Linux-Advocacy Digest #65, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Feb 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("Spicerun")
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses (Osugi)
Re: What .NET is... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Wintrolls ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Wintrolls ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Interesting article (Damien)
Re: Linux is awful (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux is awful (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is awful (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Chad Myers")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Osugi)
Anyone following Khronos Group? ("Robert Morelli")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 03:12:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> Even some of us that Defected to Redhat so long ago that we've defected
> to something else now are Slackware fans.
>
Jedi, what do you think about Slackware compared to Debian? I'm thinking
about Slackware for my next distribution.
And what do you think is the best distro?
Thanks for your reply.
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 03:19:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows 2000 Professional's Minuses Outweigh Plusses in Five-Day Ordeal
> >
> > by Bryan Pfaffenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 30-January-2001
> >
> > As Mark Kellner wrote recently in the opening of his widely cited Los
> Angeles
> > Times column ("Linux's Minuses Outweigh Plusses in 14-Day Trial",
> published on
> > 12/28/2000), here's the story so far.
> >
[snip]
> W2k is no more difficult to get setup than Linux Mandrake 7.2. I've
> installed W2k as an upgrade to W9x systems w/o trouble, other than needing
> to get some drivers.
>
[snip]
> Suggest you stick to buying PC's with the OS already installed.
Um, I think you might want to reread his opening. He was imitating /
parodying the articles of a writer for a major US newspaper. The
difference is that this one is apparently only posted to newsgroups
while said clueless LA Times writer was widely published in a
non-technical forum where people who don't know better might actually
believe him.
Have you read those articles? Among other things, the man confuses X
windows with kde and gnome, totally ignores the existance of gnucash,
and complains about hardware compatibility issues. They were not the
writings of a responsible journalist.
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What .NET is...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:19:07 +0000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > It's late.
> >
> > Okay, seriously, I saw a book in the store about C# programming. Yeah
> > yeah, C# != .NET, but still the two kind of go hand-in-hand, right? The
> > advent of one brings on the other, right? Also, I turned down a job
> > recently where the company was getting into .NET technology, but hadn't
> > had much to do just yet.
> >
> > My question is, has anybody besides the folks at Wrox (company that
> > published the book, you know, the line of books with all the
> > funny-looking guys on the covers) had occasion to work with any of this
> > stuff yet? Diddling or tinkering or actual workplace implementation of
> > betas or what-not?
> >
> > I'm genuinely curious. I don't have a Java bias or anything.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
> NOBODY knows what the fuck .NET is.
>
I thought .NET was the new MS strategy and it will revolutionise life as
we know it and stop socks going missing in the washing machine or
something
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:32:54 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>
> Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
>
The US is NOT the be all and end all. SuSE have always been more
popular in Europe than the US. (I think SuSE is no 1 in Europe, but I'm
not sure). SuSE cocked up in the US for some reason, but it looks as if
their business model works fine here.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:38:06 +0000
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > >
> > > And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
> > >
> > > I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
> > >
> > > And what do I find on my printer...
> > >
> > > Several sheets of ASCII!!!
> > >
> > > Such a simple thing, print a picture.
> >
> > Such a simple thing to setup the correct printer.
>
> No kidding. What kind of moron installs the wrong printer in an
> operating system and then publicly humiliates themself by ranting
> about it on usenet?
>
I hope that is a rhetorical question
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 9 Feb 2001 03:31:09 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > So how is that in any way different from the Linux kernel?
>> >
>> > Here's how you configure and compile a FreeBSD kernel:
>> >
>> > cd to /sys/i386/conf, copy GENERIC to whatever name you choose. Edit
> the
>> > new file and comment out or add options that are fully documented in the
>> > LINT file, cd to /usr/src and type make buildkernel.
>> >
>> > Configuring your linux kernel is MUCH more involved.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> ---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
>> cd /usr/src/linux
>> make menuconfig
>> --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
>> make bzImage
>> ---- End ----
>>
>> MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
> I doubt this process gives you even a fraction of the configurability of the
> FreeBSD model.
But you dont actually know, because youve never used it.
> FreeBSD also offers menu driven options for a generic
> kernel.
So does linux. make xconfig.
I have alot of experience customizing and compiling both kernels. Freebsd
does indeed have more configuration options, mostly because it NEEDS them,
(linux takes care of the equivalent with kernel MODULES)
and partially because the configuration (see the LINT kernel) is full
of snazzy options like what color you want to make your console font.
Once again, eric, you display your total lack of knowledge in the field.
