Linux-Advocacy Digest #226, Volume #32 Fri, 16 Feb 01 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Tim Hanson)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (J Sloan)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Jim Richardson")
Re: The Windows guy. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses (J Sloan)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:38:27 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:10:15 GMT
> > <brRi6.38966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Mike Byrns wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
> > >>
> > >> What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
> > >>
> > >> The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
> > >> gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
> > >> assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
> > >>
> > >> > It's an old
> > >> > picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
> > >>
> > >> Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
> > >> rallies there bubba -
> > >
> > >No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
> > >last 10 years?
> > >
> > >We still use telnet
> >
> > I use ssh. I also note that "crappy old telnet" has an SSL option
> > on Debian, although I haven't tried to use it. My main worry is
> > whether "crappy old" (i.e., "non-encrypted") telnet sessions can
> > be disabled therein.
>
> So basically, all you've done in 20 years or so is make telnet
> with encryption. SSH is still telnet, just with a harder casing.
>
> SSH isn't a real improvement, it's just making the original crap
> more resilient.
>
> > >We still use crappy old XWindows
> >
> > It's more intelligent than Win32 at the protocol level!
> > Consumes less bandwidth, too.
>
> Not RDP, though. X Windows is crap. Whether or not it is
> fast over the net or not is irrelevant. Besides, it's a dog
> compared to RDP.
>
> > It was designed at the outset way back in '84 or thereabouts to
> > allow for remote window display; most of the bugs are now gone.
> > (If there were any -- I don't know admittedly.)
>
> But it's still crappy. I could write five lines of code that
> do nothing, and have no bugs, but it still does nothing. Saying
> that XWin doesn't have any bugs (which doesn't seem to be the
> case since it crashes all the time-- on Linux at least) is
> irrelevant.
>
> > >Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
> >
> > As opposed to DACLs, I guess. I don't know DACLs from cackles
> > (although I did once work for a time on Apollo DOMAIN Aegis, which
> > had access control lists), so dunno if this is an issue, or not.
>
> Um, it's a huge issue. By the way, it's not DACLs. There's
> Discretionary Access Control, which is the industry standard way
> of handling security CORRECTLY and PROFESSIONALLy, and then there's
> ACLs, which is part of the whole DAC scheme. Permission bits is
> kindergarten stuff with no flexibility, huge limitations, and
> is unacceptable in secure installations.
Blah Blah Blah.
You still haven't shown a single situation in which traditional
Unix permission bits are lacking in capability.
Your problem is that you just aren't CREATIVE enough to see
how flexible standard permission bits really are.
[Clue for the Chadless: The ONLY need for DAC is to satisfy
US Government security regulations when used in the intelligence
sector (NSA, CIA, State Department, and armed services Intelligence
agencies].
>
> > One worry, of course -- how long does it take to process the list,
> > and is it dependent on the length of the list? One could do some
> > extremely stupid things with DACLs (i.e., specifying each user individually)
> > which might be better handled by a group ID check.
>
> It seems to take no time in Windows. Windows is able to process files
> as fast or faster than Linux according to some benchmarks.
>
> Some Unix systems have DAC and ACLs and it doesn't seem to slow them
> down much.
>
> -Chad
--
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: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:41:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:22:04 GMT;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> I have hear a box in my hand of RedHat 7.0 Deluxe it does not have
> >> kernel 2.4, but says its "2.4 ready". It does have XFree86 4.0.1. I
> >> haven't opened the box yet, so I don't know if its got ReiserFS, but I
> >> kind of doubt it.
> >
> >Nope, RH 7 has no resierfs and no lvm.
>
> What's lvm?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Logical Volume Manager. It's a way to spread your file system across
several discs, to make many disks look like one logical disk.
--
"Adopted kids are such a pain -- you have to teach them how to look
like you ..."
-- Gilda Radner
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:44:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:22:04 GMT;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> I have hear a box in my hand of RedHat 7.0 Deluxe it does not have
> >> kernel 2.4, but says its "2.4 ready". It does have XFree86 4.0.1. I
> >> haven't opened the box yet, so I don't know if its got ReiserFS, but I
> >> kind of doubt it.
> >
> >Nope, RH 7 has no resierfs and no lvm.
>
> What's lvm?
logical volume manager - quite handy really.
physical disks are assigned to a volume group,
and pieces of the volume group are carved out
to make logical "partitions" or volumes. Being
able to resize a partition without reformatting is
handy. If you've ever used the HP-UX lvm, the
Linux version is pretty close.
