Linux-Advocacy Digest #884, Volume #31 Thu, 1 Feb 01 03:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux headache (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (J Sloan)
Re: LinuxWorld Trip Report (J Sloan)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ("David Dorward")
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: XFS 1.0 is getting close! (J Sloan)
Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it! (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: The KERNEL TRICKERY INSIDE! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler predictions... (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux headache
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:54:09 GMT
In article <95agts$a14$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Morelli wrote:
Let me just take a JAB at this....
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:22:28 -0600, Robert Morelli
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> As for recompiling the kernel, why don't you ask the original poster
>>> why he has been trying to do it. I'm sure it didn't just pop into his
>>> mind spontaneously.
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy? Surely you jest. Half of the people who
>> post here are just trolls who come up with all sorts of obscure problems
>> to
>> "prove" that one system or the other "sucks".
>
>I don't hang out here, so I don't know, and ultimately I don't really
>care. Troll or not, the original poster's experience is plausible. The
>issues raised need to be acknowledged and discussed so Linux
>can move forward.
>
>My thinking is that Windows advocates can be an asset. I want more
>of them pointing out the places where Linux needs improvement, I
>want more Mindcraft comparisons. Like in most human endeavor,
>competition is a motivating element in Linux development. Since a lot
>of linux development is not directly supported financially, it's possible
>the emotional component is the most important one here. It serves
>my purposes if the Linux community is embarrassed by the technical
>inferiority of Linux. If we live in denial about how bad Linux technology
>is, we lose the motivation to improve it.
>
Fine.
>It's for this reason that I admire de Icaza who openly admits ``Unix
>sucks,'' and Torvalds, who openly admits that he was in denial about
>the Mindcraft loss, and Stallman, who maintains that OSS is not about
>quality but freedom. I'm not so sure about people who wear rose
>colored glasses and don't realistically address the serious failings of OSS.
>
Okie, dokie..
>>> Why do we need to rebuild the kernel? Because of a serious design flaw
>>> in Linux according to which device drivers were embedded directly into
>>> the kernel in a very sloppy and non-modular way.
>>
>> What? Nearly all device drivers are loadable modules in all modern
>> distributions. The ones that aren't modules are compiled into the
>> default kernel in those distributions.
>>
>>
>>> Remarkably, the issue is still being debated. You may have seen a much
>>> publicized letter from Eric Raymond to Linus Torvalds a few months ago
>>> in which Raymond ironically maintained that the only way Torvalds was
>>> able to maintain such a poorly designed kernel was that he was a
>>> `genius.'
>>
>> If you're referring to the "curse of the gifted" rant, that's not even
>> close to what he said. The subject was Linus' non-use of version
>> control software (e.g. Bitkeeper, CVS, PVCS, etc), not the design of the
>> kernel.
>
>May be there have been several such rants. In fact, I hope so because
>there seem to be several recognized problems with the kernel development
>model. The rant I was referring to was about modularity in the kernel. Linus
>responded saying that he thinks the importance of modularity is
>overblown.(!)
>
This sounds like an OOP discussion.
Are we Hurding here?
>>> Do you mean to claim that you can't get a kernel panic by doing the
>>> above? That's just not so. You can, and it's not so hard in fact.
>>
>> Yes, you can get a kernel panic by building a kernel with bad
>> parameters. The same ESR you mentioned above is working on a better
>> build system to help prevent this, but in the meantime you actually
>> don't need to rebuild the kernel if you don't want to. The so-called
>> "average user" won't have any reason to do that with modern distros.
>
>I'm aware of efforts to address the problems with Linux. However,
>I've watched many of these efforts procede painfully slowly over time and I
>remain skeptical until they materialize.I don't say the problems will never
>go away, I just say they are here now and will be here for some time.
>
The so called average user won't be compiling kernels.
There's really no need to for the average user.
>What the Linux community needs to do is stop making excuses for things
>like this. Maybe you've been numbed to it, but the rest of the world
>would consider it mind blowingly bizarre that an end user would ever,
>for any reason, need to contemplate setting hundreds of parameters and
>rebuilding the kernel. And this is only the beginning of the technical
>deficiencies of the Linux environment.
Maybe you need to pull your fucking head out of your ass.
If I need to build a specific high performance monolithic Linux
Kernel for a specific task out in server land, then re-compiling
is the ONLY way to get the job done. Otherwise you might as well
run fat-ass bloated GD Microsoft. You will pay for the pleasure
though in the performance hit. The more *SHIT* in the kernel
the slower the kernel runs.
