Linux-Advocacy Digest #550
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 10:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner) Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (David Brown) Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Neil Cerutti) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Neil Cerutti) Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Craig Kelley) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Craig Kelley) Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (David Brown) Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From: chrisv [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, 16 May 2001 13:35:46 GMT Aaron R. Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HMMM??? Are you claiming then that homosexual behavior is a disease Close. He's claiming that it's the RESULT of a disease Or something. Kookis, don't you tire of displaying your ignorance and bad logic to the world? -- From: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:36:03 +1200 Edward Rosten wrote: Why does this have be done the hard way on Windows? why not just go, file, save, pdf (for file format), then click save, thats how I do it on Wordperfect for Linux.Word really does need to catch up. Cos word is a load of rubbish? Jeepers creepers, not matra from Erik? he must be losing his touch :) Matthew Gardiner -- From: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:38:58 +1200 Your just pretending not to understand. If you really don't understand the power of COM, please get a clue. Linux *CAN NOT* embed documents... this is TOTALLY different than importing data or whatever you call it. You look silly trying to imply Linux can do this when it can NOT and Windows CAN. Now what part of this don't you understand ? -Todd What benefits does that give me over what I am doing now? since you're the COM expert around here. Also, most people in business just insert tables and shit, they don't fuck around embedding or some other overly complicated way to displaying data in a document. So whats your point? please list me the possible benefits of embedding via COM over simple insert. Matthew Gardiner -- From: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:40:22 +1200 Chris Ahlstrom wrote: Matthew Gardiner wrote: All admin can be done through a browser, or if you are using Solaris on the client, use the special Java based admin program. Whats so hard about that? nothing. Aaron, also consider that Jan is a mear office clerk who uses Word and Windows, and because she can install Windows from scratch that somehow makes her an admin. I thought Jan Johanson was a man grin: http://www.kretsloop.se/ftg/ecomitech/janj-e.html Fuck! some one get this guy a paper bag for the communities sake! shit, does his mother wear army boots? Matthew Gardiner -- From: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 01:40:56 +1200 Jon Johansan wrote: Chris Ahlstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Matthew Gardiner wrote: All admin can be done through a browser, or if you are using Solaris on the client, use the special Java based admin program. Whats so hard about that? nothing. Aaron, also consider that Jan is a mear office clerk who uses Word and Windows, and because she can install Windows from scratch that somehow makes her an admin. I thought Jan Johanson was a man grin: http://www.kretsloop.se/ftg/ecomitech/janj-e.html hardly! Jan not Jon. (all W2K admin can be done through a browser too) So there is a Jan and a Jon with the same last name? Matthew Gardiner -- From: David Brown
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #33 Thu, 12 Apr 01 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Article: Windows XP won't support USB 2.0 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Kurt Lochner)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Peter da Silva)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (NO FTAA)
From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Windows XP won't support USB 2.0
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:25:29 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 11 Apr 2001
01:28:36 -0500;
"Dave Martel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Microsoft says it's a quality issue, which is nonsense (what -
Microsoft, concerned with quality? g). A Register article a few
weeks ago asserted that MS's real reason is that USB doesn't offer a
content-control mechanism, and 1394 does.
What BS. Because you don't percieve that MS isn't concerned about quality,
they can't possibly be really concerned about it?
Because there is no apparent reason to believe that MS is concerned
about quality, there is no apparent reason to believe that MS is
concerned about quality. Do you have some reason we should believe
this? Because MS wants to make money, maybe? But we'd have to assume
that they didn't have a monopoly, then, since you don't need quality to
make money when you are a monopoly.
Perhaps if your theory didn't require TWO baseless assumptions, there
might be more reason to discuss it.
MS will support USB 2 when motherboards and devices that support USB 2 are
shipping. They can't possibly test their systems with a USB 2.0 driver
today because final systems will probably be different.
