Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #31 Tue, 9 Jan 01 01:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Where can I get good info on setting up Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Matt Soltysiak")
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Could only... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
Re: kernel problems (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Tom Wilson")
$$$ MAKE A LOT OF MONEY EASY $$$ ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where can I get good info on setting up Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:53:39 GMT
On 9 Jan 2001 00:48:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken
Philbrick) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ZHN) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Where can I get good info on setting up Linux?
>>Yep! Where? I have a 750 mhz athlon, nvidia 64 mother
>>have a cd_rw and a DVD can I set up linux under these circumstances on
>>this machine?
>
>Your machine should work very well with Linux. I'm not sure about the DVD,
>though, seeing how I do not watch movies. Try http://linuxdoc.org for
>help, it's the home of the Linux Documentation Project, pretty much the
>central source for Linux documentation. As for what distribution you
>should use, i would suggest Mandrake for your first time, but once you get
>familiar with the system, move onto something better (Debian, Slackware).
>
>Here is the Linux Installation HOWTO, from the Linux Documentation Project:
>http://linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Installation-HOWTO/index.html
>
>That should get you started.
>
>Good luck with your Linux adventure :-)
>
>Ken
Yea it's an adventure for sure. BTW your DVD will not work, legally,
anyway and if you are into any sort of multimedia forget Linsux.
But then again, try it (Mandrake 7.2) and make sure and come back and
tell us all how "great" it is.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT
I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years. It's
amazing.
Here are some of the common failures:
1.)If I change an IP address in Win2k, order to join another network in
another city, Windows 2000, upon boot up, crashes and pops up a nice blue
screen with kernel and panic errors all over the place (you all know what
that is). Just to change the IP address!!! Now, I do this all the time
with Win 98 or Unix, and I never had problems like this.
2.) If I copy a few files, Windows 2000 will simply lock up and nothing
happens. At first, I thought it was just the slow byte-to-byte algorithms
MS uses, so I decide to wait a few minutes...but, alas, it locked up cold,
and I reboot.
3.) When printing a document in Windows 2000 Professional, it simply locks
up solid. This is with MS Office 2000. Just to print a document!!!
Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server fix these problems, however.
4.) Simply running an FTP server for a week with Windows 2000 Server/IIS
5.0, locks up my machine. Only a week uptime!!! And this has happened more
than once. Windows 2000 Advanced server lasted only a month. Just for an
FTP server. Average users, 10 - 20 a week!!! That's nothing compared to
modern Unices.
5.) When writing an assembly program in order to interface with an external
card reader (using an ATMEL microcontroller), Windows 2000 locks up, upon
program execution. Now, this was my fault, and I corrected the bug. But an
operating system SHOULD NOT lock up when doing this. Normally, I write this
shit for DOS, and everything is A-OK. Even windows 98 works with the
reader!!
6.) Then there's some games I like to play (Unreal Tournament), and windows
2000 locks up, as usual... Though it's a driver issue.
Now, I have tried to be patient with Windows 2000, and I've tried to give
this shit more than one chance, hoping that maybe Service pack 1 would fix
these problems, etc. But it always fails me - always. I can't afford shit
like that, and nor can many people.
Now, as to usual application support and desktop usage, windows does kick
ass. It's easy to use, convenient, etc. But I'd rather have a stable
system than this. Windows NT has worked for me great, and so has OpenBSD
(my current ftp server), as well as Linux. But Windows 2000 just plain
sucks, no matter what the Windows advocates say.
Matt. (Let's see what they say)
P.S. I'm currently running Windows 2000 Server now, writing this, and I'm
suprised it hasn't locked up or anything - shocking, absolutely shocking.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:02:10 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:38:31 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Clearly a lie. You obviously prefer to spend most of your time bashing
>Linux. How many hours a day to you spend on that? When do you find time to
>do anything useful?
