Linux-Advocacy Digest #381, Volume #31 Thu, 11 Jan 01 03:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Step-by step to install Linux RH7 and Win98. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat (sfcybear)
The real truth about NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The real truth about NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The real truth about NT (Pete Goodwin)
Re: kernel problems(new) (Perry Pip)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft releases Games console (Pete Goodwin)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (J Sloan)
Re: The real truth about NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Step-by step to install Linux RH7 and Win98.
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:04:05 GMT
yah sure, just make sure to install linux at last, it's all taken care
of by lilo.. i suggest RedHat7, it's easy install.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
gataway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if i want to install more OS like win2000, winNT, can i still use
lilo?
>
> ID wrote:
>
> > 1= install win98
> > 2= install partitionmagic.. but do NOT install bootmagic.
> > 3=resize your existing partition with partitionmagic to create
ampty space
> > for linux. (min. 600mb. 2+GB is good idea)
> > do NOT need to create a partition, just an empty space for linux.
> >
> > than try to install RH7-linux, follow on-screen instructions, you
don't need
> > a boot manager, linux has its own bootmanager called "lilo" that
will take
> > care of your win98 too.
> >
> > good luck
> > ismet
> >
> > "gataway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I'm going to setup a new system with two ATA 100 harddisk, one
for win
> > > 98 the other for Linux RH7.I'm planning to have BootMAgic and
Partition
> > > Magic install .
> > > So which OS do i install first? And what partition is needed for
noth
> > > win98SE and Linux? Can i have and exmaple of how much space for
each
> > > partition? I will
> > > Install most of the application and games on win98SE ,as for
linux i am
> > > a newbie still
> > > need to explore more about it.Kindly give me a senerio on what to
do.
> > >
> > >
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:05:58 GMT
In article <93iq7c$5sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006
>
>
We've known that all along.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The real truth about NT
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:20:57 GMT
Hi all
It must be about 4 or more months since my last post - but I was very
busy!
Any way, I found another number of interesting (but not surprising)
facts on why business in general should avoid NT/2000 for any kind of
solution.
1. Over the last three years I had to re-install most NT boxes once per
year (general average of 20 odd boxes). Problem is that they fall over
regularly and one day they just never come back up. Most of the time
it's corrupt page files (I'm still searching for a solution - anyone?)
2. Disk Space - I don't think I have to say more...
3. DBX Files - Two key problems: a) SIZE and b) File Format. I used a
utility called oe2mbx.exe to convert a inbox.mbx file to an Linux mbx
file. The result was this: DBX = 808Kb MBX = 488Kb. Further more I
think the dbx is a realy dumb format. You can't do anything with it. If
you import it in an Excel spreadsheet or even Notepad you get like a
trillion of useless characters. M$ should have added a DBX import into
Excel at least.
4. CD-RW - NT gave so far 6 duds vs 0 to Linux in my org. (Maybe
mentioning that the Linux box burns about 15 times more CD's then the
NT box is overdoing it...)
5. Backup - ALL User data in Linux ends up in $HOME. In NT MOST end up
in ..\Profiles, *BUT*, two major problems: a) *.DBX does not end up
here, causing OE data not to be backed up on most sites, and b) when re-
installing NT, you loose your ..\Profiles from the word go. I found it
also a hassle to move Profiles to another location because you waist
time when re-installing NT to reconfigure everything again to the new
location.
6. Install time - As you might have guesed, I re-installed NT now a
couple of times. Average install time from scratch to a FULLY working
Work Station with all apps installed takes about 4 hours (on some older
systems up to 6 hours). I have not yet re-installed a Linux system, but
a new install, with linking up to my company $HOME directory and all
the other bells and whistles takes less then an hour.
Net result: The M$ TCO theory goes up in smoke!
