Linux-Advocacy Digest #718, Volume #30 Thu, 7 Dec 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows review ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Microsoft , makers of what ? ("the_blur")
Re: Microsoft , makers of what ? ("the_blur")
Re: Dumbing down linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B6=B6=B6=B6=B6=B6_PLEASE_READ_=B6=B6=B6=B6=B6=B6?= (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (JM)
Re: OS Installation Help? (JM)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Microsoft , makers of what ? (Mig)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux is awful ("PistolGrip")
Re: Whistler review. (Glitch)
Re: Linux is awful (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Mig)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:13:21 -0500
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:sPDX5.64153$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 02:54:55 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Grandpappy could care less about the command line. From the GUI, he can
> do
> > >all his work, he can copy, rename, print, delete, backup and restore
> files,
> > >he can browse the web, he can get e-mail and news, he can do every single
> > >task he actually needs to do. So what benefit is there in learning the
> > >command line for him?
> >
> >
> > What are you trying to prove with this argument?
>
> The original quote I was responding to: "But even if you're a new user, it's
> still worth taking the time to learn how to use the command line."
>
> Now, what benefit does the command line offer Grandpappy, as a new user?
Which is easier:
a) opening 50 documents, one at a time, trying to find which one
references a specific peculiar topic...
or
B) grep _keyword_ [*.document_files]
> Answer: it doesn't do a thing for him that he isn't already doing, via the
> GUI, in a manner he's comfortable with, so there is absolutely no reason
> whatsoever for him to learn it. Therefore the original statement is
> incorrect as stated; were it limited to a smaller subset of new users, such
> as those intending to be programmers, sysadmins, and so forth, perhaps it
> would be correct.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft , makers of what ?
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:14:53 -0500
Your news reader is...
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
You're so full of bullshit, I'm afraid if I listen to you any longer, I'll
get smeared. STFU until you use the platform you advocate.
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Microsoft , makers of what ?
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:16:43 -0500
> And I am also against that every time that leaves a good game as Unreal,
> Quake2, Duke Nukem Forever, be only available for Windows; when
> will we see versions of these games for Linux, FreeBSD?
When these OSes have a proper gaming API, and more than 2.5% market share.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dumbing down linux?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:24:47 -0500
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have read a few things on this group and I am curious. There seems to
> >be a consensus that RedHat is dumbing down Linux. I am using it, and it
> >has all the things I need. I can still configure it from vi when I need
> >too. It doesn't seem to be missing things from previous releases, with
> >the exception of "glint" and I don't think I've seen that since 5.2.
> >
> >KDE and Gnome have added a lot of more <euphemism> user friendly
> ></euphemism> applets, but it is not as if they are replacing more hard
> >core tools with the prettier ones. They are simply adding.
> >
> >So how are they "dumbing it down?"
>
> Don't know about dumbing down... except the feel I get with a new
> install is helplessness. It is too automatic and not so obvious to find
> things that go awry. Maybe that's what they are talking about... the
> installation _is_ more like W that it used to be.
>
> But then... do a "top" on your KDE system and tell us how much memory
> the X server takes up. Mine with fvwm2 is about 16M (was 13.7... do
> thes things really grow?). A bit too big but not enough to make my code
> swap. A few daemons take 1M+ and the xterms (bloat!) take up 2M+.
> My turbulence code takes 230M at full resolution (80 hours for a single
> run... this approaches usability).
Ares both your data and home directory locally mounted?
During one of my stints with GM, I was working in an engineering
analysis group. One of the guys got flow-master, and it was
taking approx 48 hours per run
User was on an HP J9000, with an extra 2GB disk for scratch space,
Flowmaster executables on another HP (nfs mounted), and his home
directory on an sgi (also nfs mounted).
When we moved the executables to the local machine, the run-time
dropped to 2 hours. When we move his home dir to the HP, his
run-time dropped to 4 minutes.
>
> I did SuSE 6.4 but had to fiddle with lilo to get it to see all the
> memory. The PATH and MANPATH are still broken in the system defaults.
> I guess the people who wrote these files do not agree with the Linux
> manpath function.
>
> --
> cu,
> Bruce
> drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
> sign the Linux Driver Petition: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: 7 Dec 2000 19:38:56 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:24:22 GMT, Swangoremovemee wrote:
>Would anyone but nerds be interested?
That's a dumbass question. It's not commercial, so who knows ? I suppose
there'd probably be less interest, because there was need for a free OS,
but there are already good commercial UNIX versions (such as Solaris).
