Linux-Advocacy Digest #48, Volume #31 Sun, 24 Dec 00 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Craig Kelley)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (steve@x)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (mlw)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (pip)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (David Steinberg)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (steve@x)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Conclusion (Shane Phelps)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability (Andres Soolo)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Det2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 24 Dec 2000 13:11:49 -0700
steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I wanted to try this program that is supposed to be good.
>
> When I tried to install AbiWord using rpm, I get the error
>
> "only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of RPM"
>
> Ok, after searching the net, I found rpm version 4 out there
> (I was using rpm 3.0.3). So, I download rpm for rpm 4.0, but
> when I try to install rpm 4.0 using my current rpm, I also get
> the same error.
>
> So, I search the net again, and I find someone saying that rpm 3.0.5
> will not give the above error. So, I search for rpm 3.0.5 and downdownload
> the rpm file for it.
>
> I rpm -Uhv it, but I get dependcy error, it wanted these
>
> error: failed dependencies:
> textutils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> sh-utils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
>
> Ok, so I hit the net again searching for textutils, I download
> it, then I do
Funny, just click on gnorpm and pick abiword -- it does all this for
you. But, if you insist on using the wrong tool for hte job then go
ahead.
Gnorpm is an example; there are several such tools including rpmfind,
which will do dependencies.
Now, how to I update my Windows 2000 machine from the command line
again? Remotely?
I thought not.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 24 Dec 2000 12:19:29 -0800
In article <925i3u$amu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sfcybear says...
>Could it be that the
>version you are using is hopelessly out of date?
>
SuSe 6.3 (I know, it is really OLD, may be 6 months old by now,
which in the linux world, comes to 5000 years).
funny, that I had win95 for 5 years before I upgraded, and in
all that time, never had an application not install becuase
it needed something else to be there before it installed.
only on linux is installing a program a chore.
give linux 10 more years, may be they'll figure what the end
user needs are.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 16:09:50 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Obviously these quantitative arguments are silly, because by these
> : arguments, we can prove things which we know not to be true. These
> : arguments support the notion that Java is an OS.
>
> : We must depend on qualitative arguments. DesqView is not an OS, Java is
> : not an OS, and thus Windows is not an OS. There is a common denominator
> : in that they all rely on a base OS on which to function. They are not,
> : themselves, operating systems.
>
> In my view, Java and Win32 both serve as higher-level abstractions
> over services that traditionally are, but in any specific case may or
> may not be, performed by the operating system. Since DOS is rather
> stupid but VMS is not, the DOS implementation of Win32 provides these
> services whereas the VMS implementation (aka NT4/W2K) defers them to
> the actual OS which sits under Win32 on an NT/W2K system. Java
> ordinarily provides few of these services, but, in some cases where
> the underlying OS is limited (e.g., Linux with respect to threads, or
> DOS with respect to pretty much everything), a Java implementation may
> be forced to provide or emulate them.
It is not clear what you intend to say here.
Windows aka Windows 3.1, 95, 98, etc. is nothing more that a glorifed
dos extender.
NT, aka Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, and Windows 2000. Is a VMS clone
with a 32bit Windows sybsystem which emulates a DOS extended windows
environment.
These are my points, Windows is not an operating system.
>
> Joe
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:21:09 +0000
"steve@x" wrote:
>
> In article <925i3u$amu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sfcybear says...
>
> >Could it be that the
> >version you are using is hopelessly out of date?
> >
>
> SuSe 6.3 (I know, it is really OLD, may be 6 months old by now,
> which in the linux world, comes to 5000 years).
If you are having loads of problems with the way a particular
distribution does things then you can always switch to another.
> funny, that I had win95 for 5 years before I upgraded, and in
> all that time, never had an application not install becuase
> it needed something else to be there before it installed.
No you are correct. They just do a forced install leading to many other
problems, especially with dll's.
> only on linux is installing a program a chore.
