Linux-Advocacy Digest #38, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's (pip)
MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!)
("Jan Johanson")
Re: Am I a feminist? (was Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why Linux is paralyzed (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("matt jacobsen")
start up commands ("E. Carrillo")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("Edward Rosten")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Edward Rosten")
Re: there's always a bigger fool (pip)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: 29 Apr 2001 10:43:08 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
>
> > This is SO true! I just setup a windows mini home LAN to a broadband
modem -
> > ISP using a linksys router. One windows whistler box, one win98 box, one
> > winME box, and one RedHat Linux box. Guess which one will not work?
That's
> > right. The 3 windows boxes were so simple to setup for shared broadband
> > access through the router it was amazing. Took all of one hour to
connect
> > all the pc's, set up sharing and DHCP. The linux box couldn't get past
the
> > NIC setup.
>
> Correction: MH couldn't get past the NIC setup. Also, it's probably
> just because you're so used to setting up Windows boxes, and know
> absolutely nothing about Linux, except how to bitch about how its "ease
> of use" sucks compared to Windows. Maybe you should just try another
> Linux distro instead of just generalizing the entirety of Linux based on
> your ineptness or failings with one particular distro.
Oh - I see how this double standard works.
If we can't figure out the arcane crap and hoops that Linux makes us jump
through then it's our fault.
When a linvocate can't get even a default install of W2K working right, it's
Windows fault?
Face it, and this is undeniable, linux is much much more difficult to setup
and use.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:46:52 +0100
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : But yet you have no application like:
>
> : CD Architect
> : SoundForge.
> : Vegas audio/video
> : Cubase
> : Samplitude
> : Acid
> : Cakewalk
> : Sonar.
> : Logic Audio
>
> : And I could go on for hours........
>
> The list of poor-quality, non-portable software, that can run on only
> one OS, and the shittiest one available at that, certainly seems
> endless.
If you think that the above are poor quality software then you obviously
have no interest in the field!
Show me some equivalents please and I'll be happy!
Doh!!!!!
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!)
Date: 29 Apr 2001 11:08:08 -0500
"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > From a Usenet signature:
> >
> **************************************************************************
> > "Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to re-invent it--badly"
> > -Henry Spencer
> >
> **************************************************************************
> >
> > MS seems to be doing just that.
>
> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that's why there are things
> like this:
> http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/demos/images/Icons/navHome2.gif a near
> exact rip-off of the home button in IE.
>
> http://www.linux-mandrake.com/screenshots/traktopel2.png a complete
rip-off
> of the Windows XP graphical interface.
>
> Then there's the Office rip-offs
> http://www.linux-mandrake.com/screenshots/venus1.jpg
>
> It's like a whos-who list of plagiarists!
I mean look at this! I love how those that claim to despite the GUI and
everything MS like - are the first to do everything possible to copy it.
Look at all the damn near identical copies of Windows tools and the look and
feel. Give me a break, these screen shots are fantastic. I didn't see a
single original idea in the bunch.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Am I a feminist? (was Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males)
Date: 29 Apr 2001 16:08:25 GMT
On 29 Apr 2001 14:23:37 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't believe that, on the basis of statistical averages, women are
> equal to men in *every* respect.
To state that this was the case would indeed be pure silliness, given the
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
> They tend on average to be better
> than we are at some things, and worse at others. I suspect, but
> cannot prove, that there are more things, and more important things,
> that they do better than us, than things we do better than they.
If one were to believe that they have better memory, and language skills,
then they would make good doctors (for example). In Australia, women are
outnumbering men in medical schools.
> I don't believe in government-mandated "equal pay" schemes because,
> like other government-mandated intrusions in labor markets such as
> "minimum wage" laws, they greatly increase unemployment among the very
> groups of people they allegedly are intended to help.
Minimum wages are not excessively high, they are merely high enough that
any honest employer will pay at least that much. They are only there
to help fight the proliferation of sweatshops.
> I believe that, while real cases of sexual harrassment are still all
> too common, most complaints of such harrassment are bunk.
On what basis do you believe that ? Firstly, most cases are not reported,
because if the harassment is based only on positive enforcement, it's less
likely that a complaint would be filed.
