Linux-Advocacy Digest #778, Volume #34 Fri, 25 May 01 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ("Joel Barnett")
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Peter Hayes)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Peter Hayes)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why? (somebody)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Time to bitc__ again (daniel)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Bob Hauck)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Charles Lyttle)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:26:25 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ome.com...
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:12:36 -0700, Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2001 18:26:11 -0700, "Joel Barnett"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
>
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
h
> >> > ome.com...
> >> > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 00:53:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >I installed SP2 under Win2k and it worked perfectly, just like SP1
> >> > > >did. Contrast this to the Mandrake update CD I was sent in the
mail
> >> > > >thaty destroyed my entire system.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Sorry but Linux still sucks and Windows ROCKS!!!!!
> >> > >
> >> > > Fuck off and die troll. Win2k is pathetic for it's 40 year old
file
> >> > system and
> >> > > the cpu and memory requirement of a super computer just to not run
> >like a
> >> > dog.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > NTFS is 40 years old ?
> >> > W2k will run fine on a P200 with 128 Mb RAM.
> >>
> >> What??? 128 Mb RAM before you can open Notepad???
> >>
> >
> >You claimed W2k required the cpu and memory of a super computer. Was that
> >claim false, or do you consider a P200 and 128 Mb RAM supercomputer stuff
?
>
> take a course in history
>
> and you're dreaming if you think it'll work worth a shit on a P200.
>
Nope, I used the P200/128Mb RAM example because I recently installed w2k on
that machine. It's used as a business desktop - Word, excel, email, AccPac,
inhouse inventory/purchasing/ordering app. Works fine. The user said it is
faster than it was with W98/64Mb RAM.
> A pIII@500mhz is pretty the minimum if you don't want it to be dog slow.
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:42:32 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 May 2001 22:35:58 +0100, Nigel Feltham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It was actually a genuine question for a genuine reason. I'm trying to set
> > up a small render farm, the machines are co-located, but it would be
> > useful to see and control things from a remote location. Unfortunately,
> > the apps only run under Windows, hence the question, which others kindly
> > answered.
> >
>
> What applications are you using?
I'm playing around with Terragen and GenesisII - landscape rendering
software. I've got Terragen to network render which cuts a 50 hour render
to 25 with one extra machine (easy, just hack the animation script), but I
want to run the show from another machine elsewhere, but networked to the
farm.
> The very best rendering software runs on Linux including Maya, Merlin and
> Houdini which is why the bigger movie rendering is done on linux -
> Dreamworks, Pixar and ILM are using Linux to run their render farms and are
> starting to switch their desktops to linux as well.
The free Blender modeller/renderer runs on Linux, Windows/Mac/BeOS and many
others. There's a network render script, done in Python I believe, but I've
never got it working.
Softimage runs on Linux now.
> Don't forget that the investment needed to upgrade the render software to
> linux versions will be at least partially recovered by the almost zero OS
> licence costs and increased stability
Terragen is a Windows only app, although the author says he'll port it to
Linux "sometime". There's no real Linux alternative that I've found.
> - it's no good using an OS which is
> likely to crash near the end of a week of rendering and losing all your
> work
Render as TGAs and make the movie afterwards. It's also the only way you
can use a render farm. A crash just means restarting the render from where
it left off. I don't know of anyone who renders in one go, except something
like Avid special effects, and the like, and there's some horror stories of
machines slowing to a crawl through memory leaks and the like.
> (the main reason studios are using Linux instead of NT - when the
> render software costs up to $10,000 per copy the cost of the OS doesn't
> count so you can't say they use linux on cost grounds).
Discreet allow you to install 3DSMAX on all your render farm machines for
the cost of one licence. There's a render manager that sorts out the
networking, and you need only one dongle.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:42:33 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 May 2001 20:18:33 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 20:24:51 +0100, Peter Hayes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >It was actually a genuine question for a genuine reason. I'm trying to set
> >up a small render farm, the machines are co-located, but it would be useful
> >to see and control things from a remote location. Unfortunately, the apps
> >only run under Windows, hence the question, which others kindly answered.