Enjoy!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:36:48 GMT
> 6. Install time - As you might have guesed, I re-installed NT now a
> couple of times. Average install time from scratch to a FULLY working
> Work Station with all apps installed takes about 4 hours (on some
older
> systems up to 6 hours). I have not yet re-installed a Linux system,
but
> a new install, with linking up to my company $HOME directory and all
> the other bells and whistles takes less then an hour.
Why don't you use Drive Image Pro? Make a copy of a partition with
working NT and you'll restore NT in minutes. :-)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:09:32 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. Over the last three years I had to re-install most NT boxes once per
> year (general average of 20 odd boxes). Problem is that they fall over
> regularly and one day they just never come back up. Most of the time
> it's corrupt page files (I'm still searching for a solution - anyone?)
I've never seen this one.
> 2. Disk Space - I don't think I have to say more...
Yes you do. What's the problem here?
> 3. DBX Files - Two key problems: a) SIZE and b) File Format. I used a
> utility called oe2mbx.exe to convert a inbox.mbx file to an Linux mbx
> file. The result was this: DBX = 808Kb MBX = 488Kb. Further more I
> think the dbx is a realy dumb format. You can't do anything with it. If
> you import it in an Excel spreadsheet or even Notepad you get like a
> trillion of useless characters. M$ should have added a DBX import into
> Excel at least.
DBX is an application file. Wassat gotta to do with NT?
> 4. CD-RW - NT gave so far 6 duds vs 0 to Linux in my org. (Maybe
> mentioning that the Linux box burns about 15 times more CD's then the
> NT box is overdoing it...)
I get 100% success with Windows 98 SE. What's your point?
> 5. Backup - ALL User data in Linux ends up in $HOME. In NT MOST end up
> in ..\Profiles, *BUT*, two major problems: a) *.DBX does not end up
> here, causing OE data not to be backed up on most sites, and b) when re-
> installing NT, you loose your ..\Profiles from the word go. I found it
> also a hassle to move Profiles to another location because you waist
> time when re-installing NT to reconfigure everything again to the new
> location.
Then put the data where you can find it every time.
> 6. Install time - As you might have guesed, I re-installed NT now a
> couple of times. Average install time from scratch to a FULLY working
> Work Station with all apps installed takes about 4 hours (on some older
> systems up to 6 hours). I have not yet re-installed a Linux system, but
> a new install, with linking up to my company $HOME directory and all
> the other bells and whistles takes less then an hour.
Four hours? Blimey, what are you installing. NT takes around an hour. That
leaves three hours for applications?
> Net result: The M$ TCO theory goes up in smoke!
You've posted a lot of comments but very little substance.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: kernel problems(new)
Date: 11 Jan 2001 07:08:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:52:06 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Having some trouble with the new 2.4 kernel. I compiled it correctly,
>installed it with lilo, but when I boot it, the screen goes black and
>everything stops.
How far are you getting along in the lilo prompt or boot process
before everyting goes blank??
>So, I thought maybe it was something in the configuration,
>so I recompiled it and did a 'make bzdisk'. I rebooted the floppy, and the
>kernel loaded fine, but panicked because the it tryed to mount the first
>partition as the root partition, which is a windoze partition. So, I know
>that the kernel works, but I can't figure out why it won't boot from the hard
>drive. Any solutions?
After you build your bzdisk do:
rdev /dev/fd0 /dev/????
Where /dev/???? is whatever your root partition.
>BTW, I know I should be posting this in a diff forum, but for some reason, I
>can't. I get a "No valid newsgroups in that forum" error. So, I am posting
>this in this forum, as it is the only one I can post to.
>
They work for me:
http://www.deja.com/bg.xp?level=comp.os.linux
Perry
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:14:23 +0000
Glitch wrote:
> I found an NFS server for Windows98. I dont remember if it was free or
> if I just used the trial verison but I never got it to work anyway. I
> tried mounting a Suse CD in my desktop cdrom drive with the program
> (from my laptop) and the CD never did mount. After I installed Linux on
> my other desktop and turned on the NFS daemon and setup the exports file
> the CD mounted the first time.
