Linux-Advocacy Digest #548, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 11:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Kevin Ford)
Re: I just can't help it! (Kevin Ford)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux ("tony roth")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (John Hasler)
Re: I just can't help it! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K (Salvador Peralta)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Aaron Ginn)
Re: I just can't help it! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (sfcybear)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (sfcybear)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (mlw)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Ilja Booij)
Re: I just can't help it! (Ian Pulsford)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Ian Pulsford)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: 18 Jan 2001 14:27:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:46:17 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[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
>> >>
>> >> Even so.
>> >>
>> >> How lame can your authoring system be if it can't seamlessly
>> >> cut together disparate pieces of video. HELL, that's the whole
>> >> point of a corporeal video editing system.
>> >
>> ><sigh> It's not that it CAN'T, it's that we don't have the time
>> >to do it.
>>
>> What time? They would probably spend more time in manual
>> administration than the engineering time it would take to
>> add that kind of intellegence to a media editor..
>>
>>
>> >
>> >It takes time to split it into pieces. It then takes more time
>> >to put the pieces back together for final editing and post
>> >production.
>> >
>> >It would essentially triple the time it took with a real OS that
>> >could handle > 2GB files.
>> >
>> >It's really obvious, you're making an argument out of nothing.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> There are windows shareware tools that do that sort of
>> thing. It's hardly rocket science. Your illustrious
>> employer is being shown up by DVD pirates.
> Why are you so thick?
> Have you ever edited a video yourself? All our equipment has
> the capability to trim the videos, but it all takes time and
> processing power that ordinarily isn't required.
> - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
> cards)
> - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
> - Save raw video file for posterity.
> - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
> - Save edits to video file
> - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
> - Save resized video
> - Convert video into internet video (Quicktime, RealVideo, Windows Media,
> yes all three)
> - Save converted videos.
Oh, INTERNET video. I thought you were talking about some kind of real
video editing that means something. "Internet video" is something of
a joke, chad. Anyone can do it, and you certianly dont need a hell of
alot of processing power or an operating system that doesnt completely
suck.
=====!
------------------------------
From: [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: 18 Jan 2001 14:29:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yeah, not to mention the best all-around OS Windows 2000.
> We had some Oracle reps visit our company yesterday, and even they,
> who profess hatred of Microsoft, had laptops running Win2K using
> PowerPoint for presentations. Why? Because there's nothing out
> there that's as close to Win2K at stability, ease of use, and
> functionality.
Wrong. I know a truckload of oracle representatives, and the reason
they run W2K on their laptops (much to their shagrin) is because
oracle's IT department MAKES them. The reason that oracle's IT
department MAKES them is because theyre TOLD to by MANAGEMENT.
Wrong again, chad.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:27:24 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> What are you trying to do, win the prize for "Most Unsupported Assertions"?
>> You've filled this thread with huge generalizatons, but you haven't tried to
>> support any of your claims.
>
>Neither have you. You assert that CSS is less secure, but you really have
>no basis for that claim. I'm merely feeding you some of your own.
>
attrition.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:29:41 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mlw once wrote:
>Salvador Peralta wrote:
>>
>> mlw wrote:
>> >
>> > Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
>> > NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
>> > Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>>
>> It sure as hell blows the arguments of the Chads and a few others who
>> used to say that NT was as stable as linux and that most (all) NT
>> downtime was the result of operator/admin error rather than a defect in
>> the os.
>
>I remain mystified that Microsoft thinks these are good numbers. Surely
>someone in Redmond must have a clue?
>
>The very fact that these numbers are public indicates Microsoft has no
>understanding of operating systems. They can't. These are very bad
>numbers, there is no argument, yet Microsoft thinks they are good
>numbers.
>
>A mean uptime of 120 days, with their flagship operating system. What
>the hell is that? I am in shocked disbelief.
>
>How can they see these numbers as good?
>How can they see these numbers and not pull the product off the shelves
>until it is fixed?
>How come there isn't public outcry about poor quality?
>A real OS vendor would be disgraced.
Don't forget that is with nightly reboots as well.... jeez my Linux
server has never crashed since I installed it two days after RedHat 6.1
was released (anyone know when that was?). It was the first time I ever
used/installed Linux so you couldn't call me an expert either.
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:48:08 -0800
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
ya know the dark side is out there and if you want to reverse engineer
references regarding the above I'll give you two key words GAO and AIRMS...
beyond that and I'd be in trouble! btw this has nothing to do with the DOD!
