Linux-Advocacy Digest #230, Volume #33 Sat, 31 Mar 01 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Wilbert Kruithof)
Re: Formatting a floppy ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: More "user friendly" behavior from Mafia$oft windows (Brad Sims)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Multitasking ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Multitasking ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: NOTICE: Internet Cleaning (Shane Phelps)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Brian Rourke)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Brian Rourke)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Brian Rourke)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:05:49 +0200
Karel Jansens: Again your three points:
Biology does not look into the future, on this point you are absolutely
right. But this same biological evolution brings *us*, people living on
a planet in the Galaxy. What do you think this evolution would like to
produce??
Look for yourself, objects who are able to "look in the future",
planning, saying: "Hey, it might look strange, coding an huge project
which I can never finish." "But I relay on the help of thousands other
"objects" all over the world, "I" would finish it!"
Also point 2 and 3 of you are answered sufficiently, i.e. what
biological evolution misses is completed by humans behaviour, and there
Open Source. And as Mark says:
> Since we share our results we slowly build a mass of reusable code, where as
>companies
> that come and go never accumulate.
Greetings,
Wilbert (Who's still thinking all day (at school:-) about this complex
theory, no kidding)
--
Linux Prometheus 2.4.2 #1 Tue Mar 20 20:42:22 CET 2001 i686
Homepage: http://home.hccnet.nl/wilbert.kruithof/
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Formatting a floppy
Date: 31 Mar 2001 20:36:48 GMT
Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Start doing all of these things on Windows anything, adding one at a
: time. Any bets on when it starts sputtering, slowing down to the
: point of uselessness, or totally locking up and crashing?
In such a case, any operating system would be bogged down
immensely, simply because the nature of those tasks requires
much CPU power and RAM.
: that scan is gonna look good? U think that MP3 will be smooth. U
Uh, speed has no effect on "how it looks" in scanning.
What affects the appearance of a scan is the density
of the scan, such as 150dpi vs. 600dpi vs. 2400dpi.
And an mp3 file's quality is going to be dictated by
the parameters used in compressing it, not by the
speed in which it's compressed you moron.
: think u can type full-speed in the WP. What do you think those videos
: will look and sound like? U think u won't burn a coaster in your CD
Choppy, as they would under any OS under such strain.
: drive? U think u will be able to play any of those games at all? You
: are wrong.
: Or try this. Open up more than 260 programs all at once and run them
: and work on them at the same time on an ordinary PC system. U think
: Win-anything can do this?
: Yet there are OS's that do this all the time, and easily. And u can
: buy and run them right now.
Really? Please enlighten us, what OS would this be exactly?
BeOS? GNU/Linux? FreeBSD?
You are full of shit, plain and simple. There is no way that
any operating system could handle all of those situations
simultaneously, unless it was running as efficiently as
theoretically possible on at least a 4-way SMP box, with
at least an 80% performance gain on each chip (and if
you had a clue, you'd know that most SMP systems only
add 30% to 40% of a performance gain per chip on a
typical klunking PC.
Not Linux. Not BSD/OS. Not WindowsNT. Nothing can be
expected to perform flawlessly under those conditions
on PC hardware.
: Everyone knows NT's multitasking is not that good; why argue about
: it?
Would everyone be "GNU/Linux users" specifically?
Please. Give us a small break from this nonsense.
It's obvious that you have absolutely no idea
what you're talking about, so please spare this
group from your idiotic notions, and come back
when you have a clue.
Twit.
------------------------------
From: Brad Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More "user friendly" behavior from Mafia$oft windows
Crossposted-To: soc.singles
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:38:43 GMT
I removed a video game on windows the other day, it took _three _ seperate
reboots to remove it.
--
Embrace your inner cynicism. Delight in the joy of knowing, with complete
certainty, that the world is filled with idiots, losers, and all other
assorted manner of higher life forms, and that a great many of of them
trying their damndest to win the competition for "Species Least Likely To
Be Useful". I figure, they'll probably lose that competition too, proving
once again that the cockroach is mightier than the "man".
Jeff Gostin in alt.sysadmin.recovery
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:39:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Everett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:44:13 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <0hnu6.9762$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> >
>>> > Hmm, the funny thing is, AMD is grabbing Intel's share, but Linux has
>>> > yet to even touch Microsoft in any market they're in.
