Linux-Advocacy Digest #802, Volume #31 Sun, 28 Jan 01 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Another thing I've noticed. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler predictions... ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. (J Sloan)
Re: Another thing I've noticed. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: All this Whistler stuff. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: All this Whistler stuff. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Sound a networks (J Sloan)
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. ("Chris Clement")
Re: KDE Hell (Jim Richardson)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:39:00 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:951cbs$fjd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Turn off services you're not using, etc... It's not the CPU that's the
> > problem, it's the memory, and I have a P100 with 64MB running Win2k and
> > it has an average 72MB memory footprint. A small amount of swapping,
> > but nothing major.
>
> Hang on, if Win2K has a footprint of 72M and you laptop has 64M then it
> will be swapping the whole time if you're using several applications.
No, it won't. If you understand how swapping works, it doesn't swap an
entire application out to memory, it only swaps unused pages, and in most
applications, 90% of the code is unused or used seldomly. The parts of the
program in active use stay in memory, and thus very little swapping.
> > Compare that to Linux running X and a decent window manager like
> > enlightenment and environment like Gnome. You're easily at the same
> > level.
>
> >> A P100 laptop is old and there probably has a small amount of disk
> >> space once Win2K was installed it wouldn't leave much room for anything
> >> else.
> >> 1G would have been a lot at that time.
> >
> > It has a 1.2GB drive, and i've pruned the Win2k system directory down to
> > 300MB. Plenty of space.
>
> How the hell did you do that? I believe you, it's just that I've never
> heard of that before.
Well, you delete the system backup directories and driver.cab file for
starters. There's lots of redundant stuff in the windows directory designed
to keep the user from having to insert the CD if they install new hardware
or drivers. That gets reid of aver 200MB alone. Deleting bitmaps, video
files, cursors, etc.. also helps.
> >> IIRC When P100 laptops were around, 32M of RAM was very good. Win2K
> >> won't run well in 32M of RAM.
> >
> > So you add another 32 meg. big deal. It's cheap today.
>
> 64M isn't enough for Win2K (footprint 72M).
It's fine for my uses.
> >> I doubt whether your P100 laptop would have been any good running
> >> Win2K. I should have been more accurate. I'll restate:
> >>
> >> My computer won't run the latest version of Windows in a reasonable
> >> manner.
> >
> > It's perfectly reasonable for me. It's not as fast as my Celeron 366
> > Thinkpad, but it works fine for word processing and HTML development.
>
> Mabey we have a different idea of reasonable :-). What WordProcessor do
> you run?
Word 2000. Word 2000 actually uses less physical memory than Word 97 and
Word 95 before it because it's much more componentized.
> >> The fact is I'm running some of the latest stuff for Linux absoloutely
> >> fine on a P133, with no responsiveness probelms (Actually, I haven't
> >> tried the latest kernel yet). I haven't tried KDE, but all the Gnome
> >> stuff runs with no problem.
> >
> > I'm running Gnome on my server right this minute. Gnome itself is
> > taking up over 17MB, while the window manager (enlightenment) is taking
> > over 7MB. XF86_SVGA is taking up 14MB. That's 38MB without running any
> > apps, and without cache and buffers.
> >
> > Tell me how well that runs on 32MB P133.
> I thought your laptop had 64M?
It does, but you were talking about how it ran fine on your P133 with 32 MB.
> It would certainly run better in 32M than something with a footprint of
> 72M. Besides one of the problems with Windows is that it is all or
> nothing. Either you take it all (along with more memory etc) or you can't
> upgrade. The point I was making about Linux is that you can pick and
> choose the features you want (even the newest ones) without having to
> have them all.
Well, you can replace the default shell with a less memory hungry one, and
you can disable almost all services as well and get Win2000's memory useage
down to about 20MB, but the damn thing would not be very friendly then and
you would lose all the advantages of Windows. You might just as well be
running GEOS then.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:32:31 -0500
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:952920$cj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <XI_c6.5159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> If you have A company which is running Linux on last years
> >> Pentium II and using Gnome to conduct business, that company
> >> will be *more* profitable than the company who's thrown all
> >> their Pentium II's out to buy a new machine with W2k installed.
