Linux-Advocacy Digest #883, Volume #31 Thu, 1 Feb 01 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (.)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Best way to learn Linux? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft (Donn Miller)
Re: Bill knows what's best for you ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The nightmare that the current Open Source king (Linux) has bestowed upon us
(Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (J Sloan)
Re: Getting first W2K server ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: 1 Feb 2001 05:15:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I was part of the Chevette/Caddy tranny class action suit.
> You need to do more research.
Its not at all ironic that a blind-fan of one of the worst operating
systems ever written would buy one of the worst cars ever built.
=====.*
*who prefers linux and Ducatis
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 05:23:40 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rGod6.35735$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > OTOH, if this configuration were really relevant you could
> > provide actual case studies and not mere benchmarks.
>
> Gee, I don't know, I've seen several clustered database setups.
> In fact, Microsoft Cluster Server and Oracle's Cluster software
> are big sellers. Now, why would that be if people don't like
> clusters?
In the real world clusters are used for fail-over protection. In the
benchmark configuration any single failure would have taken the
system down. How can you claim the two have anything in
common?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best way to learn Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 05:31:46 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NP3d6.243$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Michel Catudal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The best way to learn Linux is like with a language, you plunge into
> > it. Install Linux on your PC and do most of your computing with it.
> > There are tons of compilers that you can play with.
> > Get some good books too. The online doc is usefull but will never
> > replace a good book.
>
> That works great if you have the extra time to devote to figuring things
> out.
>
> Some people need to get their work done in a timely manner, and digging
> through man pages and books for solutions they already know in the other
OS
> is unproductive and loses them money.
Oh - you mean all those people with 15 years experience with Windows 2000
shouldn't bother learning a unix-like OS too?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:34:30 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> "MS Exec: Linux is Going Down"
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41527,00.html
That guy must be some kind of idiot. The fact that the Linux camps
should just give up and quit because Microsoft claims they do something
better. Well, what DOESN'T Microsoft do better than Linux, according to
MS? They've been saying they're better for years. Remember back in '92
or '93, how NT was going to be this multi-platform unix killer. Now, NT
has been reduced to a single platform, while a host of open source
unices have flourished. *nix is more popular than ever. Man, that was
pretty amazing. "NT is a unix kiler". Unix popularity then starts to
skyrocket and grow like stink 2 years later.
It's amazing how an OS with a MTTF of 120 days and only runs on 1
platform was going to destroy unix. Microsoft's OSes are riddled with
problems in their own right, and yet producers of non-MS OSes should
pack it up the minute MS does one or two things better. That guy must
be some kind of idiot.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill knows what's best for you
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 05:36:12 GMT
"Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Clicking "start the GUI automatically" is not something that
> > requires a tremendous amount of research into arcana. At worst
> > it requires some very abstract and general information about
> > how Unix works (namely that the GUI is infact optional).
>
> No more intuitive than figuring out that if you select 'cancel' rather
than
> 'reboot now' that the machine won't reboot immediately.
But it is certainly more intuitive than guessing that selecting cancel
during the install won't actually cancel the install. Or does it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:48:01 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Martin Eden wrote:
> This is a general problem Microsoft has. Write a great piece of software,
> get lots of 4 star ratings on it, improve it until it can not be improved,
> then add everything under the sun to it including the kitchen sink...at
> which point it becomes a worthless piece of shit. This is what they have
> always done. MS Word used to be a sweet piece of work, the best word
> processor _by far_ one could get. In 1997 it became nearly unusable. With
> the release of Whistler Windows itself will be either unusable or nearly so.
Yep, this is true. MS complains extensively about Linux being more
dominant than Windows, yet a lot of times they caused their own
downfall. MS Word 2.0a was very nice, I agree. Hell, they even had a
unix/X version available. Word 2.0 pretty much had all the features a
WYSIWYG word processor should have. It even had a nice equation
editor. Now, the equation editor is gone, and there's a ton of features
added that you'll never ever use (including that stupid Paper Clip).
For MS, more bells and whistles equates to a better product.
Amazing how IE is available for SPARC Solaris and not other unices
directly competing with Windows, such as FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris
x86. If they'd drop their paranoid attitude and actually work with the
Linux/unix world instead of against them, they'd gain a measure of
respectability. But then again, that would be hard for them to do,
since a large percentage of their code is licensed off of 3rd-party
vendors. For example, they couldn't open source IE, because some of the
code is licensed from Spyglass.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:51:16 -0500
Mike Martinet wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Initially, home users will just start using OpenOffice...things will
> > deteriorate from there as more and more managers insist on Linux at
> > home so that their home machine has the same software as what they
> > run at work...which, ironically, is the same way that M$ took over
> > the home market.
> >
> > *THAT* is why M$ is shitting bricks over Linux's potential as a desktop
> > platform.