MS will support USB 2 whenever the hell MS wants to, and this has little
relationship to when MS's customers want them to.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:25:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:35:28 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, silverback
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:10:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:22:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam A. Kersh)
wrote:
Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
Goldhammer wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400,
Rob Robertson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. Fascism is characterized by the *state-directed* control of
the economy,
Hmm. Sounds like communism.
Precisely.
Communism and Fascism are merely different sides of the same coin.
And Capitalism has state-directed controls on the economy too.
True capitalism is a laize faire proposition. And the prime rule is
buyer beware.
and a totally unworkable system
I will agree on this point, 100% pure capitalism (with no regulation)
anarchic capitalism, yes.
Libertarian capitalism, no.
Assuming "libertarian" meaning "minimal enforcement to ensure everyone's
rights" or some such, I'd have to agree. But that's not lasseiz-faire,
as I understand it. (Then again, lasseiz-faire may require a minimal
level of enforcement as well, just to ensure no one gets swindled outright.
I'd have to dig deep to check this, though.)
would lead to a very foul system indeed, as the top cats start
cutting sweetheart deals to shut out the lower echelons of society;
the lower echelons will in turn shut out even lower echelons, and
the poor will end up dead (pick your poison: air pollution, water
Which is exactly what DOES happen in Communism.
Yes, that is correct, and we have proof. Certain cities in the
Eastern part of Europe are blackened by decades of pollution.
(I've not seen proof firsthand, but I have seen pictures.)
I did not bring up this scenario to exclude communism; as far as
I am concerned, sans regulation, both will end up at the sa
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie (Ian Davey)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Ian Davey)
Re: [OT] .sig (Richard Bos)
Re: Breaking up is so very hard to do... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: My long signature - Oops! (Woof)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: [OT] .sig (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? (Johannes Bauer)
Re: why open source software is better (Craven Moorehead)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("David Brown")
A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship (Robert MacGregor)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("David Brown")
Re: why open source software is better (Ian Davey)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Tor Slettnes)
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship ("Flacco")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:03:30 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Scott Gardner) wrote:
You probably need to su to root first.
Any difference between that and just logging on as root in the first
place, which is what I did? Remember, semi-newbie here...
It's just a way of giving you access to root from a user login account having
to login as root.
So you'd do something like this to install from source code:
tar zxvf program.tar.gz
cd program
/configure
make
su root (just plain "su" would work)
make install
So the initial compilation etc. is done as a user, the installation stage is
done as root.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:11:26 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marten Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
m wrote:
large amount of steam engine stuff snipped
How did we get on this topic, anyway?
-- Marten Kemp
Why you in a sad 80s new romantic band by any chance Marten?
Huh? If this was a question about me being in a band, no. Otherwise,
pleas rephrase the question a bit more coherently.
He's referring to the fact you share a name with the singer of 80's
band Spandau Ballet, who is currently a soap opera actor.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/()\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Bos)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:13:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Richard Heathfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Vandervies wrote:
(After all, I've been mistaken for an American...)
You mean you're not one?
No, I'm Canadian, and the only thing I have in common with a lot of
Americans is that I'm forced to share a continent with them.
And what's that continent called? You may not be a Merkin, but you
certainly are an American in the original sense of the word.
Richard
--
From: Pete Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Breaking up is so very hard to do...
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:50:18 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
"Microsoft could win, legal experts say"
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4969392.html
--
Pete
--
From: Woof [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My long signature - Oops!
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:23:45 GMT
Seems like many of you are taking this seriously for some reason.
It was just one of my many examples of my twisted humour
I was just teasing Aaron over his long sig in this one thats all
Anyone with half a brain can see its a fake i didnt try very hard to
fake it at all
Woof da dog
--
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:18:00 +
From: Richard Heathfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Michael Rubenstein wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:53:01 +, Richard Heathfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the C programming language, if you use the printf function, you are
/required/ to include stdio.h. If you use printf, and do not include
this header, you are no longer writing in C.