I found a couple, neither were free.
> Even 3rd party software for Windows sucks.
NOT!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:19:45 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >KDE konqueror can't seem to see SMB drives on either a SAMBA server or a
> >Windows PC.
>
> Yes it can. Your not running Debian are you.
No it can't. Why do you think I logged a bug on this one for KDE?
> >Konqueror as a web browser appears to have problems with some of the web
> >sites I visit. Netscape works but has two weaknesses - dreadful fonts and
> >poor file saving - it displays a MOTIF style save dialog that doesn't
> >understand the concept of caching the last directory saved to.
>
> I'm aware of your previous comments. I dont' think the font's are
> that dreadful but there ARE some websites Konqueror still can't view.
Yes. Thank's for agreeing with me.
> >KDE konqueror works fine with NFS mounted drivers, but I've yet to find a
> >free NFS server for Windows.
>
> I don't know why you'd want a NFS server for Windows?
At the moment I have a Linux server and a Linux/Windows workstation. If I
switch the server to Windows 98 SE, then the Linux workstation has problems
seeing the files on it. It seems smbclient works fine, but smbmount is a
beta test proggie noone wants to maintain.
> Why not just NMB.
See above.
> >Konqueror has problems with file save dialogs but it at least remembers
> >context.
>
> I've not see this yet.
Then try it.
> But I've been spending more time with Gnome these days on Debian.
It won't make any difference wether you use Gnome or KDE or whatever -
Netscape uses a MOTIF style dialog that takes ages on a large directory on
an NFS mounted tree.
> >Windows appears to give the best all around answer but crashes or hangs
> >too much.
> >
>
> I can't honestly say Windows gave me more functionality
> than KDE nor GNOME and yet Windows crashed all the time
> in routine use. The last time I had a GNOME crash was
> a couple of years ago in the beta stages.
I can say it gives me more functionality. I can also say I've seen KDE
crash and freeze.
> Why don't you evaluate Potato from Debian and use GNOME.
Nah. I think I'll stick with Linux Mandrake and KDE.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:22:27 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Actually, the breakup was already ordered...there's merely a stay,
> which will be rescinded once the appeals court sees that M$'s
> witnesses spent 80% of their time on the stand committing perjury.
And it's gone to appeal. And it drags on. And will it happen any time soon?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:23:32 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Yes.
When? "Soon" is the answer. Maybe it's like the answer Jesus gave to his
disciples after they asked him when he's coming back: "Soon". Two thousand
years is a long "soon".
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:24:16 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Especially when M$ gets broken up.... later this year.
This year? Next Year... it just keeps on draggin' on.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:26:05 +0000
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> This is true - you can however use it to record programs without access to
> sky TV channels so it doesn't need a satellite dish to work (MS's system
> will only work when connected to a dual output LNB on a sat dish). Tivo
> uses a telephone connection to get channel info so has no restrictions on
> what services can be added to it (like digital terrestrial or digital
> cable).
>
> You can use the Tivo without the channel info subscription ( I remember
> reading this somewhere) - it costs more and you need to manually
> set record times so lose many of the autorecording features but it will
> partly work from any composite TV source.
Without the channel info the box makes it very difficult to use.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:27:13 +0000
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >We left our web server alone for two months before rebooting. That's no
> >maintenance at all.
>
> Then realised it crashed one and a half months before the reboot?
Nope. It was still running. I verified it to make sure. Then it crashed 8).
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:33:25 +0000
mark wrote:
> No it's not - problems do occur. But they get fixed in linux. Nobody
> ever said that problems dont' occur in linux, that's a microsoft thing.
Last time I looked nobody was terribly interested in fixing problems with
smbmount.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:39:42 +0000
Terry Porter wrote:
> Its called *humour* Goodwin, something you seem to have no idea about.