If you needed to support a specific RAID card or NIC or sound
card, you are going to have to compile a kernel to do it.
Linux is about performance. It's not about bloatware.
>There are numerous other mind
Let me break this pile of crap down.
>blowing technical deficits in Linux, like the absense of serious printing
>technology,
Absence of serious printing technology? There isn't
a GD printer made for which apsfilter doesn't work.
What the hell are you talking about?
You CAN print anything from Linux that you could for
Windows only faster.
>inferior font technology,
Inferior isn't a good word.
The font's Linux has work just fine.
What YOUR trying to say is Linux doesn't
have as many font's as Windows does.
YET, I can take a directory of Windows Font's
and load them up on my Font Server in Linux
and use them anyway.
In fact, Suse and Mandrake do this automatically if
your dual booting with Windows.
So what's the problem?
>a total lack of standardization about
>initialization scripts,
You are complaining about something which isn't
a problem. Why would it be a problem?
95, 98, NT, W2k and Whistler then go back to
Win 3.X and before that Dos, non of this shit
has a standard script proceedure for either
boot-up nor runtime.
If your complaining about BSD VS sysV issues,
the the LSB is taking care of that and appearently
Debian will be the model for that.
>an absense of detailed documentation,
This is a total lie. There is 20 times
the documentation for Linux that there
is for all Windows products combined.
There is documentation in the form of man
and info. There is HTML documentation.
There are several X documentation programs
which search thru all this. Plus there
are more help pages on websites and newgroups
out there than any other OS in the recorded
history of computers on the internet.
>lack of
>uniformity in user interface design, etc., etc.
The user interfaces for KDE, GNOME, Window Maker and
other desktops as well as console and terminal handling
are distribution specific and will always be.
Linux will NEVER be the mono-crap, make me vomit same
mess of blue and gray I have to put up with every day.
God, I hate NT. I hate that mono bitch of a desktop.
>At the same time,
>there's this weird propaganda that buried somewhere down deep in
>Linux there is powerful technology that can be unlocked by the
>sophisticated user.
I have an FTP server, a WINS (SAMBA) server, a SSH and firewall,
SSL telnet, CVS, SQL, print and NFS, mail and news servers and
the WEB server.
I can send and receive faxes, do thin client X, play real video,
Play MP3's, use Java, compile in C or C++ or fortran or pascal
or ada. I can write perl or python scripts. Do shell programming.
Write X gui's.
Truely! The 4 CD's Debian made me for 2.2R2 are simply amazing.
4,200 packages in all amazing.
>What this mysterious technology is, is never
>specified, but it must be awesome if Linux users can go without
>the bare necessities like tranparent handling of device drivers, decent
>printing, fonts, etc.
As I explained, we have all that. We can also transport your printer
device drivers to Windows workstations using SAMBA and (WINS) mode.
Doing graphics arts and CAD are quick and easy to do in Linux also.
I know what *YOUR* problem is with Linux. You haven't mentioned
it but *YOU* do have a problem with Linux.
And it's a real problem for you.
You don't have the patience to learn it.
Linux is sweat equity.
Anything good in this world is sweat equity.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:55:49 GMT
"." wrote:
> 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.
Nah, I don't like RHAT desktop, first thing I do is install
helix gnome - Any distro would do as a desktop as
long as it's kept up to date. The real strength of Red
Hat is in the server room, and we've standardized
on RHAT here, and are very happy with it.
> 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.
Huh?
What rc files are those, I'd like to have a look.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LinuxWorld Trip Report
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 06:59:10 GMT
Sponge wrote:
> Well I wasted today watching the Geek in his native environment.
Oh dear - we have another wintroll....
ms must be getting desparate, sending these sad
specimens to make trouble in the newsgroup...
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:01:31 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> > Funny, I just cut and pasted my entire httpd.conf file, copied the whole
> > result, and pasted it at the end of the doc, copied the whole result,
> > pasted it, and pasted the whole result of that several times until the
> > file size got to 1.2 megs when I finally got bored of proving the point to
> > myself and saved with no difficulties.
>
> Funny indeed. I took a few screenshots as AbiWord was barfing all over the
> place. And this with a 0.5MByte file.
But of course, remember, this is pete's special
horked up computer - he set it up so he could
"counter linux advocacy"...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:03:54 +0000
It seems that on <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] put fingers to keyboard and produced this:
> Of course it was so simple to download and install because the link is
> right there on the MS home page. Upon starting up the Media Player it
The link to get xmms (on the other hand) is so well hidden. Lets see
shall we. Visit xmms home page. Click download. Click the link for your
system. Gee that was so hard.
