Linux-Advocacy Digest #539, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards (Chris Lopeman)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Server Saga (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("ono")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
I just can't help it! (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Tim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Lopeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:02:44 GMT
Gary wrote:
> Chris Lopeman wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for the link. But I am really looking for
> > actually experience with these products not the
> > manufacture's propaganda.
>
> I work in a test/development lab for IDE RAID controllers,
> and your statement may have some merit when it is regarding
> marketing types, but hardware people like myself have
> individually more experience in the area than most of the
> population at large combined. Granted it may be narrow in
> scope,
> but that would be no different than any user.
>
> Discounting information BECAUSE it's from the manufacturer
> is unfair, short sighted, and not even a little bit self
> serving... IMO that is.
>
Maybe you should try following the thread a little better before
attempting to tear into me. The response I posted was in direct
response to nothing more than a URL to a manufactures ad. Forgive me,
but I can find that information myself. I am not discounting it, but I
am certainly not taking it at face value. Last time I did that I ending
up with the Promise stuff.
>
> So, here I am as a qualified user to answer your question
>
> > Can anyone recommend a good raid IDE controller for Linux.
>
> You really don't want to hear the possible solutions,
> apparently
> you think an anonymous post is somehow more credible which
> by the
> way can also be a manufacturer "Shill" responding, no?
>
Again it wasn't who responded it was the content.
>
> At any rate,
>
> My opinion on IDE RAID is that it's a good economical safety
> net
> that can save your bacon if your drive goes belly up
> regardless
> WHO makes it.
>
Obviously you didn't read the post at all. Because this stuff below is
useless. I already know what RAID is. As I said in the original post
we already have RAID controllers. And we have decided to continue to
use RAID. But we want to know which card works best or at least which
ones work well. And while the stuff your working on may qualify it is
obviously not ready.
>
> Some things it (at least ours) doesn't do:
>
> 1. Eliminate the need for backup.
>
> Viruses, and file deletions happen on BOTH drives, so backup
> is
> still needed, like it or not.
>
> 2. Absolve the user of common sense deployment. Having a UPS
> is a good example of a sensible deployment plan.
>
> 3. Give you 25 meters of cable length. IDE is NOT SCSI,
> never
> was, and likely will not be either.
>
> 4. Make a perfect fit to every possible installation
> scenario.
>
> For example, with our RaidCase II you lose your slave drive
> on
> your primary controller. IDE isn't particularly rich in
> ports, and
> it's a BIG pill to swallow. If you need hot swap however
> (which also
> gives you the ability to backup while the machine is hot)
> you have
> to make a decision and possibly get a new system board with
> 4 IDE ports
> to accommodate this Achilles heel.
>
> We know that native software support is a big issue for
> Linux users,
> message received.
>
> We are currently working on LINUX (in alpha) and Macintosh
> (in Beta)
> support software. Will it perform to your needs? I don't
> know. At
> first blush it (the LINUX APP) won't be as fully featured as
> our
> Win32 applet, but your options are so few now, there's
> little risk
> considering the cost versus the benefit.
>
> Some things you CAN have (at least with our products) using
> IDE RAID
>
> 1. Hot Swap.
> 2. Background rebuild
> 3. Native O/S support
> 4. Remote monitoring
> 5 External warning enabled (for relays and lights/sirens)
> 6. No device drivers
>
> Do you think we'll have a hard time finding people to sign
> up
> to test our BETA LINUX app? I hope not :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Gary
>
> ARCO Computer Products
> RAID Test LAB
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:12:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>With the exception of cost, and that is really debateable considering
>the large amount of time wasted configuring Linsux, I can see
>absolutely no valid reason to downgrade and run Linux.
>
That's fine. Why don't you put a yellow funnel in your nose,
go out into the backyard, look up at the sky and pray to god
for rain.
>Let's look at Mandrake 7.2 vs Win2k Pro.
>
>Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
>version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
>
Okay.
>Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
>Full support is included.
>
The problem with this logic is W2k isn't an operating system.
It's a peice of shit.
>Linux takes that one, espcially if you consider that it can be
>downloaded, although this is not a complete download and can't be
>compared to the purchased version, for free.
