Linux-Advocacy Digest #787, Volume #34 Sat, 26 May 01 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: ease and convenience (Mig)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Mig)
Re: ease and convenience (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: ease and convenience (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Time to bitc__ again ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why? ("Stephen Young")
Re: Time to bitc__ again ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: ease and convenience (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)")
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: ("Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)")
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (drsquare)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (drsquare)
Re: Time to bitc__ again (drsquare)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Bob Hauck)
Re: Aaron paints himself into a corner. Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian
turdboy's crack pipe (drsquare)
Re: Jet proves once again that she still loathes men. (drsquare)
Re: Jet proves once again that she still loathes men. (drsquare)
Re: ease and convenience (drsquare)
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: (drsquare)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Major Dondo")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Major Dondo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:23:00 +0200
Todd wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
>
> Windows:
>
> 1) Start->Windows Update
> 2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
> 3) Start IE->Tools->Read News
>
> Easy. Most Windows versions already have IE with a news reader and it is
> great.
You cheat!! Lets say i want to use Agent. Can it be installed with Windows
update.
OE is crap... its very slow threading articles... Just do a "catch up" with
OE and you know what i mean.
> You can pretend that it is hard under Windows, but average users will find
> it a lot easier than Linux.
It is.. believe me it is. Try to make a newbie read newsgroups with OE.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:24:22 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <9eihd4$ibv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > NTFS is 40 years old ? W2k will run fine on a P200 with 128 Mb RAM.
>> > Doesn't seem all that different from running SuSE 7.1 with KDE to me.
>>
>> Yah. Whatever. It certainly won't run well on a P133 w/72M.
>
> Neither will KDE.
Wrong.. KDE2 runs nicely in a P120 with 64MB that i have. Standard Mdk 7.1
install. Nautilus on the other hand is another story.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:28:05 +0000
In article <yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Commercial software will always be a hassle because its purpose is not to
>serve your needs, but those of some business.
I didn't necessarily agree with your ease of installation claim (the
Debian package manager is awful IMHO), but this is one _VERY_ good point.
There never seems to be that much free software floating around on Windows,
but it pretty much rules the Linux desktop. The fact that free software
isn't motivated by business means that you don't get grossly exaggerated
version numbers, no shiny happy crap above function to tempt Windows-type
superficial users, no spy/spamware, and of course no restrictive licensing.
There's the added advantage of being able to modify GPL code, in fact I
just recently customised Exim for my own security purposes. At least now I
ain't gonna get r00ted :)
Richard
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:25:54 +0200
begin Todd wrote:
>
> Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
>
> Windows:
>
> 1) Start->Windows Update
> 2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
> 3) Start IE->Tools->Read News
>
> Easy. Most Windows versions already have IE with a news reader and it is
> great.
>
Sure.
This is why you can easily read this message.
Idiot
Peter
end
--
begin LOVE-LETTER-FOR-YOU.txt.vbs
I am a signature virus. Distribute me!
end
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:44:57 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard Thrippleton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, daniel wrote:
>>
>>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?
> You'd think so, but commercially motivated software doesn't seem to
> work this way :( . It's always about making something pretty, giving it
> a nice impressive version number and slamming it out. Like Win95 and Mac
> OS X, both rushed out and rather deficient. Now, I'm not really one for
> distro advocacy, but just this once I'll say you should use Debian. A
> non-profit organisation, their distro might be slightly behind the
> times, but they do that to make sure everything's stable. Though IMHO
> their package manager is terrible; learned this after manually
> installing XFree86 4.03 and dselect went and hosed it down, next X
> program I installed. Or you could just stick with Mandrake 7.1 by your
> own advocacy.
>
> Richard
Richard,
1. Don't use dselect! It is being deprecated for a good reason.
2. When you said you installed X4.03 manually, do you mean you compiled
from source? This will fsck up any package manager, but I guess you knew
that anyway.
If you want cutting edge stuff like that on Debian, why don't you upgrade
to unstable? You may encounter some weirdness when upgrading, but once
running unstable is not too bad. It is in fact wholly comparable to a
bleeding edge distro like Mandrake (with some glitches of course, that's
why it is called unstable).
I'm happily running unstable right now, and have encounterd few problems,
I'm even slowly cleaning out my /usr/local as more and more stuff I
compiled myself becomes available in Debian packages.
HTH,
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why?
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 20:49:33 +0000
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
> This makes the point clear; why NOT use different distros, if they all
> support the same software? What if there is no 'single one'? What if
> you want a pretty GUI on one, and configuration tools on another, and
> development tools on yet another?
