Linux-Advocacy Digest #684, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Interconnect")
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Edward Rosten)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Server Saga ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: MS opens up on Whistler copy protection ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:58:24 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Please don't think that _all_ drivers for Windows are written by people who
> don't know what they're doing!
I want to be the first one to admit that Microsoft does have some very good
driver guys. Some of the stuff in the DDK is pretty good, and some of the MS
drivers perform well.
The problem is that the quality is not consistent, and it is clear that
Microsoft does not plan for the future when they design something.
Take a look at Direct Draw. (This is my favorite example.) When first
introduced in NT, it was limited to 640x480, after all the driver writers
complained, they upped the limit to 2048x2048. Being at a company that make a
driver that was larger than that, we still had to work around the limitation.
It was obvious that, after the 640x480 problem, they still didn't think that
this would be something that could change over time and should be configurable.
Just stupid.
The hard disk write cache is the EXACT same problem. Rather than understand the
issues, they hack a quick and dirty solution and call it done. (until the next
time) In a real OS, the developer would come up with a solution that would work
in the future, and if he/she could not, would make sure that some sort of
configuration parameter could be modified in the event of a failure, and the
information documented where customers could see and test their configuration.
>
> In the context of the disk driver problem, I can't believe there isn't some
> way to detect if a cache has been written. It would be bad design if that
> was to be the case. Anyway, somewhere else in this discussion someone has
> mentioned how it is done from the spec.
Did you ever program an EGA card? You could not read the state of the registers
from the card.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:02:06 +0000
Mark Styles wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:53:35 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> * Office applications - I've tried StarOffice, I've tried Applixware,
> >> and I've tried a couple of other smaller offerings, but none of them
> >> seem to match up with office applications for Windows. MS Office is
> >> SLOW, but StarOffice is slower
> >
> >What computer are you running on? I find StarOffice workable on a
> >P133/72M.
>
> It's a P200, and when I tried it I had 32Mb. I now have 64Mb so I may
> give it another try.
It will be fine, unless you have a really slow(!) P200, compared to my
P133 :-)
> I also have done absolutely nothing with regard to kernel tuning and
> disk tuning (too many projects, not enough time!), so doing that might
> speed things up a bit.
I haven't done much. I have a custom kernel because RH5.2 shipped with
2.0.3x and I wanted a 2.2 kernel so my CD-RW would work.
Disk tuning will only speed up the load time (which is pretty bloody
slow), but it works fast otherwise. I'm not suprised you had probelms
with 32M, though---it is a bit of a bloater.
If you're doing word processing you might want to try TeX/LaTeX,
possibly through LyX (a GUI front end).
-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: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:05:01 +1100
I happen to agree with Bill. I run Linux and Win9x at home. Lately I have
been spending around 70/30 time on Linux Vs Win9x. Admittedly using Linux
mostly for work and Windows for games.
Apparently Black Isle (sp?) studios are making Neverwiner Nights for Linux
:) cant' wait.
Add up the savings with Linux
Free Operating System.
Free C/C++ dev environment plus the choice of many others.
Free Httpd Server
Free word processing / spreadsheets
Free database(s).
etc.. etc..
How much for a brand new out of the box MicroSoft solution just for the
above?
Think of all the computer hardware you can buy for LINUX with all the
savings. Mmmmmmmm lots's and lot's of RAM and super fast CPU. drool.
Bill Shine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OGDa6.156669$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I use a linux desktop at home, for a single reason -- Linux gives me the
> applications that I want, and
> windows doesn't. I use programming languages
> (C++,Lisp,Prolog,Java,Perl,Python), text editors (Nedit,vi,emacs), and
> databases (mysql,interbase) a lot. I find that between KDE 2.0 , Gnome,
and
> Star Office, I have all the "home office Apps" I could want, and I see no
> reason to spend money on software to replace what I can get for free.
> Anyone saying that UNIX on a desktop isn't pretty hasn't run Gnome or KDE
> 2.0. They provide you with a desktop that is superior to the windows
> desktop. Try it.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: 23 Jan 2001 23:03:35 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Shogun Total War" is now the only reason I keep my Windows 95 partition
>around, a superb real-time 3D strategy war game (http://www.totalwar.com/). By
>far the most realistic war game I've ever played. It really expresses the
>chaos of the battlefield, yet encourages you to play strategically.You can
>also wind up with thousands of men on the battlefield. If this were ported to
>Linux I'd buy it in an instant.