Actually, you are not required to include stdio.h to use
printf; you may also just code a prototype for the function
yourself.
Yes, my apologies. I had forgotten that possibility. Of course, it must
match the stdio.h prototype byte-for-byte.
Includ
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Why Hatred? (J Sloan)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (J Sloan)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (J Sloan)
Re: The Server Saga ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Linux won't get far in Luxembourg's comapanies. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:11:31 -
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:54:09 GMT, Roberto Alsina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:43 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
You are generalizing for a random large collection of
individuals.
No I am saying ANYONE who hunts around a typical Linux system and
clicks on help will be more than likely be greeted with a message
along the lines of "Help not Written Yet".
This is assinine and trivially absurd.
It sure is considering how long kde and Gnome have been in
development.
...compared to what? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
Compared to what Windows was like 2 years after it's
inception, GNOME is a bloody masterpiece.
That comparison makes no sense.
GNOME uses Linux or some other Unix, that have been around for years.
However, the various GUI's haven't.
Well, windows is its own OS, so this is a muddy area. If you just
intend to compare GUIs, then you must compare to only the GUI.
Then you could say that Windows (the GUI) in its current incarnation
exists since about 1995. Windows 3.x was too different to consider it
the same thing. Or you'd have to say that the linux GUIs date back to
twm.
The 'versions' may have changed, however the company
remained the same. To be comparable, Miguel would have
had to have been the driving force behind twm or CDE.
Infact, someone else was.
[deletia]
Besides, without an open code review it's hard to say just
how much older cruft is still lingering in Win32.
Besides, even Win32 is just an update to Win16 to fix
initial design issues. It's still just a version of
Windows 3.x.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
--
From: J Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:12:21 GMT
"." wrote:
NFS. All of about 5 minutes to set up.
The horrors, you have to edit a couple of config files and restart a daemon
or three.
And that's if you do it the hard way, e.g.
vi /etc/exports
vi /etc/hosts.allow
exportfs -a
There are graphical interfaces for this type of thing, e.g.
webmin
linuxconf
control-panel
jjs
--
From: J Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:21:00 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
It also just plain takes FOREVER to redraw these windows whenever I move
them around during a high-CPU operation.
Depends on what you're running. Window Maker is pretty fast, and it's
frugal WRT memory usage. Plus, it looks pretty decent, too.
I looked at window maker and a number of other wms -
Out of all of them, blackbox and icewm are smallest and fastest.
I fire up blackbox when I just want to check my mail or play
a quick game of quake 3 arena, since blackbox starts up in
about 1/3 second, and does the basics very well.
For all day work, I go with helix gnome, or kde2...
jjs
--
From: J Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:35:04 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
OK, fine, I'll stop complaining, if all the Linux advocates stop telling
me Linux is better than Windows, Linux is great etc.
What do you expect when you barge into a Linux advocacy
forum and say "linux sucks" - of course people are
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (UnixGeek)
Re: Linux is awful ("Dennis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Netscape review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (Sandman)
Re: Whistler review. (Sandman)
Re: Linux is awful ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: linux on a 486 (Micah Higgs)
Re: What is the best/most powerful distro of linux? ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
From: UnixGeek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:43:05 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000
20:21:00
[...]
Once again, I'll try to type slowly: the application barrier is
not a
technical barrier; it is a commercial barrier.
Why?
You can get any application that every application that you
routinely use on
windows on linux.
Or equilent thereof. They are usuaully free, too.
What is this commercial barrier that stop people from moving to
linux?
Training?
Yes, that too. Mostly just support for Win32 applications.
BTW, you said "MS doesn't produce a competitive product, but merely
locks in
a monopoly product"
Please define competitive product.
One which competes.
The only barrier anyone is talking about is the *application*
barrier,
which you seem to have remained brain-dead ignorant about.
Mainly because I've been hearing again and again that such
barrier does not
exist
Well, the people who you heard that from? They were wrong, OK?
