Linux-Advocacy Digest #274, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm
pst.) ("Adam Warner")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why NT?
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("kiwiunixman")
Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why NT? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S. ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:09:35 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001
> >Fine, Linux can't replace windows on the majority of users systems (yet).
>
> That's where your wrong. According to your own "any script on Unix can
> be done on NT" logic, Linux is perfectly capable of entirely and
> completely replacing Windows on every user's system. It just can't *be*
> Windows.
What???? Your logic is flawed.
> >Perhaps someday it can, but Microsoft isn't known for standing still.
>
> No, its known for breaking the law and establishing the largest criminal
> monopoly the world has ever known, actually.
IBM was in anti-trust trials for 20 years.
> >Unlike all the competitors MS replaced, MS actively keeps enhancing most
of
> >it's products.
>
> MS didn't "replace" competitors; it destroyed competition. Microsoft
> constantly churns its product; inside communications reveal that this is
> done knowingly to prevent competition on the merits, despite the
> knowledge that it is a detriment to the consumer.
If it was a detriment to the consumer, the consumer wouldn't buy the
upgrade.
> >MS got to be #1 in all of it's markets due to it's
> >competitors incompentancy.
>
> Ad hoc, ergo proctor hoc.
>
> >I can say that easily because I also can see
> >competant competitors that don't let MS get a foothold, such as Intuit
and
> >AOL.
>
> Hyuk. If only we were all so naive.
Why don't you try addressing the comment instead. Can you counter this
statement with any facts?
> >> But the difference between you and I, Erik, is that I recognize the
> >> reason your self-referential "if it was better I'd use it, and I'm not
> >> using it, so its not better" claims to technical objectivity is an
empty
> >> charade. You don't have a fair market to make your decisions on. All
> >> of those "I picked Amiga over DOS, until DOS was better" conveniently
> >> occur just before Amiga becomes "a niche product". You're a victim of
> >> the monopoly, same as I am, but you don't seem to be aware of it.
> >
> >The Amiga died not because of competition, but because it's parent
company
> >was incompetant. [...]
>
> Enough with the drivel.
You're going to claim that Commodore was competant? Give me a break.
> >Windows is in fact a reliable, efficient and effective for me. [...]
>
> I noticed the subtle yet glaring ad hoc qualification, there, Erik.
> What's up with that?
Because it's an opinion about my useage.
> >I don't claim inexpensive, but then again, it's awfully expensive to
retrain lots of
> >people.
>
> Huh, what? Is this the excuse? NT is more expensive than WinDOS
> because of 'retraining' costs? Retraining who? And what possible
> relationship would that have causing NT to necessarily cost several
> times what WinDOS does?
No, Linux is more expensive than NT because of training costs. NT/2000
costs more because it does more. It's a workstation level OS rather than a
consumer level one.
> I think its awfully shameful that people don't recognize NT pricing for
> what it is; a complete sham. Its a scam; a way to increase prices. NT
> software doesn't inherently *cost* any more to produce.
No, but NT most certainly did cost a lot more to produce than Win9x did (by
produce I mean R&D, and maintenance).
> Microsoft
> doesn't include the cost of any support for the product, there are no
> outrageously exorbitant OEM license fees that MS has to pay, the CDs are
> not a thousand times greater in quality. The only thing that makes it
> more reliable is its replacement of DOS with this VMS-like thing to
> support the Win32 API.
Retail copies of NT/2000 include support in the price. OEM copies do not,
which is why OEM's pay less (in addition to volume pricing).
> Microsoft, as I've noted, has been rather busy lately coming up with
> ways to force consumers to pay more for the product that MS says they
> want everyone to buy, NT/2K/Whatever, to replace WinDOS. But any
> profit-seeking company can tell them how to do that; charge less money
> for it. Less then you are, hell, less than WinDOS. It doesn't actually
> *cost* any more.
It does cost more. You are forgetting about the cost to develop, which must
be amortized over the life of the product. MS has spent many billions
developing Win2k and Whistler. That has to be paid for.
> >> Perhaps sufficient users wouldn't agree with you that they'd appreciate
> >> the choice. Perhaps it really does fill you with... discomfort, to
> >> contemplate people learning how to use computers, and being free of
> >> Microsoft and its software and their dependency on paying someone else
> >> to gain value from their own property. I know it might sound really
> >> outlandish, but I can't for the life of me figure why anyone would be
> >> *so concerned* about something like how configuration is done. You
seem
> >> to be trying to *insist* that consumers *could not* select a cheaper,
> >> more reliable, higher performance OS given the trade-off of needing to
> >> get used to text file configuration. (Those familiar with computers
> >> would be happy to point out that they will be more empowered in the
long
> >> run, and will consider the mechanism to be as transparent, but far more
> >> effective and controllable, than the clicky-clicky method that Windows
> >> users are forced to hunt through like a rat in a maze, when they are
> >> unlucky enough to be unable to avoid it.)
