Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Mig)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Robert Browder)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: The Linux Show! (.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(.)
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: More Linux woes ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("ono")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("ono")
Re: More Linux woes (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: The Linux Show! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:05:46 +0100
. wrote:
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mark wrote:
>
> >> I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
> >> company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
> >> with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
> >> connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
> >> it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
> >> setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
> >> connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
>
> > I don't believe 45 minutes to configure a network on a Windows PC. What
> > kind of network is that? TCP/IP takes all of a few minutes, if that.
>
> Idiot, if youd ever worked in a company that employed techies like this
> and understood that they let them loose on the field after a maximum
> of a couple of hours of training (with no other computer experience at
> all), you would understand that this scenerio is quite plausable.
This is not at all correct... You must remenber the reboot and possibly a
remove and reinstall of componets (at least two extra reboots with win 9x)
and especilly if there is somekind of PPP dialup involved - it is not so
uncommon with broadband connectionsx. 45 min is quite realistic if you
encounter problems.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Robert Browder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:13:28 GMT
I had the exact same experience. My cable provider told me their
service would NOT work with a Linux PC. 30 minutes after the installer
had left it was working fine.
In article <3a646c23.341957648@news>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to offer a small story to illustrate how some things are much
> easier using Linux.
>
> I recently subscribed to a cable modem service. When I spoke to the
> customer service drone on the telephone, I asked if they supported
> Linux. They said absolutely not, the modem probably won't work with
> Linux, and they offer no support even if it does.
>
> I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
> company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
> with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
> connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
> it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
> setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
> connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
>
> As soon as he left, I unplugged the modem from the Windows PC and
> plugged it into the Linux PC. In Linux I simply ran dhcpcd and named,
> et voila, it was connected. Less that a minute and no reboots.
>
> It took another half hour or so to configure the Windows PCs to route
> through the Linux server to the internet (and both had to be
> rebooted).
>
> It took maybe as much as 30 minutes to write a quick ipchains script
> to firewall the system.
>
> With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point blank
> to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption that
> 'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
> expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:18:44 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Linux Mandrake, and the DrakX configuration system, but not with Matrox
> >hardware... I was using a Creative Labs Riva TNT card AGP (old by
today's
> >standards...) and the memory on the unit was detected at 4096, and the
> >display was dumbed down to low-color (can't remember the number) and
> >800x600. Clearly DrakX has a BUG, and DrakX is PART OF THE OS In this
>
> This is pure bullshit.
Now where have I herd THIS before... DrakX clearly seems to be
misconfiguring SOME AGP cards under LM 7.2. This is CLEARLY a bug in the
custom recognition engine used by the Mandrake Installer, or DrakX itself,
because by manually reconfiguring the settings (with DrakX in 'manual', or
editing /etc/X11/XF86Config by hand) the problem was quickly resolved.
Sounds like a BUG to me.
> If X thinks your card has only 4M, you won't be limited to
> indexed color in 800x600.
XFree86 did NOT have this problem. DrakX's autoconfiguration did. Again,
it SOUNDS like a bug. But if your head weren't stuck up your ass, you would
realize this, and move on.
> Your lies don't even stand basic mathematic scrutiny.
The resolution was preconfigured at the aforementioned video settings. They
WERE changeable, but the card was still mis-detected by DrakX.
> >RH6.2 didn't even come with an Xserver that supported AGP devices, which
> >means you have upgraded your distro. Which means that the testing
process
>
> Nope. AGP devices are still accessible as PCI devices.
I meant certain AGP chipsets (like Voodoo 3, and Riva TNT AGP). Which was a
problem with XFree86 3.?.? which, as I recall, is what RH 5.2 came with, and
still comes with in RH6. But I digress.
> >you have performed is tainted.
> Nope, you just have no clue what so ever.
"You have no clue"... Why? Because I was able to reproduce the problem?
Fine, don't believe me. "Linux is perfect". Check deja.com for other Linux
mandrake VIDEO issues. There are plenty to choose from. Hey, you can waste
your time calling them all liars.
> >His problem seems to be real. Now YOU have a problem...
>
> Not at all.
>
> Those with a smattering of a clue can make up their own minds.
You seem to be having that problem yourself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: 16 Jan 2001 22:24:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:36:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
> Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>Flatfish++ and Chad are having mounds of fun with this concept,
>>and it does appear to be a minor (very minor) credibility issue.
> I wouldn't say we are having mounds of fun, but it is quite amusing.
> What "IS" more amusing is catching one of the more virulent Linux
> supporters in a lie when he claimed to have viewed the clips running
> Xmms or Netscape under Linux.