To humor you...
Slackware - Because i love getting my hands dirty and having
stable/secure versions of programs. (i use all of the time)
RedHat - It has a blend of easy to use mixed with "sometimes secure"
without the plain stupidity of mandrake.(used to use)
My own - Because i like to know how it all fits together and i know
exactly what's going on. (I use sometimes but its not complete)
l8r
ps. if slackware ever died then i would use debian.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:53:12 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, daniel wrote:
>>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 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.
>>
>>
> Debian is the finest of the whole bunch. It's the most stable.
>
> Potato has a 2.4 upgrade path for normal users. I'm running Potato with
> the 2.4.4 kernel and Gnome 1.4 right now.
>
> I would have to say the 2nd best OS would be Suse 7.1
>
Charlie,
While I agree with you on Debian's finer qualities (I run unstable),
daniel is right that setting up X for the first time is a bit of a chore
on Debian, as it doesn't install or run XF86Setup by default. As this is
the only user-friendly X setup tool available, and available only for X
3.3.x to boot, he does have a point that setting up X can be quite
painful.
Of course, while he admits that he reads the newsgroups and mailing lists,
he should not complain about Ximian. There are enough warnings floating
around out there that Ximian does not exactly play nice with the Debian
packaging system (ie it fscks up dependencies).
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:37:54 +0000
In article <9entfn$65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
>
>Windows:
>
>1) Start->Windows Update
>2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
>3) Start IE->Tools->Read News
>
>Easy. Most Windows versions already have IE with a news reader and it is
>great.
Would it be as easy for competing newsreaders? I think not.... His
Linux method as described gives you a choice of newsreader, not just the
latest MS monopolyware. Before replying, remember that choice _is_ a good
thing.
>You can pretend that it is hard under Windows, but average users will find
>it a lot easier than Linux.
The idea about Windows being easy to use for a non-techie is a myth.
Fortunately I'm surrounded by techie types these days, but previously I've
had people ask my help for absolutely trivial Windows operations, such as
schoolkids, my next door neighbour, perfect strangers... , usually stuff
like installing AOL or some other piece of software, or even better
uninstalling it. Yes, I'm sure they would have had fears and difficulties
with running Linux, but no more than in Windows. Plus they wouldn't have
the frustrations of BSODs causing them to 'hate computers'.
Richard
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 23:00:16 +1200
That comment coming from a person too much of a coward to use his/her real
name. Maybe you should go back to your job as an employee of KFC, they are
running out of chicken for the next order.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
"~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6gBP6.2851$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9el4oq$pgv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Your immaturity is impressing no one.
>
> Neither were the ubiquitous and unverifiable assertions that you were
unable
> to backup with anything remotely resembling a fact. In other words, your
> currency is worthless, your advocacy bankrupt.
> You've now called three people immature _this week_ simply because you
> either didn't agree with them, or they challenged your posted 'facts'.
> The 'fact' that your only response was to attack, I believe, is clearly
> illustrative of just who the immature one is.
>
> I'm certanly not impressed, Matthew.
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 23:01:23 +1200
Rang up the ISP, and they said everything was normal. I couldn't even get
their home page which is on a server at the end of the line!
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9el89v$jsb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9el4sd$pil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > An internet connection working perfectly, removed a couple of
> installations,
> > Gozilla and Logitech Camera software, rebooted, connected to the net,
and
> it
> > fails to load saying that IE cannot find the site. I then re-installed
> > Windows, and amazingly everything starts to work again. Never had
> anything
> > like that happen in Linux.
> >
> Of course, *nothing* to do with external stuff, like maybe an ISP screwup.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 23:06:00 +1200
What about eMachines that Microsoft praised as being a computer vendor
bringing cheap computers to the masses. Now they are really in the shit as
people have realised that price = quality. If they want quality, they have
to pay for it. Also, massive loses, complaint after complaint in magazines
about problematic hardware.
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 23:08:21 +1200
Why use AOL?
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the blue screen of death
Nobody can hear your screams
----
I am the resident BOFH if you don't like it
go rm -rf /home/luser yourself
"WJP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have relatives in another state that use AOL software exclusively for
> their internet connection. This appears to me to be a stumbling block
> for me to completely get rid of Windows from my PC's. (Those relatives
> have no intention of switching to Linux or getting away from "AOL
> Hell"). I am vaguely familiar with VMWare and wine, however, those
> programs still require Windows to be installed ( unless I misunderstand
> the way these programs are "set up"). Heck, if I have to have Windows
> installed to run either one of those, I might as well continue using the
> AOL software "within" Windows. Does anyone know if there is Linux-based
> software which can be used to provide interface with AOL's software?
