Linux-Advocacy Digest #468, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: One case where Linux has the edge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: One case where Linux has the edge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 (sfcybear)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Interconnect")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Interconnect")
Re: The Server Saga ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More Linux woes (.)
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 (.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:11:26 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:45:45 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>pan
pan would be nice if it would work for more than a couple of minutes
without blowing up and segfaulting.
>> >
>> >Can I telnet into Windows 2000 and burn a CDROM?
>>
>> Why would you want to?
>> Who mounts the CDROM for you (inserts the media into the burner)?
>>
>
>I find it handy to do that. I telnet from AIX to my Netfinity
>running Linux to burn CDs. No need to constantly switch
>keyboards and mouse. No need to even have the GUI running on
>the Netfinity. That's also one reason why I run Lotus Notes
>Linux on my Thinkpad by using telnet from AIX. From one
>keyboard, one mouse, one display, I have access to many
>different machines at the same time. When forced to use
>different keyboards and displays for each system, it becomes
>quite frustrating when I start to cut and paste from one system
>to another and then realize that I can't do that.
You still have to walk over there and insert the CD media into the
drive do you not?
THat's like sharing a scanner where you have to walk over and put the
document in anyway so what's the point of the remote access?
>Gary
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:18:00 GMT
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:55:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>I think I'll play Pete's part just one time here.
God help us :(
>Well, I don't know. Why are you? In fact, why are
>we on this newgroup? Why are we here 24 hours a day posting
>around the clock? Why do we hate Linux so much.
I am independently wealthy, having made some very good investments
back in the 1980's, but pulling out just before the crash of 1987.
Re-invested in the 1990's and I have so much money/time on my hands I
have nothing better to do.
>Why don't we both have lives?
I have one?
Do you?
>Well god knows the operating system is just crucial to produce
>digital audio on a computer.
Not without any applications it isn't. It's like having the worlds
fastest Boat without any water to run it on.
>
>Yeah. It's a good thing we have Windows!
>You know those Linux people can't even post to newsgroups.
>Their OS is so pathetic.
Windows and Microsoft have done more to advance computing for the
average folks at home than any other company/software in the world.
Linux has done nothing, but try and put us all back in the 1970's
again.
>
>Yeah,
>W2k scares me too.
I'll bet Win2k is just as scared of you as well :)
>Yeah, yeah. That's why people use an operating system like Windows
>because it's easy to install and re-install when it crashes.
I never re-install.
Never.
>I see Linux as an operating system for people who know something
>about computers. Since you and I don't know anything about
>computers we will just stay away from Linux and W2k.
Linux is a huge step backwards in terms of time and ease of use.
It is a poor, crude semi-operating system that belongs in a backroom
hidden from any human interaction.
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:09:38 GMT
In article <93t9b7$35j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Chad,
>
> > > Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under
the 2.4
> > > Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
> >
> > Sounds like a driver issue, wouldn't you say.
> >
> > Do you want to get into how bad drivers are on Linux?
> >
> > I don't think you do.
>
> Didn't I just ask: "Anybody know of any high-end network cards that
are
> flaky under the 2.4 Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?"
>
> Here's your opportunity to provide an example.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
Ah, that's just chad. Makes lots of claims but nothing to back it up.
Funny how lack of hardware support makes Linux suck but lack of hardware
support for W2K is not the fault of the OS. Bit two faced of the W2K
supporters I'd say.
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:22:29 GMT
It sounds like your new to this conversation, so I'll make this quick, and
generalize.
A platform is only as good as the programs running on it. Which is why BeOS
has nearly NO market share, Apple has a huge following, followed by
Microsoft & Windows.
Linux has no quality software.
Opposing parties do not believe that a platform is only as good as it's
software, stating that Linux is merely a kernel, and is only as good as the
distribution makers make it. There are bad distro's, there are good ones.
Pick your poison.
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93ti8q$dn4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Considering there is a good chance you are receiving your news via Open
> Source software you are being very disrespectful making such a sweeping
> generalization regards proven track records.
>
> Sure some open source projects have their problems. However in relation to
> LINUX you have to keep a clear dilenation between the OS and applications
> built to run on it.
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:39:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Wow. Be careful you don't cut yourself with that razor-sharp wit,
> > >claire.
> >
> > But it is true. If Gates released an OS with the basic "gotchas'" that
> > you Penguinista's put up with on a regular basis, he would have been
> > out of business years ago.
> >
> > Linux is full of bugs and anyone who trusts their system to a
> > collection of 1-x versions of programs with no proven track record is
> > out of their minds.
> >
> >
> > Flatfish
> > Why do they call it a flatfish?
> > Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:30:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>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.
>
He's a WET sock puppet.
>>> 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 ***
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:01:09 +1100
I think what you should do is try reading the occassional man or HowTo.
