Linux-Advocacy Digest #686, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Martin Eden")
Re: Poor Linux ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Designed for Windows! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Games? Who cares about games? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows Has Lost (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Daniel Tryba)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ("Kyle Jacobs")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Martin Eden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:41:27 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Martin Eden wrote:
> >
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > > Debian is BSD based
> >
> > Where on earth did you come up with that?
> >
> > BSD is a family of Operating Systems which does not include Debian. I am
> > sure all the people who have worked so hard to develop Debian from
> > scratch will enjoy hearing that their product is a knockoff of something
> > else.
> >
> > It's not "based on" BSD any more than Solaris is "based on" BSD.
>
> Actually....
>
> Solaris is a descendant of SunOS, which is a direct descentant of BSD.
If you want to get technical: Solaris 8 is also known as Solaris 5.8, which
is also known as SunOS 2.8. SunOS 1 (which was BSD based) was called Solaris
4.x but only after Solaris 5.x was released but while SunOS 1.x was still
popular.
Is that clear enough for you?
>
> Bill Joy was in charge of BSD until he graduated and founded Sun.
Very true.
>
> SunOS 1.0 was basically 4.3BSD ported to M68010.
Yes.
>
>
>On the other hand...Debian has NOTHING to do with >BSD.
It has as much to do with BSD as Solaris does, which is nothing more than
every other Unix has in common with others.
Thank you Aaron. Finally, we agree on something. 8*)
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:47:41 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >But then what else would I expect from a child.
>
> Can we please argue over something a little more substantive, like,
> perhaps, whether Linux has better paging performance than Win2k? :-)
Oh, definitively Windows 2000. Linux used to make my hard drive do a tap
dance when performing high-memory operations (creating big pictures under
GIMP), yet Windows 2000, similar software, similar application sizes.
Windows 2000 loaded a majority of the program into psychical memory,
removing what seemed to have been my other programs (even the ones I had
been working in) to VRam.
Chalk it up to dynamic process resource reallocation under 2000!
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:51:54 -0500
JS PL wrote:
>
> "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
That's becuase Stupid people never complain about idiotic situations.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Designed for Windows!
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:54:05 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
> The idea of creating this Linux logo struck me
> when I found my IBM thinkpad with Linux gives
>
> 1. double battery life
> 2. better suspend resume performance (win98 could not ever resume 100%)
> 3. my ricochet 128k never gave 128k on win98...but on linux it gives
> 200-250k! (honestly not exaggeration!)
> 4. ofcourse much better speed performance.
>
> have a look and let me know what do you think.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/acme_new/linux-win.gif
>
> -ajay
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Fantastic!
I have a Microsoft Optical mouse. Under windows it is a bit jerky,
which at first worried me - optical mice aren't meant to do this. I
tried it under Linux, and it was unbelievably smooth. Seems windows
doesn't like MS hardware too much...
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:55:47 +0000
mlw wrote:
>
> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is that out of
> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
>
> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
>
'cos Linux runs the chess program "Crafty". Nintendos can't compare
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:55:16 +0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You can't read.
>
> He doesn't need the CD to install under Windows either he could have
> called them as well, but he has that CHOICE now doesn't he.
>
> And when the CD arrives he can just update anyway.
>
> Under Linux what CHOICE does he have?
>
> Wait on the phone and hope he gets a person sympathetic to the Linux
> cause.
>
> Funny a Linvocate unable to see choice.
But apparently they told him to wait for the CD. I suppose he could have
stayed on the phone for a hour having someone explain all the pointy
clickly stuff (a real pain to do on the phone). But he had it up in a
minute on Linux. Just for another example, here are the directions for
setting up Windows and Linux for ATT.
http://help.attbusiness.net/helplib/win95.html
http://help.attbusiness.net/helplib/linuxp.html
The windows help is twice as long as Linux and contains many more steps.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:19 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
14:25:51 -0600;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also, why the 64 bit Windows is far behind schedule, being beaten to
>> Itanium by every other OS on the planet, just about.