> >
>
> Actually, I don't think Linux is better on the desktop. You know, if MS
> had just continued to sell its 'toy' operating system to the home
> market, I wouldn't have minded. Linux is a pain in the ass. But the
You've never administrated THOUSANDS of machines.
I can do that with Linux. No can do with LoseDOS.
> rewards from mastering a true Unix on i86 are great. It was MS forcing
> their way into the server market on the back of their sloppy personal OS
> that really gummed my grits. All the sneaky, cheesy, pathetic things
> they did in order to leverage their PC dominance into the enterprise are
> frighteningly odious. As servers, the MS family of OSs stink! They're
So was their sneaky, cheasy, pathetic arm-twisting of OEM vendors to
structure contracts so that no matter WHICH vendor a customer chose for
a DOS, (and optional GUI), that the customer would ALWAYS get charged
for the M$ products.
I.e. their emergence at the top of the x86 platform was just as cheesy.
Digital Research's DR-DOS product was:
a) technologically superior
b) more stable
c) 100% compatible with MS-DOS software
d) 50% lower cost.
And yet, achieved abysmal sales...primarily, because customers were
PREVENTED from buying DR-DOS without also having the cost of MS-DOS
put into the price.
I.e. Microshaft is all about sleaze and Al Capone "marketing" methods.
> great for pop and sis to send email and pirate CDs, gramma to d/l baby
> pics, but to run a business?! Vomitus!
>
> Oh well.
>
> MjM
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:59:23 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:22:43 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >And, by the way, no Chevette Transmissions were put into full-sized
> >cars...idiot. There are these things called "bolts"...which pass through
> >"bolt holes" to connect one major component to another. This alone
> >prevents a "chevette transmission" from being installed into a
> >full-sized Cadillac without some serious re-tooling.
>
> Hydromatic 200. Made for small cars installed in full sized GM cars.
>
> >Second...a "chevette transmission" installed in a full-sized car
> >(Cadillac or otherwise) would burn out VERY shortly.
>
> At about 20k or so, and that's exactly what happened.
>
> >The case was over BUICK engines installed in some Cadillacs.
>
> That's another issue.
>
> >Both engines were produced at the Livonia Engine plant, and are,
> >essentially interchangeable. (Some might even argue that, because
> >maintenance costs on Buick engines were lower at that time, that
> >anybody getting a non-Cadillac engine actually benefitted).
>
> Another GM issue.
>
> I was part of the Chevette/Caddy tranny class action suit.
Really.
If your basis for suit was the existance of a "Cadillac" transmission
as opposed to a "Chevette" transmission, you're full of shit.
Hydromatic transmissions are HYDROMATIC...not Chevy, nor Cadillac.
*ANY* Hydromatic transmission is available for use by ANY GM
Powertrain design team, regardless of brand name."
Similarly, ALL GM engine castings come from GM Central Foundary
near Saginaw, and ALL GM tilt-wheel steering systems are provided
by the Saginaw Tilt-Wheel...REGARDLESS of nameplate.
no fraud involved, unless you're an ignorant clutz who doesn't
understand the meaning of "conglomerate", and bitterly resents the
methods used to bring an affordable product to the market place.
Now...if you want to argue that it was the wrong Hydromatic MODEL,
then you're ok....but don't give me this "Chevy tranny in a Cadillac"
bullshit...because that's all it is...BULLSHIT
There are no "Cadillac" transmissions, nor "Chevy" transmissions.
All of the different GM automotive Divisions work with whatever
transmissions the Hydromatics provides (although they *can* submit
their own design...once Hydramatic is making it, then the engineers
are free to specify whatever flywheels are needed to match it up.)
IF I were the judge, I would have thrown the case out of court,
as long as the model number matched.
>
> You need to do more research.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> AIXes problem is with licensing, IMHO.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Of course, Born-with-a-golden-spoon-in-his-mouth Gates neglected to
> >> >> > notice that IBM's customer-lock-in strategy also had IBM in Federal
> >> >> > court so frequently that they were almost a permanent fixture on
> >> >> > the dockets.
> >> >>
> >> >> Heh. I'm glad they found a way to make money without doing that.
> >> >
> >> >Their current CEO basically said,
> >> >"Look, shit-heads...even non-technical management can figure out the
> >> >customer-lock-in trap. You had BETTER start providing cross-platform
> >> >compatability, because nobody is buying your incompatible-with-the-world
> >> >crap (like, for instance...IBM's EBCDIC-based everything vs ASCII
> >> >everywhere else).
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> -----.
> >>
> >> Flatfish
> >> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> >> Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
--
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: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nightmare that the current Open Source king (Linux) has bestowed
upon us
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:15:37 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> al wrote:
>
This al means Al Bundy ? Doesn't he sell shoes for fat ladys anymore and
got a job as a computer-scientist ?