I have lot's of time, lot's of time. Being self employed has many
advantages over reporting to a cubicle everyday and watching the CEO
(who has a contract BTW do you?)get rich and fat, and the slaves lose
their benefits one at a time.
Yep, I left that world years ago for obvious reasons, money being one
of them. Free time being another, and yes I have lots of time to spend
exposing Linux for the pile of trash that it is.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:17:41 GMT
Heh, if Linux nuts did that, Linux wouldn't suck.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 8 Jan 2001 21:08:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>1. It is the default Window manager for some distributions.
> >
> >KDE is not a window manager
>
> And this is EXACTLY why Linsux is failing so miserably on the
> desktop's of home users, because all the while you Penguinista's are
> playing your little semantic games, the fact remains that the
> gui,xserver,wm or whatever you choose to call the components today,
> suck.
>
> When I put exec kwm at the end of .xinitrc file I get kde. Looks like
> a Windowmanager to me...It puts Windows that look different than if I
> put exec wmaker there instead.
>
> Hint:Stop making yourself look ridiculous by splitting bits and
> concentrate on the subject as a whole.
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:19:26 GMT
Give it a full body redesign, then we'll talk.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93e2dc$438$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Thank you for explaining the analogy.
>
> >But I guess the same applies to cars, there are such things as terrible
> >cars.
>
> >I think Linux is a terrible car, err, OS.
>
> Then I guess you will be one person who doesn't drive, err, use what will
> turn out to be the most popular car, err, OS in history.
>
> Bernie "just stretching" Meyer
> --
> The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything
> E.J. Phelps
> American diplomat
> London, 24 January 1889
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:20:36 GMT
Where IS TSE for windows 2000 anyway?
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93e2nu$nhs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>I also don't see anything running faster than the equivalent
> >>application does on Windows 2k on the same machine.
> > I dont see Win2k doing remote GUI ?
>
> It does, see Terminal Server Client [sic]; but it is prohibitavely
> expensive for most.
>
> And its a terrible, insecure, hog of a proprietary transport.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:29:03 GMT
In article <93e1pj$40g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
>>JM wrote:
>>> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>>>Look at Australia...they banned guns, and the murder rate TRIPLED.
>>>
>>>That's such a fallacy it's untrue.
>
>>Nope. It's statistics.
>
>Yeah, but it's made up statistics. The Australian bureau of statistics
>has a web site which has the actual numbers, and the rate is absolutely
>flat, with a sharp drop in firearms related murders in the 1999 figures,
>which might yet turn out to be either a fluke or the start of a trend.
>
>>>>This indicates that private ownership of guns PREVENTS more murders
>>>>than it causes.
>>>
>>>Yes, your attacker having a gun PREVENTS him murdering you.
>
>>The idea is you shoot him before he shoots you.
>
>Don't get me wrong --- but unless I would be willing to shoot people
>as soon as I "feel threatened", the chances are my attacker has her gun
>out before I even relaize that I should shoot her. Which means my chances
>of getting in the first shot are pretty damn slim.
>
>And in that case, I'd feel much safer knowing that the attacker *doesn't*
>expect me to be armed, and thus *doesn't* fear that any moment I will
>try to shoot her, and thus *doesn't* see a need to shoot first. My wallet
>is gone either way, but digging bullets out of my guts is painful, expensive
>and takes a lot of time.
>
>Bernie
>
Well Bernie. Don't get me wrong but it seems to me if they suspect your
armed they won't be around anywho.
And I do suggest going to the range to learn how to shoot that thing if
you buy it.
BTW, if you get shot in the guts your going to die, gunless or not.
Might as well have one.
At least you can say you died trying to live.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:30:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:19:02 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>An interesting article by Kevin Reichard appeared in Linux Planet today,
>>about how Linux appeared to be a no-show at CES this year:
>
>Mainly because CES is all about SELLING and MAKING MONEY and using the
>word Linux and the phrase "making money" in the same sentence doesn't
>make sense.
>
>Once again Linux is being ignored because it is too fragmented,
>inconsistent and unappealing to the high rollers.
