Linux-Advocacy Digest #367, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell ("Tom Wilson")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: KDE Hell (Craig Kelley)
Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("WMH")
Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("WMH")
Re: KDE Hell ("WMH")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: KDE Hell ("WMH")
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:56:16 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:27:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
>
> >> An open-source Unix clone aiming for Minix compliance.
> >> Grandmother unfriendly.
> >
> >why does everyone insist answering 'what was linux designed for' with
'what
> >linux is' ?
Because the two are mutally inclusive. It's just a Unixesque OS. Nothing
more. Nothing less.
>
> It's not "Minix compliant" any more, it's gone beyond this.
With the source floating about you can't expect it to stay static.
BTW, I meant to say POSIX.
>
> >so you are saying linux was designed for minix compliance? that's seems a
> >little modest..
>
> Most succesful projects start with modest goals (as opposed to projects
> that loudly declare that they will save the world, and then fizzle into
> well deserved obscurity, because the announcers have no idea how to
> implement their bold plans)
Yes, the saving of the world bit IS a bit over the top, isn't it? <g>
>
> And yes, this was originally what Linux was trying to do. You can read
> his original usenet post on my webpage.
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:13:48 GMT
Said JM in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 21:34:01 +0000;
>On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:13 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>Said JM in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:20:00 +0000;
>>>On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:44:32 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>> (T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>But..you see, this is a free country. Sellers can use whatever
>>>>>>measurement system they like. And if it appeals to purchasers,
>>>>>>great. If it doesn't appeal to consumers, so be it.
>>>
>>>>>However, thanks to European dictatorship, it's illegal to sell in
>>>>>metric.
>
>>>>Huh, what?
>
>>>In Britain it's illegal to sell in imperial units.
>
>>I thought that's what you meant.
>
>So why did you ask?
Because I wanted to know.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: 10 Jan 2001 09:36:07 -0600
You are a liar. Period. The volume of rediculous claims in the post are too
long and silly to bear individual comment. ALL of the things you mention, if
they were true, are such big show stoppers that the millions of poeple
runing W2K would have plastered this all over the net and in every single
bug report and in every news bulletin and we'd all be running linux.
However, none of them are true (or at least none of them are true for anyone
but you) so you are wasting out time troll. (if you weren't a troll you
wouldn't have cross posted to linux advocacy)
"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.
>
> 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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 08:39:31 -0700
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Except most Mac users can work with Windows Explorer's interface. It's
> intuitive, and therefore can be "interpreted" rather simply by the user,
> because operations make SENSE.
It's only intuitive because *you* know it. I get calls all the time
for problems understanding EXPLORER.EXE; especially under NT-versions.
> When a user from EITHER WORLD enters KDE2 and GNOME & "e", it's like
> they're heads have just been lobbed off.
Uh-huh.
> Both environments are entirely projects designed to give Linux a "face",
> period. more than just the bash shell, and WAY more than the orgy of
> incomplete, incompatible and feature & functionless Windows managers
> available for XFree86.
Orgy? Functionless?
Have a nice day.
[mega-snip]
--
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: "WMH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:44:54 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 01:09:28 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >No, according to the post, it states
> > >
> > >"Duh! -> was: Linux is crude an inconsistent."
> >
> > And it is. Why do I have to click once sometimes and twice other
> > times? Why does my mouse behave one way with one application and
> > another way with a different application?
> > Why do some web pages look ok but others look like crap? They all look
> > ok under Windows.
> > Why do fonts appear in some applications but not in others?
> > And on and on and on and on....
>
> Also sounds quite like the various incarnations of Windozzzzzzzz and
> the various applications that run on Windozzzzzzzzz.
Web pages? Not so. IE renders pages fairly consistantly.
Can't say the same for NN on Linuxxxxxxxx
> You seem to be confused about the difference between an operating
> system, a GUI, a browser, and other applications. Oh, I forgot,
> Megalosoft tries to bundle them all together for you.
Yes, they do. Some computer users like it that way. Downloading and
compiling applications is usually not on their short list.
------------------------------
From: "WMH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Duh! ->was: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:48:40 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
> >
> > Awww...did da wittle twoll get something up his nose?
