Linux-Advocacy Digest #803, Volume #31 Sun, 28 Jan 01 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Jim Richardson)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Jim Richardson)
Re: Sound a networks (Jim Richardson)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! ("Chris Clement")
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: help: partition resizing... (Tim)
Re: Microsoft is fired. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. ("Chris Clement")
Re: Whistler predictions... (Ed Allen)
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Another thing I've noticed. (Tim)
Re: Windows is fired again (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:30:46 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:49:07 -0500,
Aaron R. Kulkis, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 19:10:20 -0500,
>> Aaron R. Kulkis, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
<snip>
>> >> The US is a republic not a democracy. Kindly read the Federalist Papers
>> >> for the rationale behind not trusting the populace. It has a government
>> >> of laws, and the laws in the state of Florida were fairly clear, and
>> >> the polling stations had signs giving instructions that voters should
>> >> make sure that their ballots were punched through and to remove hanging
>> >> chads. And if they double-punched, they could ask for new ballot papers.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe there's a good reason for literacy tests after all.
>> >
>> >Personally, I think that EVERYONE in America should have to apply for
>> >citizenship, just like immigrants.
>> >
>> >How many of the "government owes me a paycheck for my mere existance"
>> >ignorami would be prevented from voting until they demonstrated an
>> >understanding of our history and Constitution in a Citizenship application.
>> >
>> >
>> >Odds are, the Demoncrooks would quit pandering to the lazy welfare
>> >crowd....as these idiots wouldn't EVER pass the requirements of
>> >citizenship if they weren't granted them by an unfortunate accident
>> >of birth.
>> >
>>
>> I'd sure like to see high schools requiring passing the citizenship test as
>> part of graduation... But make the teachers take it too.
>
>No need...as long as the teachers are prevented from voting until they
>do pass a citizenship test.
>
they still fill the heads of students with mush. Maybe if they knew more,
they'd know better...
--
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: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:27:05 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:02:58 GMT,
Charlie Ebert, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a few? How many is a few? Apple II, Commodore 64, PET, trs-80,
>>> color computer, Altair, TS-1000/ZX-81, Unisys A and B systems, CDC Cyber
>>> systems, Cray I, II, III, XMP and YMP, ETA 1, Connection Machines,
>>> RS-6000, AS/400,
>>> IBM System 36/38, Any number of VAX systems, IBM 43xx, Tandems, HP 9000,
>>> Psion...
>>>
>>> I could go on for quite some time you know for systems that don't have
>>> Linux ports.
>>>
>>>
>>Well, now you have to take that AS/400 off the list. IBM is working on that
>>Linux-port and Beta is expected later this year (native mode, naturally).
>>
>>By the way, to include Apple II, TRS-80 etc on that list just shows that
>>you don't have a clue. These machines certainly have more brain than you
>>show by this argument.
>>
>
>Just more evidence to show the crowd that Erik Fukenbush lives
>in a dream world. He's ribbing me as Windows or DOS would
>install on a TRS-80 or Apple II.
>
>What does that have to do with the real world of computers
>which need support. In the REAL world, Microsoft just supports
>the Alpha and the Intel. They don't support the 20 different
>kinds of mainframes and PC's currently sold today like Linux
>does!
and they don't support alpha any more either.
>
>>Microsoft is supporting Intel and Alpha and nothing else (and that only for
>>the NT-versions of Wintendo(tm), consumer-products like wintendo9xx are
>>left out.)
alpha no more...
>>> Never looked at the number of processors supported by CE, have you?
>>
>>Well, i don't ask my pocket-calculator either what os it's working on. CE
>>is just plain dumb, it's Wintendo(tm) made even smaller (if thats possible
>>at all). Word for CE is little better than a slightly extended NotePad from
>>Win3.1. You must be kidding to include CE-machines in the same sentence
>>as computing.
>
>Good response.
CE supports about a dozen processors, about a third of which, are x86
derivatives, amusingly enough, linux also supports all of them, plus many more
that CE (or whatever they are calling it today) ignores.
>From SH3 to S/390, Linux all the way...
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:31:56 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:56:01 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:NCRc6.54641$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >>
>> > > Besides, Win2K has NTFS5 which doesn't have this problem anyhow.
>> >
>> > Give a hacker a DOS boot floppy and this product
>> >
>> > http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfsdospro.shtml
>> >
>> > and see what happens.
>> >
>> Give a hacker physical access to a computer and kiss it goodbye. Doesn't
>> really matter what OS is running....
>
>It's amusing how these slops think that Linux is somehow immune to this.
