Linux-Advocacy Digest #622, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Giuliano Colla)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (J Sloan)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (J Sloan)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:55:30 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:14:48 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:55 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
> >> >> >>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >> >>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
06:58:01
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> >>>>I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
> >size.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Databases.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention, a single
file.
> >> >>
> >> >> There's that magic word: "convention".
> >> >>
> >> >> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
> >> >> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
> >> >> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
> >> >
> >> >Man, you must really have you head up your ass.
> >>
> >> No, I just don't see what the big deal is.
> >>
> >> I still don't, especially after you've broken down
> >> the "process". The "need" to have a certain duration
> >> of video in a single file is entirely arbitrary.
> >
> >Man, you really are dense. I've explained the obvious 4 or
> >5 times now. When you digitize, it's easier to digitize
> >the entire clip and work with it as a whole. Breaking it
>
> Why? Do you do operations on the whole 15 minutes
> at once? I severely doubt it. You work on single
> scenes at a time or over very small periods of
> time. Even if you hit a file barrier, you should
> be able to just continue a fade or whatnot on
> the next file.
And entire session consists of an entire tape which is
usually 60-120 minutes.
They digitize the entire tape in batch, then edit it afterwards.
This is easier than micromanaging the process and stopping
every 15 minutes to break up the video due to a poorly designed
OS just to rejoin it in the end to edit it, to break it up
into 15 minute chunks yet again, to rejoin it, to....
you get the picture.
Look, the 2GB limit in Linux is retarded, no matter how you
try to defend it. 32-bit, 64-bit, it's retarded. Many other
OSes have overcome this problem with relative ease, and
Linux still doesn't have a shipping solution.
It's retarded, plain and simple. Admit it, acknowledge there's
a solution in the works, and lets be done.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:11:28 GMT
SoneoneElse wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:52:34 +0200, "Ayende Rahien"
> <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
> >
> ><SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:24:46 +0200, "Ayende Rahien"
> >> <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >> > If he will install windows, he will need a LILO boot disk, because RH
> >> >> > wouldn't boot because Windows will overwrite the MBR.
> >> >> > He will have to reinstall LILO in the MBR if he wish to use Linux.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or make a Linux boot file using the dd command, and putting on a
> >floppy,
> >> >> installing windows, then putting the linux bootfile somewhere and
> >adding
> >> >> it to the list in boot.ini.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Thanks, I remembered that this can be done, but not how.
> >> >However, wouldn't this work on NT only?
> >> >
> >> Yes if you are making an entry in boot.ini.
> >> Boot.ini is used by the NT bootloader and generally not installed win
> >> Win9* ( unless you use NT too).
> >
> >Generally? You mean that 9x can actually use it if you add it manually?
> >I thought that only NT boot loader did it. I assume that if I add boot.ini
> >to 9x it would be ignored.
> >
> Generally meaning it is installed with NT.
> BTW you can install NT then remove all the files installed by NT
> except the bootloader and have the same effect.
Maybe it won't work, but the feeling of power of removing all the files
installed by NT, leaving just the bootloader, will be something to
rejoice and remember for a long time! :-)
> AFAIK it is not distributed with Win9x.
If you don't insist on the highly rewarding point of removing NT files,
there is a shareware utility which, if I remember well, performs the
same trick, i.e. installing a bootloader which reads a boot.ini file:
http://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:56:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:10:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
> >>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:25:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
> >>>>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:25:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
> >>> [...]
> >>>>>>I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
size.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Databases.
> >>>
> >>>A 'database' is not, by definition or even by convention, a single file.
> >>
> >> There's that magic word: "convention".
> >>
> >> That's all that separates a table spread across 10 files
> >> and 5 physical disks from the video that for some
> >> strange reason can't be similarly divided.
> >
> >Actually, Jedi, in this case, that's not true. A video stream is not at
> >all similar to a discrete data store. The very concept of 'structure'
> >is different, in fact, and there is, despite your claims, some
>
> For compressed digital video there is some truth to this.
>
> HOWEVER, compressed digital video is quite successfully
> spread across multiple files on a regular basis.
But it takes large amounts of time, unecessary amounts of time
to break them up into pieces.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:15:11 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And you carefully snipped my references to amazon, google, deja,
> > which, like yahoo and other large sites, use apache.
>
> So a handful of large sites use Apache, so what? Many more use IIS.
Sorry kid, you're just not believable anymore -
> Also, Yahoo is "unknown on FreeBSD".
It's apache -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:00:09 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kevin Ford
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:58:32 +0000
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Ayende Rahien once wrote:
> >>
> >>"." <[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.