Thats actually a lie right there, only one person claimed it. That
would be 'supporter', not 'supporterS', claire.
You lying sack of shit.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 22:26:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2001 19:46:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 16 Jan 2001 13:19:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> On 16 Jan 2001 06:42:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 22:06:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>>>>>>>>>>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>>>>>>>>>>> awhile now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The bulk of what constituted NeXTStep was display postscript, and is not
>>>>>>>>>>running on linux at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...DPS has been running under Linux/GNU for at least 2 years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Indeed; I was quite incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Except that its much, much better under OpenStep/OSX. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GNUstep is OpenStep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not in anyones wildest, wildest dreams.
>>>>
>>>>> OpenStep is a publically documented specification.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, OpenStep started out as an operating system, and then became sort of a
>>>>GUI+apps overlay for Solaris. It never made it to any other platform.
>>>>
>>>>While GNUStep may have alot in common with OpenStep, it is not the same thing
>>>>at all.
>>
>>
>>> http://www.gnustep.org/GNUOpenStep/OpenStepSpec/OpenStepSpec.html
>>
>>> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bvito/index.html
>>
>>Have you ever *used* openstep?
> That's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is infact
> a sufficiently and publically defined specification. As long
> as it is, there's no good reason that alternate implementations
> can't be equivalent.
Oh I see. Youve never actually used OpenStep.
Your summation is therefore entirely invalid.
Ive both programmed and used OpenStep for its entire tenure in the computer field.
GNUStep is utterly different. The only similarities are cosmetic, period. And
"similar" is loosely used in this case. Windowmaker menus sort of act the same.
Big whoop.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:22:37 GMT
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:942fbk$bfo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > pornography:
> > GUI all the way.
> > This is where I flip the Bozo bit.
>
> I knew the 'pup tent' thing wasn't a stretch. Ever thought about changing
> your on-line name to UberWanker?
> (-:
My expierence as a home PC consultant has shown me that everyone keeps porno
on their computers. EVERYONE.
I no longer make judgements for it.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:23:21 GMT
Way to snip the part about this being a WORKSTATION conversation genius.
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bRR86.2719$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ugL86.78170$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > God forbid business should stop on one of my workstations for *GASP* 3
> SOLID
> > MINUTES.
>
> If said system was a DB or WWW server...
>
> >
> > Or I could forgo the rebooting, and replace the OS with something that
no
> > only doesn't need to be rebooted, but will make it unusable for as long
> as
> > the computer is powered.
>
> MS-DOS is dead...Let it go.
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Sunbelt Software Solutions
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: 16 Jan 2001 22:30:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:942fbk$bfo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > pornography:
>> > GUI all the way.
>> > This is where I flip the Bozo bit.
>>
>> I knew the 'pup tent' thing wasn't a stretch. Ever thought about changing
>> your on-line name to UberWanker?
>> (-:
> My expierence as a home PC consultant has shown me that everyone keeps porno
> on their computers. EVERYONE.
"PC consultant".
Say no more.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:29:42 GMT
You have an ACER 40x CDROM drive?
It sounds as if you own an Acer 640-A IDE CDROM drive, and this series of
CDROM drives MAY have hard DAE support. I don't entirely recall, as that
Acer discontinued the 640 in favor of the 650 and 650-P units.
You may wish to check your CDROM firmware revision (at www.acercm.com) to
see if an updated CDROM firmware has been released, forcing the drive to
perform analog audio transfers instead of digital ones.
Also, ensure you own an ANALOG CDAudio cable, not a digital one. Sometimes,
the digital cable can throw off the CDROM's firmware into performing DAE
directed to the DAE decoder on the sound card. Because DAE decoding support
is probably NOT in your OSS/Free kernel drivers, the CDROM is performing DAE
through the IDE bus instead.
Which would sorta explain why I've never herd of this problem before.
Windows is obviously able to either redirect, or handle the input with
native hardware support.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:44:54 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Yes, however the user chose to configure this system caused this
> >problem. My system does not do this, nor do others on this group. It is
> >not a Linux problem, it is an application issue.
>
> I didn't configure anything.
> If I unplug the digital and analog cables from the CD and Soundcard,
> meaning the ONLY CABLE PLUGGED IN IS THE IDE CABLE, I STILL GET SOUND,
> meaning the transfer is going over the IDE BUS.
>
> Also, as far as the mixer app is concerned, the only slider (except
> for the master) that has any effect is the ANALOG one, NOT the DIGITAL
> ONE.