>
You still haven't heard of Debian? You know Debian has
4400 packages and is designed to be downloaded from the
net for free. All of it.
>Do you really want to Download 650 meg of data?
>Take a look at how many people are having trouble burning the CD's in
>the Mandrake group.
>
You really do live in the past don't you.
>Of course you can get a $1.99 CD at Cheapbytes, but again, no support
>and not a full system like the $35.95 version
>
Intelligence does have a bearing here.
>Install?
>
>Linux about 25 minutes and one reboot.
>Windows 2k, about an hour and I honestly lost track of reboots (3 or
>4).
>
Linux, about 45 minutes.
W2k an hour.
But with Linux you end up with an operting system.
With W2k you end up with an emulation of an operating system.
>Linux wins for basic install.
>
Debian's install is improving with the next release but
the main point is you don't need to do it again.
With Windows it's this continual thing of having
to reinstall your emulation as it blew it's cork.
>
>So what do we have once installed?
>
>Security?
>
>Check out www.grc.com or better yet www.hackerwhacker.com on a newly
>installed Linux system and a Windows 2k system as well.
>Linux is WIDE OPEN to attack and only a seasoned pro is going to know
>how to shut things down via inetd to make it reasonably safe.
>I would be terrified to run a newly installed Linux system on a cable
>or dsl or any "on all the time" connection because you WILL be hacked
>in short order.
>
I have for a long time.
We lost some Windows boxes from ILOVEYOU but Linux so far
has never felt any pain from being our firewall.
>Win2k show ALL relevant ports closed by default on both sites.
>
>Let's look at hardware, detection and drivers.
>
>Linux claimed it detected my Logitech WheelMouse and Matrox card yet
>in reality neither was detected properly. Linux also could not detect
>my IBM/Sony monitor, printer (Lexmark) or scanner (Canon) or digital
>USB camera (xirlink).
>
>Win2k detected every single piece of hardware and they all worked, and
>in fact even the scanner and and digital camera worked. The SBLive
>drivers stuttered a little, but a quick trip to Creative fixed that
>problem with newer drivers.
>
This get's back to the install.
Everything you mentioned is supported but you have to know how
to install it.
>Sound?
>Linux seems to think my SBLive and CDROM were designed to only provide
>DAE mode of operation which is nice if you want to watch your system
>crawl to a halt. Under WIn2k I could turn it off by checking a box. I
>still have not figured out how to do it under Linux, and no
>Penguinista has been able to tell me how.
>
On Debian you don't need to do anything for the CDROM if it's ATAPI.
For the SBlive you just click load EMU10K driver.
And it's a WAP.
>Applications.
>
>Let's talk applications shall we?
>
>Take a look at Netscape. Take a GOOD LOOK. Can anyone honestly say
>that it looks good?
>Web pages either have huge text or microscopic text or both depending
>upon what font options you are trying at the moment.
>
I can't really tell the difference. Pray tell, what is it?
>How about xmms?
>Compare it to the CD Player offered in the standard Win2k install
>(V5.5 I believe).
>
XMMS looks cooler, has SKINS which the W2k thing doesn't,
and plays better as it's running on Linux.
That's probably why they did that movie Titanic on Linux
instead of Windows.
>See how slick and smooth and pleasing to the eye the Microsoft Player
>looks?
>See how boxy and crude xmms looks?
>Did you try making it double size?
>Can you even look at it without laughing?
>It's a jagged mess.
>
>How about Gaim?
>Look at the directory tree that shows your buddies.
>See how the tree is broken with nasty looking charactors?
>Take a look at the WIndows equivilant, smooth and clean looking.
>Which one looks better?
>
They have a fancier AIM for Windows but GAIM works just as well.
>How about GVpic or whatever that program that is an ACDsee clone is
>called.
>
>Miserable thing take 3 minutes to load a directory of a couple
>thousand pics
>
>
Considering you don't know how to push EMU10K to load the
SBLive driver I will hold judgement on how you set up your
partitions and hard drive.
Linux properly set up by Chimpanzee's will smoke W2k in
EVERY performance test you can throw at it.
>Let's look at StarOffice shall we?
>
>This one you have to try for yourself, but the only comment I had is
>you can brew a cup of coffee waiting for it to load.