> >>
> >
> >Not if you throw in the cost to retrain all the staff etc. If the
economics
> >were so clear, it would have already happened., but in any real business
> >decision you take into account more than just raw hardware/software
costs,
> >otherwise SUN would have been out of business years ago.
> >
> At some point that old "retraining" FUD falls to the cost
> differential, otherwise DOS would still be the thing most businesses
> use.
It's not FUD, and yes at some point it may be outweighed by other factors,
but right now, it's not even close.
>
> Businesses will use whatever they believe will be most cost
> effective and their employees will use the company supplied tools.
And cost-effective includes a lot of factors beyond the basic cost of the
OS.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:34:17 GMT
Chris Clement wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > There are more than enough instances of each type of
> > application to fully enable me both to work and to play,
> > in a 100% Linux environment.
>
> No, I disagree.
You disagree that I am using Linux everyday?
> Most consumers are indeed going to want to buy additional
> software and they are going to want to install it without having to learn
> what about tar or rpm.
This shows that you have probably not used Linux,
at least not for some years, or you are exaggerating
the difficulty. When I installed quake 3 arena, I inserted
the CD, clicked on the CD icon, the file manager opened
and I clicked on "install.sh". If I had not known to do so,
I'd have found out very quickly by clicking on README.
> Bottom line: Can you walk into any software store
> with the confidence that they will have software for your system?
Certainly not a windows software store. However, I can
go for example to Fry's, Best Buy or Micro Center and
pick up Linux software. But I really don't need to do that
very often, since everything I need ships with the distro.
The fun stuff I can either get from Fry's, or online.
> Unfortunately, the answer is no with Linux.
Ah, but what is the question? you didn't make that clear.
"Can I walk into a windows software store and be
100% certain that I can find Linux software?"
Consider this hypothetical question:
"Can I walk into a Linux software store and be 100%
certain that I can find windows software?"
To paraphrase you, "Unfortunately the answer is no
with windows".
> The average consumer is going
> to say forget the alternatives and pay the additional money for Windows.
You may be surprised what the "avereage consumer" will
do in the future.
> They will find more value in paying those extra few dollars than they would
> getting Linux for free.
Actually, I could get windows for free through my employer.
Guess what - I go out and buy Linux instead.
> Certainly everyone has had problems with Windows. But the same is true with
> Linux. All one need do is look around the newsgroups for Linux problems to
> see that. There is NO OS that does not have problems.
True enough, but a man who cannot see the trends is
bound to be rudely awakened.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:41:41 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:951d8u$403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm running Gnome on my server right this minute. Gnome itself is
taking up
> > over 17MB, while the window manager (enlightenment) is taking over 7MB.
> > XF86_SVGA is taking up 14MB. That's 38MB without running any apps, and
> > without cache and buffers.
>
> You're loading your argument again, eric. You said you had to "tweak"
> windows in order to get it to work on your P100; Yet you purposely use the
> most bloated linux install for comparison.
Yet my "tweaked" Windows box does everything the Gnome box does. I'm trying
to be as close, feature wise, as possible, and besides, the OP stated the
use of Gnome specifically.
> > Tell me how well that runs on 32MB P133.
>
> Blackbox without gnome runs just fine on my 75 megahertz powermac with 32
> megs of ram.
I'm sure it does. Win2k using Litestep as the shell and turning off
services left and right will as well.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:35:50 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> In article <2nXc6.249$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Tholes Tholen:
>> >
>> >> >>> 1) Get off your retarded ass...
>> >>
>> >> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I have a "retarded ass" to
>> > get
>> >> >> off of, Kulkis.
>> >>
>> >> > You're sitting on it, retard.
>> >>
>> >> Still making the same erroneous presupposition, even after I
>> > called
>> >> your attention to it.
>> >
>> > Still incapable of understanding Kulkis, I see, Tholen. Let's just
>> > say Kulkis sees things correctly, if stridently.
>>
>> AAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
>>
>> Its going to be another Tholen vs. Malloy thread.
>>
>> Why don't you start up a group:
>>
>> comp.tholen.vs.malloy
>>
>> And argue away on that?
>
> Illogical.
It's perfectly logical.
You guys love to get in to long arguments that have nothing to do with
(in this case) Linux advocacy. The only thing in common is you guys
getting in to long pointless arguments.
