Linux-Advocacy Digest #179, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Uptimes ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Conclusion ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Marty)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Adam Warner")
Re: linux price? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Hatred? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S. (mlw)
Re: Suggestions for Linux ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windows review ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:12:22 GMT
Those key's only put out to a TTY console. I was running XFree86 (and
actively using it) when the keyboard stopped responding.
The sys rq keys could very well have been working, however attempting to
switch from an XFree86 VR terminal to a TTY was not working.
Sounds like a locked system to me.
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Alt-Fn to a new console screen, you idiot.
> >
> > You CAN'T. The whole computer is locked SOLID. The keyboard is not
> > responding, nor is the mouse, or any other human interface device
attached
> > to the computer.
>
> serial port, network interface?
>
> > It's called a "freeze", and you Linux nuts don't want to admit they
exist
> > under Linux.
>
> I'm skeptical - people from a windows background such as
> yourself assume the system is locked up, but in fact it probably
> isn't - what hapened when you tried the magic sys rq keys?
>
> jjs
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 04:02:59 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:21:53 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Making a counter is not a trivial task to most people.
>
> Yes, that's why most reputable ISP's and web hosting companies provide
> one. Or, there are several that you can download for free. That way
> your site doesn't get held up loading because some _other_ site is
> having problems.
I'm not aware of such an offer on my ISPs (first or secord and third
largest in the country), but I'm using them for home uses, so it might be
true for the first but certainly not true for the second ISP.
And I've recently been hired to do a site hosted at one of the largest
bussiness oriented ISPs here, it was a *horrible* experiance.
I built the bloody thing on my machine, not using anything particulary
extraordinary, any *nix box should be able to support it.
I needed telnet to do some stuff, and as the site was first hosted on a
Solaris box, I don't really care for this except that I don't really like
telent over the internet because the slow response times (no high bandwidth
unless you pay *BIG* time around here). I can bear it if I have to, though.
*Luckily* for me, the company never even *heard* about telnet. Took me
several hours to get to some guy who was willing to admit that telnet
actually existed, but I got a flat out refusal to grant me access via
telnet.
The reason I was given? It's not safe to do so.
Turned out that they don't support PHP or any other web languague on their
Solaris box.
It wasn't hard to convince the client to move the site to an NT box to get
dynamic content for the site, even thought I'd to redo half my work because
of it.
Not to mention that it took them quite a while to get the ASP to work
correctly, I got several error until they thought that they should *enable*
the bloody thing.
The client is now considerring moving off the ISP to a better one as soon as
the contract expires.
If it wasn't for the bindwidth limits, I would've setup a server myself and
use it for the site, just to avoid the bloody
This isn't a story bashing *nix vs NT/2K or whatever, this is just an
example to show you that ISPs aren't the same everywhere.
And to release some anger, too.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 04:04:01 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Come on.... I thought the technicalities of server logging were common
> > > knowledge around these parts. If it is too difficult for you to
understand
> > > you have no business arguing the validity of standard http
client/server
> > > data exchanges.
> > >
> > > You can start by getting a server, making HTTP GET requests upon it
and
> > > inspecting your logs to see what info is being exchanged.
> > >
> >
> > So what this shows is that web sites where the designer wants a counter
> > and is incapable of making his own are not particularly interesting
> > to Linux users....
> >
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> The site shows whatever the reader wants to see, because the site does not
> show, as far as I can tell, any description of the context of the counter,
> its technology, how it is used, who uses it, the source of the number, and
> so on.
>
> Until someone finds an explanation, all the site shows is that
thecounter.com
> shows a bar graph that has its longest entries for the Windozzzzzz
operating
> systems. All the frikkin' caption says is "OS Stats"!!!
The method is quite well understood.
It's basically a UI to their server logs.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 04:11:30 +0200
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > 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.
Let me get it striaght, you've a NT box(s) that BSOD occationly, and you
remember those 3 AM BSOD especially because...?
