Linux-Advocacy Digest #837, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!) (Perry Pip)
Re: Whistler review. ("Monkeyboy")
Re: Windows review ("snarf")
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Caifornia power shortage... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Whistler review. (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (John Travis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!)
Date: 13 Dec 2000 06:59:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:26:29 GMT,
Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:58:58 GMT,
>> Keith Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>> >>I'm a self employed electronics person, who uses Linux
>> >>exclusively to design electronic equipment, mostly micro
>> >>processor controlled, and to do that, I use the wide range
>> >>of applications available that run under Linux.
>> >>
>> >>Could I do this under Windows, ..for sure, tho it would cost
>> >>a lot more, and offer little, if not less for the extra money.
>> >
>> >So your point is that the job can be successfully done on a Windows box with
>> >no loss of functionality (little, if not less for the extra money), but that
>> >in the case of Windows we should feel bad because a programmer actually earned
>> >a living.
>> >
>> >Ah...
>>
>> No he doesn't give a flying shit how you feel. He's simply saying he
>> get's a better deal for doing *his* work using Open Source
>> products. If you wanna cry about it that's your problem.
>
>Whoa, woman, take it easy. It seems you have a problem.
>
Nope. Peterson is the one who can't handle anyone saying something
positive about Linux. What's his problem?
------------------------------
From: "Monkeyboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:06:51 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mJEZ5.43107$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9172p6$gjg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > You said "...regardless of the user...". That includes privileges of
> ALL
> > > > kinds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, with real computers the user is not the same as the administrator.
> >
> > Who do you think set up win2k systems? Administrator-privileged users,
> > therefor, the point stand.
>
> Like I said, on real computers the administrator is not a user even if
> it is the same person wearing a different hat.
A user is whoever sits at the keyboard. Administrators are just users with
unlimited access. A stupid admin is no different than a stupid user, just a
lot more dangerous. Like I said, there is no such thing as an OS that can
not be brought down by the idiot sitting at the keyboard. I'll go a step
further and say that there will never be an OS that can not be destroyed by
the human at the controls.
"Real computers don't do x, y or z" is a stupid argument. Computers are
hardware. Hardware fails. OSs are software (yes, even ROMs). Software fails.
Accidentally (bugs) or deliberately (user). To pretend otherwise is not
unlike an eunuch attempting to masturbate. Distracting but ultimately
futile. Nothing of any consequence will come of it (pun intended).
M
------------------------------
From: "snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:08:53 -0500
This was my first troll ever, and almost 200 losers fell for it. Damn I'm
good :)
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam Schuetze wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 15:06:25 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >
> > > 64MB is a big amount of RAM, even today.
> >
> > Are you kidding? 64 meg doesn't even come close to what your
> > average machine should have these days.
> >
> > In fact, I can't belive they (oems) keep shafting buyers by selling
> > them machines with only 64 MB of ram. Can you say, "bottleneck"?
> > They sell you the top-of-the-line cpu's, graphics cards etc..
> > but then they give you a puny 64 MB of ram. What use is that?
> >
> > Extra ram goes a LONG way. I keep seeing people upgrading from
> > (for example) pentium 200's to PIII etc.., rather than just
> > buying some ram. CPU speed is nice, but a lot of the
> > performance lag is from swapping pages of ram to disk and back.
> >
> > IMO, your average machine (PII-450 --> PIII 500) should have at
> > least 256MB of ram, or else your great speedy cpu is just
> > idling, waiting for the hard disk.
>
>
> That really depends on what your doing. The average home user does not
> need 256M for word processing, playing games etc. 256M for a PII300 used
> for heavy computation is reasonable. But most home users don't do much
> heavyweight computation.
>
>
>
> > Really though, if you are ever dipping into your swap
> > file/partition, you need more ram :)
>
> Not really. Occasionally I go in to swap., sometimes really heavily. But
> it's infrequent enough not to upgrade my RAM.
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward
> Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
> | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: 13 Dec 2000 15:03:04 +0800
>>>>> "Homer" == Homer Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Homer> There may be, and in fact are, some very
Homer> practical reasons for not building nuclear facilities in
Homer> California - earthquakes. A large part of the state is
Homer> underlain with an extensive and highly active fault
Homer> system.
But Japan is at no lower risks than California w.r.t. earthquakes. And
Tokyo alone has a population of 12 million plus more than 10 million
commuters from neighbouring counties outside the metropolis. Most of
these people commute and move around in *electrified* trains rather
than driving (whereas driving in one's own car is so much more common
(and abused, indeed) in California). How do you guess they cope with
the high demand on electricity? (FYI, Japan also uses the 110V
standard on the wall sockets.)
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: 13 Dec 2000 15:07:01 +0800
>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron R Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aaron> Actually, the REAL problem is that the ECO-NUTS in
Aaron> California shut down practically every fission power
Aaron> project that came down the pike in the 1970's.
Aaron> If those plants had been built, a lot of oil-fired and
Aaron> coal-fired plants would have been taken off-line a long
Aaron> time ago AND Cali. would STILL have surplus capacity.