>
>Until Itanium is released, all itanium code is still beta. You can get a
>beta of Whistler with IA-64 support today.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha. An epistemological argument, Erik? It doesn't matter
that Win64 isn't going to be ready until at least six months after the
chip is released, even though Linux and just about every other OS worth
a slip will all be available even before the hardware, because they're
both termed to be 'betas', to you?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:21 GMT
Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 19:42:17 GMT;
>Ed Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:38:11
>: [...]
>:>>You are so misunderstanding what is being said. I'm merely pointing out why
>:>>multi-platform support, (which this thread had veered into), was/is so poor
>:>>as to be non-existent.
>:>
>:>But you are mistaken; I am not misunderstanding you, I'm disagreeing
>:>with you. I am merely pointing out that the reason multi-platform
>:>support is poor is because of illegal behavior, and that alone. Your
>:>attempts to rationalize it as 'appropriate behavior under certain
>:>circumstances' is a thinly veiled apology for a monopolist.
>:>
>: I would like to inject here that I think the reason, though they
>: would deny it, that M$ dropped the other ports of NT and never even
>: attempted a port of WinDOS was that adapting to other hardware
>: forces a rationalizing of interfaces which would have made cloning
>: like WINE easier.
>
>Actually, I think the reason for it is that the only reason Windows
>is popular at all is because of all the applications that are only
>released for Windows and nothing else, not because the OS itself is
>all that spectacular. Therefore, porting the OS to other platforms
>would be usless unless MS could get all the third-party application
>developers to make all of their software for non-intel platforms
>also. If ONLY Windows and maybe Office ran on platform Foo, but
>nothing else did, nobody would want it. MS discovered this, and stopped
>trying to support other platforms. Of course they falsely attributed
>this to people being uninterested in other platforms, when in fact
>they *would* be interested if the Windows world hadn't been
>monoplatform for so long that all the app developers forgot how to
>program cross-platform code. (Consider how Corel ported WP 2000
>to Linux - by using Wine instead of actually doing a real port.)
>
Coincidentally, immediately after Microsoft bought a big stake in the
company, IIRC.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:23 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:30:31 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>You do realize that some people actually *like* the term Penguinista,
>>don't you, Claire/Steve?
>
>I don't mean it to be a derogatory term, just a term.
Oh, is that your story now? ;-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:24 GMT
Said Martin Eden in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:30:24
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Martin Eden in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:14:29
>> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> >> Debian is BSD based
>> >
>> >Where on earth did you come up with that?
>> >
>> >BSD is a family of Operating Systems which does not include Debian. I am
>> >sure all the people who have worked so hard to develop Debian from
>> >scratch will enjoy hearing that their product is a knockoff of something
>> >else.
>> >
>> >It's not "based on" BSD any more than Solaris is "based on" BSD.
>>
>> Solaris isn't based on BSD, its based on System V. SunOS was based on
>> BSD.
>
>No kidding, c.o.l.a. nut.
>
>>
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>No problem. My door is always open for a Microsoft using Linux fanatic.
Cool. So have we sorted this out, yet? Is Debian based on BSD, or not?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:25 GMT
Said . in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 16:32:47 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:35:45
>> [...]
>>>I think distributing PDF format files is an excelent idea. Even if it does
>>>max bandwidth. [...]
>
>> PDF files are generally much smaller than their Word document
>> counterpart.
>
>In this vein, guess what happens to a W2K machine when you use office2000
>to read a document you converted in staroffice from .rtf to .doc?
>
>Thats right kids, it locks up solid. Powercycle nessesary.
>
>What was it exactly that windows does well again?
Pretending to be a lousy OS, obviously.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Has Lost
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:27 GMT
Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 09:30:28
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 Jan 2001 08:34:13
>> >Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> >Oh, I dont' know: they could do any one of a hundred tricks to keep
>> >rogue software out of the system. What if the hardware presented a
>> >challenge to the operating system, and if the response was bad it
>> >would lock the system down? What if the hard disk was encrypted using
>> >a proprietary method, such that it was impossible to examine the disk
>> >for any security routines without breaking the encyption first? What
>> >if the Pentium III used in the system were modified to prevent people
>> >from monitoring pinouts and data transfers?
