Linux-Advocacy Digest #772, Volume #33 Sun, 22 Apr 01 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: What's the point (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1 ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Jack Steffen)
Re: What to do with Bill Clinton (was Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism))
(Ace Agincourt)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Ace Agincourt)
Re: Sound Blaster 16 problems on SuSe 7.31 (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows 2000 Rocks! (GreyCloud)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (GreyCloud)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Chason)
Re: Why linux is good and a complaint about RedHat (Ace Jones)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("mmnnoo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:53:25 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:28:17 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <p2BD6.4999$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > Reiserfs is still not 100% as I understand it. Still minor bugs and
>> > problems with the kernel.
>>
>> Instead of writing your usual FUD why not try reiserfs? I've used it
>> since it was a patch to the 2.2 kernel. It is excellent considering
>> the journaling was added late on in its development (many thanks to
>> SuSE here who have pushed this and supplied devlopment resources). Is
>> any software 100%? Reiserfs is very close.
>
>When talking about your file system, there shouldn't be *ANY* bugs. MS is
>very loathe to make changes to it's file system, and when it does, it spends
>eons testing them. FAT32 started testing before Windows 95 came out, but
>didn't actually appear in a product until nearly 2 years later.
>
>Any possible bug in your filesystem should scare the living hell out of you.
>One bug can corrupt your entire disk.
>
Are you making the claim that FAT32 and NTFS are bug free? free of *possible*
bugs?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 01:55:37 +0000
In article <eqoE6.4674$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "pookoopookoo"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do I pick though? There's thousands of packages in there. I'm not a
> developer, if I uncheck development tools, will it still install
> correctly?
>
Of course it will. You can uncheck whole groups like development or
publishing. You can uncheck specific programs. You can read a short
description of a package to see it it sounds interesting. And if you
check one program and uncheck another that happens to be needed by the
first, the installer will resolve dependencies and force the install of
the second package. Later on when you boot up the system, you can use
kpackage to browse around both installed packages and packages not
installed. Lets say you find that you installed 10 editors and you
only really need one. With the click of the mouse you can uninstall
what you don't need. Then you take a walk through the uninstalled
packages and find something you would like to try. Click on install and
then give it a try. Don't like it? Another click and it's gone.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 06:16:51 GMT
On Sun 22 Apr 2001 12:21, Chad Everett wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:22:02 GMT, Chronos Tachyon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[Removed soc.singles from crossposting]
>>
>>On Sat 21 Apr 2001 05:28, Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>>
>>> Trouble is homosexuals are a politically vocal group who want to shove
>>> their sexuality down the throats of everybody else who want to treat it
>>> as
>>> a purely moral issue. The homosexual lobby in the US is actively
>>> working to outlaw free speech and freedom of religion. Your fantasy
>>> that "it's their own business" is nice. The homosexual lobby wants
>>> to make it the business of everybody. They want to teach my children
>>> all about homosexuality and prevent me from saying one word in protest
>>> about it.
>>>
>>
>>I think it's "teachable moment" time. :-)
>>
>> [ - big snip - ]
>>
>
> Thank you for proving my point.
>
>
>
*sigh*
I was going to try and respond with reason, but I saw exactly where this is
going and decided it wasn't worth it. I have my opinion, and you have
yours (however flawed I might perceive it to be), and in all likelihood I
could no more argue my case and convince you that diversity is a good thing
than I could convince one of the wintrolls that Linux really is a better
OS. I've seen it before, and I don't feel like debating the value of my
existence with yet another faceless stranger who shouts "It's the Evil
Commie Leftist Homosexual Conspiracy! Dear God, Somebody Save the
Children!"
When I first started posting to Usenet many moons ago, I got my wings doing
exactly that in alt.politics.homosexuality, but within a few months I just
didn't have the energy to keep posting there. It was a very flamey
newsgroup, with lots of trolls crossposting to Bible groups and
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh. Kinda like here, actually, except that the subject
(on both sides) was much more personal. It got too frustrating to hear
people honestly flaming that they wished I would get AIDS and die -- a very
unlikely wish considering that I'm a virgin and can't stomach the idea of
anonymous sex. Regardless, I kept a quote file of things that I found
insightful or funny, and one in particular lept to mind as I read your
response.
