Linux-Advocacy Digest #493, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Help Me! The beast is taking over!!!!! ("Martigan")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Bones)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Bones)
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares? (Bones)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: The Server Saga (Jim Broughton)
Re: More Linux woes
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 01:06:09 GMT
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I don't see a lot of people in this news group putting down FreeBSD. In
: fact, I have seen more posts from Linux users in support of FreeBSD. It
: is another OS choice. Just because Linux is the current favorite from
: the open source comunity does not put down any other project. Infact, I
: think that FreeBSD has been helped a great deal because of the
: popularity of Lunux.
Agreed. If Linux didn't exist, I would almost certainly use FreeBSD
instead.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:07:17 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:07:16 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Obviously you aren't reading the garbage the people on COLA are posting.
What garbage?
I do with My Linux box what Win32 power users do with their Win32
boxes. I do it in a remarkably similar manner as well. You are the
one that has yet to demonstrate how the general case is otherwise.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:08:41 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:30:00 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Well, I don't plan to second-guess, or even have to double-check, any
>> consumers, no matter how braindead, but I would suspect that they would
>> consider Mandrake at fault. I can't see a reason in the world why they
>> would consider Linux at fault, unless
>> a) they were aware that Mandrake was Linux, which isn't necessary at all
>> b) they weren't aware that the problem doesn't occur in other Linux, but
>> only on Mandrake.
>
>Except the problems found commonly in Mandrake are common (or relitively so)
...except the problems found 'commonly' in Mandrake tend not
to be found at all by others without a specific need to
find such problems.
[deletia]
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:12:18 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:10:48 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> History shows just the inverse has occurred, in fact. Windows is far
>> and away more buggy, with more 'gotchas', and has been that way for more
>> than a decade, and yet Bill Gates' Microsoft is still around. Still,
>> Microsoft has never been in business, so obviously, your prediction is
>> true, as well. It takes monopolization to make the whole world use such
>> a sorry, pathetic, pile of crap on a regular basis. Had Gates tried to
>> sell it as a competitive product, he would have been out of business
>> years ago.
>
>Have you even used Windows NT past service pack 3? Or do you just listen to
Why should that be a requirement? I have had less problems
with Linuxen older than NT4/SP3 than I have had with the
corresponding linuxen.
>what your friends on COLA tell you about Windows, and belive it. Windows NT
>4 has few stability problems (short of an incompetent administrator) past
>service pack 4, service packs 5, 6, and 6A are securtiy patches for various
Why did it take 4 more tries to get it right? Why does something
as basic as a 'badly' formated CDR BSOD NT? Why does NT5/SP1 still
get unstable after meagre workstation load after a few days?
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:14:35 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:24:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:05:02 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Nope. It fetches all of the PCI details just fine.
>
>It just doesn't know what to do with them and therefore fails.
>IOW it doesn't work.
No, you are just lying. It detects various Matrox cards
just fine, including the proper amount of onboard RAM.
>
>
>>>
>>>> A USB mouse can even be set up at the kernel level to appear as
>>>> /dev/psaux if the distributor is so inclined.
>
>> You obviously have so little of a clue as to what is going on
>> in this discussion that you can't even comprehend the simplest
>> of the jargon being used.
>
>Bottom line is his devices don't work under Linux.
>Seems pretty simple to me.
It works just find on my copy of Mandrake 7.2.
It worked just fine on my copy of Mandrake 7.1.
It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 6.1.
It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 6.0.
It worked just fine on my copy of Redhat 5.2.
[deletia]
Only an outside agitator with an agenda seems to be
having a problem.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:18:54 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:06:34 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Really? How about the enumeration firmware inside the USB device
>identifying it on the USB bus.
>
>The ps2 port on most PC's doesn't take well to raw binary streams of
>information. I'd assume that little adaptor does more than just reroute
>signals through a round shaped plug.
>
>Of course, if you weren't such a pompous twit, you'd realize this.
Until you've actually got some internal photos or
schematics to look at, his position is no less
absurd than yours is.
[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: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Help Me! The beast is taking over!!!!!
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:21:41 GMT
I can't stop it!!!! I picked up the disks and inserted them in my
computer. After ranting and raving, cuz of hardware problems, I finally
installed MD 7.2!!!! And it happened, I thought Windows was great, a little
bloated, but great. I could live with a few blue screens here and there.
