Linux-Advocacy Digest #174, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: linux price? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (J Sloan)
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma (Michael Vester)
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Marty)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux price?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:15:15 GMT
Coconut Ming wrote:
> All Linux is free?
> Can anyone tell me... Linux redhat.. Mnadrake... Corel...
> All is free OS?
> All Linux clone except WinLinux is free?
> Please answer me. I am a newbie..... Yet decide to get a free Os :)
Linux is free, though not all distros are free.
Corel is gone - microsoft bought them and now
surprise, surprise, they are suddenly getting out of
the linux business. It's a shame because they had
made a very newbie-oriented distro.
Redhat is always available for free, as are mandrake,
debian, slackware and some others. Caldera and Suse
I think are only offering evaluation versions for free, but
the distros are available for around $30-$40.
You can download iso images or distribution trees
from a number of places, e.g. ftp.freesoftware.com,
where you have a choice of redhat (my preference),
slackware, debian or turbolinux.
Mandrakesoft.com also has downloadable distros.
You can also order cdroms for $2-$5 from various
vendors like cheapbytes.com, linuxcentral.com,
lsl.com or the like.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:18:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So here it is the new year and no new Linux kernel yet. Goes to show
> that Linux's due dates are no better than anyone elses.
What due dates?
2.4 is ready when it's ready.
BTW the 2.4.0-prerelease hit the ftp sites Dec 31 2000.
jjs
--
running 2.4.0-prerelease on Red Hat 7.0
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:30:29 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Indeed it did. Yet, somehow a Windows NT machine that crashes daily doesn't
> have something wrong with it?
Nothing that could be fixed by an army of onsite MCSE
and microsoft reps. And I didn't say it crashes daily, I
said it crashed at inopportune times, and the consensus
from the microsoft experts was a daily therapeutic reboot.
> > I know that this is strong medicine for someone like yourself,
> > and you may choose to disbelive it. If I find the spare time I
> > will see if I can locate an online reference.
>
> You made the claim. Back it up.
my aren't we paranoid.
> > The windows machine that only runs the database needed
> > to be reboted nightly. That's also standard practice at web
> > server farms where they have "green acres" windows nt
> > installations to try to provide uptime even though individual
> > nt boxes blue screen at various times. It has been found better
> > to do a therapeutic nightly reboot at a scheduled time rather
> > than have windows nt lock up at some random and possibly
> > inconvenient time.
>
> And you know this how?
I work in the industry. I talk to people. I've been a webmaster
and system administrator for years.
> I'm sure the Windows machines were 9x based. Right?
I'll admit the nt boxes were less trouble than other windows
systems.
> > Because I've worked with Linux and other Unices,
> > as well as windows, for years. I know how they behave
> > in everyday, real life production environments. and I'm
> > telling you, the Linux systems (and FreeBSD and others)
> > let me sleep solidly. The windows systems are the ones
> > that blue screen at 3 AM.
>
> Always in the middle of the night. Strange, isn't it?
No, they will blue screen at other times, but it's the
3 AM blue screens that stick in ones memory.
> Sure, however there are still far fewer of those than all NT (including
> Workstations).
Since over 60% of the webservers on the internet are Unix,
and 75% of the mailservers are Unix, and 80% of the high
end databases are running on Unix, where do you get the
idea that unix is outnumbered there by windows nt?
jjs
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:23:12 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hey, I really could use some input here... and it is Linux-related
> (eventually)...
>
> I'm doing an accelerated computer programming course at a professional
> college. I was just offered a job recently, about seven months before I
> graduate, which would teach me some things that I didn't pick up at
> school, namely COM/COM+ programming within an ASP environment, mostly
> using Visual Basic and VBScript. Now, I'm at the top of my class at
> school, but according to these guys I'm just an advanced beginner (fair
> enough, I don't disagree). The thing is, what they're offering is 25
> hours a week, at minimum wage, for a few months worth of training, at
> which point things would get renegotiated (unsure to what terms,
> although using minimum wage as a starting point... yeesh...).