>>>
>>> Well Microsoft have all but lost the Internet server market.
>>
>>For "My Cat Fluffy" web sites, maybe. But there are now more NT/2K/SQL
>>hosting sites than ever, and MS still holds a majority market share
>>in the web server market in the Fortune 500 and major eBusiness
>>companies. In fact, Apache holds a very minor share in Fortune 500.
>>It's MS/IIS with about 57% last I saw and Netscape/IPlanet with
>>40-something% and Apache with >10% market share.
Pedant point: 57 + 40 + 10 > 100%, so you either mean <10% (<3%??)
or your figures are off. Minor point, admittedly, since there's
no cite, and I know how notoriously unreliable human memory is
(mine fails me all the time :-) ).
>>
>
>My cat fluffy could come up with better fantasy figures. For the
>truth you need to get with reality. Chad Meyers is lying. Here
>is the truth for you:
>
>Server February 2001 Percent Change
>-------------------------------------------
>Apache 16871744 59.99 1.24
>Microsoft-IIS 5522069 19.63 -1.76
>Netscape-Enterprise 1751123 6.23 -0.05
>WebLogic 1039605 3.70 0.06
>Zeus 801215 2.85 0.34
>Rapidsite 380217 1.35 0.00
>thttpd 367724 1.31 0.07
>tigershark 166465 0.59 0.04
>AOLserver 153296 0.55 0.09
>WebSitePro 114655 0.41 0.00
>
>
Bear in mind that IINM Chad M. is referring to secure websites,
the backbone of any serious Web server effort. However, I
have no counterdata of my own to suggest whether IIS is winning
or not at this time.
My understanding is that IIS has a slim, but clear, majority.
A number of other efforts interfere, as well; I'm aware of at
least one hardware vendor who manufactures a device -- I believe
it's rack-mounted -- which can decrypt an encrypted communications
stream and forward it to a Webfarm which is inside the company's
firewall. In a case such as this, who gets credit for the Webservice?
Such a device could easily be developed using Linux, although there
are some competitive issues such as maximizing bandwidth (encryption
eats CPU, although I'm not sure how much), capabilities such
as load-balancing, and of course competing with vendors who are
already selling product.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 54d:23h:03m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: 31 Mar 2001 20:43:58 GMT
Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
: > >> >What I do next is point out that you *still* haven't put forward the
: > >evidence that NT multitasking is crap. you lose.
: >
: > That doesn't make NT's multitasking any more acceptable, though, does
: > it?
: >
: It is not that good either. I know people who have used most OS's out
: there.
: The best multitaskers:
: 1. Amiga
Yeah. Great. Multitasking without any sort
of reliable memory protection.
: 2. OS/2 Warp
: 3. QNX (close third)
: 4. BeOS (very good)
: 5. Various Unixen, including Linux
: 6. NT/Win2K
: 7. Win XX
: 8. Mac OS
: This lineup is pretty indisputable. The only controversy seems to be
The only thing that is indisputable is the fact
that you are cognizant of absolutely nothing.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: 31 Mar 2001 20:46:00 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
8<SNIP>8
: The Amiga was definitely an impressive machine -- and I still hear rumors
: of it coming back. :-) (Maybe it's because Microsoft hasn't ported NT
: to it yet...)
Sadly, I've been reading about those same rumors since '94.
They never came to fruition, so I wouldn't get my
hopes up if I were you. :-(
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:00:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 04:04:46 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 25 Mar 2001 14:56:05
>>"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...MS-FUD(tm) snipped...]
>>> How? If I have a Linux network up and running and want to add a Windows
>>> machine, do I add software to the Linux side or the Windows side? I
>>> usually run SAMBA on Linux when I have a Linux/Windows mix. What is the
>>> MS equivalent of SAMBA?
>>
>>Put it another way - why would NT need SAMBA?
> [...]
>
>That would be an NFS server, Charles. Not a very popular market, I
>don't think you'd find more than a couple token implementations.
>Needless to say, Windows doesn't provide the reliability or performance
>that is necessary to run an NFS server.