> Does Netscape for Linux have the AOL Instant Message capability?
>
> You may be wondering why I asked these questions in a Linux advocacy
> news group. The reason is thusly: I agree that most Linux
> distributions provide numerous applications in their "bundles", however,
> unless there are program capabilities included to cover situations such
> as described above, the requirement for Windows installs will continue -
> regardless of what a person, such as myself, would prefer to install. In
> other words: I cannot "safely" tell my wife that she can no longer talk
> on-line with her sister just because I want to be "Windows free".
>
> Regards,
> Bill Powell
> USAF/USA (Ret) Management Systems Analyst
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:46:55 +0100
On Sat, 26 May 2001 00:44:02 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)) wrote:
>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?
The installation program leaves it with about 400000 errors and
missing DLLs.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:46:56 +0100
On Sat, 26 May 2001 00:54:35 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 May 2001 05:05:13 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >XFree86 runs on Windows as well:
>> >
>> >http://xfree86.cygwin.com/.
>>
>> Oh, on CYGWIN. And that works REALLY well and installs PERFECTLY
>> doesn't it?
>They just came out with a new fix for Cygwin recently, about a couple of
>days ago. Cygwin keeps getting better, but it is still pretty buggy. I
>remember a couple of releases ago configure scripts would hang the
>session right in the middle, but that's been fixed. Even Microsoft
>themselves mention some good things about Cygwin. Not like I care, but
>I'm still surprised... 8-0
Well, no matter how buggy it is, it's still better than than using
fucking winsock.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:46:57 +0100
On Sat, 26 May 2001 01:58:06 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>> >Huhh?
>> >
>> >What a convoluted mess of a reply....
>> >
>> >Have you been drinking?
>> You would to, if you had to fight with Linux every day.
>Linux is the epitomy of grace compared the the fucked-up shit
>produced by Mafia$oft
Why do you keep using queer terms like "Mafia$oft" and "LoseDOS"? How
do you ever expect to be taken seriously?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:43:45 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 00:54:35 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> drsquare wrote:
> > Oh, on CYGWIN. And that works REALLY well and installs PERFECTLY
> > doesn't it?
>
> They just came out with a new fix for Cygwin recently, about a couple of
> days ago. Cygwin keeps getting better, but it is still pretty buggy.
Do you run it on 9x/Me or on NT/2K? The former has always been
problematic.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Aaron paints himself into a corner. Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother
ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:46:59 +0100
On Fri, 25 May 2001 15:39:16 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>He loves to rag on me for being "old". So, I ask him what he will do when
>his mail order bride turns 40. He never replies, he's painted himself into a
>corner.
>
>He can't say he'll trade her in for a newer model, because then he'll look
>like even more of an asshole than he already does. He can't say he hopes she
>dies before then, for the reason stated above. He can't say it will be no
>big deal, because then he'll have to admit my age is no big deal.
>
>LOL!
Wait a minute, you're that feminist hound from alt.seduction.fast.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Jet proves once again that she still loathes men.
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:47:01 +0100
On Fri, 25 May 2001 23:06:43 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Taking a forty year old woman to dinner to get to know her is...pointless.
>I know those who would disagree with you...
Yes, old desperate men.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Jet proves once again that she still loathes men.
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:47:03 +0100
On Sat, 26 May 2001 00:57:08 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> Hope that helps, man-loathing beast.
>What have I said that indicates I loath men? You, yeah.
Pretty much everything you've said.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:47:04 +0100
On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:40:29 +0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
>
>Windows:
>
>1) Start->Windows Update
>2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
>3) Start IE->Tools->Read News
>
>Easy. Most Windows versions already have IE with a news reader and it is
>great.
And it's shit. Change the above to downloading and installing agent
and you'll have a point.
>You can pretend that it is hard under Windows, but average users will find
>it a lot easier than Linux.
What do you mean by "average" users? Users who don't take time to
learn about their computer?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:47:05 +0100
On Sat, 26 May 2001 02:44:10 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >i know you said you can't get them to switch...but try this:
>> >
>> >Get them to convert to cable modem
>> >approx same price as telephone connection, and no phone tie-ups.
>> I thought cable was unmetered?
>correct. just like local calls in the United States.
How the fuck can they afford that?