If those plants had been built, you'd be worrying about the leakag of
radioactive materials, including the periodically dumped nuclear waste
that is a "by-product" of *normal operation* of a nuclear fission
plant.
Maybe, you're too young to have memories about the nuclear disaster
that occurred in USSR over a decade ago. The adverse effects are till
persisting nowadays...
Remember, the 1970's is the time of the Oil Crisis, which has already
gone.
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: 13 Dec 2000 15:11:37 +0800
>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron R Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Aaron> Why would the governments need to "promote" conservation
Aaron> and efficiency... that's what the price increase does.
There are always some people who are too rich to be affected by such
price increases. To make them waste less energy by bringing up the
price is too infeasible. (Making the price too high would affect poor
people's normal life, even if they are already saving every bit of
Watt that they can.)
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: 13 Dec 2000 15:13:03 +0800
>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron R Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Perhaps if we strive to lessen our need for generated power
>> then things will improve. Research into more economical
>> gasolines seems to be a good start.
Aaron> You moron...there is no such thing. Learn some
Aaron> thermodynamics.
He said "more economical", not "absolutely economical" or "zero cost".
Of course, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that entropy always
increases as time passes. But it doesn't disallow the *rate* of
increase to be made lower by being more considerate.
--
Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:08:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't aiming at Canada (I have visited Canada, and it ROCKS!),
mainly
> > the neighbour towards the south of Canada.
>
> Canada's neat...as long as you're not a resident in the country.
Yeah. Sigs are neat too...as long as you're not some dumb loser
with "size" issues who needs to make his 20+ lines long.
> --
> 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.
Don't knock my country. We're the only thing that gives North America
value.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:13:26 GMT
In article <JoEZ5.6570$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9171ke$rhj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <YgBZ5.5445$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> <trimmed>
> >
> > Number one, I had no intention of wasting my time looking for the
proof
> > for the likes of what I find in this group. I knew that someone
would be
>
> If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen.
What a laugh! THink about it little boy, I did NOTHING as far as finding
the method, but the method was posted anyway! I knew that one of the
obsesive people in this group would understand that the data WAS coming
from some place and they should figure it out, all I had to do was to
push the point and someone would find it. Then try to say that something
was wrong with it. Of course, the fact that the method used to collect
uptime data reliably cycles out Linux boxes at 497 days (showing that
it uses the uptime timer) and shows such nice lines as starbucks
(showing that it does track W2K uptime from day to day). The starbucks
line show EXACTLY what we would expect from a server that was up for 217
days, a nice line! The data seems to be conforming to what Netcraft
said. Leading me to believe that the data is indeed reliable enough to
make rough estimates of the stability of the OS that are reported there.
THEN when a second site collecting data in a different way shows the
same thing, I have not doubts!
>
> > smart enough to figure out that Winsupporters needed to figure out
how
> > it was done. Why? because then you would be able to figure out how
to
> > deal with it. All I needed to and need to do is post the numbers and
> > they say enough! So, thanks Eric, To bad Chad isn't like you! You go
out
> > and find proof. Chad? Well you know what they say about opinions and
> > assholes. At least You and I try to back up what we say. But I
disagree,
> > The method has shown to be reliable and no one has presented
anything to
> > prove otherwise. The method is now known, no more if this "I don't
know
> > how it's done so it's impossible" BS from the win camp! All those
posts
> > that made that claim are WRONG!
> >
>
> Wrong, the method provided by Erik was at the least unreliable at the
worst
> deceptive.
Prove our your just blowing smoke, little boy.
>
> >
> > >
> <trimmed>
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:13:23 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MwEZ5.43105$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9173km$gt7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The folders aren't so much of a problem as the menus because
you
> > > > > > > can at least type one letter of a name to jump somewhere that
> > might
> > > > > > > be close (depending...).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why are the menus a problem?
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you get 'close' to something in a menu, or temporarily
> > > > > sort it to float the thing you want to the top?
> > > >
> > > > You type the uderlined letter.
> > >
> > > The Start/Programs menu doesn't have any.
> >
> > I know, and in this case, you need to type the first letter of the item
> you
> > seek.
> > If there are several, you'll be brought to the first of them.
> > If there is only one that start by this letter, you'll ac_tivate it.
>
> Oh, I guess this does work under some circumstances - it never did the
> ways I had tried before. Normally I slide the highlight across from
> the 'Programs' directly to the adjacent menu item which pops out
> its sub-menu. Even with the highlight on the main menu item a
> letter key would active a matching item from this submenu, but I
> didn't expect that and in fact had never hit a character that happened
> to match before. Anyway, even using only the keyboard to open
> the program menu, hitting a letter doesn't necessarily get me close
> to the right place because the list isn't sorted alphabetically.
You can press Shift+F10 (menu key) and choose sort by name, or simply click
on the letter again, and it will take you to the next item which has the
same first letter.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:21:27 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yBEZ5.43106$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9173ko$gt7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > How many things are you talking about?
> > >
> > > A hundred or so are already annoying.
> >
> > Then do it like this, create directories inside start>programs and
arrange
> > your shortcuts there in them.
> >
> > Games
> > Development Tools
> > Graphics
> > Utilities
> >
> > and so on.