> One would think that a success of that magnitude would be
> more widely known and that you could point to references
> and such.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:36:43 GMT
Lincoln Peters writes:
> Actually, the GPL license (used for Linux) requires that anything written
> for or with GPL software is made available to the public under the GPL,
> including the source code.
No. The GPL does not require that anything be made available to the public
at all. It only requires that you make source available to those you
distribute binaries to.
Read the GPL. You have a copy on your Linux system.
I wrote:
> BTW, much of the software you use every day on Linux is licensed under
> terms similar or identical to those used by FreeBSD.
Lincoln Peters writes:
> Can you same some of that software?
The X Window System.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:58:30 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:48:48 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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)
>
How do these figures compare with uptimes for the Linux distributors'
web sites?
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:01:42 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stats?
I did a lookup on small & medium sized servers, and the same hardware
with MS SBS is $600 - $2500 more expensive than the same server w/Redhat
http://rcommerce.us.dell.com/rcomm/cat_mini.asp?brand_id=PEDGE
Flacco wrote:
>
> I just configured two systems on-line at Dell's website - one with Linux
> and one with Dell - and the Linux system came to $64 *more* than the same
> system with Win2K.
>
> Where is the logic behind that? MS flexing muscles again?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 18 Jan 2001 07:34:18 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I never said that your needs were unimportant. I'm sure they are to
> > you. However, to assume that anyone here in COLA actually cares
> > whether or not you can do 'X' as easily in Linux as you can in Windows
> > is absurd, especially when that user never bothers to attempt to help
> > himself. At that point, one must assume that he is a troll who
> > doesn't want to do anything other than use anecdotal evidence to try
> > to prove that Linux is somehow inferior to any other OS.
>
> OK, fine, I'll stop complaining, if all the Linux advocates stop telling
> me Linux is better than Windows, Linux is great etc.
Why should we do that? Linux _is_ better than Windows: for _me_. How
many times do we have to go over this? Linux _is_ great, BTW. Just
because you can't seem to figure it out doesn't mean everyone else is
in the same boat.
> > Never forget that Linux is above all a charitable effort. When you
> > disparage that effort without offering anything in contribution, you
> > look selfish.
>
> I'll disparage ANY effort that I find to be inferior compared to a
> product that it claims to be better than.
Better in what way? Linux _is_ better than Windows for many. Now
you're the one that seems to think that your needs are more important
than mine.
> > If these things are important to you, do something about it. You know
> > C++, and you claim to have experience in GUI development. That's a
> > highly valuable commodity that you could use to contribute to the
> > improvement of the desktop that you want to be so Windows-like.
> >
> > Otherwise, stop complaining. We don't care.
>
> As I said, earlier I'll stop complaining. As soon as you guys stop
> telling me Linux is so much better than Windows.
Dude, you're sad. I give up.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 18 Jan 2001 07:38:16 -0700
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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)
I love the spin that's now being generated by the Winvocates about the
distinction between desktop and server: how these are desktop numbers
and don't really reflect on thew serving capabilities of W2K.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[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 14:49:50 GMT
Snicker, There are not that many organizations that can spend that sort
of money on systems. I'll bet you would be totaly unwilling to let us
know what organization this is.
In article <#fNLtYJgAHA.272@cpmsnbbsa07>,
"tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:54:34 GMT
Oh, look. Pete shows, again, that when it comes to computers he does not
know what he is talking about. The first sentance of the artical say
that this is a worm, not a virus. It also only affects the Redhat
version of Linux. It would not be able to use the same methods on
Mandrake if it were installed with security level set at "high". Thus it
is a Redhat issue and not a Linux issue.
In article <9469te$l63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:14:18 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Note the term *MEAN* in Mean Time to failure. That means *AVERAGE*, not
> > > peak. That means there were in fact machines with much longer uptimes.
> >
> > Which also means there were machines with much shorter uptimes.
>
> What your nicely clipped response fails to show is that yttrx claimed that
> it was "not likely" that there were longer uptimes. Of course "mean" also
> means that there were less, yet yttrx chooses to put his head in the sand
> and think that this number means the maximum uptime somehow. Mig apparently
> (from his comments) feels the same.
The problem with this thinking is that a failure should be avoided, not
expected. If you have an MTTF of 120 days for a system, you would be
irresponsible to not do preventive maintenance at least that often, i.e.
reboot.
