Linux-Advocacy Digest #431
Linux-Advocacy Digest #431, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: The real truth about NT
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES ("Todd")
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:09:03 +
Bones wrote:
Why are you re-installing the operating system after adding a hard disk?
Where did you pick this bad habit up?
I removed the 2GByte disk as a museum piece. The 30GByte disk has a 4GByte
partition for the system now, as well as a humungous /home partition, which
is what I wanted.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:11:32 +
This gets better!
I reinstalled because I wanted to use ReiserFS, the journaling file system.
That all went smoothly and everything seemed to be working.
I moved the machine backup upstairs, plugged it into my network and
*oopsie* can't talk to the other machine! I can see the lights flashing on
the hub but they can't see each other.
Oh dear, now what I have done wrong?
Linux is SO much better than Windows!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:13:18 -
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:52:36 GMT, Kyle Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:08:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
Personally I hate not have ANY decent varieties of the programs you
mention available for Linux.
Oh yea, for NT5 Try MusicMatch Jukebox and Winzip.
Both free/shareware.
So then, what are wrong with the Linux variants you seem
to despise so much? Please be precise.
Congratulations on completely missing the point.
Actually, you were first.
OTOH, you can get a nice distribution that includes those things
for you allowing you to avoid extra work. I'll state that last
bit again so that you might have a chance of comprehending it:
AVOID EXTRA WORK.
While you're trying to act as white knight for those that have
meagre computing skills, you demonstrate that you are quite out
of touch with them. Many end users either don't want to or are
unable to manually futz with downloading things from the web
even assuming they have a network connection at all.
Congratulations on finally seeing my point.
You have no point.
The best you can do is try and lie about Linux causing the
end user more work when it infact does not. It's actually
structured to save the novice end user work and aggravation.
Fully functional quarterly point releases are really quite
handy in this respect.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:19:17 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually CLI's are from the mid 90's.
???
The term WinDOS isn't just an attempt to be cute. It's actually
an accurate and recent description of the state of things in the
Microsoft dominated novice computing market.
WinDOS is fair enough, but LoseDOS isn't.
CLI's are only "from the 70's" if you were bold enough to ignore
Microsoft prior to 1995.
Let me see, what was I using at EMI and Digital before then.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #432
Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You and Microsoft...
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux misseery cont. ("James")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:20:27 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
"Shane Phelps" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
What about Word98?
Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
formats.
Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
Not trolling, genuinely curious.
Well, most likely it's the endian issue, not to mention that things like
OLE
an structured storage are different between PC and MAC.
What does endian have to do with it? Changing endian on reading files
between Intel and Motorola format takes at about 5 lines of code. I do
that all the time.
Word has traditionally stored binary data structures in it's file format.
This means that, unless you always convert endianness when loading and
unloading documents, the file formats (even if otherwise identical) will not
be the same for data content. More likely, Word only does endianness
conversion when using filters for a non-native file format.
IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call
them)
capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
have expected convergence in file formats.
Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
least as far as Excel 5.
Excel 5 for the PC uses BIFF format in a OLE structured storage compound
document. I'd be surprised if the native Mac excel version was the same
as
the PC version (especially given FPU differences between the
architectures).
That still doesn't seem reasonable. The problem of converting between
FPUs formats has been solved hundreds of times and doesn't require
enough code to justify new file formats.
Fine. Store a binary floating point number from an Intel machine in a file,
read the binary format back in on a Mac and shove it back into the FPU.. see
if it works correctly without massaging the data. Why massage the data for
your native file format? That makes no sense.
Can you give a reason why either of those problems justifies changing
file formats?
The only way the formats can be identical on both platforms is if one
platform stores their data in the other platforms format. Why would a
native Mac word document store it's data in PC format when such
interchangeability is not necessary very often (especially not when the file
formats were created 10 years ago).
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 16:37:02 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 13 Jan 2001 06:59:02 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what, pray tell, is "the standard PC architecture"? And if anyone
gets to decide what it is, shouldn't it be IBM?
It is
AT ISA bus
I see. So all those "legacy free" PCs are non-standard, and thus one
shouldn't reasonably be able to expect to run (and reboot) Win98 on them
without hassle?
I guess Linux' time has truly arrived, then ;-))
Bernie
--
If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be of learning from experience
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 16:48:05 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 13 Jan 2001 06:47:16 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What you *really* meant to say was along the lines of
``Your machine actually reads the ID pins on the SIMMs, and interprets
the results according to the standard. It then goes on to *believe*
what the SIMMs send back.
This turns out to be a very unfortunate thing to do in a world awash
with badly or not-at-all ID'ed SIMMs. What makes it even more
unfortunate is that most motherboard and/or BIOS manufacturers
simply ignore the ID pins, and thus ignorant users
Linux-Advocacy Digest #433
Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 09:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Edward Rosten)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) ("Robert J. Hansen")
Re: Helix Code changes name (Matthias Warkus)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Windows 2000 (Russ Lyttle)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
From: Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:17:58 +
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Jan Johanson wrote:
SWC is not a web server. Get it through your head!
AND, remember, Tux beat windows by a whopping 2.7%
You got the order of events wrong. Tux beat iis by more like 250% -
then, after months of frantic, all-out effort, the best microsoft could
do is come close to the Linux result with their new "benchmark buster"
product.
we're talking about the results in 2000Q4 - 7500 vs 7300 - do the math.
- woo hoo!!! A whole 2.7%
and they had to go into kernel space to do it.
Nope, tux ran in userspace for the specweb tests.