>
name one person who has said that linux is immune to this? deja is at your
service, just name one, that's all I ask.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:36:47 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Jan 2001 07:44:44 -0500,
Norman D. Megill, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <dGKc6.19391$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:94vbup$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Another curious characteristic of NTFS is that the Master File Table
>> > grows but never shrinks. It can fill up to 90% of an NTFS volume, even
>> > after all files are deleted, and the only way to recover the space is to
>> > reformat the drive. See:
>> >
>> > http://packetstorm.securify.com/9904-exploits/nt.ntfs.mft.txt
>>
>> So far, there's never been an occurance of this. There was a theoretical
>> exploit, which I believe is the one you quoted about the 4 million
>> files. There has never been a documented occurance of this actually
>> happeninng,
>
>Microsoft's own response in the reference I quoted contains a mention of
>the actual situation that prompted the original complaint. For brevity
>I omitted this paragraph in my earlier post:
>
>"Possibly the best resolution for your situation is to use a
>single partition for the FTP Data. If the available space then
>goes under an acceptable level you can backup this partition
>and reformat it."
>
>> however, MS patched it back in SP4, so it's a non-issue now
>> anyhow, and has been for quite some time.
>
>Really? The reference I quoted was from 1999. When did SP4 come out?
>And if so, why did Microsoft say "this behavior of NTFS will not be
>changed"?
>
>> Besides, Win2K has NTFS5 which doesn't have this problem anyhow.
>
>If so, let's hope they have better luck than these people when they
>try to use Win2K for their enterprise application:
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>
>--Norm
>
I did find this story amusing, wonder if M$ will fly some techs and muscle out
to "convince" Delphi to change their minds...
--
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: Sound a networks
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:41:07 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:38:39 +0000,
Pete Goodwin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Are they identical network cards (ie, do they use the same device
>> driver)? If so, you have to tell Linux to use different IRQ's for them
>> (nevermind that IRQ sharing is a feature of PCI 2.1, I don't know if the
>> 2.4 kernel does this or not, but 2.2 certainly doesn't seem to).
>
>They're completely different cards.
>
>--
I'd first try booting up with each card, and getting the info from /proc/pci
(if they are PCI cards) and seeing if they use the same IRQ. Making sure that
each one is supported alone first. Then go from there. Also, note the drivers
that get (automatically) loaded, lsmod will tell you what is loaded, note the
network ones down. Even if they are diff manufacturers and model numbers, they
might be essentially the same card.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:52:27 GMT
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:NCRc6.54641$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > > Besides, Win2K has NTFS5 which doesn't have this problem anyhow.
> > > >
> > > > Give a hacker a DOS boot floppy and this product
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfsdospro.shtml
> > > >
> > > > and see what happens.
> > > >
> > > Give a hacker physical access to a computer and kiss it goodbye.
Doesn't
> > > really matter what OS is running....
> >
> > It's amusing how these slops think that Linux is somehow immune to
> > this.
>
> no one thinks any operating system is immune to this. what gave you
> that idea?
>
Read what Chris said, 'Give a Hacker a Dos Boot floppy', that state the
hacker MUST have physical access to the computer, to use the disk.
------------------------------
From: "Chris Clement" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:56:24 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:952bgb$22k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9G1d6.66700$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris
> Clement" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I guess you are referring to me when you say "Windows CEMENT". Very
> > clever, but check the spelling. First, let me stress that I am NOT a
> > Windows
>
> Ouch! A bit of paranoia creeping in. He was refering to an article in
> geek-world (?) about The (tm) New (tm) Microsoft(tm) Windows(tm)
> combining all the latest Technonogies (tm)
>
> Windows CE + Win ME + Win NT= Windows CEMENT
Thanks, Ed. I only assumed he was referring to me because he quoted
something I had just said.
> > Seeing as how I am new here, I am not familiar with the acronym "MTTF".
>
> Mean time to failure. There was a big thread on it. MS pblished MTTF
> statistics for Win2K as 120 days (appauling). They alos said "look how
> great iot is compared to NT" which said what many people have been saying:
> NT was (by MS's own admission) really, *really* crap.
>
> > I'd appreciate it if you could feel me in.
>
> I hope that's a typo :-)
Bad one.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:54:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:30:55 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone noticed the new line of FUD from the Winvocates?
>>
>>"Linux is more stable, until you put a GUI on it."
>
>Fact.
>
>>It is getting harder and harder to convince myself this is not a concerted
>>effort. In just the last day or so I have seen this phrase pop up more than a
>>couple times from a few users.
>
>Because it is true.
>DOS was more stable until you put a memory manager like QEMM on it.
>Of course you couldn't play any decent games without one.
>Same goes for Linsux.
>Leave it sitting at the CLI and it will run forever. Leave it in the
>back room running a server using the CLI and it will run forever.