>
Well there god damn well not making any money at my house.
HA.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: 08 Jan 2001 22:25:33 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qwq66.162349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >
> > > >> You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows via the
> > > >> internet.
> > > >
> > > >But you need a machine on the internet to install it in the first
> place!
> > >
> > > You mean you cannot make a windows bootable disk to connect to the
> > > internet and start the installer then - this is possible under linux
> (some
> > > distro's still allow this - mandrake can install from an ftp site but
> may
> > > need the CD put in your own ftp server as I am not sure if their server
> > > has all files from the CD).
> >
> > Not as far as I know. The bootable disks supplied with CD's (if they are
> > even supplied at all) are just MSDOS. I don't think anything on the
> Windows
> > CD's allows this either.
> >
> > However, it is possible to get a network stack up on MSDOS, though I
> > haven't seen a TCP/IP one (that doesn't mean there aren't any).
>
> This is precisely how you'd do it. The software is here:
>
> http://www.simtel.net/simtel.net/msdos/tcpip.html
And where do I get real-mode drivers for my USB ethernet connection,
or any other ethernet card made in the last 5 years?
No, you cannot install Windows over the net. I've *never* seen anyone
do it under Windows, but it happens with Linux all the time (and I've
seen considerable more people who've installed Windows than Linux).
Net Ghost seems to be the closest thing, but that really is a disk
imager, not an OS installer.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: 9 Jan 2001 05:32:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:38:31 -0500, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Clearly a lie. You obviously prefer to spend most of your time bashing
>>Linux. How many hours a day to you spend on that? When do you find time to
>>do anything useful?
> I have lot's of time, lot's of time. Being self employed has many
> advantages over reporting to a cubicle everyday and watching the CEO
> (who has a contract BTW do you?)get rich and fat, and the slaves lose
> their benefits one at a time.
> Yep, I left that world years ago for obvious reasons, money being one
> of them. Free time being another, and yes I have lots of time to spend
> exposing Linux for the pile of trash that it is.
And lots of time to lie about how much you understand about high level
sound engineering, of course.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 9 Jan 2001 05:33:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>>The church of scientology is evil and retarded, as are ALL of its members.
>>EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. ALL OF THEM, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS AT ALL.
> Now now, that's a pretty strong statement. There are certainly members
> who are not retareded (think of those at the top of the Scientology
> food chain, the ones who pocket all that money), and there are members
> who are not evil (think of the other end).
> Maybe if you use "or" instead of "and", and replace "retarded" with
> "not necessarily overly bright", you have a point.
I'll stick in the or, but the rest stands.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:53:51 GMT
In article <2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matt Soltysiak wrote:
>I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
>enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
>Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
>
They don't really USE an operating system and I think
this might be the problem. Linux machines have typical uptimes
in the hundreds of days VS the typical Windows box which goes down
every night for bed.
>
>Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
>operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years. It's
>amazing.
>Here are some of the common failures:
>
>1.)If I change an IP address in Win2k, order to join another network in
>another city, Windows 2000, upon boot up, crashes and pops up a nice blue
>screen with kernel and panic errors all over the place (you all know what
>that is). Just to change the IP address!!! Now, I do this all the time
>with Win 98 or Unix, and I never had problems like this.
>
UM HMM.
>2.) If I copy a few files, Windows 2000 will simply lock up and nothing
>happens. At first, I thought it was just the slow byte-to-byte algorithms
>MS uses, so I decide to wait a few minutes...but, alas, it locked up cold,
>and I reboot.
>
Yep.
>3.) When printing a document in Windows 2000 Professional, it simply locks
>up solid. This is with MS Office 2000. Just to print a document!!!
>Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server fix these problems, however.
>
True.
>4.) Simply running an FTP server for a week with Windows 2000 Server/IIS
>5.0, locks up my machine. Only a week uptime!!! And this has happened more
>than once. Windows 2000 Advanced server lasted only a month. Just for an
>FTP server. Average users, 10 - 20 a week!!! That's nothing compared to
>modern Unices.
