Linux-Advocacy Digest #555, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("ono")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Re: The Server Saga
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:16:31 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> You must understand, by todays point and click generation, hes a fucking
> genious, my opinion, get him to admin an NT server farm in a large
> corperation for a couple of years, then he will know the horror of Windows!
I'm not sure he's qualified. He just sent me an email which conceded
that cli tools are often better than gui tools but which also explained
that his job is to "help everyday users with everyday technology which
does not consist of UNIX, HTML, or any other programming code".
*SIGH*
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:28:50 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler wrote:
>
> 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.
I think that you are wrong.
This is the relevent section:
Sec. 2b
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof,
to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License."
As I read it, this means that if you distribute the work to ANY party,
or if you publish the work in whole or in part, then the work must be
licensed as a whole, at no charge, to ALL third parties. That means
everyone who is not the first party ( developer ) or the second party (
buyer ), must be granted license at no cost.
YMMV
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:41:57 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:06:58 GMT, "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Mentioning Corel and Debian GNU/Linux in the same sentence tends to suggest
> >that you have never run either.
>
> Don't you LinoScrews ever do your homework before spewing forth your
> inaccurate, religious crap?
>
Get a fucking dictionary! Based on!=is
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:24:17 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues with the
> limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of FAT or
> NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that doesn't
> mean it doesn't have its limits).
The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file creation when
dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
Sometimes ago someone mentioned ADS as an NTFS exploit, but I've found
absolutely no information about this.
Do you've more details about it? I would love to hear about it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:49:35 +0000
>
> > I'm not sure I have even seen a real test. From my own experience, in
> > the last few years, I have only seen a few times where Linux failed for
> > something other than a hard disk or power failure. I have usually
> > upgraded the OS, kernel, or hardware before the system had a chance to
> > crash.
>
> Unless you can cite a study, you're just stating your experience. Not the
> same thing.
>
The problem is that most Linux users seem to upgrade before it crashes,
so studies tend only to be able to take small samples. This is one of
the reasons why Linux is good - upgrades are free!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:54:41 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
>
It has always been possible to write a linux virus. It's just Linux
users are a bit more savvy usually, and take steps to prevent spread.
So what?
Nothing is virus proof, as long as people can write programs for it.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:57:35 GMT
He probably uses Microsoft Publisher for his website ;)
kiwiunixman
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ian Pulsford wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, the guy claims he designs web pages and doesn't seem to know HTML.
> Sounds more like a kiddie than a geek by trade.
>
> -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
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:54:11 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chad Myers once wrote:
>>
>>- MS has one of the best security response time to discovered exploits.
>> Even better than Red Hat in most cases. And MS even tests their patches
>> and then does a full regression test each Service Pack, something
>> Red Hat doesn't do.
I've posted this before but I think Mr. Myers needs to see it again.
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:53:44 -0700 (MST) (Thu 00:53 MET)
> From: The SANS Institute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: SANS NewsBites Vol. 3 Num. 03
>
> --11 January 2001 NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
> A survey posted on Attrition.org ranks Windows NT as the most vulnerable
> to crackers, garnering nearly 60% of December defacements. Microsoft
> may be targeted because it is so widely known, or because it has a
> reputation for hurrying the release of applications, which suggests that
> security might take a back seat.
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-4449902.html
Microsoft security is an oxymoron. Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft
software in 2000. The worst application IIS. Need I say more.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:02:02 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:33:06 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >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.
>
>It's more than that. Is KNode a file mangler? Is KMail a file mangler?
As far as the SHELL goes, that's all you need.
You don't NEED kde to run kmail or knode.
You could run either just as well under twm if you
didn't need any fancy inter-application operations.
You DON'T need to "run KDE" to run KDE.
>
>> No, you demand that a certain set of processes be running.
>>
>> Unix doesn't require that to compete with the Likes of Windows.
>
>No, I prefer a desktop that is consistant with itself (within certain
What, exactly is that supposed to mean?
>limits). A Linux desktop consists of KDE apps, GNOME apps and a few others.