Nothing
I can do about it but try to set you straight. If there isn't
such a
barrier, why does Microsoft spend so much money maintaining it by
"encouraging" (threatening) ISVs who don't follow One Microsoft
Way?
Such as?
Evidence, please.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/JamesHoward/JamesHoward5.html
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/14214.html
http://www.brillscontent.com/features/bill_0998.html
http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07/schulman.html
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/incomp.html
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html
http://m2.aol.com/machcu/mspquotes.html
http://www.airmissle.com/antiMS/quotes/
http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
http://www4.bluemountain.com/home/ImportantNotice.html?020399
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5343a.txt
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3314493.html?
tag=st.ne.1430735..ni
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-all.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
That'll get you started.
What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/
Os/2 ???
You tell us. What prevents you from moving to a technically
superior
alternative which costs less money? Huh? What?
I would disagree with the technically superior part.
But here is why, anyway.
Because, right now, Win2K gives me the best balance between ease-
of-use and
stability (among other things).
Can't you come up with something that's maybe a wee bit more
concrete?
Particularly if you're going to say you disagree with
the "technically
superior part". Ease of use is just "familiarity", and W2K's
stability
is demonstrably and statistically less than Linux's.
No, ease of use is not familiarity.
Yes, ease of use is familiarity.
Ease of use mean that the system is easy to use.
And it is easy to use if it is familiar, and hard to use if it is not.
Capice?
Being familiar with the system helps, of course.
How was W2K stability is statistically less that Linux? Netcraft?
No, not Netcraft. Real life.
I don't find it very credible, sorry.
That's because you have lost the ability to recognize what is an is
not
credible, because you've been swallowing too much horseshit from
Microsoft for too long to even be able to recognize reality when
confronted with it.
I can get Linux's stability with an easiness of use that is
surpass by none
but the Mac.
Sure you do.
I'm glad you agree.
Your ability to spot sarcasm is obviously the equivalent of your
technical judgement.
[...]
It does. Yet 90% of all applications support it, most ex
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #29Mon, 9 Oct 00 18:13:08 EDT Contents: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It (Gardiner Family) Re: The Power of the Future! ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard) Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It Re: Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: SE is simply unstable!!! (Gardiner Family) Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto Alsina) Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (2:1) Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Peter da Silva) Re: Linux Sucks Re: Linux Sucks From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:11:18 GMT Is name calling, changing the subject, twisting words and playing semantic games your only way of trying to cover up your lack of a decent arguments? claire On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:52:09 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote: On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:33:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nothing wrong with that, and for the desktop user, aka Jane Computer, Windows is a better solution simply by the amount of applications availible. Yet when Jane User tries to actually take advantage of that diversity she'll be bitch slapped into the gutter. That aspect of the Lemming culture is why many of us don't run WinDOS anymore. What's the use of "all the apps" if you aren't free to use them? Besides, it's non-obvious what consitutes Jane User's set of needed apps. claire On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 19:15:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron) wrote: Surely that's their problem. Those of us with sense will continue to use the tool for the job, be it Windows, Linux or a Commodore 64. You are a hypocrite. This attitude is specifically what you are railing against. -- From: Gardiner Family [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:14:51 +1300 Claire, I donot believe a word many of the Linux Advocates go on about, like, "my machines never crashed", or "my machine hasn't needed a reboot in 2 years", however, from my experience, I have found both Windows 2000 and Linux to be very realiable. I have used Windows 2000 and have had no problems, however, I prefer to use Linux because of the unixness of it. However, I do accept Windows in some areas is superior to Linux, just as Linux maybe superior in another area. matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And what valid argument is that? Be specific please. claire On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:50:16 +1300, Gardiner Family [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Claire has appointed her self as the guru of computing yet when it comes to a valid argument she is stumped for a reply. I am no guru, however, I do however actually analyse the facts. Many of the posts made my Linux Advocates saying -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: The Power of the Future! Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:07:09 GMT In article 39e2167f$0$5798 $[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Drestin Black" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Mike Byrns" "mike.byrns"@technologist,.com wrote in message news:kp9E5.119437 $[EMAIL PROTECTED] Drestin Black wrote: "Mike Byrns" "mike.byrns"@technologist,.com wrote in message news:Rd2E5.118331 $[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dolly wrote: Sam wrote: On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Charlie Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is of course Linux. Exclusively ? I think not! The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL. It may also be it's weakness. Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL NO! Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES! From zero it's all up from there snip How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%. If Microsoft kept growing at the rate it did for the last 5-10-15-20 years (pick one) it would soon be, not only the total IT industry, but the entire economy. Obviously not sustainable How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years. From zero it's all up from there snip Does Microsoft make hardware? Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse or keyboard is subcontracted out. They don't make anything but software. AMD don't own a fab shop, does that make them not a threat to I
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #27Sun, 9 Jul 00 12:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
From: "Daniel Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:51:02 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8jqi6k$26o0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article Yr185.4272$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
If you want to say that the vendors of dial-up terminal servers
were 'forced' to re-write their firmware or go out of
business, you should provide some evidence for it.
If you want to claim that dropping an incompatible dialer
on every desktop didn't break the standards-conforming
existing hardware, you should provide the evidence, except
there obviously isn't any.
If you want to play the "shifting the burden of proof" game,
you really ought to do it more subtlely.
You are being *so* blatant about it that the only people who
will be convinced are the sort of people who would
had already agreed in advance, for other reasons entirely.
[snip]
They were, after all, somehow able to get by before
MSCHAP got along. They had to have *some* way to
distribute their dialers.
No, they just worked with standard PPP dialers before. No
need to distribute anything proprietary.
Who cares about "propretary" versus "standard"? They
had to distribute their dialers *somehow*, regardless
of what protocol.
[snip]
Well, at least you admit to your double standard there.
But I had thought better of you. Oh well.
Better?
You know, *consistant*. I did praise your consistance, if you
recall. :D
I have a keen sense of the obvious. Competition
takes care of such problems. MS doesn't have any
compitition.
MS has, of course, got competition. Remember, "monopoly" as its
being used today means "big, successful and influential" not
"without competition".
[snip]
That is fine if you have several vendors competing on an equal
footing. We don't and you know it.
Indeed; we don't, we never did, and we never will.
We don't need it.
You speak only for yourself here.
Not unlike you, that way. :D
But the preference of computers buyers for a single dominant
provider is very clear and widespread: it is not limited to Microsoft,
or Operating Systems, or any such thing. It is a broad pattern
in virtually every part of the computer industry.
[snip]
Shrug; Unix's problems are sufficiently obvious, and
sufficiently oft commented upon, that if you don't know about
them, it's because you don't want to.
In other words you can't think of any...
I have already gone through some of them; I don't feel like
going 'round again. I'm getting dizzy. :D
[snip]
...monopolies..
I guess so. I meant that the meaning of the term has changed
so that it no longer resembles what it once did, and in particular
no longer implies a lack of competition, or control of a market.
In regard to what company?
Any, that I'm aware of. This isn't limited to Microsoft.
--
From: "Daniel Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:51:05 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:8jvlm6$2orq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article %r185.4273$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Exactly - and none of them should involve having to make
changes on the other end of the wire.
Why not?
Because doing so takes away your choice of ever using anything
(a) not under your control or
What does this mean?
Interoperating with anyone you can't force to install the
plug-in that happens to match your API-of-the-day. Like
the rest of the world.
I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty parsing your comments
here.
I am guessing you did too much violence to that sentance
in your effort to work the word "force" in. Perhaps you could
try to say it without it?
(b) not from a vendor that happens to match.
No, this is backwards. If you are allowed to make
changes at the other end of the write, you can support
products that support *none* of your current protocols;
you just add one their do support.
