Linux-Advocacy Digest #350, Volume #31 Tue, 9 Jan 01 08:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant, but Windows is pure junk! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) (elmig)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Ian
Pulsford)
Re: Microsoft releases Games console (Shane Phelps)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Ian
Pulsford)
Re: SOFTWARE BETA TESTERS URGENTLY REQUIRED ("Chaz")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant, but Windows is pure junk! ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant, but Windows is pure junk!
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:02:45 +0200
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >While the Linux people actually like compiling kernels, writing
> >scripts and hunting the net to figure out how to customize their
> >systems, we normal users prefer to use our computers and enjoy not
> >having to jump through hoops to make things work.
>
> The gist of your argument against Linux seems to be that it doesn't
> play well with unsophisticated users. This, I grant.
>
> Windoze, however, has the opposite problem. When Windoze is good,
> it's very good; but when it's bad, it's a holy terror, and the
> sophisticated user has only limited means to fix it. Typically this
> involves uninstalling and reinstalling something, and "something"
> may be Windoze itself. Windoze lowers the sophisticated user to
> the level of the unsophisticated user. We sophisticated users don't
> like that very much.
>
> For instance, I've had hardware upgrades that went very smoothly in
> Windoze, and upgrades that were major jobs taking a couple of days
> to get right. In Linux, a typical upgrade procedure is install the
> driver, oops, something isn't right, search the Web, oh, I have to
> add this to /etc/foobar, there, now it works. Not as smooth as
> Windoze at its best, but not as frustrating as Windoze at its worst.
>
> You're not a sophisticated user? Very well. No one is forcing you
> to use Linux. Bill Gates, OTOH, is doing his damnedest to force me
> to use Windoze.
>
> The weakness of Linux is that you have to fool with it.
> The strength of Linux is that you *can* fool with it.
>
> Oh, and I don't much appreciate your use of "normal" as if those of
> us who actually know how our computers work are "abnormal."
To take your example, You oppsed something during an upgrade, you go to the
web and search for it. There are much more windows info than linux info
around the web.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:03:48 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:IPu66.56936$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:kst66.13389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows has a unified configuration system called the REGISTERY.
> >
> > Linux has /etc.
> >
> > Guess which one is light years ahead of the other.
>
> The one that allows you to run a test instance of a program at the same
> time as the production copy but using a command line switch to
> point it to an alternate file. The one that allows recovery of
> an unbootable system by using an alternate boot (floppy, etc.)
> and copying in correct versions of some files.
And your point is?
Both things are doable with the Registry.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 12:24:12 +0200
"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.
>
>
> 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.
You don't need to boot for an IP change.
Can you tell me what the BSOD said?
> 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.
Nope.
I've copied terrabytes of data, from all over my network to HDs, CDs,
backuptapes, zip drives, you name it, and it never crashed once.
> 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.
Really? I've just printed a 400 pages document ( a task that took nearly 2
days because of the old printer) using win2k pro & office 2k.
> 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.
Interesting, isn't it?
I've a server here which run IIS' FTP 10 to 20 concurrent users during
bussiness hours, including the moving of several huge files, it does HTTP &
dynamic pages as well, and several other tasks.
Its uptime is 3 months, and that is only because I'd to replace the network
card to a faster one.
> 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!!
So, you put a piece of shitty code into the kernel (loaded it as a device
driver, which is essentialy the same, because deivce drivers *has* to be in
the kernel, because the need to talk to raw hardware) and you complain that
the system crashed?
> 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.
Really?
It's a driver issue, by your own admition, look above to see why drivers can
lock up any system.
I've run UT for several days in a row, when I got it, leaving it on at all
times, it didn't lock anything.
And was a beautiful game.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (elmig)
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: 9 Jan 2001 10:33:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J Sloan) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Mart van deWege wrote:
[ . . ]
>At the risk of pointing out the obvious, time has proved Linus correct -
>
>jjs
>
Theoritical a microkernel is not a bad idea. And the kernel 2.4.0
uncompressed takes about 150 MB, this is not a good idea.
linux allows to fit all the drivers in the kernel. Theorical this is bad
but in practice is very effective.
Well as someone said: "There's more than a way things can be done".
just my $.02
elmig
+--------------------------------+
|elmig |
|http://www.alunos.ipb.pt/~ee3931|
|Luis.Figueiredo AT pt.bosch.com |
+--------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:57:12 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[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
"pub10.ezboard.com web2news.pl" wrote:
>
> WASHINGTON, DC -- The Justice Department's plan to break up Microsoft is not just a
>bad legal
> decision -- it's a case of "bureaucratic grand larceny" that has already stolen more
>wealth from
> Americans than all the bank robbers in history, the Libertarian Party charged today.
>
In "The Australian" newspaper today (The Australian IT section, p38
"Cyber-fortunes shrivel in options meltdown"):
"Hardest hit was Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer, whose
shareholding in the software giant fell $US17.5 billion ($31.25 billion)
or 63 per cent, from $US27.9 billion."
Gates wasn't included in the figures because it only listed chief
executives, nor the other mega-wealthy CEOs etc. of big IT companies.
So who was the wealth "stolen" from again? That is of course if you
could even call it stolen - more like temporarily lost until the
sharemarket picks up again, unless you were stoopid enough to buy when
the price was high and the market flakey.