If it was commercial, it would have probably taken a completely different
path (for example, they wouldn't have targetted the desktop)
Solaris is doing OK as a commercial UNIX. Despite a rocky couple of months,
SUNW still has a PE ratio at 70.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=B6=B6=B6=B6=B6=B6_PLEASE_READ_=B6=B6=B6=B6=B6=B6?=
Date: 7 Dec 2000 19:40:24 GMT
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 06:50:46 -0800 (PST), \(\(\(\(Arteeria\)\)\)\) wrote:
>
I guess it'd be asking too much to expect better from a webTV user
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:16:33 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 14:56:25 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 08:05:26 GMT, tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Check this out. NOW in trying to open the pdf's of the ebooks that
>>came with Mandrake, neither Xpdf nor gv will open them because of some
>>problem with the books' encryption?!? This is giving me a headache.
>>
>>Tom
>Get used to it because you seem to be discovering already that simple
>tasks under Windows become adventures under Linux.
>After you wade through all of the documentation your eyesight will be
>even worse than it is now.
>Swango
You were the queer who posted hundreds of lines of the same phrase
cut/pasted over and over again. Therefore, you are not worth anyone's
attention.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Subject: Re: OS Installation Help?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:16:35 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 17:02:07 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:22:54 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >Can't find the dimensions my suppliers website, however, I would say it
>> >would be 4-5cm high.
>>
>> It pisses me off when everyone here goes on about how much RAM they've
>> got and how big their hard disks are and how good their operating
>> systems are etc.
>>
>> They should trying using Windows 98SE on 28MB of RAM on a 3GB hard
>> disk.
>
>Used to use it in 16Mb and a 1.6Gb drive. It is kinda cramped, wot? :)
Emphasis on "used to". I'm still suffering.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[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: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:17:25 -0700
You should have read the whole thread, I'll repeat:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Post
I've been involved with the set up of more than 200 NT Servers, about 5 2000
Servers, and 5 Linux Servers. Most of the NT Servers were at a bank (I was
on their Y2K project).
Not 1 of the NT Servers was up more than 6 weeks. Actually, that's not
true, one SQL Server remained up for 3 months but had to be moved. So I
guess kudos for whomever set up that machine. Some of the rest of the
machines had scheduled reboots anywhere from every night to every couple of
weeks. This was to prevent them crashing in the middle of the day. Most of
the time, they didn't crash, though, it's just that a service died and
couldn't be restarted. I shook with fear everytime I clicked 'Stop' in the
Services Control Panel.
The 2000 Servers fared better, though, I think that on has been up for about
4 months. I'm not really sure, I'm not with that company anymore. But most
of them have had to be rebooted for the same 'dead service' reason. It may
be stable if you NEVER EVER EVER TOUCH IT, but that just doesn' t happen in
the real world.
The Linux Servers are another matter entirely. Never has one of them
crashed. The 1st server I set up has been up for 192 days now. And I've
upgraded the database server, the web server, the ssh server, the dns
server, and the mail server. Nary a reboot. The only times the other's
have been down is to be moved, or someone uplugged them, or a hardware
failure.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Manpower with a machine crashing is a HELL of a lot longer than 5 seconds,
not sure what random hole you pulled that number from. Someone has to
investigate the problem with the machine, take preventive action, check
error logs, make reports, not to mention actually do the reboot, which from
a standing start is much more than 5 seconds. Besides, if you have Windows
boxes that boot in less than 5 seconds, I'm going to raise the bullshit
flag.
As for redundency, yes, there is some redundency for some of the more
critical systems. But of course, all of the really critical systems are on
a mainframe or on Unix boxes. Most machines have no redundency, print
servers, web servers, etc.
And as mentioned before, so that I don't have to repeat it to you, these
machines were initally set up by consultants from Microsoft. So if there
are problems, they are Microsoft's fault primarily.
In all fairness, though, and in the interest of full disclosure, I did
mention that many machines were scheduled for nightly or weekly reboots so
that they never even had a chance to get to 6 weeks. But that does only
account for about half of the machines. Also, for full disclosure, the
machines at the bank did have to coexist with NetWare and NDS, so there can
be stability problems there as well. But machines I've worked with
elsewhere have not fared much better.
I have never seen any evidence that a production Windows box (one that does
actual work) has been up for more than 100 days. I've heard lots of claims,
but never has anyone "put their money where their mouth is". If you know of
such evidence, I'd love to see it.