Did you had to reset the machine manually?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 04:15:06 +0200
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92idqb$1qs5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's been shown numerous times.
> >
> > The OS cannot be determined accurately. Period.
> >
> > Cases in point: Several sites (listed in another thread on this topic
> several
> > weeks ago) show that they web server is IIS 4.0 running on Linux or BSD.
>
> Then please point me to that post. I have been asking for such data for
> weeks.
>
> > In this case, it appears that there is a Linux or BSD firewall/load
> balancer
> > and that the web server behind it is NT/IIS. Now, which uptime do you
> think
> > is being reported? Is it the web server, or the firewall/load balancer?
>
> The firewall/load balancer, of course. OS and uptime will typically come
> from the front end machine (through network characteristics), the
webserver
> comes from the http header strings. If the OS is coming from the
firewall,
> so is the uptime.
Found another one.
www.walmart.com
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 04:16:34 +0200
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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)
And nothing prevents you from using application level programs for this.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:17:18 GMT
This post clearly implies you've never used Windows NT or 2000.
Windows32 used shared memory, with 16bit memory management code (with the
loose exclusion of Windows Me). Pure 32bit memory and app management can
prevent session wide malfunctions.
Linux uses pure 32-bit memory management. Windows NT used Pure 32bit Memory
Management, and therefor, Windows 2000 uses pure 32bit memory management.
But a platform really is only as good as the programs that are for it. Look
at OS/2 Warp. As near as I can recall, it was a pure32 bit OS when Windows
95 came out, and yet, look what dominated the desktop. Windows. Why?
Windows had the better programs.
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 02:06:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >> > AN operating system is only as good as the programs that run on it.
> >>
> >> wrong. An OS is only as good as it's kernel. New Programs can be
> >> developed in parallel by anybody who has a copy of development tools.
> >> But the kernel can only be improved by a rather limited group of
> >> people.
>
> >Gees, I always found an OS without the software as a washing machine
> >without a program: Rather useless.
>
> But here we're discussing operating systems, not the software.
> Speaking of which, why the fuck does Windows allow single programs to
> crash the entire system?
>
> >> > Therefor, Linux sucks.
>
> >> Linux will beat LoseDOS (in all forms) decades before Microsoft
> >> ever puts out a decent kernal that doesn't crash at the drop of a pin.
>
> >?????? Tell me of a OS that crashes on it's own!!!!!!!!!!! Moron...
>
> Tell me of an OS that allows a normal user's program to crash it?
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:18:22 GMT
Yea, 20 years too late.
The point was you were exclaiming that Windows DIDN'T have the ability to
mimic the functionality provided by telnet and a UNIX shell interpreter.
It clearly does.
And you change the subject.
Big surprise.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > Have you ever used the Windows console, (Not the MSDOS prompt)?
> >
> > All the functionality is there of bash, and if not provided by the
console
> > interface, then by console apps.
>
>
> 20 years too late...
>
> >
> > "Richard Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:92lodh$bah$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The main problem I would see with a Windoze telnet server would be
that
> > > there is nothing to telnet to. The MS-DOS prompt (lets face it) - is
crap,
> > > not a patch on the Bourne Again Shell. If you want to use a system
like
> > VNC
> > > to give a remote login to the GUI then fine.
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 02:26:10 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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)
>
> And nothing prevents you from using application level programs for this.
And nothing prevents an application from using the filesystem API calls to
force files to be encrypted and/or compressed. (See my second bullet item.)
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:33:19 +1200
Hi Mark,
> I remember being at a WinHEC for Windows 3.1, where they did a
> presentation of the registry. (Yes, it was in 3.1)
I realise that.
> One interesting aspect of the registry, as presented at the conference,
> was to make it harder for users to change application settings by
> "hiding" them from casual inspection.
