Linux-Advocacy Digest #464, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 19:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: More Linux woes (pip)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows 2000 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Mig)
Re: Windows Stability (Pete Goodwin)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (mlw)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Mig)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (pip)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More Linux woes (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Jim Richardson)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Advocate from your own office wall (pip)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:09:41 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Every time I look a little deeper I discover another reason why Linux
> sucks, and I'm not even trying hard to find these things.
Then go and use another OS. What's your problem? Someone is
forcing you?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:14:44 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 'Digital' was never a direct competitor to Microsoft.
No, we were depicted as a puppet of Microsoft with Bill Gates hand up Bob
Palmer's, er, back.
But then good ol' Bob was there to make Digital palatable to sell to the
likes of Compaq. Bob left with a golden handshake of 60million $.
I got sold off to Cabletron. I left two months later.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:10:59 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Ah yes. A token linux installations runs in a virtual machine on S/390 and
> suddenly Linux is hugely scalable. In fact, they have to run thousands of
> them to accomplish what S/390 or Win2K Datacenter Server could do by itself.
>
Why is it that you windows zealots have such a hard time understanding the
different between must and can. I keep hearing the same FUD over and over
again:
- You must continually recompile the kernel.
Wrong. You can recomple the kernel,
- You must use the CLI,
Wrong. You can use the CLI
- Linux for S/390 must run under VM. Or my favorite, Linux for S/S390 must run
under OS/390 (it can not).
Wrong. You can run Linux for S/390 under VM. You can also run it in an LPAR,
on the full machine by itself, under VM, or under VIF,
- The latest. You must run thousands of copies of Linux for S/390 to achieve the
equivalent of Win2K Datacenter.
Wrong. You can run thousands of copies of Linux for S/390 on one machine. The
customer you are talking about chose to run 1500 copies of Linux because it made
adminstration easier - one copy per customer.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:17:09 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> <EF translator on>
> I don't know what I'm talking about but if I pretent to come from
> the mainframe arena they will leave me alone. Boy this sounds
> so cool! I'll really knock em over with my intelligence with this
> cute one liner! I'm so brilliant!
>
> <EF translator off>
>
> Bit my weenie EF.
>
> We are tired of your loonatic loonacy moon man.
<CE translator on>
I'm a teapot! I'm a teapot!
<CE translator off>
Sorry. Couldn't resist!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:11:40 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:33:11 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Yes you are Pete. Like the rest of the Wintroll crowd, you claim that
> >this was so easy to do with Windows... and that youre such experienced
> >users and amazingly you never have things work when you try Linux.
>
> Why is this so surprising?
> Why is printing over a network such a pita with Linux?
No problem whatsoever... tell me about it.. im a good listener. I have seen
people with no knowledge of Linux install RH 5.1 and have Networking
(DHCP), browsing, printing working right away.. If they could do it.. why
cant you? There is just 2 possible answers
> How about reading news offline?
What are you talking about
> A decent browser?
I use the same decent browsers on both platforms...Netscape4 and Mozilla..
lately Opera. Actually on some pages Konqueror beats IE.. try the W3 test
page.. its quite amazing.
> Fully supported hardware instead of making do with the features that
> are supported currently while the others get worked on?
I only acquire hardware that is supported... actually the PC that i have is
fully supported.. and i just acquired the whole box.
> Consistency between distributions?
Hmmm... what are you smoking.. that would also require Windows 3.x and W2K
to be compatible. You keep forgetting that SUSE and RH are not the same
OS.. they are just based on the same kernel.. the OS is SUSE, RH, Debian
etc.. amazingly they are compatible.
> I can set up ICS and have each PC on the network dial out (I'm on a
> modem) by checking one box under Windows 2k.
Get outta here. Dial-up networking has never worked properly in any Windows
version.. and still mysterious problems exist in W2K.. like the DRestin bug
wiht error 691 (didnt exist according to Dresting) fixed with SP1. You
still have to reinstall TCP/IP at times (not deactivate but reinstall)
> I can add a network printer under Win2k by clicking on Add a
> printer->Network Printer->Browse and then double click on the printer
Hmmm... i did that a couple of weeks ago.. looked pretty in the same
category of an old RH 5.2 with linuxconf. Find better examples boy.
Unfotunattely i have not tryed this wiht this Mandrake so i cant tell if it
is worser.
