Linux-Advocacy Digest #756, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:50:12 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90p5md$2dpk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 1) Kill worked about 25% of the time.
>
> 2) Many systems had scheduled reboots running on them (did you read my
> post?).
>
> 3) If a service does not restart, it's not the fault of the service, it's
> the fault of Windows. All processes are under control of the OS. If the
OS
> can't kill the process, the OS is buggy.
>
> 4) Having to schedule reboots to keep your machines from crashing is one
> helluva kludge to make up for a buggy and unstable operating system.
> Instead of doing such things with my own servers, I went with one that
will
> actually stay up: Unix.
>
Really since it is unnecessary.
> 5) Apparently 24x7 availability is not a concern in your shop. If so,
then
> scheduled reboot are just the trick. Not everyone needs 24x7. But I do.
>
It is very important.
> So, what's the longest you've had a server running? It doesn't seem to be
> an important metric for you, but I'm just wondering.
>
WinNT 4.0 SP 4. 374 days, Only had to go down then because of relocation.
24/7 shop at an ISP.
> Adam Ruth
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90p20r$201lg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Assuming his problem (why won't he use kill -f?), then after you
> determained
> > that trying to do all those checks is useless, you can setup a script to
> > reboot every week or so, should take you less than 5 minutes to do so,
> even
> > if you are totally clueless.
> > setup a script to restart services every week or so, without restarting
> the
> > box itself, as this might be the problem.
> > check when the services die, and then reboot, (you can automate this).
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:56:04 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:40:06 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Look, I don't know what you're on, or what your problem is. No one is
> >telling anyone what to do.
> >
> >All I'm saying is, if you want to do high end graphics and need the
> >advanced graphic technologies like color correction, Linux is not the
choice
> >for you. Period. I'm sorry you have to face this fact, but it's the
truth.
> >
> >If you like Linux, great, if you don't, who cares. If you want to do
graphics,
> >than Linux isn't the best OS. If you want the best OS for this, then
something
> >else would be in order.
> >
> >What's so bad about the truth?
> >
>
> Well I'll tell you...
>
> What's bad about your TRUTH is it's bullshit.
> Linux is a better graphics station. The proof can
> be found in many places but the one I like the best
> is the FACT the movie Titanic was made using Linux.
>
OH NO! Not the Titanic thing again. Where's Stephen when you need him.
Linux was used on the Titanic but the render farm had to be augmented by
utilizing NT boxes after they had finished doing the design work. The Linux
render farm, as designed wasn't up to the task. If you are looking for
referrences to what I say, check out the TITANIC thread in this group and
COLA from about 20 months ago.
> If you examine Hollywood at large, very little in the
> way of the graphic arts are performed with Windows.
> They mainly use FreeBSD, Linux and Macs but
> Windows is hardly used there. This is also
> true of commercial advertising.
>
Really funny, the company I work for at this time does support for Disney,
Universal and are negotiating with Paramount and guess what not a Linux box
to be found the VP at Universal says they can't use Linux because their
internal TCO study found Linux too high compared to Windows NT.
> Now your 'OPINION' may be that Windows is the
> way to go but in 'REALITY' it's not the way
> anybody is going.
>
OOPS wrong again.
> >
> >Try pulling you head from the sand once in awhile and looking around.
> >
> >-Chad
> >
>
>
> I rest my case! You are the Frank Burns of the internet.
>
> Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:47:04 GMT
Ah, the very old line, I don't know how they did it, so it can't be
done. Sorry, Chad, Just because you or anyone outside of Netcraft does
not know how netcraft get's the numbers does NOT prove Nectraft does not
know how to do it.
Are you claiming that Netcraft is making up the numbers?
In article <ZOhY5.5053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "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
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:03:36 -0600
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> And only a true idiot would continue to actually use it after seeing
> what a lame piece of junk Linux is.
Using nothing but Linux and free add-ons, I've written about 16,000 SLOC in
the last 11 months. That beats the industry average for full-time
programmers pulling long hours, and yet programming has not even been the
primary demand on my time this year. (In fact, about half that code was for
hobby projects done on intermittent weekends and holidays.) I have also
created run-time graphics and documentation and Web pages for the projects
that all that code was written for, and made slides and printed papers with
professional-quality typesetting, and made live demos of animated simulations
to AI research groups. All on Linux.
That certainly doesn't support your claim that Linux is "a lame piece of
junk"; certainly not for developers.
And since most of what is developed on Linux will also run on Linux... well,
with thousands of Linuxers spilling out big piles of code for everything
under the sun, things don't seem to bode well for the long-term viability of
the expensive competition.