Proof? Not denying, just asking for the proof, I don't see it in the specweb
document.
I have never seen Tux in production, IIS (and SWC) is out there.
I've never seen swc, but Tux is available, for free - today.
SWC is available right this second from MS and it's resellers. It's been
available for some time, version 3 (which they used) is in final beta and
will be released March (after further performance tweaking).
Yep, it's a beta product.
Tux was running on slightly inferior hardware (slower hard disks)
Linux still won by a bit
All the Linux software is avaliable _now_.
The software for windows is still beta.
And after all that, the windows stuff costs more
So how on earth is the windows stuff better in this case?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
--
From: Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:24:29 +
You are really dense aren't you? SWC is a web CACHE - do you know what the
word cache means? Do you understand how a web cache works? Obviously not.
Where do you think the pages the cache is supplying were generated? Do
you think the cache created the pages??? HELLO???!!! Doh!!! IIS5 created the
pages and if a static (keyword) page was requested again and it hadn't
expired it was served by the cache and not by IIS, all the dynamic pages
were served by IIS5 time and again.
Uh huh. You're the thick one being taken in by BS. If it generates its
own web pages (via its OWN dynamic API) then its a server. Calling it a
cache doesn't make it a cache. It may do caching as well, but it's also
a server.
Calling a server a cache to improve benchmark results does not make the
said server a cache.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies| @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
--
From: Edward Rosten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:48:59 +
Chad Myers wrote:
"Adam Warner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93m071$fip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
http://www.interbase2000.org/
InterBase was released as open source at the end of July 2000. A complete
backdoor was discovered when examining the source. This backdoor has existed
in the commercial versions of the code since 1994 and appears to have been
known about for some time and used by at least one Borland/Inprise engineer.
There's also a discussion on Slashdot :
http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/11/1318207.shtml
Ok, that's one example of one GOOD thing about Open Source. However,
unfortunately, it's not the norm. Especially on large projects like Linux.
Bugs are still
Linux-Advocacy Digest #434
Linux-Advocacy Digest #434, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 12:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell ("MH")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius (Andres Soolo)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows Stability (Andres Soolo)
Re: Windows Stability (Andres Soolo)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source (mlw)
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards (mlw)
Re: Ed is the standard editor ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("ono")
Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius (.)
Good read from ZDnet (sfcybear)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("ono")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (pip)
From: "MH" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:12:54 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:39:42 -0500, MH wrote:
CC classes in my neck of the woods are running 45$ a credit hour.
Most CS classes are 3 to 4 credits. So, say 'Joe' wants to check out C++.
40 * 4 + 59 for Borland Turbo C++ suite, or, add another 30 for MSVC++ 6.
So that's $229, and you haven't started buying books. Most likely,
the instructor is going to choose books that are a complete waste
of money. For that money,
you could have several good books. Let's see, you could get:
The C class I allude to in my post required Mix Software's PowerC book
(dos) compiler. About $25 IIRC. The class was 4 credits at $38 a credit
hour. The instructor was a Unix guy. He set the class up with an account on
a linux box in order to telnet in and use GCC. Was the instructor a good
instructor? I'd say average. What you get from any CS class is what you're
going to put into it. If you are not a complete wall flower, and take
advantage of the healthy and competitive atmosphere that a class provides,
(not to mention if your GPA matters to you) a CC class will do quite a bit
more than reading the following on your own:
C++ How to Program
Accelerated C++
The C Programming Language
The C++ Programming Language
Effective C++
In quite a bit less time.
Not bad considering 16 -3 hour classes with an instructor in a computer
lab
for one out of the three hours. We all know the value that a classroom
setting provides is worth much more that the $$ spent to take it.
I know what value such a setting provides because I teach. Most undergrad
instructors are incompetent, especially at the weaker schools. Students
tend to learn very slowly in these classes, and learn how to regurgitate
the instructors (wrong) ideas on the exams.
I won't argue as to the incompetence of instrutors. The Republicans don't
like educated people, and as such, won't allocate the money to pay educated
people to teach. This is likely to get worse.
Students in CS should be weeded out ASAP. I had a BASIC-Visual Basic
instructor, who in the second week of an introductory programming course in
BASIC, had the class writing double and triple nested loops that required
mathmatical dependance for the required output. The class lost 15 or more
students by week 4. Later, after I had befriended this instructor, I asked
him about it. He replied that the loop thing in week 2 was his
"weed-wacker" -that so many students were coming into his VB classes from
other BASIC instructors who couldn't do squat. Harsh? Yep. But if more
instructors employed at least a little of this into the entry level courses,
the higher level courses would have competent, enthusiastic students.
Is 'Joe' better off spending nothing for Linux to have GCC and not taking
the class?
Joe could get gcc and take the class -- if it was worth it. I'd dispute
the value of such a thing though -- the beginner would learn more by
self-studying and lurking on comp.lang.c++
If the class instructor suck, I agree.
Joe could go Linux take the class, but then he has to deal with GCC,
and
he had better learn GDB to have a fighting chance at figuring out what is
wrong with his compiled code.
Nonsense. Basic fact: most 1st year students don't use debuggers, largely
because they do not need them. Personally, I use debuggers for tracking
down obscure errors with dynamic memory allocation.
First year students, yes. But I began with BASIC, then VB, then Pascal, then
C.
At this point, I wanted an IDE with a comprehensive debugger for C --one
that didn't spit out arcane error messages while I was trying to learn a
language much different than the ones that preceeded it.
