Linux-Advocacy Digest #423, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Shane Phelps)
Re: The real truth about NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Mig)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Yatima)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Mig)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Email Lists ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE Hell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Email Lists (Shane Phelps)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Mig)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Mig)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (.)
Re: Microsoft Email Lists ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards ("Steve Wolfe")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:11:01 +1100
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > > > Would I build my web server with a free Unix that's the world
> > > > speed champ, or would I shell out an exorbitant fee for a windows
> > > > pc webserver that can't quite match it in performance?
> > >
> > > Ummm... again, you don't stop to think before writing do you? Sure,
> linux
> > > itself was free to download --- but are you forgetting the hardware?
> Ooooh,
> > > you didn't quite notice that the price of the OS was almost
> insignificant
> > > compared to the price of the hardware? Anyone who can afford that
> hardware
> > > isn't going to blink for the price of the OS, especially with the
> savings
> > > down the road in TCO.
> > >
> >
> > Alright - I'll bite. I continually see assertions about the lower TCO
> > of NT x compared to unix, but I'm yet to see a credible study.
>
> You admit your bias and lack of trust below - what good would it do to
> present you ANY study. You'll simply not trust it and that'll be that. why
> bother...
>
> <snip>
I didn't think your response looked quite right!
What you snipped was:
"
Note that does not include MS's NT vs Linux TCO sham, which is actually
a poll of Solaris on SPARC sites vs NT sites - no details of any sort.
"
*That* is why I called MS's TCO "study" a farce, not because of any
pro-Linux bias (which is not relevant to this point). That snip was
extremely intellectually dishonest, and was far worse behaviour than
I expected from any of the trolls of either persuasion.
> > BTW, I don't especially trust any vendor's TCO fgures. Sun's are dubious
> > ... but MS's are farcical!
>
[ second topic snipped ]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:17:16 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Very few people mastering CD's outside of the sort of enviroment
> where there would be a special machine dedicated to the purpose
> stress machines to the level where it should be an issue.
Just kick of a kernel compile.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:16:55 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
> > >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
> interchangeable.
> >
> > What about Word98?
>
> Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different formats.
Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
Not trolling, genuinely curious.
IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call them)
capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
have expected convergence in file formats.
Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
least as far as Excel 5.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:13:11 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Who said that? Not me.
>
> It's funny, you guys say, "Open source is superior"
Nobody says Open Source (i would prefer the term Free Software) is perfect.
It is not. But some advantages are pointed out - like this one about
security.
> I say, "No it's not, look at X"
Whats wrong with X ?... and please not the usual babble... come with
something that has some consistence.
> You say, "Oh, so closed source is perfect, right!?"
>
> Um... no, I'm saying Open source isn't superior, nor perfect, nor
> anything the OSS advocates claim it to be. It's no better, only
> worse than closed source.
Did you reach this conclusion by logical deduction of the above ?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:22:27 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:44:16 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was being sarcastic. CLI's are from the '70's. That doesn't make them
>worse, just backward in time.
Uhhh <slaps forehead>. Looks like I got a little jumpy for no reason. My
apologies.
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:18:13 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
>
> It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of people
> looking at the source code. Now, install a backdoor into open source code
> that only has few dozen people looking at it, and how long will it take
> for
> someone to find it? Years, if at all.
I too find the 6 months a long time.. but if the person that planted it did
a good job obfuscating the code then this could be a great achievment and
proof of that "open source allways gets its man" :-).
And i dont think that so many developers have been working on Interbase. Or
where did you get the thousands number?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:23:10 GMT
On 12 Jan 2001 21:29:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Again, I did it just to see if you were full of shit.
>
>It worked perfectly for me, first time.
Whatever makes you feel better....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:25:35 GMT
On 12 Jan 2001 14:43:02 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Just don't try to watch the trailer while running Linux (thanks, Apple
>Computer).
Works fine under Windows..
Thank you Apple.
Once again Linux is forgotten.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft Email Lists
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:29:42 GMT
On 12 Jan 2001 21:39:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Oooohhh, I hope hope hope hope HOPE it was flatfish. :)
Not my style....
Been here for years, been called every name in the book and never had
a problem with any of the other nuts in this group.
I hope he does find out who did it though.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:33:19 GMT
On 12 Jan 2001 21:36:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>My point is that it's unfair to trash the KDE project just because
>you don't like their Window manager.
