Linux-Advocacy Digest #666, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 00:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (.)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice (Michael Black)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Lewis Miller)
Re: The *BEST* advertising! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Chad Myers")
Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("JS PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:07:59 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Of course, then there are idiots like you who would choose a Linux
> > workstation platform as their choice when you knew what would suffer.
>
>
> System Stability and no lost work is...what, exactly?
>
> This must be a new definition of "suffer" about which I am unfamiliar.
>
Yes, actually, you of all people are totaly unfamiliar with the type of
suffering that would occour. It's called USER INTERFACE, and UNIX
inherently has poor ones. The average user isn't in the mood to learn the
in's and out's of CDE or GNOME/"E". They like Windows explorer. They like
Apple finder. Both of which may look totaly different, but they can claim
one, unified thing:
They are inutitive.
And USERS like that.
> >
> > UNIX on the desktop isn't pretty.
>
> Neither are stock cars...yet they beat the pants off normal street cars.
Do you see America driving down the highway in a stock car? They don't BUY
stock cars. They buy gas guzzeling monster SUV's because of one, simple
factor; They like how they LOOK. But most importantly, they love how they
look in them.
> > If it were, Microsoft wouldn't be in business.
>
> Microsoft Stock is down 80% in the last year. Why is that.
Investor panic. Wait till Sun's stock begins to tank later this year.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: 23 Jan 2001 04:15:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Maybe you need to read "TCP/IP Networking" again.
> Your worse than Max. Please don't argue about something in which you are
> out of your depth.
"you're".
>> Tell me, exactly why do you use firewalls instead of packet filtering at the
>> router?
> Again the fact that you ask this question just shows your ignorance.
And why is that, exactly?
The only reason to use a firewall instead of packet filtering on the router
side is to lock down your employees and watch them attempt to access porn
sites. I have an ethical problem with this.
>> By your experience, you should have known full well that the "internet" will
>> not believe a node advertising itself as 0.0.0.0
>>
>> But you didnt. Something is amiss.
> What the fsck has it to do with the Internet? Have you ever used nmap?
Yes, and my comment has to do with you not knowing what the hell youre talking
about. Your information is faulty.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:01:14 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 22 Jan 2001 18:53:18 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
> >
> >MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
> >europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
> >
> >Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for linux?
>
> You mean besides RealVideo and Quicktime?
RealVideo is pathetic. That is the biggest pile of crap software I've ever
seen.
Quicktime... eh, not too bad. Certainly nothing on the order of WMT,
but not too bad.
Not to mention that you can only get the Darwin version of the streaming
server for Linux which isn't supported necessarily and is only in Beta.
Oh yeah, and the QuickTime client really sucks big time on both Windows
and Mac. How do you play QuickTime 4 media on Linux? Is there an
OSS port? I thought the QT4 stuff was proprietary?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 23 Jan 2001 04:17:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because your
"you're".
> running Windows 95 or 98. Your ATA100 controller is past the
> understanding of the Windows disk access control layer. You need DRIVERS to
> accomidate such a controller.
> Download driver. Problem solved.
I did that. WindowsME was kind enough to go find the "right" driver and
install it for me.
It still happened after that.
Then I went to the card's manufacturer's site and downloaded the actual
correct one.
And then it still happened.
> Boy, sucks to hear it from Windows world people, don't it?
Sure does. Why dont you come over and fix it for me?
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:03:17 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94iam9$ros$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Myers) wrote in
>
> >Because the Fortune 500 sites are not interested in saving every last
> >penny, they're interested in providing a stable, reliable, easily
> >deployable and programmable (meaning dynamic content) platform.
> >They haven't chose Apache, meaning it doesn't provide them a significant
> >advantage in these areas. They didn't choose Apache because it is an
> >inferior product to IIS and iPlanet.
>
> Can you say Yahoo? The world's busiest website at half-a-billion hits a
> day. Runs Apache on FreeBSD.
One example.
Oh yeah, and by the way, what are they running on the back end that
does all the searching?
