Linux-Advocacy Digest #323, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Advocacy? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (John Brock)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (LShaping)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (John Brock)
Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!! ("Tommi L. Jensen")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red Hat dead/dying? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm
pst.) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm
pst.) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!! (J Sloan)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) (.)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: RPM Hell (Richard Thrippleton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:15:17 +0000
Richard Wright wrote:
>
> When I install Linux its as easy to do as Windows. The only hard parts being
> the X configuration (there ought to be a new tool for this by now) and the
> partitioning - which has to be done for Windows as well. Everything else
> then falls into place for a great desktop operating system.
I never found X that hard per se, the problem was I didn't have all my
monitor details to hand, so trial and error time...
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:22:40 +0000
Alan Parker wrote:
>
> yeah, it's only a fucki'n clone based on Minix, another UNIX(tm) clone.
>
> I run SOLARIS8, FreeBSD, Linux, SVR4; anmd you know what?
> all are the same thing.
>
> So, why Linux will be the best?
> it is just a comercial form the companies RedHat , Suse, they only want to
> sell
> the fuckin package, and they doesn't matter what you will do with the OS.
Your point?
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:18:21 GMT
In article <cqD36.121998$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mig wrote:
>
> > Yes it has. Im using 0,3,3 from KDE 2.0.1 and they are there.. if i
> > remenber correct it was also in 0.3.2.
> > Select Settings->Preferences->Reading news->Filters
>
> Sorry, wrong term. There's no killfile in knode.
Use KRN if you really really need it. It can filter by as many things
as any other newsreader out there.
Maybe I should port the KRN scoring code to KNode.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock)
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?
Date: 7 Jan 2001 16:34:56 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Brock wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >John Brock wrote:
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >In my opinion, xedit is superior to vi.
>> >> Having used both extensively I have to agree. In particular I miss
>> >> the "ALL" command in Xedit, which has no counterpart in any other
>> >> editor I've used.
>> >s/bad/good/g
>> >
>> >/g stands for GLOBAL.
>> Not even close. What you have given is the equivalent of the Xedit
>> CHANGE command, something all editors have. The ALL command is
>> quite different; it allows you to view and *edit* a subset of the
>> current file. For example if you entered "ALL /foo/" then only
>> those lines in the file which contained "foo" would be displayed.
>> Even if there were a thousand such lines you could scroll up and
>> down and see them all (along with the correct line numbers). More
>> important, you could freely edit any of those lines. When you were
>> done you just entered "ALL" again (without any arguments) and the
>> entire file would be displayed again, including all of your changes.
>vi
>
>"/" = search forwards for regular_expression
>"?" = search backwards for regular_expression
>"n" = repeat search in the same direction
>"N" = repeat search in the opposite direction
>
>/some_pattern moves cursor to some_pattern
>n moves to next occurance of some_pattern
>n moves to next occurance of some_pattern
>(repeat as necessary)
>N move in the opposite direction
I don't understand what your problem is. Are you so determined to
defend your claim that IBM writes bad software that you are simply
unwilling to acknowledge that an IBM written text editor, Xedit,
might have a useful feature that is entirely missing in vi? You
keep on making guesses about what vi commands would be equivalent
to Xedit ALL command, even though I (and others) have tried to
explain what the ALL command does, and even though anyone who knows
vi and who reads our explanations will clearly see that your guesses
are way off base. Have you even read what we wrote?
Incidentally, I received an e-mail from someone who explained that
what the ALL command does is often referred to as "folding", and
that incorporating this functionality into Vim (a popular vi clone)
is the main goal of the next major release of Vim, Vim-6. See,
for example: http://www.vim.org/docnew/version6.txt. In fact,
folding was the most requested improvement for Vim-5 (See
http://www.vim.org/vim6vote.html). It is definitely *not* something
that can be done with standard vanilla vi! Understand?
(And to the developers of Vim..., Bravo!).
