Linux-Advocacy Digest #642, Volume #30 Mon, 4 Dec 00 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their cheap PC's? (jtnews)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot.
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:49:44 GMT
why not alt-ctrl-backspace to restart X
kiwiunixman
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>
>> what does C-A-F12 do?
>
>
> CTRL-ALT-F12 brings up console terminal 12, where various system messages
> get logged. Very handy if X hangs. ALT F7 takes you back to X.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:53:34 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > The sad part is, the legal system WAS designed to handle crybaby losers
> > like Gore, however, the Gore lawyers, the almost entirely Democrat
> > controlled election system in Florida, and 7 Democratic activists -- er
> > -- FL Supreme Court Justices managed to ursurp the Constitutional
election
> > power from the FL legislature and make a mockery of the Rule of Law.
> >
> > But then, this is nothing new for the Democrats, take the Impeachment.
> > Clinton and Gore are bullet proof. Laws do not apply to them, so they
> > can bend it and stretch it to however they see fit. It's unfortunate
> > that there are so many willing accomplices willing to throw conscience
> > to the wind and do whatever he says no matter the Constitutional
> > ramifications.
> >
> > The really, really sad part is, the American public is too ignorant to
> > understand it, let alone get angered about it. A large portion of them
> > think Hilary is right when she wants to do away with the electoral
college.
> > If it were her druthers, she'd abolish the Constitution all together.
>
> I'd stop listening to AM radio if I were you. Start reading newspapers.
> Find some good history books. Start looking into the shenanigans of
> your own party.
We don't need AM radio to spin what's happening. Anyone with a brain can
discern it even by watching liberal-biased network news and that paragon of
American intellect, USA-TODAY (Content? Nahhh...Give the rabble pretty
pictures)
The trouble makers in the Republican party generally get taken to the
woodshed and spanked until their carreers are over. Newt Gingrich was forced
to leave for shear hypocracy. Blasting Clinton for infidelity and boffing a
young assistant all the while didn't set well with anyone. Clinton lied
under oath and got a pep rally. (I couldn't care less about the blow job
that prompted it. The only problem I had with it was his obvious lack of
taste. Hell, if I were President and needed my pipes blown so badly i'd risk
jeopardizing the Presidency and my legacy...I'd at least find a PRIME piece
of ass to do it with!)
--
Tom Wilson
"Feminist writers for The Washington Post have told us that we ought to
judge Katherine Harris by her makeup. So since it's okay to judge a female
politician based on her looks, I want to be the first to go on record as
asserting that we cannot believe anything Hillary Clinton says because she
has a big broad beam and elephant ankles."
--- Rush Limbaugh
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 09:55:16 GMT
So as I see it there are three types of COLA subscribers, hardcore
wintrolls such as Chad Myer, who believes NT is the bee's knee's,
hardcore Linux users who believe Linux is the best no matter what, then
there are people who are moderate, such as you (Pete) who see Linux as
great, however, Linux needs to be improved (esp. in the area of GUI and
ease of use). True or untrue?
kiwiunixman
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <90f756$f77$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I am wrong, but what I understand you are saying is that
>
> Linux
>
>> is great however, there are some quirks that need to be fixed up, and the
>> GUI needs to be refined a little more before the mainstream user jumps on
>> the bandwagon. Correct?
>
>
> Pretty much, though I can't stand the CLI command set.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 04:59:08 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their cheap PC's?
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >HP CD-Writer Plus 9340I (32/10/4)[HPC4492B#ABA]/$266.00
>
> If you're after a cheap machine, why set aside 30% of the budget
> for this ? BTW, it's unfair to compare this to Dells since you don't
> even know that the one on the Dell works.
Because I need a CD-RW drive! With Dell the incremental cost of adding
one is only $99. However, I do need to find out what kind of CD-RW
drive they have and if it works in linux. But if it does work, I'm
home free.
