Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
SMB.conf File (Moefresh)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows Stability ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows Stability ("Chad Myers")
Re: The real truth about NT (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:11:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>kde/kwm/ who the fuck cares?
>I'm an end user, not a programmer. I look at the screen and use what
>is on it and I could care less where it came from or what the
>technical jargon is for it.
>I either like it or I don't.
>
>I get all of those nice little title bars and such and it looks just
>like kde which looks like a cheap Windows clone.
>
>You can split hairs all you want, it sucks whatever it is called.
>
As the CEO of Microsoft just put it, go ahead and use Windows whilst it
lasts. "Linux is eating into our market and the GPL will eventually
kill us."
And I encourage you to DO whatever you do?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 14 Jan 2001 04:11:51 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:10:40 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Of course, I should point out that Microsoft's EULA agreement is totally
>outside the bounds of the rights provided them by USC Title 18...
>
>Therefore, making the EULA unenforceable notwithstanding it's own
>provisions.
I don't know why you're defending them on these grounds. This is the
kind of conduct on their part that should be illegal, as they're trying
to intimidate their users into forgoing all of their rights.
This is not the only condition in their license that seems illegal --
there's another provision which prevents second sale of OEM licensed
software, and yet another that says that you can't get a refund on
your Windows software unless you also return the hardware.
>long as your actions are within the confines of the companies exclusive
>rights toward the intellectual property that IS Microsoft Office.
Microsoft office is not "intellectual property". It's more correct to
say that Microsoft hold the copyright on MS Office.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:16:21 GMT
In article <j0P76.148$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>Doesn't seem to be an issue, as NT has regularly beaten linux in all sorts
>of performance tests.
>
>
>
Name the test which showed NT beating Linux in anything?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:17:12 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
> Write one nice non-X11-based GUI system for unix, and give it a super
> API everyone could agree on. Then, if people like it, it could always
> be ported to X11 as an API layer.
>
> No doubt I'll be blasted into the ionosphere with all the flames I'll
> get.
Maybe not - it could be an idea whose time has come.
The Berlin and GGI projects showed that there has been
a desire for something like this, and there's the "Tiny X"
project, which though meant for handhelds, might actually
make a lot of sense on a normal workstation.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:18:06 GMT
In article <93p5fv$rb6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Todd wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <93h8fj$g4v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >And it's going to be a tragedy ending for MS haters.
>> >
>> >-Todd
>> >
>>
>>
>> That is until the breakup is ordered.
>
>We'll see. In the meantime, I'm keeping all of these posts so I can remind
>you of how wrong you will be. :)
>
>-Todd
Please do and MAKE SURE and post them when the trial is over.
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:18:46 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:48:21 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I guess its safe to say he didn't "spot the flaw", did he? :-D
No I've spotted Linux, many times.
Linux is the very embodiment of the word "flaw".
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:18:52 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> I hate IIS. I prefer Netscape enterprise, err, Iplanet enterprise. It
> comes with a great web based admin system that's ALWAYS up to date.
I find myself in agreement with Kyle on this point.
Good Lord, has really it come to that?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT
In article <93o1qp$leb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig wrote:
>. wrote:
>
>> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Oopsie!
>>
>> > I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
>> > controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
>> > rebooted. Oh dear, we have a hung system. It won't boot, it won't
>> > continue, it's totally stuck. All I could do was drop out of what looked
>> > like X and nothing worked.
>>
>> You set up XFree incorrectly, because youre a moron.
>>
>> Please use windows instead.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>
>Its amazing but wintrolls are the only ones that brag about how bad they
>are with computers.. Unbeliavable that some of them even consider
>themselves to be computer craftsmen and in the same post cant have anything
>work.
>
>--
>Cheers
Well what's fucking funny about Pete is he claims to be a Windows
applications DLL writer for DEC and so far he hasn't demonstrated
the intelligence of my Cocker Spaniel.
Windows software developer my ass.
Pete's probably with the government.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:28:26 GMT
In article <c8T76.31618$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>Bones wrote:
>
>> Why are you re-installing the operating system after adding a hard disk?
>> Where did you pick this bad habit up?
>
>I removed the 2GByte disk as a museum piece. The 30GByte disk has a 4GByte
>partition for the system now, as well as a humungous /home partition, which
>is what I wanted.
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
Well that makes sense.
What would a total dumbass who appearently can't even upgrade Linux
without locking up his own system do with a large home partition?
Pete,
If you do this again I want you to purge your DNA from the
human geneome pool.