Therefore it is logical that the arguments be given a group of their own
since they do not fit properly in to any other group.
How about:
comp.long.pointless.and.pedantic.argument
-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: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Date: 29 Jan 2001 00:37:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Sean Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[stuff that makes even Steve/Claire/Flatfish sound eloquent and
reasoned by comparison]
*plonk*
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:37:43 +0000
In article <u30d6.868$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Edward Rosten writes:
>
>> AAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
>>
>> Its going to be another Tholen vs. Malloy thread.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim? I suggest you pay more attention;
> I haven't responded to Malloy for several months.
>
>> Why don't you start up a group:
>>
>> comp.tholen.vs.malloy
>>
>> And argue away on that?
>
> Why would I want to do that?
I honestly have no clue, but past experience suggests that you like
arguing with Malloy. Since the arguments relate mainly to themselves, it
is more logical that they have a newsgrouop devoted to them.
-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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All this Whistler stuff.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:45:05 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > Actually, a lot of the 'cool' stuff, (like changing quantums and file
cache
> > size dynamically) are done instantly and not even through the registry.
>
> Please translate "quantums" from microsoft-speak to english
> for the benefit of us poor newbies.
quantums is not microsoft-speak, it's computer science speak.
http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?query=quantum
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All this Whistler stuff.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:45:54 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > What exactly would you like to customize in the kernel?
> > >
> > > Who knows, a better scheduling algorithm, how about
> > > removing some of the baggage, it's hard to say what
> > > a techie might want to do...
> > >
> > > > Nearly any
> > > > parameter the kernel uses for tuning is accesible through the
registry.
> > >
> > > So, windows is creeping closer to Unix in this regard then?
> > >
> > > However, I'll bet windows has to reboot in order for the
> > > change to "take effect", whereas Linux kernel parameters
> > > can be tuned on the fly.
> >
> > Actually, a lot of the 'cool' stuff, (like changing quantums and file
cache
> > size dynamically) are done instantly and not even through the registry.
> >
> > Also, the registry changes *usually* don't require a reboot...
>
> If rebooting isn't necessary, then why does Microshaft's software
> tell you to reboot?
Because NT4 was lazy. Windows 2000 is much less so.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:41:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:48:40 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The file is owned by the owner of the mailbox, get it?
>
> I can't tell you the number of times I get "locked file messages",
> usually with ppp, and the file is owned by root.
What does a ppp lockfile have to do with a mailbox lock file?
> I can open 2 instances of Netscape under Windows and browse and get
> access to favorites and updating of favorites and so forth.
>
> Can't do it under Linux tough.
>
> I get a "Netscape already open error" and although Netscape opens and
> works none of my bookmarks are usable.
That's hilarious, if you were going to lie, you should
have picked a lie that's not so easy to disprove!
I just opened 3 instances of Netscape 4.76, opened
the bookmarks file in each one, and clicked on three
different bookmarks - of course each browser instance
went right to the selected bookmark.
So much for your never ending Linux woes - I figured
they had to be made up, but now you've verified it.
LOL!
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Chris Clement" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:52:13 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:952cat$391$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Bad goods? Exactly which products produced by Microsoft are bad?
> >> > And
> >>
> >> Windows 9X are bad goods. They are unreliable and break easily. IMO, NT
> >> is not very good either. Look at the MTTF.
> >
> > Haven't been around here long. What does "MTTF" stand for. And I have
>
> Mean time to failuer.
>
> > said before, Linux is very reliable, until you put a GUI on it. Then it
> > falls far behind Windows in reliability.
>
> No. That's just plain incorrect. I have had 2 X barfs in the last 2 years.
Not from my experience. I have had more problems with Gnome, KDE, and the
like than Windows 98 without question. So now I stick to the command line
on Linux which I use for Apache, and mySQL.
> >> DOS was years behind the times.
> >
> > Uh.......ok.
>
> Compare it to any other OS around at the time, eg MacOS (all graphical)
> Amiga OS (whatever that was), nice GUI there, any UNIX of your choice
> (very powerful).
>
> Dos is only good for one thing: embedded systems (for which it or
> variations, eg DRDOS is better than most alternatives).
