Linux Sucks, Windows 2000 is great
Ray Lopez
installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are written
for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux is
like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in value
of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and, though
you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from A
to B with no hassles.
BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto race
before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a lot
of "custom" Linux boxes).
Better luck next time, Linux lo-Users!
--
RL
Jules
not, but at least the wanker has heard of it! Name me an automatic that
outperforms its manual equivalent? Yeah, damn right: NONE. Name me a
version of windoze that outforms ANY unix / BSD derivative? Well whaddaya
know, NONE! Yeah you can burn up the clutch and wreck the syncros in a
manual, but only if ya dont know how to drive (read: MCSE). Auto
transmissions are no end up trouble, especially in performance cars. Lucky
to last 4 years (incidentally Linux machines have been known to stay up for
over a year.... windoze machines are lucky to make a week).
I really love your analogy, mate.
Jules
"Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Peter Colman
and discard any CD's you may have. Install Windows and cease fouling up this
ng. Rather join one of 1000+ microsoft groups.
bye
Jeroen Valcke
> > Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> > pricy and the roads are poor.
You surely never experienced the thrill of riding 150mph on a 'Deutshe
Autobahn'
--
Jeroen Valcke jer...@valcke.com
ICQ# 30116911 Home page: http://users.pandora.be/valcke/jeroen/
The best glimpse of heaven ...
is on the way into hell.
Christian Casteyde
2.3.99-pren (ie : beta versions).
But W2000 also wiped out my FAT32 partition into a NTFS5 during install,
which nothing can read but W2000.
But W2000 doesn't exist. Thank you Bill. Luckily, this was only a test, with
no important data on the disk...
Ray Lopez <raylo...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message :
IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to
think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
> Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
noel
Ray Lopez wrote in message ...
Dries van Oosten
*ignoring the "don't feed the troll" sign*:
You've claimed to delete to RedHat from your system almost a dozen times
now. If you don't even have the knowledge to delete an OS, how can you
expect to use a computer at all.
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> really is no need for a manual stick shift.
Anyone who knows anything about cars knows that the decency of roads has
nothing to do with your choice about wether you prefer stick shift
or automatic. Any automatic can drive in mountains or whatever conditions,
just as good as an experienced stick shifter can. The choice wether or not
you prefer a stick shift depends on your wit. A stick shift requires more
knowledge about the car and better driving skills. The average European
drives ten times as good as the average American, that's why we can afford
to drive stick shift when we want.
> BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto race
> before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
> stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a lot
> of "custom" Linux boxes).
The transmission of racing cars were programmed with the properties of the
track. If you want to use a car for more then one thing, you need a more
general approach. You could choose for normal automatic, or better yet, a
Variomatic (the most efficient automatic transmission ever, a European
invention btw). You could also decide to take matters into your own hands
and demand everything from you car. This involves getting the ultimate
control -> stick shifting aka Linux.
Groeten,
Dries
Martijn Bruns
>
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
> cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are written
> for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux is
> like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in value
> of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and, though
> you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
> manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
>
> Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from A
> to B with no hassles.
>
> before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
> stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a lot
> of "custom" Linux boxes).
>
>
> --
> RL
Well, well, well!
Did you actually *BUY* Windows 2000 Professional, or did you just
*PIRATE* it?
Please tell us you bought it, or we're going to have to report
you to Microsoft, so they can hold you hostage and torture you!
cag...@my-deja.com
responding to these messages? This guy posted a similar message two
weeksago that received upwards of (if i remember correctly) 60
responses. (I was one of the suckers lured by his mail-candy)
To you, ray. If you dislike Linux so much, why the he__ do you bother
to post in this ng? To each his own. Those who like it use it those who
don't can stick to Winbloze. Do you consider it a badge of honor that
people in this ng are trying to block messages addressed by you? (saw
the query today).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bastian
>Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
>transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
"Decent roads"... Guy, you've never been on a three-lane German Autobahn!