> >>
> >
> >Apart from the 18 month self destruct cycle.
>
> Probably caused by that absolutely horrid Master File Table, that
> never goes down in size, but always goes up, fragments like
> crazy, and generally is a pain in the you know very well where.
I've never had a problem with it. Nor have I heard of anyone having
a problem with it except in pre SP4 days when 4+million files would
cause it problems.
I'd take this non-problem over a retarded and elementary design
flaw that prevents ext2fs from handling larger than 2GB files.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:03:05 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:51:12 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >
> >Myers will say anything.
>
> Would that "anything" include
It's interesting that Chris "Mr Personal Attack" would say such a thing
when posts by Penguinistas themselves (errantly) show MS in 2nd place
to MS. Therefore the "one of the best security response time" comment
is true by any stretch of the truth (whether it be real truth or
Penguinista truth).
Just goes to show you the blatant and unwavering hypocrasy in the
Linux camp.
A "fact" they use to prove you wrong one day is the same fact they
refute the next.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:21:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:20:42 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > > "Linux *has* the EDGE" (not Linux has the edge for me)
>> > >
>> > > "Linux, it is great"
>> >
>> > It's a bloody linux advocacy group. I can't believe you are in a linux
>> > advocacy group complaining that people are advocation linux. Are you on
>> > crack?
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Take a look at those posts and tell me you don't see any hype.
>
>Sigh. That's not what I said. Its a fscking ADVOCACY group and you are
>complaining about people ADVOCATING linux. What do you want people to
>talk about here?
I think he wants everyone to qualify their statements with
"for me"
or
"for them"
:-)
That said, I have seen a number of demonstrations and/or testimonials
as to why Linux is better; these demonstrations are usually,
but not always, based on Linux's stability. Personally,
I happen to like X; it's reasonably easy to work with -- although
in my case, it may be because I've more or less grown up in a Unix-like
environment, with X as a cornerstone thereof. I also find X interesting,
from a low-level library call point of view (I might tinker
with the protocol someday). It's not a panacea, mind you -- there
are a number of peculiarities in X which appear to be either
unnecessary, or overly forward looking, or have resulted
in minor problems -- the most glaring one I can think of is the
selection atom, which has been misimplemented as "don't show
the highlighted select area unless you have the atom" in more
widget sets than I can remember. But it's still a nice concept,
especially since it can handle multiple post types, although it's
not clear that a lot of people are starting to use non-text, and
many programs go through the 8 cut buffers instead.
By contrast, Win32 is a piece of garbage. For me, anyway.
:-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random atmospheric fish here
EAC code #191 1d:08h:43m actually running Linux.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:24:08 GMT
On 21 Jan 2001 00:45:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
wrote:
>Let's see....I haven't had any major problems with konqueror. I
>mostly use it because it's just plain fast. I sometimes use
>netscape (since some people like to do all sorts of fancy things
>with their web sites which aren't standards based and
>end up looking like crap in konq or opera).
Since you seem to like looking things up on the net, a must when
running Linux, try google and "konqueror+certificate" and see what
happens.
> I have no idea
>what problem you have with your wheel mouse. Mine behaves
>exactly like, well, a wheel mouse should.
Under Windows In a split pane Window (like gmc or knode for example) I
move the pointer over each pane within the same window and that
becomes the active pane eliminating the need to click each time I move
around. I can also press the scroll wheel and a little icon appears
that allows very smooth and controlled scrolling of the Window by
moving the mouse. Those are features that make the wheel mouse, well a
wheel mouse. Completely missing from Linux. At best you get a coarse
scrolling effect, not the smooth scrolling you get under Windows.
>I also haven't had any problems with kmp3. Of course I have
>an 18 hour playlist, so I guess I don't really care much about
>adding songs that often. But when I do, it's right where I
>left it. *shrugs*
Not on my system it wasn't. It always went back to my /home directory.
>
>Well, let's see...konqueror vs. ie....at least I can properly
>download files in konq. The only problem I mentioned has more
>to do with poorly designed sites.
You're doing something wrong with IE if you can't d/l files.
>Listening to music....Ummm...Musicmatch and kmp3....well,
>uhhh....i load up my music, hit random play, minimize it.
>How much more do I really need out of it? I guess I could
>ask it to brew up my coffee too.
You might as well go for coffee if you are using MusicMatch under
Linux, because:
1. The thing is a 13meg download slug that takes forever to load
2. It is a version behind the WIndows version.
3. It runs under Whino........
>I have no idea what's wrong with your wheel mouse though.
>I love my cordless wheelman. Works the way I expect it to.
Try it on a Windows machine and you will see the difference.