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:17:11 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:29:02 GMT,
> Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >Who said that? Not me.
> >
> >It's funny, you guys say, "Open source is superior"
> >I say, "No it's not, look at X"
> >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.
> >
>
>
> Has it been pointed out to you that it took 6 months as open source, to
> discover a backdoor that had existed in a previously closed source program for
> years?
No one was looking because no one needed to.
how was closed source better in this case?
How many times had it beel exploited?
What about the people who now have the closed source version, and haven't
upgraded to the open source version who's exploit has now been made public
knowledge.
> If it was still closed source, the backdoor would still be there, and we
> would not know about it.
But no one knew about it, there were no cases of exploitation. Now
people know about it, and there are customers who are now sitting ducks
thanks to Open Source.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:33:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>
>If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>consider it?
>
>--
Absolutely,
OS-X on Linux.
I'll try that.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:35:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>> >
>> > If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>> > others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>> > consider it?
>>
>> The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
>> impossible. Already there are FrameBuffer versions of QT and GTK+, but
>> they're only used for embedded applications where X would not be a good
>> choice.
>>
>> Unless Quartz ran on top of X, or vice versa, I don't see how it would work.
>
>The Mac OS/X GUI runs on top of X.
>--
Please don't confuse Erik Fukenbush with facts.
It only interferes with his MASTER PLAN for the
return of Windows.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:20:55 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > > Ah... so the falacy comes to light.
>
> and what fallacy would that be?
You said it was "shipping", which to me means that Namesys has
"released" it and supports it as a full, production, release product
and now expects customers and distributions to include it as a default
FS.
>
> > > > ReiserFS itself isn't shipping. It's still in beta, and it's
> > > > still not stable.
>
> What part of "ships with SuSE Linux" don't you understand?
So, SuSE ships with lots of beta software. Just because it's beta
in SuSE, doesn't mean that it's not beta anymore.
> > > > Suse, however, has been including the beta version in its
> > > > distributions for people to mess with, but it's, in no way,
> > > > the default FS because, of course, it's not stable.
>
> It is being used in production systems with no problems.
But hasn't been thoroughly tested on a range of systems and put
through stress testing in the field. I could write some software
that works on one or a few machines, but would fail miserably
in wide distribution. The fact you mentioned means nothing.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:36:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>>
>> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>>
>> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>> consider it?
>
>In that article on OS-X, J. Hubbard stated that it could benefit Apple
>if they made OS-X open source. He also said that it would allow Mac
>OS-X to run on the Intel platform as well, since there'd be so many open
>source developers into the porting effort. Also, think of what that'd
>do with driver support.
>
>It also says that internally, it contains FreeBSD 3.2 and Mach
>microkernel. Hmmmm, I wonder why the microkernel is needed? I suppose
>Aaron could answer this. I guess it would be to run both FreeBSD and an
>older compatibility portion of Mac OS simultaneously.
>
>The only problem I have with Mac OS-X is that it is FreeBSD 3.2
>underneath, and not something newer, like FreeBSD 4.2. 4.2 has much
>better driver support. If Apple did the design right, they'd make it
>easy to upgrade the underlying OS from 3.2 -> 4.2.
>
>Sounds like a decent OS. Unfortunately, I don't have a Mac, so I can't
>test it. :( The interesting thing is that FreeBSD has never been ported
>to the PowerPC, yet they got FreeBSD to run on this platform. Since
>NetBSD runs fine on an PPC, I can imagine they probably created a
>Free/NetBSD kernel hybrid.
>
>
I wonder what the reaction from Microsoft would be to this.
I think they will shit bricks.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:24:06 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > Doesn't seem to be an issue, as NT has regularly beaten linux in all
sorts
> > > > of performance tests.
> > >
> > > Wrong again, wintroll -
> > >
> > > Check out the specweb 99 results for a heads up.
> >
> > Kernel based web server.
>
> Wrong again, wintroll -
>
> You are confusing khttpd with tux.
Ok, what is khttpd then?
Please post a URL of the specweb 99 results. The results I recall
reading only had WinNT/IIS, Linux/Apache, and Linux/Tux.
> > Not realistic. Who cares.
>
> Funny, I have this feeling that if it windows came out
> on top, you'd be singing a different tune.
Microsoft wouldn't write a hack httpd just to win a single
benchmark and then claim they're the best web server around.
They're content to write the best non-kernel web server and
take the market by real-world performance.
> Say, weren't you one of those who were gloating so
> obnoxiously back in the days of the mindcraft fiasco?
