Linux-Advocacy Digest #558, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer..." ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: KDE Hell ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (John Hasler)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Lewis Miller)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Lewis Miller)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Charlie Ebert)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (Charlie Ebert)
Re: CD DAE problem fixed! (Daniel Tryba)
Re: CD DAE problem fixed! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:12:01 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:03:23 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >But nobody actually says "Linux is great for me". They say "Linux is
>> >great" or "Linux is easier to install than Windows". There's no "for me
>> >qualification".
>>
>> Now here, you are simply indulging in lying. It is this
>> sort of bald lying that is really annoying. Quite a few
>> of us (myself included) will freely admit that the troubles
>> you will have with a PC OS is relately largely to what
>> random collection of spare parts you happen to have.
>
>Then take a look at the titles for various posts, and tell me if I'm lying:
>
>"Linux *has* the EDGE" (not Linux has the edge for me)
From a historical perspective, this is actually a
VERY supportable assertion. Linux has against MS
what MS had against Apple when Microsoft was only
selling DOS.
>
>"Linux, it is great"
>
>As for the "random collection of spare parts", what? You mean Linux can't
>cope with it? Despite the fact Windows has no problems at all with it?
No x86 OS can, not even BeOS.
Neither can Win2K incidentally.
>
>> >My needs are always more important to anyone else - to me!
>>
>> So?
>>
>> That doesn't mean that other OSes are generally crap because
>> they don't suit your magic combination. You're not necessarily
>> typical.
>
>Did I say Linux is crap? Please don't put words into my mouth.
You implied that the classic Unix commandline tools and
BSD configuration files were the only way to configure
Linux for networking. You lie about the fact that w2k
does not infact keep all of it's networking config in
a single place.
One has to seriously wonder if you've used EITHER OS.
Even Hewson probably has more of a clue by now.
--
>> 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: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer..."
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:14:14 -0600
sfcybear wrote:
> "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer, Reed said,
> because the platform provides users with a familiar computing
> environment that covers single-user desktop workstations and small
> research clusters to the largest systems."
You can bet that Linux's inroads on the desktop are deepest in the
fields of science and engineering, and getting deeper there every day.
Businesses will lag along more slowly.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[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: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:19:22 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> What 'Internet video' is going to need a file size of greater than 2
> Gigabytes?!?
>
A horrible suspicion creeps into my mind.
Have you heard about that Internet Company which tried to provide
Internet Movies, and went broke because they forgot to take into account
that barely 2% of the Internet users in USA have a connection with
enough bandwidth to receive a movie?
Well.... it fits!
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:21:22 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:11:00 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
> >flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent anyway!
;-)
>
> I don't think that's a bad thing, in fact for beginners, it's probably a
> good thing if the interpreter slaps them when they don't indent properly.
> (I have students turning in code that just looks like cr*p because they
> have no idea how to indent)
The perl philosophy is that if a language prevents you from doing
bad things it will likewise prevent you from doing good things. I
agree, at least to the point that I would not expect any programmer
who counts on the compiler to keep him from making mistakes to
ever do anything great.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:24:26 GMT
Salvador Peralta writes:
> 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.
^^^^^^^^
Note that word. _Licensed_.
> That means everyone who is not the first party ( developer ) or the
> second party ( buyer ), must be granted license at no cost.
Yes. However, it does _not_ require that I give them any _copies_ of the
work.
The GPL requires that derivatives be licensed under terms such that anyone
who comes into legal possession of a copy of the derivative be granted GPL
rights. It does not require that anyone be given free copies.
Example: I hack changes into gcc to make it compile VB and use it myself.
Do I have to give any copies of either binary or source to anyone? _No_.
Now I sell you a copy of my gcc-vb, complete with source. Do I now have to
give copies of the source to anyone? _No_. Are you free to give away or
sell copies? _Yes_. IF you sell someone a binary can he demand that I
supply him with source? _No_. Not even if he is the original author.
However, if the original author (or anyone else) somehow comes into
possession of a copy of the source (the one you are obligated to give him,
for example) he is free to incorporate my changes into the "base".
