Linux-Advocacy Digest #791, Volume #34 Sat, 26 May 01 16:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Opera (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Linux Capability (Zsolt)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Peter Hayes)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Vincent Maycock")
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Mark)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (flatfish+++)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 16:57:42 GMT
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> Not very surprising; any Office product worth
> its salt gives you a *lot* of functionality.
Actually, Microsoft Word is a piece of shit for writing
large documents. One has to turn off many features in order
to be able to edit the document, and long waits for processing
are still rampant. For it's capabilities, it is overpriced.
Of course, Framemaker is no bargain, but at least it will
handle the big stuff. I'd talk about TeX, but even the LyX
GUI front-end wouldn't make it palatable for you.
Anyway, I would suspect that WordPerfect is no better than
Word at large documents.
It is frustrating to have to wait for minutes a few times
an hour while feverishly attempting to complete a large
document. Why does Word periodically take up 100% of the
CPU time???
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:59:14 +0000
In article <1104_990887593@terry>, Terry wrote:
>Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
>features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux
>compliant browser, try Opera.
>
Can't stand the adverts. Besides, it's non-free as in speech.
I prefer Links myself.
Richard
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Capability
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:08:56 GMT
WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 25 May 2001 21:50:15 -0500 presented us with the
wisdom:
> 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?
I don't think the Linux version of Netscape has that feature, but I might be wrong as
I stopped using Netscape at around version 4.7 (became way too buggy and bloated).
Now, I'm using KNode for newsgroups, KMail for email and Konqueror for browsing.
I'm not using any instant messsage programs regularly, bu a quick look into my desktop
menu reveals the following programs (under K-menu > Networking > Instant messaging):
Everybuddy
Gaim
GnomeICU
Kit
Licq
Out of these, I know that Everybuddy, Gaim abd Kit are compatible with AOL IM,
possibly the other 2 as well, but I don't know those. You can also run 'faim' .
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:28:52 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 26 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >MS has not claimed that XP is mostly all new code, nor have they said NT4
>> >was mostly all new code. Of course NT 3.1 was, and Win2k was a major
>> >overhaul, but XP is a point release (5.1) and not a major rewrite.
>>
>> <*Sniff*> <*Sniff*>
>>
>> What's that smell? It smells like...
>>
>> Horseshit.
>>
>> MS touted the "massive overhaul" bullshit for every version of Windows
>> they've shoveled onto the market. Just because MS redacted their press
>> doesn't mean they didn't make the claim, Erik.
>
>They didn't make the claim. Please prove it. Otherwise, Shut the fuck up.
They make that claim when they give it an entirely new name and market
it as a major rewrite. Putz.
[...]
>> >My point was to counter the statement that if MS had "got it right" the
>> >first time, they wouldn't have needed a new version.
>>
>> Your point was to wave your arms a lot to try to desperately to dissuade
>> discussion of the fact that Linux follows a rational and valuable method
>> of advancement and development, and Microsoft plays games with monopoly
>> crapware in a persistently criminal scam forcing consumers to pay
>> outrageous prices for shoddy goods.
>
>No, I was responding to Matthew Gardeners claim that if MS had got it right
>the first time, there would have been no need for Windows 2000. That is the
>point, stop trying to pretend otherwise.
But he is correct; stop trying to pretend otherwise.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:06:07 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 May 2001 14:42:28 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2001 14:04:41 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> > I agree. I have a P90 laptop running windows95. It too has trouble
> >printing and anything graphical is dog slow. Most applications won't run
> >on it, including MS Office. So I keep it down to a minimum. Just enough
> >to do MS Word and internet connectivity for travel.
> >--
>
> Isn't that sad? In '94 the pentium was considered gross overkill for desktop
> applications, to be reserved for server use.
Ha. In 1991 my 486DX33 was a top of the range fileserver/workstation.
Now it just takes up space.
By the same token, in ten years time, the 1.4 GHz AMD Thunderbird, 256
Mb/40Gb plus all the extras that I'm putting together for a third what the
'DX33 cost (<1/4 allowing for inflation) will be a door stop, and I'll be
constructing my 20GHz 128 bit RISC grandson-of-Itanium machine with 40Tb of
2nS flash memory and 16Gb of QDR (Quadruple Data Rate) ram with the new
512Kbit super pipelining graphics interface.
In 2011, WindowsXZ (XP + 10) boots in approximately 4 hours, but since the
machine runs for ten days off 2 AA cells there's never any need to switch
off. The only reboots are for application installations and changes in
configuration such as a change of IP address on the network, plus of course
any lockups and BSODs.
Microsoft's main problem in 2011 is the phenomenon known as BSOD
thrashing, where the machine boots up, only to BSOD during the half hour it
takes to load OfficeXZ. The only cure is a complete reinstall of WinXZ
which comes on 32 double sided DVDs and takes two days, plus the OfficeXZ
install which takes only five hours, unless you choose to omit the
installation of the animated paperclip, which knocks an hour off the
install time.