>
I worked in the IT field for 12 years before I did an
accelerated degree program. Even as an "unqualified" IT
worker, I made many times more than minimum wage. After
completing the program, my rates doubled. I have encountered
many companies that try to get their help as cheap as
possible. The tell tale signs are advertisements in the paper
that seem to run forever. They demand qualifications like
Phd's to write accounting software or 10 years of Java
programming experience. The "sweat shops" usually have a
reputation which you can check out by joining some local user
group.
> Now, I'm getting more than that on unemployment insurance, so part of me
> is thinking that I should just say "Thanks, but no thanks", and put the
> effort into training myself in something else, namely, building C
> front-ends for MySQL or PostgreSQL, or Java front-ends for Oracle. The
> thing is, those would be neat-o jobs I'd like to have, whereas this is
> one real-life job that I CAN have. How dumb is it to turn down a job
> offer like the one I was given to try to learn the stuff I want to learn
> instead?
>
There are lots ofjobs so don't jump on the first likely
employer. I have had American companies try to recruit me, I
am a Canadian. Even had an interview with Dell in Texas. They
paid for the plane ticket and hotel. We did not agree on a
salary. If I am going to move to a different country, it has
to be worth my while. Dell is not exactly an impoverished
company. I can work for one year at my normal rates and take
off 3 years; or I can work in a "sweat shop" for four years
and make less money.
> Secondly, among those of you who are reading this, are there a lot of
> people doing (or have already done) these sorts of accelerated programs?
> Is this sort of job offer for a student at or near graduation par for
> the course? Should I be grateful for the offer?
>
They should be grateful that you showed the slightest bit of
interest. Never think that the company is doing you a favour
by giving you a job! Don't sell yourself short. Minimum wage
for IT work is a good sign that you do not want anything to do
with this company.
> By the way, for what it's worth, I'm pretty close to the top of my
> class, which is pretty good until you start considering that things such
> as Assembly are getting removed from the curriculum, and things like COM
> aren't really touched on.
>
Never had any employer even check to see if I actually had my
stated education. Marks are irrelevant. Experience matters. I
finally got into Internet application development because of
my own personal experience using Linux. My current employer
uses Perl, MySQL and Oracle on a Solaris platform. I did not
have any trouble making the transition. My employer uses IIS
and ASP only if the customer insists. The Microsoft
environment may look like it is easier to develop applications
on but it certainly is not. Countless calls to the server
administrators to reboot hung servers, functions that don't do
what they are supposed to do and very poor performance. When
we develop an application and the customer has no preference,
we always go the UNIX route.
Any moron can click and drool a VB application. The local
educational institutions are churning out plenty of Microsoft
Certified Whatever's that are completely lost in any other
computing platform but Windows. As Microsoft rewrites every
new version of their software, most of the so called knowledge
you acquired has to be re-learned. In a UNIX environment,
everything you know can be applied to new versions. All the
knowledge you have is transportable to other UNIX platforms.
My easy transition from Linux to Solaris is a good example of
that benefit.
> Thanks for any insight that anybody can offer.
>
> ws
>
Michael Vester
A Credible Linux Advocate
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:34:01 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Eric, why do you haunt the linux newsgroups?
> > >
> > > I'm a Linux user.
> >
> > I'm afraid there's some strange agenda at work here -
> >
> > I just don't see a Linux user making a career of
> > windows cheerleading. If you do use Linux, I suspect
> > it's just to search for ammunition in your advocacy.
>
> No, I use Linux because it's the right tool for the job I use it for,
I could swear by your postings that it's all wrong for you.
> however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the lack
> of standardization between distros.
That's cool, FreeBSD is powerful and stable, but if you think
FreeBSD is going to be any different in terms of having config
files in /etc and the like, you're in for a rude awakening.
It's Unix too.
