Linux-Advocacy Digest #236, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Terry Porter)
Why 90% of CEO's are morons (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: women who pick criminals for mates are undesirable mates (nunnayabidniz)
Re: where's the linux performance? (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 02:07:58 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:54:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:03 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> [...]
>>>I won't argue that point!!!
>>>
>>>Flatfish
>>
>>BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
>>
>>You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
>>know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
>>computers.
>
>
> This coming from a person who posts reams of words that say so little
Ahh but if you have the slighest sincerity, and even a little knowledge
of the subjest, Max's postings make perfect sense.
Onya MAX !
> but use up so much bandwidth.
Given your thousands of trolls on COLA, that statement is
rediculous in the extreme,
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
> BTW what ever happened to your Linux computer?
What happenedto yours ?
>
>
>
>
> flatfish
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why 90% of CEO's are morons
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 14:12:28 -0700
My theory is based on the number of business that are in the shit
because
they stuffed around.
Corel, a company that wasted money trying to create a Java version of
Wordperfect Office 2000, then they went off on another tangent, and
tried
to create a computer called the Netwinder based around Linux and the
strong
arm processor, two abismal failures, and look at where they are. Had
they
focused on their core business and addressed the demands of customers
who
use Office 2000, that is, what features they demand, that are available
in
Office 2000 that aren't in Wordperfect, and when these issues are
addressed, market the bloody software, and don't just sit back and wait
for
the customers to come to you, goto to the customer, grab the the
customer
by the balls, and say, "what ever Microsoft has offered you, we will
beat
it!", thats how you get the customers!
Lotus, another example, their flag ship product, Lotus Smart Suite, they
picked their ass's for 7 years, then finally realise that maybe it would
be
a good idea to port Lotus 123 from 16 bit to 32 bit!
Be Inc, chewed through millions, yet, I see no results, AT ALL! Had
they,
right from day one started to pay off hardware and software companies to
port their apps to their platform, then maybe the OS would not be
gradually
dying like it is now.
SGI, a niche market company, it has an office in New Zealand that would
be
lucky to make 1 to 2 sales a year! it would be cheaper to fly a sales
rep
out their maintain a local presence instead of having 4 people employed
in
NZ. There hardware is made in woggs somewhere, and there is a darth of
decent graphic, audio, video applications. Yet, instead of addressing
the
issue, they sit back and blame everyone else for their wowes.
Need I go on?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:26 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 05 May 2001 17:43:56
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:53:57 +0100, Michael Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Ouch. I though all was fine and dandy on the telecoms front if you lived
>> in the US. Seems we have a better deal sometimes after all...
>
>If I lived a few miles further north, I could get a cable modem and
>have a choice of phone company. But in general, I've found that the
>monopoly telcos in the US are about as responsive as BT is reputed to
>be.
Yea, they advertise more, that's all. Other than the lower prices
(supposedly) they're not much better than ol' Ma Bell.
[...remainder regretfully snipped; OUTSTANDING post, Bob!...]
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:28 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 05 May 2001 16:43:48
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:06:50 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 21:43:45
>> >On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:37 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm not concerned with your lack of understanding of NFS,
>> >
>> >And I'm getting real tired of talking to your asshole. It keeps telling
>> >me that I have "no understanding" of whatever it is we're discussing at
>> >the time.
>>
>> Nonsense. I said you have a lack of understanding, not that you have
>> 'no understanding'. Get a grip.
>
>Max, I am quite sure that I have much more understanding of NFS than
>you do. For one thing, I actually use and administer it. You are the
>one who needs to "get a grip".