Product Authentication takes a mere four hours if you are connected to
microsoft.com's SHIT (Sixth-generation High-speed Internet Terminal)
servers via the new 20 Terabyte high speed links. Telephone authentication
was abandoned in 2004 after the introduction of WindowsXS when the verbal
transfer of 545,693 alphanumeric characters in beach direction proved to be
too error prone.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 18:09:33 GMT
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 12:15:36 -0500, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400, JS \\ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for
all
> >> >my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and
connection
> >> >sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
> >> >liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching
users
> >> >(unlike Win2K) I was actually contemplating using it much more often and
> >> >only using Windows for apps I need to use that aren't available on Linux.
> >> >But....
> >> >Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT KICKS
> >> >MANDRAKE ASS!!
> >> >Internet connection stays when switching users! And get this -
Applications
> >> >even stay open and are there (still open) when returning to that user.
> >> >That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the browser still kicks
ass,
> >> >and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to
the
> >> >hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux. Ohh I could go on and endlessly
> >> >list how much better XP is than Mandrake. Once again the Linux community
is
> >> >playing catch up to the industry leader. Competition at it's finest!
> >> >Thank You.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Can I setup Windows XP at home so that I can log into it via ssh and have
> >> a server running that acts as a proxy web browser, allowing me to
> >> browse the web from my machine at work over an encrypted channel and
> >> bypassing the filters on my company's firewall? And do all this with
> >> out-of-the-box free software?
> >
> >Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this, so
> >Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
> >
>
> Really? What free ssh for Windows gives me a sshd that runs on Windows
> that handles tunneling and port redirection?
OpenSSH + Cygwin, according to OpenSSH.com.
> What free http server for Windows can be configured as a web proxy server?
Apache, I guess. Web proxy sucks, though, so I'm not sure why'd you do
that.
It's probably just better to Terminal Service in to your Windows box
at home, that's what I do.
>
> >> Can I use Windows XP to redirect it's output over an encrypted network
> >> port so that I can run applications on my home machine from my machine
> >> at work, complete with GUI features? And do all this with out-of-the-box
> >> free software?
> >
> >Yes. Win2K had this too.
> >
>
> I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with
> out-of-the-box free software and then I'll believe you.
Well, now you're claiming terms. Win2K Server can do this. There are other
free GUI tools like this for Win2K pro, however.
WinXP has it in every version.
And TS is way better than crappy X over sshd.
>
> >> Can I use Windows XP as a NAT server and firewall and allow the machines
> >> on my LAN to all share a single internet connection? And do all this with
> >> out-of-the-box free software?
> >
> >Of course. Win2K had this too.
> >
>
> I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with free
> out-of-the box free software, and then I'll believe you.
Win2K Pro has ICS. Duh. Where have you been?
[snip rest is irrelevant, obviously you have no clue]
-c
------------------------------
From: "Vincent Maycock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 18:34:33 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
snip
>> One of the lovely things is that in many things there seem to be two
>> enirely different explanations for the same thing that are both correct.
>
>Duality only kicks in at short wavelengths.
>
>At least, i've never heard anybody discuss photons which correspond
>to radios in the 300m wavelength region.
No, EM radiation of all wavelengths is composed of photons. It is true that
people tend to think of high-energy photons (like gamma "particles") as
particles, though, more so than radio photons. It's just a question of
context, though. When you're dealing with gamma rays or x-rays, you're more
likely to be dealing with situations where the wavelike characteristics of
the photon are not as noticeable.
--
Vince
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 18:35:42 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 19:06:07 +0100, Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 May 2001 14:42:28 GMT,
>In 2011, WindowsXZ (XP + 10) boots in approximately 4 hours, but since the
>machine runs for ten days off 2 AA cells there's never any need to switch
>off. The only reboots are for application installations and changes in
>configuration such as a change of IP address on the network, plus of course
>any lockups and BSODs.
Nah. The windoze box will require the 50GZ box just not to be a dog and will
still require a 250w power supply and a box as big as the original PC/PC-AT.
But won't those 3D rendered paperclips be wonderfull?! It'll do everything but
let you get on with doing usefull work. It'll have AI and constantly argue that
you're doing it wrong.
Meanwhile linux will be running happy on 500mhz pIII wristwatches.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 18:44:45 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Win2K Pro has ICS. Duh. Where have you been?
>
> [snip rest is irrelevant, obviously you have no clue]
Why do people feed this asshole?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:24:39 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 23:01:23 +1200, "Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> flung this gem:
|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
Why is this crap cross posted to windows advocacy and nt advocacy as
well as cola? I smell a horrid little troll.
Anyone who installs software like gozilla probably installs all sorts
of lousy software on their system. It's this same sort of user who has
to reinstall windows because they don't know how to properly
troubleshoot and fix windows problems created by installing crap in
the first place. Reinstalling windows _is_ sometimes the only answer,
but you un install this crap web software, then end up with what
sounds like a dns problem, or a simple network config problem at the
very least, and you can the entire installation? Go back to using
Linux for your internet usage and quit posting with Microsoft Outlook
Express!
Your problems will be over, no?
Yikes.
Eat your own dog food for Pete's sake!
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:23:16 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "flatfish+++"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this a test?
Not so much of a test as a trap. And Max fell right into it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 19:58:22 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 15:23:16 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "flatfish+++"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Is this a test?
>
>Not so much of a test as a trap. And Max fell right into it.
>
>Gary
Well at least it wasn't me for a change :)
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
