Linux-Advocacy Digest #649, Volume #30 Mon, 4 Dec 00 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is awful ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is awful ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Matthew Soltysiak)
Re: windoze is awful ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Linux is awful (Adam Schuetze)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows review ("Christopher L. Estep")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 16:31:03 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Tom Wilson writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You'd be surprised....
> >>>>>>>>>>> Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> We're talking about intuition, not incompetence.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Put an electric appliance in front of somebody who has never
> >>>>>>>>> used an electric appliance before, and you'll learn that there
> >>>>>>>>> is absolutely NOTHING intuitive about on/off switches.
>
> >>>>>>>> Once again, you're hypothesizing a situation that precludes
> >>>>>>>> intuition.
>
> >>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>> Note: still no response.
>
> >> Note: still no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>> They are merely FAMILIAR, not intuitive.
>
> >>>>>>>> How is an electric appliance familiar to someone who has never
> >>>>>>>> used an electic appliance before?
>
> >>>>>>> PRECISELY,
>
> >>>>>> Precisely why your analogy fails. You're going outside the relevant
> >>>>>> group, namely those who use electrical appliances. Just because some
> >>>>>> hypothetical "primitive tribesman" won't find a power switch intuitive
> >>>>>> doesn't mean that nobody can find a power switch to be intuitive.
> >>>>>> Familiarity does not have to be universal before something can be
> >>>>>> intuitive to someone.
>
> >>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>> I've explained it 5 times already, you shit-head.
>
> >> Your so-called "explanation" consists of invective, Aaron, not a logical
> >> argument.
>
> > Deliberately ignoring information presented
>
> Where have I allegedly done that, Aaron? I've exposed the holes in your
> so-called "proof". The remainder of your postings have consisted of
> invective, not "information".
>
> > is NOT victory,
>
> Irrelevant, given that victory hasn't been declared, Aaron.
>
> > shit-for-brains.
>
> As usual, the expected invective, and no logical argument from you.
>
> >>>>>>> shit-head
>
> >>>>>> You must really be hurting for a logical argument.
>
> >>>>> Just commenting on your inability to comprehend a logical argument.
>
> >>>> What alleged inability? You're the one who hasn't comprehended my
> >>>> logical argument, and you've not offered any counterargument, just
> >>>> immature invective.
>
> >>> PLease get a doctor to reroute your rectum away from your cranium.
>
> >> Another one of your so-called "explanations". Practice what you preach,
> >> Aaron.
>
> > This explanation is only about why you have failed to understand
> > the previous explanation.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who has failed to understand the
> holes in the so-called "explanation" that I identified. Using your
> reasoning, nothing can be intuitive.
Pretending that the argument doesn't exist is NOT victory, doofus.
You're still THE STUPIDEST person I've ever come across on the Internet
in 12 years.
Did you go see the doctor for that cranial rectumotomy like I suggested?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 16:32:32 -0500
"Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:905iu0$1coo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 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.
>
> That is precisely the fatal flaw in Linux, and why it will NEVER take over
> the majority of desktops: the steep learning curve. Compared to Linux, NT 4
You really are dense.
It doesn't get "difficult" until you try to do things that aren't even
POSSIBLE on a LoseDOS machine.
> has next to no learning curve (and Windows 2000 has even less), which makes
> them drop-dead simple for businesses to adopt (Comcast Cable Communications
> is the third-largest cable company in the US, and is all either NT 4 or
> Windows 2000, from server closet to CAE desktop) or individuals (@Home is
> the ONLY cable modem Internet service that supported Windows 2000 from
> Launch Day).
>
> True, Linux has made major strides in everything from application support to
> hardware support, but the learning curve is worse than that for Windows NT;
> FAR worse. The learning curve for Windows 2000 is, to some extent, easier
> than that for 9x (and FAR easier than that for NT 4), and that for Whistler
> is planned to be easier still. Can Linux fix this without alienating the
> techies who love Linux BECAUSE of the steep learning curve?