And of course, there are the endless hours I've spent using Linux for
non-development tasks, such as surfing the Web, communicating with friends
and associates via e-mail, killing time in newsgroups, playing FreeCiv. That
Linux thingy sure makes for a mighty useful "piece of junk".
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 05:10:22 GMT
For those not inclined to read below I will recap. Tholen claims use of
power cords is intuitive. I give several counter examples about power
cords behaving in ways people do not expect, and of people doing strange
things with power cords. Tholen counters that that wasn't fair as the
users couldn't have known about that or couldn't see inside the TV set
or some such.
This attitude is one think I especially dislike about MS software.
Everything is proclaimed to be "intuitive", when in fact, nothing in
this universe is "intuitive", not even the simple power cord. If you
don't test your product agains a naif user, expect it to fail in the
field, no matter how "intuitive" you thought it was.
Murphy originally said, "If someone can f**k it up, they will." It lost
meaning in the translation.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why are you citing evidence that destroys your argument, Aaron?
> >>>>>>>>>> Familiarity (or experience, to use my word for it) does not have
> >>>>>>>>>> to be universal before something can be declared "intuitive".
> >>>>>>>>>> Here's a good rule of thumb: if you need to consult the manual,
> >>>>>>>>>> it's not intuitive.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Everyone has to "consult the manual" (or a friend, or the on-line
> >>>>>>>>> help) at some point early in their learning process.
>
> >>>>>>>> I know some first-time computer users that did not need to consult
> >>>>>>>> the manual or a friend to know what to do with the power cord, for
> >>>>>>>> example.
>
> >>>>>>> I have earned a lot of money plugging in power cords for people.
>
> >>>>>> Congratulations. I know people who replace water heaters, and they
> >>>>>> also plug in the power cord for customers while installing the
> >>>>>> replacement appliance.
>
> >>>>>>> The first electronics job I had was making calls to fix TV sets.
>
> >>>>>> Not to install them? Televisions that hadn't yet been used don't
> >>>>>> usually require fixing.
>
> >>>>> Both. The most common was after the set was at home. Most people, by
> >>>>> that time, were trying to install the sets themselves.
>
> >>>> And you're claiming that they didn't know enough to plug it in? Do
> >>>> these people use a toaster? A lamp? A microwave oven?
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>> About half the time the problem was the power cord wasn't plugged in.
>
> >>>>>> But was it because they didn't know that it had to be plugged in, or
> >>>>>> had it accidently become unplugged without them knowing it? There's
> >>>>>> a big difference there. I've seen it happen to people many times.
>
> >>>>> They didn't know all the subtilities of operating a power cord.
>
> >>>> What "subtleties"?
>
> >>>>> Plug it in all the way.
>
> >>>> What's subtle about that?
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>> Unplug it before moving the set.
>
> >>>> Are you saying that the cord was damaged from strain?
>
> >>> No, I'm saying that your description of how to use a power cord is
> >>> missing sum subtilities. Such as : a power cord has *two* ends.
>
> >> What has that got to do with unplugging before moving the set?
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> On a toster one end is usually fixed to the toster.
>
> >> On many televisions, one end is usually fixed to the television.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> On TV sets and computers neither end is fixed.
>
> >> Not always. My television does not have a detachable power cord.
>
> > It does if the set is in the US.
>
> The set is in the US, and the power cord cannot be removed from the
> rear of the unit.
>
Bet if you open the box the power cord will stay with the case and
unplug from the chassis. Or did you think they had 6 feet of power cord
curled up inside the case?
> > If you open the case the power cord comes unplugged from the set.
>
> When people move a set around, they don't usually open the case
> first. You were talking about moving a set around, not opening
> a case. Do try to be consistent.
>
No but they yank on the power cord. On older sets it was pretty obvious.
I can understand people not grasping that fact on the newer sets.
> > You have to use a "cheater" cord to power
> > up the set once it has been opened.
>
> But you weren't talking about opening a set. You were talking about
> moving a set around, which doesn't require that it be opened up.
>
Sure. Move the set. Forget to unplug it first or step on the cord. The
resulting strain unplugs the cord at the set end. Intuitive, right?
> > Sometimes the set end comes loose,
> > especially if someone doesn't unplug before moving the set.
>
> If you're talking about some internal connection that can't be seen
> by the user, then that doesn't serve as an argument against my claim
> that the power cord is intuitive.
>
Its a power cord. It should be intuitive.
> > It can often be reinserted by simply pushing on the back of the set
> > near the power cord.
>
> Does that somehow make the power cord not intuitive?
>
Was it intuitive that you should push on the back of the set to
reconnect the power cord?