One also has to learn how to use the IDE. Beginners have all sorts of
problems with the IDE. For example, they have to deal with the
"disappearing console"
Linux-Advocacy Digest #436
Linux-Advocacy Digest #436, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year? (sfcybear)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (sfcybear)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (sfcybear)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (sfcybear)
Re: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next? (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft Email Lists (Craig Kelley)
Re: Microsoft Email Lists (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Craig Kelley)
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:39:46 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
Really? When I ventured into the arena of Engineering (which I promptly
scurried away from...) Everyone cross associated AutoDesk's AutoCAD
software as a critical, modern engineering tool.
AutoCAD is 2nd-rate software, acceptable only by people who are
satisfied with 2nd-rate platforms (M$) that it runs on.
AutoCAD is a 2-Dimensional CAD system. It's ok for designing cabinets
and houses, but completely UN-suitable for designing anything with moving parts.
Especially oddly shaped parts like crank shafts.
Corollary: AutoCAD is good as a cheap LEARNING tool.
Of course, if you weren't such a dumb, tight ass, you'd see past this
childish, and obsessive minutia and see the "BIG PICTURE" that a lot of
things just get cross associated, like AutoCAD, the concept of "CAD", and
general engineering.
I have YEARS of experience supporting such environments.
You don't.
so solly.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
Only because all that "wonderful" engineering software, and those 64bit
processors to run the software only have UNIX platforms...
CAD is *NOT* "engineering software," you dumbass.
CAD is DRAFTING software.
Data can be exported into non-proprietary formats (IGES, etc.) for
exchange with other platforms.
Now...answer thisConsidering that Unigraphics runs on NT as well as
most Unix platforms, please explain why all CAD work is, if NT is
supposedly cheaper and easier to administrate, and easier to use for
Joe non-CS major (i.e. 99.999% of all automotive designers, detailers
and checkers), then why does General Motors NOT run UG on NT?
I'll tell you why?
Because using Unix, All of GM's 15,000 UG workstations can be
administrated
from two small offices in Troy, Michigan by a handful of people.
Conversely, doing it with NT would require a substantial number of
support personnel AT EVERY SITE.
CDE had FUNCTIONALITY in it, be it at the cost of some intuitiveness.
As
long as Sun stands behind GNOME for it's central UI system, I'll have no
problem with it. (It's Linux that bothers me with GNOME, or any other
interface for that matter anyway).
"Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
Firstly, if you had bothered to read what you clipped, you'd note
that
this
was a response to KDE not being the "desktop" answer it's cracked up
to
be.
Second, "Linux not for the desktop" is a load of shit. Tell
Linux.com
to
openly admit that Linux isn't for desktop use, never has, and never
will
be,
and I swear I'll stop posting to ANY Linux newsgroup.
Linux has much nicer desktops than any commercial version of Unix (in
fact,
Sun has actually thrown out CDE in favor of Gnome)and Unix *IS*
the
standard desktop for the automotive and aerospace
industries...EVERYWHERE,
WORLDWIDE.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical
Linux-Advocacy Digest #437
Linux-Advocacy Digest #437, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next? (Craig Kelley)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:54:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:09:21 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Chad Myers wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93nmal$52t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Really? You mean when earlier versions of kernel-GDI didn't
properly check the parameters passed in to some methods, and
thus allowed ordinary users to crash the whole machine, that
was not a security issue?
It's more of a DoS than a security issue.
You mean an ordinary user being able to deny another user services is
not a security issue?
sigh Attempting to debate with you guys is impossible.
Do I now have to teach you to read?
It's MORE. M-O-R-E, MORE of a DoS than a security issue. Security on
the system was not compromised in any way.
Denial of Service *IS* a security issue, you fucking MORON.
M-O-R-O-N
MORON!
I think we're all quibbling about what is a security issue here.
The simplest DoS, for example, is a packet flood; no security issue
per se, but it denies service because it hogs bandwidth (and can lead
to desynch problems on those applications that require a duplicated
state machine, such as IRC; however, that appears to be more an IRC
design issue). One might defend against this by locking out the
flooder (or the entire subgroup, punishing the innocent with the
guilty until the provider deals with the errant user); of course,
the flooder, if he's on a dynamic IP, can simply redial in and start
flooding again.
Or one can lock up the machine by a fork/malloc bomb. This sort of DoS
is a similar issue; in this case, one is hogging CPU and memory.
(This one's easily defended against by using limits.)
Or one can write huge files, filling up a disk. (Quotas.)
None of these damages or even exposes data -- but they
do impair usefulness; other legitimate users can't access the machine,
or make use of the data or free disk space. Neither are
they Linux-specific; a misconfigured NT system would be
vulnerable, too -- and it's my understanding that NT4 was
wide open fresh out of the box, at least until SP1.
An undisputed security issue would be a buffer overrun exploit;
these are getting rarer, but still exist.
A Linux-specific DoS issue (which has already been fixed) might be
a SYN attack; this locked up the server socket for too long a time
and made the DoS attack much more effective (because no one else
could connect). Another one might be the IP fragmentation bug;
I don't know if that could have led to a root exploit, but it
did crash the machine. (NT had a similar bug, and IIRC Microsoft
took quite a bit longer to fix it than Linux did.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:17h:39m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
--
From: Craig Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 13 Jan 2001 11:54:48 -0700
"Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Conrad Rutherford" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:3a5f5df0$0$45705$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
So, the product was out for nearly 7 months as open source with a complete
and fairly obvious backdoor ... took the community that long to find it?
Seeing as how it remained hidden perfectly for 6 years as closed source this
is nice proof that security through obscurity works just fine thank you. In
fact, had the code NOT been released, this backdoor would continue to have
existed.