Hmm, two nics on a web server is a lot more real-world
than a kernel-based web server.
You could easily make a case for how a real business would
use the Mindcraft configuration in their production web
environment.
You couldn't easily make a case for using a kernel http
server.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Moefresh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SMB.conf File
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:27:45 GMT
Does anybody have a edited smb.conf file (a copy) that will allow me to
store files on my linux box. (Client system is NT Workstaton 4.0) I want
to set it up as a file server so I can back all my data to that
system. I can now see the Linux box but I can't copy files to the
directory (/tmp) Any help is much appreciated.
Thanks
Moefresh
Email- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:41:30 GMT
In article <D3y76.169874$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> >No it can't. Why do you think I logged a bug on this one for KDE?
>>
>> I've used it. IT works.
>
>Judging by the number of others reporting similar bugs, you must be the
>lucky one.
>
>> They {Gnome and KDE} have a plan to gut Netscape and take the
>> components to build their integrated web browsers.
>>
>> Gnome is even going to take chunks of Star Office and integrate
>> an entire office suite with it.
>
>Available RSN.
>
>> >Then try it.
>>
>> I would like more information on this before I just try it.
>> Tell me exactly what to do and I'll try it as you say.
>> What were you doing exactly.
>
>My server is on a 10MBit hub and has several directories with 1000 odd
>files in each directory.
>
>Konqueror takes a while to display its window showing all the files. One
>bug I have reported is that it updates this view as it does it - there's no
>warning as to when this finishes so you could actually click on the wrong
>file.
>
>Windows doesn't display anything until the list is complete - it is faster
>and doesn't let you pick the wrong file by accident.
>
>Netscape when it tries to save to this 1000 odd directory on a 10Mbit link
>takes _ages_ as it reads the directory into the save dialog. It does this
>_every_ time, instead of caching the information (or perhaps the OS should
>be doing that?). It's pretty slow.
>
>> >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.
>>
>> Nope. It's very fast.
>
>See above.
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
Quite honestly, since you holler you've had your thumb smashed with
the golden hammer about 15 times here on COLA over some of the most
idiotic crap nobody is having trouble with, I wonder if anybody
believes you.
Your problems are mainly a figment of your own imagination as your
fearful you'll loose your job when the GPL takes over. And I know
you don't like that. But I don't think just making up arbritrary
crap about Linux is going to stop this movement.
And the other thing I want to point out is if OTHERS were having
trouble with this issue, they you wouldn't write this.
You wouldn't need to.
Your a few bricks shy of a load here Pete.
People, help me out here. Pete want's to point something out
to me and I want to point something out to him.
Give us your paragraph or page of reasons why you think Pete
is full of shit.
Come on World. Let's hear why you think Pete is full of shit.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:45:10 GMT
Said Joseph T. Adams in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 Jan 2001 00:31:19
>Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
>: couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
>: Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
>
>
>Actually, Excel for the Mac predated Excel for Windows, and for that
>matter Windows itself.
Well, not 'Windows itself'. Windows 1.0 (a side-kick like
task-switching GUI desktop) predated Excel, I think. Excel for Windows,
however, predates Windows 3.1, the first Windows that anyone really
bothered with.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:45:12 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:10:40
>Of course, I should point out that Microsoft's EULA agreement is totally
>outside the bounds of the rights provided them by USC Title 18...
>
>Therefore, making the EULA unenforceable notwithstanding it's own
>provisions.
>
>Hence, Microsoft has no control over what you do with their software, so
>long as your actions are within the confines of the companies exclusive
>rights toward the intellectual property that IS Microsoft Office.
Well, gee, that's not the take I think anyone expected from you, Kyle.
Are you a libertarian, by any chance?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:30:13 GMT
"Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93arkl$rnh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > : Again, though, "No fucker ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
> > > : Bleh.
> > >
> > >
> > > That's because Mafia$oft markets to clueless managers, not IT
> > > professionals.
> >
> > No, it's because everyone knows that if you go MS, it'll work.
> > If you go anything else, you're betting your company's success
>
>
> I presume you term "success" as in "inability to recruit good
> technicians".
Um, hmm. I never seem to have trouble finding work as a windows
sa or developer, in fact, there are tons of jobs. .NET will make
that even more.
You know the quote, "You never get fired for buying Microsoft",
it's true.
> Linux is more versatile,
Than what? Windows? ROFL.
> adaptable
Oh, you mean like their infant SMP support, half-way respectable
filesystem, and only-recently USB support, the same kinds of things
Windows has had for years now? Pretty adaptable... yeah.