You, equally, don't understand my sense of humour.
> >"I'm the man from UNCLE". Everyone stops, drops to their knees and starts
> >worshipping him.
> And you say Ebert has *cracked* !!!
QED.
> >I'm running Linux Mandrake 7.2 and my sound card doesn't have a driver
> >that doesn't hang KDE2.0
> So what since when was KDE2.0 Linux ?
> Talk to KDE about it ?
So what? Is that your answer to a problem is it?
> >Not on my 56k modem and not here in the UK. There are no free phone calls
> >here yet.
>
> There are no free phone calls anywhere Goodwin, do you have a point ?
In America, all local calls are free. Here in the UK, if you phone another
subscriber on the same cable network at certain times, phone calls are free.
If your ISP is a local phone call in America, that's a free call.
Gettit?
> >> I can be playing my Napster, downloading ftp from 3 sites, compiling a
> >> kernel have a spreadsheet open, a word document open, and by typing
> >> this message back
> >> and this thing just doesn't skip a beat. You can't even dream of doing
> >> shit like this with Windows.
> >
> >I've done this, so what dream?
>
> Really ??
>
> How long did it take you to compile the Windows kernel ?
Oops! Missed the kernel bit. Don't matter, I could be compiling too. Just
not the kernel.
> >And everyone would be using the CLI 'cos the GUI components you can get
> >are so far behind Windows. Let's all stay in the '70's.
> Goodwin has used KDE by his own admission, the CLI argument is a very old
> and sad Wintroll argument, and Goodwin knows better. He persists with it
> because ..
>
> ***** Goodwin is a Wintroll ******
You don't even know what I'm talking about do you. You're nothing but a
Linux twoll.
> >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
> So what ?
> You're a Windows lemming Goodwin... probably always will be.
I see no cliffs. I've not jumped off any high places lately.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:43:43 +0000
Terry Porter wrote:
> Ambiguous to the max as usual!
>
> Free Windows progs are crap, as is most Windows "shareware".
WinZIP is crap is it?
WinAmp is crap is it?
Paint Shop Pro is crap is it?
Oh there are plenty of crap shareware and freeware out there, but there's
just as much good stuff.
> Free Software, is a GNU term, and bears no relation to the above junk.
Oh I beg your pardon.
> >Just because it's free doesn't make it quality.
>
> Just because it costs doesnt make it quality.
If you'd read what I'd said, you'll realise I've already said that.
> >That's only as good and as quick as the person fixing it. If they don't
> >or they simply lose interest, then bang does that one.
>
> You'e just clueless Goodwin.
You're the one demonstration the lack of clue. See above.
> I posted here recently how I installed a new 'Beta' MySql data entry GUI
> and emailed the author re a bug/feature. He replied the next day *with* a
> fix.
One example.
> Some here followed up and said this doesnt always happen, and that may be
> true but its happened to me *several* times.
One example.
> That app "Gentry" is now working *exactly* as I need it to, following
> several emails to the author.
Still one example.
> >In an ideal world, yes, but we live in the real world.
>
> No Goodwin, you're still in Wonderland.
In a wonderland where things work. I think I'll stay where I am.
> >> Quality is most certainly part of the "Free Software Edge".
> >
> >Not from what I've observed.
>
> You're not the observant type, and as a Wintroll, you have a slight, shall
> we say "conflict of interest" ?
And you're the one demonstrating your obvious bias.
> >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
> Yeah perhaps you'll learn how to use it one day ?
Funny, I thought I was doing just that!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:42:01 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> mark wrote:
>
> > No it's not - problems do occur. But they get fixed in linux. Nobody
> > ever said that problems dont' occur in linux, that's a microsoft thing.
>
> Last time I looked nobody was terribly interested in fixing problems with
> smbmount.
What problems would that be?
I've got LinNeighborhood at work, and it seems to mount
smb shares with no problems. I can also mount remote
pc or unix smb volumes from the command line.