Stop talking about UNIX of any kind at once.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 9 Feb 2001 03:32:45 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > 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.
>> > > >
>> > > > So how is that in any way different from the Linux kernel?
>> > >
>> > > Here's how you configure and compile a FreeBSD kernel:
>> > >
>> > > cd to /sys/i386/conf, copy GENERIC to whatever name you choose. Edit
>> the
>> > > new file and comment out or add options that are fully documented in the
>> > > LINT file, cd to /usr/src and type make buildkernel.
>> > >
>> > > Configuring your linux kernel is MUCH more involved.
>> >
>> > LOL
>> >
>> > ---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
>> > cd /usr/src/linux
>> > make menuconfig
>> > --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
>> > make bzImage
>> > ---- End ----
>> >
>> > MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
>>
>> I doubt this process gives you even a fraction of the configurability of the
>> FreeBSD model. FreeBSD also offers menu driven options for a generic
>> kernel.
> Your anti-Linux soul is shining through here.
> You can doubt all you want, but I know for a *fact* that you're
> wrong. FreeBSD is great, but claiming that building a kernel for it
> is easier than Linux is simply inane.
It depends on your definition of "easy". Certian aspects of it are much more
straight forward, and the freebsd handbook is certianly better in most ways
than any linux documentation available.
But when it comes right down to actually configuring and compiling, they take
about the same amount of time and are of about the same level of difficulty.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 03:49:47 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 2 + 2 wrote:
> > >
> > > > The article compares OS/2 with the Win9x/Me code base in terms of
> > > > innovation.
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft's real innovation with its OS products was with Windows
> > > > NT/2000. And it competes with Linux and Unix.
> > > >
> > > > And OS/2 is no match for Linux in particular.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, in my experience, that depends:
> > > I've NEVER seen anything which comes even close to the
> > > speed of an OS/2 server if you use SMB protocol. OS/2 runs
> > > rings around Win(everyVersion) and Samba.
> >
> > Do you have any benchmarks to evidence this?
> >
>
> Do you really think I will dig up some magazine 3 years old
> which you, Chad Myers, asshole and lying MS-shill, would
> dismiss then as not MS-centric enough?
Are you really attempting to say that C't really doesn't Microsoft
bash?
Please spare on the name-calling and profanity.
Apparently you know you are wrong and therefore you feel the need
to lash out in a vein attempt to cloak your ignorance.
Sorry, nice try. Thanks for playing.
*PL0NK*
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 09 Feb 2001 04:08:19 GMT
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:13:30 +0100, Fermin Sanchez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> > from that MS-shit.
>
> Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
> versions? Please be more specific.
Actually, a lot of "unique" quirks of MS's TCP/IP stack haven't
changed since Win95. It's speculated that the code hasn't changed
much at all.
One of the things that has changed is the initial sequence numbers.
MS chooses these based on the time, making them easy to guess and
makeing them suceptible to sniping attacks.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:10:22 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 05 Feb 2001
>On 5 Feb 2001 17:45:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>>YOU trashed your entire system, because you dont understand linux.
>Following instructions from Mandrake to the letter.
>Insert update CD from Mandrake.
>Select Live Update from Drakconf.
>System goes through it's paces for about 10 minutes.
>Next restart, nothing works.
>
>What needs to be understood here?
Whatever it is that you did wrong, or why you had a problem.
>>Hey claire, just for the sake of argument, try installing FreeBSD 4.2.
>>It has full USB support, etc. Id love to see what happens when you
>>attempt to install another flavor of UNIX.
>
>AIX is a piece of cake to install on an SP/2, including Perspectives
>and pssp code.
>Couldn't be easier using SMIT.
Hmmm....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 03:55:04 GMT
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ONAg6.5171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <95ua5o$ip490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Fermin Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi Peter
> >
> >"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> >> from that MS-shit.
> >
> >Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
> >versions? Please be more specific.
>
> According to Unix Administration Handbook, 3rd ed.:
>
> "Linux pays attention to the type-of-service (TOS) bits in IP packets
> and gives faster service to packets that are labeled as interactive (low
> latency). Jammin'! Unfortunately, brain damage on the part of
> Microsoft necessitates that you turn off this perfectly reasonable
> behavior."
Are they referring to QoS and just aren't smart enough to spell it right?
IIRC, Microsoft Windows 2000 is the first and only OS to fully support
QoS throughout. In fact, Cisco, a leader in IP innovation, worked with
Microsoft to get their QoS right in their routers and such.
How's Linux's QoS implementation coming along?