> >
> >Peter
>
> Sorry :(
Don't worry about it - it's only cola...
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:01:15 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9el12t$cho$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:oLlP6.6571$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > If you bought bought Win2K just to run this spesific DLL...
> >
> > Yes, that is the sole purpose of 8 machines, replacing the 2
> > Linux/Apache boxes that used to do the same work. The
> > whole point of changing the servers was to utilize xsl formatting
> > of our xml data.
>
>
> U, that is very... unwise of you.
> There are plenty of XML/XSL formatting software around.
Does that mean that even you think it was predictable that
the Microsoft product would have bugs and a large number
of unexpected and undocumented quirks compared to the
competition?
The real problem is that while xsl has been a standard for
around a year the formatters have not been available that
long and there is still no standard way to connect xslt
transformations to a spot in a web page. That means that
changing formatters involves a complete rewrite of the
web pages which no one has time to do.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: somebody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why?
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:06:13 GMT
"dp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> stands accused of saying:
> Let me know if I've missed the Caddy on this one..
probably freebsd....just like the car, it's not everybody's taste, but widely
regarded as the symbol of quality, design and engineering.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:23:11 GMT
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
> > >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [snip]
> > "Software" has been getting cheaper, of course it has. Microsoft
> > monopoly crapware gets more expensive, both to obtain and to use. Not
> > necessarily in any easily identifiable price hike; they usually show
> > more dishonest intent than that, as criminals generally would.
>
> Oh, I see. Invisible price hikes.
>
> Of course. :/
I'm going by memory to some extent. It's pretty difficult to
recover those old prices, ah well. I suppose an easy answer is
to allude to the cost of frequent upgrades. But that's a mere
cavil. One could mention that, the higher up the user chain
(e.g. normal versus developer versions, server versus workstation),
the more Microsoft gouges, but that might simply be due to
the lower volume of sales or the expectancy of higher quality
support.
I found Workperfect Office and Microsoft Office XP in Provantage,
and their prices at each level of service were comparable (and
both very high in my book).
Loggin' off.
Chris
--
Please enter your Message Activation
Code now to read this message
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:27:23 GMT
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> It seems to me that if, oh, say, Microsoft actually
> did produce an OS that was consistantly better
> than its competitors, and kept improving it so
> that it *stayed* that way, and also kept prices
> low, they could very well squeeze out all their
> competitors.
They've already done that in OS's and office
suites, except for the part about being consistently
better than the competitors.
I adduce as proof... the Windows Key.
Chris
--
Please enter your Message Activation
Code now to read this message
------------------------------
From: daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:37:55 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 01:49:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, 25 May 2001 01:20:40 GMT, daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Im really disappointed with the current sorry state of three of the
>>major distributions of Linux.
>
>Mandrake 7.2 was a disaster as far as I am concerned.
>
>
>>Redhat 7.1 and Mandrake 8.0 are laughable in terms of how buggy they
>>are. Under both of them Gnome and KDE work like crap. Mandrake 8 had
>>a serious install problem with mice which was know several
>>pre-releases before the final release but wasnt fixed (their
>>developers never saw the gazillion threads about this?)
>
>Selecting Logitech wheelmouse even if you had one was one way to never
>use the mouse again. Solution was to select Intellimouse.
>
>>The latest Gnome and KDE both are funky. Gnome has a serious problem
>>with window focus. KDE likes to freeze and is basically unusable.
>
>With Gnome I had Time bombs all over the place.
>Kde wouldn't shut down for me and would freeze up all the time. I
>ended up using Enlightenment because although it had bugs, it was
>really cool and different.
>
>
>>I also havent been able to sucessfully compile a kernel on either of
>>these. Everytime I read the threads I see that there are broken libcs
>>because they are rushing to get 2.4 releases out the door and using
>>unstable libraries.
>
>Heresy!!!!
>Not able to compile a kernel!!!!