Yeah, that's right. It used to be NT, I think it's partly NT/Solaris
now. They might be migrating all to Solaris, but maybe not after
the ebay debacle.
-Chad
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,linux.redhat
From: Michael Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:15:38 -0500
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, FranckA wrote:
> First and foremost, teach them how to INSTALL linux in both GUI and
> text mode.
>
> Teach them about Partitioning and using fdisk, fips etc.....
>
>[other bits about installation deleted]
While installation probably is the first step most see when approaching
Linux, and at that stage it appears to be a very high step, I think
generally there is too much focus on installation. For most, it
will be a one-time or periodic activity. It is something to be done
and then forgotten.
There are all kinds of books around that set out to help you instlal
Linux. There is a lot of focus on software that makes installation
easy.
But one reason it seems a mystery is because someone is new to
Linux, and while they follow the steps indicated, they haven't
got much of an idea what it all means and what they are doing.
If they fall off the path, their hardware is somehow different or
an error pops up, the template method isn't so useful to them.
That may seem inconsistent, but it's not. If someone new to Linux
could be given a computer with the software already installed,
the issue of installation would go away.
But then the larger, and ongoing, concern arises, which is using
the operating system.
Since so many books focus on the installation, they often give
just rudimentary attention to what comes after. Yet I imagine
many don't want to spend money on another book, after spending
forty dollars or so on "Linux for Dummies" or whatever.
The things you need to know to use the system on an ongoing basis
form the basis for understanding the installation. All those
directories and the issue of what goes where becomse clearer
after you've spent some time with the system. You can go back and
understand scripts used in installation once ypu've spent some time
learning about scripts. When I installed an earlier Debian back
in July, for some reason there was no ppp-off. I found one on
the web, and at first glance it was garble. When it didn't work,
I had to set out to learn about scripts. When I saw what it
was supposed to do, I was able to do the same task manually. I
learned a bit about what the directories areused for, and a bit
about the way the OS works (using a file to save a single byte flag??).
I still don't know why it didn't work, but I was able to get it
going.
When I installed Slackware the other day, I had more problems (which
is not a reflection on Slackware). But the fact that I had been using
Debian for some months meant that recovering from the problems was
easier than when I installed Linux for the first time six months
ago.
This time, I tried to record what I did, so the next time I do an
installation I will benefit even more from the previous ones. But
otherwise, I can imagine forgetting these things, because they
aren't something that happens everyday.
One could argue that if someone is doing a course on Linux, there should
be something along the level of an installfest right at the beginning,
to get that step out of the way, so the students have the system as
they learn about the OS and applications. Then, that installation can
be thrown out at the end of the course, and the students are shown
how to do an installation, linking the steps with what they learned
about the OS during the rest of the course.
Now, if you are teaching someone to do installations, you would want
to spend time on how to do an instllation. But knowing the OS is
still very important, and doing installations is the way to get good
at it.
Michael
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:18:47 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > UNIX workstations don't work in 80% of the REST OF THE WORLD.
>
> Really? Most client-server apps are DEVELOPED on Unix first, shit-head.
They don't ALL stay there, do they.
> > I don't even want to think about UNIX in
> ^^^^
> > workstation capacity at a corporate situation.
>
>
> What do your DESIRES have to do with anything?
What the end user likes is an intutive interface. This is why Windows
Explorer & Apple Finder & Aqua are top in desktop's. The same with
workstations, where Windows NT & 2000 is king. People like a nice, clean,
and INTUTIVE interface.
> > I can just see NOTHING getting done. No words processed, no print jobs
printed because no one can
> > figure out how ass backward UNIX GUI's are.
>
> Aster*x has been out there for years.
> Word Perfect has been out there for a DECADE.
> Star Office.
1. I have corrected this line.
2. Word Perfect for UNIX? Did I miss something? Oh yeah, people prefered
Microsoft Works (hint, the dos program with a GUI), and reveled when WP
finally came to Windows.
3. StarOffice is about as user friendly as a double edge sword. I don't
know many people who would be willing to put up with it, even if it were
given to them for free.
