Linux-Advocacy Digest #963, Volume #30 Mon, 18 Dec 00 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451897 (Marty)
Re: Kulkis digest, volume 2451897 (Marty)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows Stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: swithching to linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: swithching to linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:44:49 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John W. Stevens
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:33:23 -0700
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> Pedant point: HP-UX is not the most reliable of Unixes out there.
> >
> >Ouch!
> >
> >That smarts . . . just gotta work harder, I guess.
>
> Sorry; wasn't intentional. :-)
Even if it were intentional, that's Ok. Customer feed back is
always nice, and always valid.
> I haven't reported the problem -- and in any event it seems to be a lot
> more reliable now. (I'm currently running
>
> B.10.20 A 9000/785 2003561808 two-user license
>
> on a C360. I'm not sure what's been patched on this box.)
That would be more stable, yes. Especially if you are patching up along
the "ACE" path, where stability is not just a goal, it's a fetish!
:-)
> 8.0 was pretty bad (for a Unix; NT, however, is worse). 9.0 got better;
> the current version (10.20) is rock-solid now, although the uptime for
> this box is 9 days for some reason. Probably someone else rebooting it;
> I can't say why.
Some of our customers now schedule "nightly" reboots . . . I don't know
why. Seems to be a sys-admin specific thing.
I don't normally reboot anything, ever, around here unless one of my
experiments goes awry, and our local admin doesn't seem to schedule
regular reboots, either, so that may be a left over habit developed
during the 8.0/9.0 days.
> I mostly use this box for application development; at most, I might
> tweak a kernel parameter (haven't done that in a long while) to try
> to improve performance.
If there is any specific area of performance you want to optimize for,
let me know. I may be able to help you there.
> >The hardware can be perfectly reliable, and you can still get crashes
> >due to software bugs.
> >
> >Sad, but true.
>
> And here I thought NT's problems were due to bad system administration,
Some definitely are. Due to some resource leaks that exist in the NT
4.0 stuff, a good admin should probably adjust hardware to fit expected
service cycles . . . more memory, for instance, if you only intend to
reboot your NT boxen on weekly, or monthly cycles.
Or, of course, you could qualify your software according to local up
time and load parameters, though very few customers seem to do that.
Some of these reboots could probably be avoided in favor of simply
stopping and restarting certain services, but a lack of internal
information as well as a lack of profiling tools makes this difficult to
do.
Fortunately, very few customers use Windows based servers in situations
that require high-availability (by that, I mean "high-availability" the
way a Unix admin means HA, not the way an NT server admin means HA), so
a weekly or montly reboot is not usually an issue.
> hardware difficulties,
Non-name brand hardware is *definitely* a factor in some failures.
There has even been a discussion about Windows 2000 being finally stable
enough to start illustrating some of these "low quality hardware"
issues.
> iffy power,
Yes. Along with low quality hardware, you usually get low quality power
supplies both in and outside the case, with a very high probability that
a customer that bought a cheap system, didn't buy a UPS or even a simple
power conditioning unit.
Bad news, that, and not really the fault of Windows.
> or the nut behind the keyboard...
Seen that. The irony of requiring that NT/2K admins be trained, while
simultaneously refering to Windows as "friendly", has not escaped me.
There are definitely good reasons for hiring someone who has at least
the MS certification, though if you have a hetergenous environment, that
training alone is not enough.
> (Spot The Sarcasm. :-) )
;->
> >What version of HPUX are you running?
>
> Again, B.10.20 A 9000/785 2003561808 two-user license on a C360.
That should be a very stable combination, especially if you are patching
along the right path.
> Anyway, it may be a non-problem now.
Good!
> (I hope so; I like HP/UX since it's
> a little more standard than Solaris -- IMO, anyway; the only significant
> discrepancy I've seen versus Linux is the location of the X include files:
> /usr/include/X11R6 versus /usr/X11R6/include.
Yup. It's a backwards compatibility thing, by now.
> >HP-UX basho B.11.00 E 9000/785 2012732575 8-user license
> >
> >1:28pm up 51 days, 23:50, 2 users, load average: 1.36, 1.60, 1.51
> >
> >I'm a kernel developer so this box regularly gets experimented on, which
> >is why the up time figure isn't what it would otherwise be.
> >
> >No application crashes except Netscape, all of which seemed to be caused
> >by illegal HTML at certain "authored for IE sites".
>
> I've seen problems with Netscape + Java;
I'd heard about that, but never seen it. I'm somewhat allergic to Java,
considering the way I've seen it abused, and I'm especially allergic to
JavaScript, so in general, I leave 'em disabled, so I really can't speak
to the point.
> it regularly hangs my Linux box.
> On HP-UX, it occasionally crashes with a "Bus Error".