But I don't see your point about lack of standardization
between distros. what's your point? If you live in Europe,
standardize on SuSE. If you live in the US, standardize
on Red Hat. Everything works, problem solved.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:35:23 GMT
Brad Wardell wrote:
>
> NTFS 5 allows for compression on a per file basis as well as encrption on a
> per file basis. This is quite nice to have at the file system level.
I'd prefer such a feature at the application level for a couple of reasons:
* Allows the use of different algorithms, not just the standard system ones
* Can't be forced to encrypt or compress a file by a program (more control)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:49:42 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:28:58
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 15:19:01
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:01:49
>> >> [...]
>> >> >While your at it, please show where Republicans have bent the rules.
>> >> >After all, this is what T. Max was claiming, which is an obvious
>> >> >lie. I called him a liar, and I proved it. Now, prove why I am a liar.
>> >>
>> >> You just did.
>> >
>> >You have a warped sense of lying.
>>
>> Guffaw.
>>
>> >You claimed that Republicans bent the rules. They did not, I proved it,
>> >thus proving you a liar.
>>
>> No, you claimed that the Democrats were trying to "subvert the rule of
>> law."
>
>Which they were. You didn't even answer the claims, instead stooping to
>name calling.
Guffaw.
>> I merely pointed out, which caused you to thrash wildly in
>> partisan posturing,
>
>Spare me the story telling, Grandpa.
>
>> that unless you can recognize that the Republicans
>> were doing the same thing,
>
>Which they weren't. You have not made one attempt to even back this claim up.
You don't seem to realize what I claimed. I claimed that if you can't
recognize that Republicans had no more moral rectitude in their
machinations as the Democrats did, then you can't make a claim about how
morally destitute the Democrats were. I don't need to back this claim
up, you may have noticed (now that I've said it for the third time,
since you missed it the first two), because it is a tautology. I never
actually made any claims at all about how correct or partisan either
side was actually being. I was merely noting that so far your "claims"
are just partisan posturing, not critical examination of the actions of
either party.
>This was the claim, in fact, that I proved you were lying, or, at least,
>grossly ignorant.
Yea. By saying "yes, they did." Guffaw.
>> and to the same degree, then your
>> consideration of the reality of the situation is obviously, and deeply,
>> flawed.
>
>Please show me ONE, just ONE example where the Republicans "bent" the law.
Show me one REAL example where Democrats *bent* the law.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:49:44 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 23:30:59
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 29 Dec 2000
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said John W. Stevens in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 26 Dec 2000
>> >> 14:53:53 -0700;
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Why would *ANY* American consider it frightening to do so?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
>> >> >> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers of all
>> >> >> stripes typically use.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, yes. Let's not start without the obligatory personal attacks.
>> >>
>> >> I have no choice but to see almost every action of a Republican as a
>> >> personal attack;
>
>Now that's a rational attitude, isn't it?
I'm afraid it is, yes. A sorry state of affairs, but politics is a game
where CYA is the only strategy that makes sense.
>> >
>> >You do have a choice, Max.
>> >
>> >> it is an self-preservation mechanism.
>
>Paranoid schitzophrenia?
Subversive iconoclast.
>> >
>> >It is a self-destructive attitude. It turns you mind off.
>>
>> Which is why I would avoid it, if I could. But the last time I ignored
>> my instincts and supported Republicans, they screwed things up Big Time.
>>
>> >> No; my definitions are derived from reason,
>> >
>> >No they're not. The choice you made (as stated above), created your
>> >definitions.
>>
>> Blah blah blah. Next time, wait two sentences before sniping, if you're
>> this lost.
>
>How is he lost?
That same way you are; you keep posting no-content messages, as if
you're responding to my statements, but you never actually provide any
reasonable response to my comments, almost as if the only reason you
read my words is so that you can snipe and spout rhetoric, and you stop
even trying to understand my reasoned and practical position.