> > Sorry, didn't mean to disturb you. Go back to your pup-tent marathon.
> > Be sure to wipe the stains off of Linux Journal when you're done!
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > MH wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Linux is crude and inconsistent.
> > > >
> > > > OK, now that you've stated the obvious...
> > > > What's your point?
> > >
> > > Oh, I thought they were talking about you, jerk.
>
> Ah, thank you. That was a /fine/ masturbatorial session.
> Always got to keep those fighting sperm ready and rarin'
> to go in the genetic battle.
>
> Keep your own screen clean.
I prefer Female adjuncts, that you.
------------------------------
From: "WMH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:55:10 -0500
I'm extrapolating from nothing other than what the content of your posts
would logically indicate.
Besides, COLA & logic don't belong in the same sentence.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:45:30 -0500, MH wrote:
> >
> >> The only way to get bugged by "Linux zealots" iis to go out of your way
> >> to look for them (by going to COLA for example)
> >
> >Summary: "I'm a linux zealot"
>
> Your logic is all back to front. You're assuming that set inclusion
> (or logical implication) is reversible.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 09:58:08 -0600
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93ddau$a5i0p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Wow! 32 "computer chips" at once! Is that like counting the CPU, memory
> HUB,
> >BIOS, hard drive controller, sound controller, etc? A whole 32 chips! woo
> >hoo!
>
>
> Thats 32 CPU chips at once.
:")
>
> >far larger individual files, has a journeling file system and can support
>
>
> Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem (reiser
or
> ext3 ) and has built-in software driven RAID.
NT has had built-in software RAID since day 1 and journaling has been in
since... oooooh, a long time (don't remember exactly when) but since linux
doesn't have journaling (except as an add-on) I guess it's still behind the
curve. (if we count add-ons, well, I guess NT/W2K just got even THAT much
better linux by comparison)
>
> >much more physical as well as virtual memory.
>
> What about using whole partitions as virtual memory without a filesystem
> getting in the way - linux has done this since version 1.x over 6 years
ago
> (up to 128mb per partition with virtually unlimited number of partitions).
gee, a WHOLE 128 mb in a partition? Whoo pee!! And so what? What's the
advantage? There is still a file system in use, it's just that you can't
store user files on it, but there is a system file on it, it's the vitual
memory file. it's managed by the OS as a file. ugh, no advantage at all if
you ask me.
>
>
> >isn't even out of development yet ... big deal? Do you really think
itanium
> >will ship before it runs Windows? (p.s., there is a beta of Windows 2001
> >that will run Itanium, butthead)
> >
>
>
> When is MS starting development for the 64-bit AMD chip then - linux
> development
> started at least a month ago. Why shouldn't the itanium ship before a
> compatible
> version of windows - why should Intel wait for MS to be ready?
who cares about AMD chips anyway... blah...
Why would intel wait? Because there is no market for linux itanium users,
they ain't got the money but there is an unbelievably huge windows market so
they'll take advatage of any delay (if there is any) instead of rushing the
new chip out. Remember, intel has NO incentive to EVER release a new chip so
long as there is current demand for current chips at a profitable price.
Intel only releases new chips when someone like AMD goes faster or cheaper.
They'll wait because linux is not a driving force by any definition in
intel's books.
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:56:24 +0000
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> You are a liar. Period. The volume of rediculous claims in the post are too
> long and silly to bear individual comment. ALL of the things you mention, if
> they were true, are such big show stoppers that the millions of poeple
> runing W2K would have plastered this all over the net and in every single
> bug report and in every news bulletin and we'd all be running linux.
> However, none of them are true (or at least none of them are true for anyone
> but you) so you are wasting out time troll. (if you weren't a troll you
> wouldn't have cross posted to linux advocacy)
You are reminded that just because your experience of a piece of software is
positive, not everyone's is necessarily the same. It also depends on the
hardware being used, the other software being used, and the expectations of
the user in question. Mileage Really Does Vary. Remember that, and keep
taking those little calming pills...
(Mind you, it seems that Matt is one of these strange people that believes
that writing and debugging device drivers should be easy and straightforward.
