Linux-Advocacy Digest #530, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (Milton)
Re: Poor Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (mlw)
Re: Poor Linux (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (mlw)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] ("Chad Myers")
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donn Miller)
Re: More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donn Miller)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux ("tony roth")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:11:28 -0500
In an unsual display of candor, in the 6 February issue of PC Magazine,
Microsoft® is marketing it's Windows NT 2000 Professional OS as more
reliable than any of it's other OSs.
Mean time to failure (MTTF) is touted as being 2893 hours for 2000, 919
for NT4 and a pathetic 216 hours for Win9x.
That works out to 120.5, 38.3 and 9 days.
Unfortunately, no other figures were given for any other OSs
I wonder why?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
--
«««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Milton B. Hewitt
CAUCE Member - http://www.cauce.org
Proud supporter of the Microsoft Boycott Campaign
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
«««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: 17 Jan 2001 07:23:09 -0600
Classy Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
Really, not even 2.4.0? I know FreeBSD 4.2 has UDMA 66 support out of the box,
but I don't know about UDMA 100. (-current had UDMA 100 support added about
3-4 months back.) Not that I mean to rub it into anyone's face. But, we
FreeBSD types are lucky to have Soren Schmidt doing the usual excellent work.
====== 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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:48:16 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
Did I read this correctly?
Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
Is TheRegister.co.uk kidding? NO! Go to the source page:
http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html
Talk about spin doctoring, read this:
"From the above results, we conclude that in production environments,
the
average system uptime between failures of Windows 2000 Professional
is 13
times more than that of Windows 98 and 3 times more than that of
Windows NT
Workstation 4.0. With a mean time to failure of over 72 weeks,
Windows 2000
Professional is significantly more reliable than Windows 98 and
Windows NT
Workstation 4.0."
BTW That 72 weeks assumes you turn off the computer when you go home,
and only work 40 hours a week. Bogus. It is really only about 18 weeks
of constant uptime (closer to 17).
Well, there you have it, plain and simple. A study, funded by Microsoft,
that proves that while 2K is better than NT, it still sucks.
Just so people know, MTTF is the "mean time to failure" which means that
given any Win2K system, there is a good chance it will crash within 120
days, and that NT will crash within 38 days, and Win98 will crash within
9 days. There is also a likelihood that it will be much sooner.
There is nothing more to be said. The MS-Zealots claim that their NT/2K
systems have longer uptimes, but they are either being dishonest or they
are not the norm. Microsoft has funded this study and used the results
in an advertisement campaign.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:55:11 +0100
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Sauosol wrote:
> Your quite right, and this is the one point that embarrasses me most
> about Linux. It does not truly support the latest hardware and I'm
> afraid never will.
Oh really? Well, out of the box, UDMA 66/100 doesn't work out of the box
on Windows neither, you have to install your controller's/mobo's drivers
first, and for Linux, that's either compiling some modules, or
recompiling the kernel if you don't want to use modules for that...
>
> Classy Jones wrote:
>
>
>> Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:13:39 -0500
Milton wrote:
It is pathetic on so many levels:
(1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server competition.
(2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
(3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have no
idea of what an operating system should be.
>
> In an unsual display of candor, in the 6 February issue of PC Magazine,
> Microsoft® is marketing it's Windows NT 2000 Professional OS as more
> reliable than any of it's other OSs.
>
> Mean time to failure (MTTF) is touted as being 2893 hours for 2000, 919
> for NT4 and a pathetic 216 hours for Win9x.
>
> That works out to 120.5, 38.3 and 9 days.
>
> Unfortunately, no other figures were given for any other OSs
> I wonder why?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
>
> --
> «««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
> Milton B. Hewitt
> CAUCE Member - http://www.cauce.org
> Proud supporter of the Microsoft Boycott Campaign
> http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
> «««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:02:08 GMT
"Tom Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> in article aRO%5.20459$[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 19/12/00 7:40 pm:
> >>>> a power switch is indeed intuitive in that:
> >>>>
> >>>> - it's a natural action to push it
> >>>> - the effects are immediately noticeable
> >>>> - it is prominently placed in most instances.
> >
> >>> Is that all you can think of?
> >
> >> - It's been in use for decades.
> >> - They are manufacturered in the millions.
> >> - They're cheap.
> >
> > How do those make a power switch intuitive?
> >
> >> I'm not sure what you're looking for, admittedly...did you have something
> >> specific in mind?
> >
>
> Put it this way, Microsoft doesn't make light switches.
> That's why they are intuitive.
> You don't have to log on and type in your password to
> push the switch,
> you don't have to hook up to Windows Update to make it
> so the light switch doesn't exlode.
> You don't have to pay $80 every year to make sure you
> have the latest software running on it, and HERE's a
> suprise: backward compatibility.
