Linux-Advocacy Digest #895, Volume #31 Thu, 1 Feb 01 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Nigel)
Re: The 130MByte text file (.)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (.)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Nigel)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Nigel)
Re: The 130MByte text file ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! ("Bennetts family")
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux headache ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Nigel)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (picilli)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Mig)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft (Nigel)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft (Nigel)
Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft (Nigel)
Re: Aspects of open-source that MS will co-opt: Predictions? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others (Perry Pip)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
What do you do if your language of discussion is subverted? ("Adam Warner")
Re: The 130MByte text file ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The nightmare that the current Open Source king (Linux) has bestowed upon us
(Nigel)
Micro$oft Linux (mslinux)? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:21:04 +0000
> No, I had 16-bit, multitasking Amiga 10 years before Windows 95 came out,
> and they weren't the first either.
What machine was first with this feature then, Sinclair QL perhaps?
Also, the Acorn Archimedes had 32bit multitasking 8 years before win95
came out (and had a very similar taskbar idea to the one in win95).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: 1 Feb 2001 21:19:21 GMT
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> I'll try EMACS, then to be perverse, I'll try XEMACS. I don't expect
>> either will have much problem.
> I think Emacs will refuse.. at leat it refused my 1200 MB file.. some
> maximum buffer size exceeded same with Xemacs.
>
You can set that.
=====.
------------------------------
From: . <[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: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:21:27 +1300
> It's called Performance Tuning, chad.
> Something you microsoft droids don't know anything about because...
>
>
> BILL WON'T LET YOU!
Oh, he'll let you... you can tune performance settings in the registry.
He just wont fucking TELL you.
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:23:43 +0000
> > > Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
> > > computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
> >
> > I'll just email IBM, Bell Labs, Caltech and the NSA and let them know.
> >
>
> And HP and Sun.
>
>
And even Microsoft as they are now using Linux based DNS servers due to
the unreliability of their own ones.
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:25:59 +0000
>
> Ahem. Clive Sinclair.
>
Yes, those were the days - pity that it now costs more for the operating
system than sinclair charged for the whole system thanks to Micro$oft.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:27:12 GMT
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:47:58 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Whos the idiot? Abiword is pretty much alfa with lots of features lacking..
>just select some features like Insert->Pagenumbers and see the result
Sounds like the typical Linux application.
Some of them have been 1-x versions for YEARS.
When are they going to come out of the closet already, or maybe they
never will because then they can't hide behind the alpha/beta excuse.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:35:27 +0000
. wrote:
> You realize of course that your registry is a BINARY FILE, not an ASCII
> FILE, you damnable moron.
Oh sorry, I meant a text file version of my registry. Prick.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:37:31 +1100
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZbFd6.12447$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > Star Office is FREELY DOWNLOADABLE FROM SUN, you MORON.
>
> He was talking about out of the box, o buffoon.
And since when has MS Office been bundled with Windows? Never?
Idiot.
--Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:34:53 GMT
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:58:55 -0500, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As an example, take the latest Windows Media Player which is V7.x.
>> After delaying my upgrade til MS got the bugs out, which have all been
>> fixed, I finally got around to downloading and using it.
>
>Whatever version that comes with WinME is about as stable as a WVA. blond on
>ludes.
>AAMOF, on this system, it froze the system solid 20 minutes ago after trying
>to auto-run an audio cd.
This is true, the early version was full of problems which is why I
delayed installing it.
The version I am using hasn't had a problem yet, at least on my
system. With all of the audio playing and such tht I do, if there are
problems it will be removed just as quickly.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:37:23 +0000
More Linux editors:
Cooledit wisely said "File is tool large".
GEdit attempted to load it and eventually vanished.
NEdit managed to load the file but was struggling to move around it. On
exit it seemed to grabbing more and more memory so I killed it.
GVim worked fine
xedit loaded the file but thrashed after loading.
XEMACS loaded the file ok.
Now onto Windows...
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux headache
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:36:40 GMT
On 1 Feb 2001 15:24:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
wrote:
>Er, no. Ever tried to install Win98 on one of the older Fujitsu Lifebooks
>(running Win95 happily)? And MS's response - it'll never be possible.
There will always be exceptions.
I'm talking in general.
>That kind of support is going to move people to Linux faster than anything
>else :-)
I would have hung up on them myself.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:39:37 +0000
Nigel wrote:
> Also, the Acorn Archimedes had 32bit multitasking 8 years before win95
> came out (and had a very similar taskbar idea to the one in win95).