Yep. That's probably that "illegal HTML" thing, as that's the error I
see when I hit specific "authored for IE sites". I've tested this by
restarting, going back to the same page, and watching it crash again
immediately.
That seems to be platform independent, 'cause when I tried the same
version of Netscape on the same "crash page" on both Linux and HPUX,
both browers immediately went blooey.
> I haven't seen it crash on NT -- but then, I don't use it on NT;
> I use IE, which has its own problems, mostly of the "C'mon you stupid
> browser, I clicked that link already!" variety.
There is actually an IE version for HPUX, if that's of any interest to
you. Some features are not supported, of course, but the basic brower
seems to be all there, and it seems to be a free download.
I tried it on some of the "IE-only" sites, and it displays them just
fine.
> Again, sorry if I've misconstrued your company's product.
No problem. We'll take any feedback we can get. We can't fix it, if we
don't know you don't like it.
> I'll admit,
> I'm not sure how stable "stable" needs to be,
The goal, as unrealistic as it may be, is "perfectly". As you've
pointed out, there have been better, and worse versions of HPUX re: that
goal.
We have some pretty big customers that seem to be happy with the
stability of the 10.20 version of HPUX.
> and it may depend
> on the application.
I certainly hope not! But if so, that's an especially big mistake, and
I'll take any bug reports on that I can get.
> HP/UX is now stable enough for me;
My personal wish list includes some of the toys and neat stuff (Ala
GNOME, etc.) that are on Linux, but the only stability problems I've
encountered are caused by bugs in my new kernel code.
(You panicked on a simple NULL pointer de-reference!? Shouldn't you
know better, you idiotic machine!? ;-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:48:59 -0700
* wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> > It's easier to run than Windows . . . I've got a seven year old who runs
> > Linux.
>
> but what does your seven year old run on linux exactly?
The same kind of stuff he'd run on Windows: games, a browser, email to
family and friends, picture drawing tools, playing MP3's, etc.
He is getting to be quite the little artist, and he likes GIMP, though
of course he isn't advanced enough yet to use all of the professional
level tools that GIMP makes available.
> or is staring at a bash prompt all the enjoyment you'll allow your child?
???
You don't use Linux, do you?
The only time he sees a shell, is when he peeks over Daddy's shoulder.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:54:58 -0700
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:26:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"John W. Stevens" wrote:
> >
> >> It's easier to run than Windows . . . I've got a seven year old who runs
> >> Linux.
> >
> >but what does your seven year old run on linux exactly?
> Probably what mine used to run, xevil, koules, asteroids, tetris etc.
>
> >
> >or is staring at a bash prompt all the enjoyment you'll allow your child?
> I'm always amazed at the lack of knowledge some people display about Unix,
> usually its the Windows crowd, but this time its an Apple user.
>
> >
> >poor bastard.. -kK
> On the contrary, the happy child can play to his hearts content while dad
> doesnt have to wory about his system being trashed, Linux has ***security***
> but you wouldnt know about that would you ?
He and his Mom share a machine that sits on a LAN. The LAN connects to
the Internet through a machine that has firewalling and NAT setup, and
access to the world wide web is controlled through a proxy, so that I
can control what junk he gets exposed to.
Mom has an account on the firewall machine, so if she wants, she can
bypass the proxy. Works for us. . . and of course, the local system
security keeps him from destroying the machine, or messing with anybody
else's files.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Kulkis digest, volume 2451897
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:01:21 GMT
John Jensen wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> : > How ironic
>
> : Tholen, name ONE non-relative who thinks you're worth having around?
>
> Unoffical Scoring:
>
> Tholen: 3 /* low on content, but not actually harmful */
> Kulkis: 1 /* low on content, and increasingly nasty */
Shouldn't that be more like:
Tholen: -1
Kulkis: -3 ?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Kulkis digest, volume 2451897
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:02:59 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> John Jensen wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > : > How ironic
> >
> > : Tholen, name ONE non-relative who thinks you're worth having around?
> >
> > Unoffical Scoring:
> >
> > Tholen: 3 /* low on content, but not actually harmful */
> > Kulkis: 1 /* low on content, and increasingly nasty */
>
> Actually, Tholen is extremely aggressive.
> He just does it in subversive ways.
Aggressive doesn't quite capture it. I'd say abrasive and hostile is closer.
But then again, what I'd say is irrelevant. ;-)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:09:37 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Drinking too much Thunderbird before posting, I see.
Actually, at that time I was not drinking. I just love to
play with concepts, like all liberals do. An ivory tower
is a happy place!
My drink of choice is Boddington's Pub Ale, "The Cream
of Manchester." Check out www.boddingtons.com.
My sport of choice is football, known here as "soccer".
I do like American pointy ball, though.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:12:34 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Liberal, in the modern meaning of the word, implies socialist more
> > than communist. Although liberals are very sympathetic to Communists
>
> They're fucking communists....they just refuse to admit.