>
> Christopher L. Estep
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[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, 04 Dec 2000 21:34:43 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:40EV5.27466$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Eric Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Y8BV5.100202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >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.
> >
>
> No it isn't, even when it works. Try installing an NT as a dual boot
along
> with an existing Win95 on a FAT32 disk.
NT 4 would simply laugh at you. Windows 2000 will install just as nicely
(and into the empty partition). This has to do with the OS Loader that
ships with each OS. OS Loader 4 did NOT support FAT32 (then again, neither
did NT 4). OS Loader 5 (and Windows 2000) support FAT32 natively. You can
even install Windows 95/98, then Windows 2000, then UPGRADE the 9x partition
to ME, without wrecking the loader or either OS. Linux (and lilo) won't let
you upgrade the non-Linux partition without rebuilding the MBR (the ONLY
exception to this involves, naturally, 9x (or ME)/2000/Linux triple-boot
setups involving both lilo AND the OS Loader, where lilo chooses between the
MS OSes and Linux, and the OS Loader chooses between the Microsoft OSes).
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 21:45:40 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
> >
> > kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Or you can just get a real OS with a real windowing and display
> > > > system that support advanced font rendering, color correction,
> > > > aliasing or anti-, etc.
> > > >
> > > > -Chad
> > >
> > > or chad, you could go and fuck yourself and your winbox.
> > >
> > > kiwiunixman
> >
> > So....anything else you like to add? Childish name calling and cussing
> > isn't
> > gonna get you anywhere. You should realize that, newbie.
>
> You should really get a doctor to remove your rectum
> from your cranium.
>
And you should refrain from using childish comments. You're # 79 in this
group to act stupid. Btw, Aaron, i take it you took people's advice to cut
down the extra crap.. Good little boy. Looks like you listen afterall.
--
Matthew Soltysiak
Carleton U
Comp Sci/Soft Eng.
icq: 3063118
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: windoze is awful
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 21:52:54 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90bhbc$jfes$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Adam Majer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > NT & installing hardware go along quite easily with words like
> "hellspawn"
> > > and "WTF!!!"
> > > Try 2000, if it offered nothing else to top NT, it would still be
worth
> > > going to it *just* for this reason alone.
> >
> >
> > Just to add to windoze bashing ,win2k proff. is suppose to be the _MOST_
> > stable windoze ever released by M$. Well, :) it crashes about every
> > 30min when running unstable software. I never thought that an OS should
> > be affected by the user software that it runs - Linux _never_ dies on me
> > like that [running 3 yrs now and zero crashes :-]
>
> A> Win 2K Pro. is certainly not supposed to be the most stable windows
ever
> released by MS. For this, look at Win2K DataCenter.
> B> Did you checked with support? Do you've correct, WQL, drivers? What
> software do you run?
A. The stability of ANY OS depends to a VERY large part on the software
that it runs and the interaction of said software with the OS.
Windows 2000 Professional IS the most stable flavor of Windows for DESKTOPS
(not only per Microsoft, but per Dataquest, Maximum PC, CNET, et. alia.).
It supports more productivity (and NON-productivity) software than Windows
NT 4 (and almost as much as Windows 9x/ME).
B. Finding (and downloading) properly certified WHQL drivers is more of a
pain than it should be; however, this is NOT Microsoft's fault. Some
vendors will go to all the trouble of developing certified drivers, then
hide them in the labyrinthine world of the Web.
Case in point: Xirlink C-IT PC Camera, Models XVP 500/510/710. WHQL
certified drivers for this USB camera exist (so says Microsoft's HCL and
Xirlink's own Website). However, the drivers are on a "sidepage" that is
NOT mentioned ANYWHERE (specifically,
http://www.xirlink.com/ibmpccamera/drivers.htm). There is no link to said
drivers (except from http://www.xirlink.com/ibmpccamera).