I just finished settng up autofs on a friend's Red Hat 7 box
to automagically mount his win 2k shares on demand, and
that's all working as it should -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:50:30 -0600
God, this is great. No sooner does he start writing before he contradicts
himself.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93jjc5$c7k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It must be about 4 or more months since my last post - but I was very
> busy!
Yes, Apparently doing 3 years worth of work in 4 months.
> Any way, I found another number of interesting (but not surprising)
> facts on why business in general should avoid NT/2000 for any kind of
> solution.
You "found" these facts? You claim you personally experienced this.
> 1. Over the last three years I had to re-install most NT boxes once per
> year (general average of 20 odd boxes). Problem is that they fall over
> regularly and one day they just never come back up. Most of the time
> it's corrupt page files (I'm still searching for a solution - anyone?)
How exactly did you do this over the last three years when you just found
out about it in the last 4 months?
> 2. Disk Space - I don't think I have to say more...
I guess you should, since you don't seem to have a point.
> 3. DBX Files - Two key problems: a) SIZE and b) File Format. I used a
> utility called oe2mbx.exe to convert a inbox.mbx file to an Linux mbx
> file. The result was this: DBX = 808Kb MBX = 488Kb. Further more I
> think the dbx is a realy dumb format. You can't do anything with it. If
> you import it in an Excel spreadsheet or even Notepad you get like a
> trillion of useless characters. M$ should have added a DBX import into
> Excel at least.
That's why they have a compact function. Right click in OE on the newsgroup
and choose compact.
Mailbox files are automatically compacted. Aditionally, Mbox format is
simply the emails appended to each other, while the DBX format uses indexing
to allow it to find messages faster and search easier.
In any event, I fail to see this is a "general" problem for businesses to
avoid NT.
> 4. CD-RW - NT gave so far 6 duds vs 0 to Linux in my org. (Maybe
> mentioning that the Linux box burns about 15 times more CD's then the
> NT box is overdoing it...)
Simply incorrect. If you're making coasters, then you've got something
seriously screwed up.
> 5. Backup - ALL User data in Linux ends up in $HOME. In NT MOST end up
> in ..\Profiles, *BUT*, two major problems: a) *.DBX does not end up
> here, causing OE data not to be backed up on most sites, and b) when re-
> installing NT, you loose your ..\Profiles from the word go. I found it
> also a hassle to move Profiles to another location because you waist
> time when re-installing NT to reconfigure everything again to the new
> location.
2000 doesn't use the profiles directory. But, even so, Outlook Express
*DOES* store it's files in Profiles in NT. On my NT4 system it's in
C:\WINNT\Profiles\FunkenbuschE\Application
Data\Identities\{FF07A5B0-0B73-11D3-97D5-005004608B71}\Microsoft\Outlook
Express.
So you're wrong again. And you don't lose your profiles if you reinstall
NT, it just creates new ones. You only copy the files from your old profile
into the new one.
> 6. Install time - As you might have guesed, I re-installed NT now a
> couple of times. Average install time from scratch to a FULLY working
> Work Station with all apps installed takes about 4 hours (on some older
> systems up to 6 hours). I have not yet re-installed a Linux system, but
> a new install, with linking up to my company $HOME directory and all
> the other bells and whistles takes less then an hour.
Fully installing Linux took me 3 days to get all the apps configured
correctly.
> Net result: The M$ TCO theory goes up in smoke!
As if there is one for Linux.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:51:48 +0000
Terry Porter wrote:
> >Any particular reason you're relying on ReiserFS which I've heard is
> >still in Beta? You trust your files to a beta test file system?
>
> There are Beta and "Beta" systems Goodwin. The Windows 'Beta' you know
> is totally different to the Linux Beta.
Yeah, the Windows one works.
> Yes I do trust it, Ive been running Reisferfs for about a month now,
> *zero* problems. Got some more FUD for me Pete ?