> >
> >What you labor under is the assumption that people *WANT* to learn about
> >computers.
>
> Some do, some don't. Some will at any one time. Most will at some
> times, and won't at others. I am under no assumption that it is to my
> benefit to second-guess the market.
You certainly had no problem second-gussing the market when making your
original comment.
> >The vast majority of people who use computers don't want to know
> >how or why it works. They just want it to work.
>
> And here we get to the problem.
Most peoples computers do work, be it Windows, MacOS, or Linux.
> >Each release of a MS OS
> >get's closer and closer to the ideal of the user not having to know much
of
> >anything in order to install and use it and it's applications. Linux
> >distros, on the other hand take very small steps (if any at all).
>
> That's because the "closer and closer" that "each release" of an MS OS
> is supposed to be taking has been covered with existing computing
> technology for decades. The "ideal" is to not have an "ideal"; there's
> no one right way to run a computer, just the way you want to, and
> possibly the way someone else does.
No, there isn't one right way, but in order to have consistency, one way
must be chosen. Consistency is the basis for reducing training and support.
> Linux distros don't *have* the kinds of problems that MS OSes have
Thats not true. Linux has it's own form of DLL hell with dynamic library
dependancy conflicts.
> regardless of your confusion based
> on the problems which you report that you did have. I don't care if you
> have problems; everyone has problems.
You just said Linux doesn't have them.
> Those who use MS OSes have more
> problems, whether its contrary to your personal experience or not. And
> that's where the added "bonus" of "not wanting to know how or why it
> works" comes to bear on the difference between plain shoddy goods, and
> monopoly crapware. You and your intentional ignorance. Fuck it.
Automatic transmissions outsell manuals by an order of magnatude today.
It's because most people don't WANT to be concerned with the details of
shifting gears. Likewise, people don't want to be concerned with the
details of their OS.
> >Fact: People don't want to become computer literate.
>
> Fact: People don't want to do anything but sit on their ass and have sex
> and watch TV.
And? You're proving my point.
> Fact: People deal with the real world, where skills have to be learned
> in order to benefit from them.
Some do. Otherwise everyone would be their own mechanic.
> You don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car. But that doesn't mean
> driving a car does not require skill and knowledge.
It requires a tiny fraction of the skill and knowledge of being a mechanic.
You seem to expect everyone to be a mechanic.
> >Linux is not that OS (yet). The market *HAS* decided (for now)
> >that Linux is not yet acceptable for the vast majority of users.
>
> The other side of the coin is that it is obvious there is no free
> market, until it decides there can be a suitable substitute for Windows.
> That seems to be more reliant on how bad Windows gets, rather than how
> much Linux might improve.
I don't think so. Windows is improving, not getting worse.
> >> No, we gripe about Windows. That's not FUD; that's being stuck with
> >> monopoly crapware.
> >
> >Stating things that are untrue is FUD, or lying. Take your pick.
>
> We gripe about Windows; we don't state things which are untrue.
That's a lie. You yourself have said many untrue things.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at
4pm pst.)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:08:02 +1200
I think I should recheck my posts before pressing send:
fullproof!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:15:23 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Last I heard CNN had reported that amazon.com was down the day after
> > > > Thanksgiving ( and a few other suspicious times of the year) but
> > > > microsoft.com or any other huge and popular IIS site has never been
> > down.
> > >
> > > I beg to differ, microsoft.com goes down all the time -- I'll get
> > > connection refused on one attempt and then the next attempt goes
> > > through. Anyone can throw 60 machines into a connection pool and
> > > claim unlimited uptime -- it says nothing about how long each
> > > operating system gives out service.
> >
> > Connection refused by the server? or a timeout? If it's the first,
then
> > that means the server is running. If it's the second, then it's
probably
> > dropped packets along the net, something that is very common. It
happens to
> > me on all kinds of sites, including Slashdot and others.
>
> But it couldn't possibly be that machine #42 just went down, right?
You didn't answer the question.
A connection refused message happens when there is no socket to connect to
or the port is blocked. In order for that to happen, the machine has to be
up. If the machine is down, you'll get a timeout. Unfortunately, a timeout
can also mean dropped packets or that your packet ended up going through a
misconfigured router.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:10:09 -0000
>
>How dare you criticize Microsoft's right to innovate.
