Linux-Advocacy Digest #5, Volume #35 Wed, 6 Jun 01 07:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: UI Importance ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Windows advocate of the year. ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Rick)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (pip)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (drsquare)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (drsquare)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (drsquare)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (drsquare)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (drsquare)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (drsquare)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (drsquare)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: Best Distribution? (drsquare)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (drsquare)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (drsquare)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (drsquare)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (drsquare)
Re: Kernel comparisions (pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:20:24 +1200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> * DEC CLIs parse parameters for you; DOS makes the CLI program parse
> them by itself. Thus DEC CLIs establish a standard way to specify
> filename parameters and options; in DOS there was no such standard.
>
Good point
> * DEC CLIs have the command history turned on by default. DOS makes you
> run a special program to make that work.
I'm used to Windows NT command prompt, which does have the command history
turned on by default.
>
> * DEC's command language (DCL) naturally created a scripting language
> for Cl programs; DOS made you jump through some strange hoops now and
> then to make things work right.
DOS batch files certainly aren't as flexible as they could be...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:26:01 +1200
"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fi5n6$89j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
> > like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
> > advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
>
> I can't believe nobody has yet nominated Aaron Kulkis.
I thought Aaron was going for deranged lunatic of the year?
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 06:45:36 -0400
"Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:48:10
> > >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > >Well, WindowsNT has always had a good shell (better than Bash in
> > >most cases).
> >
> > Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You're the only moron foolish enough to claim
> > this, Chad.
> >
> > >The simple fact is, 99% of the users don't use half the
> > >things you mentioned, and Win2K has two forms of low-latency remote
> > >access as well.
> >
> > Wow! TWO?
> >
> > >Who uses wget besides a bunch of Unix geeks (less than one percent
> > >of one percent I'm sure).
> >
> > Maybe about there, yea. But still a larger percentage than Windows
> > idiots who know how to use command line FTP. ;-)
>
> Care to bet on that? Command-line FTP started with Windows *NT* 3.1 (the
> *original* NT) nad has been in *every* version of Windows since (even
> Windows for Workgroups included CLI FTP in their TCP/IP stack, originally
> code-named *Wolverine*, and later cross-ported to the non-workgroups Windows
> 3.1). Windows 9x has *always* had CLI FTP (I remember using it to download
> the original 32-bit Netscape Navigator 1.0 in early 1995).
>
Are you saying NT was the first OS to have ftp, of ftp in window$
started with MT?
> How many UNIX geeks know about SAMBA (a slick little utility that enables
> UNIX/Linux clients to co-exist in Windows-based networks)? Here's the most
> telling argument about SAMBA: it's not only included with any decent distro
> of UNIX/Linux, SAMBA even works against Windows *2000*-based networks.
> Microsoft could choose to wreck SAMBA, but hasn't (and won't, either).
>
How many Unix geeks know about SAMBA? Probably all of them - non-geeks -
depends. Im not a geek, and I know about it, but I cant speak for
others.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:42:03 +0200
In article <9fjk2n$jod$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> That's just it. If the COM object in question is generic, ie it offers
>> services to more than one program, it is not inextricably tied to the
>> one program, then it falls under the "separate works" clause. This is
>> however (with my very limited knowledge of COM, ie almost none)
>
> COM is a component that contain a piece of functionality. Frex, you may
> get a COM object which will handle SMTP, another that will handle POP3,
> etc.
> The idea is that you get more reuse of the code this way. You can call
> the COM object from another program, from a script, etc.
>
I had gotten that far already, thank you very much :-). I intend to get
acquainted with that kind of stuff as soon as possible, as I really like
Gnome (the desktop environment) and Python (the language). Since Gnome
provides a COM-like component model (bonobo), and Python has bindings for
it (or will have pretty soon), I intend to learn the down and dirty bits
as soon as possible.
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: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:50:03 +0100
Stuart Fox wrote:
> So in summary, moving the window manager and the GDI from user mode to
> kernel mode has provided improved performance without any significant
> decrease in system stability or reliability.
