Linux-Advocacy Digest #37, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Feb 01 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: You're not just Whistler, XP! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Wintrolls ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:39 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 6 Feb 2001 20:00:38 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Mading) wrote in
>: <95mvjt$119o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>:>The Windows way is much faster, having the vendor supply his own
>:>drivers with the product, but it's also much less stable. I'm
>:>not sure where the best compramise lays. The opensource
>:>community-provided driver model wouldn't work if we lived in a
>:>world where there was not some big closed-source OS to drive
>:>initial sales of the hardware when it comes out. If we'd like
>:>to move to a world where Linux is commonplace, something has to be
>:>done to make the drivers start getting developed *before* the
>:>hardware is on the shelves. I'm not sure how to do that without
>:>just trusting the vendors to do it themselves.
>:>
>
>: Simple - the vendors give pre-release versions of their hardware to well
>: known driver writers (look at some of the CREDITS files). The developers
>: feel like they are getting some recognition (and some free hardware), the
>: vendors get their software written for nothing, the community gets brand
>: new hardware with suitable drivers - Everybody's happy.
Cool. That's a real nice win-win-win, for sure.
>While some vendors are willing to do that, I doubt all of them will
>be. The problem is that they don't like letting outsiders see the
>API for talking to the hardware, out of fear that doing so might
>let competitors copy the API and make "clone" hardware.
The beauty of the solution is that consumers generally don't really give
a fuck what vendors "like". Any vendor which worries about this will
simply fall behind in the competition for consumer dollars, as is
appropriate.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:41 GMT
Said J Sloan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 06 Feb 2001 17:12:17 GMT;
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> I'm not exactly what you mean, do you mean in web server market share (as
>> per the Netcraft numbers)? If so, then you are sorely mistaken, Linux doesn't
>> make up but a small percentage of those Apache numbers. It's mainly all
>> Solaris and BSD.
>
>OF course that's all nonsense, a large percentage
>of those servers are running Linux.
And I'd be willing to make a small wager that Chad 'sock puppet' Myers
is using absolute numbers of defacements to rank on Linux (when the much
higher number of servers skews the numbers), when the proportion of
Windows servers being defaced is far and away higher (which takes into
account the disparate share of servers). Just a guess, based on my
experience with such numbers, and knowledge of Chad's typical bullshit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're not just Whistler, XP!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:46 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:57:51
[...]
>> > Man, Microsoft must be running out of creativity. They have given the
>> > name "Windows XP" to Whistler, and "Office XP" to Office. Read here
>> > what XP means:
>>
>http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO57388_NLTam%2C00.html
>> >
>> > Sounds like the name of Speed Racer's new vehicle.
>>
>> I agree, what was wrong with Whistler & Office 10 ?
Well, what was wrong with Whistler is that it was a code name. What was
wrong with Office 10 was that such version numbers make no sense with
Microsoft's current crapware.
>What's wrong with this picture is that more work will probably go into it's
>marketing than its' conception and design.
>
>Come to think of it Whistler leaves this mental image of an old lady in a
>rocking chair...Not exactly high tech imagery.
Codenames are arbitrary. In fact, due to some of the trademark issues,
you want them to be bad, as well as arbitrary. I think a collision may
eventually occur between trademark issues and anti-trust issues simply
because codenames are bandied about so readily these days they could
effectively turn into pre-announcements, if they are chosen in order to
be attractive.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:42:28 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95rhf3$3cu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:95mgsg$hr5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't hate Linux. I just don't agree that it's the best thing
> since
> > >> > sliced bread on the desktop, and I don't agree that it's the
> crash-proof
> > >> > masterpiece that most Linux zealots proclaim it to be.
> > >>
> > >> Stop putting words in peoples mouths - Linux users rightly
> > >> claim that, as a Unix variant, Linux is more reliable than
> > >> the microsoft family of products.
> >
> > > I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others
> state
> > > quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so
> numerous
> > > times.
> >
> > They havent actually, unless referring to their own experience with their
> > own installs. Demonstrate that it is otherwise.
>
> It appears that most of Charlie's more exuberant statements are not archived
> on deja, probably due to him putting an X-Archive attribute in his message,
> since he knew they would be used against him.
>
> http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=715528378&fmt=text
>
> "From practical EXPERIENCE I can safely say that Linux doesn't crash."
>
> That's not even all, he claims that *NO OTHER OS* has higher uptimes than
> Linux.