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 19 Jan 2001 00:23:21 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
<cjR86.79658$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 15
Jan 2001
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>> >God forbid business should stop on one of my workstations for *GASP*
>> >3
>SOLID
>> >MINUTES.
>> >
>> >Or I could forgo the rebooting, and replace the OS with something
>> >that no only doesn't need to be rebooted, but will make it unusable
>> >for as long
>as
>> >the computer is powered.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Time obviously isn't money in the Windows World.
>>
>> 3 minutes of downtime for a Website collecting orders for your
>> company can be disasterous.
>
>We're talking about workstations here. I wouldn't trust IIS on ANYTHING
>that even closely classified as "enterprise". Or do you have another
>definition of "workstation"?
Right, but we're talking about Linux. Linux is a server OS. Through and
through. So that's why we keep coming back to this point. Workstations be
damned. you have a problem with a workstation, you don't even try to fix
it. You grab the image file off the server and reimage the machine. Bam
it's just like new. That's how to fix a Windows workstation.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:23:47 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:08:00 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:05:08 +0000, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> >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.
>>
>>This is getting silly. You're another one of the Linux advocates who
>>doesn't like it when someone threatens their precious little domain so you
>
> Nope. I just don't tolerat lies and slander very well.
>
> You can neither accruately describe Linux, nor can
> you accurately describe Win2k. Yet you continue to
> represent these ramblings as truthful and meaningful.
>
>>fall to meaningless quips.
>>
>>I shall ignore you from now on. Of course, I'd killfile you, but KNode
>>doesn't have that feature.
http://www.google.com/search?q=knode
http://knode.sourceforge.net/
http://knode.sourceforge.net/docu.php
http://knode.sourceforge.net/doc_en_0.3.2_online/index.html
http://knode.sourceforge.net/doc_en_0.3.2_online/using-knode.html#KNODE-FILTER-SETTINGS
>
> You're probably wrong about that too.
...and I wasn't disappointed.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:20:52 -0600
Bones wrote:
> I can't believe MS is going to run a full page ad with these test numbers,
> they are awful! This may be the worst marketing decision they have ever
> made. I can see that they want to boost Win2k sales, but they really
> shouldn't have used reliability as the crux of their argument. In effect,
> they are telling every one of their previous customers that what they have
> purchased is defective. Is this part of a settlement with the DoJ?
No, it's just MS's modus operandi. They used to have a Web page extolling the
virtues of NT4 by comparing its uptimes to Win95. They're already starting to
make noises about their Next Big Thing, so within a year or two they'll be
proudly telling ups how crappy W2K was, and that we should all buy the NBT.
An interesting project for someone with too much time on his hands would be to
use deja to look up posts by our resident astroturfers who now say "NT was crap,
get 2K", and see what they were saying about NT before they got their W2K betas.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 19 Jan 2001 00:27:53 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 16 Jan 2001
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:e4996.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > news:tR396.84229$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Way to snip the part about this being a WORKSTATION conversation
>> > > genius.
>> >
>> > (Alruight then. Fair enough. Smartass mode off)
>> >
>> > Honest question: Do you really find crashing of even that sort
>> > (Workstation) to be acceptable and do you find those who don't to be
>> > unreasonable?
>>
>> I find that people complaining about "crashing workstations" to be
>> primarily caused by the use of Microsoft's Windows 95 & 98 operating
>> systems. Neither of which I have much respect for. As for claiming
>> that Windows NT 4 "bluescreens every half hour" are caused by
>> lackluster administrative policies. Windows NT had stability
>> problems, but Service pack 4 hammered most stability problems out,
>> from then on it was securty problems until 6a, when it was
>> discontinued in favor of 2000, which seems to be showing a lot of
>> technological advancement on Microsoft's part.
>>
>
>Translation...
>the $200 product [Lose9x] crashes every couple of hours
>the $1000 product [LoseNT] crashes only once/week.
>The $25 product [Linux] will stay up for months.
