Linux-Advocacy Digest #747, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 16:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Uptimes strike back ("Pedro Coto")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:18:40 -0500
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.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Registered Linux User #194021
> http://counter.li.org
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:19:52 -0500
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.
>
The ONLY reason Microsoft took over the home-user desktop is because
people wanted to buy a machine that ran whatever they were running
at work.
As soon as the corporate desktop changes to Linux...the home
desktop will follow within 4 years.
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Registered Linux User #194021
> http://counter.li.org
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:24:55 -0600
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 8 Dec 2000
> 01:15:43 -0600;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >I already stated specifically how you disable TCP/IP in NT4 without
> >> >rebooting, I don't have to say it again.
> >>
> >> So I take it you are purposely ignoring the issue? Yes, you can
disable
> >> TCP/IP without rebooting, and then enable it again without rebooting.
> >> Unfortunately, you cannot disable it and then reboot, and then enable
it
> >> without rebooting. Get it?
> >
> >You're still wrong.
>
> No, I'm not. Nor am I mistaken in any way. I am using the term
> "disable TCP/IP" to mean disabling the protocol entirely, which requires
> removing the protocol driver, not merely disabling all TCP/IP bindings
> on the adapters. And you are not mistaken when you say that the
> equivalent would require a reboot in Linux, as it requires recompiling
> the kernel.
Nobody else is using the term that way. In fact, according to everyone else
but you, you can disable TCP/IP in Linux simply by removing the IP from all
cards (including loopback).
What you describe is removing TCP/IP, not disabling it. Disabling something
is keeping it installed while not allowing it to function.
> So stop squirming, and just admit that you want to narrow the issue down
> until you are right, and I'm just pointing out how much you are
> belaboring the matter so that you can pretend that Windows isn't a piece
> of crap.
No, you keep changing the subject. Disabling has already been defined by
others in this thread, who I was responding to. You coming in and changing
the definition doesn't accomplish anything.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:17:45 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:41:48 GMT, Swangoremovemee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 04:24:08 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It is Linux that doesn't work.
>
> No. The people that you bought them from just chose not to
> make it easy for you to use their product with the OS of your
> choice.
No, it's LINUX, not the manufacturers. Linux doesn't support hardware that
even the ISO/IEEE has landed on INTERNATIONAL standards for! Now that
Firewire has been "setteled upon", Linux has YET to show any functional
integration of this technology (and don't you DARE say "well there IS alpha
support in the next kernel" because THAT'S not real support)
> >I could care less about politics, I want my devices that I paid money
> >for to work and the fact is they work under at least 2 non related
> >operating systems yet Linux pukes on them.
>
> That doesn't mean anything. Apple can be just as much out in the
> cold, as can be NT, if the vendor doesn't happen to think either
> of those markets are large enough to support.
>
Windows NT has been succeeded by Windows 2000, and administrators dumb
enough to stick with the prior platform deserve no hardware support. Apple
is changing their computing standards to a UNIX based OS and throwing away
the hideous 20 year old computing mentality that's keeping Linux in a dark
corner as a geeks plaything, just like it was 8 years ago. Only this time
around, the geeks have dot-com venture capital.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:23:35 -0500
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:34:08 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> >
> > You still don't see shit. All you are doing is spewing a lot of
> > hot air. Weak attempts at pretense won't really change that.
>
> What I'm spewing are the very things people have against it. You're not only
> going up against MS, you're going up against a lot of misconceptions and
> propoganda.
>
> >
> > >home desktop anytime soon. Inferior as it is, it isn't going to go away.
> >
> > It doesn't have to. Linux can still significantly eat into it's
> > marketshare, and alternative applications can make headway against
> > the those applications that are currently entrenched.
>
> Possible, yes. The GPL still scares the hell out of a lot of developers. Up
Only to idiots.
There's LOTS of commercial NON-GPL software for Linux.
> until now, proprietary has been the name of the game. Hell, I can remember
> when most software products were leased rather than purchased. A company I
> worked for paid $10,000 a year for a VMS cost accounting and estimating
> package. (The PC revolution changed that, thank god.) Still, a lot of
> attitudes are going to have to change. Total control is a hard thing to give
> up.
>
> Another thing to consider is the strong-arm tactics MS uses with vendors.