Many times my boxes went down not because of a crash but because I need to
change a configuration, install an application, or other maintenance issues.
This has been mitigated in W2K, but not wholly.
Adam Ruth
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:glPX5.6691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90oc6t$1rp9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "That isn't good".
> >
> > Allow me to illustrate:
> >
> > 200 servers, max 6 weeks up time = average of 4.76 servers crashing
daily
> > (under the best conditions). Shall we examine the cost in manpower to
> work
> > with those servers? The cost in lost productivity?
>
> Well, I don't know where you get the 6 weeks figure from, nor does it
state
> _why_ the machines are going down after 6 weeks. Hardware failures? Or
do
> they simply need to be rebooted? If the latter, then the total manpower
> necessary to cope with the situation(assuming Win2K) is about 5 seconds
per
> box[1], or less than a minute per day - hardly a big issue on that score.
> Further, when running 200 servers, its very likely there's some redundancy
> happening, so you're probably not losing any productivity, either. All in
> all, pretty much a non-issue... except that your machines should _not_ be
> going down that often; ours don't.
>
>
> [1] The time it takes to signal the box to restart. No need to log on
after
> the restart, ya know.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft , makers of what ?
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:20:10 +0100
the_blur wrote:
> Your news reader is...
>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
>
> You're so full of bullshit, I'm afraid if I listen to you any longer, I'll
> get smeared. STFU until you use the platform you advocate.
Mine is the same... and i dont use Windows... How do you explain that
graphic artist?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 20:25:29 -0000
>too complex to try to be empirical. Dump the monopoly crapware first
>change you get, and wait for the illegal behavior to be rectified.
>
It's not easy to dump monopoly crapware if you work in an office as part
of a team any you are the only one using alternative software - you still
need the ability to read any files created by the rest of the team and
create files they can read - you also need the ability to use the company
document templates.
------------------------------
From: "PistolGrip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:42:17 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:29:31 -0600,
>
> You forgot to mention the rabbits foot in your back pocket.
>
> And your totally full of shit here also EF.
What, you don't think it's possible? I've got one Win98 box that's
currently been running 43 days without a hiccup, now it's a dedicated
machine serving only a
couple purposes, but it *is* possible. Just don't load it up with bloated
apps and dlls.
Then again, the one Linux box has been up for about 60 days so far :)
--
PistolGrip
==========================
http://wasteland-bbs.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:51:31 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
>
> Check it out - ICQ seems to me like it could have been written by
> Microsoft actually... It`s bloated, feature laden..etc..etc..
>
> Messenger is very simple, has a small footprint, and actually looks
> usable and clean - unlike the jazzy mess of ICQ....
that's why anytime i have to reinstall windows (i format the drive
everytime so that nothing is left behind to screw up the new install) i
always install the copy of icq i got a while back. It's icq99b i think,
but not sure. That saves me from not only downloading it again but
downloading only the version they have to download, which is always the
newest version and always bigger than the last. And of course for some
reason they think we need all that shit to send messages to each other.
Why they think we need a search feature when we can just use yahoo or
lycos is beyond me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:48:28 GMT
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:42:17 -0600, PistolGrip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:29:31 -0600,
>>
>> You forgot to mention the rabbits foot in your back pocket.
>>
>> And your totally full of shit here also EF.
>
>What, you don't think it's possible? I've got one Win98 box that's
>currently been running 43 days without a hiccup, now it's a dedicated
>machine serving only a
>couple purposes, but it *is* possible. Just don't load it up with bloated
>apps and dlls.
>
>Then again, the one Linux box has been up for about 60 days so far :)
>--
>PistolGrip
>--------------------------
>http://wasteland-bbs.com
>
The phrase a couple purposes is probably the difference.
In the insurance industry the NT systems we have are running
over 10,000 threads each. And they will sucessfully run
for a solid 24 hours with no problems. But if you go
beyond this, they will crater.
If you take a distribution of Debian Stable you can
run the same test with 10,000 threads and your system
will NEVER GO DOWN. It just NEVER DIES.
There are only three things which make for bad uptime
on a linux box. Your will, the power companies will,
and GOD!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:46:16 +0100
Hello Claire, S, whatever you call yourself.. still using agent i see
Didnt Mandrake 7.2 resolve all your "problems"?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 20:52:30 -0000
>If you're paranoid about login simulators when using possibly unfriendly
linux
>systems, hit c/a/BS first.
Unless the linux system is a server installed without GUI as this is not
needed
on server machines (why install more bloat than is needed for the task).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