> "All packets originating on Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 are labeled as
> being interactive, no matter what their purpose.... If your Linux
> gateway serves a mixed network of UNIX and Windows systems, the Windows
> packets will consistently get preferential treatment. The performance
> hit for UNIX can be quite noticeable."
>
> In other words, MS's TCP/IP just hogs the network unconditionally with
> highest priority, forcing others to do the same if they want any
> throughput, and making sensible prioritizing of network traffic flow
> impossible.
So this is the worst you could come up with?
Are all of the packets that Linux sends out marked at varying levels,
or all the same level, just slightly lower?
Please show us documentation explaining how to configure this in Linux.
It's also interesting to note that in the "Unix Administrator's Handbook"
they take the time to bash Microsoft.
Why is it that whenever I read technical documentation by Microsoft or
about a Microsoft product, I never see any bashing of alternative
products, in fact, they usually have a section in the back of the
book detailing many of the possible alternative (including, occasionally,
Linux-based alternatives).
However, when I read Linux documentation or documentation on Linux
(even from Red Hat on occasion) I see pejorative comments about Microsoft,
even using the "M$" moniker in professional publications.
Just shows you the level of maturity between the two camps-- or perhaps
the fear level. MS has no reason to attack, but it seems the Linux
camp is always in rabid dog mode, spending more time attacking MS
for their screwups and not fixing their own bugs.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:10:25 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 06 Feb 2001
04:47:42 GMT;
>You are an idiot who can't even read your own messages.
>
>Back in the bozo bin with you because it's obvious you are drinking
>again.
Sounds like a sophomoric smokescreen to mask your lies, to me, claire.
--
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:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:10:24 GMT
Said Sg,Poyzer in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 05 Feb 2001 23:28:20
>One of the main reasons I browse the news groups is to learn new insults!!
>Thanks
That was a zinger, wasn't it? ;-D
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95nago$605$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>Hey claire, just for the sake of argument, try installing FreeBSD 4.2.
>> >>It has full USB support, etc. Id love to see what happens when you
>> >>attempt to install another flavor of UNIX.
>>
>> > AIX is a piece of cake to install on an SP/2, including Perspectives
>> > and pssp code.
>>
>> I didnt say AIX, you retarded piece of ass cheese. I said FREEBSD.
>>
>> I know EXACTLY how easy AIX is to install. I also know how easy Solaris
>> and HP/UX are to install. MacOS is very easy too. I'm not talking
>> about any of those.
>>
>> Again you ignore that which you cannot face, including the post where
>> I asked you to provide proof that I said my girlfriend lives in the
>> hamptons, AND the post after that asking once again.
>>
>> I think youll have more problems with FreeBSD (an operating system
>> that millions of people seem to be able to make work just fine) than
>> you EVER had with linux, because it requires detailed knowledge of
>> the way computers work. It also requires you to read the instructions,
>> all of which can be found at www.freebsd.org.
>>
>> You wont do it, because you know you're too dull to pull it off.
>>
>> You wont even take the chance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----.
>>
>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:00:19 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Fermin Sanchez wrote:
> >
> > Hi Peter
> >
> > "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> > > from that MS-shit.
> >
> > Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
> > versions? Please be more specific.
> >
>
> Why, is there a MS TCP/IP implementation which isn't shit? Is it still
> in beta? When is it coming out? Up to now all have been one worse than
> the other.
Well, first we have tpc.org. We see Windows blowing away all Unixes.
Secondly, we have hackwindows2000.com or whatever it was called where
no one was every successfully able to take down the Win2K box MS put
up (despite tens of millions of packets per day).
Thirdly, we have Win2K with a built in IPSec and QoS implementation.
Linux may have an IPsec implementation, but does it have a QoS
implementation?
Fourthly, Windows 2000 has set several data transfer speed records.
There was a big bally-who last fall where MS sent several gigabytes
over fiber in a matter of seconds, IIRC. A casual search should turn
it up.
Please, in detail, describe why MS's TCP/IP implementation is so poor.
You seem so confident of it, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with
at least ONE or TWO major points.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:02:21 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > No it couldn't have. The motherboard has no software drivers. It's
> > a hardware interface to connect different hardware vendors' stuff
> > togeter - connect this company's CPU to that company's memory, and that
> > other company's PCI card, etc. Opensource is irrelevant because there
> > are no software remifications. All the compatability issues are
> > hardware-to-hardware.
> >
> Boy are you wrong (if you use Win9X, that is).
> Just take a functioning install and transplant a new MoBo.
> You will be amazed at the number of "new devices" found.
>
> This all is plain shit, naturally. Really no need to do it that way.