--
John Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[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: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:21:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) wrote:
> V. Two words: Blue LEDs.
>mawa
Bue LEDs are expensive.
LShaping
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock)
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?
Date: 7 Jan 2001 16:39:05 -0500
In article <3a55c5d2$9$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <c1.2b5.2YrH7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/05/2001
> at 05:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>A little pricey for me, but Xedit on OS/2 :
>>http://www.kedit.com/features.ia2.html
>
>Alas, no. A fine product, but by no strectch of the imagination is it
>an XEDIT clone.
Eh??? I sometimes use Kedit under OS/2, and it appears to me to
be a rather good Xedit clone. Are we thinking about the same
product? Or has Xedit advanced significantly since I last used it
(maybe 8 years ago), leaving Kedit in the dust?
--
John Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tommi L. Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!!
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:41:36 +0100
> linux usings being fagit who don't know real perfesional operatoning
> systim like windows NT!!
I want to be a pro-M$-l33t troll who can't spell too.
will you teach me?
--
Yours Digitally, Tommi Jensen
^
/e\ There is no conspiracy
---
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:51:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 7 Jan 2001 12:35:30 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:09:42 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>
>>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:xPT56.56281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:938o2v$q9j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > > Can you show me the virus for NT that can damage other people's file
>>> on
>>> > > > NTFS?
>>> > >
>>> > > Sure, just use one of the many applications that require Everyone
>>> > > (Full Access) to a directory, save your file there, and you're done.
>>> > > You could make this even easier by using Omnipage Pro, which requires
>>> > > Administrator access to even run.
>>> >
>>> > This goes to every permission FS in the world, you know.
>>> > If you give Everyone full access to a directory, Everyone will be able
>>to
>>> do
>>> > whatever they want with the files in that directory.
>>>
>>> It doesn't happen with the typical unix FS configuration that you
>>> see in /tmp or the mail spool. If you set the 'sticky' bit on the
>>> directory, you can allow anyone to create files (with file permissions
>>> being independent of the directory) but only the owner of the file is
>>> allowed to delete it.
>>
>>Let me see, how hard would it be on NT?
>>
>>On NTFS partition, create a directory, remove inheritable permissions, clean
>>the permissions list and do the following steps.
>>
>>Give Everyone the following permissions:
>>-Create Files / Write Data
>>-Create Folders / Append Data
>>-List Folder / Read Data
>>Apply this to:
>>This folder only
>>
>>Give CREATOR OWNER:
>>-Full Control.
>>Apply this to:
>>Subdirectores and files only.
>>
>
>Gee, that is so much more intuitive and user friendly than
>a single command from a shell...
Oh yes, it is. And if you don't believe me, just look at this
nice Microsoft Pocket Watch2001, complete with gold chain.
Now...watch that watch swing...you are getting sleepy...sleepy....
:-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random old gag here
up 96 days, 10:41, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:58:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 13:39:23 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 7 Jan 2001 06:12:22 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>I have an IBM PS/2 Model 85, with 128M of memory, a couple of SCSI disks,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>an ethernet card, and an SVGA card. Disk and graphics card are original
>>IBM, ethernet is a 3COM, IIRC.
>
>Say no more.
Exactly. Just upgrade the machine.
When Win2003 comes out, upgrade the machine again.
When Win2006 comes out, upgrade the machine again.
This way, one will always have the latest and greates applications
and the ability to trust Microsoft absolutely when it comes to
great software.
Spot The Flaw.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- hint: I'm still using an old Pentium Pro 200 :-)
up 96 days, 10:47, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:01:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:16:53 +0000
<UzV56.17910$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
>> Is it true that win9x and winNT4 clients also have problems connecting to
>> win2k
>> servers due the the SMB changes?
>
>That rings a bell though I can't recall any of the details.
It's not a problem. All one has to do is upgrade Win9x to WinMe
and NT4 to Win2k, and everything's solved. At least, until the
next system problem requiring a reboot.... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random sarcasm here
up 96 days, 10:51, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:06:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andy Newman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 09:53:20 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>Various methods can be used to emulate this within vi/Unix.