> I would like to add and that is it. It works. It works in color, B+W
> and all of the features I paid for (multiple trays and such) work.
> It does not get any easier than that.
Mine to.. Deskjet 950C... color is here. CUPS did it
> I can setup a firewall by clicking on setup.exe but yet I can modify
> it later any way I wish. Sure I paid $29.00 for it but how much have I
> spent on Linux? Much, much more overall not even counting time.
Tihi... i dont think you really want to enter that area
> All and I mean ALL of my hardware works to it's full capacity under
> Windows.
Same here.. and i only paid for the hardware
> I have needed to use the net for help exactly once using Windows and
> that was with Win2k which I have just started using, and I didn't
> understand the C$ sharing concept.
> With Linux?
> All I do is search for answers, most of which are outdated, dangerous
> or just plain wrong.
Wow.. deja is excellant... you just have to be able to spot the crap.
Mostly i use deja for searching for solutions for Windows.. 9 of 10 posts
are crap because the users just dont understand the issues.. i allways end
with a post from someone named Santovec.. and has allways the wrong
answers :-)
> I can't speak for anyone else but I have used computers since the mid
> 1970's.
Thats sad... so many years and so little knowledge.. i started in the mid
80's... i guess i surpassed you allready in 86
> Because many things under Linux are not simple. Reading news offline
> is not simple.
But thats your problem.. i find it simple enough if i want to and have done
it.
> Again, Linux on the desktop is such a poor alternative to Windows it
> is not even close.
Uhh.. you know that the vast majority of Linux users come from Windows..
and feel the opposite. In fact Windows using friends that do not want to
swithc from Windows find my Interface(s) much better looking and faster.
You can even make it look and behave like Windows
>
> Maybe he likes wasting his time installing and re-installing Linux,
> reading How-to's and so forth?
No.. you prefer wasting your time spaming the newsgroups
> For me, I prefer applications and Linux dies in that respect as far as
> my needs are concerned.
Tell us about your needs Steve
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:20:21 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Then how come some of us have come to Linux with years of
> WinDOS or NT experience and little to NO Unix admin experience
> yet can quickly and trivially get our Linux boxes to be
> remarkably more robust than anything Microsoft.
With my working workstation that's what I noticed. With my server... what
am I doing wrong? 8)
> If NT needs an "ultimate guru" to run properly then what's
> the point? If that's the case, then it's pretty much a big
> fat waste of time as you could just spend that time wasted
> on NT learning VMS instead.
Why would anyone want to learn OpenVMS these days?
B*}
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:21:57 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >You're crazy. All existing GUI apps would not work with Quartz because
> the
> > >existing apps use sockets to connect to the GUI.
> >
> > Do you work at being this stupid?
> >
> > Existing GUI apps would have a problem with the different ABI
> > and API standards. Once they hand requests off to the graphics
> > subsystem they don't give a damn how those requests are handled
> > so long as the outputs are within the margins they are expecting.
>
> How exactly do apps "hand requests off to the graphics subsystem"? In X,
> they use sockets to do so. In Quartz (I don't know enough here) I assume
> it's an API call similar to the existing Mac API calls. Those are two
> different ways of doing something. Since X apps are just using sockets,
> rather than a specific graphical API, there isn't any way to differentiate
> an X command from any other kind of socket request, thus you can't create
> some kind of middleman layer without having an X server that translates X
> calls to Quartz, which means that the calls must first go through sockets,
> then through Quartz and display postscript, then back to sockets to get back
> to the app. SLOW.
Obviously, you've never looked at systems like WINE. How does wine
handle Windows GDI calls? The Windows program need not even know it is
talking to an X server.
HWND CreateWindow(...)
Can hide what ever it likes, an HWND can reference just about anything.
Same goes for:
HDC GetDC(...)
Look at NT vs Windows, there are two completely different systems. The
API obscures this.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:14:03 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[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.
> >
> > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the Firebird
> > project.
> > Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge shows that no
> > one has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> >
> > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source security is.
>
> But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux. From developers,
> to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the obvious bugs
> would be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux release
> from all major distributors still comes riddled with security exploits not
> to mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and all this
> peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are these glaring
> bugs slipping through so frequently?
It didnt slip through.. it was caught.