It was cooperative multitasking, which is not quite as good as the
multitasking used in Linux, Windows 9x and 2000.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:39:07 +0000
> > 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.
>
He was even too stupid to realise that it's supplied in his distro so
doesn't need to be downloaded (most distro's include xmms).
> > 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
Yes, all the effort went into the look of MP7 and none went into making
sure it actually works.
> > 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.
Try showing them the Dancing penguin plugin for xmms - winamp has also
had many of this type of plugin for years (more ms stealing - oops I mean
innovating).
> > 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.
>
Yes, let's see now - push load button, select file, select Ok, press play
wow that's difficult (spot the sarcasm?).
> > That's of course assuming you can traverse some ftp site and figure out
> > what you need to install and run it.
Like selecting xmms in the package manager for your distro and pressing
install button - too difficult for pratfish?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (picilli)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:38:44 GMT
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:23:15 GMT, Michael Wieserner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>if i hear music i do not examine a skin or visualisation because i usually
>work or do something else. and if i would want to enjoy hearing the music i
>also do not look at visualisations because i would not be concentrated on the
>music anymore. and xmms is a winamp clone. there are really many people using
>winamp. some people i know also have the wmp7 but they are not using it for
>playing audio files.
Both xmms and Winamp are Amp clones. Original Amp which is no longer
in use was made by some kid in Croatia.
>>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.
>
>what are you talking about? xmms is no jumble of controls, winamp looks the
>same. it is very usable if you are used to it
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:42:55 +0000
. wrote:
> If youre editing your registry, you arent editing TEXT. You need a
> conversion utility or a registry editor (which does it in-line) for
> that.
I converted it first of course.
I mean, here's the first few lines of it.... does it look like binary, hmmm?
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE]
"FullLogging"="No"
"IE State"=dword:00000000
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software]
@=""
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft]
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows]
"ofmain9.chm"="C:\\Program Files\\Microsoft Office\\Office\\1033\\"
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion]
"InstallType"=hex:01,00
"SetupFlags"=hex:02,05,00,00
"DevicePath"="C:\\WINDOWS\\INF"
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:38:11 +0100
. wrote:
> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> >> I'll try EMACS, then to be perverse, I'll try XEMACS. I don't expect
> >> either will have much problem.
>
> > I think Emacs will refuse.. at leat it refused my 1200 MB file.. some
> > maximum buffer size exceeded same with Xemacs.
> >
>
> You can set that.
Without recompiling? If so where ?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:43:14 -0000
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:37:31 +1100, Bennetts family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ZbFd6.12447$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> > Star Office is FREELY DOWNLOADABLE FROM SUN, you MORON.
>>
>> He was talking about out of the box, o buffoon.
>
>And since when has MS Office been bundled with Windows? Never?
>
>Idiot.
OTOH, various distributions of Linux bundle StarOffice.
--
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:45:25 +0000
> (Thank God there's no love lost between Intel and MS. Otherwise the
> scenario could include PC's that wouldn't run anything BUT MS! Blechh!)
>
But this wouldn't be a problem either - Linux can run on all rival
platforms too ;-)
Plus, if Intel stops running linux there is always AMD.
(in fact, the new 64bit intel chips can't run any current
operating system except linux).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:44:39 -0000
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:39:37 +0000, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Nigel wrote:
>
>> Also, the Acorn Archimedes had 32bit multitasking 8 years before win95
>> came out (and had a very similar taskbar idea to the one in win95).
>
>It was cooperative multitasking, which is not quite as good as the
>multitasking used in Linux, Windows 9x and 2000.
This is certainly the theory. Although it doesn't always work
in practice. This is especially true for Win9x and to a lesser
degree for NT.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:47:16 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> "." wrote:
> >
> > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "MS Exec: Linux is Going Down"
> >
> > > http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41527,00.html
> >
> > Hmmm...youd almost think that microsoft felt threatened.
> >
>
> I hope they do.
>
Why is MS trying to kill off linux - if there was no Linux what would MS
run their DNS servers on (freeBSD?).
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:49:29 +0000
>
> Besides spreading FUD and rumors, what does MS do better, exactly?
>
What would we ever do without the help of a talking paperclip ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Aspects of open-source that MS will co-opt: Predictions?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:47:51 GMT
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:12:54 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As I mentioned in another thread, IBM is visiting the Department of Computer
>Sciences at UTAustin this week, and their major internship recruitment pull is
>the opportunity to work on one of their many OSS projects. (They also have a
>speaker giving a talk on Linux' SMP scalability.) I was *very* delighted to
>see this.