> >>> You need to make sure *both* ends are plugged in.
>
> >> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
> >> simply unaware that one end had come unplugged.
>
> Note: no response. It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
> connection coming loose.
>
Lets see. You say a power cord is intuitive. I point out some non
intuitive things about power cords. You say they weren't intuitive
because the user didn't know about them. My Websters defines intuitive
as "capable of being know by intuition. And it defines intuition as
"direct perception of fact independent of any reasoning process". But
you argue that my examples of non intuitive facts about power cords are
invalid because they are not intuitive.
> >>> Also power cords are polarized. Try to plug them in the wrong way and
> >>> they don't fit properly.
>
> >> The polarized plugs that I've used won't fit at all if you try to do
> >> it the wrong way. My television has a three-prong plug, however. Only
> >> goes one way.
>
> > I'll send you the next three pronged plug I get that has had the third
> > prong bent or broken by the user. I kept one for years that someone had
> > managed to plug the third prong into the hot side of the socket. They
> > didn't understand why their GFI tripped every time they turned on the
> > set.
>
> Was it bent or broken intentionally so that the set could be plugged
> into a outlet that hadn't been upgraded with three-prong outlets? I
> can't think of any other reason why someone would do that.
>
It was intuitive. You only need two prongs to get electricity, so if you
break off the third prong, you will use less electricity and your bill
will be cheaper.
> > The classic case for this is an event in Idaho where a technician
> > plugged a multi-pronged cord in backwards and killed himself when the
> > research reactor he was working on "pulsed". No one living could
> > understand why he went to the trouble to bend those pins to make it fit.
>
> Does that make the power cord non-intuitive?
>
It is a good example of how relying on things being "intuitive" is
dangerous.
> >>>>> If the light doesn't come on check the power cord. That sort of thing.
>
> >>>> What's subtle about that?
>
> >>> People don't do it. For computers it is worse. The light on the computer
> >>> can come on, but not the monitor, or vice versa.
>
> >> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
> >> simply unaware that one of the two was unplugged.
>
> > If the power cord was that intuitive, they would have checked, now
> > wouldn't they?
>
> Did they succeed in plugging both in, in the first place? When something
> stops working that was previously working, they tend to think of what
> might have changed. If there is no reason for the power cord to have
> become unplugged, then it makes sense to consider the possibility that
> there is a problem with the unit itself and not the power cord.
>
> > They wouldn't bend prongs to get it plugged in. They
> > would unplug it before trying to work on the set. In this industry, you
> > cannot assume that anything is intuitive for a sufficient percentage of
> > your customer base.
>
> And just what percentage of the people do you need to plug power cords
> in for them?
>
> >>>>>>> I learned very quickly not to just plug in the cord and send a bill
> >>>>>>> for $50. I would futz around a while, take the back off, look intent.
> >>>>>>> Then put the back on and plug it in.
>
> >>>>>> You're admitting to what some people would consider a "dishonest"
> >>>>>> service call?
>
> >>>>> No. They got charged the same, the fee for one hour service call.
>
> >>>> Even if it took one minute?
>
> >>> Yes. The minimum charge is one hour. Same as auto repair shops and other
> >>> such services.
>
> >> Why? Travel time for an on-site visit can be justified, but why a
> >> minimum? Would you like to pay for an hour long-distance telephone
> >> call, even if it lasted only a minute?
>
> > Never had your own service business have you? Overhead, book keeping,
> > accounting, taxes, etc. all mean that a charge less than a minimum is a
> > loss. The service charge for one hour is that minimum in this case.
>
> It takes you an hour to do all the book keeping, accounting, and so on
> for a one-minute service call?
>
> >>>>> I just decided not to upset them by pointing out that they didn't know
> >>>>> how to operate a power cord.
>
> >>>> Which would have been rather presumptuous of you.
>
> >>>>>>> When PCs came out, there were more power cords not to be plugged in
> >>>>>>> and thus more business.
>
> >>>>>> Some people prefer to have experts install new gizmos for them.
> >>>>>> Doesn't mean that they don't have the intuition to plug it in for
> >>>>>> themselves.
>
> >>>>> But that doesn't mean the power cord is all that "intutive" either.
>
> >>>> Doesn't mean it isn't "intutive" [sic] either.
>
> >>>>>>>>>SNIP<<
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:06:17 -0600
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> When companies look to cut cost's I/T is the first one on the list and
> Linux, at least on a purchase order bottom line, can save them a lot
> of money. They need to save money when their stock has been in a
> steady decline from 105 in May to 60 something in December.