Hey, if it would help me get more fucking, I'd sure try being a
communist. However, I suspect a revolutionary tendency to launch
into political diatribes during intercourse would drive away all
the "Natashas".
I think ARK would make a good geosynchronous satellite.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:08:07 -0700
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > It's just that instead of accomidating for the changes in modern day
> > > computing,
> >
> > Translation: instead of violating good design principle in favor of
> > marketing buzz words, Linux choose GOOD over "IT SELLS"!
>
> Linux doesn't have the 'good' value anymore.
Linux is the fastest growing mid-range server OS.
As for 'good' . . . good is not related to market share.
> > This is called: A component based architechture. It's a hot new idea,
> > and all the rage (never mind the fact that it was invented in the
> > sixties).
>
> Exactly, it was invented in the 60's, instituted in the 70's, and abandoned
> in the 90's.
No, it hasn't been abandoned. Components are the next "big thing" . .
. again.
> Why? Because the OS is a whole component, it's programs are
> another component.
IE and Windows, any one?
> Blending the two togather is an unnessecary,
Exactly my point: one should not blend the GUI and the kernel together,
it is unneccesary, overly complicated, and a dumb idea.
If you agree with me, why post? :_)
> > No, it doesn't work . . . which is why all the really new and innovative
> > UI research is being done on Unix workstations . . . the UI can be
> > modified without having to modify the entire OS.
>
> When that research yeilds something as pretty AND functional as Apple's new
> AQUA X-Window'er and DM, call me.
I don't have a time machine . . . I can't go back in time and call you.
Aqua is a minimum of two generations behind the current research. In
fact, you could go so far as to state that it is as much as four
generations behind.
Strange, though, how suddenly "old is bad" has been replaced with "new
is bad" . . .
> > Solaris does not integrate the UI into the OS. Solaris, like all good
> > Unix-like OS'en, is component based.
>
> Yes, but solaris found how to make the UI be not only intuitave, but
> FUNCTIONAL. While also adding utilities that were intuitave, AND
> FUNCTIONAL.
Hey, looks like you still haven't tried Linux. Linux has a variety of
GUI's available, and at least one of them will be both intuitive for
you, and functional.
> Windows NT after service pack 4 was perfectly stable,
"perfectly"?
No.
> and has been succeeded
> by Windows 2000.
Yes. Windows 2000 is a perfect illustration of how silly the whole idea
of integrating the OS and the GUI are.
> MacOS 9 uses a fully 32-bit memory management system
> preventing such problems as "cascade crashing"
No. It does not "prevent", though it does reduce the number of crashes.
> Another example of Linux "clutching to the past".
What are you talking about, here?
It is rather telling, however, that you equate old with "bad".
Sex is really, really old, so I guess you don't indulge, right? The new
thing (what ever that may be) is the only way to go, right?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:13:14 -0700
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And what OSes are less of an administrative headache?
>
> Well, Windows has gone a long way into making administrative tasks easier,
> and more straightforward.
Which is why it requires an MS certifcation to administrate . . .
> Apple is showing that UNIX can be powerful and
> simple to administer.
No, NeXT showed that years ago . . . and their work was a direct copy of
some of the ideas put forth in the early seventies.
> > And does Linux blend them together more than other OSes?
>
> No, Linux splits the user interface and treats it like it were a program.
Precisely. This is a "good thing" (TM).
Or do you weld your wheels to your car, too?
> UNIX did this because IT HAD NO CHOICE.
Wrong. Unix did this because the Unix philosophy was years ahead of
it's time. The lack of a monolithic design is what allowed the GUI to
not only be independent of the kernel . . . it allowed the GUI to be in
a completely different box!
> Linux does this because...???
Because it is superior to a monolithic design. The ability to replace
one program with another allows for a highly flexible and adaptable
design.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:18:08 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Hmm, not really. Liberals (in the modern sense, at least), are for government
> control of everything, mass dependence on the government for everything from
> food, shelter, child care, education, etc. They want to create a society
> of dependent slobs who suckle on the Government's nipple. That was not what
> the Founding Fathers intended (including Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the
> Democratic party).
Well, Chad, I'm breaking my vow of silence. The phrase "suckle on the Government's
nipple" somehow calls to mind the U.S. Armed Forces. They seem to do the
heaviest suckling by a wide margin.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:39:08 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xkv%5.68277> Which Windows?
>
> Windows 9x is inherently unstable as is provides no memoryprotection
> between applications. Windows NT/2000 ought to be the stable version of
> Windows.
Windows 9x does provide memory protection between apps, it's just that
certain portions of the OS are mapped into all address spaces, so Win9x can
corrupt the OS itself, though not other apps.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:41:38 -0600
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91lsdc$9fm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nope, the client is the IIS Server A single client, Or you license
> SQL
> > Server by number of processors it is running on. Note these
> processors can
> > either be in the same machine or on separate ones.