> Just imagine, you walk in to an electrical shop:
> "Yes, you have the 1994 model running Windows 95, you need to make sure you
> put Windows 98 on it, or otherwise you'll have to buy this $150 adaptor to
> make sure that it will work with modern lightbulbs. Oh, and when you do
> update your lightbulb make sure you download the patch for it from
> suckass.microsoft.com!"
> Almost makes you wonder, why doesn't Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs get
> together and make a lightbulb manufacturing company?
Thank god Linus or the original designers didn't invent the light switch.
If they did, all we'd have is four wires sticking out of the wall and
a warning sticker that said, "WARNING: the amperage of the electrical
current flowing through the copper wire is sufficient to cause tissue
damage and possible cardio-pulimnary failure resulting in possible
life loss".
It doesn't actually tell you that if you grab the wires, you die. Kinda
like all Unix/Linux error messages.
It also doesn't tell you which two of the four wires are necessary
to turn on the light. By the way, if you get it wrong and cross the wrong
two wires, you'll blow the circuit and have to replace the fuse which is
hidden inside the wall and requires knocking out part of the wall to
reach.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:03:32 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zX896.2827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:DQC86.3397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "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?
> > > > >
> > > > > Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a large software
> > > project.
> > > > > Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It takes time for
> > > the
> > > > > more subtle ones to present themselves. With open source, the option
> > > exists
> > > > > to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing a bug report
> > > with a
> > > > > vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and provide a patch
> in
> > > a
> > > > > timely manner (or in some cases at all).
> > > >
> > > > So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no advantage for
> large
> > > > projects? This is basically what I've been saying all along.
> > >
> > > No, I'm pointing out something that should be obvious - There's no
> perfect
> > > system. I, indeed pointed out an advantage to open source, though. You
> > > neglected to quote the whole response.
> >
> > You may not be saying that OSS is perfect, but others are implying that.
> > They are implying that OSS is superior to everything else and that there
> > is NO reason why you WOULDN'T want to use OSS.
>
> To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling reasons for
> chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted, filibustered,
> grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only advantage is
> stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer cooks at
> the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
> Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around here.
OTOH, there's no compelling reason for OSS. The stated advantages are oft
never realized (peer review, greater security, better design, etc).
Particularly when it comes to the OSS OS we oft discuss around here.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> 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:
> [deletia]
> >> >> So? What's the real problem with that.
> >> >
> >> ><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
> >> >we're talking about.
> >> >
> >> >We don't have all the time in the world.
> >>
> >> Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
> >> the details of the 'problem'.
> >
> >Splitting all the movies into 15 minute segments just to
> >accomodate our poor choice of a poorly designed OS wouldn't
> >not be high on the list of things the Video department
> >would've wanted to do. Especially since they were strapping
>
> Odd then that consumer digital is distributed
> in JUST THAT FORMAT.
huh?
1.) I don't think you know what you're talking about
2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
were making videos. Breaking up the already whole videos is
just ANOTHER step we'd have to go through to reach the final product.
All because of Linux's poor design. That's not a valid excuse
when there are plenty of better choices out there.
In this case, Linux would've cost almost 5x as much as the Windows
2000 situation. We saved thousands of dollars by NOT using the
"free" Linux.
> >to meet their deadlines, spending hundreds of extra hours
> >to split each video for seemingly no reason wasn't appealing
> >to them.
>
> I think you're just full of it. If their editing
> system is capable of mastering digital media
> suitable for consumer distribution then this
> 'issue' should already have been dealt with.
I didn't say they didn't have the capability, all I'm saying is
splitting the video is a step that doesn't need to be taken
in the full process.
Look, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
Do you walk around your computer 15 times and jump on one leg
20 times before you turn it on? No of course not. Why? Because
there's no reason and it's a waste of time. Exactly.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:08:17 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:07:13 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9429n6$11rm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> : You certainly mean "Linux replace Windows" - windows is already here,
it's
> >> : entrenched. The new kid on the block is Linux, [...snip]
> >>
> >> Not for servers. It was quite clear he was talking about servers.
> >> For servers, Windows is more of a newcomer than Linux (although I
> >> suppose Linux is actually younger, but it gains a lot of
> >> "entrenchment" for free by being a UNIX clone.).
> >
> >Um, you are incorrect. Windows NT and 2000 have a far larger share
> >in the server market than Linux.
> >
> >Perhaps you should check your facts.
>
> 24% versus 34% is hardly "far larger".
>
> Infact, Linux is Microsoft's leading competitor by volume.
URL?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:11:42 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Linux isn't anywhere. It's Linux that has the uphill battle. Windows
> > is everywhere and not giving up any market share to anyone.
>
> I know, we truly want to believe that, Chad - I'm with you,
> I really am, but let's face reality:
>
> * Windows/iis has been steadily losing ground to linux/apache
> in the web server market.
