the place, with processes being spawned and
>exiting every minute of every hour of every day.)
>
>Often Unix programmers are surprised to learn that this isn't
>considered the norm everywhere else, and have to alter their
>programming habits for Windows (where forking lots of processes
>for tiny tasks is a Bad Thing.) That is why sometimes direct
>ports of Unix tools to Windows are less than optimal, especially
>internet server programs. (that tend to spawn a full subprocess
>instead of just a subthread when a new client connection comes
>in.) In most Unixen the performance difference between launching
>a full process and merely launching a thread isn't large enough
>to worry about it - so threads are only used in UNIX when the
>programmer actually wants the child and the parent to share the
>same variables in memory. The rest of the time he uses a
>subprocess, since it's safer. (If a programming error causes
>the child process to die prematurely, the parent doesn't go
>down with it, so the service (web, ftp, or whatever) is still
>available for new connections.)
>
Okay! Let me just jump off my horse here and have a meeting
with all the Windows users here.
Windows servers are probably okay for light duty stuff
like some file serving, and E-mail, and some web serving.
They just don't do well in a heavy data environment.
We have 3-4 million life insurance policies on our system
and for each policy you have to process many files.
And when you throw that across 13 life insurance companies,
everybody has their BUSINESS to complete on daily, weekly,
and monthly and quarterly and annual levels.
So I will back down some and say it might not be fair
for me to say YOUR windows server is inadequate, but
we REALLY try and use ours.
The system was intended to replace a flock of aging
System V's and it's fast but it don't stay up long.
If it stayed up longer, I wouldn't complain.
YOU GUY'S have to remember here that what makes
me SO CRANKY about Windows is I end up getting
picked up by the CORP van at 2:30 or 3:30 am
to fix this crap when it goes down. I'm often
in the office in my robe when this crap happens
and I usually don't get it locked down until
10 or 11 am.
And I'm tired of that. I really am.
And I've run some competitive tests using C++
and a debian box and also a freebsd box and
I'm saying these machines are much better.
It scares me because I don't always get a page
when this kind of stuff happens and one night
I almost shot my boss at the door. I didn't
know what the hell was going on, only that
somebody was BEATING at my door.
>From that night forward he rings me to death
before he comes.
When you run 24/7 Windows becomes a popcorn
farm.
And I've spoke my peace.
I don't like Window desktop as the system
registry prevents me from dragging a compiler
home now. The security key crap.
So, overall, I'm very very pissed about
the whole thing and if I can get just
spend my time convincing people to leave
Windows.
I like people overall and I want to see
them suceed.
So you all have a better picture of me.
I'm a drag ass whench.. I'm tired of this.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Bob Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Statistic about this bigot group
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:49:31 GMT
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "BcB" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Here is the basic code that will output the system uptime part to a
>> file
> [747 characters of C code]
> Here's the shell equivalent:
> echo `uptime | cut -c11-24` hours `uptime | cut -c26-27` minutes
> :-)
and awk:
uptime | awk '{ printf("up %d day", $3, $3 == 1 ? "": "s")
split($5, a, /:/)
printf(", %d hour%s %d minute%s\n",
a[1], a[1] == 1 ? "" : "s",
a[2], a[2] == 1 ? "" : "s") }'
------------------------------
From: UnixGeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparing Linux
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:43:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 01:09:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Why is (almost) everybody out there comparing Linux to other
Operation
> >Systems ??
>
> I don't know. Maybe they're bitter little dweebs with small penises.
> Seriously, most of the people who are obsessed with
making "comparisons"
> are like this. You also get a lot of people like this who program in
certain
> programming languages.
>
> I think it's motivated primarily by bitter and envy that their
supposedly
> "better" system is less popular than something else.
>
> Personally, I use Linux, but couldn't give a rats a** if it
gets "more
> popular".
>
One reason to care, would be availablity of software. If linux gets
more popular, more development would be directed that way. There are
many windows programs I miss, and from a business standpoint, it doesnt
make much sense for them to port them to linux. Who cares if we are
accepted, If we cared, we would stick with windows, but its nice to see
more and more software coming our way
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
>
--
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 03:50:46 GMT
In article <9064ju$dk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Having run KDE 2.0 Pete, I haven't found anything
>> wrong with it so far. I'm still waiting for
>> more reports that Linux + KDE 2.0 is unstable but
>> so far all I really see is you.
>>
>> And there you have it.
>
>And there I have what, Charlie?
>
What what Pete?
>Just because everything goes fine for you, does that mean it won't go
>fine for anyone else? Just because nobody has heard of any problems,
>does that mean there aren't any?
>
Well, okay.
>I've reported four bugs to the KDE database, about broken functionality.
>Other people are finding the same bugs as me, others are finding crashes
>and instability.
>
Okay.
>You are reading the KDE bugs database aren't you?
>
No. As I said it runs fine for me.
If things run fine then I generally don't
go to some bug database.
>I run Windows with no problems, all day long. Other people tell me their
>systems crash three times a day. Whose experience should I believe?
>Because it doesn't happen to me, does that mean it doesn't happen at
>all?
>
You go with what you know.
I suspect most of the people reading this group
will go with their concensus.
>I reported I have a Windows system that ran without crashing for three
>months. Nobody believed me - what should I beleive, the system sitting
>right next to me, or the FUD that people preach in this group?
>
If you knew anything about me Pete.
>Of course, people pointed out the clock on Windows wraps after a month.
>They forgot that running a web server keeps a record of the time the
>system was rebooted. It showed a three month period.
>
I never noticed and I certaintly wouldn't
complain.
>I don't disagree Windows is unstable, but saying simply "Windows is
>crap" or "Windows crashes three times a dray" is simply rubbish. It's as
>bad as saying "Linux is crap", or "LinSux" or "Linux crashes all the
>time."
>
NO! Windows IS crap!
Here's where you and I part.
>--
>---
>Pete
>
>
I'm going with what I know Pete.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