Bastian
Paul Wilson
<unintelligent content snipped>
Oh wait, nothing left.
Daniel Davis
in his mind would be to ignore him..
Daniel
Peter Colman wrote:
> This is wonderful news! Please remove all versions of Linux from your systems
> and discard any CD's you may have. Install Windows and cease fouling up this
> ng. Rather join one of 1000+ microsoft groups.
>
> bye
>
> Ray Lopez wrote:
>
> > I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> > installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> > anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> > applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> > like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
> >
> > Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> > with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> > Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
> > they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> > they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
> >
> > Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> > transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
Craig Phillips
doesn't use a GUI? Personally I really don't give a fuck if Linux,
OS/2, VMS, or whatever.. is the platform for my stuff, as long as it
is stable and doesn't make a stink!
Do you get paid by someone to be so vigilant?
Craig
On Wed, 24 May 2000 04:56:08 GMT, "Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com>
Florian E.J. Fruth
"Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
- nearly crash proof:
i mean if a firm MUST advertise for a "crash proof system" (crash proof - it
crashed during installation - no chance to install it without a bugfix,
lol) it shows how crash proofed their past products were...
- free:
free ??? are u crazy ??? and if u wanna use some extra progs, like download
managers, firewall, etc u needn't pay for it extra like in linux - right :-?
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to
think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
some guys don't realize that quality is more worth than quantity ;-)
> Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
> cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
written
u got it - u needed pay for each programm extra under linux...
> for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux
is
> like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in
value
> of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
though
> you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
> manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
>
> Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from
A
> to B with no hassles.
>
> BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto
race
> before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
> stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a
lot
> of "custom" Linux boxes).
perhaps u don't know what ng's are intend to do: increase the performance of
newbie machines - which are faster in standard
> Better luck next time, Linux lo-Users!
>
> --
> RL
>
fejf
James Suttie
suggested; delete Linux and shut the door behind you when you leave this
newsgroup.
Your manual/auto transmission analogy is beyond a joke. Why do you think that
no motorbikes are made with auto transmissions (or the few that were sold so
dismally)? - It's because you don't have the control that riders need or want,
think about it.
Until later (much hopefully).
eyez
Afterall, he can't seem to ignore linux when he hates it so much.
And I don't recall ANY m$ product ever being 'free'.
quoting <Dries van Oosten>:
>On Wed, 24 May 2000, Ray Lopez wrote:
>
>*ignoring the "don't feed the troll" sign*:
>
>You've claimed to delete to RedHat from your system almost a dozen times
>now. If you don't even have the knowledge to delete an OS, how can you
>expect to use a computer at all.
>
>> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
>> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
>> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
>> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
>> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>>
>> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
>> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
>> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
>> really is no need for a manual stick shift.
>
>Anyone who knows anything about cars knows that the decency of roads has
>nothing to do with your choice about wether you prefer stick shift
>or automatic. Any automatic can drive in mountains or whatever conditions,
>just as good as an experienced stick shifter can. The choice wether or not
>you prefer a stick shift depends on your wit. A stick shift requires more
>knowledge about the car and better driving skills. The average European
>drives ten times as good as the average American, that's why we can afford
>to drive stick shift when we want.
>
>> BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto race
>> before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
>> controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
>> stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
>> operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a lot
>> of "custom" Linux boxes).
>
>The transmission of racing cars were programmed with the properties of the
>track. If you want to use a car for more then one thing, you need a more
>general approach. You could choose for normal automatic, or better yet, a
>Variomatic (the most efficient automatic transmission ever, a European
>invention btw). You could also decide to take matters into your own hands
>and demand everything from you car. This involves getting the ultimate
>control -> stick shifting aka Linux.
>
>Groeten,
>Dries
>
>
--
Rando Christensen
ey...@xanthor.net
<perception is reality>
John Hasler
> "Decent roads"... Guy, you've never been on a three-lane German Autobahn!
The only time he has been out of his home state was last year when his
mother took him to Disneyland.