Another reason that most cases are not high profile is that there tends to
be a "community policing" approach to the problem, which means a complaint
resolution mechanism that places an emphasis on resolving cases quietly
without embarrassing or hurting either party. IMO, an increased awareness
on this issue has caused considerably more good than harm (that's not a
typo)
> I believe that marriage contracts should be enforced as would be any
> other contract. They ought to be entered into far less lightly than
> they tend to be, and ought to be exited from rarely if ever.
What do you mean by "enforced as any other contract" ?
> I believe that easy divorce and single parenthood are among the WORST
> things ever to happen to women, even though these are among the very
> things that many feminists insist on above all else.
How would you like divorce made harder ? Would you like it to be harder
for women to divorce abusive alcoholics ? The issue is not nearly as
simple as you make it sound.
Divorce is already difficult, even when the couple in question can come
to an agreement without going to court.
I'm not sure why you're lumping the two together anyway -- I would
have thought that out of wedlock pregnancy is more likely than divorce
to be the primary "cause" of single parenthood.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: JS PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:11:49 -0400
Ed Allen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <hi everybody!> wrote:
> >
> > You'll be able to read all about why the government lost the current case
> >when the appeals court hands it decision down, throwing it out lock stock
> >and barrel.
> >
> >
> >The rest of your statements are moot, because the case is all but thrown
> >out.
> >
> >
> Since MS did not dispute the Findins of Fact the conviction will
> stand.
>
> What remedies come from the AC or the SC remain to be seen but your
> faith in the false rightousness of MS is wasted on covicted felons.
>
> They do not care what you think and neither do we.
Then shut the fuck up
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:02:03 +0200
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3aec34a1$0$41627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > DirectCD gave you this ability. Windows 2K does not have this
capability
> > out of the box....you MUST buy additional software and install it as
> > administrator.
>
> Well, that is correct. W2K does not have the utility to burn CDs out of
the
> box. i.e., the OS doesn't prevent it but simply does not have the software
> included in it to burn CDs. Does the linux kernel itself include a utility
> that will mount and burn to CDs? Or is that something you have to add in.
>
> Also, there are free CD burning applications for Windows.
I checked that a couple of months ago, what I found was an activeX that you
could incorporate into your own programs.
Where can I found those programs? I don't like the built in burner in XP
(can't do labels in my version), and don't want to pollute my computer with
adaptec.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is paralyzed
Date: 29 Apr 2001 16:18:34 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:13:23 +0100, jimbo wrote:
> The reason being its just too difficult to configure for retailers and I
> doubt if they could handle the problems that come with Linux.
> EIDE is just one of many problems that you encounter with Linux.
> EIDE based CD Writers cheaper and more common than SCSI but all Linux
> distributions seem to only cater for SCSI.
> This means you have to implement SCSI emulation..
> Why ?
That's probably also what Windows is doing under the hood.
> Why can't this all be done for the user it's a known problem?
It can be done, however, there's usually a certain lag between something being
supported, and supported transparently.
> This is just one of many problems with Linux and why it will die just like
> OS2.
We've heard the wintrolls say this for the last 5 years, and it still hasn't
happened. You're free to wish what you like, but allow me to tell you that
it isn't going to happen.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:25:01 GMT
On Sat 28 Apr 2001 07:45, Chad Myers wrote:
[Snip]
>>
>> All of them in the employ of SSH Communications Security, which stood to
>> profit from fear-mongering against SSH1.
>
> What would they have to profit from if OpenSSH decided to, or not to
> use SSH1 or SSH2? If people are using OpenSSH, SSH.com is losing money
> in the first place, why wouldn't he just try to shut them down altogether?
>
If people install OpenSSH servers but use SSH.com clients, then they quite
obviously have something to gain. Most people are not aware of OpenSSH's
existence and think SSH means SSH.com -- thus, if they want to connect to a
SSH2-only server, they have to pay money to download the SSH.com client.
> The fact is, SSH1 is "flawed", and since SSH2 is open and free as well
> (and implemented in SSH2) there is NO good reason to stay with SSH1,
> right? I mean, if there's a better apple at the store, and it's the same
> price, why choose the rotten one?
>
The flaw is quite minor, we've discussed this -- if you want an actual
security hole, go beat NTLMv1 with a stick. To boot, Ylonen has been
shouting "Switch to SSH2, it's better!" since before the vulnerability in
SSH1 was found. OpenSSH has only existed since Dec 1999, and the SSH2
support was released in Jun 2000; SSH.com's SSH2 product has existed for
much longer than that.