"When you declare that gays overreact about how they are treated, and
... you go out bashing them so that you can point at the angry
reaction it provokes, you are doing nothing more than burning down
the forest to prove it was made of ashes."
-- "Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 06:02:37 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>> How do you work that out?
>
> RTFM. (Or in this case RTFHT) Granted, they could have made X
> configuration a bit easier. I've yet to see a decent utility for it.
> SuSE's SAX and SAX2 are hardly what I would call adequate. Xconfigurator
> is next to worthless.
So much for the tools then.
> Long enough to bump Windows NT from every server at the office. :)
Every server, maybe. Every desktop? I doubt it.
> No liscense fees and no BSODs. Phoenominal uptime (Years). Sad note: On
> Saturday night, some idiot rammed a utility pole (sheared it completely
> off at the ground actually) and killed power. We saw the damage was bad
> enough that itd' take at least 10 or 12 hours to restore it. Decided to
> down them all. Some of those boxes had just passed the three year mark,
> too!
What good is it if it works brilliantly as a server but fails abismally as
a desktop?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Jack Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 06:30:07 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:04:13 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
>
> > They get many privileges, and many restrictions
>
> Such as ?
>
> > In contrast, in the United States, we have stripped all of men's
> > privileges, and all of womens' restrictions, giving us a society
> > where men have all the responsibilities and restrictions, and women
> > have all of the privileges.
> >
> > In other words...FEUDALISM.
>
> You're getting hysterical, Aaron. Are you saying that women form some sort
> of aristocracy ?
>
> > American women are allowed to drive, go out of the house unescorted,
> > and run off with 50% of a man's wealth PLUS a substantial sum of
> > 2 decades of his future earnings, all by getting pregnant by
> > Dangerasshole, but designating Mr. High Achiever the father on
> > the birth certificate.
>
> As opposed to Saudi-Arabia, where men are allowed to divorce for
> any reason, but women have to prove that they have been wronged ?
>
> BTW, your assertion about US law is over-simplified at best. Moreover,
> (even if your assertion was true) the law is not so much anti male
> as it is biased towards the partner who's earning less.
>
> > The primary reason why male/female relationships in the United States
> > are in such a sorry state
>
> On what basis do you make this claim ?
>
> > is entirely due to the fact that feminism
> > tipped the delicate balance of power from level to anti-male in
> > every respect
>
> And in spite of all this, men seem to be doing remarkably well ...
Maybe from where you sit they seem to be...... I have an 18 year old son
just starting out and he has no idea what he's up against. He'd be better
off if he were an 18 year old girl.................. I guess I wouldn't
consider years of declining wages and little or no voice in things these
days as doing remarkably well. Maybe remarkable in the sense that we
haven't given up entirely and still struggle and perservere in spite of it
all.....
>
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Ace Agincourt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What to do with Bill Clinton (was Re: OT: Treason (was Re:
Communism))
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:35:12 +0100
Hi Aaron,
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:17:06 -0400,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? Ace Agincourt wrote:
? >
? > Hi Aaron,
? >
? > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 17:58:02 -0400,
? > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
? > put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? >
? > ? Ace Agincourt wrote:
? > ? >
? > ? > Hi Aaron,
? > ? >
? > ? > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:02:49 -0400,
? > ? > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
? > ? > put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? > ? >
? > ? > ? Ace Agincourt wrote:
? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > Hi Aaron,
? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 07:22:12 -0400,
? > ? > ? > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
? > ? > ? > put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? Ace Agincourt wrote:
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > Hi Don,
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > On 21 Apr 2001 01:26:52 GMT,
? > ? > ? > ? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
? > ? > ? > ? > put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > ? On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:11:05 +0100, Ace Agincourt wrote:
? > ? > ? > ? > ? > Hi Roberto,
? > ? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ? > ? > Serbia was at war with the Kosovas. Are you claiming that the mass
? > ? > ? > ? > ? > murders did not occur.
? > ? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ? > ? They are mass *murders* only if they are war *crimes*, ie they are
? > ? > ? > ? > ? unlawful even in the context of war. Are you claiming the mass
murders
? > ? > ? > ? > ? were not war crimes ?
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > Should, then, Lord Walworth have been tried for war crimes after he
? > ? > ? > ? > murdered Wat Tyler? Who would have intervened in England's private
? > ? > ? > ? > affairs?