He was afraid to go on most of the rides.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Kevin Gavitt
>
> BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto
race
> before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
> stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a
lot
> of "custom" Linux boxes).
>
>
I drive neither a cement truck nor a Grand Prix racer. I will point out
though, that all semis have manual transmissions, and these guys are the
true professional drivers. Also the Grand Prix car wasn't an automatic in
the terms you are thinking of, it was a "computer controled manual" with a
clutch and everything.
Now then, the engineers said that the primary advantage of the computer
shifted car was that * the driver never had to take his hands off the wheel
,* just as, with Linux, I never have to take my hands off the keyboard! :)
So, when taking the REASON, (your know what REASON is, don't you?), for
doing somthing into account you've got it backwards and, by your own
analogy, need to delete Windows.
Gary Carlson
--
Gary Carlson
pap...@yahoo.com
Ray Lopez
Craig Phillips <anal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ehunissivuojt15d8...@4ax.com...
> Goddamn it dude! When are you going to remember that a real server
> doesn't use a GUI? Personally I really don't give a fuck if Linux,
> OS/2, VMS, or whatever.. is the platform for my stuff, as long as it
> is stable and doesn't make a stink!
>
OK, you are correct. MSFT Win2k Pro. uses a "kernel" architecture that is
very stable, taking away the one advantage Linux/Unix had over MSFT.
To the rest of my critics:
Dries van Oosten--change your name to something more American, no? I have
yet to delete Linux, but I like talking about it, since the imagery is so
pleasing.
Jules--the automatic does indeed break down faster than a stick, does indeed
weigh more, have more slippage, burn more gas, but in a Gran Prix race about
5 years ago over a very winding course (one of those run in a French town,
using city streets), the winner rode a race car that had a computer
controlled automatic transmission. Subsequently this setup was banned.
{UPDATE: the automatic in question used a clutch plate rather than a pure
fluid drive, see the post by Kevin Gavitt, but this is not unusual amongst
automatics (even my Nissan has such a system) because for the "fifth" gear
many automatics will directly couple engine and drive shaft, arther than use
a pure fluid connection.}
K@arma Killer--MSFT does not care if you, a home user, pirates their stuff
(unofficial policy). What they want to capture is the commercial market.
In fact many commercial outfits have site licenses that allow their users to
make a home copy.
Bastian--Autobahn is an exception--most Euro roads are shiiitty.
John Hasler--have you resorted to personal attacks now? It used to be you
were a scholar.
Cage47-- You are a witless idiot. I dare you not to respond to that.
James Suttie--you are a witless tosser; motorbikes use manual transmissions
(though Honda did make a neat little automatic dirtbike/tricycle some years
ago) for power-to-weigh reasons. But here's where the analogy is telling:
race a motorcycle over a sixteenth of a mile, and the motorcycle wins; but
race over a quarter or half mile, and the car (with or without an automatic)
wins. A new Mercedes or Jaguar with an automatic beats any motorcycle or
Porche over long distances. Just like MSFT will beat Linux over the long
haul, once you get over the neat little tricks built-into Linux, that are
really, for most people other than SysOps, gimmicks that you don't need.
Kevin Gavitt--good rebuttal, but I think my analogy still stands--automatic
transmissions are easy to drive and get you from point A to point B, just
like MSFT. The masses don't want to learn the ins and outs of an OS before
they can run their computer--stability was the ONLY selling point of Linux
for the average user; now with MSFT Win2k that selling point is gone. And
this reality is reflected in the market share price of Linux stocks, like
Red Hat (RHAT), which are off 80% from their highs. yes, Linux is dead
(long live Linux for the hobbiests like yourselves).
All bow to the King--MICROSOFT!!
--
RL
G
learned something about Europeans I did not know. They are more amiable and
humorous than I thought. Most Yanks can not handle derogatory comments about
things they like so well.
I keep up to date on MS products and I am yet to see where Microsoft is
giving away Win2K. I would like a few copies so all my machines can triple
boot (Win98, Win2000, and Linux). I am real new to Linux yet I have already
been able to all my internet stuff using Linux almost as well as Windows in
just two days.