I tried to have a look at the "non shocked" version... english wouldn't
load at all, German would load but all I get are the press releases.
I do not like Shockwave...
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:05:34 +0000
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Not only would they have less performance, less reliability, and
> : less remote management capability (Win2K terminal services rocks),
>
> Anyone who thinks Windows has better remotability than UNIX is
> either ignorant or lying. It isn't physically possible to get
> better than what UNIX has, because the only thing missing is
> stuff that requires that I touch the machine (putting a CD in
> a drive, changing a tape without an autochanger device, etc.)
Well, Chad is known for his stupidity and lying...
-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: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:07:12 +0000
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And they *still* can't reliably kill a process. I tried to invoke, then
> > kill, Notepad on a very large text file (this on NT4); it took
> > several *minutes* to finally vanish. I doubt Win2k has improved
> > noticeably in this regard.
>
> Then get kill.exe or pskill.exe
> kill -f has yet to fail me.
> kill -f lsass.exe has interesting results when running as admin, btw.
> Don't try it at home.
So you need to get extra stuff just so you can kill apps. Yeah, really
great. And how long has UNIX been shipping with the kill command?
-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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 23 Jan 2001 22:16:05 GMT
Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: ~snip~
:>
:> :> Debian prefers to call Linux - GNU Linux.
:>
:> : That's because the operating system is filled with GNU sources.
:>
:> But calling it "GNU Linux" is also a lie, because Linux is not
:> a GNU project.
: I think technically the term is GNU/Linux, though I didn't disagree with
: Charlie about that issue in itself.
: It's just very heavily based on a GNU foundation.
:> Linux is not a GNU project in the same sense that gcc, emacs, HURD,
:> and so on are. It *includes* GNU tools, but is not itself a part
:> of the GNU umbrella. You're kidding yourself if you actually
:> believe that the only way to give credit where credit is due is
:> to do so in the title of the product.
: I never said I believed that was the _only_ way to give credit. But when
: the GNU sources outweigh all the other software in the average
: distribution I think it is a valid way to give credit.
The point I was disagreeing with was the implied notion that
because RedHat doesn't call it GNU/Linux that this means they
aren't giving due credit to the GNU folks. This does rest
on the unstated premise that the _only_ way to give credit is
to put it in the name.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:31:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:12:33 GMT
<ljgb6.12899$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Stuart Krivis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:30:25 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem (reiser
>or
>> >> > ext3 )
>> >>
>> >> Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has
>none
>> >> of these problems.
>> >
>> >So say the windows zealots - but of course it's not true.
>> >Suse has been shipping lvm and reiser for some time now,
>> >and is used in production environments.
>>
>> Reiserfs is quite stable IME. I've seen it running on several
>> production boxes doing web caching. I performs very well.
>
>Well, your personal opinion doesn't count for much. I've not seen Red Hat
>attempt to sell it as a solution to their enterprise customers. Right now,
>they're still shafting them with ext2fs. Reiser is clearly superior to
>ext2fs, why isn't Red Hat selling that to them?
Um...because there's a large just-discovered security bug found in
it that may be exploitable for root access, maybe? :-)
It's unfortunate, as I rather like the idea of reiserfs, but it's
clear that this particular bug is damaging to data; until it's fixed,
reiserfs is going to be suspect, no matter what OS it's on.
>
>> NTFS seems to be a decent FS. I have no real complaints about it -
>> except for the problems with fragmentation.
>
>Which isn't much of a problem, especially on Win2K.
For large files I get hundreds of thousands of fragments, according
to Diskeeper. That's a funny non-problem, that.... :-)
>
>> Oh - there's also that little problem with the MFT
>> growing and growing and...
>
>Which has never been a problem except in lab tests. The 4 million file bug
>was discovered by a guy who wrote a program to test it. It's never been
>a problem in the Real World. Anyhow, it was fixed in NT 4 SP4 and isn't
>an issue AT ALL now.