>
>(Innovating *what*, exactly, they are reluctant to say...)
>
That's obvious - each new version of their software crashes
in new ways so they are innovating in unreliability.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:21:12 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:31:35 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > The GUI configuration tools did not work properly because it did not
> > add the correct fields to the httpd.conf (namely the NameVirtualHost
> > keyword). It failed to do it's job.
>
> There are two ways of doing virtual hosting with Apache. By name
> (NameVirtualHost) or by address (just VirtualHost). Maybe the tool does
> one but not the other (I don't use Linuxconf).
Well, if you don't hadd NameVirtualHost it adds it by address. Now, if you
consider that I didn't provide a unique address for this site in Linuxconf,
it should have known that it was a name virtual site. Either way, it
required hand editing.
> > Interesting about apachectl. That is not the recommended way to
>
> Not recommended? Howcome apachectl gets installed along with Apache
> then when you build from source?
The apache docs for configuring virtual servers don't mention it, only
HUP'ing the daemon.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:22:19 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001 \
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > A> An NT server would reboot automatically if BSOD and resume
operation
> >> > within minutes.
> >> > B> If it doesn't, and you know *nothing* about NT, you turn to
> >Google.com
> >>
> >> Well that's all well and good - but from what I hear, nt
> >> gets itself into a state where it cannot boot again without
> >> manual intervention.
> >
> >Where did you hear that? The only reason that would happen is if the
drive
> >crashed or there was some other hardare failure that prevented booting.
>
> Bullshit. NT servers notoriously 'latch' at 100% CPU utilization.
> Always a driver's or an application's fault, of course. Must be because
> its such a popular product, right?
What are you talking about? "notoriously" latching at 100% CPU at bootup?
I've never seen this, ever.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: 5 Jan 2001 16:17:35 -0600
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:54:49 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
>why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
>
>I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
>deploy NT.
Baa ram ewe!
To your breed, your fleece, your clan be true!
Sheep be true!
Baa ram ewe!
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 22:33:22 GMT
The new ones that are available (the new ones have the engine in the front),
the sell for around $NZ45000, pretty cool little cars. I think you're
refering to the old version, which is now only available in Mexico/Brazil.
kiwiunixman
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > either that or the new VW beatle
>
> Ah yes...the VW Beetle...revived because so many hippy-dippy baby boomers
> (who profess to hate anything Nazi) were sooooo fond of the original
Nazi-mobile.
>
> (Not only do they like the Nazi-mobile, they are also fond of Nazi-style
> restrictions on speech, religion, and gun-ownership....go figure).
>
>
> >
> > kiwiunixman
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > kiwiunixman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Correct, what would you rather have, a Mercedes Benz or a Ford
Falcon?
> > I
> > > > would rather have the Mercedes Benz!
> > >
> > > Depends on the Mercedes. Mercedes only exports their luxury lines.
> > >
> > > In Europe, most Mercedes that are sold are more along the line of
> > Chevrolets.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > kiwiunixman
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > Donn Miller wrote:
> > > > > > >You forgot Plan 9. When I had this particular interview, the
> > person
> > > > > > >doing the hiring said that Windows NT is easier to use than
unix.
> > He
> > > > > > >also said that a lot of software was being ported to Windows
from
> > unix,
> > > > > > >so that makes it a good reason to switch. (*Shrugs*. This is
a
> > good
> > > > > > >reason to switch?!) Departments switching from unix to NT also
> > cite
> > > > > > >that fact that Windows has the great clipboard thingie, and
that
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > > >do all kinds of sophisticated OLE stuff with it. For example,
if
> > you
> > > > do
> > > > > > >some analysis with engineering software, you can select the
data,
> > or
> > > > > > >click on a graph for example, and select "copy" from the menu.
> > And --
> > > > > > >get this -- brace yourself -- Windows' clipboard is so neat and
> > > > > > >ulta-sophisticated, it allows you to select what kind of data
you'd
> > > > like
> > > > > > >to paste into your document. For example, you can select
"plain
> > text",
> > > > > > >"word document", and "bitmap". Dammit, X11 doesn't have
anything
> > near
> > > > > > >this sophisticated, so I suppose that automatically makes
Windows
> > NT
> > > > > > >better. Besides, they say, unix isn't a good OS to use unless
you
> > are
> > > > > > >doing intensive computational projects, or running a server.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wonder what people would think about this idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If there were no Microsoft and Windows was never invented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we still had Novel and Apple battling it out with Unix's,
> > > > > > WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN LINUX?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the answer to that is YES.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Linus mastered Linux because he wanted a replacement for Minix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Linus had no vision of conquering Microsoft at all. This was
> > > > > > never his objective.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Isn't it funny how all those companies who HAD OBJECTIVES to
> > > > > > conquer Windows failed and the one who was just playing one
> > > > > > year with a kernel with NO AMBITIONS WHAT-SO-EVER will be
> > > > > > the one to topple Microsoft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus, QUALITY was the primary goal, instead of marketing.