Shows what a know-nothing kid *he* is, and what a fool you are for rising to
his bait. :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- "I'm going to open a new xterm. This one's pissing me off" Anon. (overheard)
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 10:02:09 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
> > > systems.
> >
> > Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's
32-CPU
> > and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just four
8-way
> > CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be falsely
advertising,
> > right?
>
> All the so called "32-way" windows systems I have seen,
> turn out to be, on closer inspection, clusters of 4 8 way PCs.
>
> If you know of a true 32-way windows pc, do be a good
> sport and provide a URL, OK?
>
do your own closer inspections - visit unisys...
Actually, you claim the 32 cpu systems you've seen are just 4 8 way PCs -
so, tell us, which 32 cpu systems have you seen? be a good sport and provide
a URL OK?
I've personally seen a single server with 32 cpu's in it - tell me how I
could have mistaken it for 4 seperate PCs?
------------------------------
From: "WMH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:03:24 -0500
Then they better get cracking because GCC, Kdevelop, the various VB
rip-offs, and CodeWarrior, albiet nice software, don't hold a candle to
Delphi, C++ Builder, Visual Basic, JBuilder, GoLive, --jeez..the list just
keeps going, and going, and going...
I still think you have to get users to the desktop in order to give 'Joe' a
reason to invest in a radically different dev platform. (other than ANSI C)
BTW, I like how you trimmed your obligatory 'luser' from your post.
Wonder how long that gets kept swept under the rug?
> >And what better road to take to that destination than via Joe-Home-Luser?
>
> via "Joe-Home-Developer".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:05:47 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:30:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>This could be why my friends Windows box with a SB live card sounds
>similar to a 1968 transistor radio.
Probably because he selected "Radio Quality" from multimedia
properties.
He got exactly what he selected.
>It's the old ONE SIZE fit's all concept again.
No, it's a user who doesn't know how to set up the advanced functions
of the card. Functions that are NOT available under Linsux I might
add.
>We have ONE port on the kernel so let's run everybody's sound card
>thru this thing with a series of drivers for each!
I prefer to listen to sound instead of playing with ports on a kernel
myself.
>Brilliant.
Ok.
>That's what made windows and that's what sucks.
Windows supports that card far better than Linux does, and most like
always will. IE: STILL no digital outs with Linux.
>And if you can't tell see this difference by now you probably
>couldn't differentiate between a plate of cornbeef and a plate of shit.
I can HEAR the difference using digital outs under Windows instead of
being forced to use analog outs under Linux.
Can't you?
>Charlie
>
>
>
>
>><TTK Ciar> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>>> >With Windows, you don't need to recompile, you download the DRIVER run
>>the
>>> >INSTALLER and you've got yourself the latest, greatest from whoever made
>>> >"it".
>>>
>>> Yes, you can do that with Linux, too. In Linux terminology,
>>> though, they're called "kernel modules" instead of "drivers".
>>> What Linux has that Windows does not have is the option to modify
>>> and recompile your kernel if you need it to do something that
>>> nobody's written a module for. Of course, you can *choose* not
>>> to mess with the kernel too, which is better than having no choice
>>> about the matter at all (a la Windows).
>>>
>>> Another difference is that in order to install a kernel module
>>> (or uninstall one -- hey, try uninstalling random "drivers" on your
>>> Windows box, and tell me who is "crude and inconsistent") you do not
>>> have to exit your Linux applications or reboot afterwards. And I'll
>>> bet Linux has more functional and useful modules than Windows has
>>> drivers.
>>>
>>> >Gee, seems to be working.
>>>
>>> Yes, Linux works beautifully. Thanks for mentioning it.
>>>
>>> -- TTK
>>>
>>
>>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:09:25 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:30:21 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Microsoft's support site is a thousands times better than anything the LDP
>could squeeze out of it's ass in a century.
>
Exactly!
Ever try to wade through the typical Linux site?
You get presented with some antiquated text screen of a directory tree
and you wade through it because their usually is no documentation on
what is where and what is what.
They of course expect you to be a typical Penguinista and know exactly
how the tree is laid out.
What A joke.
Microsoft on the other hand has the important stuff right on page one
and a couple of clicks gets you to a completed down load quickly. And
at least you know you have downloaded the correct package.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