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ? > ? > Also, Hitler went to war against the Jews.
? > ? > ? > ? > ? > Are you a holocaust denier?
? > ? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ? > ? The NAZIs were tried as war *criminals*, meaning their killings were
found
? > ? > ? > ? > ? to be unlwaful.
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > Under whose authority? Should Bill Clinton be forced to stand trial
? > ? > ? > ? > for his war crimes: the bombing of a Sudanese Pharmaceutical plant and
? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ? Yes.
? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ? He should also be put on trial for Treason.
? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ? And sentanced to hanging by his testicles.
? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > Don't you think hanging by testicles is too good for him?
? > ? > ?
? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? That depends on whether you tie a noose around his testicles...or use
? > ? > ? 300-pound test fishing line, stitched THROUGH his testicles.
? > ? >
? > ? > Wouldn't the line just pull through, leaving him writhing on the floor
? > ? > in agony until he dies?
? > ?
? > ? Yeah....so?
? >
? > Just thought you may be able to come up with something better.
?
? You know something more agonizing than hanging by 300-pound test
? fishing line sewn through your testicles until the fishing line
? finally abrades it's way through your tissues and you fall on
? the floor head first?
?
? If you do, then I would certainly hate to be you.
Didn't you read my description of the Wire Jacket and Death by a
Thousand Cuts?
?
?
? >
? > My younger brother met Clinton at a breakfast when he visited
? > Shanghai. He said that images of a cigar and an ugly overweight
? > teenager sprang into his mind.
?
? Sounds disteurbing....traumatizing even.
?
? Maybe we could declare Clinton's mere presence in public to
? be a disturbance of the peace and a psychological danger to
? all he meets.
?
?
?
? >
? > ?
? > ?
? > ? >
? > ? > I think the place for his trial would be China. There they have some
? > ? > very ingenious ways to execute, where the execution process takes
? > ? > days, even weeks. Making him wear the wire jacket may be appropriate.
? > ? >
? > ? > The Wire Jacket and Death by a Thousand Cuts
? > ? > ----------------------------------------------------------
? > ? >
? > ? > Wire is wrapped tightly around the naked body
? > ? >
? > ? > Each day the executioner cuts off a bit of flesh protruding between
? > ? > bits of wire
? > ? >
? > ? > Apart from the cuts, the condemned is cared for (fed and watered)
? > ? >
? > ? > A skilled executioner can make the execution last over a month
? > ? >
? > ? > The condemned can last until 90% of his skin has been removed
? > ? >
? > ? > The condemned doesn't bleed to death because the tight wire prevents
? > ? > excessive blood loss
? > ? >
? > ? > Each cut adds to the agony of the condemned
? > ? >
? > ? > ?
? > ? > ?
? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ?
? > ? > ? > ? > the associated maimings, and the bombing of an Afghan youth training
? > ? > ? > ? > centre and its associated murders?
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > Best wishes, Ace.
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > ====================
? > ? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ? > This story shall the good man teach his son;
? > ? > ? > ? > And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
? > ? > ? > ? > From this day to the ending of the world.
? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > Best wishes, Ace.
? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > ====================
? > ? > ? >
? > ? > ? > This story shall the good man teach his son;
? > ? > ? > And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
? > ? > ? > From this day to the ending of the world.
? > ? >
? > ? > Best wishes, Ace.
? > ? >
? > ? > ====================
? > ? >
? > ? > This story shall the good man teach his son;
? > ? > And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
? > ? > From this day to the ending of the world.
? >
? > Best wishes, Ace.
? >
? > ====================
? >
? > This story shall the good man teach his son;
? > And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
? > From this day to the ending of the world.
Best wishes, Ace.
====================
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
>From this day to the ending of the world.
------------------------------
From: Ace Agincourt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:36:30 +0100
Hi Don,
On 22 Apr 2001 02:59:45 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
put fingers to keyboard and tapped away writing:
? On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 11:12:14 +0100, Ace Agincourt wrote:
?
? > Under whose authority? Should Bill Clinton be forced to stand trial
? > for his war crimes: the bombing of a Sudanese Pharmaceutical plant and
? > the associated maimings, and the bombing of an Afghan youth training
? > centre and its associated murders?
?