IanP
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 22:18:38 +1100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Linux kernel 2.4 released
>
> Microsoft releases Games console
>
> The Register: And so Xbox is 'launched'
The article I read in the computer section of the local newspaper
said it's due for release in early 2002. (and so did your link)
Not much of a launch when it's all said and done :-)
.. in fact, the uncharitable may even call it vapourware ;-)
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15885.html
>
> Where's the Linux games console? Has anyone invented one yet? Linux is
> quite capable of it - so why not? Why is it not even a starter?
>
Good question. Business opportunity, anybody??
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 21:41:03 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Minor correction:
> Gates wasn't included in the figures because it only listed chief
> executives, nor the other mega-wealthy CEOs etc. of big IT companies.
^^^^^^^
CEOs were mentioned, non-CEOs weren't.
IanP
------------------------------
From: "Chaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: SOFTWARE BETA TESTERS URGENTLY REQUIRED
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:41:00 -0000
Looks a bit dodgy to me...
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nzz66.5870$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> SOFTWARE BETA TESTERS REQUIRED
>
> Welcome to KSM2000, we are the fulfilment agents for our clients
MicroService.
>
> Our client is actively seeking to recruit 1000 beta software testers
throughout Europe and we have been placed with the challenge of locating
them.
>
> So where better than here in your newsgroup, will we find possible
candidates. Please ignore this mail and/or accept our apologies if it is not
relevant to your newsgroup, but some of your users might just be interested.
>
> If you think that this type of opportunity would be of interest to you, we
would be grateful if you would use the link below to mail us your interest.
>
> The subject line should contain: Beta Microservice
>
> And the contents: Your full name, address, postcode and of course your
E-mail address. On receipt of this mail we will forward you full details of
the positions available as soon as possible.
>
>
> Please note this is not a full time employment opportunity.
>
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 11:32:47 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> This is precisely how you'd do it. The software is here:
>> http://www.simtel.net/simtel.net/msdos/tcpip.html
>
> However, that's not much use if you've got ONE blank machine, an MSDOS boot
> disk and a Windows CD.
The last time I used that stuff, it wasn't much use. Period. I'd rather
be stuck with supporting all versions of MFC and VB than working with a
MSDOS network stack... <shudder>
Donal.
--
"If something like this happened in the real world, not only would I be under
NDA, but I would also be afraid of having my own personal butt involved in
the legal equivalent of the massacre of Little Big Horn, with the lawyers
starring as the Indians." -- Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 11:36:16 +0000
Perry Pip wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >GCC is available for Windows, and there are free compilers,
>
> Free compilers ported from Linux of course. Why not just use the real thing??
Better than that, you can cross-compile from one to the other, and so
support foolish users without having to spoil your development
environment. Hooray for Cygnus^H^H^H^H Redhat...
Donal.
--
"If something like this happened in the real world, not only would I be under
NDA, but I would also be afraid of having my own personal butt involved in
the legal equivalent of the massacre of Little Big Horn, with the lawyers
starring as the Indians." -- Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 11:41:21 +0000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Fuck Godwin.
Won't; I don't know where he's been...
(And why not use some kind of .sig randomizer? Like that, you could
keep the size down, so stopping irritating all and sundry, while still
keeping up your long-term goal of "immunization" campaign against people
who irritate you; it might even be a more effective technique...)
Donal.
--
"If something like this happened in the real world, not only would I be under
NDA, but I would also be afraid of having my own personal butt involved in
the legal equivalent of the massacre of Little Big Horn, with the lawyers
starring as the Indians." -- Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant, but Windows is pure junk!
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:15:39 +0000
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> To take your example, You oppsed something during an upgrade, you go to the
> web and search for it. There are much more windows info than linux info
> around the web.
That's really a very strange argument indeed. One good and relevant
solution that all the search-engines find will beat fifty million
badly-indexed poor/useless answers, whatever the domain of discourse.
Donal.
--
"If something like this happened in the real world, not only would I be under
NDA, but I would also be afraid of having my own personal butt involved in
the legal equivalent of the massacre of Little Big Horn, with the lawyers
starring as the Indians." -- Chuck Swiger <[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
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:16:45 -0500
In <93ck84$g3n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/08/2001
at 09:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>What functionality is that?
Well, to start with, prefix macros.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
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 13:02:56 GMT
In article <mMx66.543$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:2Ww66.114530$[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.
>
Ah it really does. Fukenbush just doesn't ever demonstrate a brain.
>> 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
>
NO! It's not STRIKE 1 MORON. This is something Windows can't do.
You don't strike a guy because your fukin operating system is a
peice of shit. Sorry pal.
>> 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.
>
His is more believable.
>> 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.
>
And why not. I don't understand why they are the SAME server....
But you know there not. Don't you.
>> 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.
>
Same as above Fukenbush. Anybody who read this is probably laughing
so hard about now they need testicle surgery.
>> 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.
>
I'll admit I've never done this but, I think it proves he has
more gonads than you do Fukenbush.
>> 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.
>
So we kick the kid for fixing a driver using assembly saying it's bullcrap
then we tell everybody W2k has a driver problem?
This is typical Fukenbush.
>> 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.
>
If we sent you to the White House Fukenbush I would be fearful for any
stable animals.
That's how close to Clinton you came here.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