I'd be curious as to whether anyone has actually done a benchmark to
compare the bandwidth served by, say, a Network Appliances box [*], to
a Unix machine and a Windows NT machine, on roughly equivalent
hardware (to be extremely equivalent, one could try to run
NT and Linux on identical x86 hardware, even down to the memory and
disk spindles). The tests would be run sequentially, fetching the
same data from the same spindles on the NA box.
Another interesting comparison would be a 4-CPU Solaris server
running NFS serving a Linux box, versus a 4-CPU Windows 2000 server
running SMB serving an NT box, with comparisons as identical as possible
(e.g., the Sparc can't have a faster memory bus than the NT box, and
both boxes would be running identical SCSI boards to forestall the
SCSI <-> IDE speed difference, and identical NIC configurations).
The benchmark tests would ideally serve small files, large files,
sequential I/O, and random I/O, in a manner similar to a
benchmark for disk I/O throughput.
As for the answer to NT's ability to be an NFS client -- I don't know
if they're still in business, but Chameleon at one point had something.
There are probably other vendors as well; my guess is that an X
Windows server and an NFS client would be an easy bundle for such
things as Hummingbird's eXceed and XWin32, although at this point
I'm just guessing.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
[*] A manufacturer of storage solutions which can support both
NFS and SMB.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 54d:00h:18m actually running Linux.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NOTICE: Internet Cleaning
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 08:03:54 +1100
Chad Everett wrote:
>
>
>
> *** Attention ***
>
> It's that time again!
>
> As many of you know, each year the Internet must be shut down
> for 24 hours in order to allow for cleaning. The cleaning process,
> which eliminates dead email, inactive ftp and www sites, and
> objectionable material allows for a better-working and faster
> internet.
>
[ snip ]
That's one of the innovations in .NET, isn't it?
------------------------------
From: Brian Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:53:22 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:09:29 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Brian Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:06:33 GMT, "Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>So Linux is a piece of crap because you're too dumb to figure out how
>>>to install it?
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's right. And I'm the only one. Really, the installation
>> process is so easy and hassle free.
>
>It can be and then there can be problems like you have had. However it
>appears you have done nothing to seek help from the newsgroups most
>likely to give it to you. Some people here have tried to help but this
>is an advocacy group. Seek and you shall find. If you are not a troll
>ask for help in the appropriate newgroups and I'm sure you will end up
>with a Linux system that will amaze you.
>
Well, I hope so. Thanks for your advice here and in your earlier
post. FWIW, I did try some other forums back when I first had
trouble. I had some luck, but not much. Several people here have
suggested ones that might be better. My post here wasn't a request
for help.
>> You can go back in your hole now.
>
>There again you probably are a troll.
Is it trolling to respond in kind to posts like the one from Jeffy?
Thanks for your advice and admonitions.
Brian
The late spring sunshine flooded,
like a bursted tepid star,
the pink Boulevard. The people
beneath crawled like wounded insects
of cloth.
Wyndham Lewis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:48:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 21 Mar 2001 11:16:51 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "Michael Vester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip for brevity]
>> > Funny, I am one of those in "EVERYONE" and I report two losedos
>> > 2k crashes a day. My work computer was setup by a MSCE and has
>> > the latest patches and drivers. It just freezes. No BSOD.
>>
>> It's a hardware issue, ever think of that?
>
>
>I have two IDENTICAL machines at home...one with Linux, one with Windows.
>
>The Linux machine is stable. I have tried every hardware swap imaginable
>between these two machines to get either
>
>a) the Windows98 machine to quit crashing, or
>b) the Linux machine to start crashing.
>
>So far, I have yet to discover *ANY* combination of hardware which
>improves the reliability of Windows, nor *ANY combination of the SAME
>PIECES OF HARDWARE which provokes Linux to crash.
>
>I even thought of the possibility that Windows makes the CPU get hotter:
>The Windows machine even has more fans (about DOUBLE the air-flow rate
>through the case).
That's it...it's gotta be it. The fans are sucking more dust through
the case, coating the sides of the components with insulation! :-)
In order to fix it, you'll have to buy a bridge from a certain
large East Coast city with lots of wiring. :-)
(Mind you, I have a dumb question -- I take it you've already
swapped motherboards? How about upgrading the power supply?)
>
>
>So, what you're telling us is that Linux has some magic
>hardware fixer in it?