> > The rest of the world depends on Windows NT & 2000 for their workstation
> > environments.
>
> ...to play games.
As well. But I am not their overseer. If they wish to play video games,
that is not my concern.
> > The GOOD productivity is for Windows.
>
>
> If you call crashing at 3:00 and losing all the work you've done since
> lunchtime "good productivity", then you're OBVIOUSLY not speaking the
> same dielect of English as the rest of us.
I don't have this problem. I am a competent administrator. If a
WORKSTATION crashes at 3:00, and I'm on my lunch break, I will ensure
another workstation is available, and then conclude my lunch break, and
repair the workstation that is non functional.
This is my job, I am happy to do it (provided I get paid).
I just don't see the problem.
> > The GOOD data services
> > are for UNIX. Some of us understand how that works, then there is you.
>
> Why is it that people pay me over $50/hour for such thought, but not your
for yours?
???
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:08:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94hd9v$fn2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> So c't, who has a Spec license (can Mindcraft say that?) and comes from
> >> the same people who, in a magzine called "ix" extensively cover Windows NT,
> >> now has "grudges against Microsoft"?
> >>
> >> Maybe you should, just for a change, *read* the magazine you are
> >> criticizing?
>
> >Please show me an article in c't that is favorable to Microsoft.
>
> >Just one.
>
> Issue 2/2001, pages 120-121. A test of "Microsoft WorksSuite 2001".
> The only test of MS software in this, the latest issue that has made it
> to Oz, and it comes to the conlusion that the packet is well worth the
> money, and that in particular the World Atlas component is "so good as to
> be without any competition".
>
> Grudges, indeed....
Ok, I'll give you that one.
Thank you.
Now, (I know you can't answer this, but just think about it), how many
articles/100 about Microsoft are favorable, or at least non-bashing?
I bet it would be significantly lower, if not zero, than any of the
mainstream tech magazines (PC World & Magazine, Wired, etc).
Basically, if c't doesn't have an agenda to put down Microsoft at
almost every attempt, they sure due a good job of making it look
like that.
Here's a more relevant question, since this whole debate is
really about the validity and indepence of c't's benchmarks:
Are there any benchmarks showing Microsoft leading anything?
ZDNet and several other benchmarkers show Microsoft leading
quite often. Maybe not the majority of the time, but at
least SOME of the time. It's my speculation that very few,
if any of c't's benchmarks show Microsoft in the lead or
winning.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 23 Jan 2001 04:25:06 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 22 Jan 2001
>Lewis Miller wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> in alt.linux.sux on 19 Jan 2001
>>
>> >Lewis Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 16 Jan 2001
>> >>
>> >> >Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> Besides forget NT get 2000 if you're going to run a Windows box.
>> >
>> >Why would i want to do something as stupid as that?
>>
>> Um, because 2000 supports a hell of a lot more hardware than NT. 2000
>> is a lot more stable than NT. 2000 has more tools than NT.
>
>Pfffffl! Tallest midget at the circus.
Then the question is not why use 2000 over NT, but why use windows. Duh
for a workstation. Windoze makes for a pretty disposable easily replaceable
box. That's what a workstation is all about. The server does all the real
work.
--
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: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:27:22 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Great. And those who read those counter responses think about Linux for a
> few minutes, or hours, and go about their usual business. Those endearing
> enough to TRY Linux do so, so congratulations, you've got yourself a
> convertee. Then they spend a few hours downloading & burning to CDROM, or
> they buy a cheap CD. Or they do what I did, and buy a Retail copy.
>
> Then, they spend an hour installing it (provided a GUI installer is present,
> which it typically is these days).
>
> Then they get to using it.
>
> Then they hit a snag, something isn't supported, somewhere. They look for a
> way to change a setting, they are inundated with infinite minutia, dated
> information, insulting commentary from newsgroups, and incomprehensible
> documentation of what IS available. They give up the hardware search, and
> try software...
>
> They find that something they wanted didn't come with the install, so they
> venture out to find a program on the 'net. They find it, download it, and
> try to install it, only to find that installing software under Linux is a
> little like trying to pull teeth through someone's anus.
