Linux-Advocacy Digest #749, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows review (Goldhammer)
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Anonymous)
Re: What does KDE do after all (Anonymous)
Re: Uptimes strike back (Spicerun)
Re: Whistler review. (Anonymous)
Re: need to open 100 windows ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:39:43 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:52:57 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:13:35 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > "B. P. Uecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >> > > Tom Wilson wrote in
<msGX5.2276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >> [deletia]
> > > >> >> > >The problem with
> > > >> >> > > Linux (aside from the fact that open source development is a
> > black
> > > >> >> > > hole) is that it tries to be everything to everyone and
masters
> > > >> >> > > nothing. It is basically acceptable as a server platform
but
> > > >beyond
> > > >> >> > > its circle of devotees (and dolts who who can do no better
than
> > > >parrot
> > > >> >> > > slashdot) it has no mindshare. Linux on the desktop will
never
> > > >happen
> > > >> >> > > and on the server end it is mainly a toy for easily
distracted
> > > >geeks
> > > >> >> > > who will eventually find another bandwagon to hop on. I
give it
> > > >> >> > > another couple of years before it joins OS/2 in the trash
heap.
> > > >And
> > > >> >> > > I'm a generous man.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Linux will never be a desktop OS - I agree. Those who think
this
> > are
> > > >a
> > > >> >bit
> > > >> >> > deluded.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Why not.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> The entire auto industry (WORLDWIDE) uses Solaris/HP/AIX/IRIX as
a
> > > >> >> desktop OS. VERY successfully...and with minimal support staff
> > > >compared
> > > >> >> to LoseDOS. The ENTIRE Unix desktop support team for GM is 20
> > people
> > > >> >> (not counting on-site hardware techs)....for 5,000-10,000 unix
> > seats.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> In comparison, the same number of Windows seats takes a couple
> > HUNDRED
> > > >> >> windows ADMINS.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I'm not talking the business side of things. I'm talking for home
> > users.
> > > >> >Linux is still very weak in the game department (Performance as
well
> > as
> > > >>
> > > >> So? That's merely a matter of marketshare and has very little
> > > >> to do with the actual attributes of operating systems. Also,
> > > >> WinDOS was at one time in the same place BeOS is now nevermind
> > > >> Linux.
> > > >>
> > > >> >availability). Hardware support has a long way to go yet. This of
> > course
> > > >>
> > > >> Lesse... anandtech linux benchmarks for 3D acceleration
> > > >> with GeForce2, G400, Voodoo5, Ragee 128 and Intel 815.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's not a bad showing actually. While nothing short of the
> > > >> market leader (NT5 included) will 'run everything', that goal
> > > >> really isn't necessary.
> > > >>
> > > >> You're grossly overstating the scope of the problem.
> > > >
> > > >Perhaps so... I just call 'em as I see 'em. Time will tell of course
and
> > I
> > >
> > > You don't see shit.
> >
> > I've seen a lot, kid... And I don't see Linux taking Windoze's place on
the
> > home desktop anytime soon. Inferior as it is, it isn't going to go away.
>
> VMWARE will be the undoing of Windows.
>
> Linux runs continously...LoseDOS crashes at its regular rate.
>
> Eventually, people will stop doing stuff in the LoseDOS windows
> and just do them in a native Linux window.
>From what i've heard, VMware is one hell of a package. I plan to pick up a
copy once I get around to replacing my present box.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:43:41 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 05:30:09 GMT,
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What do you do when you are alternating back and forth between two or
>more long directory paths in a GUI that only remembers one? A cli with
>command recall and edit is faster for me in this common situation.
pushd and popd are also very effective in these cases.
Using GUI file-management programs is excruciating. This applies
to stuff available for X as well. Unfortunately, under the default
installation of Windows, there is little choice, as the command
shell is so utterly braindead. It is quite possible to make a
GUI filemanager look spiffy compared to a command shell by brutally
crippling the shell beyond all hope. Which is exactly the policy
MS decided on long ago.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:48:51 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VrbY5.3970$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:x35Y5.2420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "SwifT -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't know about anyone else, I heard that about the initial
release
> > > > of Win2K, and we have heard the same about every release and SP of
> > > > NT/2K. This game of "The next service pack will be solid" got really
> old
> > > > back in NT 4.0 SP1. Does anyone seriously believe that MS has any
> > > > credibility when it comes to reliability?
> > >
> > > Since SP4, NT4 is stable enough. I bet it will be the same for 2K.
It's
> > > just that 2K isn't ready yet for the big test (unless you pump several
> > > million $'s in it - like Microsoft does).
> >
> > Time will tell, but if history is any indication, 2K will be service
> packed
> > to death the same as its' predecessor. After seeing it for so many
years,
> > I'll have a hard time buying any statements to the contrary.