Well, there was a thread or two about two or three years back
regarding the ability of Linux to run a CPU cooler than Windows
because Linux actually halts the micro as opposed to merely busylooping.
Dunno if NT or Win2k knows how to halt, or not (this was a Win9x-
specific issue). Most likely, that would result in reduced load
on a bodgy power supply, improving reliability, at least on a
mostly idle system.
(The difference was as much as 30 degrees Fahrenheit, IIRC.)
>
>
>
>>
>> However, whenever I install Linux on my laptop, it'll freeze after
>> 2 or 3 minutes in X. That seems to be a software issue.
>>
>> I have seen Win2K run on about 60-70 different hardware setups now,
>> and have never seen it BSOD once, except when one was running beta
>> nVidia video drivers.
>
>
>That's because is very very careful to avert his head away from
>all Windows machines after he has completed the install.
Either that, or walk around with yellow-tinted sunglasses. :-)
Such should filter out the blue color from anything, leaving one
with black.
I will confess that I've never seen my NT4 machine actually
BSOD, at least not in recent memory. However, I have seen
others' machines have occasional problems, and some software
issues on my own, mostly having to do with Microsoft Outlook
(otherwise known as "Ohmygosh LookOUT!!" :-) ) and
Visual Studio C++ 6.0 (otherwise known as Viscerally Painful C++ 6.0 :-) ).
I've seen some very weird things while using those products -- although
I can't say I can reproduce them readily. (I occasionally have to
debug memory corruption problems -- they're a pain, even on a well-structured
system such as Unix.) Fortunately, these problems are relatively rare,
but then, so are certain diseases just before they explode out of control.
>
>
>>
>> > Usually it happens when running LookOut
>> > 2000 and/or Access. Hardly stable. Still have to save my work every few
>> > minutes. The Solaris I work on is stable. No crashes in three years. My
>> > Linux computers have never crashed. That is stability.
>>
>> Hmm, I'd argue the opposite. I've never seend a linux box that could
>> stay up for any length of time. Ususally it freezes due to the poor
>> drivers, or crashes due to the poor kernel.
>>
>
>Liar.
Now now...he could be telling the gospel truth; his friends might
well be showing him examples of bodgy hardware (unknown to said friends)
ruining a perfectly good Linux installation. :-)
(Side point: This may not appear relevant, but I have a UPS on my
boxes at work; every time I use my CD-ROM, there's a fair chance
it'll go "beeeeeeeeeeeep" because the power usage goes up, especially
if I have several windows open (the monitor is also connected to
the UPS, for obvious reasons). I can speculate that, if CM's friends
buy their machines from the bargain basement section, add a hard drive,
and install or try to install Linux on them, that they might run into
certain issues because of power system overload -- especially if
installing from CD, which as I understand it is the recommended course
of action for rank newbies. The solution of course is to get a beefier
power unit in that particular case.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 54d:01h:59m actually running Linux.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
------------------------------
From: Brian Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:00:34 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 31 Mar 2001 00:26:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K
Ollinger) wrote:
>Did you ever think of buying a new hard drive? They are so cheap these days.
>
>You could pull out win hard drive, and insert new hard drive and install
>linux with no fear of unwanted devastation to the windows install.
>
>later, reset jumpers, setup linux hd as slave and reboot w/ linux bootg
>disk, edit lilo.conf, and type lilo, then reboot again.
>
Several other people have suggested this, and I think it sounds like a
good idea.
>Or you could just buy a computer with linux on it which may make you mad,
>but most people don't ever install win so they think it's easier. Well,
>I did both and I say that linux (mandrake) is a bit easier, but maybe that's
>b/c I don't see the point in rebooting so much. To set up both win and lin is
>considerably harder than to set up one. Windows does better hardware recognition,
>but for me, it does so even when I don't want to. If you have strange hardware
>configurations, like I do, linux is 'easier to use' b/c it doens't try to set
>stuff up automagically if I don't want them to.
All the rebooting is very annoying, granted. I've installed Windows
98 myself.
This is a good idea too, but I don't think I want 2 computers right
now.