The NT/Windows admins are so desensitized to instability, they think it is
normal. When an Windows/NT/2K system crashes, the windows admin simply reboots
and thinks it is fixed. When a UNIX box crashes we examine the system to
understand why. When we figure it out, we report a bug and it usually gets
fixed.
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: 18 Jan 2001 16:22:49 +0100
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh, look. Pete shows, again, that when it comes to computers he does not
> know what he is talking about. The first sentance of the artical say
> that this is a worm, not a virus. It also only affects the Redhat
> version of Linux. It would not be able to use the same methods on
> Mandrake if it were installed with security level set at "high". Thus it
> is a Redhat issue and not a Linux issue.
And it's not an issue if you've always updated your packages.
is there a comp.updateyourpackages.advocacy?
hmm, maybe not such a good idea, pretty boring:
here follows an example of a typical
comp.updateyourpackages.advocacy thread
person 3 wrote:
> person 2 wrote:
>> person 1 wrote:
>>> I think everyone should update their packages!
>> me too!
> i agree
right on bro'
person 4
Ilja
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:28:21 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
mlw wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Marketting bullshit to get companies using NT to buy win2k (but the
numbers are probably right any way).
IanP
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:25:22 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:09:22 +1300;
> >> 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.
>
> Yes, they did. They stamped and shouted that Win95 was great, and
> Win3.1 sucks. Then WinNT 4 was great, and Win95 sucks. Then Win98 was
> great, and Win95 sucks. Then Win2K was great, and WinNT sucked. And
> what happened to Win2K 'Personal Edition'? And now Whistler has a 'PE'
> that's finally going to replace Win9x, which they'll now admit has
> sucked all the time, and the more consumers say they don't want to pay
> NT-level prices, the more Whistler, or 2K, or .NET, or whatever, will be
> great, and whatever they have, which has sucked since the beginning,
> sucks less than paying for something, even if it sucks less, and there's
> little chance of that happening.
>
Sounds sucky to me
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:37:12 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
>
> Its a fairly poor atricle. Firstly its very confrontational, secondly it
> uses the very old Linux-is-not-like-windows-so-its-too-hard mantra. This
> guy expects to go from Windows to Linux with zero effort and zero
> learning (how long did he spend learning windows in the first place?).
About as long as he spent learning HTML.
> That is a very short sighted argument and indicates a very biased
> opinion.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
IanP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:37:41 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
>
> Its a fairly poor atricle. Firstly its very confrontational, secondly it
> uses the very old Linux-is-not-like-windows-so-its-too-hard mantra. This
> guy expects to go from Windows to Linux with zero effort and zero
> learning (how long did he spend learning windows in the first place?).
About as long as he spent learning HTML.
> That is a very short sighted argument and indicates a very biased
> opinion.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
IanP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:53:46 GMT
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:11:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>Hell, we didn't even have a graphics-capable terminal, except
>for a Tektronix emulator in a Vt100. It worked, but
>it wouldn't have been too good for modern web browsing. :-)
We used cards and a DecWriter which looked like a typewriter only it
used countinuous forms.
We also learned microprocessor programming on a KIM-1 (or was it
KIM-5?) unit that we built from a kit.
Vaccum tubes were still being taught, although I think they stopped a
year of 2 after I graduated.
>I also seem to recall that DOS was the big exciting thing then when I
>came *out* of college (I graduated in '83) -- if one could call it that.
>(I also remember the "Peanut" -- code name for what eventually became
>the Macintosh -- being discussed by a classmate of mine in the summer
>of 1982 or so, or maybe winter 1983.)
The Peanut was the IBM PC JR I believe?
>If Flatty thinks Windows was actually able to run Netscape by then,
>he's not remembering his history very well. :-) I certainly
>remember it slightly differently.
That's not what I said.
I said I used Netscape from it's release. I just brought up the school
part as a side issue. The years aren't the same.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:55:35 GMT
On 18 Jan 2001 04:48:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>The first computer I laid hands on was around that time actually,
>and was a commodore PET. (I cant remember which model). We wrote
>BASIC programs that made little ascii rockets fly up the screen.
Did you key in the Balloon Program from the Commodore System Guide
(the fat spiral bound book I forget it's name) ?
Everyone did that one with all the sprites and things.
That was for the 64 though.
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
******************************