Xirlink FORBADE MS to link to that page from the Web edition of the HCL
(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/hcl). Xirlink also forbade MS from
keeping a copy of the drivers on their FTP server (though MS IS allowed to
keep a copy of the non-certified 9x drivers on the FTP server). I have
complained (LOUDLY) to Xirlink about this, and when this camera breaks, I
will NOT buy another from the company (who also makes such cameras under the
Options by IBM brand). It's safe to say that there are no Linux drivers for
this camera, either.
Finding WHQL drivers IS difficult. Finding Linux drivers can often be
impossible.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Schuetze)
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
Reply-To: adam at adam-schuetze dot org
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 21:56:42 GMT
On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 21:04:39 GMT, Christopher L. Estep
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is precisely the fatal flaw in Linux, and why it will
> NEVER take over the majority of desktops: the steep learning
> curve.
I don't see this as a flaw.
Who ever said linux should take over the majority of desktops
anyway? Linux is for people who want to learn about their
computer, not for the masses who couldn't care less.
A lot of people keep saying that it's a flaw. I don't get it.
If something is really really easy to use (read: weak), then it
wasn't worth using in the first place.
I think that if Linux ever became as luser friendly as windows,
I would probably find something else to tinker with.
I see this as a feature of linux that sets it apart from all the
lamer-just-follow-the-instructions-we-know-whats-best-for-you
operating systems.
GASP! You actually must know whats going on to use the system
to it's potential!
Perish the thought that the user may be educated in the ways of
his equipment.
Much better if the users remain stupid, and do not have to learn
anything.
Much better indeed.
If you can't see the sarcasm, look again. It's there.
--
Adam Schuetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Get my pgp keys at http://www.adam-schuetze.org
- pgp fingerprints -
rsa: B8 80 DA D6 BB CA 80 5F C5 68 1C 08 FE 3E 65 1C
dss: 46 CB B3 C3 A1 C9 BA 57 7C B4 A1 6A BF 8F 2D 95 2B 7A 1D 77
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[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, 04 Dec 2000 22:13:42 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90eanq$tels$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> My milage is indeed different.
> Why on earth would you restart the whole machine just because a service
has
> died on you?
> There is *no need* to do that if a service crushed, you simply restart it,
> at worse, you've to stop or terminate it, and then start it again.
> And on 2000, you can go to Administrator Tools>Services, and get a very
nice
> MMC that display all the services, allows you to stop/start/restart/pause
> every service which run on the computer.
Also, if you use Roaming Profiles, you can even admin the servers from ANY
NT box (not necessarily "yours").
Setting up roaming profiles is distressingly easy even if you DON'T use
Active Directory (you simply need a sensibly structured domain tree, which,
by the by, makes migration to AD a no-brainer).
As far as MMC goes, it is even included with the Windows 98 and ME Resource
Kits (and CAN be used to remotely admin NT boxes) and Diskeeper Workstation
6.0 (which means you can even start/stop services from 9x boxes) as long as
the service is remoteable (and most NT/2000 services ARE remotely
startable/stoppable).
Further, we had best start getting used to talking about "services",
because, starting with Diskkeeper 6, there are services in 9x as well (you
heard right; Diskkeeper 6 runs in 9x as a service, identically to the way it
runs on NT and 2000). Quite honestly, I consider this a GOOD thing, because
the service-based model is lots easier to deal with than the DLL model
common in 9x (not surprisingly, DK6 is lots more stable on 9x than DK 5,
which was the first cross-OS version).
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:05:36 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>> Tom Wilson writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd be surprised....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The power switch is NOT "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof: put a primative tribesman in a room with electric appliances
>>>>>>>>>>>> and tell him to start the things into operation.
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm in agreement.
>>>>>>>>>> You shouldn't be. His example doesn't represent proof for a power
>>>>>>>>>> switch not being intuitive.
>>>>>>>>> I'm agreeing that my choice of "idiot" was wrong.
>>>>>>>> But Aaron didn't say that your choice of "idiot" was wrong.
>>>>>>> He did that very thing by intimating the situation to be a question of
>>>>>>> intuitiveness as opposed to stupidity.