>
> http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=705087775&fmt=text
>
> "That and the fact it's totally free for download from the internet
> and it has the most tremendous uptime of any OS on the market."
>
> > >> There is no basis in fact for this statement - in fact, it's a lot
> > >> more likely that it's optimized for xeon, or dec alpha.
> >
> > > Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386.
> That
> > > means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps
> install
> > > a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> > > still be a generic one.
> >
> > Alright, thats it eric. I demand that you actually get some experience
> from
> > something other than books (thats right, real life) before you continue
> this
> > argument.
>
> Note that you don't correct my supposed lack of experience. I know exactly
> what i'm talking about.
>
> > And besides that, even if it WERE true that the linux kernel was optimized
> > for 386 chips (which is actually quite a meaningless statement if you know
> > anything about the kernel or kernel architecture in general)
>
> It's not a meaningless statement. There are numerous ways to optimize a
> kernel for a particular processor.
>
> 1) Use compiler optimizations designed for that processor. These will
> continue to work in most later processors, but you won't get many of the
> speed improvements the processor is capable of.
>
> 2) Not using processor specific instructions to take advantage of speed
> increases in later processors.
#ifdef i386
386-variant code
#else
#ifdef i486
486-variant code
#else
#ifdef i586
Pentium-varian code
#else
#ifdef i686
Pentium-II variant code
#else
#ifdef i786
Pentium-III variant code
#endif i786
#endif i686
#endif i586
#endif i486
#endif i386
>
> 3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
That's an idiotic Microsoft trick.
YOu can't guarantee exactly WHAT is in the cache in a multi-processing
system, you fool.
>
> For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for each
> processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others, you
> increase the efficiency of the kernel.
>
> > because theyre
> > the lowest common demonimator; its a hell of alot better than optimizing
> > the entire operating system for the lowest common demoninator of
> intellect.
>
> Hand waving. You'r not saying anything here.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:44:05 -0500
Simon Palko wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Josh McKee wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:58:16 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >in article 3a7f89df$0$26819$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Seebach
> at
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/6/01 12:21 AM:
> > > >
> > > >> Then you're forgetting one of the most common PC Unix problems; most
> > > >> Unix-like systems politely ignore incorrectly jumpered drives - say,
> a
> > > >> slave device on a channel with no master device.
> > > >
> > > >Actually now that you point that out I am very unhappy I hadn't thought
> of
> > > >that. 0_0 I think, as I did switch the drives around in frustration,
> that I
> > > >may have ended up accomplishing fixing that but I am positive thatıs
> how the
> > > >cdrom was setup because I had just recently removed the second hard
> drive
> > > >that was originally a slave to the one I was then installing linux on,
> I'd
> > > >never moved the cdrom over.
> > >
> > > In other words the problem was the result of something you did and not
> > > a failing of Linux itself?
> > >
> > > >>> How exactly did you get the install-CD going if the CD-ROM wasn't
> recognized?
> > > >>
> > > >> Uhm. The BIOS finds the CD, boots from the El Torito floppy image,
> and then
> > > >> that image loads a kernel which doesn't probe the CD? This can't
> happen
> > > >> to various users of various OS's more than a few thousand times a
> week.
> > > >
> > > >> Linux may not be as bad as that guy thought it was, but you sure
> aren't
> > > >> impressing anyone by "debunking" a story which is fairly common and
> > > >> well-understood.
> > > >
> > > >The install was treacherous, and for little benefit. Work already has
> > > >serveral linux servers I can telnet to, I have yet to find a good
> reason to
> > > >waste on e of my own machines on it. I do mostly graphic intensive
> stuff,
> > > >90% mac based with Windows mostly around for compatibility testing.
> > >
> > > IMO, unix is not a general purpose OS. It is an excellent backend
> > > server OS. And that's what we were discussing in the initial thread. I
> > > don't recall Aaron ever claiming that unix was an excellent
> > > workstation OS. It's a strawman that you created.
> >
> > Actually, it IS an excellant workstation OS...and in that respect, HP-UX
> > and Solaris are primitive compared to what is available for a Linux
> > workstation.
> >
> > Unix is the UNIVERSAL desktop at ***ALL*** automotive manufacturing design
> > facilities...both at the automakers themselves, AND the *entire* supply
> chain.
>
> No it's not.
>
> I've got an HP Visualize C240 sitting next to me, but I'm more the
> exception. The CAE guys tend to have a couple SGI or HP stations, but they
> ALL have a Windows desktop. That's the standard.
Not for automotive CAD/CAM/CAE work.