You are correct - installing can be a chore and it is not as easy as in
Windows.
As other people have pointed out though, in Linux you have a number of
choices in how to install programs - so why don't you try another way?
> give linux 10 more years, may be they'll figure what the end
> user needs are.
Try 5. Very neat things are happening all the time and people are
figuring out that non-guru users need a little more hand holding.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:27:48 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> The election results would probably not have been closer had everyone voted
> randomly. To chalk this up as a decisive win for Bush is naive or dishonest.
> It was a win,sure. But it was hardly a landslide, something Stevens completely
> ignores.
Statistically, the results were a tie. The variance due to random effects was
greater than the difference in this particular sample.
>
> >> >AL GORE LOST THE NATIONAL VOTE.
> >>
> >> On technicalities.
> >
> >...No, by constitutional law.
Statistically, the results were a tie. The variance due to random effects was
greater than the difference in this particular sample.
> Whatever. However you try to slice it, the election boiled down to the finer
> points of the law, the electoral system, errors etc.
The results boiled down to random chance, lady luck.
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: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:30:48 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > Yeah, but at least there are some variations in those files.
> > His sig almost never changes!
>
> What variations?
> A pair of tits and 3 chords in all of 'em!
You don't get around much, do you!
------------------------------
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: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:32:56 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> It was justified. The Democratic party is made up of Ms. Ivins'.
> I'm a Former Democratic campaigner and supporter. The left wing of the party
> has pretty much taken over.
Left wing???? According to my clock, taken from the cover of the Bulletin
for Atomic Politicians, the Democrats are at 11:00, and the Republicans at
maybe 1:30.
> The left doesn't like set-in-stone rules they
> can't dance or litigate around. The "Constitution is un-American" rhetoric
> is to be expected.
Prove it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 24 Dec 2000 21:36:26 GMT
steve@x ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Ok, I wanted to try this program that is supposed to be good.
: When I tried to install AbiWord using rpm, I get the error
: "only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of RPM"
I can see from the tone of this posting and subsequent postings in the
thread that you're more interested in bashing Linux than finding a
solution to your problem, but I'd like to try to help you solve your
problem anyway.
Where did you get this rpm of AbiWord? Instead of updating your RPM
system, let's look for an rpm of AbiWord that was built for your
system. Later on, you say that you're running...
: SuSe 6.3 (I know, it is really OLD, may be 6 months old by now,
: which in the linux world, comes to 5000 years).
Knowing that AbiWord is a GNOME application, I think, "Helix Code has
packages of just about every GNOME application for just about every
distribution out there."
I head over to their website (http://www.helixcode.com), and find the
following AbiWord package for SuSE 6.3:
http://spidermonkey.helixcode.com/distributions/SuSE/abisuite-0.7.11-0_helix_4.i386.rpm
If you find you have dependency problems, don't just look for the first
RPM you find on the 'net. Try to find packages for your version of your
distribution. Start with the distribution itself (ie. look at your CD's
or on SuSE's web site), and if they don't have it, look for packages from
the project's authors or packagers, or rpmfind, that were built for your
distribution (example: for other GNOME packages look back at Helixcode --
their complete set of packages for SuSE 6.3 can be found at
http://www.helixcode.com/desktop/packages.php3?distribution=suse&mirror=spidermonkey.helixcode.com-HTTP
Hope this helps.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:40:38 GMT
Oops, I was thinking of iomega's Ditto drive.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:9256u6$i0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writ:
>
> > All this hardware works because they all have the fortune of being based
> > around America's top 10% hardware.
>
> > 9.Jaz 1G: It's a tape drive, it's from iomega. But it's still a tape
drive.
>
> Jazz 1Gb by Syquest is a removeable cartridge *hard drive*. I
> guess Iomega made some sort of equivalent device. What actually
> did you have in mind?
>
> > So you see, your stock collection of top hardware, and hardware based
around
> > other top 10% hardware makes your system the ideal runner for a Linux
> > distro.