If you're referring to the heavily skewed Netcraft, results,
I would point you to:
http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
Netcraft counts each virtual host as a server, which is grossly
incorrect.
For the numbers that really matter (Fortune and Global 500)
IIS is in the lead. These are realatively new numbers, the gap
is widening between IIS and Apache. Apache was the stronghold, now
it's losing share left and right to IIS.
iPlanet (Netscape) is a player now. Apache is on its way out, it's
IIS and iPlanet now.
> * Linux destroyed windows in the specweb results.
Questionable.
>
> * IBM is investing a BILLION dollars in Linux this year.
I'm suprised you mention that. IBM doesn't have a very good
investment record... Lotus?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 08:23:20 -0600
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All of the small, strange little commands that have to be memorized... is
> easier than Windows?
Oh, I find typing the command that does what I expect is much easier than
using my mouse to navigate through tons of cascading menus and dialog boxes.
With unix, you're not restricted to mostly GUI or mostly command-line,
because you can mix parts of both in whatever portions you like. Take
me, for example. I like using KDE, because there's a lot of nice little
things built-in. But mostly, I find myself at the Konsole command line.
Newbies, OTOH, would probably fall back on the easy-to-use KDE configuration
tools much more than I would. So you see, you can make unix as GUI or
command-line as you please. With Windows, you're forced to use mainly GUI
apps. There's some command line tools, such as ftp, included with Windows.
But, they're horrible, and they don't seem to follow any set pattern. The
only aspect of Windows that maintains consistency from release to release is
the GUI aspect.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:30:14 GMT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:31:33 +0500, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nope, sorry, didn't have the time. And my benefits are no longer a cash
>balance plan. That only lasted a couple of months. Keep up with the times.
It only lasted a couple of months because "you" met the age/years in
the company requirements that they put forth after they backed out of
the original plan. Many others did not, hence the class action lawsuit
based on age discrimination.
People with less than 20 years in the company or not yet 40 yo had
hundreds of thousands of dollars stolen from their pensions by that
robber baron thief LVG.
>> But I doubt you did, because despite the probability you are a fine
>> engineer, you are unfortunately, one of the sheep heading to the
>> slaughter and just by making a statement like "I met Lou" solidifies the
>> point. I thought that type of IBM 'er was long since gone in one of the
>> annual company purges? http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/ibmunion
>> http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/ibmpension
>>
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! If you knew anything about me, the word sheep would
>never come to mind. I mentioned Lou because of you insane comment above his
>wet dreams. You are such an idiot. You know, Linux was not some crazy
>idea thought up by Gerstner and them forced from the top down.
Of course it's not. LVG can barely boot his laptop without help.
> Linux at
>IBM started from the bottom and worked it's way to the top. By the time
>Gerstner got into it Linux was already in heavy use within IBM.
It's still only hiding in the back rooms there and on geek's
desktop's.
When the sales force, or what's left of the sales force, are running
it on their mobile platforms, running Lotus NATIVELY and they can call
IGS for support, let me know.
Up till that point, there are very few people running Linux in IBM.
> I headed
>the effort to migrate my area to Linux long before Gerstner heard of Linux.
That's nice.
Maybe they'll give you a Means Service Award. I'd say a Rolex watch on
your 25th, but they took that benefit away as well and now give out
cheap Seiko watches instead.
"All for Lou, and None For you"
>Gary
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 08:31:48 -0600
JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe, but you've got to admit that Windows is easier to get to know
> than Linux for beginners, as it does most things by itself.
Maybe. But even then, there's a certain learning curve in getting to know
where everything is at under Windows. It also takes a certain amount of
skill in using the Windows' GUI. For example, if you want to create a
start-up disk under Windows, you have to know to go to settings->control
panel->add/remove programs. I might even be wrong! And yet, I know all of
the unix commands and tools like the back of my hand.
====== 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: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 08:37:16 -0600
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the_blur wrote:
>> Hmmm...is there any text-based version of photoshop/illustrator/quark.
>> (you realize how foolish the above seems right?)
> And airplanes don't work well underwater...nor is scuba-diving gear
> good for sky diving.
> Do you have a fucking point?
Probably not, except for the fact that he doesn't seem to know that there's
an image manipulation program available for GGI in the works. So yes, to
some extent, you could be sitting at the console, and fire up this console
graphics app that operates on images similar to photoshop.
http://www.casema.net/~smoke/crapstation.html
====== 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: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:00:03 -0800
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Within our organization after nearly a quarter of a BILLION dollars (that's
right, a quarter of a BILLION dollars) invested in an IBM conceived and
executed network (wan/lan) and computing infrastructure (utilizing AIX and
top of the line CISCO switches) the majority (not the wan/lan) of the
systems was replaced by an NT based computing facility. In terms of bang
for bucks AIX did not perform well and was found to be somewhat flaky
considering its costs.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