Having said that, I was pleased to find that RH 7.1
beta (which I installed today) does include lvm and
reiserfs support.
jjs
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:44:40 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Feb
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:32:45 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001
>>>On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:59:46 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do you know how Epsons command language works?
>>>>Nope i dont thin so.
>>>
>>>He doesn't have to.
>>>He runs Windows and selects "Epson" from a menu and it works.
>>
>>In theory. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! Because we know it FAILS MORE THAN ANY
>>OTHER PUTATIVELY COMPETITIVE OPERATING SYSTEM EVER MADE! Bwah-ha-ha-ha!
>
>Pedant point: it may fail more often because it's used more often.
>That said...anytime I have to use Windows, I get suspicious.
No, it fails more often in any particular instance; this has no relation
to how many other instances there may be.
>Linux, I can trust. Windows? I have to think about it.
I find the lack of 'nervousness' palpable, to be honest. There is such
an ease to using Linux, knowing that its not going to roll over and die
if I should ask it to work a little bit.
>One reason I can trust Linux is that, if it does break, it's something
>I can go in there and troubleshoot. Not everyone can, of course
>(think of a poor newbie trying to replace a head gasket, for example! :-) ),
I believe that had I not more than a decade of experience with
troubleshooting Unix systems, I'd find a typical Linux distro too much
for me.
>and I do have to agree with Pete that it should work for the newbie
>(although it's not clear it should work for the Compleat Idiot Who
>Can't Determine The Type Of His Printer And Selects 'Epson' When He
>Should Have Selected 'LaserJet', or something :-) -- I'm not suggesting
>Pete did this, of course, but it's a possibility in some cases,
>especially with X video or printer models from the same manufacturer).
But Pete's point is misdirected; talk to the OEMs or even the distro
producers about "for newbies" stuff. They're the ones who have money to
be made (in theory). Pete's arguments will never be overcome; you can't
make Linux into a proprietary Mac-clone, no matter how hard you try.
But they will be quickly forgotten, once the market has *choice* between
different OSes and distros and pre-loads.
>Windows is more difficult. Not impossible, perhaps, in some cases,
>especially if one is intimately familiar with the (spit) registry.
>Just more difficult.
No, Windows is often impossible; there's just so far you can go with
proprietary monopoly crapware. There's no limit, though, to what you
can do on Linux. It still, unfortunately, takes a bit of mastery to do
it. But a new user wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a
Linux and a Windows box, other than that the Windows box crashes and is
very limited, compared to the Linux box. Sure, its got more *polish*;
it has to. Ugly whores always where lots of makeup.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:45:33 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:33:16
>Mig wrote:
>
>> Face it Pete... you cannot save yourself out of this one. You made a
>> beginners error and are stuck with it !!
>
>I made a reasonable assumption and descovered Linux doesn't follow those
>rules. I'd hardly call that a "beginner's error".
It doesn't matter how many times you say it was a "reasonable
assumption", Pete. It was still a beginner's error; you'd obviously
NEVER EVER printed from Gimp before.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:48:45 GMT
In article <96hi1a$69g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yvLh6.1345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> I'll say this much, Chad... You, unlike a few others touting it,
>> actually appear to have a working knowledge.
>>
>> The multi-platform CLR idea is good. But whether or not this will be
>> yet another JAVA is a question that begs to be asked. Neither Sun nor
>> MS were able to do much with JAVA for understandable reasons. How do
>> you think
> this
>> will be any different?
>
> There is one thing that MS has that Sun can't even hope to achive in the
> next decade or so. A *very* large consumer base. And a *huge* developer
> base. There are far more programmers writing programs for Windows then
> there are for Sun. Probably more than all the Java programmers as well.
This really did them no good with J++ and AFC did it?
>
> MS has a lot of VB developers that, while might be somewhat angry about
> the changes in the language, are also happy because they finally won't
> have to be ashamed about their job.
My personal opinion is that they should be ashamed by limiting themselves so as
programmers. Those who concentrate on VB are going to be up a creek at
some point in time. If you aren't proficient in C and C++, you're
missing out on a sizable chunk of the market.
>
> I bought a book about C#, as well as one about Java, I intend to learn
> them both at once, I'll comment about it when I'm on beginner programmer
> level on those languages. The C# book called C# MS' Java, and they are
> very similar.
>From what little I glanced at the C# book I grabbed from Barnes & Nobel,
I can't tell much of a difference either. There are a few niceties I can
see useful. I'll grant them that. When I eventually deploy the new Visual
Studio, I'll play with it a bit.
>
> However, AFAIU, Java was marketed at first as client - side language, at
> the time, it wasn't appropriate. At the time, workstations didn't had
> the power to make Java fast enough. There was no good JIT, no good
> implentation. (What does it says to you about Sun's implentation of Java
> when MS' implentation is better?)
