Linux-Advocacy Digest #890, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (kiwiunixman)
Re: Conclusion ("Chad Myers")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (glitch)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux is awful (almost as bad as M$-Windows) (James Richard Tyrer)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux is awful ("James E. LaBarre")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Russ Lyttle)
Re: How to spot bullshit (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Another UNIX sight is doun! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:07:02 -0700
> Well, I don't think the NETCRAFT numbers are vague.
Neither do I.
> >3) The most important factor of all is my own experience. No matter how
> >stable an operating system is, if it's not stable with my mix of
> >applications, hardware, usage, and most importantly skillset, then its
> >stability is irrelevant.
> >
>
>
> No, stability is very important.
> Skillset is something you can fix. Uptime is something you can not.
Let me make it more clear:
The most important factor IN DETERMINING STABILITY is my own experience. In
other words: Regardless of what any tests, benchmarks, etc say, my own
experience with the systems matters more. Some bonehead on a newsgroup can
tell me that they have been able to keep WinNT running for 3 years straight.
Well, my own experience doesn't bear that out, and that sure matters much
more than what may or may not have happened in some IT shop somewhere.
I trust my experience, everything else serves only as a guide.
> >4) Uptime isn't as important as availability, and that is much more
> >difficult to measure.
> >
>
>
> Well,
>
> Here we become confused.
Yes, I agree, you have become confused. I'm drawing a very fine line
between uptime and availability. If you are unable to see the distinction,
it's not worth my time to try and explain it.
[annoying and unnecessary rambling snipped]
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:10:42 +1300
<snype>
Pete, you are really fucking me off! Get a life. On a typical Linux
distro, there are, maybe, 3 pre-compiled kernels, optimized for
different processors. Hence, prior to installation, the installer must
detect what CPU is being used, then select the appropriate optimized
kernel for that archetecture, and this where the installation is falling
down, when trying to detect the CPU. It is very easy for Windows, as
the OS is optimized for the lowest class machine (486), and does not try
to install the core OS that is optimized for the users processor, where
as Linux distro's try to give the customer the best performance by
having pre-compiled kernels optimized for specific processors.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:00:54 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91aq21$6pl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> After all of the bickering over the last week, I've come to my conclusions:
>
> 1) There is no real good study of uptimes. And by that I mean a serious,
> possibly double-blind, study of the stability of operating systems over the
> long term. To do this would require setting up a bunch of servers on
> identical hardware, hitting them with equal loads, and then then recording
> the results. It would need to be done in a lab somewhere and would probably
> take 12 months to get good data.
I've maintained, since day one, that uptime of any system is directly
proportionate to the competency of the sysadmin.
Many of us here have had over a year or more of uptime with NT with
no problem. Likewise, many of you have had similar uptimes with Linux.
These uptimes can be achieved with similar systems with similar levels
of competency driving them.
> 2) There are two sources, Netcraft and Uptime.net, that have survey
> results. Each one works differently, one is voluntary the other is not.
> While these numbers aren't as good as a study like I mentioned above, they
> do have some validity. The fact that their numbers corroborate each other
> points to their validity. The problems with Netcraft can easily be filtered
> out, as can the problems with uptime.net. While the numbers aren't
> surgically accurate, they do give one a good baseline, and they also work
> well in a relative sense (meaning that we can see that "os a" is x% more
> stable than "os b", within the limited bounds of the survey).
Neither one is anywhere near scientific, representative, or relational by
any stretch of the imagination.
If two children believe in Santa Claus, does that make him any more real?
> 3) The most important factor of all is my own experience. No matter how
> stable an operating system is, if it's not stable with my mix of
> applications, hardware, usage, and most importantly skillset, then its
> stability is irrelevant.
> 4) Uptime isn't as important as availability, and that is much more
> difficult to measure.
3 & 4 = well spoken.
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:23:39 -0500
From: glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
I read in my newest Maximum PC magazine that Whistler will actually have
the TAB completion function for the console that Linux has had for who
knows how many years.
What INNOVATION!!
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Forms of MS-DOS have been succeeded by the Windows recovery console, and the
> Windows Explorer.