>
> My desktop is already mostly folders of dozens of things each.
>
> > > > You've desktop, quick launch, assortment of bars of your choice,
start
> > > menu,
> > > > programs, how long do you think it will take you to fill all of
them?
> > >
> > > About a day. If I did everything through a GUI there would have to be
> > > thousands.
> >
> > With all due respect, I find this hard to believe that you ran thousands
> of
> > programs daily, so you will need easy access to any of them.
>
> The reason for having a menu at all (if there is one), should be for
access
> to the things you don't use often enough to remember, shouldn't it?
Yes, and it would work.
I, personally, use the start menu only for infrequent programs, things I
only use once or twice a week, everything else is mapped to shortcuts or on
the quick launch menus.
I find myself working mainly with a set of less then 10 programs regulary,
so it's convient to do so.
I also has the start>programs ordered in multiply folders, so if I want to
open Flash, which I use rarely, I go to
Start>Programs>Graphics>Internet>Flash
You might find it best to use a double-size task bar, like this:
________________________________
| quick launch menu all across the task bar|
===================================================
|Start| The task bar itself |
===================================================
This way you've a long bar of programs which are easily accessible,
depending on your resulotion, it may take between 10 to 50 + programs. Less
if you need text descriptions to recognize them, but you wouldn't for
frequently accessible programs.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:25:19 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mJEZ5.43107$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9172p6$gjg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > You said "...regardless of the user...". That includes privileges of
> ALL
> > > > kinds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, with real computers the user is not the same as the administrator.
> >
> > Who do you think set up win2k systems? Administrator-privileged users,
> > therefor, the point stand.
>
> Like I said, on real computers the administrator is not a user even if
> it is the same person wearing a different hat.
Administrator is a user with very few limitations.
The assumestion of Administrator (or root) is that they know what they are
doing, because having unlimited rights to the computer can cause a lot of
trouble very quickly, if you don't know what you are doing.
When talking about setting up a Win2K box correctly, we are talking about
somebody with Administrator rights, logged on as such, that set it up.
If the user don't know what he is doing, then he can take the system down.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:34:28 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam Schuetze wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 15:06:25 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >
> > > 64MB is a big amount of RAM, even today.
> >
> > Are you kidding? 64 meg doesn't even come close to what your
> > average machine should have these days.
> >
> > In fact, I can't belive they (oems) keep shafting buyers by selling
> > them machines with only 64 MB of ram. Can you say, "bottleneck"?
> > They sell you the top-of-the-line cpu's, graphics cards etc..
> > but then they give you a puny 64 MB of ram. What use is that?
> >
> > Extra ram goes a LONG way. I keep seeing people upgrading from
> > (for example) pentium 200's to PIII etc.., rather than just
> > buying some ram. CPU speed is nice, but a lot of the
> > performance lag is from swapping pages of ram to disk and back.
> >
> > IMO, your average machine (PII-450 --> PIII 500) should have at
> > least 256MB of ram, or else your great speedy cpu is just
> > idling, waiting for the hard disk.
>
>
> That really depends on what your doing. The average home user does not
> need 256M for word processing, playing games etc. 256M for a PII300 used
> for heavy computation is reasonable. But most home users don't do much
> heavyweight computation.
Actually, since home machines are the one usually used to play games on,
those are the ones which require the most horse power.
Games, at least the good ones, has a pretty heavy load on the system if you
tune everything up the way you need to max out the game playability.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:50:38 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is patently false. A non-multithreading OS will not support a
> multithreaded application.
Oh yes. Pthreads in user space is (probably) even faster than using
kernel threads.
> An OS which does not support virtual memory will not allow an
> application to allocate things which are bigger than RAM.
Sure. But you need to do stuff manually. Could easily (for the
application) be performed by a library.
The thing about embedding this functionality in the OS, is that the OS
can do it preemptively to an application. The benefit to *my*
application is that other applications can e.g. be paged out to give
*me* more space.
> Better operating systems make better software easier to write.
I prefer Aaron's assertion that poor operating systems lead to poor
applications. :-)
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:58:57 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Show me the OS that can't be taken down by an applicaiton having root
> privileges. This is what we are talking about.
..although I don't see why. Of course a root user can take down the
system, that's part of what the root user is for. It's as relevant as
claiming a madman with an axe can take down the system.
It has no relevance security or reliability, unless you're using a
system where users have access to more privileges than they should.
> I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
Me too - I don't use Win2k. NT 4 is, however, quite vulnerable.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:49:28 GMT
And Ayende Rahien spoke unto the masses...
>Possible, see WindowBlinds & LiteSteps as 3rd party proof, and Whistler
>skinning as well.
Yes, skinning bloatware, that will be efficient. I'd prefer not to need another
128 megs to run my programs comfortably.
>Possible on 99% of the programs that you would install.
I hate to burst your bubble but this number isn't very accurate. I just did a
clean install of W2k on another machine. I'd say at 30-40% of the programs
loaded on called for a reboot. Even updating something like PowerDesk calls for
a reboot. Naturally it isn't that annoying when you can just feed in cds and do
it all at once, but still...
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.1|nVidia.95 Drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
