Linux-Advocacy Digest #129, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. ("billh")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. ("billh")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:13 GMT
Said jim in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:36:43 +1200;
>"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Soon I will be converting my Wife's Win98 machine to Linux, however saving
>all
>> her stuff has been painfully difficult.
>>
>
>Don't worry, accidentally installing a server operating system over a far
>superior desktop operating system will surely make your wife feel all the
>better that you know SO MUCH more about computers than she does.
Guffaw.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:14 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:52:41
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Take a P166 with 64 meg and load Linux Mandrake 7.x on it and Win98SE
>> and see which one is more responsive. Linux is slow as shit...
>
>Take a P166 with 32 meg and load Linux Mandrake 8.0 on it and Win98SE. At
>the start of Installation, Mandrake 8.0 complains the system is "low on
>resources" and may fail the installation (it did the same with Mandrake
>7.2). Mandrake 8.0 recommended installation uses KDE, which performs like a
>dog on this system. Much smaller window managers (and less functional)
>perform much better. Windows 98 SE offers the full system and runs without
>any problems.
Other than those inherent in the fact that it is Win98 SE, I presume.
I'm afraid you must have misunderstood something someone else said;
"offer the full system" doesn't make any sense if you know anything
about computers.
>> 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.
Sounds like an issue with the software for that card. Is it GPL or
proprietary? Either way, the OS is open, so unlike monopoly crapware,
this is a trivial problem which is will allow a zero-cost solution
without any need to replace the hardware.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:15 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
12:46:23 GMT;
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:52:41 GMT, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Take a P166 with 32 meg and load Linux Mandrake 8.0 on it and Win98SE. At
>>the start of Installation, Mandrake 8.0 complains the system is "low on
>>resources" and may fail the installation (it did the same with Mandrake
>>7.2). Mandrake 8.0 recommended installation uses KDE, which performs like a
>>dog on this system. Much smaller window managers (and less functional)
>>perform much better. Windows 98 SE offers the full system and runs without
>>any problems.
>
>Mine was on a P166 with 64 meg of RAM. The installation didn't
>complain about low resources but it ran like crap with kde. I ended up
>using BlackBox which was better.
>
>Windows 98SE runs just fine on the same box.
> Much faster.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
>Same observations as I have on my 450mhzPII with 256 meg.
I like how the wintrolls have finally realized that their denigration of
Linux is preposterously simple to refute because they are ignorant of
Linux (as everyone is ignorant of Windows). Its very entertaining, now
that they all just claim to use it, and then say it "performs poorly".
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:17 GMT
Said jim in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 23:57:29 +1200;
>> 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.
>>
>
>Here Here!
>
>MPEGS look like crude flip-frame animated GIFS under Linux - BEOS does a far
>better job. Well ummm Windows - even better. No wonder Bill is rich.
Guffaw.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:18 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>Yea but Windows has all the applications and device support that
>ordinary people are interested in using.
>
>Linux has nothing......
>
>Go compile a kernel or something....
Go read a consent decree or something....
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:19 GMT
Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:57:44 GMT;
[...]
>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? "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.
This is your delusion. Everyone who knows anything about it knows how
MS managed to get "superior performance" by bolting the GUI into the OS;
that's one of the main reasons Windows is so notoriously unreliable.
When considering performance of the system, the 'snappiness' of the GUI
is not something that correlates well on a good system (Linux), though
it is the only kind of 'performance' you could ever get out of a crappy
system like Windows.
>> How about multimedia?
>
>It's getting better, but it's still no where near windows. But hey, it's a
>windows world.
I think you misspelled "criminal monopoly".
>Try going to college and ONLY using linux. Sure, you'll get your mail, but
>all those word documents, powerpoint slides, Flash enabled demos (yeah you
>can get flash - but NN under linux sucks), on and on.
<*boggle*> Flash-enabled demos? I thought you said college?