> The "Designed for Windows" logo carries a hell of a lot of weight. You think
> MS is going to sit idilly by while vendors pump out "Linux Approved"
> products? Right now, some ARE jumping on the bandwagon and I hope more do.
> But, when Microsoft senses an exodus, they're going to get rough with them.
> Especially if they manage not to get broken up after their appeal.
It will when the corporate desktop changes.
The ONLY reason people originally went with the IBM PC was to run
the programs they were using at work.
The management users who get converted to Linux will be DEMANDING
that their home PC be "Linux Approved".
>
> Linux has nothing but uphill to go.
Actually, the steep part is already been climbed.
The (resistance) slope is starting to become a little less steep,
and yet, the deployment velocity is accelerating...
>
> >
> > Your claims are faulty regardless of what conclusions you choose to
> > draw from them. One does not need to "run everything". Once the
> > public at large realizes this, MS marketshare is in deep trouble.
>
> That's the point! The public has been duped to believe that very thing. One
> major thing Linux lacks is that kind of effective marketing and PR. It's
> going up against a company that turned an inferior CP/M ripoff into a
> commercial juggernaut. Circumstances had a lot to do with it, of course -
> Nothing beats being in the right place at the right time. I can only imagine
> how much better things would have turned out had Digital not declined to do
> the IBM-PC OS. At any rate, through that position and brilliant marketing,
> they built a dependance that's going to be well nigh impossible to break.
>
> You seem to think I'm either a WinAdvocate or dim....I'm neither. I'm being
> realistic. Linux does have a chance - A small one. Linux's reputation has
> been established as a difficult to use, hacker OS. Unless that changes, it
> isn't going anywhere outside of servers and embedded apps.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Registered Linux User #194021
> http://counter.li.org
--
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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:19:31 GMT
Linux ABSOULUTELY supports USB, it just doesn't support anything plugged
into it except the latest Microsoft Mice (Gee, and I thought we were
banishing Billy here?) and a few Logitech USB devices (might as well be
Microsoft)
It's the little things, like the DEVICES we use, not the PLUG we use.
"Swangoremovemee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:11:18 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
> >
> > No. The people that you bought them from just chose not to
> > make it easy for you to use their product with the OS of your
> > choice.
>
> They are USB devices. They work on Windows machines and my Apple
> Powerbook.
>
> Linux "supposedly" supports USB.
>
> They do not work with Linux.
>
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Then why do you think anyone cares if your choice of
> >>>devices keeps you hopelessly locked into a monopolistic
> >>>vendor's operating systems?
>
> >
> > That doesn't mean anything. Apple can be just as much out in the
> > cold, as can be NT, if the vendor doesn't happen to think either
> > of those markets are large enough to support.
>
> It is Linux that is out in the cold because of it's lack of support
> for common hardware like USB.
>
> So Linux only supports certain USB devices?
>
> That's a good one.
>
> > OTOH, as long as a vendor doesn't go out of their way to avoid
> > standard device types it shouldn't matter. You're just lucky
> > enough to buy from hardware vendors that are asses but still
> > care enough about Macs to bother with them.
>
> No they care about USB which Linux evidently half supports, just like
> every other thing Linux offers half supports for.
>
> It amazes me how you people can not use all the features of the
> hardware you paid for and yet call Linux a superior operating system.
>
> Seems like Windows and Apple have gotten USB to work fine, what
> happened to Linux?
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:19:51 GMT
BSME?
"Swangoremovemee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 06:39:49 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Because your trying to pass off this pathetic collection of free time
> >projects, half-finished school final's, and a lot of broken promises as a
> >computing platform, THAT'S why.
>
> I did that back in 1979.
>
> BSME that is.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:27:29 -0600
"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.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Uptimes strike back
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:30:03 GMT
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. This gives me (in my
own experience) the options of Solaris for Intel
(too slow for me), GNU/Linux or NT/2000 (this
one may have less that 1 day of uptime in some
cases indeed, but well, average it behaves well).
Sometimes just to play a couple of hours even
Windows 98/Me has the uptime I need, even when
I really prefer PS :-)
For server I would choose GNU/Linux or
Solaris, but lately, each server I am building
is a redundant balanced one, so the individual
machine uptime is loosing interest. 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, as well as possible bugs
become greater as the time passes (no OS if
free of this, no matter how good it is able to
handle it), so when possible, I recommend
not only to home users but to server too
rebooting often, no matter the OS that is
being used. That's all folks :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