[Snip]
>>
>> Why should they? The OpenSSH server can simultaneously support both SSH1
>> and SSH2, and there are a huge number of legacy SSH1 clients out there
>> that can't all be replaced immediately. The only thing that really
>> matters is that SSH2 is the default protocol in the OpenSSH client,
>> which it is.
>
> We're not talking about legacy customers, we're talking about phasing
> support for SSH1 out in the newer products. If customers demand SSH1
> (which I find hard to believe given the "flawed" nature of it) then they
> just keep running the current version they have.
There are a lot of embedded systems out there, especially firewalls and
routers, with SSH1 software on board. These systems will probably be in
service for at least the next five years. Many systems are set up so that
the user can transparently connect without a password, using a crypto key
as authentication; the RSA keys used by SSH1 are incompatible with the DSA
keys used in SSH2, and thus a lot of existing scripts and automation would
break until those keys were regenerated and recopied.
As you can see at <http://ssh-research.ucs.ualberta.ca/graphs.html>, the
deployed base of SSH1 servers is about 60% of the entire deployed base of
all SSH protocol versions. A LOT of people still use SSH1.
> If they cared about security in the first place (why else run SSH1) then
> they'd probably want the latest and greatest anyhow. I find it hard to
> believe there is this pocket of SSH1 die-hards that refuses to let it go.
> I can't understand why everyone isn't pushing for SSH2.
Because SSH2 is a much more intricate and complex protocol, and the leading
provider of SSH2 software (SSH.com) charges an obscene amount of money for
it.
> It's free as well, isn't it? I can't think of one good reason to keep
> supporting SSH1.
It is *now*, but for a long period that only ended recently the only
implementations available costed money.
[Snip]
>>
>> SSH Secure Shell for Workstations $99
>> SSH Secure Shell for [Unix] Servers $475
>> SSH Secure Shell for Windows Servers $565
>
> However, from what I understand OpenSSH supports protocol 2.0. This
> means 2.0 is free, correct?
>
> According to OpenSSH.org:
>
> "OpenSSH supports SSH protocol versions 1.3, 1.5, and 2.0."
>
> Why then even continue support for 1.3 and 1.5 in future versions if
> there are known flaws?
>
Again, legacy. The protocol flaw is something that (a) can be worked
around, and (b) could only be exploited on a fast LAN in the first place.
[Snip]
>> Who's to say that Win2K doesn't have massive stability bugs that don't
>> kick
>> in until it's been running for some arbitrary number of days? This would
>> not be unprecedented in Microsoft software.
>
> It would in their server software.
>
*cough* WinNT *cough*
>> Running multiple machines doesn't help demonstrate a lack of memory
>> leaks,
>> timer overflows, or any other time-dependent bug.
>
> Long shot.
>
>
As I recall, there were some serious memory leaks in NT 3.51 when it first
came out, and last I heard WinNT/2K STILL doesn't support the automatic
deallocation of resources when a program exits without freeing them. It's
not that long of a shot.
[Snip]
>> I don't have enough experience to discuss features or
>> stability of any of those products except Win2K,
>
> Well, that ends the discussion then. You continue to speak from a point
> of knowledge when you really have none. You should really keep your
> comments to yourself since they are ignorant.
>
Okay, deal. I'm admittedly just a twentysomething programmer with a strong
Linux afffinity, not an enterprise guru.
>> where most of the features were created with the explicit purpose of
>> ruining
>> compatibility with 3rd party software.
>
> Case in point.
>
How so? ActiveDirectory was created to compete with Novell Directory
Services while being entirely incompatible. Samba was finally catching up
to equaling an NT4 PDC, so they completely rewrote large parts of Win2K's
code dealing with PDC/BDC and trust. They adopted Kerberos and made
compatibility-breaking changes, so that they could claim to support open
standards while waving a click-through NDA on the documentation of their
changes. They even broke compatibility with NT4 several times over in the
process, just so they could force people to stay on the upgrade-go-round.
--
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: "matt jacobsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:25:18 +0100
Oh my god. Usenet has suddenly turned into a night in the pub.
--
matt jacobsen
uin: 52353790
PGP public key: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jacobsen/pubkey.txt
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum
immane mittam.