So have I. I've not seen any serious problems as yet, but... my server
system regularly pauses for about five minutes as it tries to mount a
ReiserFS disk. No messages are printed so I'm not sure what's happening.
It carries on afterwards as if nothing happened, and everything seems fine.
> >Mine cost me around the same price.
>
> Yet mine works and yours dosnt ?
Your point?
> >"Free Software" is hardly an edge. Sure, in terms of price, but in terms
> >of quality?
>
> Only to *you*
>
> You have no experience yet, with Free Software *quality*.
It is self evident.
> >Certainly. I'll ignore you're claim that Linux has the edge then, too.
>
> But I wasnt using exaggeration, you by your own admission *were*.
Oh funny I thought you were. You mean you were truly series when you said
"Linux has the edge". Yet when I try Linux, I find a mass of problems.
Funny, to me, having the edge would mean Linux is far better than Windows,
yet I don't find it so.
> >Ahah, depends what you're doing doesn't it. Are you a CLI user, and don't
> >care much for GUI's?
>
> Nope, I use both, for any lukers out there, Linux GUI runs the CLI in a
> windowed "xterm","Aterm","rxvt","Eterm" or whatever you like. They mate
> perfectly.
Precisely my point. You use a GUI solely for running a terminal emulator.
In other words you're a CLI user.
> For instance my newsreader "slrn" runs on a old hercules b&w monitor, as
> well as on my main Linux box with a 17" Apple Trinitron monitor, running
> 1024*768 and the X Windows System.
A CLI user.
> On the b&w monitor its keyboard only, on the GUI, its mouse driven. Either
> way SLRN beats the pants of Free Agent imho.
A CLI/GUI?
I don't use Free Agent, BTW. I use KNode.
> >Windows being *closed software* and Linux being *open* sounds like a
> >dogma. Thou shalt use no closed software before me.
>
> Hey I *refuse* to use *closed* software now, it cant offer what I want.
That sounds like dogma. You believe devoutly it can't offer what you want,
therefore you don't use it. It doesn't matter that there are plenty of
commericial _closed_ applications out there that do exactly what you want,
now does it?
> Your totaly clueless Goodwin. Unix users use BOTH. Your the one in a
> limited, glossy, eyecandy world.
See above.
> >Definately dogma!
>
> Definitely a clueless Wintroll.
See above, o Linux twoll.
> >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
> Only to post with, Windowsboy!
And to mail with. I'd try surfing the net only konqueror has problems with
so many sites and Netscape struggles to find the right font. This is the
edge folks!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:58:27 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93iqoq$fea$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : I don't fear Linux. In fact, I run my web server under Linux. I simply
> : don't find Linux useful as a desktop system today, and get annoyed when
> : Linux zealots insist that Linux can replace Windows today. It can't.
If it
> : could, I'd be using it.
>
> Can you comprehend the difference between "X can do Y", and "I use X to
> do Y"? Just because YOU don't use it that way doesn't imply it can't
> be used that way. Pretending that your personal needs are identical
> to everyone else's is a common error when extrapolating from anecdotal
> evidence to the general case.
I didn't say it can't be used that way. Why do you insist on pretending I
said things I didn't say?
I said Linux isn't useful on the desktop for me today. And I said that
Linux cannot replace Windows today (it can't. that's a fact). That's *ALL*
I said.
> : Just like I used my Amiga over DOS, OS/2 over
> : Windows 3.1, and Windows 95 over OS/2, and Windows 2000 over Windows 9x
(I
> : still used Win98 primarily until Win2k came out. Although since then I
have
> : at least one NT4 box hanging around) when each proved themselves more
useful
> : to me.
>
> : Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
not
> : going to be able to replace Windows.
>
> There is a difference between "able to" and "likely to". Learn it.
If it's not likely to, it's not going to be able to in all likelyhood.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