>> >> They are supported by reason and facts;
>> >
>> >No, they're not. You have not presented facts, you've made
>> >unsupported accusations, used personal attacks, and in general
>> >made no presentation of any reasoning what so ever.
>>
>> I didn't say I presented facts, I said my opinions were supported by
>> facts.
>
>Which you convieniently neglect to bring forward...
Look around. So far, you haven't refuted my position (in fact, you've
strongly supported it by engaging in such mindless squirming in leu of
refuting it with facts or reason) so if you have any facts which you
believe can shed light on how accurate, consistent, or practical my
argument is, feel free to provide them. Real facts, please, not simple
Republican hyperbole and partisan thrashing.
>> I'm getting very bored with your sniping, though, and the
>> supposition that I have no facts because you wish there to be no facts
>> opposing the idea that Republicans are Good and Democrats are Bad is
>> enough to make me give up this charade.
>
>Bye.
>
>
>> I wish I could say "thanks for your time." I wish it would help.
>
>We've certainly wasted enough of it on you...and it obviously isn't helping
>anyone.
>
>Hope the voices in your head have something nice to say soon...
To requote my own previous response:
>> >> >> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
>> >> >> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers of all
>> >> >> stripes typically use.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:49:45 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > So says the man who claims that medics never get shot because they're
>> > protected by a magic force field....or something.
>>
>> Same force that made you a combat vet inside the Iraqi borders. LOL!!!
>
>See bill admit that he's a liar.
I believe he was pointing out that you are a liar.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:49:46 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
[...]
>It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
>Period.
Yes, and we all know how strongly you wish that fact would support your
outrageous claim that NT isn't a pile of unreliable crapware.
Nevertheless, a reasonable person examining what "right circumstances"
there are, and how often they actually occur in real life, would easily
and quickly surmise that Linux is very stable, and NT is horribly and
consistently unstable.
Now, I know you're not going to be able to resist trotting forth the
shibboleth about how NT needs to be "administered correctly" in order to
be stable, but that's a load of horse-shit. Nothing but hindsight bias,
blaming everyone and anyone except the producers of this crapware,
because that's One Microsoft Way, and that's what Microsoft Apologists
do.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:49:48 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> That's bizzare, I'd holler to my vendor long, loud and hard about
>> that one - do you have a hardware support contract for the
>> system in question? What distro and kernel? What kind of
>> hardware?
I grinned at that, of course, because I often take MS apologists to task
for winging into "troubleshoot mode" as soon as someone mentions a
problem they have on Windows. I ridicule them for doing this, long and
loud, because its really just empty posturing. Generally, the point is
to find someone to blame other than Microsoft.
It occurs to me now, of course, that J is doing essentially the same
thing, but there is a fundamental difference. It makes perfect sense to
find "someone to blame" other than Linux, since Linux isn't a producer,
but a product. Obviously, it makes sense, in fact its necessary, to
reduce the fault domain to a single vendor, in such a situation. Kind
of ironic, though.
>No, it's just some off the shelf hardware.
>
>Interesting that as soon as there is a problem with Linux all you can do is
>blame the hardware, yet when people blame the hardware for NT you won't
>accept that.
Actually, the software vendor is just as much, probably more, of an
issue. That's why I'm going to be happy when the free market returns,
because I'm pretty sure that the OEMs will end up being the primary OS
'vendors', with the distro producers being a supplier to them, possibly,
and covering the after-market.
>> > It is a fact that all OS's can be unstable in the right circumstances.
>> > Period.
>>
>> To state it more correctly, for any OS there is a non-zero
>> probability of trouble, but the thing you miss is that windows
>> track record is probably the worst of all OSes.
>
>NT runs on an order of magnatude more systems than all Unix combined, thus
>you're going to have an order of magnatude more problems.
Only if its a pile of crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:49:49 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:92pi1f$s27$06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > If you think that's "normal", you're crazy.
>> >
>> No, i do not think that this is normal or should be normal.
>> Thats the reason I do NOT use NT anymore.