^^^
$25?!?! Damn you're gettin ripped off.. last I checked Linux was free. :)
I've never paid for it. Even my CD versions.
Besides forget NT get 2000 if you're going to run a Windows box.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:33:16 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:10:42
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[...]
>> > > --11 January 2001 NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
[...]
>> > Kind of ironic, consider the RameN crew worm that's loose on Red Hat Linux
>> > 6.2 and 7.0 machines throughout the internet.
>> >
>> > In any event, all it takes is one vulnerability and you can make the top of
>> > the list as well, as Red Hat is finding out.
>>
>> Erik, can you point us to an article about this worm? Thanks!
>>
>> Chris (RedHat user)
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-4508359-0.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.sf
What's interesting is that this report proves one thing beyond a doubt:
Linux use is growing rapidly. To have sufficient population density
that a purposefully selective worm can propagate enough to be such a
large problem means that everything Funkenbusch trolls on and on about
how Microsoft's trouble's can all be hand-waved away as results of
'popularity' are now moot.
Linux's first media-reported worm. What a cool thing. (Kind of ironic,
since the patches to prevent the exploits used by the virus are already
available, given the claims by the sock puppets that Microsoft is so
quick to fix the excessive number of security holes found in Windows,
et. al,.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:44:06 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Salvador Peralta writes:
> > 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.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> Note that word. _Licensed_.
>
> > That means everyone who is not the first party ( developer ) or the
> > second party ( buyer ), must be granted license at no cost.
>
> Yes. However, it does _not_ require that I give them any _copies_ of the
> work.
> The GPL requires that derivatives be licensed under terms such that anyone
> who comes into legal possession of a copy of the derivative be granted GPL
> rights. It does not require that anyone be given free copies.
Thanks for clearing that up.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:46:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lincoln Peters wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:56:06 GMT, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Charlie Ebert writes:
>>> I've used FreeBSD and I have some comments.
>>
>>> It's license allows for corporations to steal the code and copyright it
>>> for their own purposes,...
>>
>>No it doesn't.
>>
>>> ...thus not contributing back to the base code.
>>
>>No free software license requires that.
>
>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. If someone ignores that
>requirement, the Linux community probably won't use the program.
>
>Remember all the trouble Corel got into when it tried to avoid
>releasing some of the source code for its Linux software?
>
>>
>>BTW, much of the software you use every day on Linux is licensed under
>>terms similar or identical to those used by FreeBSD.
>
>Can you same some of that software?
>
I think your asking if I can name some of that software.
How about OSX chunks you'll never see in print.
How about all the secret stuff BSDI did before they merged back.
How about all the specialized Yahoo stuff which was never released?
I'm sure there's more...
>>--
>>John Hasler
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
>>Dancing Horse Hill
>>Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:50:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Milton wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> this has to be a load of crap. I've never known 9x to go more than a
>> couple of days before the reset switch is pressed into service!
>
>Well, the study *was* funded by MS. And they habitually fund studies with a
>contract clause saying that the reports will not be published without MS's
>approval.
>
>That makes the studies subject to the abuse that psychics use in their
>"statistical" studies. They try to guess the hidden card (or whatever), and
>if they don't score very well they say "The Force wasn't with me today", and
>throw away the results. Then they try again. And again. And again. With
>sufficiently many tries, they eventually get lucky and get more than the
>expected number of correct answers, and then they run to sci.skeptic and
>announce to the world what amazing powers they have.
>
>I don't know whether MS ran the experiment 100 times and threw out 99 runs
>that they didn't like, but the system is certainly open to that kind of
>abuse. That's why you're better off with independent reports such as the
>ones you can get from Netcraft.
>
>And of course, Netcraft shows that W2K servers with 120 day uptimes are few
>and far between. Check out these numbers that I posted to Linux Today a
>while back:
>http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-07-004-20-OP-MS-0022.
>From that not-really-random sample, the average uptimes were -
>
>W2K, 19.15 days
>Linux, 84.37 days
>Solaris, 142.93 days
>
>See the link for the methodology.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
>
I have NEVER seen an NT server survive 12 hour days of use for
more than 36 straignt hours of operation before croaking.
