Linux-Advocacy Digest #754, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Caught me a Lino-Troll Mr. T-Max (Swangoremovemee)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Uptimes strike back ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux lacks ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux lacks ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux lacks ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft , makers of what ? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Caught me a Lino-Troll Mr. T-Max
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:45:37 GMT
T.Max is the same person as Anonymous. Notice how he posted under
the name but signed his name T.Max?
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:07:18 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <3a228f5a$0$14371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <8vuhn3$a6s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <3a2693fe$0$44769$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <3a26dabc$0$32744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: anonymous
Lines: 26
X-Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address. It
was posted through Newsfeeds.com's exclusive, publicly accessible
anonymous Usenet Server.
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Newsfeeds.com does not condone, nor support,
spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Comments3: IMPORTANT: Under NO circumstances will postings
containing illegal or copyrighted material through this service be
tolerated!!
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You may also use our online abuse reporting
form: http://www.newsfeeds.com/abuseform.htm
X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers,
INCLUDING the body (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+
UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
Path:
bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnmasters2!wn4feed!worldnet.att.net!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!telocity-west!TELOCITY!local-out2.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!anonymous!anonymous
Xref: wnmasters2 comp.os.linux.advocacy:396725
X-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 18:58:24 GMT
(bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net)
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 06 Dec
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:45:45 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Is this you trying to be reasonable and jovial, you lying sack of shit?
>
>How did you get out of my kill file? Must have the expire feature set.
>I've saved hours of bandwidth by kill filing your senseless posts.
>
>Back in the bozo bin with you.
COOL! Did you hear that, everyone? I'm in "claire lynn the
WinTrolls"
kill file! Ha, ha. I bet you wished *you* rated such a high honor.
--
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 ==----------
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:46:16 GMT
How come you are T.Max under some posts and Anonymous under other
posts?
Swango
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:07:07 -0500, Anonymous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 22 Nov
>>On 22 Nov 2000 18:38:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:09:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>You Penguinista's have a difficult time reading for some reason.
>>>>Maybe your eyes are worn out from reading all of those How-Not-To's.
>>>>
>>>>He said MENU BASED.
>>>
>>>Not in the post I followed up to, he didn't.
>>
>>Everybody seems to miss the menu part, I wonder why?
>
>Because it is a figment of your imagination (or maybe one of your other
>personality's imaginations). He asked, after it was explained how to
>cut and paste (which is all he asked for and all he needed), why it
>didn't use a menu-based mechanism, and the answer (no need) was
>provided.
>
>>Maybe because it doesn't work correctly?
>
>It doesn't work like Windows. For a WinTroll like yourself, I know
>that's the same thing, but most people aren't as brain-dead as you are.
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:52:01 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 14:02:54 +1300, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, by your definition, since I found that SCO Unixware is shit, that
>must mean that all UNIX's are shit...I don't think so....get back to
>reality....in the UNIX market there are multiple vendors, Redhat Linux
Nope.
Commercial unix is a totally different animal and I have no problem
with SCO, Solaris, AIX etc.
Linux however is NOT unix, and it never will be.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:54:02 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:19:31 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux ABSOULUTELY supports USB, it just doesn't support anything plugged
>into it except the latest Microsoft Mice (Gee, and I thought we were
Isn't that like saying "well the car supports tires but nobody makes
the proper size" so in effect that car you bought is going nowhere?
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:55:58 GMT
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000 00:20:16 +0100, SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>If some hardware isn't supported for, lets say, Windows, would you still
>buy it and try to get it installed? Good luck. This isn't true for
>Open-Source OS's.
No I wouldn't buy it, but you would be hard pressed to find hardware
that isn't supported by Windows unless it is totally machine specific
like a memory card for a Sparc or something.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:55:49 GMT
[snips]
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Kelsey Bjarnason in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 07 Dec 2000
> >You're missing a few points on credibility. Sort of like me saying I
have a
> >contract here that says you owe me a million dollars, in U.S. funds, so
pay
> >up - unless I can provide something more substantial than sheer assertion
> >that it "is too!" I can hardly expect to collect - just as your failure
to
> >provide details hardly gives you reason to expect to be taken seriously.
>
> I'm afraid your understanding of 'credibility' is a bit skewed, Kelsey.
Is it? Let's see; he claims (without offering support) 63,000 bugs - not
issues, bugs, which is a *hell* of a lot higher than the figures I've seen.
Perhaps he has a vaild source, but his simply saying that there are this
many doesn't make it so. When asked for support for this claim, his
comeback was someone with my name, supposedly a programmer at Microsoft.
Possible, but very remotely so.
Which is to say, he's failed to actually support his claim in any
substantial manner, so there is no reason to accept his claim. Further, his
refusal to support it detracts from any credence we can put in his further
claims, since he's established a record of failing to substantiate his
claims when asked. That isn't a case of damaged credibility?