What a load of crap. It's quite simple :
People who write drivers make pointer errors => your system dies
People who write the subsystem that lives in the Kernel Space make
errors => your system dies
That is why MY windows box keeps crashing so often (and every windows
box that I have seen).
THERE IS NO PLACE FOR EXTRA RISK IN KERNEL SPACE. This is a simple trade
off between reliability and speed/convenience. Therefore you should
endeavor to place as little code in the kernel as possible.
Much of the same arguments can be used against Linux when compared to a
micro kernel approach such as the famous debate between Minux's Andy T
and Linus.
Whichever why your flag flies: for the book to say that "[kernel space
GUI] without any significant decrease in system stability or
reliability." is a provable bald face lie. All I need to do is look at
my Linux box in comparison to my win98 box to see that.
This is just simple common sense.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:04 +0100
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:43:10 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Basically, the reason is that the way NT is designed, if the GUI
>subsystem
>> > faults, then the OS blue screens anyways, whether or not it runs in
>kernel
>> > space. The OS's main thread drops to a blue screen when the GUI
>subsystem
>> > dies.
>>
>> That was one of MS most dumbest decisions... bringing the GUI into ring
>> 0. It should have been kept out in another ring.
>
>You're not understanding. It doesn't matter if it ran in ring 0 or not, if
>the GUI crashes, so does the OS, even if it's not running in ring 0.
That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:05 +0100
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:08:59 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>> > Why? What is the reason for this decision?
>>
>> Speed.
>
>How making the OS crash if the GDI crash (even in it's in user mode) cause
>speed increase?
It increases the speed at which the CD gets thrown out of the window.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:06 +0100
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:41:59 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fji5f$hb1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something is
>> > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
>>
>> Why should the GUI crashing cause a full system halt?
>> NT is aimed at servers, not just desktops. This just doesn't makes sense.
>> Other platforms don't crash if there is a crash in the GUI (well, not
>> always.)
>
>What you fail to realize is that the GUI subsystem ran in the same subsystem
>as other critical services as well. If that subsystem crashes, then you
>lose a lot more than just the GUI.
Well, that sounds well designed.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:07 +0100
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:08:25 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fkd06$1eeg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> The distinction is that the GUI & GDI are separate. If the GUI crashes,
>> fine, just respawn explorer. If the GDI crashes, well WinNT needs that to
>> function correctly so it throws an exception (Blue screen)
>
>Okay, but why does it need the GDI to function correctly?
>What is the *point* in making the OS depended on the GDI?
There is none.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:07 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:41:55 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:10:42 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >Spot the disease-ridden homosexuality promoter.
>>
>> Is he related to your gay lover?
>
>false premise
It would be a false premise if I referred to you as a heterosexual.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:08 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:41:40 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Spot the disease-ridden homosexuality promoter.
>>
>> LOL! Naw, Kulkis isn't a homophobe in denial!
>
>Do homosexuals have a much shorter lifespan than heterosexuals
>a) no
>B) YES
No.
>Is it due to deadly diseases that they spread amongst themselves
>a) no
>B) YES
No.
>no more questions, your honor.
Why not?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:09 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:42:36 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >> Methinks he doth protest too much!
>> >
>> >There is no such thing as too much protest against people who
>> >stupidly contract several deadly diseases.
>>
>> Well, you seem to have contracted about 17 mental illnesses...
>
>the desire to protect myself from deadly disease is now a mental illness?
>
>interesting definition of mental illness you have there.
If you're so scared of homosexuals then why are you a homosexual
yourself?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:10 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:43:14 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>> >Admit it Aaron, you're just coming up with all this shit to try and
>> >justify your homophobia. You're not fooling anyone.
>>
>> If he finds their behavior distasteful, that's certainly his right.
>> But, the claim that they harm the population at large by spreading
>> hepatitis, is a bit wacko.
>
>....but supported by the Centers for Disease Control.
Who?
>Hope that helps.
Not in the slightest!