>
> Quoted from Microsoft EULA for IIS:
> <quote>
> FOR MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT SERVER -- CLIENT ACCESS
> In addition to the Client Access requirements currently set forth in the
> applicable EULA,
> <b> you need a separate Client Access License for Windows NT Server in
> order to access or otherwise utilize the following Windows NT Server
> basic network/application services or Server Software components:</b>
> Microsoft Message Queue Server (sending or receiving messages from
> Microsoft Message Queue Server), Microsoft Transaction Server (invoking
> component-based applications managed by Microsoft Transaction Server),
> and Remote Access Service (accessing the server from a remote location
> through a communications link). Note: Remote Access Service includes the
> use of Internet Connection Services, including Internet Authentication
> Services (validation or transference of a remote access request) or
> Connection Point Services (remotely configuring the Microsoft Connection
> Manager Client with new phone numbers or other data). Performance or
> Benchmark Testing. You may not disclose the results of any benchmark
> test of either the Server Software or Client Software for Microsoft
> Message Queue Server, Microsoft Transaction Server or Microsoft Internet
> Information Server to any third party without Microsoft's prior written
> approval. Installation on a Single Server. The Server Software
> components that make up the applicable SOFTWARE PRODUCT may only be
> installed together for use on one Server and may not be separated,
> unless otherwise provided herein. Note on Microsoft Site Server Express.
> You may freely copy and distribute Microsoft Site Server Express for
> your use on any computer within your organization.
> </quote>
The phrasing in this section of the EULA is "Internet Authenticaion
Services". If you authenticate a remote login over the internet, then it's
a CAL, if it's a non-authenticated connection than it's covered under the
unlimited connection internet license.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: swithching to linux
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:43:55 -0600
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I'm running Debian 2.2 {Potato} on a 486 Toshiba with 5 meg of ram
> >> and a 500 MB hard drive. I'm currently installing it and went
> >> I'm getting very good performance on this system even though it
> >> has almost no resources to use. Linux makes things work!
>
> > Quite frankly, I don't believe you.
>
> Hey, I compiled linux for years on a 4MB 486sx50. I used to do it
> overnight.
>
> It's been upgraded to 8MB ram, and I still use it. Runs X.
I didn't say you couldn't. I was saying that I don't believe him that a 486
laptop with 5MB of memory is going to give you "good performance" in another
shell when it's compiling the kernel, not to mention the claim of installing
214 packages at the same time as well.
> > Hell, I have a P100 with 72 meg of memory that I used to compile the
world
> > on FreeBSD and THAT was painful to use while it was doing that.
>
> It takes longer than a kernel compile, as far as I recall.
Not talking about times.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: swithching to linux
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:45:38 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91lv0t$lp5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hell, I have a P100 with 72 meg of memory that I used to compile the
world
> > on FreeBSD and THAT was painful to use while it was doing that.
>
> FreeBSD buildworld is very different from linux's straight up kernel
compile.
>
> It really is actually possible to compile a linux kernel in 4 megs of ram
> (using swap) and do something on another console without too much trouble.
>
> Now, this assumes that youre not doing much of anything else; you may
> have a telnet session going on that other console or something, but god
> help you if youre running any large services.
He claimed he was also installing 214 packages at the same time as compiling
a kernel on a 5MB 486 *LAPTOP* (which, as I said, laptop hard drives are
much poorer performance due to low power needs than workstations) and still
having good performance in a 3rd shell.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:34:39 -0700
* wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> > > ie: So how many people do YOU know running StarOffice?
> >
> > 139. (140, if you count a three year old who starts it, then types
> > random stuff into it 'cause everybody else uses it, and three year olds
> > are "monkey-see-monkey-do" creatures).
>
> yeah. so name them.
Three of them are family members.
I, personally, do not normally use StarOffice . . . I installed it for
my wife and kids to use.
> and 'a three year old' and 'a seven year old' do not count as names.
Those are my sons. And, no, I'm not going to give you their names.
But I will freely grant that what my three year old does with StarOffice
probably does not constitute "use".
> y'r pal -kK
If you were my pal . . . you'd have known who I was talking about.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:40:44 -0700
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > The USB layer under Linux doesn't support full soft-enumeration of the
> > > devices under the BUS in perputiaty. WHICH IS THE POINT OF USB!
> >
> > What the heck are you trying to say?!
>
> TRANSLATION: You plug it in, and poof, it works, PERIOD.
That doesn't happen in Windows, either.
You totally failed to discuss the point, as well.
Then you ahead and
[snippage]
completely misrepresent both Windows AND Linux. What are you, a
marketing specialist?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