And at GM, Ford, etc....Applix is the standard office suite for these users.
>
> --
> -Simon Palko
>
> "More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
> backs!"
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:44:44 -0500
Simon Palko wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No..it's the utterly IDIOTIC concept of not merely allowing, but actually
> > ENCOURAGING 3rd party apps to replace system DLL's willy-nilly.
> >
> > Any 3rd-year computer science or computer engineering student can
> > tell you that this is a prescription for utter chaos and disaster.
>
> *yawn*
>
> And Aaron shows more of his utter ignorance of Windows. Win2k and WinME
> specifically protect against just this.
Microsoft makes LOTS of promises.
Few are ever fulfilled.
>
> --
> -Simon Palko
>
> "More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
> backs!"
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:45:36 -0500
Simon Palko wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jason Weingard wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:35:59 GMT, Wayne Fellows wrote:
> > > > > >Easy: Michael Dell.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dell, while not a technical innovator was one of the pioneers of the
> > > direct
> > > > > sales approach, and took the fairly radical approach that he didn't
> hand
> > > Dells
> > > > > over to retailers. Not a technical giant perhaps, but certainly a
> shrewd
> > > > > businessman.
> > > >
> > > > Unlike Gates, at least he's honest.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > My Final Thought:
> > >
> > > You expect a businessman to be honest?
> >
> > YES....in fact, I ***DEMAND*** that anybody who does business with
> > me do it in an honest fashion.
> >
> > Those who don't....suffer the consequences.
>
> Those being... losing your business?
More than that.
>
> How droll.
Your imagination must be severely limited.
>
> --
> -Simon Palko
>
> "More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
> backs!"
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: 7 Feb 2001 19:47:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET really is.
>>
>> I want *HIM* to explain it.
> What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm not going
> to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way too
> comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
Bullshit. You dont know what NET is, because you cant read it in one of
your little books, and you have no real world experience with *any* of
the technology you tout or slam.
The fact is this:
.NET is the latest microsoft ploy to insure that everyone is using windows
(and paying through the nose for all the licensing). What they are
somewhat loathe to tell you is that .NET is *not* cross platform; Its apps
will run on anything that can run Explorer 6 and thats about the end
of the story.
This includes MacOS (but not MacX), and the windows family. And thats
It.
Microsoft is insuring their own demise very, very quickly now. They cant
even lie well anymore; not even Erik is capable of defending them now.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: 7 Feb 2001 19:52:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You should really read up on it. All that stuff that Sun promised about
>>Java, but never came through on? That's .NET, plus more.
>>i
Indeed. Its everything that sun promised, minus the cross platform
capabilities.
Its a stupid idea, bad implementation, and utterly useless.
Just like everything else microsoft has done for the past 10 years.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:00:44 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 7 Feb 2001 07:41:09 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Feb 2001 19:40:45 GMT;
>:>[...]The opensource
>:>community-provided driver model wouldn't work if we lived in a
>:>world where there was not some big closed-source OS to drive
>:>initial sales of the hardware when it comes out.
>
>: Well, open source drivers normally lag the availability of hardware,
>: yes, but this has nothing to do with use of that hardware on Linux.
>: There's no law against using vendor-supplied drivers. There has been an
>: illegal effort by Microsoft to ensure that this doesn't happen, but that
>: doesn't make your statement any less bogus.
>
>:>If we'd like
>:>to move to a world where Linux is commonplace, something has to be
>:>done to make the drivers start getting developed *before* the
>:>hardware is on the shelves. I'm not sure how to do that without
>:>just trusting the vendors to do it themselves.
>
>: So? There's no law against vendors not developing open source drivers,
>: nor that they should. They, and their customers, decide. Which is what
>: makes the GPL so damn anti-competitive: nobody who keeps their drivers
>: closed could possibly compete with a company that supports or even
>: provides open-source drivers.
>
>: As for what "has to happen", the situation seems well in hand. Even
>: with the appeal dragging on, Linux is ready for the new 64 bit Intel
>: chips ahead of the hardware, while Windows will lag by at least six
>: months.
>
>I was not considering the 'base' hardware like the CPU and motherboard.
>I was thinking of cards plugged into the expansion bus, produced by
>companies much smaller than Intel. Things like sound cards, video
>cards, and so on. Granted, I didn't make this clear.
No, it was clear, and I was well aware that you were considering
peripherals. Does that mean you don't see the relevance of my example,
or was I not clear enough myself?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