>
I could see it being an issue for a classical NNTP newshost (which tends
to create lots of little files :-) ). However, I'm not sure how
much of an issue this in fact is, since I've not tried to implement
such on NT, myself.
>> And I have seen systems get hosed when they're not shut down correctly.
>
>I've never seen that, well not after NT4 SP3 anyhow. It's certainly not
>a problem on Win2K. Have you ever shut down a Linux box with ext2fs
>incorrectly? God help you. You have a 90% chance of completely hosing
>your fs. Not much of an enterprise file system IYAM.
Part of the issue with Linux may in fact be bdflush, which makes sure
that a mostly-idle system has all of its pages written to disk on
a regular basis; this means Linux could use a modified FAT and suffer
little or no damage, assuming it's more or less idle at the time the
power goes out and/or the system panics. (Mind you, using FAT for
Linux is a bit like putting bicycle tires on a Ferrari -- in other
words, pointless. :-) )
OTOH, a heavily-loaded system may be a different matter.
One thing NT and Win2k have going for them: NTFS is a journaled
filesystem. Metajournaled only, perhaps, but journaled all the same;
this means that rollback, snapshot, and rollforward make sense.
Ext2 does not have this capability currently (ext3 might, but I
can't say I know).
Of course, what good is consistent metadata if the files contain
complete crap? :-)
>>
>> Nothing is perfect in this world. However, I tend to be more
>>impressed with unix solutions than with Windows ones. MS just
>> seems to have a knack of making more work for Administrators. :-)
>
>Well, then you aren't very educated on the MS front then. Perhaps you
>should know what you're talking about before making conclusions.
Agreed, but I do wonder if anyone's done a case study regarding
administration of comparable size departments, one using a Unix+3rd
party solution, one using Microsoft, or Microsoft+3rd party.
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:14h:35m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:26:12 GMT
In article <6KI86.36526$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> pip wrote:
>
> > This is what I asked myself and I have no sensible reasons. Human
error
> > :-)
> > It is a pain in the proverbial.
>
> My theory is it's a bug in Linux Mandrake installer.
My theory is human error. There is zero relationship between the rpm's
needed for KDE or Gnome and the rpm's needed for telnetd, et al. And
zero relationship between installing those rpm's and bringing up the
necessary services when you boot up. You probably picked < 100% of
packages to install despite clicking on icons for all groupings.
In any case, if you aren't looking at what you are installing, you
cannot possibly know what is being installed. The only type of
installation that I run on mandrake is expert -> dev/server -> select
individual packages. In the LUG installfests I help out with, I get
everything that I want every time unless *I* make a mistake.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:42:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:15:10 GMT
<Olgb6.12900$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > Please show me _AN_ article in c't that is favorable to Microsoft.
>>
>> What product is worthy of any favorable press? Seriously, what product could a
>> reporter write about in mostly favorable terms?
>>
>> Office? No.
>> 98? No.
>> NT? No.
>> 2K? No.
>> Bob? No.
>> Dogs? No.
>
>Office2K, certainly so. And it has been herralded by almost every product
>review outfit. I defy you to show me a product review of Office2K that
>wasn't favorable, if not stellar.
Office2000 is highly usable and very convenient, when it:
[1] Doesn't crash because of some sort of memory corruption issue
(I've had it do some funny things, and at one point it was
putting garbage into a composition!)
[2] Doesn't get infected by a virus,
[3] Doesn't hang because of some unknown issue,
[4] Doesn't have to deal with three version of Word files, perhaps. :-)
I'll admit, I like it to some extent, but I think I could duplicate
its functionality in part using off-the-shelf Linux components, with some
work: Lyx, a calendar system, some code from a file browser, a
mail system such as Mozilla, and a web browser, perhaps, also from Mozilla,
and GIMP. (Reading Word-format files is not part of the issue here, but
I did say "in part" and TeX files or HTML files are far more standard
than Word are, despite the latter's ubiquity.)
Or one can use StarOffice, possibly. I haven't used it, so can't comment
beyond the fact that it exists.
>
>Windows 2000 is the same. It's stable, scalable way more than any other
>OS it competes with out there,
Including Solaris? Right. Let me know when Win2k can run on
256-processor machines; I can see Solaris running on one pretty
damned easily at this point. :-) In fact, I suspect it can, already.