? I doubt this would have much support, and I believe the US could (and
? would) veto such a move (if it was done via UN)
Perhaps, then, the US shouldn't have the right to veto moves by the
UN.
Best wishes, Ace.
====================
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
>From this day to the ending of the world.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound Blaster 16 problems on SuSe 7.31
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:55:13 -0700
"E. Carrillo" wrote:
>
> Sound Blaster 16 problems on SuSe 7.31
> I have a sound blaster 16 ISA card which works fine under windows, but I
> can't make it work properly on linux. The card does work the first time I
> boot the system right after the linux installation. But as soon as I restart
> the system the sound stops working. During the boot up process I see a line
> that says something like "initializing snd-card-sb16" and "Done" on the
> right side of the screen with green letters. If I try using the YaSt 2
> setup program it recognizes the card, but during the sound test there is no
> sound. It supposedly starts ALSA during the boot up process but that doesn't
> seem to do any good. I'm a total newbie to this linux world so if you can
> help me please be as descriptive as you can. Thank you in advance.
I've ran into the same problem. When you use ALSA drivers you have to
disable all the sound drivers that Linux has defaulted to. Its
basically an interrupt conflict when more than one sound driver is
active... the default one won't work but is hogging the resource.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:55:36 -0700
Hullo wrote:
>
> It's great.
That a fact.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:59:03 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hullo
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:01:48 +0100
> <9bslgm$jp8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >It's great.
>
> That's not horribly specific. What, precisely, is it that
> you like about Win2k that wasn't available in NT4, Win98SE, or WinME?
> How about competitive products such as RedHat, Mandrake, Debian,
> SuSE, and Slackware, all of which are Linux-based?
> Will Windows XP "rock" even more, even though, in the opinion of this
> poster, it looks like something more suitable for Fischer-Price than
> Microsoft? Do we really need giant-sized idiot-proof icons?
>
> (At one point, NT was touted as "the most reliable operating system"
> or some such -- and then Win2k came out as "the even more reliable
> operating system". Bizarre.)
Its madison avenue advertising... "New and Improved!" And I ask what
was wrong then with the older version? :-)
>
> Will Win2k allow for arbitrarily large scaling? Linux can work on a
> dinky little 386 with 4 megs of memory (granted, it can't do much) all
> the way to gigantic iron: an IBM S/390 system. It can also work on a
> lot in between -- I have a version installed on an older model SPARC,
> for example; it also supports PPCs, Amigas, Ataris, and Macs.
> HP is reputed to be working on, or at least lending support to, a
> version for their PA RISC line. I suspect Sun might be at
> least studying it, with an eye towards improving Solaris.
> It's even possible Solaris code might make its way into Linux.
>
> And with such things as KDE and Gnome, Linux et al has a number
> of choices of pretty GUIs -- and the Linux ones tend to be
> more useful, if one has half a clue. Or one can roll one's own,
> albeit that takes a bit of work. (I'll admit I'm weird; Athena
> looked extremely ugly but was reasonably easy to work with.
> Modern variants have improved on its appearance, though.)
>
> Oodles of software exist for Linux, much of it in source form.
> Not sure how many more oodles exist for Linux, and whether there's
> more for Linux or for Windows -- one difference I do note is that
> Linux software always has source if it's free, whereas Windows
> software usually gets just an .EXE or a .DLL. At least, that's
> my impression.
>
> Some of it is even useful -- in fact, a lot of Linux freeware
> is useful. One example: PostgreSQL, a full-featured relational
> database. Another is Gnumeric, a Gnome spreadsheet.
> Still another is Lyx (a front-end to TeX or LaTeX, which are both
> extremely competent typesetting packages).
>
> So...again...what was it about Windows 2K you liked so much?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 5d:16h:56m actually running Linux.
> We are all naked underneath our clothes.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Rocks!
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 23:59:47 -0700
Hullo wrote:
>
> It is incredibly excellent dude. You know it, I know it. It rocks.
>
Oh, I see... your hard drive is constantly thrashing and wailing??
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hullo
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:01:48 +0100
> > <9bslgm$jp8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >It's great.
> >
> > That's not horribly specific. What, precisely, is it that
> > you like about Win2k that wasn't available in NT4, Win98SE, or WinME?