>
>Your main trouble with linux is going to be the win mindset. It's not a bad
>thing, but it is tough for someone who's used to windows to use linux, much
>easier for someone who knows nothing about computers to use linux. You don't
>know much about computers as a windows user, clicking OK, and moving icons
>around is not compter skills. Thinking in terms of letter for partitions
>is not good either. For most purposes, the MS way works great, but once you
>have many patitions and devices, it breaks b/c you don't know which is which--
>how to tell a parition from a diff HD? Most people say I dont' care which is
>great most of the time, but if you are mucking around with these things, you
>will eventually care and I don't want to see someone mess something up.
>
>Good luck with linux, you seem to be determined as ever, but willing to give
>us the criticism that we need. One suggestion, if you are going to be a really
>prolific writer like our good friend Pete, please write some docs. We need
>help. People are trying hard to help you, many of them are well-paid experts.
>The least you can do is write a doc or two. Or maybe you don't get it and
>are wasting the communities time, thinking that linux is a low-cost windows.
>It's not. It's a different ball game. Windows people come here often expecting
>things to be done for them (like children) and they won't contribute anything
>back--like leeches. Since this is the case so often, I'm glad that lazy peopel
>go back to windows and talk dirty about us. I use debian now so I'm ok even
>if all linux corps fail. I can maintain the sw that I use, and I will help
>community just as they have helped me.
>
Thanks for the good luck wishes. I'm not sure that I will pursue this
any further, but if I do I'll keep your suggestions in mind. As for
writing docs, I think I'm a *long* way away from being able to write
anything of even minimal value, but if I stick with it I will
definitely try my hand at it at some point (starting with a
description of my install problems and fixes for them, if I ever find
them).
Best regards,
Brian
The late spring sunshine flooded,
like a bursted tepid star,
the pink Boulevard. The people
beneath crawled like wounded insects
of cloth.
Wyndham Lewis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 21:51:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Michael Vester
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:31:05 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip for brevity]
>I guess that will do it. losedos w2k may still crash but at least the
>chassis will withstand small arms fire.
Not to mention electromagnetic pulses. (I would hope titanium would
be a good conductor.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Ready, aim, FIRE!" "Gee, aren't the enemy supposed to
like explode or something?" :-)
EAC code #191 54d:02h:22m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:00:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Shane Phelps
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 21 Mar 2001 22:44:16 +1100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <3ab61681$0$44575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jon Johanson"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > <snip some some stuff>
>> > >
>> > > At least they can hit something - unlike the rest of the world's
>> > > military.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > Hmm,
>> >
>> > One example: the Dutch Royal Marine Corps. One of the toughest bunch of
>> > bastards you've ever seen. Served with distinction in Cambodia, Beirut
>> > and Bosnia (after our braindead politicians realized that that is no
>> > place for lightly armed, unsupported troops).
>> > And this is only a small example, I think a lot of Europeans can think 2
>> > or 3 more for their own homelands.
>> > Please refrain from making unsupported and unsupportable claims, you'll
>> > only make yourself look foolish.
>>
>> But, when it comes down to it, when something needs to get done in the
>> world, only the Americans can seem to get it done.
>>
>> -c
>
>Like East Timor?
>
>Let's just get back to the Chev vs Ford (oops, Linux Vs Windows) flamewars?
I think you mean Chevy versus 1974 Pinto.... :-) :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 54d:03h:33m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: Brian Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:10:35 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:57:26 +0100, Eugenio Mastroviti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Brian Rourke wrote:
>
>[huge snip]
>
>I'm intrigued - I have recently had a comparable experience with a Dell
>system we have had to send back to the manifacturer.
>
>We have never been able to find out why, but NO version of Linux would
>install on it. Nor would NT 4.0, which is the only other OS it's
>possible to use in my company (software compatibility problems, some
>pieces of software won't work on 95/98/ME). The only OS that would
>install - without a problem - was, in fact, the crappiest: we didn't try
>95, but 98 and ME worked without a hitch. Win 2000 install didn't even
>boot.
>
>Could you send me some more details about your system?
>
Sorry for my delay in responding. Sounds like an interesting
potential parallel. I'll send you the details by email.
Thanks,
Brian
The late spring sunshine flooded,
like a bursted tepid star,
the pink Boulevard. The people
beneath crawled like wounded insects
of cloth.
Wyndham Lewis
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