>
>If you've used XEDIT you'd realise you can't do it's ALL command
>in Vi. Emacs can using selective display.
I did say it was an emulation; I did NOT say it was a good one. :-)
I'm also not expert enough in XEDIT (I used it in school and haven't
touched it since) to know all of its idiosyncracies, such as the
aforementioned ALL command. Nor am I expert in Emacs.
(A pity, because Emacs appears to be able to do almost everything. :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 10:56, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Red Hat dead/dying?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 13:52:00 GMT
John A. Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ours range from antiquated Sparc 2 machines to recent model Ultra 10
> machines and just about everything in between.
I know the feeling. I've still got SPARC 2's and HP 712's, as well as
Ultra 80's and Jx000 HP's. It can be tough, which is why I mentioned
that images were the same within certain classes.
We're starting to use Linux, and that's even worse, as most current
machines are whatever was sitting around unused. That will be changing
soon, I'm developing a corporate image with a small set of hardware in
mind.
> was our Civil Engineering department where almost every desktop machine
> was serving home directories using whatever space wasn't required on the
> disk drive for the operating system.
We used to do that before the current admin team was formed. I was a
user/programmer back then, and that was bad enough. I'm glad I did not
move into admin until the "secret server" situation was well on its
way out. We call it that because you never knew what functions might
go away if any one machine failed or was shut down. Someone years ago
could have installed an application on a desktop machine and made it
available with symlinks and/or the automounter, then not documented
it. Then when the drive failed, the phone starts ringing off the
hook, it turns out half the users depended on that "secret server".
Those days are gone, thank God.
> A serious drawback of this distributed support model is that it is
> impractical to implement a firewall. There are so many departmental
We outsource all networking and firewall services (EDS, they do a good
job on this actually), this includes all the PC's as well, which I do
not (again, thank Cod) admin.
> machines that have to be accessible from the Internet that attempting to
Ah, our big difference. Absolutely *nothing* on our network is supposed
to be visible from the Internet, and the only connections from the
inside are email, and http/ftp/telnet through a proxy, which most
employees do not have access to.
Our outside corporate web page is designed and hosted by another firm,
is not connected to our network in any way, and company employees
don't even do any of the html design (I was once told that this
eliminated the need for corporate security to examine each update for
accidental inclusion of proprietary information).
--
Jim Buchanan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=================== http://www.buchanan1.net/ ==========================
I'm gonna hit the highway like a battering ram, on a silver black
phantom bike, when the metal is hot and the engine is hungry and we're
all about to see the light... -Meatloaf
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!!
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:33:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, genkai wa doko da
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 22:33:06 GMT
<9386f3$ahs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
>linux usings being fagit who don't know real perfesional operatoning
>systim like windows NT!!
Is that the one that still hasn't figured out how to do
tooltips properly yet, after the GUI has been in use for awhile?
(BTW: you're behind the times. Win2k is the absolute latest
and greatest [*] and newest operating system of the NT family;
it only requires 128 megs to run. (That's RAM space, folks.
I don't know how much disk a basic install will want.))
>
>fuck off!
off: no such woman, girl, or directory :-)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
[*] The term "tallest circus midget" comes to mind. (Who was
that who started that phrase in this newsgroup? :-) )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 11:19, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at
4pm pst.)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:36:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Adam Warner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:01:03 +1200
<935g6e$kip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hi ".",
>
>> Pffft, a dozen and a half warez-groups have been writing key-gens for
>> exactly this sort of anti-piracy measure (which originated through
>> the first generation Psygnosis in the time of the Amiga-anyone remember
>> that?) for at least 10 years.
>>
>> Go microsoft. Way to innovate.
>
>Maybe you haven't fully thought through the implications of an operating
>system tied into .NET.