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:01:50 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 17:30:21 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Swangoremovemee wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 05:56:06 GMT, kiwiunixman
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >The big question is whether it (swang) pays for his software, or does it
>> >steal it? I pay for all my software, and as a result, I reap the
>>
>> Bought every version of Windows except the comp ones I got for being
>> in the various beta test programs I have participated in. Even have a
>> vintage copy of Windows 2.0 here.
>>
>
>Translation: he's 100% brainwashed.
>
>
>> What does that have to do with anything?
>>
>> And who cares if "you" buy all of your software, except Microsoft I
>> suppose.
>
>Translation: Swango is a software pirate.
Can't you LIE-Sux supporters read?
I said "I" own all my software.
I said who cares what "YOU" do.
Geeze it gets annoying having to keep educating you drips....
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:03:28 GMT
[snips]
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >So, you're advocating 42 keystrokes for a non-functioning approach over
17
> >keystrokes and 5 clicks, which actually end up doing the job, as somehow
> >superior, is that right?
>
> The difference is, how long does it take to do it? And how easy is it?
Well, as noted, your method doesn't work, so even if your method is 100
times faster, does it matter?
> With a GUI, you have to look constantly at where you're going, moving
> the mouse to exactly the wright position etc. With a command line,
> it's just a couple of seconds typing. Also, you don't need to go
> opening slow programs like Explorer.
Slow? One moment...
Hmm; less than a second to load here, I just tried it. On a moderately
loaded system. Now if you were talking something a little more taxing,
like, say, Word 2000... well, let's see. Hmm; 2 seconds. Add in the second
or so to navigate the menu, yup - long time. 'Course as a Windows _user_,
i.e. someone who actually regularly uses Windows and is familiar with it, I
probably keep several of my commonly-used programs on the quick-launch bar;
in that case, no menu navigation involved at all - 2 seconds to launch,
total.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:05:26 GMT
[snips]
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zjbY5.4278$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You forgot: Start Windows Explorer. Which defaults to starting in My
> > Documents.
>
> Nope, Click on My Computer.
Why? Since I know Explorer starts in My Documents, and I know the file I'm
looking for is under that folder, starting with My Computer buys me nothing.
Of course, if I do choose to do that, it's only one extra click to get into
My Documents in any case.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:07:03 -0600
Pedro Coto wrote:
> 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.
A less stable system is more prone to crashes, period. If you only stay
up a day at a time you can reduce your chances of getting bit, but if
your system isn't reliable, it *is* going to bite you sooner or later.
And somehow they seem to know when you're doing something really
important...
> 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),
It might surprise you just how much of "Linux" can be updated without a
reboot. Unless it's a bug in the kernel itself, you can probably update
it with nary a shutdown. Compare this to some of the variants of
Windows, which require a reboot -- or in some cases several -- for
ridiculously trivial changes to the configuration.
> so when possible, I recommend
> not only to home users but to server too
> rebooting often, no matter the OS that is
> being used.
Some people don't care to have their services shut off while the
sysadmin reboots his unreliable server.
For that matter, some home users don't like to reboot their machines
when they have lots of ongoing activities on their desktops.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:10:48 -0600
SwifT - wrote:
> Since SP4, NT4 is stable enough.
Yeah... just look at the way it packed the ranks in the Netcraft page
mentioned at the start of this thread.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:07:08 GMT
[snips]
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> | 1) Open a copy of Windows Explorer, browse to the source folder
> | 2) Select the files to copy
> | 3) Right-click, "copy"
> | 4) Open a second copy of Windows Explorer, browse to the target folder
>
> You don't even have to do that. Just browse to the folder in the same
> explorer window and do a drag and drop operation.
Yes... but the original post, IIRC, was asking about managing multiple
folders; two windows is the easier approach, allowing you to use one as a
target.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:12:01 GMT
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That sure is a tremendous fucking LOT Of work compared to:
>
> $ mv a* b* c* new_directory
Except that your "example" here doesn't even meet the original specs.
There's an old joke about two programmers. One produced code that was slow,
but worked, the other produced code that was lightning fast and gave wrong
results. When questioned, the speed demon pointed out how fast his code
was. The other guy looks at him and says "If I don't actually have to meet
the requirements, I can make my code run in zero time."
You're also forgetting a couple of advantages of the GUI approach. Once the
files are selected and the copy portion of the operation have been
performed, you get visual confirmation first, that you haven't mis-typed
something, and second, that the destination actually _exists_ - something
you'd have to do manually via the CLI.
Yes, the CLI approach _does_ have its benefits. It is not, however,
_universally_ better, as you seem to imply. Nor is the GUI. Using each to
its strengths is a better way to do things than to disregard either.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:15:47 GMT
[snips]
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hCcY5.77465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> pushd and popd are also very effective in these cases.