I have NEVER seen a W2k server survive for more than 64 hours
performing the same task just mentioned.
To suggest that either product can survive for DAYS is an absolute
fucking bold face lie.
PERIOD.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CD DAE problem fixed!
Date: 19 Jan 2001 00:57:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is a weird one, but I have found the solution.
> First the problem, as you know by now is that the CD PLayer in my
> system does DAE when PLAYING CD's, meaning the sound is transferred
> over the IDE channel via the flat IDE cable. Unplug the digital or
> analog cable between the sound card (SBLive)and CD and you still have
> sound.
[snip]
> I never noticed this before, and in fact didn't even know that switch
> was there under Win2k until recently. With a top of line Denon and
> Tascam CD player on my system I usually don't play CD's in the
> computer anyhow.
> So I guess Linux is off the hook in this case.
It has been possible for years with Linux (at least with the cdroms I
own (scsi and an old panasonic connected to the interface on a sb-pro))
cdparanoia 1 - | play -t wav -
Does the trick (cdda2wav (or something like that) did the trick in
199[45]).
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CD DAE problem fixed!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:02:42 GMT
On 19 Jan 2001 00:57:15 GMT, Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It has been possible for years with Linux (at least with the cdroms I
>own (scsi and an old panasonic connected to the interface on a sb-pro))
>
>cdparanoia 1 - | play -t wav -
>
>Does the trick (cdda2wav (or something like that) did the trick in
>199[45]).
I know that, I was just having a really weird problem with Linux where
it defaulted to doing DAE everytime I played a CD.
Problem is solved.
Now on to the next bug...
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:05:29 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:23:47 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> ...and I wasn't disappointed.
It's in the menu but it doesn't work, and I happen to like knode and
as soon as it supports complete offline News reading, without helper
applications (leafnode etc), I can eliminate one topic from my rants.
It won't be long according to the development notes.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:09:52 GMT
In article <Uyw96.283$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet
>it's
>> > MTTF is about the same as Win2k's, that is if you'd bother to be
>realistic.
>>
>> You are ill-informed.
>>
>> > Claiming that it's mean (remember, that's average, not extreme) is
>> > indefinate is a flat out lie.
>> >
>> > So, if it's not indefinite, what is Linux's MTTF?
>>
>> 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.
>
>> On the other hand, the numbers presented by the study agree with my
>> observations of 98, NT.
>
>Case in point.
>
Case in point hugh.
Let me give you a case in point.
A case in point for all the clueless jerkwads who've made
Windows their home.
Despite my disapproval of RedHat's release of Alpha Compilers
anybody can go to 'THEIR' web site and do the research on the
number of reported bugs at their site covering every OS they've
released.
And you can do the same by going to Microsoft's WEB site.
And you will see that RedHat has 1/100 the reported bug
and you will also see that Linux is still growing at
a rapid rate within the worlds markets.
TRANSLATION...
People don't continue to buy into an OS which is riddled
with bugs but, people who've invested in an OS infrastructure
DO find it difficult to leave.
There are many people and companies who are being dis-served
by staying with Microsoft and they feel trapped.
And there are many people and companies who are re-tooling
using Linux as their base OS. The growth rate of linux
is the highest growth rate of any OS since the invention
of the computer.
ANSWER....
Linux has the highest quality and the greatest customer
satisfaction.
As far as uptimes goes, you have to go down to have an
adequate measure and this is something Linux and the BSD's
don't do. It takes a hardware failure or a power failure
or a root directive to stop Linux or BSD.
Windows on the other hand has a registered highest UP time
which has been reported by a Microsoft paid test. And
since Microsoft paid for the test and overseed the results
you can make your own determination whether the figures reported
by Microsoft are indeed correct and RIGHT!
But clearly, and for the totally clueless, a peak at the respective
websites bug logs pretty well tells the story in a nutshell.
That and a marketing report.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