Fair enough.
It's an advocacy group though ;)
>KDE consists of more than the window manager. For example, Roberto's
>newsreader, krn which you were singing the praises of in your
>other post is also a KDE application.
I realize that.
>I'm not splitting hairs. If you want to bash something, at least be
>explicit about what you're bashing.
It's a lot easier to just lump Linux all together because there is
very little about that I find useful for the common Joe user's
desktop.
>Max hasn't done anything, he doesn't even use it AFAIK.
Well ain't that cute :)
At least I actually TRY the distributions I trash..
>Sometimes I wonder if he writes in Chinese then puts it through
>Babelfish or something.
He he!
Gives me a headache it does...
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Email Lists
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:40:35 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2001 21:39:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
> >Oooohhh, I hope hope hope hope HOPE it was flatfish. :)
>
> Not my style....
>
> Been here for years, been called every name in the book and never had
> a problem with any of the other nuts in this group.
Yes, but you've called *yourself* most of those names with the frequent
identity changes :-)
Are the name changes just to get around the killfiles or do you just
wake up one morning and feel like a new man (or woman, or animal, or...)?
.. adds a bit of interest to an otherwise dull time, I guess ;-)
>
> I hope he does find out who did it though.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:45:52 -0600
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93o02l$euj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
> >
> > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of people
> > looking at the source code. Now, install a backdoor into open source
code
> > that only has few dozen people looking at it, and how long will it take
> > for
> > someone to find it? Years, if at all.
>
> I too find the 6 months a long time.. but if the person that planted it
did
> a good job obfuscating the code then this could be a great achievment and
> proof of that "open source allways gets its man" :-).
> And i dont think that so many developers have been working on Interbase.
Or
> where did you get the thousands number?
Certainly thousands of people have downloaded the source.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:37:41 GMT
"Home use server"... ?
What on earth does a home user need a data server for?
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Mark Addinall wrote:
> >>
> >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Steve Mading wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > At this point, I'd say there isn't a damn thing I can do with it,
even
> >> > > though clearly *something* is still running, since the mouse
pointer does
> >> > > move on the screen.
> >> > >
> >> > > That's a powerswitch-reboot situation. There's nothing else to do.
> >> > >
> >> > > In that case it doesn't matter if the underlying OS is crashed
> >> > > or not, I can't talk to it in any way shape or form.
> >> > >
> >> > > This happens to me about once a month on Linux. (It happens more
often
> >> > > on Windows, but it *does* happen on Linux too). I'd say that
counts
> >> > > as being "frozen".)
> >> > >
> >> > > It always happens when running Netscape, and always when its stuck
> >> > > while bringing up a menubar pull-down menu. I think X is grabbing
> >> > > more input types than it needs to and then not releasing it.
> >> >
> >> > Better check your memory chips.
> >>
> >> Dunno. Looks like software. I've had this happen to me once.
> >> Although since using Linux since 1.1.13 I'm not complaining.
> >>
> >> What I do find is netscape chews into swap over an extended
> >> period of time, and thrashes the disk. Moreso when so
> >> is loaded. Fighting for resource?
> >
> >Add memory. This will stop the thrashing.
> >
>
>
> 256 megs of ram running Debian as a server will move
> the earth.
>
> The same for a workstation.
>
> But you can configure a decent server with as little
> as 64 megs of memory for home use and have no swapping.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:49:01 -0600
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > What about Word98?
> >
> > Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
formats.
>
> Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
> Not trolling, genuinely curious.
Well, most likely it's the endian issue, not to mention that things like OLE
an structured storage are different between PC and MAC.
> IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
> of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call them)
> capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
> have expected convergence in file formats.
> Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
> least as far as Excel 5.
Excel 5 for the PC uses BIFF format in a OLE structured storage compound
document. I'd be surprised if the native Mac excel version was the same as
the PC version (especially given FPU differences between the architectures).
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:41:40 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <93ioa4$cp9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> >
> >> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >>
> >> > ALL of the things you mention, if
> >> > they were true, are such big show stoppers that the millions of
> >> > poeple runing W2K
> >>
> >> Just curious... how many people *are* running W2K, as far as anyone can
> >> tell?
> >
> > About half of those that Gartner predicted last year. If i recall
> > correct they said 20% - the real number is max 10 % .