I do not applaud the open source find - it was too long coming - instead I
decry Borland/Inprise's quality control - what the fuck! 6 years guys and no
one spotted this Open source should not try to ride the backs of this
for their own self-glorification, that's sad.
That's all they can do, really. Isolated incidents are all they have to
cling to to satisfy their need for acceptance.
Then please explain *why* it took open sourceing the
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438
Linux-Advocacy Digest #438, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Mike")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: KDE Hell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: KDE Hell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: "Mike" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:15:28 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
...
On that, we can definitely agree. Just this morning we were trying
to find the NT equivalent of 'find . -newer somefile -print'
Ugh. I'm still waiting for the day that "ls -R *.c", or "grep -r xyz *.h"
really work...
I don't know of any built-in NT command to do the equivalent of
"find -newer", but using Cygnus or MingW, you can build most of the GNU
utilities for NT/2k, or you can find precompiled versions in various places
around the web. One problem with something like find is that there's an
equivalent NT command, so if your path picks up the NT commands first, you
get the wrong one. Bad for inexperienced users, but not so bad for
experienced ones.
E:\dev\python\bin\find . -newer proj.err -print
.
./examples
./examples/pysyntax.py
./examples/test_recursive.py
...
Of course, this solves your problem for one simple case. You're still going
to be pissed, though.
The main issue with building the GNU utilities is the same as the reason
that the recurse options on ls and grep don't work. The NT shell doesn't
expand wildcards, and the Unix shell does. Thus, even if you recompile the
GNU utilities, they aren't written to handle wildcards, and most will barf
horribly if they ever get one.
-- Mike --
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:16:44 GMT
On 13 Jan 2001 16:37:02 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 13 Jan 2001 06:59:02 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And what, pray tell, is "the standard PC architecture"? And if anyone
gets to decide what it is, shouldn't it be IBM?
It is
AT ISA bus
I see. So all those "legacy free" PCs are non-standard, and thus one
shouldn't reasonably be able to expect to run (and reboot) Win98 on them
without hassle?
One would assume so, but that is not necessarily true. For example,
Micro channel was superior technology to the ISA bus used at the time.
IBM knew it and so did everyone else in the world. Unfortunately, like
Sony Beta format, it was not accepted as a "standard" with the word
standard being defined as "what most people are using". This is like a
car which typically has 4 wheels. This is standard for a car. There is
nothing wrong with having 8 wheels, and if I were driving in mud in
the swamps of Korea, 8 wheels would most likely be better, but 4
wheels is still standard.
I guess Linux' time has truly arrived, then ;-))
Linux does well with older hardware.
I have SuSE running pmfirewall on a 486 Thinkpad 750 which is a
486/33.
Win98, if I remember correctly won't even install on a 486 unless you
fool it with a setup switch.
As for PS/2's and Windows 98, I can't really say because I have never
seen one running Windows 98. Windows 95 yes, but not 98.
You could try booting in safe mode step by step (I forget what it is
called, but there is a selection for it) and watching as the drivers
are loaded to see which one is causing trouble, but honestly I haven't
had much success doing that.
Bernie
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the to reply.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:20:19 GMT
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:10:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
Offtopic: More than half of the US population, based on a survey
done some time ago, can't identify Mexico. (Hint: south.)
Based upon the Florida fiasco it doesn't surprise me in the least :(
Exactly. And that means that Windows 2000 is perfect for everybody.
No it doesn't.
What it means is that Linux isn't making any inroads on the desktop of
corporate America.
Spot The Flaw.
There is no "one size fit's all" in the computer world.
[.sigsnip]
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the to reply.
--
From: [EMAIL
Linux-Advocacy Digest #439
Linux-Advocacy Digest #439, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 17:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows Stability ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Mig)
Re: Windows Stability (Mig)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Bennetts family")
Re: Good read from ZDnet ("Bennetts family")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Lewis Miller)
From: "Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:56:36 GMT
"Andres Soolo" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93ppe9$1b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
they made a stable OS. How can it be stable if "service packs"
can cause a system instability?
Service packs replace parts of the OS, of course they can cause instability,
only a fool would think otherwise.
If so, the service pack *are* parts of the OS. Are you saying that
parts of MSW are instable?
Is Linux perfectly stable?
-Chad
--
From: "Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:59:30 GMT
"Craig Kelley" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Chad Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Chad Myers wrote:
Hate to break this to you, but resier has been shipping for some time.
Really? This must have been within the past month or two, because we
were just having this debate about that time.
Suse has been shipping reiser for several versions now.
So, what would that be, at least a year?
Ah... so the falacy comes to light.
ReiserFS itself isn't shipping. It's still in beta, and it's
still not stable.
Suse, however, has been including the beta version in its
distributions for people to mess with, but it's, in no way,
the default FS because, of course, it's not stable.
Why don't you just tell the truth, J Sloan?
Perhaps your time would be better spent finding cases in which
ReiserFS fell over in the last 9 months (if you can).
Why isn't it the default OS on all distributions if it is
so much superior to ext2fs, and it's stable, as you claim?
-Chad
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:25:07 +
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
Why the fuck did you reinstall, shit-for-brains?
Because, oh dweeb, the original boot disk was removed.
What I'm finding is that Linux Mandrake installer has a few funnies in it -
meaning things get installed differently or don't work at all.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:30:48 +
Well, this is a surprise!
My rebuilt 166MHz PC has a new 30GByte drive, a ATA100 controller and a new
CDRW.