James Suttie
>James Suttie--you are a witless tosser; motorbikes use manual transmissions
>(though Honda did make a neat little automatic dirtbike/tricycle some years
>ago) for power-to-weigh reasons.
Bollocks Ray! motorbikes use manual transmissions because that's what riders
demand, it gives more control to the rider which means you can get it to do
what YOU want (a little like Linux?). Nobody who really enjoys riding a
motorbike would buy an automatic - this isn't just my opinion, it's fact.
>But here's where the analogy is telling:
>race a motorcycle over a sixteenth of a mile, and the motorcycle wins; but
>race over a quarter or half mile, and the car (with or without an automatic)
>wins. A new Mercedes or Jaguar with an automatic beats any motorcycle or
>Porche over long distances.
Another ludicrous point Ray, without claiming that my toy's bigger than yours; I
would be very suprised if there were any production cars that would beat my
bike (or plenty of others) over half a mile (certainly no automatics). Do you
mean American motorbikes? - if so I'll agree with you for once, they are very
slow on the whole (unlike the European offerings!).
I don't want to get into the old US v Europe thing (especially about roads!)
but Euro roads rock, if your idea of a road is something dead straight that
goes on for ever (at 55mph?) think again.
Finally, welcome to the killfile fuckwit.
Brad Hughes
appropriate:
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving
cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy
a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you
would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
"Car98"
or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
five
times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five
per
cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
replaced by a single "general car fault" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door
handle,
turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
Rand
McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither
needed
nor wanted them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately
cause
the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would
become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
how
to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate
in the
same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
> Ray Lopez <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> > transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> > installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> > really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
> > Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> > pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
> > cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
> written
> > for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux
> is
> > like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in
> value
> > of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
> though
> > you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
> > manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
> >
> > Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from
> A
> > to B with no hassles.
> >
> > BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto
> race
> > before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> > controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
> > stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> > operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a
> lot
> > of "custom" Linux boxes).
> >
> > Better luck next time, Linux lo-Users!
> >
> > --
> > RL
Osugi Sakae
$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Ray Lopez"
<raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in
preparation of
>installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so
excited. Why would
>anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k:
much better
>applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it
commercially,
>like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
><snip>
>
>Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you
safely from A
>to B with no hassles.
>
>Better luck next time, Linux lo-Users!
>
>--
>RL
>
>
<Off Topic> Ray, are you smoking something that isn't tobacco?
<Back on topic> When did MS start giving away W2k free for non-
commercial use? This seems especially strange since everything I
saw back in February (when w2k went on sale) said that MS was
telling people not to buy w2k because it was for businesses and
not ordinary consumers. No doubt they thought this was necessary
because of all the confusion caused by their fragmented os.
So, where can someone get a legit copy of w2k for free?
What do you mean by "much better apps"? Better than linux apps?
Which ones? Better than winnt or win98 apps? Don't those run on
w2k? Are you suggesting that Joe Home User should go out and
blow a bundle on a new os and all new apps just because they are
available? How many w2k certified apps are available?
BTW, you say "Why would anybody care to use Linux, now that
Win2k is out?" - are you admitting that linux offered benefits
over previous MS products and that w2k addresses some of those
deficiencies in MS products? So Joe User with an NT box would be
better off with a Linux box if s/he doesn't have the money or
desire to "upgrade" to w2k?
Since when is "nearly crash proof" a selling point? Shouldn't
stability be a given for an "enterprise level" os? Or for that
matter, an os aimed at the home pc market?
As an American, I am embarressed at the lengths MS has gone to
to protect and extend their monopoly. I choose products based on
quality, suitability to task at hand, and price. Only
occassionally does country of origin enter into the equation.
Also, as you have probably heard, at least two or three
important countries are looking into alternatives to MS
precisely because MS is an American company. I am sure that
other countries are also looking into ways to avoid becoming
dependent on MS.