>If blizzard wrote games for linux (and macromedia ultradev...
>with php support), there wouldn't be much reason for me
>to even run win2k.
I have a Playstation II.
>Ahead? It might have better application support, but that
>isn't anything more then developers developing for a
>monopoly desktop environment.
Applications are everything to a desktop user.
That is why Linux isn't making a dent in that area.
> That doesn't have anything
>to do necessarily with merits. MusicMatch, ACDSee, DiabloII,
>UltraDev....good applications...none of which written by
>Microsoft.
None of which run under native Linux and to which there are no Linux
equivalents even in the same ballpark.
>Well, that makes sense if you're looking for information
>on ugly linux fonts. If you're looking to fix them,
>If you actually *gasp* read any documentation on linux,
>you'd realize that HOWTO is the source for informational
>documentation on..how to do things. But of course, that
>would mean having to read something. (and don't give
>me this stuff that you don't have to do that with windows,
>ask if the casual user is going to find where MS decided
>to place the utility to create a boot disk).
Even "if" Joe Six pack manages to get Linux installed he will look at
it once and unless he has a very specific need to run it, it will be
tossed into the trash can because it has absolutely no curb appeal.
Joe will be pissed off and frustrated and unless he is some geek with
nothing better to do, will not stay with Linux very long because he is
going to find that the applications are crude and silly looking
compared to what he most likely already has with his pre-load Windows
machine.
You think he is going to dump Lotus Organizer (a typical pre-load
program) for that silly looking kde organizer?
I don't think so.
>I'd say "fonts" is pretty intuitive to most users.
Nope.
>And like I said, if you read a LITTLE bit about linux,
>you'd realize that HOWTOs are where the info is.
>Not all that difficult to figure out. Of course if you
>decide to just blindly ignore all the sources of info
>readily available, I suppose you could waste a few hours
>typing in arbitrary search criteria.
Problem is it isn't a LITTLE reading it is constant, never ending
reading to accomplish what will be easy for him under Windows.
>"fugly fonts"
>"my fonts suck"
>"display looks ugly".....
>Sorry that you had to actually use your brain a
>little bit to figure out what to search for.
I'd be more sorry that the idiots packaging these distributions don't
have the brains to swap the 75dpi and 100dpi lines in the config file.
But, I guess they are to busy designing yet another editor for Linux
or maybe a compiler or some new library for geeks or something.
Chances are good it will be something totally useless to average Joe
though.
Joe would rather have a native version of MusicMatch Jukebox that is
the current version shipping with Windows.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:26:00 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kevin Ford
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:58:32 +0000
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >Ayende Rahien once wrote:
> > >>
> > >>"." <[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.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Apart from the 18 month self destruct cycle.
> >
> > Probably caused by that absolutely horrid Master File Table, that
> > never goes down in size, but always goes up, fragments like
> > crazy, and generally is a pain in the you know very well where.
>
> I've never had a problem with it. Nor have I heard of anyone having
> a problem with it except in pre SP4 days when 4+million files would
> cause it problems.
>
> I'd take this non-problem over a retarded and elementary design
> flaw that prevents ext2fs from handling larger than 2GB files.
>
It took much less time to overcome this problem in the 32 bit version of
Linux, than it took MS to handle properly a >2GB DRIVE SIZE. Just for
the record. When we speak of design flaws, MS is proudly second to none!
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:23:40 +0100
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> I'll translate it for you, chad, as you are certainly unable to speak
> german, you barely manage to understand english, as your refusal to answer
> to posts with facts show clearly.
Forgot the translatiion.
It says "A new beginning -- whistler - what the next generation is bringing"
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:30:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I dunno, ask Microsoft or Winamp. They managed to make their players
> attractive looking, while xmms looks dreadful, no matter what skin you
> use.
Well now it's pretty clear why it's called a flatfish -
It flounders about, making bizarre arguments that fall flat..
I've seen more than one windows user's jaw drop after
stopping by my desktop and seeing something like xmms
with kjofol plugins, or my 3D screensavers.
> It's a mess even on a 21 inch monitor at 1024x768 32bpp.
Who in bloody hell would run 1024x768 on a 20" monitor?
1024x768 is a good resolution for a 15" monitor, not 20",
it's just plain wrong on a monitor that big.
Even on 17" monitor, 1152x864 is the absolute minimum
resolution I would run.
> Can't even remember it's own song directory....
I have no idea what you're talking about - what is a "song
directory"? I think that would be a directory where there are
songs. I have a number of such directories.
However, whatever list of songs I last played is always on
the playlist next time I fire up xmms.