> > > > >
> > > > > High quality sells itself.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the work of god.
> > > > >
> > > > > No...its the work of quality.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Charlie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> > >
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:35:02 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Are you saying that the 3270 doesnt have a microprocessor buried
> inside of it?
Yep
>
>
> You really are naive.
Not as naive as you.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 22:36:30 GMT
Well, there you go, just as a side note Pete, America(n's) ALWAYS thinks
they are correct, and let them think that way, whilst the rest of the world
lives in reality.
kiwiunixman
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:934oqt$uk3$05$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the American left-wingers who
> > get soooooooooo hung up on symbolism...and then get all goo-goo
misty-eyed
> > every time they see a car originally designed as "The Peoples' Car"
during
> > Hitler's reign.
> >
> I think you're drunk 24 / 7. You know, that car you're speaking of has not
> ONE part in common with that "Peoples Car". In addition, it looks quite
> different, does not have the motor in the rear, has a water cooled engine
> etc etc. Just to say that this new Beetle has something to do with the old
> one is just bullshit and you know it. You're still an asshole.
>
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:34:11 -0000
>
>If God were truly interested, Bill Gates would have been born in Finland
and
>we'd have been blessed with Mr. Torvalds.
>
What did finland do to be cursed with bill gates - If god were really
interested he
would have died at birth.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:15:24 +0200
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:935dgi$8r59j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Which is why I *ALWAYS* build my own computer....it's no bargain when
> >you have to replace 1/2 of the hardware to get the system up to
> >your own personal specifications.
> >
>
>
> True - Many pre-built PC's (especially ones sold by smaller shops) also
have
> crap hardware in other parts of the system - e.g. display cards using
system
> memory or 3 year old bugdet chipsets (it is still possible to buy PC's
here
> using S3 Virge chipsets) or poor quality soundblaster clones advertised as
> compatible but this compatibility mode is often only 8-bit with the 16-bit
> side needing proprietry undocumented commands where the chipset
> manufacturer is not even known.
Foget about this, have you ever tried to maintained one of those boxes?
It's a nightmare.
My worst experiance was with Pacerd Bell computers.
It's a desktop case (horizonal, not vertical, like all other stuff today),
and in order to do *anything* with it, you need to take the whole box apart.
I remember switching HD on one box where I ended up having to remove CD-Rom,
floppy, proccessor, RAM, every extention card the computer had and *still*
needed to take some of the casing apart just to be able to pull the old HD
out.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:35:42 +0200
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BQp56.151406$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You have to understand that "UNIX Engineers" like Mr. Kulkis would be out
of
> a job if people believed that Windows 2000 was an improvement over Windows
> NT 4.
Actually, Mr. Kulkis probably never even *seen* a Unix.
All his posting were made from a win98 machine.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:36:31 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,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?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>
> IBM is apparently unaware that PUNCH CARDS were virtually phased out over 10 years
>ago...
>
And you seem totally unaware just how old the 3270 design is.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:37:13 -0000
>
>BTW, Solaris is available for free as well on smaller boxes.
The OS may be free but media costs and postage are higher
than just buying a decent linux distro.
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S.
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:42:01 +1300
true, very true
kiwiunixman
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There's only one solution, Charlie. In order to protect our national
> security the Military should immediately sieze control of Microsoft,
> and reimplement their OS using a BSD kernel.
>
> Perry
>
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:37:29 GMT,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/29/csis.microsoft.report.idg
> >/index.html
> >
> >And it only took them 3 months to figure this out!
> >
> >Charlie
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
> Perry Piplani http://www.netservers.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://perrypip.netservers.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:42:57 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> If you merely want to SEE the lines that match your pattern:
>
> :r ! grep [pattern]
>
> non-matching lines
>
> :r ! grep -v [pattern]
This does act anything like ALL. ALL lets you edit the lines.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 23:45:43 +0100
JM wrote:
> >
> >Clue for the clueless: If you value your data, you *WILL* have the power
> >for this system running off of a battery backup arrangement.
>
> But how much would that cost?
not that much. I have a UPS running at home (2 computers + telephone system
connected to it, 1000 Watts power for about half an hour) and it costs
about 400 Dollars. I do not think that this is much, even if i live in
germany which has a very stable power grid
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