>
>(Below is speculation)
>
>Point 1: No-one has created key gens for Office 2000 or Windows 2000. There
>will be no keygens for Whistler either.
>
>Point 2: Microsoft could create a combined licence code at installation time
>based upon your licence code and your specific hardware.
>
>Point 3: Your licence code and your combined licence code could be your
>ticket to .NET services. Microsoft would have all legitimate license codes
>in a central database and compare against those. Microsoft could also check
>that the combined licence code is still the same as when you first
>registered for .NET services. If that combined licence code changed you
>would have to purchase another hardware licence for the same original OS
>license.
>
>Maybe Microsoft won't do this. But such a plan would be virtually fullproof.
Not to mention competitor-proof.
>
>I am relucant to even call this anti-pirary because the measures would be
>designed to stop you installing the OS on a different (updated? upgraded?)
>computer even if you removed the software from the prior computer.
Well, we can't have that now, can we? I mean, it would be so
unfair to Microsoft to be able to use Enterprise services without
paying them for it.... :-)
>
>Regards,
>Adam
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 11:24, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: .NET and Microsoft Anti-Piracy (was: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at
4pm pst.)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:37:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Adam Warner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:08:02 +1200
<935gjh$krf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I think I should recheck my posts before pressing send:
>fullproof!
>
Also "pirary".
Not that it matters too much; these things happen.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- isnert arndom speling erorr heer
up 96 days, 11:26, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!!
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:41:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:03:49 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Real Player plays all standard formats.
>
> Yea, but you still can't view clips of Linux's big shot at the silver
> screen under Linux.
>
> I find it hysterical!
I think the silly guffaws can be silenced fairly easily:
Wine, vmware or win4lin can facilitate the running
of legacy windows apps in such cases. Of couse
the real solution is native Linux players for all the
popular formats, but until then, such workarounds
are indeed possible...
Might it also be possible to view QT using a mac
quicktime player on LinuxPPC w/sheepshaver,
or possibly executor on x86?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 7 Jan 2001 22:46:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Again, though, "No fucker ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
: Bleh.
That's because Mafia$oft markets to clueless managers, not IT
professionals.
Clueful companies need to adopt policies discouraging use of
proprietary crapware in general (including, but not limited, to
Mafia$oft's), requiring cost-benefit justification for any purchase of
proprietary crapware, and holding those who make the decision to
purchase and deploy proprietary crapware responsible for cost overruns
and system failures resulting from them.
I may have a sample policy lying around somewhere, so if anyone's
seriously interested, let me know and I'll try to find it.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: 7 Jan 2001 22:48:49 GMT
Alan Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah, it's only a fucki'n clone based on Minix, another UNIX(tm) clone.
> I run SOLARIS8, FreeBSD, Linux, SVR4; anmd you know what?
> all are the same thing.
Actually, theyre very different from eachother, though appear similar
in a very surface, asthetic way.
> So, why Linux will be the best?
No one is saying it is.
> it is just a comercial form the companies RedHat , Suse, they only want to
> sell
> the fuckin package, and they doesn't matter what you will do with the OS.
Your post would have been much clearer had you known what your point was.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 22:51:40 +0000
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> Use KRN if you really really need it. It can filter by as many things
> as any other newsreader out there.
>
> Maybe I should port the KRN scoring code to KNode.
No, I'll live with it for now.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 7 Jan 2001 22:50:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another bad analogy, I know NOTHING about sound systems.
Perhaps if you were to mention something that you knew anything about,
I could oblige.
=====.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:51:31 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> First, you claimed the NT server crashed 13 times in a year.
I read a similar article that stated nt crashed 13 times in one year.
I remember that clearly - perhaps there were 2 nt pcs here?
If not, then it was another, similar test.
But I can see it goes right over your head - even this link clearly
states that linux did not crash at all, while windows nt crashed
a number of times and required an average of 30 minutes each
incident to bring it back up - did that enter your consciousness?
No, you quibble about figures, and miss the entire point -
I rest my case.