With 64MB and no CD-RW, cgallery new base price calculation is:
891.17 - 266 (CD-RW) - 90 (128MB DRAM) + 56 (64MB DRAM) = $591.17
Now compare this to dell, $678 with CD-RW, $678-591.17 = $86 savings
over
dell. Not really much of a savings considering the lowest priced CD-RW
drive on pricewatch.com is a mitsumi cd-rw drive that costs $87.
In addition if you read their faq, there are things which make the order
more expensive than Dell for example:
http://www.cgallery.com/faqs.html
"What is your return policy? What if I'm not happy w/ my new PC? In an
effort
to keep our prices low, we have an "all sales are final" policy. If
there is
a problem with your PC, we will do everything in our power to make it
right."
In other words, there is NO legally binding contract to service your PC
once
it's sold. I've been burned before by this. Sometimes stores will off
load their bad parts on customers that aren't doing business close to
them, because they know they won't bother to take legal action because
of the cost
of suing them.
With Dell at least I get a legally binding service contract included
with
the PC.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:10:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
>> It's belaboring the point the mlw made a silly statement about
>> having to reboot to remove TCP/IP in windows (presumably implying
>> that you don't have to in Linux, which was wrong).
> Reboot Linux to remove tcp/ip?
Well, technically, he's right. Unlike IPX or Appletalk, TCP/IP
support can't be compiled as a module, thus you need to switch kernels
if you wish to have it removed.
I can't imagine why anybody would want to dynamically insert or remove
it, though. You certainly can *disable* it without rebooting, and you
can remove extra services (sockets, tunneling, etc) and network card
drivers dynamically.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:33:29 GMT
<snip>
> False.
> TPC tests include TCO for five years, Win2K is still the clear winner in
> *both* price *and* performance.
> If you think that you can reach one tenth of the level that the Win2K
> cluster did with a 10,000$ linux machine, than you are mad.
> Win2K broke performance records, Linux isn't even a runner-up.
> Beside, even assuming that Linux is 1000% more than Win2K, which it isn't,
> you would *still* not be able to reach that level with a 10,000$ linux
> machine.
> Doubling your price just in case.
>
>
<unnecessary crap>
Then why does Google (the engine behind yahoo) use a cluster of Linux
Servers? By your logic, they should be using Windows 2000 as it gives a
so-called "performance advantage" over Linux. Since they donot use
Windows 2000, it definately proves your theory incorrect and misleading.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:37:23 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > Note that these "more accurate counts" are only happening in largely
> > Democratic counties, and even specific precincts in those counties. If
> > we had a full state-wide recount (which we shouldn't have had any hand
> > recounts in the first place, since the law has yet to allow for them in
> > Florida) we would find that Bush is still the winner.
>
> If one assumes that erroneous counts are truly random, then a recount
> in any given precinct would only rarely change the results. Of course,
> this assumes that the precincts are large enough that extremes in either
> direction are unlikely.
>
> So, when you say that a full recount would yield Bush still being the
> winner, you are almost certainly right. However, the same statement
> can be made about a Dade-only recount, though the certainty of being
> right would be a little less, since smaller numbers are involved.
>
> > In Duval county, a Republican stronghold, almost 30,000 ballots were
> > thrown out due to the same things the Democrats are complaining about
> > in Dade and Broward. Why aren't the Dems concerned with those votes
getting
> > counted?
>
> Because it is the Republican's job to follow up on their interests.
> Furthermore, if the place is a Republican stronghold, perhaps the tally
> for the Republicans was so high that the results of 30,000 votes would
> not change the total result in Duval county.
>
> > Please don't fall for the Democrat mantra that all votes must count,
they're
> > just interested in counting enough selective ballots to give them the
victory
> > and sweep all the other Bush ballots under the rug.
>
> No, they're just hoping that Lady Luck will somehow uncover enough more
Gore
> votes. The odds are against it.
Lady Luck and Lady poke the dimple when no-one is looking.
>
> > Let us not also forget about the 60,000 ballots in Oregon, 40,000+ in
New
> > Mexico, 100,000+ in Iowa and 85,000+ in Wisconsin. Not to mention the
> > several hundred cited, documented, proven incidents of Democratic fraud
> > in Milwaukee alone that cost Bush thousands of votes and would've
enabled
> > him to win the state.