>
> They MAY bite the bullet, and try to learn how to do this, they search for
> the information...
>
> 6 hours later, they are back in Windows.
Except for the last statement, that describes me, and probably many
other Linuxites. You see, we have used computer systems, including
UNIX, DOS, Win 3.1, Win 95/98/NT/2000, VMS, RSX-11, TOPS-10, Atari TOS,
Macintosh, Linux, and more quite enough to realize that all systems
require learning, and that the rewards for not giving up are great.
Anyone who thinks that 6 hours is enough to master any system well
enough to use it properly is very inexperienced.
> And they get grossly disappointed when the only advice you can dole out is
> "read the howto".
Hmmmmm, must be the same people who can't find the Any key.
You need to subscribe to Shark Tank at
http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/sharktank/0,1130,NAV47-68-86-103,00.html
to see some of the morons you are trying to defend. Even if you don't
agree with me, maybe the little dose of humor will help you stop
being such a sour person, a real downer.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:28:37 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Because your running Windows 95 or 98. Your ATA100 controller is past the
> understanding of the Windows disk access control layer. You need DRIVERS to
> accomidate such a controller.
>
> Download driver. Problem solved.
>
> Boy, sucks to hear it from Windows world people, don't it?
Good trolling method... State a problem, state a solution, then
state that your adversaries will be upset that you could state a solution.
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:28:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Think of penguins on the edge of the Antarctic ice with the terror
of
> >> sea lions in the shallow waters just off shore. Once beyond the
> >> shallows they can outmaneuver the salons but getting there
> >> requires running the gauntlet and the first few might not make it.
> >
> >Really? Here's how I see it.
> >
> >Penguins are standing at the edge of the Antarctic rim, staring at some
kind
> >of golden land beyond the tundra, there is a small land bridge that can
be
> >crossed, but powerful penguins are preaching that the world for penguins
is
> >better in the tundra than "the golden land" could ever be. Of course
this
> >is just an excuse, but it seems to be catchy among the penguins.
>
> A strikingly accurate analogy, as well. I'm assuming the tundra is
> Windows and the "golden land", separated by a small land bridge, is
> Linux, right? So why are you lauding how "catchy" the deception is?
Close, True desktop operability is the golden land, the land bridge is the
public eye, and the tundra is where Linux IS. The penguins are Linux.
> >See prior paragraph.
>
> I'm still trying to figure it out, frankly.
See explaination.
> >Really? StarOffice is 90% Microsoft Office format compatible, yet no one
is
> >using it. Why?
>
> Because there's no reason for the missing 10% accept to prevent
> interoperability?
As far as end-users are concerend, StarOffice is 100% compatible.
StarOffice doesn't do the "O2k" networking stuff (because it's not O2k), but
still, users aren't flocking to it? Gee, I wonder why... Could it be the
horrible interface? The patehtic help system? The shitty stability?
> >Well, the horrible interface, the overcomplicated
> >documentation and the amazing lack of performance is seems to have
acquired
> >on all platforms.
>
> Or maybe the lack of commercial development. Give it the budget of
> Office, and we'll see how good it gets, eh?
It HAS that budget. Come on, Sun Microsystems... They bought it from
StarDivision who had a really HUGE budget to create it, AND the protection
of the new German free market.
> >I don't see Microsoft FORCING StarOffice a shitty product.
>
> I do. So does Ed.
Please. Microsoft can't buy lazy programmers, but Sun can hire 'em.
> >> Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot
allow
> >> that.
> >
> >Except there is more interoperability NOW then there ever has been in
> >computing.
>
> Again proving something which we all know quite well already, that
> Microsoftheads don't have the first clue what the term
> "interoperability" means.