>
> And with Microsoft getting rid of the guy in charge of
> W2K marketing and that they won't say how W2K sales are
> going it looks really bad. Whoever is buying their shares
> at the moment would be well advised to dump them before
> their next quarter figures are published.
Well.. it sure looks like lots of the old MS faces are leaving the ship.
The shares are down from near 120 to under 50 in about one year... i think
the dumping started long ago.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:48:09 +0100
. wrote:
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oopsie!
>
> > I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
> > controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
> > rebooted. Oh dear, we have a hung system. It won't boot, it won't
> > continue, it's totally stuck. All I could do was drop out of what looked
> > like X and nothing worked.
>
> You set up XFree incorrectly, because youre a moron.
>
> Please use windows instead.
>
> Thanks in advance,
Its amazing but wintrolls are the only ones that brag about how bad they
are with computers.. Unbeliavable that some of them even consider
themselves to be computer craftsmen and in the same post cant have anything
work.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:54:36 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:08:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
> >> mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
> >
> >Personally I hate not have ANY decent varieties of the programs you
> >mention available for Linux.
> >
> >Oh yea, for NT5 Try MusicMatch Jukebox and Winzip.
> > Both free/shareware.
>
> So then, what are wrong with the Linux variants you seem
> to despise so much? Please be precise.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> I also hate it when NT5 knows that it has found a Blade 3D but
> >> won't bother to tell the end user that it has done so and that
> >> there is a generic driver available to use.
> >
> >And I hate that you can get 3D acceleration for the Matrox card under
> >Xfree 3.3 but if you use 4.x the performance suffers (or the other way
>
> So?
>
> What about 4.0 is that you need so badly that you would put
> up with a few less fps?
The POINT is that XFree86 4.0.*, which is the NEW version of Xfree86 has
performance issues, which are supoposed to be RESOLVED when a NEW RELEASE is
made.
So, loosing functionality at the cost of an upgrade is acceptable under
Linux, but not Windows? What predictable hippocracy.
> >around, I forget). Under Mandrake they even tell you this when you
> >select the card.
> >No consistency with Linux, it's just a mess.
>
> You're contradicting yourself actually.
And your STILL missing the point, actually.
> You've just told us that Mandrake gives you a comprehensive
> set of options and tells you where each would be appropriate.
>
> All you have to do is push a button.
No, he has to do conciderably more than that to revert to XFree86 3, which
will solve his video performance problem.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:56:35 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:25:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 12 Jan 2001 08:39:58 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>And remember.... MusicMatch Jukebox is AVAILABLE for Linux.
> >
> >Sure it is. It's a 13mb behemoth whino port that is at least one
> >version behind the Windows version and is so painfully slow that
> >nobody in their right mind is using it.
>
> That still doesn't get at why anyone would particularly
> care to run the Win32 version.
Why? Because they're running WINDOWS. The "Linux" version is just the
Win32 version and that painfully pathetic Windows emulator for UNIX.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: 12 Jan 2001 23:01:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2001 21:29:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>Again, I did it just to see if you were full of shit.
>>
>>It worked perfectly for me, first time.
> Whatever makes you feel better....
It doesnt make me FEEL better, claire. It is quite simply the
truth. I didnt have any problem at all upgrading KDE. It went
perfectly smoothly (though ummm...I didnt restart---because you
dont HAVE to).
Though I have restarted since the upgrade and everythings just
peachy.
Seriously claire, youre doing it wrong if its breaking like that.
Youve already admitted repeatedly that you patently refuse to
read instructions, and that things should be intuitive and "just
work" the way they do in windows.
Well, that explains why you break linux all the time. Seriously,
if you arent willing to read the instructions, why use it at all?
Surely the hamptons must offer some form of entertainment beyond
getting frustated at linux, eh?
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Email Lists
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:59:39 -0600
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Somebody subscribed me to a bunch of Microsoft listserv lists. I
> imagine that it came from posting here...
That's interesting. Most *real* list servers require a confirmation
originating from the actual address of the recipient. I suppose MS has
been "innovating" again, leaving out this critical step on their usual
grounds of "ease of (ab)use".
Either that, or you've been haxored.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:03:38 -0600
Richard Storey wrote:
> Well, I'm new to Linux and I'm no programmer so I hope to get some comments
> here to answer the subject question by those who do know. From my limited
> knowledge I know that OS X is based on a version of the Mach kernel which
> is a BSD version of Unix--right? Therefore, would it not stand to reason
> that a port to Linux or FreeBSD would be possible after OS X and would be
> done with far less effort than the jump from Win-foo to OS X?