>
> You've been listening to Rush, ain't ya?
I get most of it the same place HE does...The AP NewsWire. Anything of his I
can't verify through a reliable source gets ignored.
>
> > Shall we talk about the 5,000 felons in Florida who voted for Gore?
>
> Jumpin' off the deep end, here!
>
> > Or the 30,000+ illegal alien Mexicans who voted in California?
>
> Whom did they vote for? Says who?
You know damned well who they voted for - The party that very recently
campained to get their illegal status overturned. They weren't interested in
creating new citizens either...They were manufacturing constituents. The
Democrats in Oklahoma did similar ass-kissing in even small county elections
in 1992. (I was there and an active campaigner for a Democratic sheriff and
also helped with a Ft. Smith, Arkansas benefit for then Gov.Clinton's
presidential race. I completely abandoned the party in 1993 after the
experience.
>
> > Or
> > the 60,000+ deceased democrats who voted nation-wide (probably more)?
>
> Another unsubstantiated guess, with a gratuitous "probably" thrown in.
I'm willing to bet the same number of mortally-challenged Republicans voted
in the same manner. I may be a moderate Republican these days, but i'm also
realistic...
>
> > What about the 50,000+ aliens who were expedited through the
> > nationalization process (which usually takes 10+ years) in 5 months
> > to vote for Democrats in Washington and New York?
>
> So now government efficiency is wrong <grin>?
Read comments regarding California voting Mexicans posted above and use your
head!
>
> > Whenever I hear a Democrat spout sanctimony, it makes me sick because
> > they are so corrupt, so foul, and break every conceivable law and ones
> > that haven't even been written yet to foul the whole election process.
>
> When someone speaks about a group having some horrible features, lumping
> all instances of individuals in that group with the word "they", you
> know that the speaker has turned off his or her mind. In fact, the
> strength of your vituperation shows that you're either angry or crazy.
> Look at some famous enemies in history:
>
> Republicans/Democrats
> Hindus/Moslems
> Catholics/Protestants
>
> The angry words and calumny fly thick and fast, yet the differences
> between the two groups are essentially without significance.
The Hindu and Moslem faiths are VASTLY different and contradict one another.
You can measure the bad blood there in millenia. It won't change either.
You forgot Jews/Moslems. Same thing there plus a property dispute to boot.
It'll be solved when one of them ceases to exist. Peace keeping efforts do
little more than keep the oil flowing.
Catholocism and Protestant reform factions differ on many levels. Mostly
trivial ones. The lines of distinction are bluring, though. (Cmon' John
Paul...Let'em wrap their John Thomases...This isn't the middle ages
anymore!) I'm Baptist (Of Sorts) and therefore ignore most of it. So do my
Catholic friends.
Republicans and Democrats CAN heal. Republicans have either tossed or lost a
number of their wackos already (Jesse Helms (Bigotted White Trash), Newt
Gingrich (Asshole), Moral Majority (Contradiction Extremis), Pat Buchannon
(We rented out your room, so don't even think about coming back), and other
ultra right wingers) Its' the Democrats' turn, now, to get rid of THEIR
wackos. (The list is LARGE). It could be done. Centrist ideologies on both
sides agree on many basic things. There'll always be a bit of tension when
the over-all ROLE of Government is debated. They survived it in the past.
They can survive it now. I think the emergence of viable third party
candidates will bitch slap both sides into action.
>
> > > Gore owes it to those who voted for him to keep fighting until there
> > > is actually good evidence that he is not rightful winner.
> >
> > Which ones? The felons? The illegal aliens? The dead people? or the
> > incompetent elderly who couldn't punch through the hole?
>
> All the people in America, you dolt.