>
On our NT boxes we had a 27 hour average uptime with heavy business use.
On 2000 boxes the figure is almost doubled.
>5.) When writing an assembly program in order to interface with an external
>card reader (using an ATMEL microcontroller), Windows 2000 locks up, upon
>program execution. Now, this was my fault, and I corrected the bug. But an
>operating system SHOULD NOT lock up when doing this. Normally, I write this
>shit for DOS, and everything is A-OK. Even windows 98 works with the
>reader!!
>
Humm. That's interesting and I did not know that.
>6.) Then there's some games I like to play (Unreal Tournament), and windows
>2000 locks up, as usual... Though it's a driver issue.
>
Well, that's been the case with some games on Windows forever.
If you have a really good running game you'll find it can lock
up your windows box after several hours of use also.
>Now, I have tried to be patient with Windows 2000, and I've tried to give
>this shit more than one chance, hoping that maybe Service pack 1 would fix
>these problems, etc. But it always fails me - always. I can't afford shit
>like that, and nor can many people.
>
After 6 service packs on NT, I can tell you they seem to ADD CODE but
they never really manage to fix crucial runtime problems. They fixed
Y2K issues concerning dates and logins but never seemed to fix fatal
blue screen errors.
>Now, as to usual application support and desktop usage, windows does kick
>ass. It's easy to use, convenient, etc. But I'd rather have a stable
>system than this. Windows NT has worked for me great, and so has OpenBSD
>(my current ftp server), as well as Linux. But Windows 2000 just plain
>sucks, no matter what the Windows advocates say.
>
Well, honestly I don't see that Windows is ahead in the applications
department. Star office and Applix pretty well equate what they have
for OFFICE. SQL server doesn't hold a candle to the performance of
MY-SQL nor to the capacity and funcitionality of Posgres. And we
don't need to mention Apache kicks the ass off everything in the web
serving department. Linux is a natural FTP server. Linux has oodles
of CADCAMS which run much better than the Autocad Windows stuff.
I suppose the Games department is the only thing Linux is truthfully
lagging behind in when it comes to competion with Windows.
I'm running Quake II which I like and there are a few more for Linux.
I'm actually surprised that more games aren't available for Linux.
I'd pay for them if they were there.
>Matt. (Let's see what they say)
>
>
>P.S. I'm currently running Windows 2000 Server now, writing this, and I'm
>suprised it hasn't locked up or anything - shocking, absolutely shocking.
>
>
Let's not forget that Debian with a 2.4 kernel just runs RINGS around
Windows 2000 on the same machine. The performance difference is so
dramatic that people who come to my house and try the two are often
speechless. They are so shocked at the performance from the Debian
box they just can't believe it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:57:42 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Pne66.21254$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows on a new
> > computer without having to go thru 3 reboots.
>
> True, they do like their reboots.
>
> > You will never be able to buy a copy of Microsoft Windows
> > with a manual over 100 pages in length.
>
> I've yet to read a manual on Windows.
The last one I glanced at was Win3.11's manual. It was more of a marketing
pamphlet than anything.
>
> > You will never be able to develope a net applicance using
> > Microsoft Windows.
>
> Neither will most people. Besides, why would anyone want to build a net
> appliance?
That's the direction the industry keeps wanting to steer towards. If you're
a developer, it makes sense to be prepared and have tools on hand to
accommodate.
>
> > You will never see a Microsoft Windows Compiler installed
> > in your Windows product by default.
>
> True, you need to buy one.
>
> > You will never see a Microsoft Windows Web Server installed
> > in your Windows product by default.
>
> They were on the CD as a seperate free product. That's probably changed
now.
Windows 200 Professional, my copy anyway, shipped with IIS.
Personally, I prefer Apache. I'm not an IIS fan.