Bob, I am quite sure that I have much more understanding of NFS than you
do. For one thing, I've studied it and several dozen other protocols,
and have choose a historical development perspective. I have more of a
grip than is ever required for simply using and administering computer
systems (not that this includes all knowledge in any way; just a very
useful perspective). I am certainly not all-knowing or all-wise, but
you would be quite surprised about the number of "well known facts"
about some protocols that turn out to be based more on vague
approximations or historical quirks of implementation. For one thing,
did you know that NFS isn't "unsecure", but merely lacking any security
framework, having been designed to allow the client and server include
this in whatever implementation might be efficient and effective? The
problem, of course, is obvious: no NFS vendor could ever add such a
thing without great expense and risk of incompatibilities.
>BTW, this is not the first time you have incorrectly told me that I
>have "a lack understanding". You seem to have a very high opinion of
>your knowledge that is not borne out by what you say here.
I have a high opinion of my understanding; I am well aware of my general
lack of knowledge. I make no apologies for refusing to confuse the two.
You said something incorrect about NFS; I'm not insulting you when I
correct it.
>> >I'm done with this now. Feel free to spout whatever nonsense you want
>> >about NFS while I'm gone.
>
>Note: I forgot to say that I was going on a business trip.
>
>> Why? I wasn't saying anything about NFS until you started spouting
>> nonsense about why MS didn't use it.
>
>See my post to Jim Richardson about how to hack NFS (if you can call
>such a simple thing a hack). SMB has security problems, NFS _is_ a
>security problem. Which isn't to say that it is useless or shouldn't
>be used, but only that you shouldn't use it in hostile environments
>without modification.
SMB has *lousy* security; NFS simply doesn't address security at all.
That isn't at all what made it inappropriate in Microsoft's perspective,
any more than SMB's lousy security is what made it appropriate. That's
all I was trying to say.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:30 GMT
Said JVercherIII in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 05 May 2001 16:12:16
>Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places
>(IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of living
>off the Microsoft gravy train. [...]
I'm afraid we have to say, "'Nuff said."
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:31 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 5 May 2001 19:54:17
>"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places
>> (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of
>living
>> off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things which
>> are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they stifle
>> innovation. They never have come up with an original idea.
>
>Bullshit, and a big one.
>
>To name a few of the top of my head:
>COM
>COM+
>MTS
>IE (No other browser can come even close, Mozilla can't render yahoo.com
>properly, and crash when you try to send a bug report)
These might be original implementations, Ayende, but none of them are
original ideas. Least of all "how to leverage one monopoly to gain
another which threatens the value of the first".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:33 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 5 May 2001
>"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9UXI6.404$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> No it is an extension - it uses OOP. I write in Visual C++, Java (a
>little),
>> and VB... I know what I'm talking about... The basic concept is that you
>are
>
>Just because you use VC and Java doesn't mean you know what you are talking
>about, and in this case you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>COM is not an extension to OOP. There's no such thing as "extending" OOP.
>Either it is, or it isn't.
You're obviously being too literally-minded, Erik. To say that COM is
"an extension" of OOP is quite comprehensible. The 'extension' is not
the technical extension of a protocol, but the metaphoric extension of
an idea. COM is nothing more than OOP + IPC, in terms of the
'innovative thinking' that would go into inventing the thing. Apple had
similar things cooking on Mac, too, at the same time MS was pumping COM
for Windows. Sure, it is a unique implementation; all implementations
of an idea are unique. That DOESN'T make it 'innovative'.
>For instance, COM is perfectly useable from C without a single object in
>sight. Component based programming and Object based programming are
>related, but not even close to being the same thing.
COM+ and RPC are related, and just as close to being the same thing.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:34 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 5 May 2001
13:40:23 -0500;
>"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <_lJI6.3589$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:1yHI6.22397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 4-19-2001
>> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
>> >>
>> >> "A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
>> >> discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
>> >> through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
>> >> arbitrary holes in the firewall."
>> >>
>> >> 4-25-2001
>> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
>> >>
>> >> "kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange
>> >> authentication information and delete it shortly after. This can be
>> >> abused by a local user to gain access to the X server and can result in
>> >> a compromise of the account kdesu accesses."