>
> Hmm.. I guess because the Linux kernel 2.2 has 17 service packs (not to
> mention the thousands of patches to programs and utilities) that Linux
fits
> this as well.
The difference being that most Linux kernel updates are improvements and
additions rather than massive bug fixes disguised as such.
Your move...
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:59:41 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:10:46 -0500;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>[..]
>| Now, it is true that you have to compete when you do it the open source
>
>You mean you spend months or years developing software, GPL, only to
>find that some opportunist starts packaging and distributing your
>software, offering services and making more profit from *your* efforts
>than *you* do?
This is a gedanken experiment, not a business case, Curtis. The fact
is, unless you can use, develop, produce, distribute, or implement your
software competitively (which means cheaper and/or better than others),
then it was pretty stupid of you to waste months or years of your life
building it.
>| way, while current commercial reality allows you to profiteer on
>| copyright code wrapped in a trade secret. But that just guarantees that
>| it isn't competitive software,
>
>Oh? You're going overboard now. The commercial software industry is
>highly competitive at present.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA.
>There's a lot more to the software
>industry than MS Office and Outlook you know.
Not nearly enough more, actually, and I'm not even *close* to going
overboard in noting this. And it isn't Outlook, it's
Outlook/Exchange/IE/IIS. And the alternative is the anti-competitive
GNU codebase. Yea; thriving competition.
>| so when software that supports
>| competition, like GPL code, is included in the market, the trade secret
>| crapware can't possibly keep up, in a free market.
>
>Are the Applixware guys going out of business?
You're presuming free market competition is what determines such things.
The GPL is anti-competitive, in relation to current use of software
copyright. You cannot compete against it. If it were a corporation, it
would be a felony. If the software industry weren't entirely premised
on profiteering and inhibition of production, it would be a bad thing.
>| I don't expect that
>| it will be more than five or six years, tops, before trade secret
>| software is reduced to a niche where it belongs.
>
>That I know is just as wrong as the statement 5 or 6 years ago that
>Linux would have dominated by now.
<*grin*> Well, depending on how you measure such things....
IIRC, the growth rate in Linux as a whole, and even in the desktop
market as well, is probably at least record-breaking over the last five
or six years, in rate if not units.
Here's something shorter term. Next summer, Microsoft is going to be
split up, and will then attempt to shift their monopoly from the Windows
OS to the .NET 'platform'. But Linux desktops are going to be *the*
Christmas gift of 2001, and with any luck, .NET will dry up and blow
aware like the vapor it is.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:59:47 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Dec 2000 09:17:01 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Dec 2000 00:50:42 GMT;
>
>:>that product will be the only one of its kind on the
>:>market, and would thus qualify the company selling it of
>:>"monopolization" in your definition.
>
>: Certainly not. What definition of "monopolization" do you think I've
>: provided that this example would match? Certainly someone who just
>: happens to be first doesn't have the ability to exclude competition, and
>: thus is unable to control prices (the market does that).
>
>That depends on how specific their patents are.
Only if they're trying to use them to monopolize, which is illegal.
Patents don't provide any exclusive access to the market; just exclusive
use of a particular process. Most all processes are substitutable.
>:>This would be true even if
>:>that company did nothing wrong yet. In 1903, the Wright Brothers
>:>were monopolists becuase they built 100% of the working flying
>:>machines in the world, at least according to your definition.
>
>: "The Wright Brothers" wasn't a profit-seeking company, precisely. Try
>: to stick to the real world, please.
>
>I am. I'm trying to show how *being* a monopoly is not yet
>evidence of the crime of anti-competitive monpolization.
Well, I'm afraid that's a doomed effort. It always resolves to playing
semantic games, and I have no taste for that, despite any claims to the
contrary. "Being" a monopoly is defined, in my understanding, as having
been found to be a monopoly by a court of law. They define it as
possessing the power to control prices or exclude competition. This
ability is not possible without anti-competitive action. Competitive
business actions, such as improving your product, improving your
distribution, or increasing efficiency by decreasing costs (and thus
price), don't result in "monopoly power".
According to the Supreme Court, having substantial market share, even as
low as 37%, is evidence in support of monopolization charges.
>It's irrelevant whether such examples are numerous or few.
What's relevant is that, according to the law, once the plaintiff
demonstrates that the defendant has monopoly power, by way of market
share and the ability to (whether practiced or not, though obviously its
a tough sell without some examples of previous conduct or intent)
monopolize, the defendant loses their "presumption of innocence", and
has to actually prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they did not
acquire such power through anti-competitive actions. This is so,
because it is conclusively known that free markets do not tolerate
monopolies.
>All it takes to disprove a blanket statement is one counterexample.
This is incorrect, I'm afraid. All it takes to question a blanket
statement is one supposed counter-example. Proving that it is actually
a counter-example which entirely refutes the statement is quite
something else altogether.