And right under the links to the rpms is a link to rpms of some of the
plugins.
> was obvious that a lot of effort went into the graphics and ergonomics
> of this piece of software. Even with the default skin, it looks smooth
> and crisp and it is very pleasing on the eyes. The visualizations are
> particularly nice, with the kid drawing solo dance being my favorite. My
> kids love this thing and have been trying out the various skins and so
> forth and just plain having a fun time with it.
Frankly I think MP looks awful. Especially compared agained XMMS with the
plugin (who's name I can't be bothered to look up) that lets you use
differenly shaped skins.
> Now contrast this with Linux XMMS, about the best player (and that's all
> it does) that Linux has to offer. Take a good look at how boxy and
> shitty it looks. Look at the skins, most of which are too dark to even
> read the lettering.
Boy, skins produced by people for use by themselves and distributed for
free on a site with a HUGE index of them contain a lot that are not very
good. Gosh! There are plenty of nice skins, you just need to spend a
little time looking, or use a WinAMP skin (they are compatable), or
create your own.
> Boring, not to mention the help system, which you will need because this
> piece of junk is a jumble of controls scattered all over the place.
It has a help system? I hadn't noticed, I've never needed it.
> That's of course assuming you can traverse some ftp site and figure out
> what you need to install and run it.
No, just click on the link for the rpm file in the download section.
> This is but a small example, but it clearly shows that Microsoft cares
> about the user and putting some fun in computers. Linux cares
Microsoft cares about making money. MP7 has intergrated support for
portable devices which all appear to run WinCE (or did the last time I
checked), no support for RIO at all so I get a large and useless waste of
screen space.
> about.......? Well who even knows....
Linux doesn't care about anything. Linux is not a company or a person, it
is a piece of software.
Finally, I think it is silly to try to compare a media player created by
a third party with a media player created by an oporating (and everything
else it seems) system vender and use it to judge the relitive merits of
the two OSs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:05:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:53:26 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Really? On Win2K, stick a Audio CD to the CD drive, if you aren't admin, WMP
>>will crash.
>
>It works fine here for a standard user (not Admin group) with Win2k
>and SP1.
>
>
>>Solution, run WMP as admin, let it "know" the CD, then close, and start
>>playing as normal user, now it will work.
>
>It works fine for me?
>
>>I love 2K & I love windows, but please don't make such outragous statements
>>on such trivial matters.
>
>Trivial to a programmer maybe.
>Non trivial to a musician,
>
When the trolls eat the trolls, the Tuxedo god will rise from the
sea and expose his microhammer.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:06:29 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> It's all very well saying PFE blows it with 100MBytes but AbiWord barfs at
> half-a-meg. Oh dearie dearie me!
You certainly enjoy playing the clown....
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFS 1.0 is getting close!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:10:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:32:12 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >No, the xfs beta is not meant for non-technical end users
> >such as flatfish - it was meant for techies, not whiners.
>
> Sounds like a perfect match for Linux.
>
> >We'll let you know when it's included in a shrink wrapped
> >distribution.
>
> Chances are it won't install properly then either.
Not much chance of that, monkey boy!
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:13:51 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Welcome to Linux.
> >
> > You have been warned.
> >
>
> One again you jump on the anti-Linux bandwagon without giving any thought
> to what was posted. You are just way too eager to bash Linux. As has
> already been said by others, it is physically impossible to destroy an
> LCD with software.
flatfish is a mindless troll - he just spouts what he
thinks are clever sounding insults, without really
understanding the posts he's responding to.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:18:18 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> The SMP design still (in 2.4) lacks behind most other
> SMP implementations out there.
Such as?
> I'd like to see another Mindcraft-
> like benchmark where they have a really good SMP-friendly software
> and they see who scales better.
hmm, let's design a scenario.
Take a stock "red hat threaded webserver" and see what it can do.
Then give microsoft 6 months and unlimited funds to try and catch up.
Let them use much faster disks, and supercharge their web server
by putting a special cache in front of it, and then let's see if they
blow past Linux as they would expect, or if, even with all these
advantages, just can't quite cut it -
Say, didn't that scenario play out already?
Why of course, that was specweb 99!
Hope this helps,
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The KERNEL TRICKERY INSIDE!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:19:50 GMT
In article <ww3e6.70$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
It took Chad Myers only 1.5 years to admit it, but
he finally has.