>Have a new digital camera? You may be able to get it work (more likely not),
Yes, yes, more likely than not. You consider this is due to competitive
advantages of Windows, or is it simply more evidence of illegal
monopolization? I don't like to keep swaying the conversation back like
this, but if you're going to discuss technical merits of the OS, why
can't you stick to technical merits of the OS, rather than the effects
of a decade of monopolization in ensuring that the monopoly is well
supported, and alternatives are excluded from the marketplace through
this kind of shenanigans?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 2 May 2001 21:08:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
>>> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the library
>>> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
>>> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
>>> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
>>> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
>>> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
>>
>>No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>>library's API are known, nothing more is required.
>
>In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
>this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised the
craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
irritating.
I have written programs that work in OSs I never saw, linked to
libraries I have never seen. Because those libraries implement
the same APIs as others I use.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:27:28 GMT
"WesTralia"
> > > I never claimed such. Food is class I.
> >
> > Okay KuKuNut. Tell us what the subclass of class 1 sussistence are.
> >
> > We all know that you'll ignore this due to your ignorance.
> Aaron wont ignore your question. He just needs a little time to run
> the phrase "subclass of class 1 sussistence" through 100 search engines.
I hope he uses a spell checker. LOL!!!
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:30:51 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > I never claimed such. Food is class I.
> >
> > Okay KuKuNut. Tell us what the subclass of class 1 sussistence are.
>
>
>
>
> Subclass A Air related supplies Individual Inflight Food Packets
>
> Subclass C Operational Rations B rats
>
> Subclass R Refrigerated Subsistance
> Two Categories of Refrigeration
> -- Frozen (must be kept at approx 0 degrees Fahrenheit
> Frozen meals, etc.
> -- Perishables (must be kept at approx 40 degrees Fahrenheit)
> Fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, etc.
>
> Subclass S Non-Refrigerated Subsistance
>
> Subclass W Ground Water (but only when delivered as a supply item).
So you can learn. Surprise, surprise. Now go to AR 710-2, Appendix G so
you'll learn to use Arabic numeral instead of roman numerals.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:41:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Brent R
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 02 May 2001 17:12:43 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Paul Repacholi wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SammyTheSnake) writes:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jonadab the Unsightly
>> > One wrote:
>>
>> > >Above all, you don't want the computer stopping for no reason, so
>> > >run it on Unix or VMS, and you won't go down unless there's a
>> > >hardware problem or some idiot runs a forkbomb.
>>
>> VMS is not affected by this sort of thing, the 'bomber' runs out of
>> quota and gets an error.
>
>Hmm isn't that why UNIX has killall? Or do I not understand what a
>fork() bomb really is?
Killall merely searches for all processes which match a regular
expression -- or maybe it simply does a string search -- and then,
once it's gotten all the ID's, it kills them. Trouble is, the
forkbomb may have generated new processes by then.
A particularly ugly forkbomb can be written somewhat like so
(disclaimer: I have not tested this; I do not claim responsibility
to damage on any system used for testing this thing!):
while(1)
{
if(fork() && fork())
exit();
}
which basically creates two kids and then exits; the kids then create two
grandkids each, which create two great-grandkids, which ... well, you
get the idea! Once a kid has been identified, chances are it'll die
very quickly -- but there will be a lot of kids, if I've done this
correctly. (Of course, this is why one has process quotas...)
>
>> > not even then if you use a recent version of linux[1]. If each user
>> > has their own login ID then other users won't even notice :)
>>
>> Problem is, it is normal that peole DON'T log in in a factory. The
>> terminals are auto-logged in by station, and run what ever is needed.
>> VMS has several ways of doing this, up to AMDS.
>>
>> The oply use for logins is in the lunch room. A few extra 'unofficail
>> unsuported' terminals in the lunch room and some games does wonders
>> for the fault call rate, and operator ability to operate a terminal.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
>> +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
>> West Australia 6076
>> Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
>> Spam-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>--
>- Brent
>
>http://rotten168.home.att.net
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:07h:38m actually running Linux.
[select one]
Microsoft. When you're not aggravated enough.
Are you still here?
I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
No neutrons were harmed during this message.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
You're going to do *what* *where* *when*?
This is a pithy statement. Please watch where you pith.