>Your alleged premise (note, I'm not going to call it a fact unless
>you can prove it) that it is *impossible* to attain a majority
>market share without doing something illicit is what I am arguing
>against.
Don't talk to me; talk to Adam Smith. He's the one who laid down the
basic theory, about four centuries ago.
>I will agree that *most* of the time, that's how a
>company gets into such a position, but I'm not about to automatically
>condemn any company that happens to get to that point like you are.
No me; the U.S. Supreme Court.
>Unlike you, I admit that it is actually possible for a company to
>reach that point purely by legit means such as having a good
>product for a fair reasonable, non gouging, non dumping price.
Well "admitting" it is one thing, showing it to be true is something
else entirely.
>You
>seem to be saying that such things are the talk of fantasies and
>fairy tales.
Indeed. So far, that's all you have in support of your contention, so
far as I know. Just a hint, should you choose to rectify your
confusion: in trying to sort out just how it can be that no company can
gain dominant market share without having monopolized, you're going to
trip over the same "definition of the market" that the Supreme Court
did, back in the 1950s. The quintessential decision was the infamous
"cellophane case", in which the court ruled that Du Pont hadn't
monopolized the market, even though they had an overwhelmingly dominant
position in the cellophane market, because the court decided that the
"appropriate market" wasn't only cellophane, but all flexible wraps.
>If you would relax your position from the fanatical "all", to the
>more reasonable "most", then I'd have no problem with it.
That would be like saying "most objects, when unsupported, will drop to
the ground". Sure it'd be true, as a helium balloon will rise, but
that's hardly a coherent example of the premise. The "theory" of
economics is not anywhere near as conclusive or concrete as the "theory"
of gravity, but they do share some aspects in common. They are both
explanations of inalienable rules which empirical observation has proven
to exist. You cannot argue with whether free markets tolerate
monopolies any more than you can argue that supply and demand don't
determine market prices; its just the way the thing works.
>And you also seem to be forgetting that while a fair, open market
>will *TREND* toward more competition, it does not get there
>instantly. Therefore there is a window of time during which a
>company can have a majority position without doing anything wrong.
Now you're the one being idealistic, I think. Yes, in an open fair
market, you can rest assured that competition will immediately appear
for any market opportunity. Particularly as soon as you or anyone else
has shown that it will support a profit.
You confuse having a dominant position amongst producers with having a
dominant position amongst consumers. They are often almost identical,
save, as in your example, in a nascent market. This "window of time"
you reference is where the flaw appears in your assumption they are
identical. Your measurements need to be percentage of potential
consumers, not those who have already purchased the new product or
service.
>Your position is based on the faulty notion that if a company
>engages in no illicit behaviour that the market will instantaneously
>sprout competitors in a matter of minutes.
Thus the term "free market".
>Oh, sure, it will eventually,
>but there is no guarantee as to how fast it will happen.
Precisely. There is no guarantee how fast it will happen; only that it
will happen fast.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:59:52 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said SwifT - in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:12:56
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>> Sockets were developed on 4.3 BSD Unix.
>
>Whatever. It's no reason to call them 'bad'.
>
>> I'm talking about a properly defined syntax for the byte-stream.
>>
>> Any IPC bytestream that can be implemented in sockets can be
>> implemented through pipes.
>
>Actually, if a socket is used for IPC bytestream, it creates pipes. So
>since a socket creates pipes, a socket can't be worser than a pipe (since
>it relies on them).
I'm not sure if I want to jump into another discussion about sockets,
seeing how silly the last one made me look, but I have to point out that
your logic is inverted. Socket's can't be *better* than pipes, if IPC
sockets reduce to pipes. Sockets certainly can be worse. The weak link
in the chain, and all, and there's no reason to believe that pipes would
be that weak link.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:04:27 -0600
Pedro Coto wrote:
> Well, I have been reading a lot about uptimes
> lately and I want to give my little point of view.
>
> As a home user, I turn on and off my machine
> everyday, so a uptime of 1 day should be enough
> (as Gates would say) for me.
Translation: I'm just a dumb Windows user that believes whatever Gates
tells me is good for me.
>What's more,
> I think that even when an OS is able of being
> up for years, the more time it passes, the less
> fresh the system it, by this I mean that disk and
> memory fragmentation,
>
You've lost your credibility for the Following reasons:
1. OSes are not like pickles or potato chips that lose their freshness.
2. You apparently don't know understand why only Windows degrade with time.
3. You obviously know nothing about any OS outside of Windows,
otherwise, you'd know that fragmentation is not an issue with the free
Unices.
4. You're a WinTroll.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 04:00:07 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 01 Dec 2000 07:59:01
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said kiwiunixman in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:53:23
>>>their work has upgraded, hence the new suite file types are not
>>>compatible with the previous release...could all this bloatware be a big
>>>a conspiracy theory....Microsoft colluding with Hard disk, memory and
>>>processor manufacturers. :) so that they (hardware manufacturers) can
>>>sell more of their products.