But I thought my system was getting too old. I got a PIII 450 and 256 Meg
Ram, GeForce, snd blstr. But something seemed wrong in Windows....
Well after completing the install I decide to fiddle around, Open Office
(just like Office 2k but better), Gimp (who needs Adobe!), xmms (so much for
winamp), emacs(text editor from hell!). But the truth came out when I
played an mpeg file! So much clearer, the sound was much better. I could
not believe it, this had to be unreal, so I wanted to see how much this
computer could take!
I loaded three mpegs in one terminal; Gimp, open office, poker, and
emacs on the other. AND everything was fine! A little jumpy on the mouse
(duh! look at the stuff I was doing!) but I could hear the audio from all
three mpegs!
The only reason why I use windows now is to use the net, I have an
unsupported ISDN and am waiting for ADSL. So...I don't mind the wait. Hell
I even compiled my first Kernel (with help from Linux Mag and www.linux.com)
and it worked, hell I even compiled 2.4 and it's running great!
Well after I get my modem stuff done, I guess I'll just have to through
away my Windose (dose of sh*T) and start programming for g++!
I HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE!!!!! And it is Awesome!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:24:30 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:34:13 -0500, David Utidjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin 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.
>
>Well all other abuse aside (personal and otherwise)...
>
>If I have this correctly you were trying to install MDK to a new HDD...
>then building the kernel to support ReiserFS, yes? Then running the new
>kernel with ReiserFS, yes?
Mandrake 7.1 and 7.2 already come with ReiserFS support.
If either one of those is installed all you need do is to
go through the procedure for installing a new disk,
partitioning it and formating the partitions.
[deletia]
>> This from the system is supposed to be GREAT!
>
>Well I have RedHat-7.0 on an experimental box with ReiserFS and it works
>fine. I got an iso image of RedHat-7.0 that had ReiserFS support built
>in. Was brain dead simple to install. I also "upgraded" this box to
Yup. 'drake 7.1 was that way, just choose the filesystem type
you want with the gui when you install and just chug away.
>kernel 2.4.0 AND included ReiserFS support by using the patch. Works
>like a champ so far. I wouldn't use any ".0" release (distro or kernel)
>for a "production" machine like a server... but this one seems to be
[deletia]
Harddrake is also available as a post-install GUI but I've never
bothered to use it yet.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 01:26:20 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No matter what anyone says. In 1995, all the pundits were convinced that
: Microsoft had won the world of computer operating systems.
The great majority of the pundits were then, and are now, both liars
and fools.
Win95 seemed tolerable to so many people only because Win 3.x was so
wretched.
NT 3.51 had promise, but only until the marketroids wrested control of
it and proceeded to turn its progeny into beefed-up versions of
WinDOS.
Linux even in its infancy beat WinDOS in virtually every way, and it
has improved by leaps and bounds since those days, while WinDOS has
improved very little if at all.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:32:49 GMT
> I said:
>Jeez Rex, I hate to play MS Advocate, but which server market it this?
Duh... I guess your post was too tough for me to handle; I skipped over the
word 'UNIX' that you included in your estimate. I guess you can disregard my
last post.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:32:50 GMT
There seems to be some misunderstanding, or perhaps some spinning about the
SpecWeb results in this thread...
I checked out the figures from all the SpecWeb99 numbers that various
companies have been submitting and summarized them for all of you here (with
information relevant to this thread), complete with sleep-inducing
commentary from yours truly. I took figures from 2000 and the first quarter
of 2001, trimmed it down to like systems that had ratings for both Windows
and Linux -based http serving solutions.
Scaling
=======
Apparently Linux had a much easier time making use of additional processors.
All the Linux boxes that are listed under the SpecWeb99 results seems to get
a 37-40% boost in power for each additional processor added. The Windows+IIS
machines don't fair as well, tacking on anywhere from 22-35% more
performance for each processor added.