Inconvinient, yes, but better than simply being unable
to communicate at all.
If you follow standards, you are never in the position of
being unable to communicate so that comparison never happens.
Sure you are: as soon as you try to install a product that
does *not* follow the standards your
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550
Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why do I need Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why do I need Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software ("badman")
Re: Why do I need Linux? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 17 May 2000 03:54:33 GMT
Leslie Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In article 8fslr3$ckg$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
: Stephen S. Edwards II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Just because something is someone else's "experience" doesn't
: automatically make it true. For example, in my experience, WindowsNT is a
: very stable and reliable platform. So why isn't my experience true?
: Because you didn't do any of the many things that force you to
: reboot, or run any of the apps that make the OS crash.
I must ask, Leslie... exactly how do you know that I have never done any
of those things? Are you aware that I was an NT adminstrator for about
3-4 years? To make the assumptions you have is not only arrogant, it is
presumtuous, and plainly a completely fallible way to establish a point.
I know that WindowsNT v4.0 needs to be rebooted for many changes. I never
stated otherwise. Windows2000 does not have to be rebooted, so I'm told,
for as many changes as WindowsNT v4.0 does.
I have never run any applications that could crash WindowsNT. I've seen
many applications die under WindowsNT, including Internet Explorer,
Netscape, Lightwave, Adobe Photoshop, Lotus Approach, QuarkXPress, Rhino
3D, etc. In a few of those instances, the constant dying of applications
was due to problems with local directories using older versions of dynamic
libs in conjunction with newer dynamic libs in the C:\WINNT4\SYSTEM32
directory.
I have also ran into a number of BSODs in my time. In nearly every
instance, the problem was fixed by replacing cheaper hardware with more
reliable hardware (ie: replacing LinkSys network adapters with NetGear
adapters, replacing SIIG SCSI controllers with Adaptec, etc.), and as a
positive result, also using more proper drivers. In a few other
instances, the problem seemed to be linked with certain motherboards (I
don't recall the specific brand, unfortunately).
Leslie, you seem like a relatively sharp fellow... please, don't argue
in the same manner that Charlie does. :-)
: Because it doesn't agree with your experience? So, why should I believe
: that your experience is true, since it doesn't agree with mine? Do you
: see where I'm getting at?
: Try something simple, like loading the IP address via DHCP. Change
: the netmask for the DHCP range on the server. DHCP should take care
: if it on the client side, right? The D is for dynamic, as in
: expecting changes...
Hmmm... I've done this quite a few times, with no problems. Could you
describe your problems in a little more detail? Are the machines you're
referring to COMPAQ boxen, by any chance?
: What it boils down to, Perry, is that you cannot argue anecdotal evidence
: as fact, because it can never be a fact. The only thing that can be a
: fact is something which can be proven. I cannot prove that WindowsNT is
: stable and reliable, just as neither you, nor Charlie can prove that it
: isn't.
: How about if everyone who knows reproducable ways to make it
: crash posts them? Well, maybe we don't have time for that.
But if people would be willing to post scenarios (as you have done in your
post), I'd be more than happy to review them (though I must admit, there
are many who would be much more qualified to review such material than
I. After all, first and foremost, I'm a 3D graphics man. :-).
: I think Paul's point is the same as mine. You cannot prove nor disprove
: an _opinion_, and opinions are all that Charlie is offering. In other
: words, what he's offering is useless blithering.
: If you have a pair of machines, try the DHCP setting business - a
: perfectly normal thing to expect for a changing network. Try
I have, as I stated, already done this several times. Could you perhaps
elaborate on how you approached it? I'd be interested to see if your
approach was different from mine (which is mostly by the book).
: upgrading IE, Netscape, or Office without rebooting and disrupting
: service to others.
I never denied that WindowsNT needs to be rebooted after making certain
changes. However, I will say that once all of th