>Put the GUI on it, any one will do, run some applications that NORMAL
>folks would run, like audio/video/graphics/spreadsheets and so forth
>and the stability goes down the drain,.
>Fact!
>
Oh bullshit. I run X on all my PC and it's up all the time.
Running and using X has nothing to do with
degrading stability/uptime.
>>So, in response to Windows CEMENT (CE,ME,NT) Win2K has a poor MTTF, they now
>>all respond with the above party line.
>
>The MTTF doesn't concern me because quite frankly my experience
>differs. My server running Win2k is up all the time and I do heavy
>processing of digital audio (like hours to remove clicks and scratches
>and process using FFT) under Win98SE without a problem.
>
>I can't even browse the web and use pan to read news without
>generating a timebomb in Gnome.
>
That's total bullshit. I have Netscape up all the time and
so does my wife. We never take it down.
>
>>It isn't true at all. X, obviously, has a lower MTTF than Linux proper, but
>>even the worst X server has a higher MTTF than 2K.
>
>X is a mess and is quite unstable depending upon what combination of
>applications are running.
>
X is the most stable GUI you can buy.
** PERIOD **
Microsoft would fall into their shit to get the stability of Gnome.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: help: partition resizing...
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:52:34 +0000
Disk Druid can re-partition you're hard disk, but you must run
it from a boot disk. I used a piece of software called parted, it's
not bad but it's still under development, so I wouldn't advise
using it.
Read the documentation, edit your /etc/fstab and /etc/lilo.conf
so you have the right partitions with the right filesystems
and you can use the boot disk to re-partition your harddisk.
Remember to run lilo after you have finished so it knows where
the kernel is when it boots up again.
I don't know about disk druid, but the parted boot disk provides
a very basic linux OS from which you can mount filesystems and
execute commands from incase anything goes wrong and I get myself
into a corner. disk druid might be the same, I don't know.
Good luck,
"Aleksandar V." wrote:
>
> I apologize in advance to those who consider my question
> off-topic; I just need a small advice from someone more experienced
> with Linux partitions.
>
> I need some more space for Linux - and I'd like to keep my current
> partitions without deleting them. I just want to shrink Windows
> FAT32 partition and expand my ext2 file system...
>
> Can this be done in an easy way or do I have to delete Linux
> partitions, play with fips and reinstall Linux?
>
> (The reason for this is just that I want to try out StarOffice,
> and I'm short of space on my ext2fs.)
>
> Thx,
> from a Mandrake 7.0 user in Yugoslavia...
>
> --
> ~ Sascha.
> My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
> (Ashleigh Brilliant)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is fired.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:02:13 -0600
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9523jp$3q1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> :> > > Don't you think the hackers would be gloating over their finds if
they
> : did?
> :> >
> :> > What, and blow their cover?
> :> >
> :> > No, when they find holes in the fence, they don't
> :> > really want them closed, unless they're "white hat"
> :> > types.
> :>
> :> Simply AMAZING how many Windows viruses out there take advantage
> :> of undocumented behavior of Windows code.
>
> : Name one. Just one.
>
> I was never aware that the extension .SHS was always hidden by the OS
> even if you told it never to hide file extensions.
Just because you're not aware of it, doesn't mean it's not documented.
Hell, .lnk is also hidden.
Scrap files (.shs) is documented in knowledge base entry Q138275. My
January 2000 copy of MSDN shows a last review date of October 31st 1999.
Although it doesn't mention that the extensions for SHS files are hidden, it
does mention that they're special OLE shell objects, which if you know
anything about the shell, you know that extensions for shell objects are
hidden.
> Where exactly is that behavior documented, and was it documented prior
> to ILOVEYOU?
At least 9 months by my information, and probably earlier.
------------------------------
From: "Chris Clement" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:00:18 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:952cs7$3e8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Xq%c6.65792$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris
> Clement" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >> True. I've had precicely no crashes in 2 years. But I've had X lock up
> >> twice (I'm not counting times where I did stupid stuff as root) I use
> >> my comuter pretty much every day. It is still ver stable when running
> >> with a GUI. In fact, the X crashes didn't require a reboot.
> >
> > True. In most cases, I could stop X and restart and solve the problem.
> > Recently I downloaded a large file and left it on the / partition. When
> > I booted up, X crashed because the partition had no free space and the
> > font server could not start. This, of course, was my own negligence.
>
>
> Yes, you can't really blame X for that
>
> > On the other hand, our servers at work have been W2K since it was
> > introduced. The stability of W2K is very impressive.
>
> On the other hand? What point are you trying to make. I think Win2K
> wouldn't behave very well if it had no disk space to work in.