As far as I can see, it's the opisite of the "compatibility" problems we all
had with MSDOS, Apple, and software for the two platforms. It's what the
people have wished for ever since computing became popular, the ability to
excahnge, "stuff". We can do that now. I have NO idea what kind of
interoperability you expect when everyone can come out with their own
propriotory standard for literaly everything, just like back in the 80's.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:17:13 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > No YOU missed the point Gary. Earthlink provides software on the CD that
> > he can't use because it doesn't run under Linux. It's more for a family,
> > or newbie, but it is useful none the less. Oh yea it also includes the
> > latest version of IE
> > 5.5 a quality browser instead of that piece of trash Netscape.
> > And BTW the Windows user can connect just as easily by calling them, and
> > guess what it takes about 10 minutes because the person on the other end
> > of the phone will know exactly how to assist you in setting up your
> > system. Most of his hour was probably spent waiting for Earthlink to
> > find the one person in the support department who knows anything about
> > Linsux.
> >
> > So it is YOU who, once again miss the picture.
>
> You really can't read, can you. He had to wait days for the CD to come.
> In the meantime, he had Linux running in minutes. That hour was not
> waiting for Earthlink to find someone who knows about Linux. He waited
> an hour for the request for a new account to be processed.
Maybe I missed the original point or premise of this whole argument,
but we had a few earthlink accounts at work and all I did in Windows
95/98/NT/2000 was add a new dial-up connection, type in my user name
and password and everything worked. I didn't have to fill in any
IPs, DNS addresses, ppp scripts, anything. It all used MS-CHAP or
CHAP for authentication automatically. No rebooting required on
any of the aforementioned OSes. This is easier than Linux. Yes,
Linux is more difficult than Windows.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:35:44 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94blh2$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > WOW!
>
> >
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
>
> Hmmm. Linux scales from my Tivo to a 100 trillion OPS supercomputer.
>
> No matter how you cut it, windows 2000 does not have anywhere near a
comparable
> scale. This is a fact.
>
> What exactly is it that windows does again?
Crash.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:35:34 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:39:17 -0500;
> [...]
> >> When Netscape crashes, and you restart it, does it crash again and
> >> again, repeatedly, or is the state restored correctly by the OS so that
> >> it doesn't? Answer: on Windows, of course, a program crashes
> >> *repeatedly*. On Linux, it just crashes. And that, obviously, is the
> >> application's fault.
> >
> >More of the blame game. Blame evasion perhaps? It's the old "It's their
> >fault my life is so hard".
>
> No, its their fault, and their fault alone, that there is a monopoly.
> There's no "game" involved; its a matter of factual reality. The fact
> that Linux users do not have access to the wide array of applications
> which are available exclusively for Win32 cannot be attributed to
> anything so much as purposeful manipulation by Microsoft to cause that
> result.
>
> >I'm thankfull all the "it's their fault" people
> >are gravitating towards Linux. Let the MS users be rid of them. Our loss
is
> >Linux's gain. Hurry up and switch over Max! (as if....)
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha. How ironic. The only people left using Microsoft will
> be those too stupid to realize that its Microsoft that's responsible for
> problems with Microsoft's platform.
The only ones I see switching are the whiny ones. And every day there's
about four more new Windows users stepping in to take their place.
I've been hearing about this big Linux takeover of the desktop market for
about 3 or 4 years now. Yet the OS still has about a 1/2 percent (or less)
showing on every server log I've ever seen. Far cry from the 3% or whatever
rediculous figure being claimed this month. At this point it's looking more
like a 100 year takeover plan, actually worse since I'd venture to guess
when ALL new home users are figured into the equation, that the Linux growth
rate is actually in the negative, percentage wise.
So you see...I'd guess that the infusion of new Windows users per month are
probably 500 or 1000 to 1.
Linux is hardly a threat to any market. Also on the 10 year horizon I would
almost guess that ever houshold will have it's own permanent IP address and
what do you think will be hosting all the mom and pop sites then? Today it's
Linux/Apache because of the permanent site availability. When everyone has
permanent availability right on their own machine I'd venture to guess that
half the sites Linux currently serves will be served on Windows/PWS
The light at the end of the Linux tunnel is fading fast. It'll be even worse
when Whistler (Windows.Net) hits the scene for the desktop market with rock
solid stability of NT5.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