>And load it does. THis sucker takes over everything, which is ironic
>considering how the LinoNuts complain about MS bloatware.
>Try it for yourself.
>
This sounds like the battle of the bloat!
Are you braggin here or complaining?
>If you are a WIndows user you are used to reading your news offline,
>meaning you dial up to the server, download your messages, disconnect
>and read and reply offline, connect again and post.
>You are also used to launching attachments, reading HTML and changing
>properties of different newsgroups on the fly and selectively.
>
>Try this one under Linux and see how far you get.
>Best offering is pan, but it is highly unstable at the moment.
>It's ironic that the OS that runs the net can't even have a decent
>news program.
>
The Pimp ass newsreader on Debian runs just fine and doesn't
die. That's because Debian took the time to test all their
software, unlike others who make Linux distributions.
And with Debian you have your choice of 20 some odd other
newsreaders to use. I'm using SLRN which works VERY WELL!
{snip}
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
I frankly got tired of reading the rest of the dribble.
Windows is a NO $ALE here!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:20:45 GMT
In article <bCo96.41134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
>> Your sole purpose here is to inflame and troll.
>
>My sole purpose here is to counter Linux advocacy.
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
And my whole purpose here is to dynamically demonstrate
to planet earth that Pete is a bad wintroll.
A bad wintroll in need of a Linux job.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:25:41 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:50:21 -0800, tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>no thunderbird here just reality, I love that "quarter of a BILLION
>dollars" stuff. I mean thats only 250 millions dollars but "quarter of a
>BILLION dollars" sounds better. To bad that this was our reality.
One would think that a success of that magnitude would be
more widely known and that you could point to references
and such.
Instead, we just see a ludicrously large number being spent
on what is still just Windows. I'm not even sure a claim
that people are spending that much on AIX installations
would sound much better considering what other products
IBM has to offer.
[deletia]
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:24:27 +0100
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [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)
>
> I can't imagine trying to run Win98 for 216 hours straight. That sort
> of test must rely on doing the same simple tasks repeatedly.
You mean like a webserver? repeatedly giving out the same stupid pages.
Running apache is about the only thing that makes sense with linux, there
are no other things to do there. With the exception of compiling kernels
maybe. But then again you can't install it without loosing your uptime :-).
btw: With W2K you can run a webserver while playing a DirectX game. Thats
what I call 'really' using a computer! W2K downtime is most likely caused by
performance-freaks installing the newest GeForce beta drivers ;-).
I know! linux is SOO COOOOL that it doesn't even need a restart when you
replace the motherboard.
>
> >> 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).
>
> >The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop
*IS*
> >shutdown at night.
>
> Mean time between failure is usually calculated by continuous
> operation.
>
> >> 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.
>
> >or much longer.
>
> My experience with Windows 98 says that it would be much shorter than
> 216 hours. I am quite happy when Windows 98 runs for 48 hours without
> having to reboot. But by that time, something internal usually is
> messed up, which prevents properly shutting down. And then on the
> reboot, that idiotic scandisk screen comes up blaming me for
> improperly shutting down Windows. My experience with Windows 98
> includes about fifty different configurations and thousands of hours
> of use.
> LShaping
>
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >And what's the MTTF of Linux? Empirical studies, not anectdotes about
> >single systems.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:33:56 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:06:38 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Then don't. You don't need to.
>
>This is of course, but what I was trying to allude to here, was to get
>anything like a desktop similar to say Windows ME, you need something as
>heavyweight as KDE.
No you don't.
All you need is a good file mangler.
>
>> KDE applications will happily run without KDE.
>
>True, but...
But what?
You can drop between Netscape and Krusader and
Krusader and gmc all with twm running.
"Running KDE" simply isn't a spiffiness requirement.
>
>> You can even have as spiffy of a desktop too. (without KDE)
>
>True, but....
But what?
Just select some text in a drop down menu. You can select
an item in a drop down menu can't you. HELL, your 80 year
old gramma from the old country could probably handle that.
>
>> Your constraints are highly artificial for a system like Unix.
>
>My constrainst are does it compete with the Windows desktop? Is that so
>much to ask for?
No, you demand that a certain set of processes be running.
Unix doesn't require that to compete with the Likes of Windows.