They are handy to have, yes. As are GUIs.
> Using GUI file-management programs is excruciating.
For _some_ file management tasks, yes. For others, they're very handy.
> installation of Windows, there is little choice, as the command
> shell is so utterly braindead.
Even if you have an improved shell such as 4DOS or 4NT, the GUI is still
useful for many file management tasks; the CLI is simply better at _some_ of
those tasks.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:16:24 -0600
SwifT - wrote:
> A lot of internet-servers run WinNT
Does that speak well of NT, or of MS's marketing abilities?
As of a few months ago, a free operating system built by hobbyists was
running a larger percentage of the world's Web sites than NT, with all MS's
billions in research and marketing to prop it up. What's a feller to
conclude from that?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:19:58 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Well...in that case, Lose2K *MIGHT* be ready for primetime
> sometime around 2010.
Not at all. Their Next Unix Killer (tm) will be out sometime around 2003-2005,
and they won't be interested in W2K anymore. Then we'll have billfans here
telling us "Yeah, W2K was lame, but NUK (tm) is great, or it least it will be
when they get the initial bugs out of it."
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:32:22 -0600
Pedro Coto wrote:
> Still I do not use it as my only desktop machine for
> the fdollowing reasons all of them I hope will be
> soon solved (meanwhile I do use Windows) :
>
> 1) I play some games that can only be used
> under Windows (including Age of Empires
> II or Escape from Monkey Island).
How strange. I bought some Linux games from LokiSoft, and they won't
run under Windows. Who'da thought it? I thought Windows was the
industry standard.
> 2) I can only view at acceptable frames in my
> machine (K6-2/350 and 256MB SDRAM)
> MPEG-4 movies under Windows 98/Me.
I can only customize my kernel under Linux. I tried it under Windows,
but I got an error message when I typed 'make clean; make dep; make
boot'.
> 3) I can only browse webpages (and besides I
> like it more than any other) with IE, knowing
> that I would be able to render each of them. Of
> course I do use Windows 2000 for this one,
> since IE under 98/Me is too unstable for me.
> Netscape 6 or Konqueror can't replace IE for
> me yet.
I can only render Web pages correctly under Mozilla. IE doesn't support
the W3C standards.
> 4) Outlook Express is my favourite news reader
> and Knode is not still ready in my opinion.
Netscape Collabra is my fav. OE is too big a security risk, in my
opinion.
> 5) The same for KMail, I still prefer Eudora, though
> KMail almos satisfies me.
Same for other stuff I don't want to like. Blah, blah. I don't really
have any criticism of what you use, but I'm sure I don't like it. So
there.
> 6) When I am going to write an article, I choose
> Word. Using AbiWord, KWord or StarOffice
> be it 5.1 or 5.2 is not for me.
When I am going to write an article, I choose LyX. It lets me make
professional looking articles, without getting bogged down in the
details of formatting. I've never been so preductive a writer in my
entire life, as I am now.
> The fact is that despite the great evolution and
> improvements GNU/Linux has achieved, is (for
> me) still unusable at full experience for desktop
> purposes ... though it is getting nearer.
Despite dubious "advances", Windows still doesn't cut it for me.
> At serving purposes, GNU/Linux is for me
> a good choice
Yeah, me too. It also makes a great desktop system. Everything is so
much more reliable and predictable, that I get more work done now.
> Just saying which things GNU/Linux does lack
> nowadays
Yeah, I was going to list Windows shortcomings, too, but I don't want to
spend the whole weekend on this message.
> In this post I am not saying Windows 98/Me or
> NT/2000 is the perfect OS
Yeah, you're right. In fact, I'm saying that it's a piece of trash.
> And I am fed up of having to use
> multiple OS's to get what I want ...
Yeah, I got to that point too, so I just deleted my Windows partition
and started doing everything on Linux. Life has been so much rosier
since that fine day...
[If you don't find my testimonial convincing, maybe you should go back
and read your own with a skeptical eye.]
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:43:53 -0600
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> I don't do games, but Windows is definately the winner here.
5 years ago I might have agreed with you. But the simple fact is... I
haven't liked any of the last five COTS games I've bought. They're kind
of like Windows and recent excuses for Sci Fi movies: all glitz and
techno-flash, but no substance. So I play FreeCiv now and then, and I'm
tinkering away on a game of my own ("if you want it done right, ..."),
but as much as I like games, I don't think I'll be running out and buying
any more. At least not until someone has a new idea, and implements it
as a good game rather than as a marketing gimmick. I admit that Windows
has many, many more games available for it, but there just aren't any out
there that I want anymore.
> I'd rather use LyX than any of those.
Yay!