>>
>> Without some competitive justification, any one of these would
>> constitute a criminal act, to be honest.
>
>How so? There is no legal open protection for this kind of hardware.
I don't understand what you mean. The 'legal protection' is from
anti-trust laws, which don't relate to any particular kind of hardware.
As for the concept of the kind of scams you were describing, there are
in fact a number of very solid precedents making clear that these would
be in violation. Competitors would chew up anyone in court who tried
that stuff, after the various video-game console decisions like Sony V.
Accolade. Its been a couple months since I was looking at these things,
but IIRC an Appellate Court significantly declined to hear a petition in
a very recent dispute. The law is clear that this sort of stuff is
anti-competitive, and so it would be found to be in violation of the
Sherman Act, should anybody choose to prosecute.
>It could be interpretted as "anti-competitive" by some, but if they
>plan on making revenue from game sales (and they do) while taking a loss
>on hardware sales, then it would be justified. Anyone who purchases
>an X-Box and then installs Linux on it would be costing them money.
There are no legal avenues for Microsoft to prevent anyone who might be
interested from defeating any such mechanism, even if it required
copying every line of code Microsoft produces! (But only as much as is
practically required.) This would be a gaping hole through which
Microsoft could inadvertently destroy themselves. Its going to cost
*somebody* money, but if its *really* more efficient, economically,
there's nothing to stop someone from buying a bunch of X-boxes, wiping
them, installing Linux, and selling them at a profit as "super X-boxes".
Not that it would probably be economical to do so. But that simply
argues against the need for any of these shenanigans to 'lock down' the
box to begin with. I doubt even an anti-competitive agency would do it
that way.
Instead, Microsoft is going to simply force X-boxes down the throat of
anyone who would want to buy a PlayStation III, and make sure that no
game developers create anything for any other platforms. Typical
tricks.
>> >Linux/BSD will eventually run on it, but it may be more work than it
>> >seems. If they don't lock it down at all then it'll be a great Linux
>> >workstation.
>>
>> Even now, though certainly by then, even 'locking it down' would be
>> extremely risky, legally. But there aren't going to be that many PC
>> vendors interested in it. Sony, however, would find themselves at it
>> yet again; maybe they'll have learned from Accolade, this time.
>
>The PC vendors need to get interested in it; it represents a threat to
>their entire business. How long before "X-Box Professional" comes
>out; one capable of running a standard monitor and sporting standard
>ports? Couple the DMCA with Windows "copyright protection" schemes,
>and Microsoft can convert their userbase over to Microsoft hardware
>quite easily.
The last thing in the world Microsoft wants to do is become a hardware
manufacturer. I expect that the X-Box itself will not even be strongly
branded as related to Microsoft at all. More like the disk-TV systems,
that use WebTV, with no reason to be concerned with who owns WebTV.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:29 GMT
Said Mark Styles in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:33:26
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:50:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Here's the way I read your post.
>>
>>I would like Linux, except for the fact that Windows has predatorally
>>maintained an application barrier preventing commercial development of
>>software on alternative platforms.
>
>Actually, it's more like:
>
>I do like Linux a lot, but Windows has predatorally maintained an
>application barrier preventing commercial development of software on
>alternative platforms, which pisses me off. Until that barrier is
>broken, Linux will not make a dent in the desktop world.
Well, I like your style, Mr. Styles.
But whether any dents are being made, there's quite a few rather deep
scratches, I would say.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:30 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan
2001 19:53:40 -0000;
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:39:05 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Donn Miller in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 Jan 2001 00:15:17
>>>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is that out of
>>>> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
>>>
>>>> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
>>
>>One word: keyboard.
>
> Keyboards for the Dreamcast have been available for quite
> some time now. Plus, the DC comes with a built in modem
> and a web browser. There's even a 100BaseT NIC that's
> supposed to be coming out for it as well.
>
>[deletia]
>
> You really don't follow this stuff, do you?