> >
> >
>
> Vacuo
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:42:29 GMT
Tell me, do you actually go around reading the headers to EVERY post you
read?
"Yatima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:15:53 GMT, Robin and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ah yes!
> >
> >The joy of Linux, once again illustrated for all to see.
> >
> >By the time Linux catches up to Windows 2000, Windows will be at
> >Windows 2100 and then some.
> >
> >Linux is a pile of junk.
>
> How many aliases are you at now
> Steve/Heather/Claire_lynn/Swang/Flatfish/Robin and Jimmy etc ad nauseum?
>
> Just curious.
>
> --
> yatima
------------------------------
From: steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 24 Dec 2000 12:53:51 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig says...
>
>Funny, just click on gnorpm and pick abiword -- it does all this for
>you.
#gnorpm
bash: gnorpm: command not found
which rpm do I need to download to install gnorpm so I can install
abiword becuase my current rpm will not install a package that
I needed to upgrade my current rpm version to a newer version
so I can install abiword with the newer rpm version?
> But, if you insist on using the wrong tool for hte job then go
>ahead.
>
RPM is now the wrong tool for the job? interesting. If it is wrong,
why give to the user to use? to tourture them?
>Gnorpm is an example; there are several such tools including rpmfind,
>which will do dependencies.
>
yes, smarty. I use rpmfind. HOw else you think I find all those
rpm packages then?
>Now, how to I update my Windows 2000 machine from the command line
>again? Remotely?
>
oh , pleeeese. what a cop out. I am trying to install a program, and
you tell me about the power of linix remote update. it can't even
do a local simple program installation.
you linux geeks are so out of it, it is scary.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:54:28 GMT
Serve the Windows Explorer interface so users can get real, important work
done.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:22:44 GMT
> <oSe16.55343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Windows NT TERMINAL SERVICES EDITION does exactly that genius. And
Windows
> >2000 now serve's a remote console session (remote DOS prompt)
> >
> >Gee, sucks when Windows is moving along, and Linux is standing still.
>
> Dumb question, but what can Windows NT Terminal Services do that
> Linux + X + xterm + ssh (ssh has an X server proxy that encrypts traffic)
> can't?
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random peanut gallery here
> up 88 days, 9:39, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 24 Dec 2000 22:07:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Gee, so the guy buys 1000 shares of a technology stock that has had a
: company history long record of increasing and recovering higher than before
: after any fall and it hasn't rebounded yet. Is there anyone who seriously
: believes MS stock will stay so low (other than penguin lovers and MS
: haters)?
Microsoft has no viable long-term business model other than organized
crime, and it isn't really all that good even at that.
The markets haven't figured that out yet, but they will.
BTW: neither do many UNIX and Linux companies. They're not criminal
organizations (AFAIK), but they don't have a proven business model
either, and I'm not certain that they ever will. I hope that at least
some of them will succeed, but I don't know that they will.
It's far from a given that any rational consumer is ever going to pay
much for a couple billion ones and zeroes that cost next to nothing to
produce. Remember, in anything even remotely approaching a free
economy, the MAXIMUM long-term price that can be charged for any good
is slightly more than the marginal cost of producing an instance of
that good. In the case of information, the marginal cost of producing
a copy is zero, and will continue to be zero, in spite of the efforts
of totalitarian thugs masquerading as "governments" to make it
otherwise.
The real tech boom hasn't happened yet, but when it does, it will
primarily benefit CONSUMERS of technology, not producers (just as the
industrial revolution enriched consumers of industrial goods but
bankrupted most producers, and likewise for the agricultural
revolution).