I found both to be lacking. MS simply had a fuller object hierarchy. The net results
of both were slow and too limited to be useful beyond small Web Applets.
> Netscape's attempt to rewrite parts of
> their browser in Java, and the reversal of this desicion is evidence
> enough of that. At the moment, Java is used primarily on servers, where
> "write once, run everywhere" is good, because you can write on NT and
> move to a Unix server without (much?) trouble. For that matter, most of
> the uses of C# are on servers at the moment, on ASP+ machines. But C# is
> a (very) new language, then.
>
> I think that the main difference between Sun & Java and MS & .NET is in
> the level of commitment of those companies. MS defaintely putting a lot
> more resources on .NET than Sun did on Java.
You seem to forget MS's work on JAVA. (AFC, J++,etc..). They put quite a
lot into it. (Without the fanfare of .NET Which, incidentally, is all i'm
really seeing) I'd go so far as to say that they put twice the work into
that SUN did.
It was all for naught.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
Presently lurking in his Linux Partition
------------------------------
From: "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:02:01 +0800
In article <2DNg6.625$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95vb1l$c86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The 2.4
>> >> kernel.
>>
>> If 2.4 wasn't in the works at the time, 2.2 would have supported it,
>> but everyone was working on 2.4.
>
> And you think this is any different for Whistler?
sure, with Linux, it's available now...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:53:01 -0500
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > >
> > > > He's talking non-interactive. With an interactive editor like Notepad
> > > > or vi, one must manually open the file into the text buffer and do
> > >
> > > Vi can do noninteractive stuff. Wirte a script for the ex abck end and
> > > execute that, just like ed scripts, but better.
> > >
> > > -Ed
> > >
> >
> > "Ed is the one true editor...."
> >
>
> Ed??!? You use ed? What a wimp! Anything above DEBUG is a waste of
> resources. It's a little hard to duplicate graphics in hex, though...
> :-)
Who said I use an editor?
cat | cc
is usually sufficient.
>
>
> --
> Don't worry about avoiding temptation -- as you grow older, it starts
> avoiding you.
> -- The Old Farmer's Almanac
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:54:39 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:38:02
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> >When have I lied? I've just demonstrated to someone else who called me a
>> >liar that I'm not. Care to demonstrate how I'm lying here? Difficult,
>> >since other people have found exactly what I've been pointing out.
>>
>> It isn't whether its there, but how you describe it, that reveals that
>> what you would like to believe is the truth is actually a fabrication.
>
>Answer the question: when have I lied? Your twisty response are becoming
>very transparent.
You lie when you use the word "just". You lie when you use the word
"fail". You lie when you use the word "reasonable". Lying isn't only a
matter of stating a false fact; being dishonest causes lying, regardless
of what you're saying.
>> >So every application needs a test page.
>>
>> No.
>
>Yes. How else can I tell if an application is going to follow a reasonable
>assumption or not?
Well, you can tell that by looking at the configuration settings in the
dialog box; haven't we gone over that? This "reasonable assumption" is
a tired pile of bullshit, Pete. Yes, you actually have to know what
you're doing to use a computer; ***it doesn't matter how convinced you
have been by One Microsoft Way otherwise***. You really would be much
happier with a Mac, Pete. It has this 'singular printer model' thing
down pat. MUCH better than sorry-assed Windows.
[...]
>As a reasonable person, I would assume printing a test page once on a
>system meant it was correctly configured.
No, that is not what a reasonable person would assume, though it may
well be what an *ignorant* person might assume.
>Now I find one application
>doesn't. That could mean more don't. Oh dear, now I have to assume my
>setting up a printer was a waste of time.
Oh, blow me.
>Doesn't this seem the least bit wrong to you? Aren't I getting this through
>to you yet?
No, because I wouldn't be 'amazed beyond belief', as you are, that there
might be something I wasn't aware of. Luckily, with Linux that just
means its something you haven't learned; not like Windows, where its
something you cannot know, because its proprietary monopoly crapware.
>> But you don't need to cross your fingers EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU PRINT, as
>> most users with Windows do. You have to use the correct application
>> settings to get the print to work correctly in every application, be it
>> Windows or Linux, of course.
>
>I've not come across that with Windows. I've come across this with The Gimp
>and Linux.