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:10 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:17:30 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Fine. I never denied that. What I said was in response to the false
>> >statement that in "a GUI, where you don't even get any options, you just
>> >get what you're given."
>>
>> You do. The only way you can change it is by using a somewhat sizeous
>> in-program configurator, which is nothing but an inconvenience.
>
>It's no easier to change the options available in a CLI program than in
>a GUI program.
It's easier to specify options on the command line than to delve into
numerous menus ONCE THE PROGRAMS ALREADY RUNNING.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:11 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:19:48 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Yes. I'd rather have a program made to a good usable UI that follows
>> >common standards that make sense than have a program that I have to
>> >"customize" merely so it follows what everybody else is doing.
>>
>> Even if you don't agree with what everyone else is doing? Sorry, but I
>> don't do things just because everyone else does, I like to do things
>> the way I want to do them. Unlike you, I am not a sheep.
>
>Difference for difference's sake is a stupid basis for interface design.
>Do you write man pages with your own special format? Do you insist that
>your configuration files use a different syntax than is standard for
>your OS?
Syntax no, but I would appreciate the chance to be able to use
configuration files.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:12 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:20:53 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >The class of people who bought Apple II, CP/M, and later DOS computers
>> >is a subset of people who buy computers today. Macintosh, and later
>> >Windows, brought computing to people who otherwise would not use
>> >computers.
>>
>> Yeah, complete idiots
>
>asshole.
Oh fuck off.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:13 +0100
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:29:02 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9fjk2m$jod$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>
>
>> > No, I meant it like it was written. It's a little trick in C that
>> > will get you fired if you snick it into production code.
>>
>> And for good reason, too!
>
>It does teach you a good lesson on how C works.
IF you already know how it works.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:14 +0100
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:00:13 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:44:43 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>
>> >Proof: Windows can run GUI as well as CLI, and both have facilities that
>> >allow you to thoroughly hose your filesystem.
>>
>> Yes, but Windows' CLI is a piece of crippled shite.
>
>Which you haven't qualified with examples yet. Windows GUI is as good or as
>bad as the tools you run in it. Bash is almost completely useless without
>all the little tools and utils that you need to run it, same applies to
>cmd.exe
You don't say.
>Give me an example of how it's crippled?
No command history, no tab completion, leaving lines all over the
place, shitty shell scripting, shitty redirection, scrolling back up
the screen, less ability to customise the prompt, no starting
processes in the background, no ansi colours in prompt, I could go on,
but I won't
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:15 +0100
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:30:44 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >And on the CLI you'll have to memorize all of this options, the GUI allow
>> >you to just see them.
>>
>> Oh no, memorising a few little flags ONCE... With the GUI equivalent,
>> it's good for the first few times, but after that, you just don't need
>> it. Programs should be designed for long term use, not just the first
>> few times.
>
>You *are* aware that GUI programs can have command line parameters, right?
And how do you specify them?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:15 +0100
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:35:27 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:44:23 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>> >Of course, you're also assuming that one will generally want to move all
>> >files. In my experience, that's by far less common than moving just some
>> >of the files.
>>
>> Yes, something like "*.doc" or "*.jpg" would be much more common.
>
>Oh, of *course*, I would want to copy *all* my files, including the
>sensitive & private ones to a disk I send to a client.
Why would you want to do that?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:16 +0100
On 06 Jun 2001 00:29:42 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:57 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>(u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>>
>> So this translates to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
>
>In his ferver to get himself kill filed, DrSquare finally
>succeded ...
>
><plonk>
>(yes my killfile really works)
What's the record for killfiles on this group?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:17 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:10:23 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Bigger hard drive?
>Hmmm...the typical replacement hard drive for *desktops* is 40 GB. Windows
>2000 *Advanced Server*, with all bells and whistles, will use maybe
>one-tenth of that (about *four* gigabytes). Such a drive costs maybe $150
>US today, at worst.
>
>More RAM?