>
>> OTOH, if you don't like something that NT5 does you're pretty
>> much stuck.
>
>"Stuck" with one unified and easily managed desktop as opposed to the
>slight mess that appears on Linux as a cobbled together desktop with KDE
>apps, GNOME apps et al?
...where setting the domain name is nowhere near where you
configure the rest of the network settings and where the
OS won't tell you what hardware it has detected or make it
obvious that there's a driver available for it and already
installed in the system.
Your "unified" management has always been nothing more than
a collection of separate programs packaged in the right way.
You don't even understand how Windows works, much less Linux.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:36:03 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:09:22 +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What are the winvocates going to say? Micros~1 have now said that 9x and
>> NT are poor (despite opperste claims from the winvocates).
>
>In fairness to the winvocates, very VERY few of them have claimed that
>Win9x was any good. Any that do you can quite safely consider based
>outside of reality.
Flatbrain claims that all the time actually...
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I just can't help it!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:48:48 -0500
The whole Win2K, NT, 98 MTTF study, funded my Microsoft, touted by
Microsoft as proof of improvement, just proves what we have been saying
here for years. Not only that, the MTTF hours in the test mirror very
closely what we have been seeing.
So, I'm going to take this time to happily gloat.
Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
No responsible OS company would advertise these numbers, they are a
disgrace.
Can you imagine the U.S.S. Yorktown having to reboot every 120 days? (60
To be the lower boundary of the mean.)
These numbers are so bad, so indicative of the crap that has been sold
by Microsoft, that it is almost a joke. The irony is that Microsoft,
being the crap fest company that it is, thinks that these are good
numbers.
If Sun had these numbers on Solaris, it would probably take corrective
action on its kernel team. I'm sure the same can be said of any
competitive OS vendor. Microsoft has a monopoly on the OS, this is
almost "smoking gun" proof. If there were real OS competition, Microsoft
could not get away with this.
The proof of Microsoft crap has been provided by Microsoft itself!!!
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:49:02 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:24:27 +0100, ono <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> [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)
>>
>> I can't imagine trying to run Win98 for 216 hours straight. That sort
>> of test must rely on doing the same simple tasks repeatedly.
>You mean like a webserver? repeatedly giving out the same stupid pages.
>Running apache is about the only thing that makes sense with linux, there
>are no other things to do there. With the exception of compiling kernels
...you mean as opposed to running Quake III or Unreal Tournament
at 100FPS with an nvidia geforce card? (like you could with Linux)
>maybe. But then again you can't install it without loosing your uptime :-).
>
>btw: With W2K you can run a webserver while playing a DirectX game. Thats
>what I call 'really' using a computer! W2K downtime is most likely caused by
>performance-freaks installing the newest GeForce beta drivers ;-).
[deletia]
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:57:08 GMT
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:12:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>That's fine. Why don't you put a yellow funnel in your nose,
>go out into the backyard, look up at the sky and pray to god
>for rain.
Because I'm having too much fun watching you do it?
>The problem with this logic is W2k isn't an operating system.
>
>It's a peice of shit.
I like to look at it as an applications launcher.
MacOS is another applications launcher.
Linux could be an applications launcher, if it had applications worth
launching.
>
>You still haven't heard of Debian? You know Debian has
>4400 packages and is designed to be downloaded from the
>net for free. All of it.
Sure I have.
Corel tried to build that horrific distribution they put out on
Debian.
>
>You really do live in the past don't you.
If 2 hours ago is the past, yea I guess so.
>
>>Of course you can get a $1.99 CD at Cheapbytes, but again, no support
>>and not a full system like the $35.95 version
>>
>
>Intelligence does have a bearing here.
Of course it doesn't because you Penguinista's love sitting for hours
downloading some image instead of spending $1.99 to buy one.
>
>
>>Install?
>>
>>Linux about 25 minutes and one reboot.
>>Windows 2k, about an hour and I honestly lost track of reboots (3 or
>>4).
>>
>
>
>Linux, about 45 minutes.
>W2k an hour.
Your system is slow.
>But with Linux you end up with an operting system.
>With W2k you end up with an emulation of an operating system.
With Linux you end up spending the next week trying to figure out how
to make the rest of your hardware work.