> Second, This took place over 2 years ago. Using NT4 SP3, which was not all
> that stable for some tasks.
At that time you claimed it was solid as a rock - what changed?
> Third, Despite your grossly overexagerated claims, a 45 day uptime is quite
> good for NT4 SP3. Windows 2000 has no such problems.
Yes, I am impressed with windows 2000 - after windows 98
ate one hard disk and refused to install on a new machine
despite brand new hardware and careful attention from some
of the best windows guys around, they finally admitted defeat
and installed windows 2000 professional. It only locked up
once the first night, I was very very impressed.
Not that it's anywhere near as nice as Linux, but at least
my wife can run print shop and read her email without
having to put up with as as many crashes.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 22:54:48 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> I think the silly guffaws can be silenced fairly easily:
Oh I dunno...
> Wine, vmware or win4lin can facilitate the running
> of legacy windows apps in such cases. Of couse
> the real solution is native Linux players for all the
> popular formats, but until then, such workarounds
> are indeed possible...
Running an emulator isn't cricket old boy.
8)
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 7 Jan 2001 22:52:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Why do you Linux zealots insist making analogies toward motor vehicles.
>>
>> > I can honestly say in your car related comparison I HAVE NO F***ING IDEA
>> > WHAT YOU SAID.
>>
>> Alright then.
>>
>> Hi fidelity audio systems then:
>>
>> Windows is like a kenwood system; it looks great, its full of useless bells
>> and whistles, and its sound is just a hair above mediocre.
> what a pointless analogy. if all you're interested in is sound, then
> appearances shouldn't matter. but computers are not that simple.
Sound systems also are not simple. Ever tune the amplifier plates on a
McIntosh amp? Its no easy task, but the reward is well worth it.
>> Linux is like a McIntosh sound system; unless you actually understand what
>> you're listening to, you wont see what all the hooplah is about. There
>> are no useless bells and whistles unless you add someone elses peripherals;
>> which are almost exclusively inferior to what is built into the system
>> itself.
> so what you are saying is that the linux kernal is brilliant. it's just the
> interfaces and applications for linux that suck. except of course your analogy
> fails on the fact that last time i check McIntosh speakers were not free. not
> even close.
The analogy stands. You are a dolt.
> anyway, a computer platform is not merely the theoretical core it is based on.
> it is a sum of all it's parts.
Exactly, which is why you should be discussing distributions, not the operating
system itself.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Richard Thrippleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 23:04:57 +0000
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> <snip>
> You can "install from the source", with "optimised" code, with whatever
> build parameters you choose with RPM.
>
> Don't criticise what you don't understand.
>
I must admit that I haven't had that much experience with the RPM
system, but plenty with the Debian package manager. I was reliably
informed(even by RPM users) that the Debian system was superior and more
friendly. Hence, my grotesque experiences with that led me to believe that
RPM must be just as bad, maybe worse. Now, a little more detail about the
deb system problems. There were some binaries lying around that I didn't
particularly want ('vi' and 'emacs', much preferring 'ae'), so I killed
them. After that, every time I tried to install a package, the process
failed about half the time, complaining about missing packages, even though
there was no way on earth they could depend on the missing binaries. You may
well now be thinking "Fool shouldn't have fiddled with his system; he got
what he deserved". That might be a valid response in a windows environment,
where you expect the OS to break if you do anything more complex than drool
and click, but not under Linux where one of the key benefits is supposed to
be unhindered flexibility and control. Well, that's my deb rant, and maybe
RPM is better, contrary to the opinion I've seen. The only time RPM has
irritated me personally is when some fool has left a tempting bit of
software out on his/her page in .rpm form only, thinking that's the
'standard'. Since discovering rpm2tgz it's not a problem though; bless
Slackware and its beautiful package system!
Well, feel free to tell me where I went wrong, or point out the pluses
of the RPM system over a more global standard like tgz.
Richard
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