Yeah, but that hardly speaks ill of Linux. When companies start
tightening their belts, that's when you see where they think true value
lies. Cut the fluff; only buy things that tangibly contribute to
productivity.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:09:01 -0600
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> So who is Claire?
Look at the name tag on the sock on your other hand.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:11:18 -0600
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> Wake me when
> I can reliably update my Kernel, and OS level components without buying a
> new distro, recompiling something, or editing text files till the cows come
> home.
Time to wake up, Kyle.
Also, you just tipped your hand, showing that you don't actually use the stuff
you're so intently ragging on.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 05:19:27 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > Steve Mading wrote:
> > >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > : Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
> > > : enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
> > > : determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
> > > : record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
> > > : intuitive.
> > >
> > > Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
> > > unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
> > > off would, you know, actually turn it off.
> > California is having power problems right now because of this problem.
> > It applies not only to VCRs but to TV sets, computers, and many other
> > new pieces of electronic equipment. The HDTV I worked on pulled over 10
> > amps when the power switch was in the "off" position.
>
> 10 AMPS!
>
> At 120 volts RMS, Thats 1200 WATTS!
>
Yep. Your A/C has to work over time to cool down the room. The 3
projection tubes were kept hot to extend their life, plus the computer
doing the convergence and alignment had to be kept running. Moving the
set or a long power outage resulted in a technician having to make a
service call. Turning the set on essentially unblanked the video. So
"on" power was only about 12-13 amps. It would have problems on 15 amp
circuits, but be OK on 20 amp circuits. Unfortunately, most modern
electrical equipment (wall sockets, for example) are only rated for 15
amps even if the circuit breaker is 20 amps. That is acceptable under
NFPA code.
Equipment like that causes a double hit on the power grid and on your
power bill. Once when it uses the power, and again when the A/C runs to
remove the heat from the room.
> >
> > --
> > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not Powered by ActiveX
>
> --
> 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.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 05:25:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle writes:
>
> > Steve Mading wrote:
>
> >> I wrote:
>
> >>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
> >>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
> >>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
> >>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
> >>> intuitive.
>
> >> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
> >> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
> >> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
>
> > California is having power problems right now because of this problem.
> > It applies not only to VCRs but to TV sets, computers, and many other
> > new pieces of electronic equipment. The HDTV I worked on pulled over 10
> > amps when the power switch was in the "off" position.
>
> What was it doing? And was it designed to that? And is that 10 amps
> from a 120 VAC outlet? What in an HDTV could possibly need 1200 watts
> when off?
The projection tubes. Ever notice that light bulbs frequently burn out
when you turn them on, but seldom burn out after they have been on for a
while? This was a 72" diagonal projection set. You keep the tubes hot so
they don't burn out so fast. The initial power surge when turning on a
cold tube causes most of the failures. I had a Curtis-Mathis color set
in the 60s that lasted until the early 80s without a tube replacement
because it kept the filaments at 1/2 power when the set was off.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:26:20 -0600
Swango wrote:
> I'll save you the time, it doesn't work.
Oh, like you've actually tried it or anything.
> You still don't get the smooth anti-aliased looking fonts that you do
> under Windows.
I have found that the appearance depends very much on what video card you
use. At home I had a G200. Very clear fonts, decent 3D accel, until
lightening struck. So I pulled my old Millenium I out of my auxiliary
system to replace the G200, and I still have very clear fonts.
At work I had decently clear fonts, until they pulled out the video card
and stuck some no-name brand in. Then, to my surprise, the fonts got
really ugly. (I don't have privs there, so I haven't been able to try
deuglification yet.) Perhaps it's a driver issue? At any rate, I can't
recommend Matrox cards for Linux highly enough.
Also, I recently enabled TT fonts on my home system (built in to the X
server on recent versions of Red Hat, though you have to actually turn it
on). They display OK, but unfortunately the world is full of idiots who
write their Web pages in Sans Serif TT fonts, so now I no longer get the
font substitutions I got previously, and thus a lot of Web pages now show
up in all their unreadable Sans Serif TT glory. Yech. I've always
resisted the urge to override a page's fonts with my own selection, but
this is pushing me over the edge. (Notice that my complaint isn't against
TT itself -- after all, it's another nice technology that MS scooped up,
rather than some trash they came up with themselves -- but rather, I'm
whingeing about the overuse of Sans Serif fonts, which I find difficult to
read in continuous prose. I just mention this because of the unexpected
side effect of turning on TT under X.)
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:28:56 -0600
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> It's really about fucking time.
That's OK. We'll have anti-aliased fonts long before Windows users have
e-mail that won't let a prankster destroy their system.
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
******************************