For sure. And as mentioned elsewhere the inability for anyone to add
comments makes altering the registry much harder. It's also great for
programmers who want to hide protection checks for shareware, etc. I've done
some checking of where programers hide stuff [by exporting the registry,
installing and then exporting the registy again and comparing] and it can be
the most obscure places [as a rule I don't install any shareware unless I am
also buying it b/c I know stuff will be left around by some programmers on
purpose].
> Also, The registry in Windows makes up for its brain dead implementation
> of multiple logical users. In UNIX systems, each user gets his or her
> own user directory, and it is more or less enforced. In NT no user
> directory is required for personal settings. And in 95, there is no
> concept of a user directory.
Separate home directories in Unix really are wonderful. Microsoft made
working with Windows 2000 user directories just that much more annoying from
the command line by renaming it to "Documents and Settings" (the spaces can
be very annoying).
The default user temporary directory really is gratuitous:
"C:\Documents and Settings\$User\Local Settings\Temp"
> Lastly, Microsoft has been threatening to remove the
> "PrivateProfile...()" functions for some time now.
What would be the consequence of that?
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux price?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 03:22:59 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
I just downloaded storm Linux, www.stormix.com, and installed
it on my pc. It has to be the easiest installation so far. I
have found that redhat followed by suse to be the easiest in
the past. Storm linux beats them both. It is based on Debian
and thus you have have apt-get (with a nice gui interface) and
the 4000+ debian packages at your disposal. I have ordered
their delux distribution (I like to help company's that provide
good linux sw / distro's for Linux) for ~$69. I have always
hated debian's dselect. Now there is a debian based distribution
that is as easy to install as redhat with all the benefits of
debian's package management.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 03:30:46 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The only reason I can come up with is fear. They must be afraid of
> Linux. The only reason they would have to be afraid is because Linux is
> better than Windows. They have to know this, else they would not be
> afraid.
I'm sure their fear is based on the fact that if Linux does (I
should say when :-) become the dominant OS they will not be able
to adapt to it. The culture shock from going from a GUI clickity
click admin interface to the power that Linux and Unix offers
must be a nightmare for MSCE's. Here in Europe Unix sys admins
can name their price when looking for jobs. There just aint enough
of us. MSCE's are 2 a penny and worth about that much. :-)
Unix and especially Linux are really taking off here. Company's
are fed up paying the Microsoft tax for unreliable low performance
SW.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 22:28:24 -0500
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > > The front end cost is hardly the entire equation. This must be
> > > > the logic that made DOS a success and the Macintosh marginal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was commenting of the thought that someone would actually do more
> > > comparison shopping with freebies than with a capital expenditure.
> >
> > But in the case of Linux, there are more products to compare. For Windows,
> > it's pretty much 98/WinME for home/casual users, and NT/Win2k for
> > people who need more. Whereas in Linux, one has a wider choice of distro.
> >
>
> Isn't that somewhat incestuous.
Incestuous, how so?
> BTW weren't talking about OS but
> applications.
>
There may still be more options in Linux, at least for
certains kinds of apps, like word processing/typesetting.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S.
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 22:34:37 -0500
Glitch wrote:
>
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > C2 achieved when un-networked! once networked, ya might as well throw
> > the dandy little certificate out the door.
>
> what's the point of certifying an OS for security if you are certifying
> it when it's unnetworked? It's damn near pointless.
The real point, and in the most troubling one, is the the criteria for a
C2 secure system is counter to the types of systems that both Linux and
NT are used. The fact that, at some point, NT tested OK for C2, means
nothing in the market place. Sort of like proving a 1984 version of
suburban can pull two tons of bricks, when it's current version is only
going to be used to move groceries and kids.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 22:39:18 -0500
JM wrote:
>
> >Microsoft wil do it then Linux wil take 10 yeres to coppy it.
>
> Troll? Correct?
Absolutely.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 22:43:20 -0500
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but that's probably not the case. How did Compaq prevent Microsoft
> > from continuing its support of Alpha?
> >
>
> MS is continueing support of existing products on Alpha but Compaq has
> refused to give MS access to the newer platforms, so MS at Compaq's
> insistance stopped future development.