IBM is looking for talent (aka cheap labor) because they are suffering
a major case of "brain drain" at the moment.
Employees are leaving IBM in staggering numbers because of the pension
ripoff, working conditions and fact that they can make much higher
salaries elsewhere.
New hires stay for 2 or 3 years and then jump ship for more lucrative
positions.
The days of lifetime employment are long gone within IBM and the
"respect for the Individual" no longer exists either.
IBM Global Services is referred to as IBM Global Slavery by IBM'ers.
What you say about IBM and Linux is true however and IBM is going to
be a major player in the Linux arena. FWIW they are a major player
already and they are dead serious about making it work.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 1 Feb 2001 21:44:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 27 Jan 2001 19:13:04 -0600,
Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > >NT4 sp6a certified WITH networking and floppy.
>> > >
>> >http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
>> > >
>> > > This page mere says that NT can be networked, and that it can be C2
>> > > certified. It doesn't say you can do both simultaneously.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Are you that stupid? Can I suggest a remedial english class.
>> > here is a tip, you didn't get past the cover page did you?
>> >
>> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/library/fers/TTAP-CSC-FER-99-001.pdf
>> >
>>
>> Oh yes I did. And not one page of that document refers to simultaneous
>> networking and C2 certification. In fact, if you read the last two
>> chapters on C2 ceritfication you see C2 specifications deal entirely
>> with protection from those with physical access to the machine. Thus,
>> once you connect a C2 certified machine to a network the certification
>> is meaningless.
>>
>> A half a dozen people have told you this but you are obviously two dense
>> to get it.
>>
>
>Then both you and these half dozen people are wrong.
>
No, you can't read thu hype and BS, that's all. Read the actual C2
requirements at http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/ttap/DBMS.DVR.html and
let me know where it refers to relevant network security issues such
as encryption, spoofing protection, packet filtering, buffer
overflows, etc, etc. It simply doesn't.
>Turn to page 159 of the document last referened, page 171 of the PDF. It was
>the first quicky reference to networked operation I could find - there are
>more. You'll see here it discusses logging in via the network to a domain
>with username and passwords.
The C2 requirement mentioned is only intended to protect local logins,
and is only extended to a network as an afterthought. There is a lot
more to securing a machine on a network and C2 addresses virtually
none of it.
>On page 145 of the document, network sockets
>and shares are mentioned.
>WINS is covered, as is DNS, NETLOGIN and RPC is covered - these are all
>network functions. The operation of a PDC versus BDC versus standalone is
>covered. Network printing is covered. Extensive coverage of network shares
>is provided in many sections. Page 104 talks about the NTLM server component
>and access accross a network The workstation service is covered, the network
>browser service is cover. How much more networking would you like covered?
>TCP and UDP in a networked environment is covered. Page 94 gives a lovely
>diagram. Trust relationships between domains is covered starting on page
>85 - gee, can you have multiple (netbios) domains on a single machine?
>
They don't even mention C2 in any of these parts of the document you
reference. Nor does the actuall C2 specificification I reference refer
to any of these networking functionallities. Thus there is no
connection between any of this and C2.
>
>NO WHERE will you find ANYTHING in any document that says "Gee, although we
>tested network configurations of this OS, we don't certified THAT part."
And NO WHERE will you find ANYTHING that says they do!! Read the
actual C2 specification and you'll see that C2 does not address 90% of
the networking fucntionalities covered in your document.
>Hardware is documented, as in the various machines used are cataloged but
>that's it. C2 for NT4 is for the OS - it has nothing to do with the
>hardware.
Wrong again. Read chapter 2.2.3 of the above referenced C2 specification
note there are hardware requirements. In chapter 2.2.4 you will see
that it is hardware software combinations that must be certified
together, not merely software.
>Hundreds have told you that but you are too stubborn to
>understand.
>
Hundreds?? More like only two point/click/druel morons on Usenet
struggling to fool themselves in to thinking they are smarter than
they really are.
>I'm referring to official documents for proof - what do you have?
The actual C2 specificition, dipshit. Not some peice of hype written
to impress a manager.
>Get over
>it, NT4 is C2 certified including networking.
C2 is grossly insufficient to guarantee a machine on a network is
secure. 90% of the networking functionality in NT or any other network
OS aren't even addressed in C2. Ignorance like yours is the reason
that NT is by far the #1 cracked OS on the Internet today.