MSDOS cannot see the CDRW. The ATAPI driver can't see it, neither can the
device specific driver. It would seem that because the controller is
appearing after the motherboard IDE, it's not seen (despite the fact I
disabled the mobo IDE in its BIOS).
Linux, on the other hand, happily saw the controller, the CDRW and
installed.
Now to see if it can burn CDR's!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:32:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:18:37 -0600
jhK66.585$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
Why do you suppose it is that Aaron is only capable of making stupid
comments on other peoples facts (without snipping any irrelevant text),
rather than coming up with logical, well thought out statements of his own?
I'd wager that 90% of aaron's posts
Linux-Advocacy Digest #440
Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Jim Richardson)
Re: RPM Hell (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000 (Jim Richardson)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Jim Richardson)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Good read from ZDnet ("Adam Warner")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("ono")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Sleepy")
Re: Nitpicking terminology: OSS vs FS Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Mig)
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards (mlw)
Re: The real truth about NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:43:20 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:29:02 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of [EMAIL PROTECTED],
brought forth the following words...:
Who said that? Not me.
It's funny, you guys say, "Open source is superior"
I say, "No it's not, look at X"
You say, "Oh, so closed source is perfect, right!?"
Um... no, I'm saying Open source isn't superior, nor perfect, nor
anything the OSS advocates claim it to be. It's no better, only
worse than closed source.
Has it been pointed out to you that it took 6 months as open source, to
discover a backdoor that had existed in a previously closed source program for
years? how was closed source better in this case? If it was still closed
source, the backdoor would still be there, and we would not know about it.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:50:09 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:16:58 GMT,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of [EMAIL PROTECTED],
brought forth the following words...:
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Jan 2001 02:32:07
[...]
I suppose packaging has it's advantages. I suppose it come a matter of
personal taste really; I like to be in control, hence my DIY methods.
I don't know why you think that src.rpm doesn't permit you to "DIY" or
"be in control". [...]
What is this src.rpm you keep mentioning?
it's an rpm package of the source for a given program. You can easily compile
one by rpm --rebuild blahblah.src.rpm, or with a clicky pointy thing if that's
your bag.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:11:11 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:18:36 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of [EMAIL PROTECTED],
brought forth the following words...:
"T. Max Devlin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
interchangeable.
What about Word98?
Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different formats.
You mean to say if my friend emails me a word98 document, I can't read it with
word2000 or word97?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:12:39 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:36:02 -0500,
Gary Hallock, in the persona of [EMAIL PROTECTED],
brought forth the following words...:
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
No, but the kernel itself has to be. A Linux install kernel has to be able
to run on a 386. MS's install kernel is both multiprocessor and 486
optimized (for NT4, P5 optimized for 2000).
Not true. Redhat comes with multiple kernel rpms (386, 586, 686) and
installs the one optimized for your machine. Mandrake ships with a kernel
optimized for 586. Both have separate rpms for smp which are automatically
installed if you have an smp.
Gary
the truly amusing thing, is that linux is available for so many CPUs, that
claiming the kernel must "be able to run on a 386" is sort of like cherry
chocolate, too rich...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux,
Linux-Advocacy Digest #441
Linux-Advocacy Digest #441, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The real truth about NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Jim Richardson)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: One case where Linux has the edge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards (Tim Moore)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows 2000 (Gary Hallock)
Re: The real truth about NT's aggressive caching (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Gary Hallock)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: The real truth about NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: ultimad (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:08:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:09:32 +
IYc76.168703$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Over the last three years I had to re-install most NT boxes once per
year (general average of 20 odd boxes). Problem is that they fall over
regularly and one day they just never come back up. Most of the time
it's corrupt page files (I'm still searching for a solution - anyone?)
I've never seen this one.
Neither have I, but I would suggest that you do something along
the lines of the following, on your NT box.
[1] Make sure you have at least 128M real memory. Otherwise the following
steps will probably run out of virtual memory. :-)
[2] Set your VM to 0 -- in other words, disable paging entirely.
[3] Reboot. The page file should disappear.
[4] Defragment the disk. I use Execsoft's Diskeeper Lite.
[5] Set your VM to what you want it to be and DON'T let it change
(ie, set minimum and maximum to be the same value).
[6] Reboot again. The page file will be recreated -- hopefully contiguously.
The default settings IMO are rather stupid, but it depends on your app.
Note that Linux doesn't support auto-pagefile extension (one can do
it manually by using 'dd' to create large empty (but non-sparse)
files and then 'mkswap' and 'swapon' them) and it's not a problem
I've seen in Linux, either.
2. Disk Space - I don't think I have to say more...
Yes you do. What's the problem here?
That crappy Master File Table (Master Fragment Table?)
would be my first guess. :-)
That said -- I would think more info might be helpful, here.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:05h:26m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:10:40 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Jan 2001 08:02:25 -0600,
Jan Johanson, in the persona of [EMAIL PROTECTED],
brought forth the following words...:
lesse... backdoor unused the entire time it was closed source, it is open
Sure it was... yup
sourced, backdoor is unprofessionally spammed into the public domain and
suddenly firewalls admins report massive surges of hits to the affected
ports. What's a greater threat, the 1-2 guys that know about a hidden
backdoor and given the total lack of any reported cracking of Interbase I
doubt they've done anything with it, perhaps it was a test access used
absence of information is not information of absence.
during development and left in accidently so that even the programmers have
forgotten about it - OR, as soon as it's found the nerds can't wait to
spread the word far and wide to every script kiddie in sight. So... a
useless secret or a public vulnerability - hmmm I would have had more
respect for the open source "community" (what a joke, more like a cult) had
they contacted interprise privately and issued a patch WITHOUT detailing the
hole in public first.