It all depends on the end user. Also, just because my desktop
looks a little different it doesn't mean that it's inconsistent.
You're showing your "must be DOS compatible" bias. You're not
complaining about lack of functionality but rather a lack of
it not being explorer.
The abstract basis of just about any desktop shell is pretty
much the same. For the most part, they're all just clones of
a circa 1984 Mac desktop. Much beyond that and most novice
users just won't get. (like context menus)
>
>> >"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.
>
>The network configuration is in a bunch of tabbed dialogs all in the same
>place. And where may I ask are the Linux definitions. /etc/hosts is just
NO, they are not.
>for the list of hosts. hostname sets the name of the machine. ifconfig the
>address... etc. etc.
Or, a bunch of tabbed dialogs.
Can you possibly post something without lying through your teeth?
[deletia]
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:53:30 +0100
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:945tfu$lig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh, I know enough people have replied to Steve,
> but hey, I've been too busy keep up with the group
> for several months, so I figured, this is as good a way as
> any to repost here, since I installed Mandrake 7.2 only a couple weeks
back.
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:17:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] speaketh:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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).
>
> I downloaded mine, so I can't comment.
>
> > Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
> > Full support is included.
>
> Upgrade? You're comparing the price of a full version of Mandrake,
> so let's use the full version pricing of Win2k Pro. Cheapest price
> I found quickly online for a NON-OEM version was $216.
>
> As for support....having had to deal with Microsoft Support in
> the past, I wouldn't toot my horn too loudly about getting that
> in with the price.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Burning ISOs? I've never had a problem yet with the 7 distribution ISOs
> I've downloaded (while trying to do some evaluations of the current
distros
> out there)
>
> > 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
>
> Full enough if it's the same as the download one. I'm looking to
> download staroffice just to have a well rounded OfficeSuite collection,
> but other then that and the 2.4.0 kernel, I haven't needed anything not on
> the CDROM (or immediately available via kpackage).
>
> > Install?
> >
> > Linux about 25 minutes and one reboot.
> > Windows 2k, about an hour and I honestly lost track of reboots (3 or
> > 4).
>
> My linux install took quite a bit longer, but then again, I carefully go
> through the package list to get rid of crap I need and add in things that
This means you will end up with an empty harddisk.
> won't generally get installed.
>
> > Linux wins for basic install.
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Oh? Well, let's see....they have 4 or 5 different security settings.
> Paranoid leaves almost nothing open, and high what few things that are
open
> TCP wrapped with a hosts.deny locking EVERYONE out.
>
> > Win2k show ALL relevant ports closed by default on both sites.
>
> The default file shares are still there, and after installing a few dev
> tools, I had to go in and shut down all the web related services that I
> never configured to run in the first place.
>
> I believe Mandrake sets it on the middle security setting as it's default,
> but it's a pretty simple drop down. Anything above the default (i've
never
> tried the default security to verify this), and MDK wins, or at WORST a
tie.
>
> > 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).
>
> No comparison. My ATI card and cordless wheelmouse both worked fine right
> after installing. I did have to look up my monitor's refresh rates
> (although I could have just as easily gotten by with the defaults it had).
>
> My printer's been a PITA, although CUPS is starting to make some strides
to
> make it easier. That's one area I hope development can make easier.
>
> > 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.
>
> I use OSS/Linux to run my sound card, so I simply go to their web site,
and
> download the matching version (but admit that I can't make a comparison,
> since I upgraded to the 2.4.0 kernel immediately after install and then
> grabbed the driver, so don't know how the kernel configs with MDK might
> cause any problems). My AWE64 gold is always detected by the oss setup
> program (which they finally got a lil GUI on, which is good, since the
> previous curses one always had some display problems when run in an
xterm).
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't know. I never play CDs on my burner. That's why I have Bose
> speakers, so I can hear CDs from my changer while in the computer room.
>
> > 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 haven't had any major issues with netscape, although I prefer Opera, and
NS should be outlawed!
> must say that konqueror is making a LOT of strides since the previous KDE
> release. I'm anxious to see how things are in the upcoming releases.