>
> If I mute the ANALOG Slider the sound mutes.
>
>
> >If you run "cdplay" to start the cdplayer playing, then adjust the sound
> >using the very nice graphical mixer program it will work fine.
>
> Same thing happens.
>
>
> So HOW DO I TURN OFF DAE so I can transfer audio over one of the
> little cables (both the analog and digital one are hooked up) instead
> of clogging my BUS streaming digital audio to my sound card?
>
> EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION DOES THE SAME THING!!!
>
> One last thing, I CAN duplicate the same function under Windows 2k by
> checking "Use Digital Audio For this Device" in the CDROM properties,
> which ironically has nothing to do with the little $2.00 cable but
> instead causes the system to do DAE over the IDE BUS, like the Linux
> system is doing.
>
> Difference is I can turn it off under Win2k.
>
> So how do I do it under Linux?
>
> What do check in XMMS for example to turn it off?
> Or in CDPlay?
>
> Or in KSCD?
>
>
> Specifically please.
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:30:10 GMT
Attachments can not be posted to ALS.
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:44:54 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, however the user chose to configure this system caused this
> > >problem. My system does not do this, nor do others on this group. It is
> > >not a Linux problem, it is an application issue.
> >
> > I didn't configure anything.
> > If I unplug the digital and analog cables from the CD and Soundcard,
> > meaning the ONLY CABLE PLUGGED IN IS THE IDE CABLE, I STILL GET SOUND,
> > meaning the transfer is going over the IDE BUS.
> >
> > Also, as far as the mixer app is concerned, the only slider (except
> > for the master) that has any effect is the ANALOG one, NOT the DIGITAL
> > ONE.
> >
> > If I mute the ANALOG Slider the sound mutes.
> >
> > >If you run "cdplay" to start the cdplayer playing, then adjust the
sound
> > >using the very nice graphical mixer program it will work fine.
> >
> > Same thing happens.
>
> This whole problem is being dropped into my "I don't believe it" bucket.
>
> At a console or xterm window type:
> dmesg | gzip > dmesg.gz
>
> and post it here as an attachment. I have never seen this behavior, I
> don't even know how it could happen. If "cdplay" plays over the IDE bus,
> then you either have a funky IDE and/or sound driver. Suffice to say, I
> am skeptical.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:31:06 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >>Like IBM, for instance?
> > > >
> > > >IBM runs NT and OS/2 in their hardware support centers.
> > > >They run VM legacy applications along with Windows at the call center
> > >
> > > ...they just sold Linux running on an S/390 to a scandinavian
> > > telecomm provider...
> >
> > That poor telecom company...
> >
> > > They ported db2 to linux and linux to the AS/400 and S/390,
> > > so someone at IBM must think well of it...
> > >
> > > ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
> >
> > This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
>
> There is a HUGE difference between NSA and NASA.
>
> At NASA, however, the polar lander problem was due to one group using
> metric system and another using english. Nothing to do with operating
> systems.
Oops, I thought I saw NASA.
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:26:02 +0100
> You can get open source versions of C/C++ with Win32 support, Perl,
> etc. Just one way that Windows users benefit from Linux and the
> open-source movement.
>
> Chris
I will stick with VC++. It's worth the money! (gnu stinks)
btw: js and vbs are free too! (any you don't have to have a twisted mind to
write programs)
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:29:25 +0100
> It doesn't have to be VBasic, for me. However, a VBasic for
> Linux should be possible -- there's already a
development/emulator/something
> for Solaris that allows for the running of Microsoft VBasic;
> its main problem is calling [D]COM/ActiveX/whatever things.
And that's the point. The beauty of js,vbs is it's ability to interact with
the system through COM!
(you can't even write a decent script-virus with linux)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: 16 Jan 2001 22:44:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attachments can not be posted to ALS.
Who cares, kyle? Anyone who matters is reading this on COLA.
And besides that, they most certianly can too.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:43:13 GMT
<[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.
Mandrake market's itself as a simple, desktop Linux. If there is a problem
that YOU concider a "duh" problem, then it's a GENERAL problem to be dealt
with. Just because YOU know how do fix it doesn't mean that the problem
doesn't exist, nor that the problem isn't a "problem" because YOU can live
with it.
It's not just Mandrake either. There are a lot of user interface snafu's
present in a lot of desktop Linux's, snafu's that you chalk up to "user
incompetence" when it's just a problem of changing the UI to accomidate THE
USER, not THE POWER USER, THE ADMINISTRATOR, or YOU.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:46:59 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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.