Do you guys really not get it? Something open source isn't perfect simply
because it's open source.
who claims it is?
This is the type of backdoor that could not be found by simply bumping
against a login prompt over and over brute force (at least not in this
lifetime). Had it remained closed, no one would have just, wooops, found it
bullshit. This is the kind of backdoor that one disgruntled employee can find,
and spread maliciously, with no-one the wiser until the systems get cracked.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
From: "Ayende Rahien" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442
Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Ed is the standard editor (TTK here..)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows Stability (J Sloan)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows Stability (Craig Kelley)
OS-X GUI on Linux? (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows 2000 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source (mlw)
From: TTK here..
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ed is the standard editor
Date: 13 Jan 2001 23:42:12 GMT
just how much
of my hardware and software was really "clones" of other hardware or
software .. the Z80 was an 8080 clone, VDE was a WordStar clone, DOS
was a CP/M clone, my AMD is an Intel clone, and Linux is a Unix clone.
Wasn't Linux originally a MINIX clone? Hence its compatibility with
Unix, while still retaining its unique qualities.
Not exactly .. Linux was inspired by Minix. Linus wanted to enhance
Minix into a "real" OS, but the author/owner of Minix didn't like that
idea, so Linus wrote a Unix-alike from scratch. He didn't specifically
target Minix compatability (except inasmuch that the first versions of
Linux used the Minix filesystem), but rather POSIX and SysV
compatability.
-- TTK
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:23:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matt Soltysiak
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT
2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years. It's
amazing.
Here are some of the common failures:
[failures snipped -- most of them lockups]
Have you checked your power supply? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random dodgy hardware here
EAC code #191 2d:08h:47m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
--
From: "Nigel Feltham" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:21:47 -
I can hardly compare Linux (no X or GUI) with Windows now can I?
if your linux has no gui then how are you running that kde desktop shown
in your sig?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
From: "Joseph T. Adams" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: 14 Jan 2001 00:31:19 GMT
Russ Lyttle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
: couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
: Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
Actually, Excel for the Mac predated Excel for Windows, and for that
matter Windows itself.
Joe
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:33:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:31 GMT
3uR66.27155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's because Windows 2000 users shut their computers down at night, and
actually sleep.
Why? Because their human.
So am I, and I leave my two machines on 24/7. I've had very
few problems with them after I did that.
Of course, it helps that they're in an adjacent room :-).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random fan whirr here
EAC code #191 2d:09h:57m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
--
From: "Nigel Feltham" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443
Linux-Advocacy Digest #443, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Jan Johanson")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (mlw)
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600
"mlw" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Here is a question for all us Linux people.
If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
consider it?
The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
impossible. Already there are FrameBuffer versions of QT and GTK+, but
they're only used for embedded applications where X would not be a good
choice.
Unless Quartz ran on top of X, or vice versa, I don't see how it would work.
--
From: "Jan Johanson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 13 Jan 2001 20:15:38 -0600
wow, you are really out of your depth, you don't understand what you're
reading.
SWC is not and never was and never will be a web server, as in it creates
content. It serves up cached copies of static pages. That's what it does.
Period. It is impossible for SWC to produce a dynamically generated page.
Period. The sooner you get over these facts the sooner you can rejoin
reality sheesh...
Then again - thinking about it... ok, so what? Say SWC is some mysterious
here-to-unknown product MS has that no one has noticed until it went
head-to-head with the linux kernel mode webserver and THEN, desperate for
answers why linux only was a scant 2.7% faster the zealots had to go digging
for some exuse. Amazing that no one else has noticed this interesting
product that can do such miraculous performance and is tucked into the
kernel yet multi-million dollar players have simply "missed" it - whoops,
just like that. But mcnash spots it by his own mind-reading interpretation
of the source code to a benchmark.
I do see that by examining the files dell submitted for the tux results that
there is a line that reads: "interact with the TUX kernel subsystem" - there
we have it, proof that tux is running in the kernel space. There is
documentation for how to access it from user space too. So, there you have
it... tux in the kernel... whatever...
silly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93q1j7$nhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Contrary to your assertion, SWC is in the kernel, it's visible from
user-space as a Windows 2000 device. Proof is Microsoft's own submitted
source code:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001212-TWC.zip -
unpack
it and open the twc.c C-sourcecode file. Search for 'SWC', it gives this
comment: "// Open Kernel SWC device": Q.E.D. Moreover, try searching for
'IIS' or 'ISAPI' in the whole source-code package - you will find only
one!
You will find many references to 'SWC' (Microsoft's in-kernel webserver)
and
'TWC', the API to this in-kernel webserver. You will even find some
interface
definitions in twc.h. If you ever programmed dynamic applications (ISAPIs)
under IIS, you'll immediately recognize that in this benchmark no IIS was
used for the dynamic requests. (maybe IIS was used for the 0.005% CGI's
SPECweb99 generates.) Calling the test-results 'IIS 5.0 + SWC 3.0' is most
likely a boldfaced lie, or at best an extreme exaggeration. In reality it
was
a "99.99% SWC 3.0 + 0.005% IIS 5.0" test. Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93mbpa$p17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Jan, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's very
likely
a
duck. Microsoft's own in-kernel SWC 2.0 web page (the outdated SWC
version)
at http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp says that this
'front-end
cache' accepts and answers web requests, logs those requests into its
own
separate binary logfile, and supports only the HTTP 1.0 protocol. The
Microsoft SWC 3.0 SpecWeb99 submission webpage (I couldnt find
information
about SWC 3.0 anywhere else) at
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
says that SWC 3.0 has its own dynamic API as well: "TWC 3.0". If this
in-kernel web-thing accepts web requests, serves web requests, logs
web
requests and provides ways to write dynamic webpages, then it's what?