>
> Windows NT's problem with reloading the Networking layers without rebooting
> have been resolved for the most part under IT SUCCESSOR Windows 2000.
>
> This is beginning to sound like lambasting a computer platform for how it
> looked 6 years ago, when Linux haters are lambasting the platform for how it
> is TODAY.
>
> "Nick Ruisi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Another wintroll....
> >
> > "Where's my C:\ drive?"
> >
> > The sad thing is that *nix systems (once you learn the commands) are
> > alot like MS-DOS (see how many wintrolls can even handle that!) and much
> > more intuitive. In fact, thats how I first started learning the bash
> > shell. Anyway, who the hell wants the old "your network settings have
> > changed, press any key to reboot" message on a production server?
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:19:04 GMT
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> In the case of alternative fuels, here in New Zealand (sorry for the
> repetition), we have Unleaded 91, Premium Unleaded (Leaded petrol had
> been outlawed around 3 years ago for environmental reasons), LPG
> (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) and CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). A car
> running on CNG, which my parents car runs on, if you have two CNG
> bootles, they commonly hold (combined) around $NZ15 (around $US6) worth
> of CNG, which normally will take you around 160km. LPG (A mixture of
> Butane and Propane) is slightly more expensive, however, there is no
> performance loss when moving from Petrol to LPG, when compared to the
> performance loss when moving from petrol to CNG. The great aspect of
> CNG is that it can be produced from Methane collected from biomass and
> rubbish dumps.
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> <snype>
The big disadvantage is that you end up with more waste heat and CO2 per
km driven. Besides, gasoline is only a byproduct of the petro-chemical
industry. If 0 gasoline was used, we would still be creating just as
much pollution and using just as much oil. All those cheap plastic
gadgets, bottles, and bags start from oil.
Did you know that in the porduction of NG (including LPG and CNG) that a
byproduct is "drip". Drip is a condensate that forms when NG is brought
to the surface. Drip is almost pure gasoline, mostly octane. The NG
companies now have to shut down some wells because they can't dispose of
the drip.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: James Richard Tyrer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful (almost as bad as M$-Windows)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:20:08 GMT
Jeremy Bowen wrote:
> Linux isn't for amateurs
>
> It's all in a matter of time for Linux to support these and other devices, in
> fact it's all in a matter of getting Mfg. to port drivers, open source and the
> like.
>
> Mandrake has problems so does Windows, it really boils down to what you want to
> do. Do you want an OS that has driver and mfg support for the masses, or do
> you want an OS that is harder to configure yet more stable.
>
I am new here, but I will but in any how. I am not an amateur [note the e-mail
address].
In logic there is something called the lamppost theory, which might apply here.
They complain because they can't get "drivers" for this or that. This problem is
caused by the existence of M$-Windows.
If Linux or other *NIX were the dominant OS hardware manufactures would have to
build their products to existing standards unless they were large enough to
develop their own like HP (but then even they seem to have abandoned JCL and SCL).
Specifically, if you came out with a new printer and it used a completely new
software interface, how would you sell it in the *NIX only world? You wouldn't!
You would make it use PostScript or one of the existing de facto standards which
are supported.
But, with M$-Windows, everything needs its own driver. To the point that most
Linux newbies think that there is somewhere they need to go to down load a driver
for their modem. Which is a good example, because all real modems do not need a
driver in Linux. The reason is that the UARTS are compatible. If you came out
with a new UART that wasn't at least backward compatible with existing ones, how
could you possibly expect to sell it.
You also have to consider what will happen to these various peripherals that are
dependent on those M$-Windows drivers. I made the mistake of purchasing an
inexpensive HP scanner because I assumed that it would be SCL based -- WRONG!!
I had to take it back.
But, I wondered. It came with a "driver" for M$-Windows 95 & 98. I presume that
the anti-competetive agreements prevented them from offering a driver for 3.x.
Yes, you can down load a driver for ME for it. But, ME will be gone in a year and
what will happen to this non-standard product in a couple of years when it is
discontinued? Since it appears that each new release of M$-Windows needs a new
driver and there was no support for NT or 2000, would I have to buy a new scanner
in 2 years because I couldn't use it with my OS upgrade?