(Granted, Sun is cheating slightly; they have control of both
hardware and software. However, the principles of monitors, queues,
and locks are straightforward and were being taught back during
my college days (early 1980's); spinlocks may be newer, but aren't
unheard of, either.)
>it sets performance and scalability records
>all the time (tpc.org), and it has a huge application base, more so than
>any other OS in its class. If you're arguing that Linux is better, that's
>laughable at best.
It may depend on one's definition of "better". It's better than NT4
in terms of reliability, if not in number of salable applications.
Win2k has yet to prove itself -- although it's also better than NT4.
It's just too new.
>
>-Chad
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:18h:04m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:44:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:42 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:03:55
>>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> > I think you mean incompetent system architect for choosing NT.
>>>
>>>
>>> Incompetent NT LoseDOS admin and incompetetant system architects who
>>> choose LoseDOS products....go hand in hand.
>>
>>Of course, then there are idiots like you who would choose a Linux
>>workstation platform as their choice when you knew what would suffer.
>>
>>UNIX on the desktop isn't pretty. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't be in
>>business.
>
>Tada!
>
>And out pops Max to remind everybody that Microsoft isn't in business;
>they're monopolists. That's criminal activity, not business.
Even monopolists have to equate marginal revenue with marginal cost. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random basic economics (possibly misremembered) here
EAC code #191 0d:19h:15m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 23 Jan 2001 16:46:38 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 22 Jan 2001 23:06:53 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[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?
> >
> >there is a quicktime streaming server? I thought linux couldn't play
> >quicktime?
> >
> >Forgot about realvideo, it's a loser format...
>
> Sour grapes from a Lemming.
>
> ...how pathetic.
realvideo? ahahahaaa
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS opens up on Whistler copy protection
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:47:27 +1200
Hi Nick,
> But first, although cracks and patches dealing with the protection in
> Whistler builds 2410 and 2416 (an "internal" Microsoft build currently
> maiming bandwidth in shady circles) have been produced, it would seem that
> the panic produced by product activation's appearance in the beta code was
> unnecessary - according to Nieman, neither of these builds is actually
> protected. "It's just a UI screen," he says, a "first glimpse" of what the
> system will look like. Just click next, as Microsoft's technical beta
> testers have now been informed. Duh.
I (metaphorically) fell off my chair laughing when it turned out that all
the beta testers had to do is press "next".
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:39:01 GMT
In article <94knip$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : 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.
>
> Bull. I got an SUV becuase I wanted the high ground clearance for
> snowy weather.
As a colorado native, I can say with certainty that SUV's are about the
worst cold weather cars to own BECAUSE they have high ground clearance
and a high center of gravity and in part because most of the people who
own them *THINK* they are great cars to drive in the snow and drive at
the same speed in the snow as they do in good weather. ( this may not
be true in wisconsin where I understand that there is a reasonably low
ratio of californian and texan drivers in proportion to the total
population )
Best snow car? Nearly anything made by Subaru. Low center of gravity,
wide wheel base, all-wheel drive, and not enough power to drive like a
schmuck in bad weather.
*THIS* American now lives in sunny Southern California and drives a
gas-guzzling sebring convertible which is not very good in the snow.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:59:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:33:59 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001
>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:49:24 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Your argument is having been weaned on Windows; that's a story as old as
>>>Bill Gate's monopoly. Yes, its all about the application barrier;
>>>haven't you read the conviction?
>>>
>>>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>>>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>>
>>Personally I could care less one way or the other.
>>
>>I use a product because it works for me, not because of some mission.
>
>If you repeat that often enough, maybe it will magically be true, eh?
It may depend on a number of factors, the simplest one being
if flatfish+++++ is paid to troll us -- a consideration I
feel is unlikely, albeit possible.
However, why else would one use a product? If one thinks that it
will work for him, he buys it and uses it -- or, if he's unlucky,
he finds out it's pure junk (i.e., he's suckered) and buys another product.
(One hopes that doesn't occur too often.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:19h:26m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:58:22 +0100
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > Sour grapes from a Lemming.
> >
> > ...how pathetic.
>
> realvideo? ahahahaaa
This is your best post so far. Why do you even bother when you dont have
anything to contributte?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