No, why would I? I already have a keyboard, and its attached to a real
computer. If I'd wanted a toy computer, I'd have a Macintosh, or WebTV.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 24 Jan 2001 01:00:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not only would they have less performance, less reliability, and
>> less remote management capability (Win2K terminal services rocks),
> Uh, no. Windows Terminal Server is a pale and slow immitation of X. You
> can do *anything* on UI*X from a remote telnet window, so there is no
> way Windoze can have more remote management capability. Also, windoze is
> less reliable (I'll Quote the MTTF of 12 days).
Ehhh, actually that's not quite true when you say that Terminal Services
are slow, the protocol (RDP (I know nothing about ICA)) actually uses less
bandwidth then X, especially trafic from the client to the
TerminalServer is kept to the minimum. The result is that TS is faster
than X on slow connections, on a 10+ Mbps network X feels much faster
than TS. Ofcource telnet/ssh requires even less overhead if it was
possible to do anything on NT in a CLI.
BTW a simple way to test it is using ssh to tunnel connections to the
remote machine, ssh -v will tell you exactly how much data is being
transported.
My benchmark of X starting a remote Netscape and a NT TS4 machine
starting a remote Netscape had the following results (the procedure is
to login to the remote machine and fireup a Netscape asap, both machines
are at the same remote site and the FreeBSD machine actaully has some
extra processing power and 64Mb more memory)
X/Netscape:
debug: Transferred: stdin 7, stdout 2673, stderr 37 bytes in 248.2
seconds debug: Bytes per second: stdin 0.0, stdout 10.8, stderr 0.1
debug: Exit status 0
debug: compress outgoing: raw data 232900, compressed 40073,
factor 0.17 debug: compress incoming: raw data 378538,
compressed 93147, factor 0.25
NTTS/desktop and Netscape:
debug: Transferred: stdin 5, stdout 297, stderr 37 bytes in 68.5
seconds debug: Bytes per second: stdin 0.1, stdout 4.3, stderr 0.5
debug: Exit status 0
debug: compress outgoing: raw data 21282, compressed 17661,
factor 0.83 debug: compress incoming: raw data 99658,
compressed 99074, factor 0.99
BTW the TSclient is the same machine running Linux and using rdesktop to
connect to the TS.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:59:40 -0500
Chris Lee wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> >
> >
> >Said Bruce Scott TOK in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 22 Jan 2001 14:59:31
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is that
> out of
> >>>the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
> >>>
> >>>I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
> >>
> >>I don't play any serious games on computers... no staying power :-)
> >>
> >>I play things like Asteroids, Mahjongg and Shisen-Sho under Linux (they
> >>are KDE programs but well enough written to function properly under
> >>fvwm2).
> >>
> >>I might play real wargames if any became available, but I have never
> >>seen a computer wargame anywhere nearly as good as the board games from
> >>wargaming's heyday in the late 1970s.
> >
> >Alpha Centauri.
>
> Nope. Alpha Centauri is a pale copy of the wargames that's being talked
> about here. A serious Wargamer wouldn't touch Alpha Centauri with a ten-foot
> pole.
Speaking of such, I'm playing with an idea for being able to re-create
ANY traditional board-wargame out there.
the idea is that ever component of the game is an independant process,
and all interactions between units (and the map board itself) are done
via interprocess communication (probably named pipes).
ANYBODY interested in pursuing this, e-mail me.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:59:04 GMT
Me too!
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 23 Jan 2001 16:32:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:35:45
> >> [...]
> >>>I think distributing PDF format files is an excelent idea. Even if it
does
> >>>max bandwidth. [...]
> >
> >> PDF files are generally much smaller than their Word document
> >> counterpart.
> >
> >In this vein, guess what happens to a W2K machine when you use office2000
> >to read a document you converted in staroffice from .rtf to .doc?
>
> Now, why exactly would you bother?
>
> >
> >Thats right kids, it locks up solid. Powercycle nessesary.
> >
> >What was it exactly that windows does well again?
> [deletia]
>
> I'll have to try that trick now... '-)
>
>
> --
>
> Common Standards, Common Ownership.
>
> The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
> and anti-democratic monopolies.
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