>>>>>> He didn't even intimate that situation. He simply repeated his claim
>>>>>> that the power switch is not intuitive, and then tried to offer some
>>>>>> proof for that claim.
>>>>>>>>> The hypothesis, strange as it is, points it out. It's a matter of
>>>>>>>>> experience and environment, not intellect.
>>>>>>>> "Experience" is the word I used for it. Someone else chose "familiarity".
>>>>>>>>> I used the word idiot because I had been trouble-shooting over
>>>>>>>>> the phone to complete morons that evening and had a dim view of
>>>>>>>>> humanity as a result.
>>>>>>>> Someone who couldn't find the "any" key on the keyboard?
>>>>>>> Worse. This was an professional moron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An old Novell customer who consistantly forgets his Administrator password.
>>>>>>> He's STILL running Novell 3.12 which is good, in a way, because you can hack
>>>>>>> into console debug mode and trick it into believing all system passwords
>>>>>>> have time-expired. That way he can log on as Administrator and get prompted
>>>>>>> for a new one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever tried to talk someone, who constantly interrupts and thinks he knows
>>>>>>> everything, through hacking Novell from the debug console?
>>>>>> No; I don't know anyone who hacks through Novell debug consoles.
>>>>>>> I would have done it myself, but, he lives 600 miles away.
>>>>>> Behind a firewall?
>>>>>>>>>>> The language I used, in hindsight, was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't justify your agreement.
>>>>>>>>> How do you figure? I was agreeing that my wording was off track and
>>>>>>>>> Aaron's post had pointed that out.
>>>>>>>> Aaron's post wasn't pointing to your wording. He was simply repeating
>>>>>>>> his claim that the power switch was not intuitive.
>>>>>>> He was pointing to my wording's intent - That it was a question of
>>>>>>> intellegence.
>>>>>> Where did he do that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AK] The power switch is NOT "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>> Read: Never underestimate the ignorance factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I used "idiot" because i'ts been one of those nights...
>>>>>>>>>> Go to the store. Buy a lamp. Take it home. Do you consult a manual
>>>>>>>>>> to find out what to do with the cord? I hope not. Yet the
>>>>>>>>>> hypothesized "primative tribesman" could have no idea what the cord
>>>>>>>>>> is for. Does that prove that the power cord is not intuitive?
>>>>>>>>> Oh for God's sake!
>>>>>>>> Which presupposes the existence of God.
>>>>>>> Yep, you're anal....
>>>>>> An illogical conclusion.
>>>>>>>>> His hypothesis was extreme, yes. However, it makes a valid point
>>>>>>>>> regarding experience.
>>>>>>>> On the contrary, it ignores the essential element of intuitive design,
>>>>>>>> which involves experience with similar items. If someone states something
>>>>>>>> about trees, you don't go to a desert and then proclaim the statement
>>>>>>>> about trees to be wrong.
>>>>>>> You watched a lot of Kung Fu as a kid, didn't you?
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> You sound like a fortune cookie.
>>>>>> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
>>>>>>>>> You're bordering on anal retention, i'm afraid.
>>>>>>>> How ironic.
>>>>> Tholen..you really need to see a doctor.
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>>>>> Your anus needs is currently depositing waste material
>>>>> where your brain should be.
>>>> Even more invective. But of course: where's the logical argument?
>>> I've given it to you FIVE TIMES already, asshole.
>> Invective five times does not make a logical argument, Aaron.
> Neither does ignoring the argument presented for as many days, Dave.
Where did I allegedly ignore the argument presented, Aaron? I've
explained to you several times now that just because something isn't
necessarily intuitive to one person does not automatically make it
not intuitive to someone else.
> You're still THE STUPIDEST person I've ever come across on the Internet
> in 12 years.
Inoccrect; you have come across yourself, haven't you?
> Did you go see the doctor for that cranial rectumotomy like I suggested?