> and has the option to be configured at a much lower level than
> any M$ OS.
Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
mean dittly squat.
> This by definition must mean there is more experience / knowledge
> required to set up a Linux system than any M$ equivalent.
experience, perhaps, knowledge not really. You have to have some
pretty extensive Unix experience to be able to work at all with Linux
(unless all you want to do is be a skr1pt-k1dd13), but if you had
knowledge, you wouldn't waste your time with Linux in the first place.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:30:34 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93ppe9$1b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> they made a stable OS. How can it be stable if "service packs"
> > > >> can cause a system instability?
> > > > Service packs replace parts of the OS, of course they can cause
instability,
> > > > only a fool would think otherwise.
> > > If so, the service pack *are* parts of the OS. Are you saying that
> > > parts of MSW are instable?
> >
> > Is Linux perfectly stable?
>
> No OS is perfect, and they all have bugs, even Linux.
There you have it.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:31:45 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:93ppe9$1b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> they made a stable OS. How can it be stable if "service packs"
> > > > >> can cause a system instability?
> > > > > Service packs replace parts of the OS, of course they can cause
> > > > > instability, only a fool would think otherwise.
> > > > If so, the service pack *are* parts of the OS. Are you saying that
> > > > parts of MSW are instable?
> > >
> > > Is Linux perfectly stable?
> >
> > Yes
>
> No.
>
> (But it is much more stable than Windows NT, in my experience)
Then you don't know how to set up Windows NT properly. Linux has
been far less stable in my experience and in the experience of several
of my colleagues (who come from Unix backgrounds and prefer to stick
with their Solaris and HP-UX boxes).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:53:43 GMT
In article <dJX76.1254$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Very few people mastering CD's outside of the sort of enviroment
>> > > where there would be a special machine dedicated to the purpose
>> > > stress machines to the level where it should be an issue.
>> >
>> > Just kick of a kernel compile.
>> >
>> Well, just to try out if my SCSI-only system would stand the strain, I did
>> exactly that -- I made a CD AND did a kernel recompile while at the same
>> time browsing the net.
>
>The key word here is SCSI. Most people burn IDE CD-R's (and those are the
>ones they burn coasters on when heavy disk activity causes them to get a
>buffer underrun)
>
ATAPI interfaces are SCSI EF.
Geezus you are stupid son.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:59:14 GMT
In article <f_A76.271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bagpuss wrote:
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > "Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > 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:
>> > Give me a break, do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit?
>> > If you're going to lie, at least make it halfway believeable.
>>
>> By pointing out some flaws in windows you have kicked over
>> a hornets nest! These blue nosed, humorless windoze zealots
>> are not to be taken lightly!
>>
>> jjs
>>
>
>Too right! I'm a newcomer to this group and the mentality amongst the
Key point right here. A newbie.
>majority here is like a bunch of 12 year olds. It always appears to be a
A newbie who's hollering 12 year old!
>case of "Well, this doesn't work in Win2k when I do this" and the reply is
>always "You're a fscking idiot, it never happens to me so Win2k must be
>excellent." Although the chances of the respondent having the same hardware
>configuration and software configuration as the original poster are slim to
>none.
>
You have a right to an opinion just like anybody else.
>There are also Linux fanatics that are convinced that Linux is the best
>thing since sliced bread; how it never crashes and anyone who crashes it
>must be a complete idiot.
>
>From practical EXPERIENCE I can safely say that Linux doesn't
crash. Windows crashes the MORE you use it but Linux doesn't
demonstrate this TRAIT.
>Both groups are living in cloud cuckoo land. Every OS has it strong points
>and its weaknesses. I might just have the situation in where I want to give
>a toaster an OS (Linux), I might just have the situation where I want to
>give an end luser an OS (Windows)
>The world would be a boring place without variety.
>
Glass Houses Newbie.
>Anyway, I don't know what the purpose of this post is because it will make
>bugger all difference to most of you.
>
I'm posting to it as a call to wake up your concious.
>Oh, and just for the record I've had a stop error on Win2k Server from
>minimizing an explorer window *and* I've had Linux lockup on me by just
>starting X <shock horror>
>I'm off to play with my BSD box...
>
>--
>Bagpuss
>Your friendly cloth cat (donning flame retardant catsuit)
>Take the rubbish out before replying
>
>
And we have the answer! It turns out he's the 3rd kind of
12 year old here. The BSD'er.
Hope this helps.
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
******************************