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cglp9$370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > still, it has to be said that this idle eunux and windoze chit chat is
| > both gay and nerdish. or: who gives a fuck? got Zzz?
| >
| > people want sex, drugs, rock & roll, comedy, tragedy and soap op'.
|
| Only if they've got nthing better to do :-)
|
|
| -Ed
|
|
|
|
| --
| You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
|
| u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "E. Carrillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: start up commands
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 09:44:40 -0700
Hi guys:
I have a small question, Is there a way to tell linux to start a
program or module sort of the same way that windows starts programs from the
startup folder? I have to use the OSS sound drivers for my sound card since
it's not working with my distro, but OSS is doing very well. So, I have to
type the command "soundon" every time I turn on the PC. I'm running SuSe
7.1, Does anyone know how to start this module under SuSe 7.1? I tried
typing the "soundon" line on one of the system files but it didn't work,
maybe I placed the line out of place. Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:47:08 +0100
> I've been saying this for years. People claiming there is no difference
> in GUI speed, whether real or percieved, must have a space ship double
> parked somewhere as ~everyone~ who has used both operating systems
> knows. I remember running RH on a P90 with 32mb's in an NT dual
> boot.(state of the art pc desktop back in 95) NT's gui was in another
> universe compared to the windowmaker gui on the linux box. What did the
> advocates say then?
Well, comparing my Linux desktop to Windows, there is no perceived speed
differnce. I'm on a P133.
> "use another window manager, WM's too memory hungry". What do we have
> today? Gnome and KDE are the two most popular desktops and when you
> mention that they seem so much slower than the windows gui on the same
> machine you now get "try window maker, those others are hogs".
> HE-larious!!! Two steps foward, three steps back.
And now try to run Win2K on that setup.
>> How about multimedia?
>
> It's getting better, but it's still no where near windows. But hey, it's
> a windows world. Try going to college and ONLY using linux.
Yep. I use linux for everything except the odd game of C&C. And besides,
my 'doze was dead for the whole of last year (more or less) and I
suffered no ill effects because I was too busy to play C&C.
> Sure, you'll
> get your mail,
Yep, the university uses a cluster of 6 Linux boxes as it happens.
> but all those word documents
I tell them to resend them as plain text. failing that, I'll open them in
staroffice. Failing that, I'll open them in Word 97 whch I keep haging
around for such occasions. Oh, by the way it runs fine under Wine.
>, powerpoint slides, Flash
> enabled demos (yeah you can get flash - but NN under linux sucks), on
> and on.
I haven't received any powerpoint slides (a lot of our lecturers use
LaTeX for slides) in my mail and if I did, see above. Also, going to a
*real* college, the people here don't have enough spare time to make lots
of Flash `demos' (despite NN running all flash stuff OK anyway).
> Have a new digital camera?
no.
> Setting up a home lan to share a broadband
> connection? Windows, couple of hours. Linux, good luck getting the NIC
> drivers to compile. How many
Well, I'm on a college LAN. Setting up time? 5 minutes, if that. Oh, and
my distribution came with all the drivers as modules. You know that most
do, so I tink you're just spreading FUD.
> 'newbies' have any idea what the hell /usr/src/linux/ is, let alone the
> compile parameters you need to pass to gcc to compile a kernel module.
No true, but then again, newbies don't need to compile a kernel. Also,
the GUI kernel config tool does it all for you, unless you're too dim to
ues a point'n'drool GUI (which I suspect in your case).
> Then you've got depmod and the other commands needed to accomplish this.
> Windows? RE-boot, pop in the card, pop in the driver disk, reboot,
> done.
Linux, pop in the device, boot up, DONE! No reboots, no driver disks.
> I don't mind the linux way because I'm a computer junkie, you think
> someone who is not has time for that sh*t? Get real LinZealots.
Does anyone actually have to do all the crap you mentioned, nope. more
FUD.
>>
>> I have a RIM Blackberry that I use for my day job. Supported under
>> Linux? Nope!
>
> Good luck with that one.
What the fsck is a RIM Blackberry?
>> State of the art and chances are it will NEVER be supported under
>> Linux. Why?
>>
>> Because there is virtually NOBODY USING LINUX!!!!!!!
>
> I disagree. Plenty of people use it. Students, mainly CS. Hobbyists,
> aspiring programmers. Computer enthusiasts. I use it, I like it. But you
> HAVE to have a windows box, you simply have to.