A
webserver. Surprisingly, the SpecWeb99 benchmark (check out the
functional
specification at
Linux-Advocacy Digest #444
Linux-Advocacy Digest #444, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Tim)
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000 (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows 2000 (Russ Lyttle)
From: "Kyle Jacobs" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:57:03 GMT
Ah, because just leaving them on = perfect computing. Right?
Or does doing nothing with them all day = perfect computng, right?
"The Ghost In The Machine" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:31 GMT
3uR66.27155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's because Windows 2000 users shut their computers down at night, and
actually sleep.
Why? Because their human.
So am I, and I leave my two machines on 24/7. I've had very
few problems with them after I did that.
Of course, it helps that they're in an adjacent room :-).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random fan whirr here
EAC code #191 2d:09h:57m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
--
From: "Kyle Jacobs" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:58:03 GMT
I hate IIS. I prefer Netscape enterprise, err, Iplanet enterprise. It
comes with a great web based admin system that's ALWAYS up to date.
"ono" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93q0jg$c45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
WHAT?! Linux is totaly a Server OS. Notice how it comes with Apache (Web
Server), SendMail (Mail Server), Wu-FTP (FTP Server), TelnetD (Telnet
server), NameD (DNS Server), etc.. it's all about being a server.
Windows is a workstation OS.. and that's about the extent of what I want
to
use it for.
Did you know that windows2000 comes with iis5. It's not installed by
default, but you
have it running with 2 mouse-clicks (and NO REBOOT). You should try that
sometime.
--
From: "Kyle Jacobs" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:58:29 GMT
And only you would find fault in such a simplistic process.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
ono wrote:
Did you know that windows2000 comes with iis5. It's not installed by
default, but you
have it running with 2 mouse-clicks (and NO REBOOT). You should try
that
sometime.
Ups sorry I didn't do my research propperly. It's more like 10
mouse-clicks (a wizard ;-)) and it does need a reboot.
^
Only a LoseDOS retard thinks of this as any sort of accomplishment.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #446
Linux-Advocacy Digest #446, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
SMB.conf File (Moefresh)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows Stability ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows Stability ("Chad Myers")
Re: The real truth about NT (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:11:13 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
kde/kwm/ who the fuck cares?
I'm an end user, not a programmer. I look at the screen and use what
is on it and I could care less where it came from or what the
technical jargon is for it.
I either like it or I don't.
I get all of those nice little title bars and such and it looks just
like kde which looks like a cheap Windows clone.
You can split hairs all you want, it sucks whatever it is called.
As the CEO of Microsoft just put it, go ahead and use Windows whilst it
lasts. "Linux is eating into our market and the GPL will eventually
kill us."
And I encourage you to DO whatever you do?
Charlie
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 14 Jan 2001 04:11:51 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:10:40 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
Of course, I should point out that Microsoft's EULA agreement is totally
outside the bounds of the rights provided them by USC Title 18...
Therefore, making the EULA unenforceable notwithstanding it's own
provisions.
I don't know why you're defending them on these grounds. This is the
kind of conduct on their part that should be illegal, as they're trying
to intimidate their users into forgoing all of their rights.
This is not the only condition in their license that seems illegal --
there's another provision which prevents second sale of OEM licensed
software, and yet another that says that you can't get a refund on
your Windows software unless you also return the hardware.
long as your actions are within the confines of the companies exclusive
rights toward the intellectual property that IS Microsoft Office.
Microsoft office is not "intellectual property". It's more correct to
say that Microsoft hold the copyright on MS Office.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:16:21 GMT
In article j0P76.148$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Chad Myers wrote:
Doesn't seem to be an issue, as NT has regularly beaten linux in all sorts
of performance tests.
Name the test which showed NT beating Linux in anything?
Charlie
--
From: J Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:17:12 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
Write one nice non-X11-based GUI system for unix, and give it a super
API everyone could agree on. Then, if people like it, it could always
be ported to X11 as an API layer.
No doubt I'll be blasted into the ionosphere with all the flames I'll
get.
Maybe not - it could be an idea whose time has come.
The Berlin and GGI projects showed that there has been
a desire for something like this, and there's the "Tiny X"
project, which though meant for handhelds, might actually
make a lot of sense on a normal workstation.
jjs
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:18:06 GMT
In article 93p5fv$rb6$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Todd wrote:
"Charlie Ebert" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 93h8fj$g4v$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Todd wrote:
And it's going to be a tragedy ending for MS haters.
-Todd
That is until the breakup is ordered.
We'll see. In the meantime, I'm keeping all of these posts so I can remind
you of how wrong you will be. :)
-Todd
Please do and
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows Stability (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Charlie Ebert)
Linux 2.4 Major KICK ASS! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows Stability (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:01:11 GMT
In article bdE76.28128$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Chad Myers wrote:
"Bagpuss" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:f_A76.271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Chad Myers wrote:
"Matt Soltysiak" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years.
It's
amazing.
Here are some of the common failures:
Give me a break, do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit?
If you're going to lie, at least make it halfway believeable.