See what I mean about how you resort to invective when you lack a
logical argument?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[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, 04 Dec 2000 22:20:49 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90fvo2$11url$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why didn't IBM put same/higher machines to the test?
They have put higher-power machines to the test, and even in a straight-up
comparison (DB2 on Datacenter Server compared to Micosoft SQL Server on
Datacenter Server), SQL Server cleaned DB2's clock, even though DB2 on
Datacenter Server holds the TPC-C record for all DB2 setups.
You heard right. DB2 on Datacenter Server racks up a higher TPC-C than DB2
on S-390.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:08:06 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Wilson writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You'd be surprised....
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We're talking about intuition, not incompetence.
>>>>>>>>>>> Put an electric appliance in front of somebody who has never
>>>>>>>>>>> used an electric appliance before, and you'll learn that there
>>>>>>>>>>> is absolutely NOTHING intuitive about on/off switches.
>>>>>>>>>> Once again, you're hypothesizing a situation that precludes
>>>>>>>>>> intuition.
>>>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>>> Note: still no response.
>>>> Note: still no response.
>> Note: still no response.
Note: still no response.
>>>>>>>>>>> They are merely FAMILIAR, not intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>> How is an electric appliance familiar to someone who has never
>>>>>>>>>> used an electic appliance before?
>>>>>>>>> PRECISELY,
>>>>>>>> Precisely why your analogy fails. You're going outside the relevant
>>>>>>>> group, namely those who use electrical appliances. Just because some
>>>>>>>> hypothetical "primitive tribesman" won't find a power switch intuitive
>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that nobody can find a power switch to be intuitive.
>>>>>>>> Familiarity does not have to be universal before something can be
>>>>>>>> intuitive to someone.
>>>>>> Note: no response.
>>>>> I've explained it 5 times already, you shit-head.
>>>> Your so-called "explanation" consists of invective, Aaron, not a logical
>>>> argument.
>>> Deliberately ignoring information presented
>> Where have I allegedly done that, Aaron? I've exposed the holes in your
>> so-called "proof". The remainder of your postings have consisted of
>> invective, not "information".
>>> is NOT victory,
>> Irrelevant, given that victory hasn't been declared, Aaron.
Note: no response.
>>> shit-for-brains.
>> As usual, the expected invective, and no logical argument from you.
Note: no response.
>>>>>>>>> shit-head
>>>>>>>> You must really be hurting for a logical argument.
>>>>>>> Just commenting on your inability to comprehend a logical argument.
>>>>>> What alleged inability? You're the one who hasn't comprehended my
>>>>>> logical argument, and you've not offered any counterargument, just
>>>>>> immature invective.
>>>>> PLease get a doctor to reroute your rectum away from your cranium.
>>>> Another one of your so-called "explanations". Practice what you preach,
>>>> Aaron.
>>> This explanation is only about why you have failed to understand
>>> the previous explanation.
>> How ironic, coming from the person who has failed to understand the
>> holes in the so-called "explanation" that I identified. Using your
>> reasoning, nothing can be intuitive.
> Pretending that the argument doesn't exist
Where have I allegedly pretended that your "primitive tribesman"
argument doesn't exist, Aaron? On the contrary, I acknowledged
its existence by explaining the flaws in your reasoning.
> is NOT victory, doofus.
Irrelevant, given that victory hasn't been declared, Aaron.
> You're still THE STUPIDEST person I've ever come across on the Internet
> in 12 years.
Incorrect; you have come across yourself, haven't you?
> Did you go see the doctor for that cranial rectumotomy like I suggested?
See what I mean about how you resort to invective when you lack a
logical argument?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 22:27:13 GMT
"Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:906o5q$[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.
I used to run Windows 95+Office 95 on a 386DX-40 with 4 (later, 8) MB of RAM
and a 420 MB hard drive. It would do okay with 4 MB if I wasn't running
Access 95 (I upgraded to 8 MB for precisely that reason), but I could run
multiple copies of Word/Excel/PowerPoint without a hitch, even in just 4 MB.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