What's relevant isn't how much effort it takes, but rather whether MS thinks
it is in their best interests to do it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:59:26 GMT
"IN my experience" seems to be your only defense here, and this is why you
get branded a penguinist. OTHER people have bad experiences with Linux, and
these are perfect examples of the problems. Is it so impossible that
someone might have a LESS than perfect time with Linux?
Seeing as how it is literally a jumble of UNIX programs and duct tape, it's
kind of easy to see how someone would hit a snag somewhere.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:27:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:00:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >
> >> So then, what are wrong with the Linux variants you seem
> >> to despise so much? Please be precise.
> >
> >You mean actually answer the question, unlike you?
> >
> >Xmms can't even remember the song directory properly.
>
> I don't recall it having that problem actually.
>
> I also run the distribution that you claim to.
>
> >See my reply to Craig concerning the Whino version of mmjb.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> What about 4.0 is that you need so badly that you would put
> >> up with a few less fps?
> >
> >Possibly better stability and speed, but alas I was wrong.
>
> In my experience, G400 never has had any stability problems
> on either 4.0 or 3.3. The Quake3 performance of the G400
> under 3.3 is also quite adequate.
>
> >
> >
> >>>around, I forget). Under Mandrake they even tell you this when you
> >>>select the card.
> >>>No consistency with Linux, it's just a mess.
> >>
> >> You're contradicting yourself actually.
> >>
> >> You've just told us that Mandrake gives you a comprehensive
> >> set of options and tells you where each would be appropriate.
> >
> >It would be nice if it worked.
>
> Quit trying to lie to us.
>
> I run the distro that you are trying to slander using the
> hardware in question (as well as the Voodoo3).
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
> the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
> use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
> to do with pragmatism.
>
> Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
> market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
>
> The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
> to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
>
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: "Steve Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:56:35 -0700
> Can anyone recommend a good raid IDE controller for Linux. Preferably
> ATA 100. We have tried using the Promise controller with limited
> success. We probably want to run 2 controllers in the server (for more
> speed) with a total of 6 drives. 4 of the drives running raid 1+0 and
> the other 2 forming a separate mirror. The 2 in the mirror we also want
>
> to boot off of.
If you really need that much speed that you're going to go with two IDE
RAID controllers, you really might want to look into a SCSI RAID setup.
Having used SCSI RAID, I can say that it just makes you go "ooooooh" with
delight. It's definitely worth the extra money.
steve
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:10:23 -0600
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93o1ek$leb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well.. it sure looks like lots of the old MS faces are leaving the ship.
> The shares are down from near 120 to under 50 in about one year... i think
> the dumping started long ago.
The shares will go back up. No matter what happens with the antitrust
trial, they will go up. If they're split, existing shareholders will get
shares in both companies, thus doubling their holdings. If they stay
together, then confidence will remain and shares will go back up. Either
way, this is a short term situation.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:01:54 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I know "DLL hell" is a catchy phrase, and you seem to enjoy it a lot,
> but applying it to Linux isn't entirely rational, since it is a
> problem caused by Windows design flaws only.
If you can't relate the comparison between Linux's orgy of "library
revisions" and the painfully complicated methods to which they are kept (or
not kept) and Window's DLL hell, then your just not thinking.
> > I shouldn't HAVE TO edit the sources lists manually
>
> *Shrug*. If you're unable to edit configuration files, I don't think
> you should adminster Unix boxen. Obviously, I wouldn't want you near
> any of my Windows boxen either.
It doesn't matter, does it. Maybe if Linux had it's configuration files
documented like FreeBSD does, I MIGHT be willing to waste my time dealing
with the text files, but I'm not. What most important, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:04:57 -0500
jtnews wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > jtnews wrote:
> > >
> > > I developed my own securities analysis
> > > software in java.
> >
> > Then why work at all?
> >
> > I'd just manage my securities, reap the rewards, and spend my time
> > doing whatever I wanted.
>
> That's what I'm doing now.
>
> >
> > Why extremely wealthy men insist on working until they drop dead in
> > the office is incomprehensible....
>
> Because they like their work, and it's fun.
Then why do they call it "work" ???
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