>
>Let's see...I bought 512 MB of PC-133 SDRAM for less than $200 US in
>March...and since then prices have *dropped*.
>
>Faster CPU?
>
>1 GHz P-III (overkill for not only desktops, but most servers) cost me $290
>US (again, March 2001)...it's almost *half* that today.
So that's about $800, and for what gain?
>If you have a P-II, Celeron or Athlon processor, 128 MB of RAM or more, and
>1 GB of free disk space, you could *easily* run Windows 2000 Professional
>today.
So I need a new processor and another 96MB of RAM just to run it? And
what advantages over linux am I getting from this?
>Linux is *only* free if you download it. Books that include Linux (often an
>older out-of-date version) still cost (about 1/3 that of a Windwos 98 SE or
>ME upgrade).
And a cover disk copy would cost...
>You will still need the hard drive space for Linux (unless you are going to
>blank Windows altogether, which no newbie would do), and a typical distro
>will *easily* eat as much space (if not more) as Windows 2000 *Server* (and
>*more* than 2000 Professional).
I doubt it.
>Here's a cold fact from *personal* experience: I recently upgraded at work
>to Windows 2000 Pro SP1 (from NT 4 SP 5). I subject it to loads that would
>(and *did*) bring NT 4 to its *knees*. Daily. And the OS didn't even
>quiver.
Comparing it to NT is hardly saying much.
>The hardware? A P-III 450 with 128 MB of RAM.
AND it was running on a good computer to start with.
>(As you now know, *less* than my home system.)
I doubt most users have as much money as you do.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:18 +0100
On 06 Jun 2001 01:13:22 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On 5 Jun 2001 18:31:52 GMT,
>>>>Dr Square, I meant that as Agent is NOT free, someone had to pay for it,
>>>>are you saying that is was a gift ?
>>
>>> No, I cracked it.
>
>BS, you used a crack that someone else made.
And?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:19 +0100
On 06 Jun 2001 04:29:19 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:20:09 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 06 Jun 2001 01:23:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
>> wrote:
>>>Only for you :-
>>>"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>>>S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>>>Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Have you been hitting the old Fosters tonight mate?
>>
>
>Sadly no, not because there is no Fosters, or because I can't
>afford any Fosters .... I just don't like beer.
What's there not to like about beer?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:20 +0100
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 01:36:10 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine))
wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, drsquare
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> That would mean downloading another 100MB+ of files, which I am just not
>>>> prepared to do.
>>>
>>>Go by a CD then. Good software is well worth paying for.
>>
>>Where from?
>
>Well, you can either go directly to RedHat or to a place such
>as Cheapbytes (www.cheapbytes.com). They look like they're
>still around.
Yeah, but they don't take cash.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:21 +0100
On 6 Jun 2001 08:32:45 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> No one. They said that dalsehood was typed by someone with a querty
>>>> keyboard (fairly likely).
>>>
>>>What do you have against qwertz keyboards? And I suspect (but dont know)
>>>that azerty keyboards are also similar.
>
>> qwertz keyboards are crap, that's what I have against them.
>
>Aw sweetheart, are you one of those people who believes the urban legends
>about "dvorak"?
>
>Do prominently display your absolute ignorance some more.
I have no idea what you're on about with "dvorak", but I know my
keyboard is superior to any others.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 11:54:21 +0100
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 09:37:31 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fk506$7ae$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Why not just pipe the output to an unencrypted pdf? oh, right, windows...
>> sorry... :)
>
>It wouldn't let you do it.
>Wouldn't even let you *print* it.
How does it do that?
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:02:18 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > BTW: you have not provided any other arguments other than this IO
> > layering to back up your initial bold clam - so you still stand by it ?
>
> I didn't *have* any other claim.
> I said that I think that NT's I/O is a better design than Linux because it
> offer more flexibility.
> Did I say anything else that I'm not aware of?
Yes, sorry - it was Stephen S. Edwards II who made the claim that "the
Linux kernel is completely substandard." and then provided no evidence
of his claim (not a single post on topic). oops :)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