>>
>> By the way, both of these machines run on linux without glitches, there was
>> no hardware problem of any sort, no power problem, nothing. NT just went
>> down. THAT is something i will NEVER accept.
>> And this is not only my personal experience, several other people told me
>> similar things about NT just crashing. The difference is, those people
>> think they still need windows. I don't
>
>Stop twisting words. What you describe is an abnormal NT situation. It
>doesn't work that way for millions of people that use NT on dual processor
>machines daily.
>
>Your experience is abnormal, yet you're acting like it's the typical one.
It may not "the" typical experience, but it is a typical experience,
owing to the fact that it is a common experience. Perhaps not so common
as not having so many problems, but certainly more common than not
having any problems at all. It isn't a matter of twisting words, but
your obviously overwhelming desire to deny the reality that NT,
including W2K, is a relatively unreliable, low-performance, problematic
system in comparison to any available alternative.
Your constant blaming of the consumer for their problems, the repetitive
references you make to entirely bogus statistical considerations (NT is
on more hardware, so it has more problems), the vehemence and swiftness
with which you deny that NT is sub-standard, and unacceptable to a great
number of people who are nevertheless forced to use it because of the
Windows monopoly; all of these things are not abnormal. Just very
noticeable, and, in the sum of things, rather unconvincing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:49:50 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Stop twisting words. What you describe is an abnormal NT situation. It
>> > doesn't work that way for millions of people that use NT on dual processor
>> > machines daily.
>>
>> It is the windows experience that conditions people to
>> accept frequent reboots, reinstalls of the OS, random
>> lockups and the like.
>
>You're still twisting words. You claim that a NT system that locks up in
>the middle of the night every night is typical. It's not.
It is typical. I think you mean "common". And statistically, it is
that, as well.
>> > Your experience is abnormal, yet you're acting like it's the typical one.
>>
>> It's all too common.
>
>common is the same thing as normal.
No, it isn't. Every time we go 'round like this, Erik, we encounter new
depths or your ignorance of both statistics and epistemology.
>If it happens to .001% of the
>population, that's still thousands and thousands of people, which could be
>said to be common, but not typical or normal.
"Typical" covers a subset; what is typical for one group with one set of
characteristics (say, ignorant users who don't know that computers
shouldn't need to be rebooted to maintain integrity) might not be
typical for another (people who are aware that NT is crapware, for
example.) What is "common" is the similarity between them: they're all
the victims of an illegal monopoly. If you want to restrict the term
"typical" to only the subset of "all examples", then perhaps it is less
typical than having their hard drive catch fire, but far more typical
than running without any problems at all. "Typical", in this way,
inherently supplies its own context. And your guesstimate that the
number of people who have repetitive and catastrophic (and/or
undiagnosable and problematic) problems with Windows, NT or W2K as well
as WinDOS, is .001% is a laughable several orders of magnitude too
small. Though you are right that even that is misleading; its actually
millions and millions of people who would use an alternative, if they
could, but for the Windows monopoly.
>> Eric, why do you haunt the linux newsgroups?
>
>I'm a Linux user.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:49:52 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001
04:29:37 -0600;
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Eric, why do you haunt the linux newsgroups?
>> >
>> > I'm a Linux user.
>>
>> I'm afraid there's some strange agenda at work here -
>>
>> I just don't see a Linux user making a career of
>> windows cheerleading. If you do use Linux, I suspect
>> it's just to search for ammunition in your advocacy.
>
>No, I use Linux because it's the right tool for the job I use it for,
>however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the lack
>of standardization between distros.
He uses Linux for the same reason he uses Windows: somebody else told
him he had to. That's my guess, anyway, considering the lack of
intellectual capabilities he's shown in his advocacy for Windows on
Linux newsgroups, and the fact that while he has some small experience,
at least, with Linux, he still doesn't recognize, as most others in such
a situation do, that NT and W2K is monopoly crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