Linux is faster than Microsoft Windows.
>You mean the one where they beat NT by a measley 3% (blow out? yeah
>right) by taking advantage of some kernel trickery?
>
>-Chad
>
Linux! The OS with Kernel Trickery!
You can have the faster OS also!
Run Debian! 4,200 packages of Trickery at your fingertips!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:23:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:05:29 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >When I was at GM-Powertrain (Warren Technical Center), we had admin
>> >scripts that worked on HP, Solaris, and SGI machines. Once
>> >usability was gained on one platform, porting to the other two
>> >was trivial.
>> >Not so for AIX.
>>
>> I'll bet you're the idiot that came up with the idea to put Chevette
>> Transmissions in Cadillacs and other full sized cars back in the
>> 1980's.
>>
>> GM got their ass's sued because of that one.
>
>Um...no, squished-head... Computer support people do NOT make
>automotive design decisions.
>
>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.
>
If need be, have him pull down his pants and
stare into a Mirror for about an hour.
>Second...a "chevette transmission" installed in a full-sized car
>(Cadillac or otherwise) would burn out VERY shortly.
>
But Chevy engines in Oldsmobiles were OKAY for the day.
I do remember that fiasco.
Speaking of which, BYE BYE OLDSMOBILE! FARE WELL!
>The case was over BUICK engines installed in some Cadillacs.
>
>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).
>
That's typical Cadillac ownership.
Sue them because they put a more advanced engine in their car.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
>
>--
>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: J Sloan <[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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:23:40 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Most unix still uses permission bits. DAC > Permission bits.
Can you translate "DAC" from microsoft speak into english
for those of us who don't know microsoft speak?
>
>
> > Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
> > somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
>
> There were quota packages for NT. In fact, one of the leading
> quota software companies for NT was the one that MS licensed
> their software to put into 2K.
Sure, there has always been an industry of companies
making a bundle by filling in the missing pieces from
ms windows. There still is, even though ms has managed
to copy a few of the products.
> NT has had quotas for years as well.
Nope, not until windows 2000 did microsoft take their
first baby steps into this basic capability.
> It's pretty sad that the only redeeming quality of Linux is a
> few utilities that you don't have to buy 3rd party.
It's obvious that you are a very dull person, and have no
idea what you are talking about. I have to give you an 'E'
for effort though!
> Didn't think so. Until then, don't talk to me about Linux
> security.
If microsoft security is so advanced, explain 2 things:
1. Why is windows nt the most vulnerable web server platform?
2. Why couldn't microsoft seem to manage their own dns servers?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:25:35 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
> > somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
>
> Yes.
> Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
Linux has had smp support since version 1.1.31.
That was ~1995.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:28:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
Mr. Kulkis, A moment please.
>>
>> The GPL will prevent ANYBODY from dominating ANY market with Linux
>> or HURD.
>
>No...the GPL merely means that anybody who does dominate the Linux
>world will have to EARN the position by producing a superior product
>at a reasonable price.
>
This IS also TRUE.
But to get across to our T.V. land audience, the GPL also
means *YOU CAN'T* steal my stuff.
You may contribute to the pile, but you ain't gonna take
the pile away from me or anybody else.
And besides, we have to examine the commerical hog RedHat.
They are NOT producing a superior product and THEY HAVE
THE MARKET...
And IBM *HAS* appearently learned from them.
Wonder what ever happened to our esteemed Mr. Ballard?
He should be popping in here any microsecond now.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 07:28:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:01:59 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:957ho5$cs9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Nik Simpson quoth:
> [deletia]
> >> FUD. You can get Mandrake, install all the packages that you want, many
> >> more, in fact than you can install on Windows, and be up and running in
> >> less than an hour if you handle the installation yourself. As the
> >> installer finds the hardware for you little or not configuration is
> >> necessary.
> >>
> >> If you buy a pre-packaged system, it would take about 10 minutes to get
> >> connected and you wouldn't have to worry about Mom getting virii from
> >email
> >> attachments.
> >
> >Correct, in Linux, you don't even need the email attachments to get virii,
> >they travel on their own.
>
> ...assuming you've got an unpatched version of Redhat and
> you're also running the vulnerable services in question.
>
> Since you're responding to a comment about Mandrake, you're
> just spreading misinformation actually.
Also, ayende raihen is confused about what a virus is -he heard
about the ramen worm and is confounding the 2 ideas.
jjs
>
>
> --
>
> The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
> where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
> component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
> build their own works.
>
> This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
> in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
> anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