What we're seeing today is the result of mass irrationality, as has
frequently been the case when society has entered into uncharted
waters in the past. Irrationality can last a long time, but not
forever, so the current mania that rewards criminal enterprises like
MSFT and other purveyors of buggy, proprietary garbage, even while
punishing the blue chip companies that have been delivering real value
to consumers, employees and shareholders for decades, will eventually
end. When it does, the willingness of consumers, markets, and
governments to tolerate and reward criminal behavior will draw to a
close, and so will the ability of people like you to knowingly profit
from it.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:15:23 +1100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The DEL command in MS-DOS used to remove directories as well as files,
> > but I don't think that was recursive. Wan't there a DELTREE command
> > for recursive removal?
>
> deltree is for recursive removal, indeed.
> But del is not capable of removing directories.
You're right. DEL <directory> would delete all the files under the
directory, but not remove the directory. I haven't done much in MS-DOS
for ages, and I never intentionally used that particular syntax for DEL
anyway (*way* too dangerous, like rm <dir>/*). That's my excuse and I'm
sticking to it :-)
> You need rd to remove a directory, and it need to be clean (no file or
> sub-directories) for it to work.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:25:03 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The only thing my panties are in a wad about is Visual Studio. (Compiler
> Error 1001)
>
> I have to compile four times for the damned thing to go away and allow me to
> link.
Visual C++ is weird... the IDE and debugging system is pretty nice.
The GUI generation is just adequate. MFC is a mess, a C++ framework
written by C programmers. The core compiler is a non-standard non-conforming
mess that they broke in version 6. Makes ya wish for Borland...
...the old Borland, that is. The core Borland C++ compiler is still
good, but the GUI there (VCL) is Pascal polluted, and the IDE is
buggy as hell. I wonder if the Kylix version will be better.
I wish I could just master gcc and forget about buying compilers ever
again. (I'm well on my way for the first objective, but need for
M$ to die on the vine before our company and clients will go open source).
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:26:58 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >Al Franken is a failing comedian, was never too funny, and must latch onto
> >popular writers for subject matter to sell his pathetic books.
> >
> >Does Rush Limbaughs truth spewing feel like holy water on a vampire? It does
> >seem to have that effect on the most extreme socialists who's one true enemy
> >IS TRUTH.
>
> Meanwhile, back in the real world, you can tell how vapid a
> conservative's arguments are by how often they have to trot out this
> lame-ass ad hominem. Rush Limbaugh's 'spewings', certainly an accurate
> phrase there, are simply offensive to anyone who actually uses their
> brain, and that entirely explains the fatigued ridicule which is about
> all most people can generate for Rush these days.
And, anyway, Al Franken is far more enjoyable that Rush. I'm sure "Mein
Kampf" is a better seller than "The Way Things Ought to Be".
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: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:31:33 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:05:08 -0700, John W. Stevens wrote:
> >> >Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> >I DIDN'T WRITE THE STUFF BELOW. --Chris
>
> >> >Just today, Molly Ivins (an old-style liberal) states in her news paper
>
> We know that. Don't you know how to count quotes?
Of course not, I'm a Demoncrat.... Oh, I thought you said
"count votes"! Never mind<grin>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:33:15 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Yeah, but at least there are some variations in those files.
> > > His sig almost never changes!
> >
> > What variations?
> > A pair of tits and 3 chords in all of 'em!
>
> You don't get around much, do you!
Honestly, no.
Too much code to write.
I am getting out for XMAS though :)
Has female anatomy changed to any extent in my absence?
Any decent guitarists lurking on the mp3's?
And don't say "Wes Borland..." He couldn't play his way out of a paper bag.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: 24 Dec 2000 22:34:35 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> In my view, Java and Win32 both serve as higher-level abstractions
:> over services that traditionally are, but in any specific case may or
:> may not be, performed by the operating system. Since DOS is rather
:> stupid but VMS is not, the DOS implementation of Win32 provides these
:> services whereas the VMS implementation (aka NT4/W2K) defers them to
:> the actual OS which sits under Win32 on an NT/W2K system. Java
:> ordinarily provides few of these services, but, in some cases where
:> the underlying OS is limited (e.g., Linux with respect to threads, or
:> DOS with respect to pretty much everything), a Java implementation may
:> be forced to provide or emulate them.