I have run many different flavors of Linux no problem. Mice detected, video
detected, printers up and running, httpd server, sendmail, Perl, servlets,
jsp, java, C, C++, KDE, Gnome, Bash, gimp, MySQL, awk, ftp, StarOffice,
Netscape, Freeciv, GNU Chess, ISP connectivity, PROGRESS, tar, rpm and many
other programs and services. ALL working relatively EASILY!!!
OK I had to read some documentation to get the printers going, pick up the
extra ram, tweak my video display, update the occassional system library
etc.. etc.. but my point is if you know a little about computers how hard is
it to READ the documentation and get involved in some productive on-line
forums and discussions to make it work for you.
I get the impression people such as yourself really want a PS2 or X-Box with
Word2K running on it, I mean you really come across as lazy, whiny people
that have no interest in computers at all.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:24:03 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Beyond attempting to confuse low level wire protocols with something
> > that an application level facility should muck about with, you
> > really haven't demonstrated anything.
>
> You must sit for hours conjuring up statements that are circular,
> never address the point and rarely provide a solution other than "it
> works for me".
>
> You talk in rhymes and riddles, almost like DR. Seuss,
> spewing forth paragraphs of words that while lengthy, don't really say
> anything?
>
> I think you have the gift of being a Poet.
>
> Have you ever thought about writing a book?
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:07:00 +1100
If I wrote a BAD piece of software that forced Windows or Linux to hang does
that make the OS unstable?
A. No.
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
>
> >
> > Mark Addinall
> >
> > >
> > > Chris
>
>
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: 15 Jan 2001 01:46:29 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Joseph T. Adams wrote:
:> Also, the higher security levels require that you manually edit
:> hosts.allow and/or hosts.deny, among other files, if you want to run
:> any kind of server (including inetd and/or telnetd). That is because
:> Mandrake is marketed primarily to home users, who generally don't run
:> servers, and anyone capable of running servers securely would
:> certainly know how to edit these and the other necessary config files.
: On my workstation my host.allow and hosts.deny are both empty. Telnetting
: into it works just fine.
: On the server machine, telnetting to it resulted in "Permission denied".
: Now, this used to work before the new big drive, and I don't remember
: editing that many files apart from using linuxconf to fire up telnet daemon.
There is a reason for this behavior. My guess is that it's the
Mandrake security tools - the systems probably have different security
levels (check out the documentation for msec). But if it isn't that,
it is something else, something you can probably figure out if you do
a little checking.
I don't think nontechnical users should have to deal with man pages
and editing config files and the like. But then I don't think
nontechnical users should be running most kinds of servers either -
especially telnetd, which is inherently insecure. (Recent version of
Mandrake come with ssh - this is what should be used instead.) When
they do, they get cracked, and, with increasing frequency, their
machines then are used to crack or DoS other users. I'm pleased to
see that Mandrakesoft and other vendors are finally starting to take
security seriously, as OpenBSD has been doing since its inception, and
are encouraging users to leave dangerous services and daemons off
until and unless they're knowledgable enough to bring them up in a
secure fashion.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:48:38 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:05:37 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
l
>Depends on the player and the hardware configuration.
No it doesn't.
Standard 40x CDROM player and a SBLive card.
>If your problem is with pure digital audio, i.e. the digital stream off
>the back of the CDROM, than pay $2.99 for a wire to go from analog out,
>to analog in to the SB card, and configure this in the sound panel and
>or player. However, you will not get the advantages of the digital audio
>stream.
ARHGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
How many times do I have to repeat myself to you
Linonuts!!!!!!????????
I'll say it ONE MORE TIME for you slow ones........
1. Standard IDE CDROM (40x Acer if that matters) connected to IDE
controller #2.
2. Little $2.00 cable with Berg Connectors conected to Digital out on
CDROM and Digital In on SBlive.
NO ANALONG CABLE CONNECTED!!!!
Are you with me so far?
3. System runs real sluggish playing atandard audio CD's with either
kde player or xmms or whatever.
4. Turns out the CD / Soundcard is doing DIGITAL AUDIO EXTRACTION over
the IDE bus. NOT digital audio transfer over the $2.00 cable. If I
unplug the $2.00 berg connector cable, meaning all that I have
connected is the IDE cable and their is NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN
THE CDROM AND SOUNDCARD, I still get audio because Linux has decided
to transfer all of my audio over the IDE bus instead of using the
$2.00 cable.
5. No setting change in the mixers or players changes this.
So how do I change it because it grinds my system to a crawl?
It's easy under Win2k by checking the "use digital audio" option for
the CDROM, which is DIFFERENT than using the digital audio cable. It
really should say "use digital audio extraction" for this device,
meaning use the IDE channel NOT the $2.00 berg cable.
Get it NOW?
>If your problem is the digitization of IDE datapath, similar to the way
>a ripper works, disable this in the player.