>> >>
>> >> 4-25-2001
>> >> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
>> >>
>> >> "If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux
>> >> 7.1 (they were created during updates if the user requested it), they
>> >> were world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap
>> >> file(s), possibly including passwords."
>> >
>> >
>> > After reading Adam Warner's diatribe in "What about customer security?"
>> > and how he said that Microsoft's code was crap, then reading this little
>> > tid-bit, the Linux code must look like a 3rd grader wrote it!
>> >
>> > Geez... even "M$" is smart enough not to allow anyone to read the page
>> > file.
>> >
>> > -c
>> >
>> >
>> Ah, Chad the security expert! Even Erik was gracious enough to admit that
>> this was only an example, but I'll tell you what's wrong with this
>> comparison: of the 4 RH exploits mentioned, only 50% are remote exploits,
>> the other 2 are local exploits. Of the Microsoft examples mentioned,
>> *ALL* were remote exploits. Get it now Chad? Evidently MS is smart enough
>> to lock down the page file, but with all their billions still think
>> connecting an insecure machine to the Internet is a good idea.
>
>An exploit is an exploit. Someone that allows security to lapse in one area
>over the other is simply shifting priorities. This shows that Red Hat and
>Linux in general tend to be more focused on remote exploits, to the
>detriment of local exploits. Which means, that all it it takes is to get a
>local account, any local account to gain root access.
Oh, Christ. Guffaw! Guffaw!
>A common technique some people use is to set up a web site you must create
>an account for. Often, people will create the same account and password
>they use on their local machine. Suddenly, you have an account and password
>for the machine they logged in from, you gain root. Not a big deal.
LOL! A sock puppet lecturing Linux about security. What a fricken
JOKE!
--
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]>
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:35 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
11:48:39 -0400;
>On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
>> Answer one post reasonably, or I'm going to stop wasting my time with
>> you.
>
>That's rich, coming from you.
That's just more trolling, coming from you.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:36 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >
>> > Maybe, I couldn't say. Very odd that it would
>> > use controls that look like Windows 2 controls.
>> >
>> No, not odd at all.
>> It did not subclass to 3DControls, thats all.
>
>I don't think window subclassing is required;
>I'm talking about ordinary scrollbars.
>
>What's odd is not *how* they would do that-
>I can think of several ways- but *why*.
What insane instinct makes you believe they did it on purpose?
>They didn't give Excel an ugly black and white
>appearance; why give Word such deliberately?
And your evidence that they did so deliberately?
>I think it supports the view that Word was
>first released for Windows 2 or Windows 1,
>which had controls just like that.
There is no such "view", just your baseless contention against the facts
of history.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:37 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
[...]
>> You expect me to be surprised that Word for Windows 1.0 used Windows 2
>> controls in early builds?
>
>I'd be surprised at *that*; Windows uses dynamic linking;
>I'd expect Word to get the current standard controls
>regardless of what it was built with. Like Excel did.
As has been said before (advice you should try to remember, Daniel):
When you're digging a hole, the trick is to know when to stop digging.
YOU might be surprised at such a glitch, but it is obvious that you were
not cognizant of the matter at the time. It would certainly not
surprise anyone who is familiar with the matter.
>But apparently Word rolled its own controls for
>some reason. Perhaps in order to 'fake' MDI on a
>Windows 2 platform. But if they were targetting
>Windows 3, why not just use the built in
>implementation?
They didn't "target" Win3; they ONLY SUPPORTED Win3. I'll tell you one
more time, just in case you missed it the first half a dozen times:
there was no Word for Windows before Windows 3.
OF COURSE, that indicates it was being developed during the time of
Windows 2, and your rather laughably naive theory that Microsoft's
software doesn't have glitches like this ALL OVER IT, even to this day
(no, troll, I didn't say that modern apps use 2-D controls from Win2)
might make you believe this means it "ran under" Win2, but I think I've
already mentioned your lack of contemporaneous information.