This is a voluntary signature virus. Send this to somebody.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:45:55 GMT
"T. Max Devlin"
> Any force will injure, and all injurious force qualifies as "rough",
> according to the rather empty use of the abstraction you've given. If
> you've gotten far enough that you're willing to understand that
> dictionaries *record* the use of words, they do not *determine* the
> meaning of them, then perhaps you've be wiling to take the next little
> baby step to realize that violence is not merely rough and injurious,
> but caused by human beings.
You are quite correct the Army is a violent organization specifically due to
the actions of humans. Just who do you think plans and executes
engagements, battles, and operations.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:33 GMT
Said Ian Pulsford in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:18:16
[...]
>I don't think the problem is XFree86 or even KDE or Gnome. The main
>problem is that most recent Linux distros that I have seen install with
>unnecessary services. Strip away unneeded processes and suddenly Linux
>performs much better. I think the major Linux distros could do a much
>better job of installation if they started from the ground up instead of
>plonking every tool and his dog on the harddisk. cf. FreeBSD
>installation: first you install the *OS*, *then* you install whatever
>extra crap you want.
I agree. I think any Linux user would, also, as most are willing to
admit that the system could use a great deal of "polish". But that kind
of thing is a result, not a cause, of market penetration.
I'd like to see an admin gui for Unix that can filter out all of those
"not really a user" users. I'd like to see a single program gui
interface for sound, video, and mouse, and NOTHING else. I'd like to
see a "system-deep" keyboard utility, which allows remapping of keys per
application WITHOUT conflicting with apps mapping, but rather by
supporting and interoperating with them.
Notice that all of these are a level of 'polish' that Windows can't even
approach, yet.
The first lesson OEMs are going to learn, once free market competition
is restored to the PC world, is that the first step is to strip the
system down to nothing, and then add ONLY what YOUR customers are going
to want. They become your customers simply by matching your selections,
and how good you are at guessing what might be useful, functional, and
valuable determines how many units you sell. Later, after the free
market has ensured the maximum efficiencies of production, they can
start looking at "market share" to figure out how they might do a bit
less guessing.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:34 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>Au contraire, mon frere...
>
>http://www2.linuxjournal.com/cgi-bin/frames.pl/index.html
>
>It's nice to have you back, flathead. I missed your straw-man
>arguments against Linux.
[...]
>> They can't even give it away.
>
>Jesus loves you, flatfish.
Amen.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:35 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:40:58 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>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.
People are not interested in computers.
[...]
>>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.
Indeed it does. In Windows it means MS has approved the manufacturer as
not posing a threat to their illegal monopoly. Linux vendors don't have
to worry about that, so how well "supported" means is up to, surprise
surprise, the manufacturer that supports Linux, rather than Bill Gates.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:36 GMT
Said Osugi Sakae in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:41:00
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>(Funny thing is that I posted a while back saying that I was impressed
>with my win98j machine at work because it had survived everything I had
>installed on it (gimp, mozilla, perl, latex, emacs, a whole lot of
>windows "shareware" (trying to find a good text editor) etc.).
>
>Then it suddenly starts screwing up. Oh, well.)
Gotta watch that monopoly crapware; it'll always bite your ass in the
end.
>Linux is catching up to Windows on the desktop very rapidly. With a
>preinstalled, preconfigured KDE box, most users prolly wouldn't know the
>difference. When it has fully caught up to Windows in the minds of
>unbiased "typical" users, what will MS do? How will they compete? Maybe
>start including something like winzip with the stardard install? Include
>a pdf viewer? All that stuff they could have been doing all these years
>but haven't?
Actually, MS knows damn well that they can't compete (they never have.)
That's why .NET was developed, just about the time Linux started
threatening their monopoly. They'd managed to exclude all commercial
competition; too bad they didn't realize the threat from GNU until it
was almost too late. The basic .NET strategy was outlined a few years
ago, in a couple documents called "the Halloween Memo".
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:37 GMT
Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 21:39:18 GMT;
>"> > 1. Why exactly is Linux a bad joke on the desktop? I have been running
>it
>> > as my desktop for close to two years now. It is a great desktop os, much
>> > better than Win98, for what I do. ymmv. So, why is linux a bad joke?
>
>It's not a joke at all. It is just not suited for most computer users in its
>present state.
>Of course you'll hear various octaves of mewling from the resident zealots
>over this.
Just a simple "Guffaw" from me.