You simply dont get it.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:22:54 +0000
pip wrote:
> Well Linux does take some learning. As for telnet and ftp, make sure
> that
> there are server programs for the service you want (find what is
> expected in inetd.conf). When I installed mandrake it did not included
> a daemon for ftp or telnet rather surprisingly. They can be installed
> from
> the rpm's on the cd.
> Try another distro (I still prefer RH - even with the monkey work in 7).
This is what is so puzzling. If I chose to install everything (like I did
for my workstation, the one I'm posting this with), everything is there for
the use.
I tried to create a server by dropping a few packages (like KDE and GNOME)
but why should Linux Mandrake installer nobble telnet daemon and nfs in
response to this!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:25:49 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I tried to create a server by dropping a few packages (like KDE and GNOME)
> but why should Linux Mandrake installer nobble telnet daemon and nfs in
> response to this!
This is what I asked myself and I have no sensible reasons. Human error
:-)
It is a pain in the proverbial.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:29:11 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I used linuxconf to activate nfs. It still resulted in "permission
> >denied". As for telnet, it appeared not to be installed (despite my
> >selecting it).
>
> Well you have confirmed my bug report that the Mandrake installer has
> a mind of it's own.
I can't argue with that!
> Can I ask a question Pete?
>
> Why on earth are you wasting so much time trying to make Linux do for
> you what it seems incapable of doing?
You want reasons?
Linux is more stable than Windows 98 SE and (probably) Windows Millenium.
Linux can be remotely controlled - I can log in on one machine and do
things on the other. Very useful to me. Now that my server is Windows
Millenium, I can't do this without writing something myself. Not so useful.
> But, in my case it isn't even close, and just using Linux to read
> news, browse, write letters, read mail, listen to music and so forth
> is a real PITA compared to Windows. It really is a major annoyance
> using Linux and that time wasted is not compensated by the fact that
> Linux is free.
I can read mail, news. Browsing is a bit silly with Netscape and konqueror.
> I never screw with Win2k as far as the OS is concerned. First of all I
> am new at Win2k and secondly I don't need to. It just works, right out
> of the box and any idiot can set it up and use all of it's features
> without telnetting and screwing around with different file systems and
> such.
Can I telnet into Windows 2000 and burn a CDROM?
Can I telnet into Windows 2000 and shut it down?
That's what Linux could do for me.
> And at least if you ask it to install something, it does and it will
> do the same consistently each time.
That's what it looks like Linux Mandrake is doing. Time to change distro.
Let's see... how much does a CD cost from my favourite emporium? £5? How
much does Windows 2000 Professional cost? £300? What am I to do? Line the
pockets of that company caught being naughty or get hold of free software.
> I see Linux as a crude compromise between cost and time.
I see Linux as cheap and fun. When it's not being frustrating.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:39:34 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 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".
Wow. Be careful you don't cut yourself with that razor-sharp wit,
claire.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:45:06 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I was wondering why playing an audio CDROM (like you would buy in the
> store) seemed to cause intermittent skipping when dragging windows or
> doing any other activity under Linux Mandrake 7.2 so I decided to
> investigate today.
> The CDROM is an Acer 40x on the second IDE controller and it has a
> digital cable (no analog) hooked to a SBLive in the system.
>
> I played an audio CD and started to poke around the system enabling
> and disabling digital audio with the KDE Mixer and things were acting
> strange?
>
> I unplugged the digital cable (the little 2 prong Berg connector)
> while the CD was playing and to my surprise the sound CONTINUED to be
> heard!!!
>
> This sucker was, for some reason, doing Digital Audio Extraction over
> the IDE bus!!!
>
> No wonder things were acting strange....
>
> Score another hit against Linsux for misconfiguring this one.
> Ok Penguinista's, how to I disable this so my system isn't being
> slowed to a crawl every time I play an audio CD?
>
> Every time I look a little deeper I discover another reason why Linux
> sucks, and I'm not even trying hard to find these things.
Your ignorance is astounding.
Audio CDROMs do not provide information during play, to try to get
information from a CD while it is playing causes it to skip. The CD
player writers want to put up a cute little spectral analysis window
when the music is playing, this is the only way to do this.
Winamp, the latest Windows Media player does this, as well as others.
Most if not all of these players have the ability to control this
behavior. It is a reasonable approach if you are not doing CPU intensive
work.
This has NOTHING to do with Linux.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:30:43 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:11:38 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Ok, what is khttpd then?