Well, obviously I have more Windows experience than you do; vastly more,
considering how little you would have to have to be unaware of the
frequency of problems.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:55:45 -0500
Martin Eden wrote:
>
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Since you bring up the subject of dishonesty, Aaron: I wonder if you
> finally
> > > remember the unit you were attached to in the Gulf War. Who was your
> > > Battalion Commander during the conflict? You know...when you claimed to
> have
> > > won all those battlefield decorations for heroism, who pinned them on
> you?
> > > ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Tell us again how German, Japanese, North Korean, Chinese, Viet
> > Cong, and North Vietnames soldiers never fired at and killed
> > American medics.
>
> Nice obfuscation Aaron. ;-) Why not answer my original question? All I need
> is a name, with which I will be able to verify whether one Aaron R. Kulkis
> actually served where he says he did.
Since the TOPIC under discussion was enemy soldiers killing medics,
questions about my service experience ARE the obfuscating
topic-switching.
>
> Or would you finally like to come clean?
>
I want you and the others to tell the truth about the historical
trend of opposing forces soldiers to deliberately shoot at our
medics as high priority targets.
> > > Well surely that explains the following:
> > >
> > > From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
> > > Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
> > > Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:20:13 -0500
> > > Organization: Kulkis Consulting
> > > Lines: 79
> > > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > You are a real "Unix Systems Engineer" aren't you? lol.
> >
> > Yes...I changed the genuine identification string, by
> > substituting one which is....obfuscatory...
> >
> > heheheheh.
>
> Sure you did. ::wink:: (LOL)
--
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: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:56:18 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Not RDP, though. X Windows is crap. Whether or not it is
> fast over the net or not is irrelevant. Besides, it's a dog
> compared to RDP.
Sorry to break this to you, but it works fine here.
> But it's still crappy. I could write five lines of code that
> do nothing, and have no bugs, but it still does nothing. Saying
> that XWin doesn't have any bugs (which doesn't seem to be the
> case since it crashes all the time-- on Linux at least) is
> irrelevant.
This is all nonsense, of course -
I can leave my 3d screensavers running at work,
go on vacation for 2 weeks, come back and they
are still cycling - I type my password and there's
my desktop - I have no idea what crashes you're
talking about, but then again, you don't either.
> Um, it's a huge issue.
If it were a huge issue, or even a small issue,
it would have been changed - but the fact is,
it's basically a non issue.
> It seems to take no time in Windows. Windows is able to process files
> as fast or faster than Linux according to some benchmarks.
That's why windows programs running under Linux
have faster disk access than in native windows?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:58:55 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> But I've been told, and scolded over and over again that Linux
> isn't Unix.
>
> So which is it?
You might try thinking for yourself -
Do you always waver among various beliefs
depending on whatever you were last told?
What do you think, Chad?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 05:04:39 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> Then you don't play with many bootable CDs do you? I've never seen a machine
> that can boot one and not the other, especially since the bootstrap code is
> the same, regardless of OS.
Bootstrap code is one thing, it's after the boot process
that things get interesting -
>
> AND he said he had linux on there before which doesn't use DOS drive letters
> so it's even more unbelievable.
He didn't say Linux uses drive letters, but that windows
saw "drive letters", and this is exactly what windows does.
I have a Linux install on my wife's win 2k system, and each
time windows boots up, it complains about the "unformatted
drive e:" (my swap partition) and the "unformatted drive g:"
(my linux root partition) - LOL!
> FDISK is not the windows world, it's a utility that's been around since the
> early 80s and doing it's job for, what, 15 years, until this yutz comes
> along...
fdisk is the microsoft tool for partitioning disks -
calling the guy names doesn't change that,
> BUT it wouldn't mention drive letters if the previous partition was linux,
> it ONLY recognizes partitions of the DOS type ande everything else is
> represented simple as "unknown partition" and you can delete it with just
> three keystrokes EVERY single time. That's another reason to know it's a
> faked scenario. I've never had fdisk not delete an unknown partition, never
> in 10+ years.
I have several friends who have had this problem with ms fdisk.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 05:05:40 GMT
In article <1nMi6.609$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > At this rate, AMD is going to eat Intel for breakfast.
>> > > :-))))))))
>> >
>> So you're a Microsoft *and* an Intel apologist?
>
> I like the Athlon, I just know that Intel is taking it's beating and
> licking it's wounds right now and WILL strike back hard.
>
> AMD managed to get a leg up on Intel because the current P3 architecture
> didn't scale as well as they planned and had to abandon it earlier than
> expected. They've been mobilizing for the coming war for the last year.
>
>> What do you think about McDonald's? :)
>
> I like their french fries ;)
They were better back when they used LARD instead of vegtable oil. Damned
health Nazis ruined them!
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
Presently lurking in his Linux Partition
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