>
>> Sure it is used in back room server operations, so are ball bearings in
>> my wheel bearings on my car. Point is nobody cares.
>
> Most don't, you're quite correct.
>
>> And most certainly, nobody cares about Linux....
>
> I care about it. I just don't expect it to replace windows.
> --and don't want or care about the 'world domination' thing.
> I think it's completely stupid now, and just as stupid when Torvalds
> muttered it at one of those 'trekkie' like linux conventions years ago.
Oh, I see, you're a bigot too. Figures.
>> Linux is dead before it has even started and XP will put yet another
>> 100 nails in it's coffin.
>
> I beta test Whistler. Beta 2 has been very nice so far. I think it's
> going to be a decent product.
How much better than Win2K is it then?
>> Linux is a time waster and is meant for bit tinkerers and losers. Spend
>> all your time compiling kernels to run shit applications, that's what
>> Linux is about.
>
> Like the saying goes. ... linux is free if your time is worth nothing.
Errr. no.
>> The masses have spoken and Linux does not even have an honorable
>> mention....
>
> For most users? No. Hell, even experienced computer users who have taken
> a look at it usually say 'no thanks, I really don't have the time to
> learn something new. I've work to do'
>
>> GoodBye Linux....
>
> I'll hang around. I still like and use it.
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:54:10 +0100
> Intel and MS have been in bed for a long time. Intel is another
> disgusting monopoly and most folks do not realize the degree to which
> they break the law. They really only innovate when given some
> competition, like any monopoly. And Intel and MS have been getting
> together with ZDNet and the other press-scums to rig "benchmarks" for
> many years now.
The most significant innovation if INTeL is to pioneer the onion-skin
approach to processor design.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:57:37 +0100
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > Intel and MS have been in bed for a long time. Intel is another
> > disgusting monopoly and most folks do not realize the degree to which
> > they break the law. They really only innovate when given some
> > competition, like any monopoly. And Intel and MS have been getting
> > together with ZDNet and the other press-scums to rig "benchmarks" for
> > many years now.
>
> The most significant innovation if INTeL is to pioneer the onion-skin
> approach to processor design.
I thought that Intel Processors already had 7 levels of operations (win
and Linux only use a few) ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: 30 Apr 2001 02:29:55 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> How about multimedia?
>I've noticed on my faster machine (400MHz PII) Linux + XFree86 doesn't play
>MPG files very well. On Windows 98 SE they work just fine. Overall graphics
>on thius system performs poorly compared to Windows 98 SE.
Of course, I have conversely noted that DVD playback works perfectly on
my Duron linux box with a TNT2 graphics card, taking something like 30%
CPU time, using xine.
In contrast, my brother's recent upgrade, featuring a Duron and a GeForce2MX,
using the DVD playback software included with the graphics card itself, did
not produce fluid and smooth DVD playback. Just didn't.
What does that tell you? About as little as your anecdote...
Bernie
--
When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
results
Calvin Coolidge
US President 1923-29
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:59:20 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:40:58 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[ranting snipped]
>
>I don't know what your problem is, but I I was looking to buy a laptop. I
>didn't want to spend a lot on one because, by and large, they are the "bic
>razor" of computing. The company I am at, offered me a Compaq Presario 1690.
That's nice.
>They were getting rid of it because it was too slow. I installed RedHat Linux
>7.1, went without a hitch (sans modem, of course) even the PCMCIA netcard
>worked as designed.
Will wonders never cease.
>Not only do I now have a perfectly usable laptop, for which I did not have to
>pay, it also runs all the nifty Linux stuff that people CAN'T run on Windows
>9x/ME.
People are not interested in compilers.
>Granted, it is slower than my dual PIII desktop, but it is a portable.
So is my ThinkPad 765 which also runs Windows faster than it runs
Linux with a GUI.
>I don't know what you are complaining about, Linux is awesome for the desktop,
>and laptop.
Linux is a bad joke on the desktop.
Maybe for geeks who like playing with Emacs, but it is dead before it
even had a chance.
>As with all things, just check the hardware compatibility list.
Why bother?
Even supported hardware half works because the word "supported" has an
entirely different meaning in the Linux world than in the Windows
world.
Flatfish
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