Guffaw.
>> I've been running it for 4 years, and I have had no problems what so ever
>> with either hardware support, or applications to suite my needs.
>
>Well, Linux really only offers a couple of 'suites', Star Office and Applix.
That's one more than the alternative, then.
[...]
>You've major problems. I've never lost fonts, so I can't say what could be
>causing this problem.
>I have never had spontaneous reboots either. The latter very well could be a
>hardware problem.
It all "could" be anything. That's the problem with monopoly crapware;
it's impossible to troubleshoot it sanely, let alone expediently.
[...]
>> > Then it suddenly starts screwing up. Oh, well.)
>
>Gee, you say the machine 'survived everything you installed on it', then you
>go on to ...
>oh never mind. What's the sense.
It's nice to know you're capable of seeing when you're swimming upstream
and apologizing for a monopoly.
[...]
>> buy a whole new computer, as most users have purchase proprietry setups,
>> thus, the processor is hard, if not impossible to upgrade for a lay
>> computer user, thus, even more expense. If the only requirement was more
>> memory, then most people will not have an issue, however, when the
>> processor requirements go through the roof, then you have really got to ask
>> yourself whether what you are doing is being done in the most efficient
>> manor, and whether the added features are really required/demanded by users.
>
>Pure crock and FUD. I ran NT 3.51, NT4, and Win2K on a PPRO 200/512 with
>128mb's of ram.
And you never asked yourself whether what you are doing is being done in
the most efficient manor, or whether the added features were really
required/demanded by users? You must be pretty technically incompetent,
I'm afraid, to not notice the bloated crapware you kept re-installing.
>This is old stuff today, but right now I have Whistler on this same machine.
>Blazing fast?
>No. But it's a far sight faster than RedHat\KDE running Star Office on the
>SAME hardware.
>What's your point?
That your anecdote is impressively unconvincing, given you're dumb
enough to subject yourself to Whistler on a system you used with NT 3.5.
>I didn't think so.
You didn't think so what? You didn't think.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:37 GMT
Said Osugi Sakae in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 21:16:33
>In article <a2GH6.1179$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "MH"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>> > Then it suddenly starts screwing up. Oh, well.)
>>
>> Gee, you say the machine 'survived everything you installed on it', then
>> you go on to ...
>> oh never mind. What's the sense.
>
>That is why i called it "funny" - I thought it was doing well and a few
>weeks later, it dies. What is the deal with windows?
It's called "registry rot". Nobody really knows why it does that, but
it will just stop working after a while.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:38 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 29 Apr 2001 17:22:19
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:12:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>> Linux is dead before it has even started and XP will put yet another
>> 100 nails in it's coffin.
>
>Yes, Windows has been "putting nails" in Linux's coffin for years, and
>in UNIX's "coffin" for years before that. But we're still waiting for
>a death certificate !!!!!
LOL!
"It just WON'T DIE!"
LOL!
I guess this explains, quite decisively, why trolls (sock puppets) like
flathead keep posting to COLA. Because Linux refuses to play by MS's
rules, and just die. It freaks them out, I'll bet.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:47:39 GMT
Said Michael Vester in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
15:28:24 -0700;
>GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>> Michael Vester wrote:
>> >
>> > GreyCloud wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > <snip>
>> > >
>> > > Trolling Trolling Trolling, keep them doggies rolling, rawhide!
>> >
>> > I enjoy the "trolling" by the cute and lovable Flatfish. Our resident PC
>> > disk jockey. She does have a point about Linux not supporting obscure
>> > audio components. Personally, I prefer a quiet computer. My main Suse box
>> > is without a sound card now. I needed the slot. Still get my beeps in vi
>> > through the internal speaker. A speaker with a user installed
>> > potentiometer.
>> > --
>> > Michael Vester
>> > A credible Linux advocate
>> >
>> > "The avalanche has started, it is
>> > too late for the pebbles to vote"
>> > Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
>>
>> I disable the sound on my machine. Too noisy. Don't play games so why
>> use one.
>>
>> --
>> V
>I have a Nintendo for plaing games. Why waste a several thousand dollar
>machine when a $100 Nintendo will do.
To save $100.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