>
>
> >> Word was (I haven't tried the latest versions) buggy and unreliable,
> >> and ormatting was nothing short of a nightmare. Hell, even Notepad was
> >> bad
> >> (very limited file size).
> >
> > I agree with you here. Word is a pain in the butt. Of course, I use it
> > regularly. Why? Nothing else out there.
>
> You don't look very hard. There is word perfect, Staroffice, LaTeX (my
> choice) LyX (GUI front end) Applix (I saw a shrinkwrapped box of that on
> sale in a book shop recently).
I'll give those a shot. Thanks.
> >> IE is a nasty mess (I don't care if netscape is bad too, that does nto
> >> make IE better).
> >
> > Nasty mess? That's quite vague, isn't it?
>
> Crash happy, not standards compliant...
Rarely have a problem with IE crashing. Netscape is not standards compliant
either.
> >> There is virtually no interpolability between MS products and other
> >> products, especially on other operating systems.
> >
> > I looked up "interpolability". I don't think it is a word. Do you mean
> > portable? This is true for those other products as well. Microsoft
>
> Mixing systems together.
>
> > often has tools to convert those other products to its own format.
> > Nothing stops those other products from doing the same.
>
> Except MS file formats are very difficult to decipher, which is why it is
> very difficult for something like Staroffice to do a really good job
> going in reverse. There is a LOT stopping them.
>
> >> Until recently, there was little interpolability between different MS
> >> osen. NT couldn't read FAT 32.
> >
> > Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to in the word
> > "interpolability". The fact that NT could not read FAT 32 had little
> > affect. Most used NT and FAT 16. Not sure what you are getting at
> > here.
>
> What I'm saying is is that one version of windows couldn't read the disks
> produced byu another version of windows around at the same time. That is
> appauling.
Do you mean floppy disks? If so, that is incorrect. All Windows versions
used FAT16 to format floppies. The only other scenario I can think of is if
you took a hard drive out of one machine and placed it in another.
> >> The example code provided by MS for DirectX is full of uneeded gotos.
> >
> > Are you a programmer?
>
>
> I'm a student. I dabbled in DirectX abot a year ago. I never went far
> though. I do quite a lot of programming for fun. I'm gearing up to enter
> this years IOCCC :-)
Good luck with that.
> >> None of the recent OSs have shipped with programming languages.
> >
> > I think you mean they were not shipped with development tools. Most
> > consumers are not programmers. I do like the fact that Linux comes with
> > developement suites. Very nice.
>
> Not even some king of scripting language (BAT files don't count). At
> least DOS shipped qith QBasic (not very good, bu better than nothing).
>
> >> 98 was esentially a bugfix on 95. And they charged for it. Disgusting.
> >
> > Actually, not true. The bugfixes were available for download for free.
>
> And if you didn't have a modem (which I didn't until recently)?
Buy one.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:59:24 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:08:24 GMT,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 27 Jan 2001
>>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:30:10 GMT,
>> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>>I wouldn't call capital hill an "upward" one for a Republican. Ashcroft is
>>>>going to be the next Attourney General. Oh well. I suppose he couldn't
>>>>possibly be worse than Janet was, I mean, come on. WACO. They wanted to
>>>>crusify Reno after THAT one, and she was a Democrat!
>>>
>>>I would MUCH rather have a militant Attorney General who fire-bombs
>>>fundamentalist extremists who think they're God and are stockpiling
>>>weapons than one who believes that the US is a Christian Nation and will
>>>be a puppet for the Pope and the New Right*. The threat to liberty is
>>>becoming rather frightening. America may be entering a very dark time.
>>
>>The BD's were not stockpiling weapons, they had fewer arms per person than the
>>average Texas home (2 I think.)
>
>Counting the children, no doubt. When someone has a crate of assault
>weapons, grenades, and maybe the odd rocket launcher, they're
>'stockpiling', as far as I am concerned, no matter what the per capita
>weapon count happens to be.
Except that there were no grenades, no rocket launchers, and the only "assault
weapons" were the ones the feds brought to town.
>
>>>* It is VITALLY important to recognize that Reno did *NOT* firebomb the
>>>Davidians, but Ashcroft (and Bush, and the entire Republican party, in
>>>fact) *are* politically influenced heavily by the Christian Coalition.