Obviously it is does remember -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:37:22 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:57:38 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >> >Why are you people so incapable of reading? There *ARE* drivers for
it,
> >> >they're just not good drivers. There's a difference between
certifying
> >your
> >> >drivers and software and releasing it.
>
> So they are not certified to work with W2K, right?
Right.
> >> So are you saying here that some of the drivers which are claimed to
work
> >with
> >> W2K are not released? So what's the word for something that's claimed
to
> >be
> >> available, yet isn't... Oh, I know, vapourware... that's it.
> >
> >What the fuck. READ. The drivers are released, they are *NOT*
certified.
> >You can get the drivers. Download them off the companies web site. They
> >simply have not gone through the MS certification program to verify that
> >they are reliable.
>
>
> WTF "(hey! profanity *soo* helps get your point across don't you think?)
I was getting pretty frustrated with people simply not reading what was
right there in front of them, and then claiming I said something I didn't.
You're right, the profanity wasn't necessary.
> So, we have drivers, which are available, are touted as working with W2K,
and
> don't, or do so poorly that the customer's "feel the pain"
Poor hardware and drivers exist. That's a fact of life. It's up to the
customer to work with reputable companies that deliver what they promise.
> slick... so it's ok when W2K drivers are crappy, but if linux drivers are
> crappy then that's some sort of a slam against linux? I get it...
Linux developers write the drivers for Linux. Often times it's the same
people that are working on the kernel itself.
In comparison, the drivers mentioned are 3rd party. I don't hold poor 3rd
party drivers against Linux (well, except of course if there are no
alternatives to them).
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:28:03 -0600
J Sloan wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > semi-random? As in "I posted the sites that met my criteria".
>
> It appears to be a random selection of some well known sites.
Since Erik can't be bothered to click the link and read what I did, I'll
paraphrase it here:
First off, I stayed away from the pages that sorted by uptimes, because I
knew they would skew the results.
Then, for several OSes {W2K, Linux, Solaris, *BSD*}, I guessed several
"obvious" sites for that OS {www.microsoft.com, www.redhat.com, etc.}, and
included the result if the guess did yield the correct OS. No censoring
allowed: notice my "Shame, shame!" beside RedHat's pitiful score, but I
included it anyway. Then, to round things out a bit, I also clicked the
sites recommended by Netcraft in the "this site also runs" links. I don't
know what basis they use for choosing those sites, but if you wade around in
Netcraft for a while you can see that they don't seem to be chosen for
particularly high or low uptimes.
Notice that my guesses at "obvious" sites gives each OS a certain amount of
benefit-of-doubt, since (presumably) Microsoft, RedHat, and Sun will know
how to configure and operate the OSes that they sell.
I didn't report averages for *BSD*, because I could only guess a few, and
those that I did guess were not actually even the same BSD variant.
Also, I used the rolling averages because I did not want to punish someone
who happened to be down for a hardware upgrade just a few days earlier. The
rolling averages should reduce the impact of the randomness in what day I
happened to make the report. (The 360 day rolling averages would be even
better, but many of the reports did not have them. Netcraft hasn't been
doing the uptime reports very long, so maybe we can get some 360 day rolling
averages for everything in another year or so.)
So. I don't claim that this is truly random, but it was the least biased
method I could come up with in the absence of a file full of data and a
random number generator. If someone has a spider that will fetch everything
out of Netcraft (politely, please!), we could easily run up some statistics
on that.
Another option would be to identify the Hot 100 sites and use Netcraft to
get stats on them.
Also, if the astrotrolls want to play the game of picking the best n sites
that we can find for our OS, I'd be *delighted* to play that game, too.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:35:31 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> J Sloan wrote:
>
> > > It uses the Gtk library. How am I wrong? Does it use the Qt library? No
> > > it doesn't.
> >
> > Nope - it uses neither.
> > Only "gnome-linuxconf" uses any X libraries
>
> Is there a KDE-linuxconf then?
I believe Roberto confirmed that there is not.
However, It's just not an issue for most folks that there
might be some slightly different looking widgets on one
seldom used utility.
> No it died. It displayed the first page, then thereafter the browser
> reported an error (page not found).
Quite odd - most likely you have horked something up.
There is a new distribution called "Redmond Linux", which
I think may be just up your alley - check it out.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: 21 Jan 2001 01:39:59 GMT
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Even if they don't, it's because FreeBSD and Linux don't shut down the
>> computer when you halt the OS.
> More fud from the fudster -
> I've noticed that Linux has been shutting down the power
> since Red Hat 6.0 -
And debian, and slackware, and stampede, etc. etc. etc.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
