Linux-Advocacy Digest #823, Volume #31 Mon, 29 Jan 01 16:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Salvador Peralta)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Windows is fired again (Bruce Scott TOK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:16:32 -0000
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:18:19 GMT, Raymond Patitucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didnt write anything in this post originally, but I would like to
>explain why Linux is unfeasable as a workstation platform. There are no
>good wordprocessing, spreadsheet or database programs for linux. Microsoft
DEFINE "good".
[deletia]
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[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 20:17:27 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah yes, the register. Constantly on the look out to make up stories
> > > > > that show MS in a bad light.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, the obvious answer to this article is is that Delphi's
> > > > > admins are incompetent. They choose some back-woods network card
> > > > > that doesn't have good drivers (which, if I were them, I would switch
> > > > > right then. If the company that I buy NICs from can't write stable
> > > > > drivers, I don't want them as my NIC vendor any more).
> > > > >
> > > > You forget:
> > > >
> > > > a) That "good drivers" are available for low end performance, and not
> > > > high end.
> > >
> > > Intel makes damned good high-end server NICs and their drivers are
> > > a perfect compliment. Anyone who knows anything typically uses these.
> > > The ones that don't typically use 3COM, which is probably what happened
> > > in this case.
> >
> > You mean that Win2k doesnt provide decent drivers for 3COM NIC?
>
> No, 3COM provides drivers for 3COM nics. Many happen to ship with Win2K,
> but I've yet to see a "good" 3COM driver for any NIC.
>
If they ship with Win2k, then MS carries full
responsibility. Whatever they write in their EULA.
> > That 3Com Gigabit 3C985 which is used for the CERN supercomputer (maybe
> > you heard of it) isn't worth a support from MS?
>
> MS doesn't support 3rd party hardware. This is pretty standard, what
> planet do you live on?
>
Isn't their OS expected to run on 3d party hardware? Or do
they manufacture PC's?
You mean that they only support MS mouses?
I'm afraid that's the only thing they're good at.
> > When it's got a Linux driver?
>
> So? I could write a really bad driver for multiple platforms to, but that
> doesn't change the fact that it's a bad driver.
>
Go check about CERN supercomputer performance, and when
you've learned something about real computing come back and
discuss about things you appear not to understand.
> > However both Intel and 3Com provide NIC's 1000Base-SX as per standard
> > IEEE 802.3z
> > So it's not a matter of brand.
> > Well maybe Win2k is enterprise ready, but only if you think of
> > enterprise in terms of grocer's shop.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
>
Yes, that's the point. You don't even understand the Delphi
problem and claim that Delphi admin are incompetent. Go and
learn something about computing, lad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:20:13 -0000
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:34:04 -0800, tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>bs snipped once again, I sure that you can prove any of this? right?
>Actually make linux useful for the masses, screw the gui; then lets see if
>it will be stable!
If anything is to be proven by someone, it's up to the
FUDSTER that made the original comment actually...
>
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Has anyone noticed the new line of FUD from the Winvocates?
>>
>> "Linux is more stable, until you put a GUI on it."
>
>
>
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:23:52 -0000
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:10:53 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Harlan Grove wrote:
>
>> In article <94snje$ekf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> ....
>>
>>> Wasnt there something about a government BY the people and FOR the
>>> people written down somewhere?
>>
>> ....
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>and lie detector tests---this past administration would have burnt the
>machines up after lying so much.
A lying politician? Imagine that...
Time to get out of the Ozzie and Harriet
reruns and back into the real world.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:28:20 -0000
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:14:35 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>. wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <94snje$ekf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Wasnt there something about a government BY the people and FOR the
>>>> people written down somewhere?
>>>
>>> ...
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Ah, you dont have a very good understanding of what happened in florida.
>>
>> You're one of those insane federalists who believes that his government
>> is incapable of doing any sort of wrong, arent you?
>>
>> I'll bet you believe in god too, dontcha?
>>
>> Thats very sweet.
>>
>
>yeah <sarcasm> what a horrid idea to actually believe in God huh? <sarcasm>
>
>Considering the US was founded on Christian beliefs I find this normal
>and hopeful that people might actually have a set of morals not based on
No, the US was founded on Humanist beliefs. In the grand
scheme of things, Christianity is just a historical
footnote. You are gravely delluded.
>their own ideology (which would be inherently imperfect given we are human).
>
Any so-called "englightenment" is going to be flawed for the
simple fact that it is going to be tainted by human agendas.
Your dogma has had centuries of abuse at the hands of zealots
and politicans of various kinds.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:30:30 -0000
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:22:58 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>. wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Certain countries (Norway comes to mind) are very friendly towards
>>> choice and freedom, but not 'Europe' in general.
>>
>>
>> Netherlands: all the freedom of norway with 1. half the taxes and
>> 2. more to do.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>red lights hurt my eyes :P
>
That part of Amsterdam is easily avoided. You have no
compelling need to force your will onto others.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:33:56 -0800
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 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."
>
> And you believe Linux + X + KDE 2.0 is
Depends on how you define stable. I've had applications crash the
Xserver without losing pppd and other tty services as well as other
processes. Just restart your X session, and you are in business with no
other changes.
Compare that with windows where a crash means that you'll lose all
services and are often forced into a hard reboot.
Also, you are way off base when you say that there are no applications
on the desktop. You and I both know that mandrake linux comes with more
desktop applications out of the box on most installs.
--
Salvador Peralta
"Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
and is destined to fall by the wayside in time."
- microsoft.com
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:35:32 +1300
In article <94qe94$ntr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > The tests are sending random crap through OS communication channels in
> > order to see whether the OS will screw up or not. When an application
> > runs amok, who knows what it's going to do? It would be nice to know
> > that no matter WHAT an app did, the OS would keep ticking. That's what
> > these tests show.
> Did you actually read the article? I don't think you did because they just
> state about applications that fail. In case you lost the link, here it is;
> http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~bart/fuzz/fuzz-nt.html.
Thanks for the link, I had lost it... and I read the entire article this
time (I mistook it for an article I've read previously, so I never
continued).
Anyway, from reading the article I find out that practically all tested
applications under win32 fail the random message test. And there appears
to be nothing to stop any one app sending messages to any other app. And
nothing to guarantee the integrity of the information either.
So, is every win32 application programmer lazy (I would not fully
discount this), or is the system not well designed?
If every application was required to provide code to check the validity
of arguments for all messages, things would be nuts.
> Btw: give me one method (or 'crap' i can feed the os with) that will crash
> W2K. I've yet to find one.
I couldn't tell you with Win2k, as I despise it and wont use it. Does it
provide a workaround for the Pentium F0 0F bug? (why anyone would want
to run win2k on a pentium is beyond me...) It would be amusing but not
surprising if it didn't.
Apart from that... I dunno, shift your system drive to another IDE port.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Windows is fired again
Date: 29 Jan 2001 21:33:34 +0100
In article <1W4d6.1107$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Hustava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In MS-Windows File Manager (winfile.exe) if you perform a search for any
>device like COM1 NUL or CON, it shows up as found in every directory.
Sounds stupid.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