By pointing out some flaws in windows you have kicked over
a hornets nest! These blue nosed, humorless windoze zealots
are not to be taken lightly!
jjs
What I said was completely correct.
I subscribe to many mailing lists, read many support message boards,
talk with many colleagues who support hundreds of Win2K installations
on the desktop and I, myself, administer about a dozen or so Win2k
installations.
I can count the number of BSODs I've seen or heard of on one hand.
For this idiot to come in here and say it crashes several times a day
is absolutely rediculous. It's like saying that Linux crashes every
day. Even I, a professed Linux hater, will say that that's absurd.
He's not an idiot and Windows does CRASH a couple of times a week
under heavy use if you don't turn your servers over every other
day.
If you have a Windows Server which manages to stay up for a week
at a time, chances are nobody's seriously using it for anything.
It's another expensive company nightlight.
This Matt guy has fallen off his rocker, or he's just blatantly
lying, which is more likely.
Nope. He's making a BSD sales pitch.
-Chad
Too right! I'm a newcomer to this group and the mentality amongst the
majority here is like a bunch of 12 year olds. It always appears to be a
case of "Well, this doesn't work in Win2k when I do this" and the reply is
always "You're a fscking idiot, it never happens to me so Win2k must be
excellent." Although the chances of the respondent having the same hardware
configuration and software configuration as the original poster are slim to
none.
There are also Linux fanatics that are convinced that Linux is the best
thing since sliced bread; how it never crashes and anyone who crashes it
must be a complete idiot.
Both groups are living in cloud cuckoo land. Every OS has it strong points
and its weaknesses. I might just have the situation in where I want to give
a toaster an OS (Linux), I might just have the situation where I want to
give an end luser an OS (Windows)
The world would be a boring place without variety.
Anyway, I don't know what the purpose of this post is because it will make
bugger all difference to most of you.
Oh, and just for the record I've had a stop error on Win2k Server from
minimizing an explorer window *and* I've had Linux lockup on me by just
starting X shock horror
I'm off to play with my BSD box...
--
Bagpuss
Your friendly cloth cat (donning flame retardant catsuit)
Take the rubbish out before replying
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:03:08 GMT
In article 93obvc$od9$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Joseph T. Adams wrote:
Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: "Mig" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:93o1ek$leb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Well.. it sure looks like lots of the old MS faces are leaving the ship.
: The shares are down from near 120 to under 50 in about one year... i think
: the dumping started long ago.
: The shares will go back up. No matter what happens with the antitrust
: trial, they will go up. If they're split, existing shareholders will get
: shares in both companies, thus doubling their holdings. If they stay
: together, then confidence will remain and shares will go back up. Either
: way, this is
Linux-Advocacy Digest #448
Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Lewis Miller)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Patricia Flickner)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows Stability (J Sloan)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Bennetts family")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Ethernet efficiency (was Re: Ms employees begging for food) (Joe Pfeiffer)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The real truth about NT ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: 14 Jan 2001 05:57:43 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
F%886.63465$[EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.linux.sux on 13 Jan
2001
"Lewis Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:93p4cl$d4r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
VaQ76.55324$[EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.linux.sux on 12
Jan
Optical mice only come in USB? I have a hard time believing that,
since I had an optical trackball on ps/2, I would assume they can do
the same for
a
mouse...
And yes USB is good, but wasted on a mouse.
I've never had an optical track ball. I sit corrected.
Ooh pick `em up. If you have to use a track ball they are nice.
No, I'm trying to be humorus, but with a twist of reality. Because
hey, ppl do it. And ya know what, that's part of the idea of Linux if
it doesn't
work, You make it work. Or just don't use it. Go BUY something, They
will be happy to do the work for you, if you will give them the
motivation (the money).
I do. Lo and behold, things work better. But "free" does not excuse
poor quality, ever.
Free excused everything. The saying is you get what you pay for. You pay
nothing expect nothing. Everything you do get then is bonus.
Especially since the popular computer media is reporting about Linux as if
it were more than just a hobbiest's plaything (which it's become).
It's one of the biggest OS's on the internet. Talking about servers here.
How many ISPs you think use Linux. How many DNS servers are Linux, how many
mail servers, web servers, etc, are Linux machines. LOTS of `em. And don't
even tell me that they are lacking in their abblility to function as
servers.
It's time to get the act togather and do some serious work on this
platform, which has finally cought the public eye.
They are. But as is the nature of open source, it can be slow, and
divergent. Besides I'm in no Big hury to see Linux become the standard
desktop OS. There really is no need for it.
At the cost of critical functionality? What are you talking about?
I'm talking about getting work done. Which seems to be impossible under
Linux, while I'm busy recompiling this, satasifying the dependency for
that, scouring for documentation on this, and getting outdated
information for that. Having THIS not working because THAT is not
compiled into the kernel...
OK I think I see your problem. You're trying to use Linux as a desktop,
workstation OS. That's not it's primary concern. It's a great OS for
running deamons, and server services, for doing devlopment. It's not
something you toss on a machine to do word processing. Use Windoze for
that. That's what my Windoze machine at home is for. Playing solitare, Word
Processing, Doing some Web Surfing. Windoze is fine for a home machine, or
a standard desktop workstation.
Linux on the other hand, does still work. And it works for lots of ppl, and
it does exactly what they want it to do. And when they have a problem with
it, they fix it. Because they can and they choose to. Linux is not a bad
OS, it's an open OS. Want an OS to complain about look at MacOS. Now that's
a POS
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 14 Jan 2001 06:00:51 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
%A886.63446$[EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.linux.sux on 13 Jan
2001
I