: It is not clear what you intend to say here.
: Windows aka Windows 3.1, 95, 98, etc. is nothing more that a glorifed
: dos extender.
I agree that these aren't operating systems in the full sense, but
they implement the Win32 interface, and, thus, resemble operating
systems when viewed from the perspective of a user-space application.
Meanwhile . . .
: NT, aka Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, and Windows 2000. Is a VMS clone
: with a 32bit Windows sybsystem which emulates a DOS extended windows
: environment.
By my criteria, these *are* full-fledged operating systems. But they
look very similar to user-space applications to the consumer versions
of Windows.
: These are my points, Windows is not an operating system.
My point is that it's gotten much harder to define exactly what
constitutes an OS. Is it the interface, the implementation, or both?
While Win95 obviously is not an operating system and NT4 obviously is,
they both implement a very similar set of interfaces. Much the same
is true of, say, Java on Solaris and Java on DOS.
In addition, our current concept of an "operating system" is still
machine-centric, whereas many modern applications are not. What is
the OS of a database application consisting of an Oracle/Solaris
database server, fed by an industrial monitoring device based on QNX,
served by an Enhydra-based app server and Apache web servers running
on a farm of Linux and FreeBSD boxes, and accessed via the public
Internet by pretty much every conceivable combination of desktop OS
and browser software? Obviously, no single OS predominates. But in
the eyes of uninformed people like most of the Winapologists here,
Windows is doing the "hard work" of rendering HTML. They're entirely
unaware of what had to happen in order for that HTML to be generated
in the first place. As a result, they naturally envision Windows as
being the "dominant" OS in the mix, even though, in reality, it's
being used as a dumb terminal and not much else.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: 24 Dec 2000 22:37:09 GMT
SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has been posted more than enough that Win2K is too "new" on the marked.
> System admins must get the feeling about it, before they can thrive it up
> to good performances. Also, most sysadmins wait till servicepack 4 comes
> out, since (in the line of NT) this sp will make 2K as solid as necessary.
It's interesting to note that the common knowlege was they'd wait
for two SPs before `jumping on it' a mere six months ago.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The easiest way to figure the cost of living is to take your income and
add ten percent.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:46:18 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > It was justified. The Democratic party is made up of Ms. Ivins'.
> > I'm a Former Democratic campaigner and supporter. The left wing of the
party
> > has pretty much taken over.
>
> Left wing???? According to my clock, taken from the cover of the Bulletin
> for Atomic Politicians, the Democrats are at 11:00, and the Republicans at
> maybe 1:30.
That's as maybe. They've still over-run the party. Kind of like the right
tried to do on the other side of the fence back in the eighties.
>
> > The left doesn't like set-in-stone rules they
> > can't dance or litigate around. The "Constitution is un-American"
rhetoric
> > is to be expected.
>
> Prove it.
Prove what?
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Det2)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 20:55:21 GMT
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:27:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Det2 wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 03:42:41 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Det2 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 18:22:50 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Translation:
>> >> >
>> >> >Kulkis successfully fucked up us.military.army once, and Dave is
>> >> >afraid of repeat performance.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Troll
>> >
>> >
>> >And it only took you 14 months to figure it out
>> >
>>
>> No son,
>
>I'm not your son...
>
Sure, Specialist, we can play that game too.
IF you are in the guard.
You were given a lawful order awhile back. Try obeying it.
>> I was just pointing it out for the new folks.
>
>Who would they be?
>
>
Trolling again ?
>>
>> And does this mean we can disount all the claims you've made in the
>> past ?
>
>It means you're chasing your tail, as usual for the u.m.a bunch.
>
NO it simple means we don't believe you OR your claims of
missions in the Gulf or decorations granted.
SSG Paul D. Carrier
Readiness NCO (63H & 45K)
Det 2 Co. B 145 SPT BN
Camp Withycombe, Clackamas OR
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