>What good is Linux without being able to compile a kernel :)
>You DID read the kernel How-To :)
I build compile kernels all the time. Usually within the first 10
minutes of installing Linux. My point was that I COULDN T compile
kernels on either of these because either the kernels are sloppily
patched or else the libs needed to build them dont work. I just had
this happen again last night with the latest updated kernel-source
2.2.19 for Mandrake 7.1. Its neat that they patched IPSEC in for me,
too bad that make config will crash if you try to change the IPSEC
parameters from their defaults. And make menuconfig wont even work
with it!
>
>>Lets see Ive installed Debian 3 or 4 times in the past week and on
>>every single installation it was like extracting teeth to get X to
>>run. Once I did get X to run and Gnome was running on top of blackbox
>>and twm. Okay. I finally managed to get sawmill or sawfish to run
>>but then Gnome didnt launch.
>
>I call this the big Window manager switcherooo. Everything is running
>ok and then you select another WM from the menus and like magic the
>entire system get hosed and you can never get your original WM back
>again.
>
>>I went and tried to install task-ximian-<whateveritwas> instead of
>>task-gnome-desktop and things only got even more mucked up. Plus the
>>instructions on Ximians site for installing to gnome included a
>>package which didnt exist.
>
>Haven't tried that one myself.
>
>>Basically this is so upsetting because late last year people were
>>talking about Linux on the desktop and at that point things were
>>beginning to work great. Mandrake 7.1 in my opinion was a work of
>>near-perfection and worked almost flawlessly. Why do these distros
>>insist on pushing forward and putting out cutting-edge recent, yet
>>highly buggy releases? Why not just keep improving and existing one
>>if it works? Wouldnt they make more money off working products than
>>cutting-edge broken ones?
>
>They are trying to catch up to where Windows was 2 years ago.
>
>
>>Okay, I just checked and Mandrake seems to still be release updates
>>for the 7.1 tree. This is excellent, since I intend to go back to it.
>
>Whatever you do DON'T install the 7.2 update (if you get around to
>running 7.2 that is) it says "Update 1" on the CD, because it will
>trash your semi working 7.2 install.
>
>
>>I am surprised that none of these distros seem to be doing enough even
>>basic level QA to realize that things are broken. Whats up with this?
>>How can anyone advocate Linux on the desktop to a potentially critical
>>public if these sorts of patterns continue?
>
>Things have been broken in Linux for years but yet we have all kinds
>of new half assed code fragment programs appearing on FreshMeat
>everyday.
>
>
>flatfish++++
>"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:44:02 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 20:56:53 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 05:05:13 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >http://xfree86.cygwin.com/.
>
> Oh, on CYGWIN. And that works REALLY well and installs PERFECTLY
> doesn't it?
XFree86 on Cygwin still has some problems. But Cygwin itself seems to
work fine for me. What do you think is wrong with it?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 00:44:00 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 22:08:19 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, I see. Invisible price hikes.
I think they call those "changes to the licensing terms".
MS have been making changes to licensing so as to require some users to
buy more licenses than they had to previously. For instance, there
used to be "concurrent licensing" where you had to have licenses for
each concurrent user. That's been largely eliminated. Now, you have
to buy a license for each posible user. Certain perks, such as taking
your work copy of Office home, have been eliminated as well. And then
there's the whole disk-imaging issue where companies have to buy OEM
licenses with new machines even if they are covered by a site license.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 01:09:53 GMT
Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ome.com...
> > On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:12:36 -0700, Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Wed, 23 May 2001 18:26:11 -0700, "Joel Barnett"
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> >
> >
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
> h
> > >> > ome.com...
> > >> > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 00:53:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >I installed SP2 under Win2k and it worked perfectly, just like SP1
> > >> > > >did. Contrast this to the Mandrake update CD I was sent in the
> mail
> > >> > > >thaty destroyed my entire system.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >Sorry but Linux still sucks and Windows ROCKS!!!!!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Fuck off and die troll. Win2k is pathetic for it's 40 year old
> file
> > >> > system and
> > >> > > the cpu and memory requirement of a super computer just to not run
> > >like a
> > >> > dog.