I've compiled these two examples from posted SpecWeb99 benchmarks from this
past year (I am aware that the two models use 1,2,4 and 2,4,8 processors
respectively, I am looking at the change with processors, not the total
rating):
Server # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
=================== ============ ============= ==============
IBM Netfinity 7600 (1) IIS 5 968
IBM Netfinity 7600 (2) IIS 5 1182
IBM Netfinity 7600 (4) IIS 5 1570
IBM Netfinity 8500R (2) Tux 1 2399
IBM Netfinity 8500R (4) Tux 1 4248
IBM Netfinity 8500R (8) Tux 1 6407
Comparison
==========
With the exception of the PowerEdge 8450 (more on that later), Linux + Tux
1.0 easily trounces all over Windows + IIS5 everywhere I could dig up the
numbers for comparison. Linux is almost twice as fast as Windows with the
PowerEdge 2400, and slightly more than twice as fast with the 4400.
System # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
=================== ============= ============= ==============
Dell PE 2400/667 (1) Tux 1 1270
Dell PE 2400/667 (1) IIS 5 732
Dell PE 4400/800 (2) Tux 1 2200
Dell PE 4400/800 (2) IIS 5 1060
Windows gets two more hard disks than Linux does for the test with the
PowerEdge 6400: Pagefile on one disk, OS and logs on two disks, and data
striped across the remaining four disks. Linux uses one drive for the OS and
logs, and the remainder for data. This performance tweak seems to not have
much effect, since Linux + Tux 1.0 beats Windows + IIS 5 by a healthy margin
here too.
System # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
=================== ============= ============= ==============
Dell PE 6400/700 (4) Tux 1 4200
Dell PE 6400/700 (4) IIS 5 1598
And how about the controversial PowerEdge 8450 system? As was mentioned in
this thread, IIS had somehow (magically) revved-up its performance to only
about 2.7% less than that of Tux. The SpecWeb99 numbers are like this:
System # Processors HTTP Software SpecWeb Rating
=================== ============= ============= ==============
Dell PE 8450/700 (8) Tux 2 7500
Dell PE 8450/700 (8) IIS 5 +SWC 3 7300
It looks like the tuners felt there was an I/O bottleneck with disk access,
and the hardware is *not* the same with these two machines. The Linux box
uses the same five SCSI disks and configuration as I mentioned above. The
Windows machine uses *NINE* disks: One disk for the OS, two striped and
containing logs, and the remaining six drives have the data striped across
them. Eight of those nine are 15K RPM drives, unlike the 10K RPM drives
Linux is using. Apparently the solution to a Windows performance problem is
to get more powerful hardware involved (on the server anyway), not make the
OS more efficient. I am not surprised.
What did surprise me was that comparing these tests gives Windows a handicap
(you have to read the fine print): For instance, with the 8450, Windows'
test involved only 35 clients, the Linux box 40. If we make a real rough
estimate using the figures given, a more realistic set of numbers would be
6257 for IIS 5 and 7500 to Tux 2.0 (both being pelted by 40 client
machines), and that doesn't take the differences in storage hardware into
account.
Sort of like the Mindcraft tests, which had little bearing on reality, these
SpecWeb tests sacrifice things for performance that no sys admin in his
right mind would sacrifice. You would never catch me sextupling my chances
of a catastrophic hardware failure and downtime by spreading one collection
of data across six disk drives. I'm also fairly certain that I wouldn't use
Tux or IIS as my httpd of choice either. It looks to me like Dell was
configuring for the most impressive rating on each model it offered, not to
directly compare Windows to Linux, as some would like to spin the results.
BTW, I got tired of reading the material, does anyone know if X was running
on the RedHat server?
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:32:51 GMT
> Perry Pip wrote:
> Linux seems to be the open source OS that has attracted all the
> commercial interest, and hence it's popularity. That's probably also
> the reason we see so many buggy releases of commericial Linux dists
> like Redhat and Mandrake.
Well... You highlighted two distributions where features come before
stability. I've been using Slackware for years, and its every bit as stable
as FreeBSD, although its nice to play with a Mandrake distro every once in a
while: The "Gee Whiz" Factor you know.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:36:18 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:51:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:40:19 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why is printing over a network such a pita with Linux?
>>
>>I do network printing with Linux all day every day -
>>works like a dream. BTW it's always a 30 second
>>drill to add a network printer, if I really take my time.
>
>Sure if your network is all Linsux and your printers are PS or one of
Nope, Linux sees shares on Win95,Win98,NT4 & NT5 just
fine and vice versa.
>the few non-PS printers that are supported.
There are plenty of printers supported in various quality
levels and price ranges.
>
>Otherwise, do the Samba dance.