>
>Again, this has nothing to do with Linux, it is an app issue. If you
>make the IOCTL call under Linux, or DeviceIoControl under Windows to
>start the CD player playing, it plays. You then use the sound card to
>drive the speakers.
>
>Many CD player applications (these days) on the PC do not do this
>because the IDE hardware design does not allow extensive monitoring, so
>they decide to treat the data stream from an audio CD as digital media,
>similar to how they play MP3s.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: 15 Jan 2001 01:55:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [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?
You read the documentation, you goddamn retard. For once.
Just read the fucking instructions already and stop being an idiot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: 15 Jan 2001 01:54:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93t6k7$10j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>>
>> ---Begin Excerpt---
>>
>> " We are presented with two choices at this point, we can downgrade the
>> operating system to Windows NT 4.0 and use the same high-end, extremely,
>> fast network cards or we can stay with Windows 2000 and replace the network
>> cards with the lower-end, but still server-class, network cards. We have
>> opted for the first plan as this is a configuration which we have used and
>> know works. At this point, we do not want to experiment with our clients
>> only to find out that the lower-end network cards are not sufficient to the
>> task.
>>
>> ---End Excerpt ---
>>
>> Is it true that "Microsoft has not released any figures on corporation W2K
>> server migration figures, almost a year after its release."? I'd appreciate
>> links to any articles if they are available.
>>
>> Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under the 2.4
>> Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
> Sounds like a driver issue, wouldn't you say.
> Do you want to get into how bad drivers are on Linux?
> I don't think you do.
Because you dont know anything about them, again.
You're an idiot, chad.
=====.
k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 01:57:15 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93t7rd$en0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:93t22l$gob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Absolutely,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OS-X on Linux.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll try that.
>> >>
>> >> > What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on
>> > Linux?
>> >>
>> >> OSX is *not* BSD. You are quite highly misinformed.
>>
>> > It's BSD based.
>>
>> Loosely. WindowsME is dos based in just about the same way.
> No matter how you look at it, OS-X can't run on Linux.
You really are an idiot.
1. why would anyone want it to.
2. sure it can, it just doesnt because no one has written a translation layer
yet, and probably never will.
3. this is hardly a linux shortcoming, it wont run under W2K either, and
CANNOT do so.
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:59:22 GMT
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:33:36 +1100, "Interconnect"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Considering there is a good chance you are receiving your news via Open
>Source software you are being very disrespectful making such a sweeping
>generalization regards proven track records.
I don't think so.
I buy a Mandrake CD and I expect whatever that is on that CD to work,
and if it does great, if it doesn't Linux is to fault.
No other consumer is going to see it any other way.
>Sure some open source projects have their problems. However in relation to
>LINUX you have to keep a clear dilenation between the OS and applications
>built to run on it.
The OS is useless without applications to run on it so it is really a
moot point.
While the folks who designed the OS might have done a great job and
the applications designers may have not, it doesn't matter because it
is the end result, meaning the combination of OS an applications that
counts and in this case Linux fails miserably IMHO.
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:39:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Wow. Be careful you don't cut yourself with that razor-sharp wit,
>> >claire.
>>
>> But it is true. If Gates released an OS with the basic "gotchas'" that
>> you Penguinista's put up with on a regular basis, he would have been
>> out of business years ago.
>>
>> Linux is full of bugs and anyone who trusts their system to a
>> collection of 1-x versions of programs with no proven track record is
>> out of their minds.
>>
>>
>> Flatfish
>> Why do they call it a flatfish?
>> Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:59:52 GMT
Well put Kyle.
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:22:29 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It sounds like your new to this conversation, so I'll make this quick, and
>generalize.
>
>A platform is only as good as the programs running on it. Which is why BeOS
>has nearly NO market share, Apple has a huge following, followed by
>Microsoft & Windows.
>
>Linux has no quality software.
>
>Opposing parties do not believe that a platform is only as good as it's
>software, stating that Linux is merely a kernel, and is only as good as the
>distribution makers make it. There are bad distro's, there are good ones.
>Pick your poison.
>
>"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93ti8q$dn4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Considering there is a good chance you are receiving your news via Open
>> Source software you are being very disrespectful making such a sweeping
>> generalization regards proven track records.
>>
>> Sure some open source projects have their problems. However in relation to
>> LINUX you have to keep a clear dilenation between the OS and applications
>> built to run on it.
>>
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:39:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >Wow. Be careful you don't cut yourself with that razor-sharp wit,
>> > >claire.
>> >
>> > But it is true. If Gates released an OS with the basic "gotchas'" that
>> > you Penguinista's put up with on a regular basis, he would have been
>> > out of business years ago.
>> >
>> > Linux is full of bugs and anyone who trusts their system to a
>> > collection of 1-x versions of programs with no proven track record is
>> > out of their minds.
>> >
>> >
>> > Flatfish
>> > Why do they call it a flatfish?
>> > Remove the ++++ to reply.
>>
>>
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