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > NTFS is 40 years old ?
> > >> > W2k will run fine on a P200 with 128 Mb RAM.
> > >>
> > >> What??? 128 Mb RAM before you can open Notepad???
> > >>
> > >
> > >You claimed W2k required the cpu and memory of a super computer. Was that
> > >claim false, or do you consider a P200 and 128 Mb RAM supercomputer stuff
> ?
> >
> > take a course in history
> >
> > and you're dreaming if you think it'll work worth a shit on a P200.
> >
>
> Nope, I used the P200/128Mb RAM example because I recently installed w2k on
> that machine. It's used as a business desktop - Word, excel, email, AccPac,
> inhouse inventory/purchasing/ordering app. Works fine. The user said it is
> faster than it was with W98/64Mb RAM.
>
> > A pIII@500mhz is pretty the minimum if you don't want it to be dog slow.
>
> jbarntt
Neither Windows 95, 98, nor NT will run for crap on a P200. What did W2k
do differently to make it so much faster?
Please post the code if you can.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 01:13:33 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 25 May 2001 15:40:53 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sun, 13 May 2001 23:46:14 +0100
> >> <9dmvak$de5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >>> That is not true. If you took 500 cats in boxes and lookes at them all
> >> >>> at once, n would be dead and 500-n would be alive. You would have no
> >> >>> way of predicting in an individual case whether the cat would be dead
> >> >>> or alive, thus the observation does not stop it being random, it merely
> >> >>> forces it in to a random (but observable) state.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you take a random number, then modify it, it's no longer random. If
> >> >
> >> >That is not true. I can take a random number and multiple it by two, the
> >> >result still being random.
> >>
> >> But with different characteristics.
> >>
> >> Take a random number, uniformly distributed from 0 to 1 [*], and multiply
> >> by 2. One gets a random number, uniformly distributed from 0 to 2.
> >>
> >Notice also that as computers do not generate the entire real number
> >line, the resulting distribution is less random due to all the mantissas
> >ending in an even number. Many machines/compilers do not get the "add 1
> >to the exponent" correct. For some multiplication, rounding/trucation
> >makes it even worse. So doing any math on a random number can reduce the
> >"randomness" quiet a bit..
>
> There is that...of course, in my case, the utility I wrote actually
> had to divide by (double) RAND_MAX (I'm using random() instead of the
> more complicated rand48()/jrand48()/etc. functions -- at least, that's
> what I think they're named). No matter what one does, one loses
> randomness in this case -- not that it matters; I got enough data
> to prove my conclusions.
>
> Eric's pontifications notwithistanding, however, the result from
> my expressions involving random() are still quite random, although
> I'm not sure if it's crypto-strong.
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random conclusion here
> EAC code #191 25d:23h:06m actually running Linux.
> It's a conspiracy of one.
I think they are good enough for simulation use, but not crypto strong.
Looking at the numbers gives away a lot of info about how they were
generated. Also it can produce weak keys. But you need only worry if you
did something to get the NSA after you.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 23:33:05 +0200
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, quux111
> >
> > > > C# is a Java clone. End of story. It does absolutely nothing Java
> > doesn't
>
> > > It's not Java though and has a few more wrinkles that make it
> > > different...
> >
> > Where it's not a Java clone, it's usually better.
> > Take case handling as an example.
>
> But is it multi-platform like Java? If not, then I don't want anything
> to do with it.
It is.
MS-IL is not tied to a particular arcitecture.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 01:26:53 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 01:09:53 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Joel Barnett wrote:
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ome.com...
>> > On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:12:36 -0700, Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> On Wed, 23 May 2001 18:26:11 -0700, "Joel Barnett"
>> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >> >
>> >
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
>> h
>> > >> > ome.com...
>> > >> > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 00:53:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> > > >I installed SP2 under Win2k and it worked perfectly, just like SP1
>> > >> > > >did. Contrast this to the Mandrake update CD I was sent in the
>> mail
>> > >> > > >thaty destroyed my entire system.