>
> > You will never be able to install Microsoft Windows via the
> > internet.
>
> But you need a machine on the internet to install it in the first place!
>From what I understand, you can boot up certain distro installs and they can
get you on the net to download the OS. I never tried this as I don't have a
T1. You'd need it!
Win2K can be installed from a network too, but I think you need to be
running the install from a currently connected version of Windows.
>
> > If you run Microsoft Windows you will be using a closed source
> > system and this means you will always have security problems.
>
> Closed source != security problems
Closed source + Programming Mistakes + Delayed Vendor Reaction = Major
Problems
You don't even have the option of attempting a patch yourself with closed
source. You're at the mercy of a vendor to provide a solution.
>
> > You will never find a version of Microsoft Windows which addressed
> > all broken code.
>
> I've yet to see a Linux that can handle all my hardware.
I've yet to get Windows, without a lot of tweaking, to recognize all of
mine. Open hardware market with varying standards and a lot of legacy stuff
floating around. Any OS is vulnerable. Linux, at least, gives enough control
to allow experienced users to overcome the problem.
>
> > You will never find a version of Microsoft Windows which can
> > achieve an uptime of over a week.
>
> That's why a web server was up for over a month.
A server should never go down for reasons not concerning upgrades or
hardware problems.
>
> > You will always be pissed running Microsoft Windows.
>
> Why does using Microsoft drive you to drink, Charlie?
Gotta love cultural and vernacular differences <g>
>
> Besides Charlie, you're one to talk. According to some of your posts, you
> work for a company on Windows NT. Are you still there? If so, why? Why
> would anyone want to work on a platform they obviously hate? Care to
answer
> that one Charlie?
Though I'm not Charlie, I'll field this too. Developing for Windows is
something you have to do to be profitable. My personal dislike for the
platform and the company doesn't enter into it. Business and personal don't
mix. You can't ignore an OS that controls nearly all of the desktop market
and expect to remain in business. The best approach is to use your Windows
development to fund your non-Windows development. Our entire
infra-structure, aside from the development stations, is purely nix-based
and we intend to keep it that way. When the day comes to concentrate solely
on a non-MS project, we'll be ready (and more than willing).
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: $$$ MAKE A LOT OF MONEY EASY $$$
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:26:25 GMT
yo
begin 644 cash.html
M/&AT;6P^#0H\:&5A9#X-"CQT:71L93Y5;G1I=&QE9"!$;V-U;65N=#PO=&ET
M;&4^#0H\;65T82!H='1P+65Q=6EV/2)#;VYT96YT+51Y<&4B(&-O;G1E;G0]
M(G1E>'0O:'1M;#L@8VAA<G-E=#UI<V\M.#@U.2TQ(CX-"CQS8W)I<'0@;&%N
M9W5A9V4](DIA=F%38W)I<'0B/@T*/"$M+0T*9G5N8W1I;VX@34U?;W!E;D)R
M5VEN9&]W*'1H95523"QW:6Y.86UE+&9E871U<F5S*2![("\O=C(N,`T*("!W
M:6YD;W<N;W!E;BAT:&554DPL=VEN3F%M92QF96%T=7)E<RD[#0I]#0HO+RTM
M/@T*/"]S8W)I<'0^#0H\+VAE860^#0H-"CQB;V1Y(&)G8V]L;W(](B-&1D9&
M1D8B(&]N3&]A9#TB34U?;W!E;D)R5VEN9&]W*"=H='1P.B\O=W=W+G!R:79A
M=&5G;VQD+F-O;2]J;VEN+G!H=&UL/W=M7VQO9VEN/71T8F]Y,C1F<29A;7`[
M=VU?<')O9W)A;3U40R9A;7`[=VU?<F5F=7)L/6AT='`E,T$O+W=W=RYM:6ME
M=FED+G1O<&UO9&5L+F-X+R<L)W1E<W0G+"=W:61T:#TQ+&AE:6=H=#TQ)RDB
M/@T*/'`@86QI9VX](F-E;G1E<B(^/&9O;G0@<VEZ93TB-2(^/&(^/&9O;G0@
M8V]L;W(](B,P,#`P,#`B/DY%140@0T%32"P@1D%35"!-3TY%62`-"B`@250@
M4D5!3$Q9(%=/4DM3(2$A(3PO9F]N=#X\+V(^/"]F;VYT/CPO<#X-"CQP/B`\
M82!H<F5F/2)H='1P.B\O;6]B>61I8VMS+F-O;2]C;VUM;VYS+U1O;4-L86YC
M>6AA;&PO;65S<V%G97,O.30N:'1M;"(^:'1T<#HO+VUO8GED:6-K<RYC;VTO
M8V]M;6]N<R]4;VU#;&%N8WEH86QL+VUE<W-A9V5S+SDT+FAT;6P\+V$^/"]P
5/@T*/"]B;V1Y/@T*/"]H=&UL/@T*
`
end
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:04:07 -0600
"Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
> Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
Hmmm.. very strange, since your facts don't appear to match reality.
> Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
> operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years.
It's
> amazing.
> Here are some of the common failures:
>
> 1.)If I change an IP address in Win2k, order to join another network in
> another city, Windows 2000, upon boot up, crashes and pops up a nice blue
> screen with kernel and panic errors all over the place (you all know what
> that is). Just to change the IP address!!! Now, I do this all the time
> with Win 98 or Unix, and I never had problems like this.
Win2k doesn't require you to reboot to change the IP. Of course, if you'd
actually used Win2k, you'd know this.
Strike 1
> 2.) If I copy a few files, Windows 2000 will simply lock up and nothing
> happens. At first, I thought it was just the slow byte-to-byte algorithms
> MS uses, so I decide to wait a few minutes...but, alas, it locked up cold,
> and I reboot.
Lots of information here. Just wave your hands around and claim mysterious
things.
The same happened to me with Linux. So there, your statements are as
founded as mine are.
> 3.) When printing a document in Windows 2000 Professional, it simply locks
> up solid. This is with MS Office 2000. Just to print a document!!!
> Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server fix these problems, however.
<rolling eyes>. You do realize that Windows 2000 pro and server/advanced
server are *THE SAME OS*, right? If it works in one, it'll work in the
other.
Strike 2.
> 4.) Simply running an FTP server for a week with Windows 2000 Server/IIS
> 5.0, locks up my machine. Only a week uptime!!! And this has happened
more
> than once. Windows 2000 Advanced server lasted only a month. Just for an
> FTP server. Average users, 10 - 20 a week!!! That's nothing compared to
> modern Unices.
Again, Advanced server and Server are the same OS. The only difference is
the number of advanced services run and the number of CPU's it supports. If
the server were locking up because of FTP on Server, it would do exactly the
same thing under AS.
Strike 3.
> 5.) When writing an assembly program in order to interface with an
external
> card reader (using an ATMEL microcontroller), Windows 2000 locks up, upon
> program execution. Now, this was my fault, and I corrected the bug. But
an
> operating system SHOULD NOT lock up when doing this. Normally, I write
this
> shit for DOS, and everything is A-OK. Even windows 98 works with the
> reader!!
Windows 2000 doesn't allow you to access hardware from user mode programs.
Of course, if you'd actually tried this under Win2k, your program would
simply be ended at the first access to memory it didn't own.
Strike 4.
> 6.) Then there's some games I like to play (Unreal Tournament), and
windows
> 2000 locks up, as usual... Though it's a driver issue.
Uh, whatever. More hand waving.
> Now, I have tried to be patient with Windows 2000, and I've tried to give
> this shit more than one chance, hoping that maybe Service pack 1 would fix
> these problems, etc. But it always fails me - always. I can't afford
shit
> like that, and nor can many people.
Try actually using the OS instead of dreaming about it next time. Your
statements prove that you didn't in fact use the OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