Actually, they would act very similarly in that some services would not
start in NT. The difference is that would still be able to get to the
graphical interface. On the OTHER other hand, having that command line
certainly is a huge benefit if the GUI doesn't work. Chalk one up for
Linux. :-)
> > > > use Red Hat Linux 7 on my laptop and have found it to be quite good,
> >> > but crashes do happen. Although I would have no problem running it as
> >> > a server from the command line, W2K is much more stable in an GUI
> >> > environment.
> >>
> >> I disagree. I have found X to be very stable.
> >
> > Really? What windows manager do you use?
>
> FVWM2 (under AnotherLevel, MWM look). I sometimes switch to WindowMaker
> when I get bored of FVWM2.
Maybe that is why. Haven't those been around longer than Gnome and KDE?
More battle-tested?
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:00:15 GMT
In article <YwXc6.5097$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> What apps does a first time computer user want to use ?
>
>For my mother, it was Word and shortly thereafter the Internet. And yes I
>know there are Word processors for LINUX, but she knows Word already and
>people she has to exchange documents with also use Word so its easy.
>
Is Word the only app your mother, and other non Linux users, are
born knowing ?
Which Version ? I understand that different versions behave
differently.
How does one inherit knowledge of something which will not be
invented till years after your birth ?
Perhaps you meant that prior exposure engendered a desire for Word
but then she would no longer qualify as a first time user would she ?
>>
>> Then make that $350, today. $600 in two years.
>>
>> Almost all apps extra, of course.
>>
>> New computers are going to be expensive unless you decide to go with
>> Linux aren't they ?
>
>My time is more expensive and I'll not consider LINUX until it doesn't
>require me to spend time learning new applications and hunting around
>various LINUX sites to find drivers for my hardware. I want an OS that runs
>my applications and supports my hardware with a minimum of fuss. Right now,
>if I was billing my time as a consultant it would be at least $100-150 an
>hour, so if using Windows saves me 4-6 hours over the typical three years
>that I keep a machine, then its paid for itself.
>
Any OEM who sells hardware that the OS cannot talk to will hardly be
in business long enough to notice.
You mean that you never need to download drivers for Windows ? Not
what I have heard.
What will your response be to the hunt required for the apps you
want because they will no longer be bundled with Windows after the
Appeals Court rules later this year ?
How much will you be willing to pay Microsoft-Apps or whatever they
call themselves ?
--
FYI. When you do type "make" on the Windows NT source tree, it takes almost
38 hours for it to complete on a 4-way 400 Mhz PII System, as opposed to
about 5 minutes on Linux. Linux is not Doomed!!!!!! -- Jeff Merkey
http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/1999/1999week26/0787.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:01:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>[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.
>
I think comparing Microsoft software developers to
the people making BMW's is the problem with this
analogy.
See http://24.27.157.74/Linux/intro.html
Never compare the mechanics in software development
with a manufacturing concern. See why in this
link.
>>
>>4 OS's to support now.
>>
>
>Actually, there are 2 OSs to support now - Win9x/ME and WinNT/2K.
>Later this year Win9x/ME is finally going away. Think about that. All
>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?
>
They said exactly the same fucking thing when W2k went out.
And it's said they are going to make a residential/personal
version of Whistler also.
>>
>>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.
Give ME a break!
Linux is UNIX. It's posix compliant.
Unix has been running the world and the web for over 30 years now.
Microsoft hasn't been making Windows for half the time.
As far as deadly embrases, it's Microsoft's deadly embrase
on the world which is the problem we all face right now.
And I'm all for ending it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another thing I've noticed.
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:01:59 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > FACT: linux does not force you in to software and hardware upgrades.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How many people are running on `old' systems? I'm running on a P133
> and
> > > > under Linux it runs fine. It won't even run the latest version of
> > > > windows.
> > >
> > > Huh? Windows runs fine on a P133. Heck, I've run WIn2k on a P100
> laptop.
> >
> > The latest versions of windows do not run fine on a P133, certainly not
> > compared to the latest versions of Linux.
>
> Changing your story? You just said a P133 wouldn't run it at all. Make up
> your mind.
>
> And yes, a P133 runs Windows 2000 fine. Sure, you have to tweak it a
> little, but then you have to do so with a typical linux distro as well.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
At least it doesn't lie to you and tell you it's only using 266K, which
is
a lie. You can't trust anything windows tells you.
>
> Tell me how well that runs on 32MB P133.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:05:26 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows is fired again
Paul Hustava wrote:
>
> Now let's see you try to delete that silly file named /dev/null under Linux.
You should be able to delete /dev/null. However, you'd be without a
/dev/null, and you should be able to re-create it with MAKEDEV.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