>> > >> > > >
>> > >> > > >Sorry but Linux still sucks and Windows ROCKS!!!!!
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Fuck off and die troll. Win2k is pathetic for it's 40 year old
>> file
>> > >> > system and
>> > >> > > the cpu and memory requirement of a super computer just to not run
>> > >like a
>> > >> > dog.
>> > >> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > NTFS is 40 years old ?
>> > >> > W2k will run fine on a P200 with 128 Mb RAM.
>> > >>
>> > >> What??? 128 Mb RAM before you can open Notepad???
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >You claimed W2k required the cpu and memory of a super computer. Was that
>> > >claim false, or do you consider a P200 and 128 Mb RAM supercomputer stuff
>> ?
>> >
>> > take a course in history
>> >
>> > and you're dreaming if you think it'll work worth a shit on a P200.
>> >
>>
>> Nope, I used the P200/128Mb RAM example because I recently installed w2k on
>> that machine. It's used as a business desktop - Word, excel, email, AccPac,
>> inhouse inventory/purchasing/ordering app. Works fine. The user said it is
>> faster than it was with W98/64Mb RAM.
>>
>> > A pIII@500mhz is pretty the minimum if you don't want it to be dog slow.
>>
>> jbarntt
>Neither Windows 95, 98, nor NT will run for crap on a P200. What did W2k
>do differently to make it so much faster?
>
>Please post the code if you can.
I use a nearly plain win95 box that is a pentium 200 with 64M of ram. My system
in '95 was os/2, a P90 and 16M and it screamed. I only brought it up to 32M
later so it wouldn't trash when doing graphic manipulations on 300dpi 4x6
images.
This windows box is too slow to keep a win printer running, spool 32M photo job
in less than 15 minutes, or keep a 12x plextor 12/10/32 cd writer feed
continueously.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 04:25:47 +0200
"flatfish+++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 17:22:05 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
> >> Alas, it was an 'either/or' question, so you've still failed to answer
> >> it. Don't worry about it; I know that you can't answer it, because you
> >> don't know the meaning of the words well enough.
> >>
> >
> >So, Max, are you an idiot or just a total moron?
>
> Is this a test?
IF so, T. Max is going to flunk it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 04:27:15 +0200
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9emfnv$2gb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Win 98SE is without any doubt the best Windows end-user OS outt here
> (better than ME) and does not screw up the same way win95 did (or at least
> - its not so frequent at that)
I'll agree about 98SE being the best 9x, but that doesn't mean much.
Give me Win2k any time of day.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 04:33:02 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fnCP6.6871$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9el12t$cho$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:oLlP6.6571$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > If you bought bought Win2K just to run this spesific DLL...
> > >
> > > Yes, that is the sole purpose of 8 machines, replacing the 2
> > > Linux/Apache boxes that used to do the same work. The
> > > whole point of changing the servers was to utilize xsl formatting
> > > of our xml data.
> >
> >
> > U, that is very... unwise of you.
> > There are plenty of XML/XSL formatting software around.
>
> Does that mean that even you think it was predictable that
> the Microsoft product would have bugs and a large number
> of unexpected and undocumented quirks compared to the
> competition?
No, this mean that to move to an unknown platform for the sake of one DLL is
not a good idea, especially when you can get the same thing on the machines
you already have.
This mean that you could have gotten the mahcines you are familiar with to
use a software that does what you need.
It's XML, for crying out loud, it's not rocket science.
Take a look here:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Data_Formats/Markup_Languages/XML/
Style_Sheets/XSL/Implementations/
> The real problem is that while xsl has been a standard for
> around a year the formatters have not been available that
> long and there is still no standard way to connect xslt
> transformations to a spot in a web page. That means that
> changing formatters involves a complete rewrite of the
> web pages which no one has time to do.
GUI is here for a long time, not standard way to do it either.
Networking and threading too, and they are here much longer.
If you've searched for other options for the platform you know, then you
would not need to rewrite.
Either that, or find a workaround, or wait for the fix.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