>Please do not reply that C2
>goes out the door when connected to a network
The C2 specification does not address relevent network security
issues, such as encryption, spoofing protection, packet filtering,
buffer overflows, etc, etc. Thus it's certification is not sufficient
to secure a networked machine.
>or that it's tied to
>hardware -
Read the actual C2 specification, dipshit.
>it will only document your ignorance of the rating and what it
>means.
ROFLOL!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:48:58 GMT
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:25:45 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>. wrote:
>
>> Xemacs works just fine.
>
>That's not surprising.
Considering XEmacs probably takes 100 meg just to load itself
<snicker>.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What do you do if your language of discussion is subverted?
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:49:29 GMT
Flacco raised an interesting point a couple of days ago about what aspects
of open source Microsoft would co-opt.
That question cannot even be sensibly asked if Microsoft is able to
manipulate what certain phrases mean, such as "open source." We have seen
that Microsoft is employing the term "open" in their restrictive licensing
practices, and now Microsoft (through Miller) is now telling the world that
the Windows source code should indeed be considered open.
If the term "open source" becomes so subverted that the general public
perception is that Microsoft's development model can be considered "open
source," then how can the term even be used in discussion without there
being confusion?
This is not Microsoft FUD. This is manipulation of citizens' ability to
communicate with each other in an accurate manner.
Thoughts?
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:42:52 GMT
In article <95bp4f$i9g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If they have a Linux or other Unix system, a dumb terminal
> > can be hooked up to a spare serial port.
>
> What did I say? I said "they have one PC and no network access". They
> don't have a spare dumb terminal. Hint: this is yer typical home user.
Hint #2: Yer typical home user doesn't ever need to open 130MByte text
files. If you want to trash Linux apps based on their limitations, try
to find limitations that make sense.
> And what happens if you try loading a 130MByte text file into any GUI
> editor? Care to share the results? Or afraid to try?
Not afraid to try, just don't see the point. The sort of user that
needs a GUI editor is NOT the sort of user that needs to open 130MB
text files. Last night, in a GUI editor, I had no problem opening a
record store company's catalog (in .txt format) which had over 30,000
records in it. That file was about 1MB. Are you going to sit there and
tell me that your average desktop user is going to need to open text
files containing over 3.9 million records? Hell, even if what they were
opening was a standard published novel (60,000 words), that would only
amount to approximately half a MB of space. Are you telling me that
your average user needs to open files that are 260 times as big as a
standard novel?
Don't be an idiot.
> > But then again, I've got work to do, and don't have time
> > to try to create a broken system just to I can "counter
> > linux advocacy" - is that why I don't get your results?
>
> Perhaps because you haven't tried it?
We haven't tried simulating nuclear explosions on our home desktop
either. I take it that's a failing of our abilities to advocate linux
as a scientific platform, too.
Pick your terms, Pete. If you want to say that Linux can't compete as a
desktop OS for the average user, then perform the sorts of realistic
tests that will apply to your average user. Otherwise, you're just
making yourself out to be a moronic spin-doctoring troll, and you'll
have no shortage of people here who are capable of calling you on it.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:51:28 GMT
On 1 Feb 2001 20:14:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Which comes as no surprise. That cousin in the hamptons seems to think
>that you and he have mutual friends or something, and if thats the case
>and you are who he thinks you are, he has confirmed your absolute
>idiocy in real life as well.
So now it's a cousin?
Last time it was a girlfriend.
So which one is it?
I doubt it is either one because as usual you are FOS.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nightmare that the current Open Source king (Linux) has bestowed upon
us
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:00:34 +0000
> Your whole posting is unread by me (and I think by most others) simply
> because of this.
>
It is perfectly readable with my newsreader - Knode running on ICEWM
under mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Micro$oft Linux (mslinux)?
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:50:48 GMT
heard recently there is a new distribution of linux coming out, done
by Micro$oft! the web site i was given is www.mslinux.org, but it
has been down for a while... don't know if this is a rumor or not, or
a practical joke?
i mean, why would Micro$oft want make a linux OS? most
windows users don't know what Linux is and have no intention of
switching over (majority of them anyway), and those who use linux
are mostly people who are fed up with windows. who will be their
target audience?
however, if Micro$oft made a distribution of Linux that is
compatible with all of the Micro$oft products (Word, Excel, Visio,
MS Studio...) then i can definitely see a huge market in that.
any thoughts anyone?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