Isn't it the same with these printers that are (apparently) all different -- the
ones they won't release the specs for (like the scanner). What will happen to
them in a few years.
But, if they were built to standards, they would still be useful till they wore
out. Is this Micro$oft's plan.
Planed obsolescence??
JRT
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:06:31 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:36:45 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >That's the technical definition of Liberal.
> >
> >Unfortunately today, it means, "One who seeks to divide", or "One who
>
> Laughable in the extreme ! Was it the liberals or the conservatives who
> were pro-segregation ? Was it the liberals or conservatives who lead
> the anti-communist witch-hunts of the 50s ?
I said today.
Note it was conservatives to strived to keep the Union together during
the Civil War.
It was also conservatives who fought slavery and who brought about the
Emancipation Proclamation.
Shall I begin detailing all the Liberal misdeeds in our modern times
alone?
> >wishes to make government so large that everyone becomes dependent upon it".
>
> Liberal implies moderate.
Wrong. Liberal implies bending and stretching the rule of law and the
foundations of this country (as seen recently in Al Gore's Election Debacle).
Moderate implies moderate. Liberal implies eco-wacko, red commie (Jane
Fonda, et al), baby killer (Barbara Boxer who believes that a baby isn't
the Mother's until she's released from the hospital and a slipped-up
partial-birth abortion in which the baby is fully delivered and then
killed after birth is still legal), etc.
> And the differences between the republicans and
> democrats are not that great.
Republicans and Democrats are not conservatives and liberals.
There are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. I'm talking
ideology, not party affiliation which are mostly different things.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:24:28 GMT
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> The cleaner, long term solution is to use fuel cells and ethanol.
> Burning ethanol the conventional way is very inefficient, however, when
> used in a car with fuel cells, it is more efficient. Now, the big
> hurdle is whether the big car corps will see the light and finally
> produce a car that uses fuel cells.
>
> kiwiunixman
>
Fuel cells are just as bad. They use up fuel. They are expensive. They
are heavy. They are a maintenance nightmare. They are an explosion
hazard. No one would buy a fuel cell car.
The most efficient power plant is a turbine-generator. Burn anything at
low pressure, use that to generate electricy to power electric motors in
each wheel. Far more efficient and clean than anything that tries to use
fuel cells or batteries.
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
> >
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Per mile driven, Electric cars take MORE energy to run, due to
> >>> transmission losses between the power company and the car, and
> >>> in charging up the batteries.
> >>
> >> Who said you need a power company to charge the batteries? Use a solar panel
> >> and you get open source energy right from the sun :-) Why rely on big
> >> companies to provide your energy? That's like relying on Microsoft to supply
> >> your operating systems.
> >
> >
> > You still have the huge problem of battery acid waste, coupled with
> > the problems associated with solar panels.
> >
> > I'd love to have a clean solution, but let's make sure it really is
> > clean and that it works.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "James E. LaBarre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:27:45 GMT
>From my experience, I've had far less trouble setting up recent Linux
distros on machines like a Thinkpad 770, than setting up Win98 (even
98Lite) on the very same machines. Thankfully I know lots of ways of
hacking Windows installs, otherwise the Win98 machines would never work
right at all. And it isn't because I was removing IE in the install,
because a "normal" W98 install is just as troublesome.
Win2000 is surprisingly easier to install, but there is no "2000Lite"
utility, so I'm stuck with a system with tons of "shell bloat". On my
Linux side, even though I use X for most things, I can run XFce, and
have a much smaller shell.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:07:36 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > That's the technical definition of Liberal.
> >
> > Unfortunately today, it means, "One who seeks to divide", or "One who
> > wishes to make government so large that everyone becomes dependent upon it".
> >
> > A Clintonized liberal follows the following playbook:
> > - feed stories of a divide between two groups of people (black/white,
young/old,
> > etc)
> > to your controlled media
> > - Get the American people to believe there's a "serious problem" with this
> > divide,
> > in essence creating a problem that doesn't exist.