>
> > How about xmms?
> > Compare it to the CD Player offered in the standard Win2k install
> > (V5.5 I believe).
>
> Not an important issue to me. Besides, playing a CD on my computer means
I
> can't be playing a game or burning a CD.
>
> > 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.
>
> So microsoft wins a point for "eye candy"
>
> > 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?
>
> Dunno, I use licq, which isn't bad, but still lacks some of the nicities
of
> the current ICQ release. Although, zicq is nice in that I can use it
> remotely from a client site via ssh over a console.
>
> > 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
>
> I'm guessing you're talking about GQView?
> So, you're comparing a piece of software included for FREE with
> Mandrake with one you:
> 1) have to go out and download
> 2) have to pay for.
>
> Interesting comparison. I'm sure you didn't have to compare ANY windows
> products to come to the realization that ACDSee is the best (which i'm not
> arguing the point)...however, for linux, you'll stick with whatever
happens
> to be on the box. That's a *cough cough* fair comparison.
>
> Oh, and gqview took about 90 seconds to load up a directory with 10000
> pictures in it. Not blazing, but not that bad.
>
> There may be better, but I have the better video card and larger monitor
on
> my gaming machine (if Blizzard ever starts writing games for Linux, I'll
be
> in heaven), so usually do use ACDSee.
>
> > 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.
>
> I generally have a distaste for all office suites. If anything, on my
> laptop (which I generally do most of my client site work, which is when I
> need word processing and such), I mostly stick with SmartSuit, but KWord
> isn't a bad little program for free.
>
> > 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.
>
> Different tact on this. I have a broadband connection, so this isn't an
> issue, but back when I didn't, I used leafnode. It took a little bit of
> configurations, but once it was up and running, it worked just fine, plus
> it gives you complete flexibility to select ANY newsreader you want, not
> just choosing one based on offline reading capabilities.
>
> > BTW have you been using Internet Explorer 5.x?
>
> you mean the browser with the attachment problem where half the time it
> saves html files when you're trying to get a binary? Yeah, I have.
>
> > Let me introduce you to Netscape, the premier browser for Linux.
>
> konqueror is picking up steam.
>
> > It's like driving your grandfathers Edsel after taking a spin in a
> > 2001 Corvette Callway Turbo...
> > Good luck :(
>
> I'd say it's more like driving a 92 mustang vs. a 95 mustang.
> (anyone familiar with mustangs will get it). Although now microsoft has
> decided it wants to release a 99 mustang.
>
> > How about ICS?
> >
> > Easy enough to set up under Mandrake, assuming you didn't select
> > "Setup Network" when you installed Mandrake in which case you will
> > never get ICS working.
> >
> > Unfortunately Dial On Demand is non-existant, which kind of wliminates
> > the need for ICS now doesn't it?
>
> Never done ICS, so no idea.
>
> > How about Trojan protection?
> >
> > Does Linux have any program that allows you to monitor Trojans that
> > might be trying to dial out from your system?
> >
> > Windows does and it is free and it is called ZoneAlarm.
>
> Another program you have to go out and find. Did you even look around for
> the 1,000,000 firewall configuration tools out there? There are plenty
> that offer a GUI which is what it seems you need to hold your hand.
> Go looking on freshmeat under "ipchains" and "firewall"...come back when
> you've tried them all out (and not just picking one or two at random).
>
> > I could go on for hours, but I ask you to only try Linux and see for
> > yourself.
>
> I have. And thankfully it never locks up on me. I'm not sure why Windows
> 2000 insists on locking up on me from time to time, combined with the fun
> "Process has locked pages" BSOD. Lucky for me, my main stuff is on my
You should stop installing crapware and stick with an MS only Installation.
I just love MS since I do that! Unfortunately there are some usefull
programs that ms doesn't provide.
(Like WinZip and Acrobat)
> linux box, so when my Win2k box decides it's time it needs to reboot
> itself, I don't get interupted from anything.
>
> What items do I still use Windows for?