>> > >
>> > > an experimental kernel based web server
>> >
>> > So it's a kernel based web server, that's exactly what I was talking about.
>> >
>>
>> That's khttp, not Tux.
>>
>> >
>> > > > Please post a URL of the specweb 99 results. The results I recall
>> > > > reading only had WinNT/IIS, Linux/Apache, and Linux/Tux.
>> > >
>> > > I don't know of any specweb results for khttpd.
>> >
>> > <sigh>
>> >
>> > You just said that kttpd kicked IIS's ass in specweb99, so please admit
>> > you were wrong, or show me the results.
>>
>> No, Tux kicked IIS's ass in specweb99. khttpd is a totally different program.
>> As far as I know there are no specweb results for khttpd.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > > Microsoft wouldn't write a hack httpd just to win a single
>> > > > benchmark and then claim they're the best web server around.
>> > >
>> > > In the first place, Red Hat never claimed tux was the best
>> > > around - they let the figures speak for themselves.
>> > >
>> > > In the second place, it was not a "hack httpd", but a clever
>> > > and innovative web server, and a showcase for the scalability
>> > > of the Linux kernel.
>> >
>> > In a benchmark... real stable. In real world? Just like everything
>> > else linux: FLOP.
>> >
>>
>> You should really read up on Tux. You seem to think thay khttpd and Tux and
>the
>> same thing. They are totally different programs.
>
>I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one several weeks
>back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your situation were
>telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel mode.
>It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high numbers
>they achieved.
>
you are incorrect. kernel mode was not responsible for the high numbers, tux
was operating in userspace.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:43:03 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>
>1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
>Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
>hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
>2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
>server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
>Never failed us once.
I'm sorry, there comes a point where your fabrications become so obvious
that no reasonable person could possibly believe they are anything but,
in fact, fabrications. That you 'happened' to 'absolutely need' a
single file to be larger than 2GB, I can barely believe (it is one of
the favorite "what Linux can't do" in many misinformed and ill-informed
discussions, generally resolving to a mistaken belief about the
relationship between files and data stores <and an assumption they're
identical>). But that it 'never failed you once' is not in the
slightest bit credible. Obviously, selection and hindsight bias has
allowed you to convince yourself this is the case, but only a moron
would think that a Windows system can interoperate and handle a
demanding load constantly and not ever fail, once. That's ludicrously
unbelievable.
>2.) My current employer is releasing a product based on EJB. There is
>very little support, if any from major web application platform vendors.
>Some provide it, but it's a use-at-your-own-risk type situation. Sun
>Solaris and Windows 2000 were the platforms of choice.
>
>We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
Again, I'm quite sure you're either incompetent or lying. I refuse to
be so purposefully ignorant as to believe that this is the case based
only on your claim it is so.
Nevertheless, your (mangled) point, that Linux is, indeed, still
prevented from being implemented in a truly huge number of
opportunities, simply because of the Win32 lock-in which Microsoft has
illegally created to maintain their OS monopoly, is quite valid.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:49:17 -0600
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93tana$qau$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
> >
> > This is a driver issue only, not a problem with Win2k (unless you count
> > poor 3rd party drivers to be a problem with the OS, in which case Linux
> > has even more problems there).
> >
> > The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified
software
> > is also a red herring. Software doesn't have to be certified to run
> > flawlessly. I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler to
> > certify to save money.
>
> Weeeeellllll... so vendors dont even bother to release drivers for the
"top
> OS".. Uhh... did someone mention "tremendous learning curve" and "cost"
> and "complex" and "availability" and "interobility problems"..
Why are you people so incapable of reading? There *ARE* drivers for it,
they're just not good drivers. There's a difference between certifying your
drivers and software and releasing it.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Advocate from your own office wall
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:43:28 +0000
http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/things/340a.html
cool eh?
:-)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:46:00 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan
2001 18:32:19 +0100;
>In article <usj86.2348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>>> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
>
>Why do I feel this is just a downright lie?
Because Chad here is obviously a sock puppet, and that sounds like a
sock puppet lying in support of One Microsoft Way.
>> Bottom Line:
>>
>> Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
>> the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
>> tasks.
>
>Strewth, are we living on the same planet? Linux has proven that it is
>enterprise ready. Microsoft has lost the server market. Whether it can
>hold onto the desktop is the big question now.
Indeed.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