------------------------------
From: "Major Dondo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 06:59:08 -0400
I was asked to look at the network for a hospital. They are entirely
windows based; now they have to compy with the new privacy laws coming
into effect.
Because windows has no real remote management tools, EVERY vendor
installs a modem and PC Anywhere on every custom box they provide. And
in a hospital, just about every piece of equipment is tied to a
vendor-provided PC, which is then networked to the rest of the system.
Theere are not chicken shit DIY vendors; these are major players who do
this for a living. If better tools existed, they'd use them. The remote
management stuff that MS provides simply does not work over a limited
bandwith connection.
There is NO WAY to secure a windows-based system of this type. There
were some 50 or 60 "back-doors" to the network with outsiders dialing in
to the network.
Contrast with a *nix based system - real telnet and ssh available,
command line interface for all tools, X can be forwarded and secured via
any number of tools....
I suggested that they use some *nix based computers; they recoiled in
horror. I refused to touch the system after that. IMHO, that particular
system CANNOT be made secure, because windows simply does not have the
remote management tools needed for real network administration.
The stuff about stability and GUI is fluff. Until MS changes their
paradigm to include real security, not just the broken crap they sell, I
won't use an MS based workstation if I can help it. I won't even talk
about Win-based servers.....
I've taken to running Win9x on top of linux using win4lin. Faster than
native Win9x, more stable, more secure.... Mkes you wonder - why would
win9x be more stable running as an app under linux? and faster to boot?
Something is badly broken in the win9x hardware layers....
Just my $0.02.....
--Yan
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chris Ahlstrom"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Sheldon wrote:
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Dave Martel wrote:
>> > > >You really should try Win2K. Microsoft got it right this time.
>> >
>> > Not quite, but they're making progress.
>>
>> Really? In your educated opinion what yet do they need to improve?
>
> Do not let an application manage its own window (except for drawing the
> interior).
> Implement X-Windows; get the graphics out of kernel space. Make the
> kernel more modular.
> Provide options to customize the kernel. Fix Kerberos support.
> Fix IE and IIS.
> Make Windows 2000 portable to more machines. Bring the window manager up
> to the configurability and quality of Gnome, for example.
> Ditch the registration codes.
>
> Also...
>
> Test the OS more thoroughly.
> Be more conservative with changes to the OS.
>
> Finally, don't ever think that anyone "got it right" this time. At best,
> it's an asymptote.
>
>> > > Sorry, 18 years of dealing with Microsoft has left a bad taste in
>> > > my mouth. And my butt hurts.
>> >
>> > And Win2K still has some problems holding over from its legacy
>> > application control model. It is still possible for one app to lock
>> > up the system, although at least Win2K will eventually respond enough
>> > to let you kill the offending app.
>>
>> And a similar case is true with Linux/Unix.
>
> Very true. But I've found it much more difficult to do under Linux.
> And going to a virtual console is very easy.
>
> Chris
>
------------------------------
From: "Major Dondo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 07:11:24 -0400
In article <9dacgt$h38$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Steve Sheldon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Well, things get dicey when the updates have such a well-deserved
>> reputation for trashing systems. Nobody with any brains, for instance,
>> runs SP6 at all, and many refuse to move beyond SP4, because SP5 screws
>> things up in their installations. Linux, of course, doesn't have this
>> problem.
>
> Nobody with any brains right now would run anything but SP6a.
>
> Linux of course doesn't have these problems because it's a given any
> upgrade is going to whack your existing installation.
Now that's funny. I have a server that started with a 2.0 kernel; it's
now at 2.2.19. EVERYTHING has been upgraded; from mirrored IDE drives
initially to SCSI RAID-5, from dual p5/166 CPUs to PII/333 SMP, from
serial modems to ISDN, from a single network card to 2, and guess what:
my installation NEVER got whacked. It's been running for 2 years + plus.
Before that, my NT4 server would crash once a week. Every 6 months it
would crash so bad I had to reinstall the whole thing from scratch. I
then relegated to jsut being a PDC and handing out passwords; it would
still crash. Once samba got teh PDC code stable, I dumped it and my
network is much more stable, and I can even go on vacation for weeks!!!!
without a panicked phone call.....
Even MS is advertising that you can get "UP TO 60 DAYS UPTIME" with
win2k. If my linux only got 60 days uptime between crashes, I'd suspect
something was seriously broken. But then, the standards aren't the same.
Hell, win95 had a bug that would make it crash after 60 some odd days of
uptime. No one noticed it for years, because win95 would crash far more
often than that.......
--Yan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