> But they did (now THAT does surprise us, really).
Lets see you do that with Linux.
What about all the different types of clocks on various mother boards?
Chipsets? Even RAM types and all the various controllers, etc. Some of
them, even though written to spec, still speak slightly different.
I know this is the case because when Linux boots up you can see it
trying to detect which version of this you have, and which manufacturer
of that you have, etc. Why is it any different when Windows does it
than when Linux does it?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:10:22 GMT
In article <95u7vo$e15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >Thats not bad 33% decided to continue using it.
>
> That's not what he wrote.
If "2 out of every 3 people I have talked to that tried Linux, gave up
on it without getting it to work successfully" is what he wrote, then "1
out of 3 did not give up on it" or "1 out of 3 got it to work
sucessfully" seem like valid conclusions. If the one-third that got it
to work later gave up on it, he should have given us that info to
prevent misunderstanding. Since he did not, it is not unreasonable to
conclude that they continued using linux.
> > Considering the level of vendorlock currently, that is
> > somewhat remarkable really. Also, 33% would certainly
> > be a nice chunk of the overall marketshare as well.
>
> Linux isn't even close to 33% of the US market.
This is frankly offensive. Are you really this stupid? Or do you just
enjoy pointing out the bleeding obvious? He did not say that linux has a
33% share of the US market (where did you get the US part from?). He
said that 33% WOULD BE nice. "Would be" (in this case) makes it clear
that what is said is not necessarily true.
> > Remember, those of us outside of Lemming land can be
> > toleratant of the choices of others.
>
> No, I don't think so. It's the LinLemmings that are so busy ridiculing
> windows users .
And my dad can beat up your dad (if you catch my drift). His opinion,
your opinion, who cares, give us some facts to back up your claim. You
are, admittedly, a windows user (not exclusively, I understand) yet here
you are, making disparaging remarks about Linux users. So at least one
windows user does this.
> I use both, I know many more people who use windows. Do I have one iota of
> disdain for them because of what OS they use? Of course not. I
couldn't care
> less, and it never even enters my mind.
You just wrote about it, so obviously it did enter your mind. Be cafeful
with words like 'never', they are very strong.
> Can your garden variety LinLemming say the same thing?
> NO.
define linlemming. define garden variety. Where do you get your data?
Why NO, when no or No will work just as well?
> They live to claim superiority by virtue of not being a captive of the
> 'borg'.
Again, your data comes from where? Interviews or questionaires filled
out by how many of these linlemmings?
> What complete nonsense.
You seem to have a lot of pent-up anger or frustration here. We are
talking about a computer os here, not a cure for cancer or the end of
world hunger. If this sort of thing bothers you so much, why waste your
time posting to groups like cola?
> They live to 'find' superiority by way of using a more difficult to
use and
> self-made underdog OS.
> More nonsense.
> A shallow victory to say the least.
You are the shallow one here. Or perhaps a bit insecure. You are ranting
and raving about things which you admit are nonsense. Why? What is the
point, especially if no one is forcing you to confront this nonsense?
Has it occurred to you that some linux users may feel uncomfortable with
the idea that their own friends and family are not even aware that they
have a choice of which operating system to use? This is my own personal
opinion. I feel no need to preach to or berate people who understand
that they have a choice and choose to use windows. They generally have
good reasons for doing so. Many people however do not understand the
choices available to them, nor the ways in which proprietary "solutions"
can be used not only to lock them in, but also - because of their
ignorance - to lock others out. In these cases, I feel that a little bit
of education might be in order. Note that education does not involve
belittling people or ridiculing their operating system. It might however
involve pointing out ways that their operating system is deficient or
not optimized for their needs.
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anyone following Khronos Group?
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:26:43 -0600
I've been curious for a while about something called the
Khronos Group (www.khronos.org). It is a group devoted
to creating a comprehensive set of cross platform multimedia
technologies called OpenML, consisting of specs, APIs, and
implementations. I'm guessing the group was probably
spearheaded by SGI. In any case, the only released
technologies are due to SGI, namely OpenGL and dmSDK.
Despite the cross platform nature of OpenML, there seems
to be a distinct emphasis on Linux, probably because Linux
has (to the best of my knowlege) rather sparse multimedia
support so far.
The charter members are an impressive list, including the
likes of SGI, IBM, Intel, Matrox, ATI, Compaq, Sun, etc.
Has anyone else heard of this group, or been following it?
Were there any presentations on it at LinuxWorld? Does
anyone know if any of the open source projects are
expecting to use Khronos technologies?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