> > - Step in like a knight in shining armor to present copious amounts of
> > government
> > programs to solve the dispute.
> > - Of course, with all these new programs, we'll HAVE to raise taxes, but
that's
> > ok,
> > because at least we all get along now.
> >
> > -Chad
>
>
> You're a paranoiac.
Ad homonym, deny the truth, insult, insult, insult. Typical liberal behavior.
It's right out of the standard playbook. Look at what they do to G. W. Bush
every night.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:08:53 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91bkk0$kj0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Bob Hauck wrote:
> :>
> :> On 13 Dec 2000 22:28:33 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> >: Yes...the term liberal (root: liber = freedom) has been absconded
> :> >: with by the freedom-hating socialists.
> :> >
> :> >Then why help then mis-use it? Stop calling them liberals then.
> :>
> :> If he called the Democrats "socialists" or "communists" then people
> :> would think he's an extremist nutcase.
>
> : Actually, I DO call them communists on a regular basis, and yes,
> : people call me an extremist nutcase for simply telling the fucking truth.
>
> Using the terms "liberal" and "communist" interchangably to describe
> the same set of people is not telling the truth, though. You even
> said yourself that the communists absconded with the term "liberal"
> even though it shouldn't apply - so stop supporting this action
> with your posts. To continue as you are is to paint all liberals
> (both meanings) with the same brush.
Liberal, in the modern meaning of the word, implies socialist more
than communist. Although liberals are very sympathetic to Communists
(Jane Fonda, Ted Turner, Bill Clinton, etc)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:29:41 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > > Typical government-run project. A commercial entity would have dredged
> > > the lakes on a continual basiis.
> >
> > A commercial entity would not have built them in the first place. The
> > rivers in nature did not carry that much silt. But the lake covers lots
> > of land that errodes fast under the constant change in lake level. It is
> > not economically possible to dredge the lakes fast enough to keep them
> > clean. besides, where do you put all the stuff dredged up?
> > Hydroelectric power *kills* land even faster than strip mining coal.
>
> Kills /some/ types of land. None of the reservoirs in our area
> (Idaho) have these problems, and many are as old as TVA projects.
>
The land under the water is as productive as it was before it was
flooded? Fish can still move freely? Wildlife migration patterns haven't
been disrupted by the new lake too big to swim? Hydroelectric has its
place. But you can't run the country on the few suitable hydroelectric
sites that exist.
> To assert that the specific case applies to all general cases is a
> classic green tactic. One Chernobyl justifies a full ban on nuclear
> power.
>
> Interestingly, the new Chinese dam on the yellow river is going to be
> worthless in about 20 years because of all the silt. The project is
> behind, and they may only get 10 years of power out of the
> monstrosity. Any sane person would agree that these kind of projects
> need to be stopped, just as other dams make good sense.
>
As was true of the Aswan dam in Egypt. Built the dam, suddenly find all
the silt the Nile deposited on the land was trapped behind the dam. Dam
silts up, land quits producing crops. Duh.
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to spot bullshit
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:30:29 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:00:54 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Many of us here have had over a year or more of uptime with NT with
>no problem. Likewise, many of you have had similar uptimes with Linux.
>
If you had one year of uptime with NT you were probably using
the screensaver for your personal nightlight.
It was either that or you were doing something else with
your wee-wee and we are not talking about the same kind
of uptime.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Hope this helps.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unuther UNIX sight doun!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:12:34 GMT
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:38:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >
> >"Matthew S. Staben" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 13 Dec 2000 21:27:34 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SPAMMED
> >> :
> >>
> >> >ALL OF EFNET IS DOUN AS WE SPEEK! EFNET COOD HAVE RAN WINDOS BUT
> >NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAY HALF TO BE STOOPIT AND RUN UNIX BECAUSE THAY THINK IT
> >MORE STABAL1 BUT ITS NOT AND PROOVE IS THAT ITS ALL DOUN RITE NOW.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> So what if EFNET is down? It's a good thing to see a bunch of queers
> >> hanging out in a world of words and emoticons, banished from their
> >> queer-to-queer closets.