>>
>>Reno (via the various fed three letter agencies at the time) fired incendiary
>>rounds into a wooden structure, used CS gas with a flammable propellant,
>>refused to allow fireengines access to the church, and in general, lied and
>>missrepresented the situation from day one.
>
>Yea, right.
Truth is truth, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not is irrelevent. The
feds lied about a drug lab (they later admitted it was a lie) about child abuse
(which is not even in the federal jurisdiction in the first place.) and about
the actions they took. There wasn't a single day of the siege that went by,
without the feds lieing about something.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:03:32 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:13:22 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:40:17 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes.. the desktop is the battlefield.... and who knows Windows desktop
>>better than Linux users that mostly come from the Windows enviroment?
>
>The desktop may be a battlefield but there is an important difference.
>
>The Winvocates have bullets in their guns :(
Must explain why they keep shooting themselves in the foot...
"Honey, I got an e-mail from someone named Melissa, she says she loves me!"
>
>While you Penguinista's may be correct in identifying what component
>of Linux causes the problem, all the while you are spouting it off, we
>have moved on.
>
yeah, you move on when you find a problem, or develope little habits like
"don't move the mouse when it's saving a file" or "make sure you don't use the
shortcut icon, start it from the startbar." Or the one my mom is currently
dealing with, don't use the printer if you used the webcam since the last
reboot, windows doesn't like it.
See, we are a little different, when we find a problem, we fix it...
Try is sometime.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:20:02 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:15:33 -0500,
Seán Ó Donnchadha, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>
>>
>>Don't you see the RAW power behind 250,000 Linux developers
>>over a mere 2,000 Microsoft developers....
>>
>
>Sure, just like I see the raw power behind a million backyard
>mechanics over the mere few at BMW.
>
>>
>>4 OS's to support now.
>>
>
>Actually, there are 2 OSs to support now - Win9x/ME and WinNT/2K.
how many times were we told that NT and W2K were completely different?
>Later this year Win9x/ME is finally going away. Think about that. All
so we've heard before...
>the OEMs that currently ship Win9x/ME will be shipping Whistler by the
>middle of next year. What's going to happen to Lunix's chances on the
>desktop when its only advantage over the current mainstream desktop OS
>(stability over that of Win9x/ME) goes away?
Unproven assertion, and given the numbers we are seeing from places like
netcraft, and from M$ websites, it doesn't look good for M$ in the
uptime/reliability arena, 'course, it could be that M$ can't find decent
admins... yeah, that's it.
>>I predicted Microsoft would loose dominance to Linux by
>>2005. I wonder if they will make it that long?
>>
>
>Give me a fucking break. Lunix is finally becoming a real-world OS, as
>opposed to the hobbyist OS it started life as. And look what's
>happening to it as a result: years between major kernel updates,
>mutually incompatible distributions, distribution-specific 3d-party
>software, GUI wars, a mountain of unfinished crap software, and worst
>of all, the deadly embrace of those horrible proprietary commercial
>corporations (like IBM). You Lunix zealots should have kept this
>wonderful OS to yourselves; now that it's in the radar range of the
>commercial world, you may not like what it ends up turning into.
Sure, 2.4 is late, and it's working, Work started on the next rev now. What
you forget to mention of course, is that all the time that 2.4 was late. If the
new features were important to you, you could get the 2.3 series kernel. The
beauty is, the developement and bug hunting go hand in hand. Developement is
very rapid in linux, and in opensource in general. Remember Mindcraft? less
that a week after the test, there was a fix for the single lock on the tcpip
stack, which by the way is fixed now, and has been for many months. Similarly,
Linux scales pretty linearly up to four processors, doubling the processors
from 2 to 4 in a windows 2K box, sees the processing power go up by barely 40%
Real impressive...
Now IBM has linux ported to everything you can buy from them, and you think
that we think this is a bad thing?
Perhaps you could point me out to a "mutually exclusive" distro? or to a GUI
war? perhaps you don't know that KDE and Gnome apps coexist quite happily?
In the case of the rare distro specific 3rd party s/w. It will work on other
distros, and even if you didn't want to risk it, you simply get the distro it
is sold with. After all, it's not as if you have to pay CALs on the OS...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