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using SuSE 5.3 and 7.0
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:12:37 GMT
"." wrote:
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Now hold on, thats particular to every flavor of unix; there is not
> >>consistent /etc between UNIXEN, especially not between the sysV
> >>varieties. HP/UX did the same thing, as did Solaris/SunOS, SCO and
> >>UNIXware.
> >>
>
> > You wantem sysV, go RedHat.
>
> My god man. Redhat is so incredibly broken that I dont even want to talk
> about it. :)
Red Hat works like a champ for me -
I've tried em all, and keep coming back to big red.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:15:36 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ni_b6.231$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Well, we just moved a system from AIX to Win2K two days ago. Worked
fine
> under
> > AIX, but now print jobs max out the CPU (like, 100%) when printing to a
> text
> > printer on a local LPT port. Easily enough solved by putting the
printer
> on
> > its own box, but why is that an issue in Windows? It shouldn't be.
>
> What are you talking about? Printing does not take 100% of the CPU, not
> even in Windows 3.1.
PC Parallel ports are a bad place to put printers, especially on a box that
has something else to do besides stuff a character out when the printer
wants it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:12:14 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > However, Kyle Jacobs has yet to identify any of them.
> > > >
> > > > He's probably still trying to come up with Schrodinger's equation.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +---------------------------------------+
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > Other way round you ass.
>
> Is this the reply of the big-time bizzzznezzzzzman
> we heard from earlier. Heaven forfend! What would
> his clients think?!!
Mood swing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:25:26 GMT
In article <95akab$k3d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>Bennetts family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>:> For the intellectually challenged, the mere act of me posting this piece
>:> doesn't mean I support Microsoft's stance.
>
>: And just because I'm using OE doesn't mean I'm at all enjoying the
>: experience.
>
>:> I proposed that Microsoft might be running scared a few days ago. To
>:> continue the analogy, I now think we're in supersonic territory :-)
>
>: Yes, Microsoft is screaming in vain. It's patently obvious lack of
>: confidence is going to kill it. Essentially they are saying "We are dead.
>: Not even .Net can save us now.". It can only be a matter of weeks or months
>: before sales die off. "If Microsoft isn't confident in itself, we sure can't
>: be confident in Microsoft.", I can hear execs holding purse strings saying.
>
>: We have almost won!
>
>
>Don't underestimate the threat posed by .NET. It is seeking to fill
>the void that has always existed between browsers on one hand, and
>full-featured GUI applications on the other, and if it manages to do
>so successfully, then the Mafia$oft monopoly we have today will seem
>like the "good ole' days" compared to what will soon follow.
>
>How do we avoid this fate? We have to fill the need M$ is trying to,
>we have to do it for the mass market, and most importantly, we have to
>do it BEFORE it does. Mafia$oft may continue to shoot itself in the
>foot by continuing to practice its traditional arrogance, ignoring
>quality, and failing to comprehend the importance of paradigm shifts
>that are already happening. But we cannot count on that. After first
>ignoring the Web, M$ then almost managed to turn it into a
>proprietary, M$-only platform in just a couple of years simply by
>sabotaging the then-dominant Web browser and middleware language.
>
>Tools that will help us: Mozilla (not necessarily Netscape), GNOME,
>KDE, OpenOffice, Java, and standards-compliant HTML, CSS, and XML.
>
>Most important thing we need and don't yet have: a cross-platform and
>cross-language standard for Web-based forms that are more complex and
>featureful than what standard HTML can handle. And it has to work on
>IE (obviously with the help of a plug-in, and this may be the most
>difficult battle of all, since M$ can and does sabotage any piece of
>software that lives on its platform at will). Otherwise a lot of
>'Doze users will simply use .NET by default, and that is exactly what
>we can't allow to happen unless we want M$ to gain a foothold in the
>server market, from which it can then dictate "standards" and
>eventually dominate not only the existing PC market, but the emerging
>markets for every other conceivable Net-connected device that will
>ever exist.
>
>
>Joe
Never underestimate the draining effect of the $$$$ Ray Microsoft
shoots at your wallet when you play *THEIR* game.
And my verdict: YES, Microsoft is dead.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: 1 Feb 2001 06:36:08 GMT
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>Now hold on, thats particular to every flavor of unix; there is not
>> >>consistent /etc between UNIXEN, especially not between the sysV
>> >>varieties. HP/UX did the same thing, as did Solaris/SunOS, SCO and
>> >>UNIXware.
>> >>
>>
>> > You wantem sysV, go RedHat.
>>
>> My god man. Redhat is so incredibly broken that I dont even want to talk
>> about it. :)
> Red Hat works like a champ for me -
> I've tried em all, and keep coming back to big red.
I admit, from a desktop point of view its lovely. But from a production
server point of view, its just AWFUL. With comments like "this is broken"
and "dont use this!" in etc rc files, debian is a far, far better choice.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