You know, all the stuff that wasn't auto detected.
>
>>Linux wins for basic install.
>>
>
>Debian's install is improving with the next release but
>the main point is you don't need to do it again.
That's for sure.
Once is more than enough to scare anyone away.
>With Windows it's this continual thing of having
>to reinstall your emulation as it blew it's cork.
I've never re-installed Win2k.
Just put SP1 on and everything worked perfectly.
>We lost some Windows boxes from ILOVEYOU but Linux so far
>has never felt any pain from being our firewall.
You were probably rooted a long time ago and don't even know it.
>
>This get's back to the install.
>Everything you mentioned is supported but you have to know how
>to install it.
I don't have to do a thing under Win2k.
It all works perfectly.
>
>On Debian you don't need to do anything for the CDROM if it's ATAPI.
>For the SBlive you just click load EMU10K driver.
And you end up with a half working sound card.
>I can't really tell the difference. Pray tell, what is it?
Evidently somebody can:
Read the "Font De-Uglification" How-To for details.
>
>
>>How about xmms?
>>Compare it to the CD Player offered in the standard Win2k install
>>(V5.5 I believe).
>>
>
>
>XMMS looks cooler, has SKINS which the W2k thing doesn't,
>and plays better as it's running on Linux.
No it doesn't, it skips all over the place and the lettering on just
about all the skins is blurry and boxy looking.
It looks like shit.
>That's probably why they did that movie Titanic on Linux
>instead of Windows.
It was a rendering farm, crunching numbers.
>
>>See how slick and smooth and pleasing to the eye the Microsoft Player
>>looks?
>>See how boxy and crude xmms looks?
>>Did you try making it double size?
>>Can you even look at it without laughing?
>>It's a jagged mess.
>>
>>How about Gaim?
>>Look at the directory tree that shows your buddies.
>>See how the tree is broken with nasty looking charactors?
>>Take a look at the WIndows equivilant, smooth and clean looking.
>>Which one looks better?
>>
>
>
>They have a fancier AIM for Windows but GAIM works just as well.
It looks like shit.
>
>>How about GVpic or whatever that program that is an ACDsee clone is
>>called.
>>
>>Miserable thing take 3 minutes to load a directory of a couple
>>thousand pics
>>
>>
>
>Considering you don't know how to push EMU10K to load the
>SBLive driver I will hold judgement on how you set up your
>partitions and hard drive.
That has nothing to do with it.
The program sucks compared to ACDsee.
>Linux properly set up by Chimpanzee's will smoke W2k in
>EVERY performance test you can throw at it.
As long as you don't have to look at the screen for too long.
>This sounds like the battle of the bloat!
>Are you braggin here or complaining?
StarOffice wins the bloat battle.
>The Pimp ass newsreader on Debian runs just fine and doesn't
>die. That's because Debian took the time to test all their
>software, unlike others who make Linux distributions.
That may be, it doesn't work well under Mandrake or SuSE though.
I've never used Debian, except for that Corel POS.
>And with Debian you have your choice of 20 some odd other
>newsreaders to use. I'm using SLRN which works VERY WELL!
As long as you don't mind using slrnpull to create a local spool and
deal with it.
You can't do what I mentioned above though. Every time you want to
change a group setting you have to edit the config file.
I can change ANY of the properties on a group by group basis on the
fly.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:40:20 +0000
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
>
> > I know "DLL hell" is a catchy phrase, and you seem to enjoy it a lot,
> > but applying it to Linux isn't entirely rational, since it is a
> > problem caused by Windows design flaws only.
>
> If you can't relate the comparison between Linux's orgy of "library
> revisions" and the painfully complicated methods to which they are kept (or
> not kept) and Window's DLL hell, then your just not thinking.
>
> > > I shouldn't HAVE TO edit the sources lists manually
> >
> > *Shrug*. If you're unable to edit configuration files, I don't think
> > you should adminster Unix boxen. Obviously, I wouldn't want you near
> > any of my Windows boxen either.
>
> It doesn't matter, does it. Maybe if Linux had it's configuration files
> documented like FreeBSD does, I MIGHT be willing to waste my time dealing
> with the text files, but I'm not. What most important, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
They're documented much better than any M$ shit.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