>On the other hand, perhaps Word needed a special
>'compatibility' mode, and Microsoft provided it.
Perhaps they just slapped together whatever crap was good enough to
simulate real software in order to shove it down the throats of all the
many victims of the illegal monopoly.
>I can't say, but it's certainly weird.
I can, and it isn't at all unusual. Hardly even notable, unless you're
a troll who appreciates the historical remove to cover his purposeful
cluelessness.
>In any case, the article claims that Word
>is available immediately. I don't think it's
>showing "early builds" of it.
OH, well, if YOU DON'T THINK so, then we must accept that as the way of
things, certainly. Guffaw.
>> Apparently, you've had NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL
>> with any Microsoft software, as incredible as that sounds. Add that to
>> your 'innocent' act, and your stupid trolling, and we come to the
>> fundamental lack of clue you possess: utter and preposterously
>> purposeful ignorance.
>
>I don't know, Max. I don't think you've
>demonstrated that I have "no experience at all";
>what makes you think that's so?
You haven't demonstrated the first reason to believe otherwise, that's
why. Doh!
>[snip]
>> >How would you explain the strange appearance
>> >of Word 2 when run on Windows 3, then?
>>
>> Your gullibility and lack of intelligence.
>
>I think my explaination is better.
I think you just want to stretch this spanking out a bit to satisfy your
itch for trolling, personally.
>> Let the spanking continue!
>
>A glutton for punishment, you are.
>
>I like that. It's kinky. :D
You're the sub, boy. 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]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:38 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May
>The Microsoft File! Come on....I'd rather hear the National Enquirer's take
>on Microsoft dealings.
Hell, you'd prefer we all pretend MS is our friend, like you sock
puppets do. 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]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:18:38 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May
[...]
>> Then why did Lieven testify that there was?
>
>I don't know. To harm Microsoft maybe. [...]
Jealous of Bill Gates money, obviously. Guffaw!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: nunnayabidniz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: women who pick criminals for mates are undesirable mates
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:26:02 -0700
On Fri, 4 May 2001 00:36:35 +0800, "frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What I don't understand is that such women are usually very sexy and
>pretty. They uasually have big boobs, a shapely butts and small waists.How
>do you explain this?
>
They do it to attract men. They are insecure about acceptance, so they
try harder.
2 reasons:
1. Felons are anti-social, so are harder to get and impossible to
truly catch, so if they do temporarily it makes them feel special, and
2. They are perceived as dangerous, and therefore more fun.
>
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 04:28:26 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Martindell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2
> and
> then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been very
> disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I think,
> should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg rams, 10
> gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've tried
> running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10 seconds
> to
> load. StarOffice takes a really long time too. When I'm using win2000 I
> never have this problem. Even on comparable software. Forte for Java and
> StarOffice both load many, many times faster in windows vs linux. Do you
> think that my linux isn't configured for maximum performance? I've spent
> some time looking through websites and have noticed an increase when I use
> the hdparm tool but nothing extrodinary. If this is the extent of the
> linux
> performance than I don't think I'll be sticking with it. However, if it
> just requires more work than setting up windows and you ultimately get
> greater performance than I will definitely stick with it. I enjoy
> tinkering
> with computers in that way. What do all of you think of this? Do you
> know
> of any websites that show the results of linux benchmarks? Any help would
> be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Sincerely,
> Jonathan
>
Nice machine. Make your own benchmark encoding a lot of mp3's. Use bladeenc
which is available for both platforms. The first letter in the winners name
will be an L.
--
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.1
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 02:33:07 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
[...]
>> Tell us again how vendors were... "free to choose".
>
>If the price difference was so huge, why did only 50-60% of the OEM's do
>this? Clearly 40-50% were doing just fine without per-processor licenses.
Which is it, sock puppet? Did they all have the option? Would they
have made more money with a different option that MS didn't provide
because it threatened their *illegal monopoly*?
--
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
******************************