....But mostly the felons, aliens, stiffs, and codgers. <g>
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:37:58 GMT
Well, if thats your bag baby, the thats just groovy :)
kiwiunixman
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Michael Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90cn3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> It might be fast if you're running it on a gigabuck server, but put linux
>
> on
>
>> the same machine and it will blow Windows right out of the water. As far
>
> as
>
>> desktop OS is concerned, have you ever tried running Windows NT/2000 on a
>> pentium classic with 32 megs of RAM? If you have, I'm sure you fell in
>
> love
>
>> with that spinning hourglass cursors and a bunch of blue screens. Linux,
>
> on
>
>> the other hand, would run just fine on that system.
>
>
> That depends entirely on what you're doing. For instance, I'm running Linux
> Mandrake 7.2 on a P200 mmx with 64MB and it takes >30 seconds to open a copy
> of Netscape, not to mention that even opening copies of Konqueror take
> upwards of 10-15 seconds. Opening the terminal program takes 10 seconds.
> Virtually everything makes me wait. Of course there's no wait cursor while
> it's doing this, so I'm just left fiddling my thumbs not knowing if it's
> actually loading or not.
>
> I don't call that "just fine".
>
>
>> Linux might be difficult to set up if you're attempting to install some
>> hacker distribution such as slackware or jurix. Mandrake and RedHat,
>> however, are as easy to install as Windows9X, which, in turn, is much
>
> easier
>
>> to set up that NT/2000.
>
>
> 2000 is simple to setup. In fact, it asks for nearly no information. Why
> do you criticize things you've never obviously used?
>
>
>> I don't recollect anybody talking about the rest of the industry. Are you
>> trying to tell me that windows nt, will al the money-sucking upgrades,
>
> will
>
>> still be cheaper that linux in the long run? All right Chad, now's my turn
>> to ROFL.
>
>
> Cost of the software is less than 10% of the total cost of running a system.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 10:44:15 GMT
<snip, whats the point of quoting ya own post?>
> A lot of people wanting to get that Ultra Sparc box.
> This makes 3 I believe who've expressed a desire.
>
> Since Red Hat is no longer supporting it, you
> can use Debian.
>
> Charlie
A Sun Sparc Machine from xsnet.com costs around $1595 w/o screen (around
+$300 for p&p), I am not concerned if I can/can't use Linux. I will be
getting it with Solaris as all my development tools (I have been given)
are for Solaris (either x86 or Sparc). However, an O2 would be tempting
as I also like doing a bit of music and video work as well (tried it on
my p3 with Windows 2000 (+128MB RAM), just doesn't cut the mustard in
pure processor grunt).
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:42:08 +0200
"Michael Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90f3uc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> None of the sites you mentioned are running Win2K, unless Win2K happens to
> be WinNT4.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=commprj.nosc.mil
(Win2K)
Win2K is new OS, give it time.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:45:33 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sqDW5.29923$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90ebn3$smj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > Just read the guides first.
> >
> > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it is that
> > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the installation.
> > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive action, you
get
> a
> > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the most
dangerous
> > thing that you can do to your computer?
>
> Are you sure about that? I can't remember exactly which steps I used
> on which distribution, but I am sure that I went through a workstation
> and server install to see what you get and before it changed the
partitions
> it issued a warning about losing all contents on the hard disks. That
> could have been Mandrake, or perhaps you used some unusual modes
> expert/text, etc. that exposed a bug.
Yes, I'm sure of it.
A Server Installation in RedHat will wipe out every last bit of data you've
on your system and will take it, without a *single warning*.
I've used the most common settings.
Except from spsifying my ram, after I discovered what it did, I went to the
redhat site, they mention it in their docs.
I wonder why they are so lazy that they can't put a simple warning box.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:47:13 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it is that
> > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the installation.
> > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive action, you
get a
> > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the most
dangerous
> > thing that you can do to your computer?
>
> I guess RedHat should pop up a long box telling the user about the
> intent of a Server Installation.
No, just a simple box telling them that server install will reformat
everything in the system.
That is common sense.
> On the other hand, due to hacking I've had to install server stuff (using
> custom install, though) so many times that the effort became minimal.
Custom installation lets you spesify where you want to put linux, how much
the swap partition will be, and what HDs to touch and what HD not to touch.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