> > How about competitive products such as RedHat, Mandrake, Debian,
> > SuSE, and Slackware, all of which are Linux-based?
> > Will Windows XP "rock" even more, even though, in the opinion of this
> > poster, it looks like something more suitable for Fischer-Price than
> > Microsoft? Do we really need giant-sized idiot-proof icons?
> >
> > (At one point, NT was touted as "the most reliable operating system"
> > or some such -- and then Win2k came out as "the even more reliable
> > operating system". Bizarre.)
> >
> > Will Win2k allow for arbitrarily large scaling? Linux can work on a
> > dinky little 386 with 4 megs of memory (granted, it can't do much) all
> > the way to gigantic iron: an IBM S/390 system. It can also work on a
> > lot in between -- I have a version installed on an older model SPARC,
> > for example; it also supports PPCs, Amigas, Ataris, and Macs.
> > HP is reputed to be working on, or at least lending support to, a
> > version for their PA RISC line. I suspect Sun might be at
> > least studying it, with an eye towards improving Solaris.
> > It's even possible Solaris code might make its way into Linux.
> >
> > And with such things as KDE and Gnome, Linux et al has a number
> > of choices of pretty GUIs -- and the Linux ones tend to be
> > more useful, if one has half a clue. Or one can roll one's own,
> > albeit that takes a bit of work. (I'll admit I'm weird; Athena
> > looked extremely ugly but was reasonably easy to work with.
> > Modern variants have improved on its appearance, though.)
> >
> > Oodles of software exist for Linux, much of it in source form.
> > Not sure how many more oodles exist for Linux, and whether there's
> > more for Linux or for Windows -- one difference I do note is that
> > Linux software always has source if it's free, whereas Windows
> > software usually gets just an .EXE or a .DLL. At least, that's
> > my impression.
> >
> > Some of it is even useful -- in fact, a lot of Linux freeware
> > is useful. One example: PostgreSQL, a full-featured relational
> > database. Another is Gnumeric, a Gnome spreadsheet.
> > Still another is Lyx (a front-end to TeX or LaTeX, which are both
> > extremely competent typesetting packages).
> >
> > So...again...what was it about Windows 2K you liked so much?
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> > EAC code #191 5d:16h:56m actually running Linux.
> > We are all naked underneath our clothes.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 00:02:28 -0700
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> Says good-bye to expensive, hard to manage unix crap too...
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1120413
>
> Zenon Chomyszyn, technology manager at the Halifax, told Computing that the
> company's Unix systems are too expensive to maintain, and that he hopes to
> reduce these costs by installing W2DC, despite a high initial outlay.
> "The benefits will be the management of the systems and boxes rather than a
> saving in purchase price," he said.
>
> Chomyszyn added that the operating system will increase the availability,
> reliability and scalability of the bank's databases, and will reduce
> operational costs by managing a single server rather than thousands.
Guess I'd better get my money out of that bank then.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:03:09 -0000
Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[crap]
Would someone please explain why all this Dirty Homo this and Nazi
Bigot that belongs in COLA?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ace Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why linux is good and a complaint about RedHat
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:05:40 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> True. I am running SuSE Linux Pro and compared to Redhat Linux 7, it is
> a god-send, easy to use, setup, modify, great manuals, 90 days of tech
> support and free updates for ever.
Are the updates pretty easy to install also?
I'm contemplating moving over to SuSE from Caldera only because it's taking
Caldera so long to put out a real distribution with 2.4. SuSE had it
practically right away, which tells me they're on top of things.
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 07:07:08 GMT
It's a news item when someone actually decides to use windows 2000 data
center? Good grief, the only fact stated in the article is that the
transition will be expensive. The rest is just plain old optimism.
In article <3ae1d487$0$18533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jon Johansan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Says good-bye to expensive, hard to manage unix crap too...
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1120413
>
> Zenon Chomyszyn, technology manager at the Halifax, told Computing that
> the company's Unix systems are too expensive to maintain, and that he
> hopes to reduce these costs by installing W2DC, despite a high initial
> outlay.
> "The benefits will be the management of the systems and boxes rather
> than a
> saving in purchase price," he said.
>
> Chomyszyn added that the operating system will increase the
> availability, reliability and scalability of the bank's databases, and
> will reduce operational costs by managing a single server rather than
> thousands.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