>
And what kind of support did Intel give to Linux when Linus first
started working on it?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 22:52:40 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > Just to be slightly bizarre -- Amiga had that capability. It was
> > tedious, though, but it worked. :-)
>
> Windows too, I imagine it is just as tedious as the Amiga.
> Can I do the same on *nix? I'm asking, not insulting.
> From what I've seen, shortcuts are totally random in Linux.
My experience is that X Windows will not work without a mouse.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:55:48 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Until someone finds an explanation, all the site shows is that
> thecounter.com
> > shows a bar graph that has its longest entries for the Windozzzzzz
> operating
> > systems. All the frikkin' caption says is "OS Stats"!!!
>
> The method is quite well understood.
> It's basically a UI to their server logs.
Yeah, I got the method, but what kind of machines are providing the
data? Desktop machines, servers, or only machines that subscribe
to thecounter.com?
Or is it ferrying hits from machines that use their counter?
Does it count each HTTP transaction as a separate visitor?
Does it count broadcasts packets received?
Why does this link
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2000/December/os.html
cover -0.0 days, yet show around 200 Mhits? Buggy software?
What is the source of the Unknown OS counts? Browsers that
don't conform to HTTP? Or Atari ST clones?
Nobody seems to want to answer these questions.
Anyway, there's an interesting correlation between the usage
of Win 95 versus Win NT/2000/98 and the percentage of machines
having Java and JavaScript disabled.
Chris
--
Patiently awaiting the denouement of the Howie Long and
Terry Hatcher saga.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 04:01:54 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I support Linux in a corporate setting for certain functions where it
> is an excellent alternative to Windows.
Now this I don't believe. You hate anything Linux/Unix. How can you
support something you hate. If it were true and I was your boss you
would be out the door. Any system administrator who has had to work
with Microsoft and Unix OS's would never post the crap you do with
regard to Unix OS's. Microsoft had the chance to produce something
better. They failed terribly due to their desire to control the SW
business regardless of the quality of their products. If they had
produced good quality SW I would support them. They have forced crap
on the PC market due to their monopoly. The world, and more importantly,
the stock market now realise this. Their only hope to survive as a
business comes down to a games console. I see little to convince me
that they will succeed in this. It's a market with real competiton
and Microsoft have never succeeded in a market where there is
competition.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 04:09:02 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <Y6z36.16881$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Richard Wright" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92lpu3$qnr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Xconfigurator is easy enough to remember. That (I think) is the one piece
> of
>> the X Windows system that really needs work on. Of course there probably
> is
>> a system out there better than the Windoze one already - it just needs
>> discovering, is there one in Mandrake Linux - there might be.
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> But is that xconfigurator or Xconfigurator?
SuSE has SAX. Does all your X setup for you. I have just installed
Storm Linux. Nice, X based GUI, installation tool. It asks you
a few questions about your monitor and graphics card, automatically
detected, and X is configured. It doesn't come any easier. After
installation networking, etc was all setup. It is based on Debian
so you have the best package management, again with GUI, there is
for any OS. Linux on the desktop is here. :-)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:05:45 GMT
mud wrote:
>
> "JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And his mother's minge smells of fish?
>
> ...more lintroll maturity....
> plonk.
Please plonk me, asshole.
--
Patiently awaiting the denouement of the Howie Long and
Terry Hatcher saga.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:09:30 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Let me get it striaght, you've a NT box(s) that BSOD occationly, and you
> remember those 3 AM BSOD especially because...?
Getting up and driving to the office at 3 am does that -
Gee, I'd have thought that'd be an easy concept....
> Did you had to reset the machine manually?
It isn't me, it's my poor nt admin co workers - I'm
the lucky one, I admin Unix boxes, I get to sleep
at night and have my weekends free.
And AFAIK they had to reboot the blue screened
windows pc server with the button...
Surely you've heard the old saying that the number
one remote nt administration tool is your car?
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