> Games,
> ICQ,
> Web development (for when I do ASP/DCOM work).
>
> If it weren't for the fact that i'm such an AVID gamer, I'm sure that I
> could make do with licq, and find decent enough linux tools for web
> development (already found a few, but the UltraDev/Visual Studio combo is
> very handy for windows based development)
And thats exactly why I love W2K! No reboots, no dual-boot. I really hated
it when I had to restart my machine just to get at some data that are on the
wrong partition. Or to start a program which was installed under the other
os. (Multiboot is an admission that your favorite OS can't do everyting you
need). I thank Bill for integrating DX into W2K. I also thank him for
winning the browser war.
What amazes me is that you have knowledge of ASP/DCOM and still want to use
any other technology!!!! (JScript is cool --- perl is for the twisted mind).
>
> > Don't try a hardcore distribution like Slackware or Debian, but
> > instead try Mandrake or SuSE or Redhat and see for yourself.
>
> And where does Storm fit in? A pretty nice debian based distribution. (I
> haven't put it through it's paces, but apt-get works nicely on it, so was
> able to update the entire system pretty quickly once I had it installed).
>
> > See how a simple update from Mandrake in the form of a CD can trash
> > your entire system. See how SP1 from Microsoft installs perfectly and
> > everything works.
> > See how even simple updates to kde require many meg of files.
> > See how you always seem to be missing some dependency or another.
>
> RPM is sadly lacking in dependency resolving. Rumor has it, apt is being
> ported from DEB to RPM. If that comes to pass, the end of the dependency
> problems (as well as sane full distribution updating) will be near. I've
> even used apt-get to update the entire debian distribution to their
> UNSTABLE heirarchy (which still proved more stable then ANYTHING I've ever
> used from Microsoft has been).
>
> > With Linsux it just goes on and on...What is simple under WIndows
> > turns out to be a mission of mercy under Linsux..
>
> And things that I take for granted in linux (long uptimes, symbolic links,
> full process control, fast easy remote access on limited bandwidth) are
> difficult or impossible under windows.
>
> > So all I ask is that you try Linux and decide for yourself.
> >
> > My guess is that you will decide that Linux sux....
>
> Ok steve, you pointed out the same existing problems that you always do,
> and the same imaginary ones as well. This argument was better then most
> since you compared a complete distribution to a Microsoft UPGRADE CD with
a
> bunch of programs you either purchased or downloaded.
>
> In other words, you put forth more effort to get the right tools on
> Microsoft, then bitch about them not being on the default distribution.
>
> *yawn*
>
> Ok, I feel better now, and hopefully will have more time to check the
> group out.
>
> Laters all.
>
> --
> Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
>
> "Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
> of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
> -- Winston Churchill
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:03:16 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:49:35 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>> > I'm not sure I have even seen a real test. From my own experience, in
>> > the last few years, I have only seen a few times where Linux failed for
>> > something other than a hard disk or power failure. I have usually
>> > upgraded the OS, kernel, or hardware before the system had a chance to
>> > crash.
>>
>> Unless you can cite a study, you're just stating your experience. Not the
>> same thing.
>>
>
>The problem is that most Linux users seem to upgrade before it crashes,
>so studies tend only to be able to take small samples. This is one of
>the reasons why Linux is good - upgrades are free!
My company had the first iteration of Caldera running as a
production CVS server continuously for 3 years.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:03:57 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:26:14 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
>> I'll take that as a 'No, I didn't submit a bug report.'
>>
>> You have no right to complain, then.
>
>I'll complain so long as I see Linux advocates portray sweeping
>generalisations and inaccuracies as the truth.
You're the liar here.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:04:46 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:24:20 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>J Sloan wrote:
>
>> What do you expect when you barge into a Linux advocacy
>> forum and say "linux sucks" - of course people are going to
>> counter that it doesn't, since if it sucked, they'd obviously be
>> using something else.
>
>I never said "Linux sucks". I did say "Linux lags behind Windows (desktop)".
You don't even know what that is.
[deletia]
You're just an ignorant liar.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