> >
> >Is this a new protocol? QTQCP? Queer-to-queer closet protocol?
> >
> >What port does that run on?
>
> Port "o".
>
>
> (Note: that is a joke. It is funny. You must laugh.)
A company in San Francisco bought the rights for DOS from Microsoft
last week. Apparently they prefer it there because they just can't
get enough of typing
"C colon ENTER"
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:41:58 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:10:42 +1300,
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><snype>
>
>Pete, you are really fucking me off! Get a life. On a typical Linux
>distro, there are, maybe, 3 pre-compiled kernels, optimized for
>different processors. Hence, prior to installation, the installer must
>detect what CPU is being used, then select the appropriate optimized
>kernel for that archetecture, and this where the installation is falling
>down, when trying to detect the CPU. It is very easy for Windows, as
>the OS is optimized for the lowest class machine (486), and does not try
>to install the core OS that is optimized for the users processor, where
>as Linux distro's try to give the customer the best performance by
>having pre-compiled kernels optimized for specific processors.
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>
I've never really understood why anybody interested in
Windows products would READ COLA anyway?
I mean, what is their goal for posting Windows crap
to COLA anywho? What's their beef anyway.
If you don't like Linux then don't use it.
And don't post to COLA.
If the typical person has a problem installing linux
then they go to a group like CODU Debian users or
what ever particular distribution they bought and
they get their problems resolved there.
There truely is no marketing impact on Linux nor
Windows from newsgroups.
There have been NO business managers who have ever
read COLA or COWNTA or COWA which have ever based
their buying decision on what was printed there.
The real reason anybody posts anything to a newsgroup
is to test their own personal convictions-beliefs.
I have a belief that Windows is cancer to the
business community.
It's costly. It doesn't work right. It's
a security risk for every business on the planet.
Linux on the other hand is free. It has
better security. It's uptimes are measured
in years not days. It is quicker.
Pete has already told me why he posts to COLA.
Pete has a fear of loosing his job.
He's probably the only wintroll who's ever
told the truth about his fears.
His fears are unjustified.
There is money to be made in Linux.
You can use it to perform your accounting, for instance,
in your new lawn care service.
"Pete's lawn care service!"
And if this doesn't work for you, here's what you
can do next.
I want you to go into your wife's kitchen and get
that little yellow funnel she uses to refil things
from the refigerator. Clean out the little yellow
funnel. Stick the funnel in your nose. Wait
for a good hard rain. Go outside and look up to god.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:43:44 GMT
On 14 Dec 2000 05:25:19 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer is either a complete moron, or a troll pretending to be one.
>
>Possibly one of the most worthy killfile candidates in this forum (despite
>the fierce competition for that distinction!)
Hey, now, I like little Timmay. He and "stinky" Boris perform the
"village idiot" function quite well, don't you think?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:50:35 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 20:33:01 -0500, Ken Klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
>> Microsoft invented.
>>
>> So I'll try it again on it's OWN THREAD.
>>
>> Name one thing, just one thing Microsoft actually
>> invented.
>>
>> You don't even have to give me a LINK to prove it.
>>
>> Charlie
>
>I'm sure you mean "one *good* thing" that Microsoft invented" right?
>Otherwise it's just too easy.
>
>I've not been following the other thread, but the nubmer one thing that
>comes to mind is the little scroll wheel on the mouse. I don't recall
>seeing anyone else doing that until after MS started shipping with them.
And don't forget the dancing paperclip to discourage using a help system,
or MS bob to make a PC completely worthless.
Not being able to share a planet with any other software vendors is kind of
cool. Who else would have ever thought of running WP s/w companies out of
business by using secret OS calls w/ their WP s/w?
I always thought renaming a 0.0 release as 3.1 to be amazingly innovative.
Skipping over three major release numbers (ms word) was also pretty cool. The
best way to steer people away from that practice was to use year numbering
instead of versions.
Maybe in twenty years MS can catch up to technology that was typical in the
early eighties. By then there'll be processors a million times more capable --
yet they'll still run dog slow.
--
Remove 'wakawaka' and 'invalid' to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