>>
>>No, I don't think so. There's no collusion, just monopoly.
>>
> I think that you supposing Microsoft is producing bloated code to
> benefit hardware vendors is ignoring an explanation which explains
> Microsoft behavior depending solely on their greed.(At the risk of
> assigning too much animalistic intent to a corporation)
>
> Software does not wear out so once a consumer has purchased what
> he needs to accomplish the tasks desired he has no incentive to buy
> that same software again as long as the hardware holds up.
>
> So lack of repeat sales would reduce Microsoft revenues drastically
> but this has not happened. Now comes the preload monopoly which
> makes sure that even people who already own their desired software
> get charged for the most recent Microsoft OS+Apps bundle whenever a
> new machine is purchased even if they will be running only Linux or
> BSD programs on it.
>
> So now they have a guaranteed income as long as people buy new
> machines without ever needing to do anything more. It might coast
> along on momentum alone for years but if people could be
> "encouraged" to purchase a new machine before the old one wears out
> then Microsoft would get more money from them in a given amount of
> time.
>
> "Encouragement" can be induced by altering either the OS or the Apps,
> or both to be slightly less interoperable with their respective
> older versions in each upgrade/release cycle.
>
> But that would be too obvious. Even Wilbur WWFan could recognize a
> tie that direct so in addition new features are added, whole
> sections of functioning code are rewritten to use as many resources
> as possible without slowing them down too much on todays hottest
> hardware, about 10%, below the old routine routine on the older hardware.
>
> The reason for consuming more resources is to wear that damn
> hardware out faster. Keep that disk busy seeking back and forth
> endlessly, fill ever larger amounts of RAM with "highly demanded
> features" that Wilbur has no clue even exist, induce peripheral
> manufactures, in the name of production cost reduction, to use the
> main CPU for even trivial functions, more processing drain means
> that the CPU fan will have to work harder and wear out faster and
> every time it falters the CPU gets another cycle of temperature
> overload, even Silicon can't take that forever.
>
> So Wilbur learns, subconsciously, that the ever more frequent
> misbehaviors quiet down for at least a year every time he buys a new
> machine. After a while he gets a new one every year. Problem
> solved.
>
> Susie Smart doesn't get a new machine so often. She wipes the disk
> and installs the older software instead. It flies on the new
> hardware so she can run the less stressful software for an even
> longer time before her new machine wears out.
>
> But she does have to interact with the Wilburs. Early on she can
> learn what is needed to be successful fairly quickly but as time
> goes on and more changes appear in the OS and the Apps fewer work
> arounds function with fewer Wilburs, almost as if Microsoft had
> people reading the help groups and changing the code to make the old
> solutions stop working.
>
> Microsoft convinces the peripheral vendors, in the interest of cost
> savings, not to port the drivers for their new hardware to any older
> OS versions. They know that recompiling well written drivers is not
> really costly of course but not going along with the lie might lead
> to their removal from next years approved hardware list. Much
> better to keep Microsoft happy.
>
> After a while the burden of finding new work arounds and drivers for
> the older software gets to be too much and she buys a new machine and
> throws away the old, faster, software.
>
> This time things have changed. Only OEMs get installation media,
> she gets a "recovery CD" which will only install on this years model
> so she will become a Wilbur pretty soon.
>
> So, there is my explanation of why Microsoft writes software the way
> it does. No conspiracy, except silence by vendors who benefit from
> silence and would lose business if they spoke up, needed.
>
> How far off do you think I am ?
Well, you pretty much covered all the bases. I think Giuliano deserves
many many more points than you award him*, but the thing about hardware
drivers was certainly insightful. A clear point illustrating why the
market, not
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
*Giuliano Colla and I have a running bit on alt.destroy.microsoft where
he gets one point when Microsoft products are determined to be crappy
due to incompetence, and I get one point when they're crappy because of
monopolistic intent.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: need to open 100 windows
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 17:03:35 -0500
Dan wrote:
>
> Hi, trying to open 90-100 internet explorer windows and still be able to
> copy and paste to them off notepad. I am using NT4, dell pIII 500 with 384
> megs of sdram with eccI even upgraded to a pIII 850 with 512 megs of sdram
> with ecc and didn't notice much difference if any.
> I can get about 50 windows open (internet explorer) and can still copy and
> paste from notepad in to them. After that, I can open a couple more windows,
> but can't copy off notepad let alone paste. Any idea's would be appreciated.
> Do you think if I used unix os it would help alot?
Yes. All you have to do is give it enough virtual mem (by way
of swap space.)
512 MB of SDRAM + 8 128 MB swap partitions = 1536 MB of virtual mem.
> Thanks.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