> I still wouldn't give my mom a Linux
> box as a desktop machine, but I suspect that I won't be able to say
> that in a couple of years.
My parents are about to buy their first computer, and I'm sorely tempted
to set up a Linux box for them. Stable, reliable, possible to maintain
remotely... if only they kept it on the net. If they ever got it off
line and couldn't explain to me over the phone what they had done, well,
I'm four hours away. I'll let them use Windows this time, and let my
brother back home maintain it for them. Like you, maybe it will be a
different song in two years.
> 5) Java/C/perl/python development. All the free programming tools I
> could ever need are in the standard Linux distro, for free!
Yeah, if I replaced all my free development tools with commercial
equivalents, ... well, when I have that kind of money, I'll just buy the
sports car instead.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:45:02 -0600
Les Mikesell wrote:
> If Microsoft applications were a separate company with no vested interest
> to protect Microsoft OS's you would probably have the choice of running
> the same programs on your favorite platform.
Yeah, then we can start enjoying e-mail viruses on Linux, and not feel left
out anymore.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 03:38:33 GMT
"Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are rebooted
> > regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain stability. In fact
> > the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the setup phase.
> > Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail when hardware
> > fails.
>
> Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
Top 50 of whay? Netcraft's admittedly unscientific method of
determining uptime?
Please, explain to us how you can accurately determine the uptime
of a Windows machine (or any, for that matter) remotely without
any permissions on that box without constantly pinging it?
Can't? Right, because there is no way. Netcraft must be magic, then.
> > MSDN members receive software to stress test NT/2000 haven't seen the need
> > to run it yet so I'm not sure what it does but I'll let you know.
>
> Does it warp time so that we can see if the system will _really_ stay up
> for 3 years nonstop? I doubt it.
>
> The proof is in the pudding. Once a Windows system has been _proven_ to
> run under some appreciable load for 3 years nonstop, then I MIGHT
> believe it.
I'm sure they are out there. Unfortunately, I've never had an environment
that didn't move once a year or so. The past couple companies I've had
have physically moved from one location to another once or twice.
The longest stretch of uptime I've had on NT was 312 days or so. But
the previous stretch was 280 or so days. I had to shut the box down and
move it to the our new address then get it back up which it stayed up
for 312 days.
This machine served the domain, printing, file sharing, internet, Exchange
messaging, and several other tasks for about 50-70 users and about 10
dial-in users and 2 VPN users. It had a heavy load for the hardware it
was running on.
> > Security is no longer an issue when properly administered, just like UNIX,
> > reliability ditto, scalability is actually ahead.
>
> Security is ALWAYS an issue if you want to maintain it. Perhaps NT has
> finally caught up, perhaps Win2000 is there, but I still see a thousand
> viruses a month plaguing Windows users ...
Win9x mainly, which is irrelevant. Perhaps there are the clueless
small businesses running NT or 2K as Administrator all the time without
virus software, but any competent person doesn't run as Administrator
(or root in Unix) and therefore is not subject to these "viruses". I've
had many of them sent to me and none had any affect.
> Scalability - I don't think so. Will ANY variant of Windows run on a 256
> processor machine?
It's irrelevant. Windows can accomplish in less processors what other
OSes accomplish with larger amounts of processors. Windows scales out
which lends to better managability, better availability (don't keep your
eggs in one basket), and better over-all scalability. Reference www.tpc.org.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft , makers of what ?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:01:13 -0600
kiwiunixman wrote:
> Introduced users to the "save-save-save and remember to save again"
> metality.
You know, even though I've hardly touched Windows for the past two
years, I still have that habit so deeply ingrained in me that sometimes
I have to remind myself that I really don't need to keep clicking the
save button constantly, anymore. And that it's OK to move the mouse
while waiting for some operation to finish, because it won't hang my
system, anymore. And that when I move a file to another directory, I
don't have to look to see whether it actually moved it, anymore. And
that when 'df' tells me I have four drives/partitions mounted, I really
do have four, and I don't have too look at the names to see whether the
OS has incorrectly mounted one of three devices twice, anymore. And
that it's OK to change the screen settings on a whim, because I won't
have to reboot to make them take effect, anymore. And if I decide to
power down when I go on vacation, it doesn't mean I'll have to go back
and fix all the system settings after I reboot, anymore. Nor will the
system tell me that it detected a new video card, when in fact I've
never had the OEM's card out of its slot, anymore. Nor will the system
suddenly die because some software component I'm not even using barfs
over memory management issues, anymore. And when I upgrade the OS, I
won't have to go out and *buy* a new driver for the mouse that's made by
the same people who make the OS, anymore.
Sheesh. I can't believe how long I put up with all that. I think when
word gets out to the general public that all that kind of stuff isn't
"natural" for computers, MS is going to face a "biggie sized" backlash.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