That isn't the point, the question is HAVE YOU?
Your knoledge of Windows NT and 2000 seem a tad dated, that's all.
> 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?
They are called "bugs", and there are just as many in Linux OS's as Windows.
As for your "workstation load" problem with 2000, here's my suggestion:
1.Read the support pages genius
2.Goto deajnews and search for a soulition.
3.Learn how to interpret BSOD's, or read the damn system events.
4.Your just an incompetent administrator.
Boy, sucks to hear that from someone from the Windows world, don't it?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:52:46 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
"." wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't believe 45 minutes to configure a network on a Windows PC. What
> > kind of network is that? TCP/IP takes all of a few minutes, if that.
>
> Idiot, if youd ever worked in a company that employed techies like this
> and understood that they let them loose on the field after a maximum
> of a couple of hours of training (with no other computer experience at
> all), you would understand that this scenerio is quite plausable.
Ah, but they probably do spend all of two hours learning how to fire up
the `winipcfg' (or whatever the hell it is) command to configure dhcp in
Windows. When you consider that most ISP's hire customer service reps
that are as dumb as a rock, that's pretty much all you can expect. For
example, my ISP was having severe DNS server problems. I called up
customer service, and told them that their DNS servers weren't working.
They told me to shutdown my computer, unplug my cable modem, wait a few
minutes and reboot. And this was supposed to cure the DNS problem,
which had nothing to do with my machine! Where do they find these
people? Surely, one cannot expect someone this stupid to know about
Linux.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:55:14 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Mark wrote:
> With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point blank
> to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption that
> 'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
> expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
Easy. A lot of ISP's hire rednecks to come out to your house, and hook
up that 'dar newfangled cable modem.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:52:45 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft doesn't have any quality software.
>
> Microsoft office alone has over 33,000 bugs reported.
This is probably true.
> Then there's the STING which is the cost.
In this universe, you have to pay for things, like goods and/or services.
The same applies to Linux, just in a slightly different context (like
exclusively for service).
> Basically, Microsoft Windows users have an expensive
> investment junk software which will be obsolete
> the following year.
And Linux users will pay $79, every finantial quarter in purputity for any
kind of quality. How many people have RH6.0 retail, and are having problems
finding 7.0 updates for it? How many BUGS did RH6.0 have before 6.1 came
out, then 7? Sure, it's fine when a Linux company does it. What a
convienent double standard.
> How many time have you called for support and hear
> the answer, that will be fixed with the next service
> pack.
How many times has RedHat support staff just chalked a very serious problem
in software to "administrator incompetence", and suggest an RHCE for advice?
> Well! If I'm paying $350 for the full install for
> W2k then the last thing I want to hear is it will
> be FIXED with the next Service pack.
If I'm paying RedHat ANYTHING, let alone any other commercial distro maker,
the last thing I want to hear is "your dumb", "go away", or "check the
internet for the latest information..."
> Now you take this Debian 2.2R2 distro I have.
> Everything works, the security is excellent, the
> performance is breathtaking, the cost is $0.
Lucky, cheap you.
> Man, Debian has so much more than Microsoft.
Of course, comparing your debian server to a Windows 98 system is like
comparing an objective person to, well, yourself.
>
> The old saying you get what you pay for doesn't
> apply to GPL'd code.
Yes it does. Your just to partial to realize it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:56:32 GMT
On 16 Jan 2001 22:24:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:36:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>> Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>
>>>Flatfish++ and Chad are having mounds of fun with this concept,
>>>and it does appear to be a minor (very minor) credibility issue.
>
>> I wouldn't say we are having mounds of fun, but it is quite amusing.
>
>
>> What "IS" more amusing is catching one of the more virulent Linux
>> supporters in a lie when he claimed to have viewed the clips running
>> Xmms or Netscape under Linux.
>
>Thats actually a lie right there, only one person claimed it. That
>would be 'supporter', not 'supporterS', claire.
Learn to read.
One of, meaning solitary, meaning singular, meaning a single object
taken from a group of.
ONE PERSON....out of all of the Linux supporters, meaning the people
who actually do run Linux, know you can't run QT4 under Linux.
He lied, most likely because he doesn't run Linux, and got caught.
He'll try and squirm out of it though...
And personally, having watched the trailers, they are not worth the
bandwidth.
Now, is that the best reply you can conjure up to a fact?
So tell me, how exactly is this a lie?
Even jedi provided a reasonable solution. Doubtful the original
blockhead even knows what jedi was talking about though.
>You lying sack of shit.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
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
******************************