>Why ARE there SO AMNY webpages devoted to setting up Samba?
People like you can't read and do mental operations
equivalent to taking parts of the SATs. That's only
the worst case. Usually, there's a perfectly suitable
point and drool interface available.
[deletia]
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:37:45 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:30:46 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:40:19 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I do network printing with Linux all day every day -
>> >works like a dream. BTW it's always a 30 second
>> >drill to add a network printer, if I really take my time.
>>
>> Sure if your network is all Linsux and your printers are PS or one of
>> the few non-PS printers that are supported.
>
>Nope, works just fine with windows pc-lan attached printers,
>unix printers, netware printers, or local printers.
>
>I haven't seen any non supported printers in any place
>I've worked, so you are greatly exaggerating, if not
Businesses typically don't buy the consumer trash that doesn't
get supported well under Linux. Either those vendors are too
cheap to support anything but the largest userbase, or they are
too cheap to spring for standards support (ps/pcl).
>outright lying, about the supposed difficulty.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:40:30 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 01:08:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:30:46 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Nope, works just fine with windows pc-lan attached printers,
>>unix printers, netware printers, or local printers.
>
>After how many hours screwing with smb.conf files?
samba shares all local printers by default.
smb.conf has nothing to do with connecting to remote printers.
>
>>I haven't seen any non supported printers in any place
>>I've worked, so you are greatly exaggerating, if not
>>outright lying, about the supposed difficulty.
>
>Take a walk through CompUSA someday and try and find non PS printers
>that ARE supported by Linux.
Mine came from a CompUSA.
>Same goes for scanners BTW.
Mine came from a CompUSA.
[deletia]
It's BestBuy where you will have less luck. They have a lesser
selection and tend to stock real crap these days. This goes
especially for their scanners. They tend to be slow, low
resolution rejects.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Bill Gates MAD?!?!?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 01:40:46 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: We have a lot of those in Detroit....major thoroughfares are turned
: into boulevards...and to make a left-turn ONTO one of them, you have
: to do a right, and then do a U-turn through the median.
According to the folks on misc.transport.roads, that is called a
"Michigan Left," and is somewhat different than a jughandle, although
both serve a similar purpose.
: Actually, it does keep the throughput on the main roads quite high.
That's the purpose.
Wish we had them here in the Cleveland area, which has a fourth of
metro Detroit's population and damn near 100% of its traffic mess,
especially in the suburbs.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:41:50 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:30:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:57:26 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>Doesn't surprise me as you Penguinista's seem to have an awful time
>following a simple train of thought.
He problably uses SWAT or linuxconf assuming your
comments are even relevant.
[deletia]
Although, the level of documentation in the stock smb.conf file
makes it less arcane than many WinDOS point/drool based wizards.
--
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: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:43:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:19:57 GMT, Jim Broughton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >After having read you above post I can only say that you
> >should get the network (tcp/ip) running. THEN install
> >webmin 0.83. This is a browser based system setup utility
> >(yes it has mandrake 7.2 support) Initial setup is a bit
> >hairy (its text based but interactive so its not too painful)
>
> Yea sure, more miserable config files and outdated How-To's to
> complicate the matter.
> Just what he needs.
>
> There always seems to be some version .0001 tool under Linux that is
> designed to not so easily do what WIndows does right out of the box so
> easily.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
The guy comes in here with a post that pretty much askes for some help
and what do you provide NOTHING just a smart assed comment that does
nothing for anyone here. DID YOU GET OFF ON IT. If you did your a very
sad case. I feel sorry for you. You seem like a person with no direction
in life. I suggest you seek help before its too late. What a loser.
--
Jim Broughton
(The AmigaOS now there was an OS!)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:46:55 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:47:28 -0800, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:56:02 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:09:41 +0000, pip
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>[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?
>>
>>No, this is an advocacy group and in fact I have seen some of the very
>>items I have complained about in the past incorporated into future
>>Linux distributions so somebody is actually listening.
>>
>
>Of course, Linux improves day by day, it's good now, and it's only going to get
>better.
Without corroboration on one of the other groups in this
heirarchy from someone not a Gates Shill, I would not take
this 'problem' to be anything but a shill's fantasy.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:48:41 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> <The sound of two hands clapping...>
More like two butt cheeks flapping...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