I don't know anything about cars so I will not comment on your
analogy.
I will dispute your "no hassles" claim. Frequent crashes, other
unpredictable behavior, non-existant security, and all around
lack of innovation qualify as "hassles" in my mind. MS products
might get you from point A to point B, but MS will choose the
route and you will have no control over it. It is a bit like
having to trust a taxi driver when you are in an unfamiliar
city. Sure, s/he might be taking the best route, but you have no
way of knowing.
Lets be honest, win98 is a piece of shit. (I have not used w2k
so cannot comment). It crashes regularly. It has many, many
small problems. The task bar is one - close to half the time (in
my experience) the window shown as active by the taskbar is not
the one that is actually active. Many times, windows are shown
on the task bar even after you close them. Also, the screen
saver shows up as an active window for many minutes after it
turns off. These are just a few problems with the taskbar. No
doubt the list for all problems with all parts of a standard
install is much longer. When will these problems be fixed? Will
I have to pay over $100 American for win-me just to get the
fixes for the above mentioned minor problems?
Where is MS's innovation? KDE (for example) puts () around
minimized windows so that you know which are minimized and which
aren't. A small but useful feature, one much more important to
me than having streaming internet video support as part of the
os.
Gotta go teach a class now.
Ray, if you really don't like linux, then don't use it. If w2k
works for you, then great. But if you want to spout stupidity in
linux newsgroups (and it certainly is your right to do so),
realize that it accomplishes nothing.
--
Osugi Sakae
- I will not be filed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered.
- I am not a number, I am a free man.
The Prisoner
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
K@rma Killer
--
K@rma Killer
"Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to
think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
> Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
> cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
written
> for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux
is
> like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in
value
> of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
though
> you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
> manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
>
> Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from
A
> to B with no hassles.
>
> BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto
race
> before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
> stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a
lot
> of "custom" Linux boxes).
>
Dan
Why don't you do it and stop talking about it, you pathetic little twirp.
Dan
Florian E.J. Fruth
i love to read such a thread, it's amousing. i also use windows beside
linux. in some ways it's easier to use, but under linux if u got sth. to
work it will work forever (if u don't stop it ;-)
fejf
fox
like you, i was a ignorant little pric that thought ms was the alpha et
omega of OSs. Not untill that last few months that my nice shiny, "stable"
windows OS, mind win98 et w2k, crashed so hard, I had to format everything
and start over. But thanks to friend and a brother that took the time to
tell me more about linux. When windows lst crashed and it took me an hour to
get my damn modem with the right drivers, just went out and spent the whole
30 bucks for an OS, compared the w2k that costs you 300+, and win98 179.99.
I even think they are still selling win95 for 100.00. I dont think MS should
have gotten inn trouble like they did, i just think they should get better
OSs, and make them stable. Also, run sfc and see what happens when it tryes
to "fix" your os. Yea it screws it over. I tell you what, get back in your
little plastic bubble, continue to hold your mothers hand and never learn
something, experiance something. Cuase your gonna find your self in a
situsation like me, with people that educated themselves by not keeping to
just windows, but trying something new. I hope you wake up some day, and you
dont feel as stupid as i do now cuase i was stupid in thinking that MS was
the Alpha et Omega. Get a life.
Sean
Ray Lopez
Osugi Sakae <osugi_sak...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:39a51d19...@usw-ex0105-037.remarq.com...
> In article <IhJW4.30686
> $S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Ray Lopez"
> <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in
> preparation of installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so
> excited. Why would anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In
Win2k:
> much better applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it
> commercially, like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
> >
> ><snip>
> ><snip>
> >
> >Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you
> safely from A to B with no hassles.
> ><snip>
> <Back on topic> When did MS start giving away W2k free for non-
> commercial use? This seems especially strange since everything I
> saw back in February (when w2k went on sale) said that MS was
> telling people not to buy w2k because it was for businesses and
> not ordinary consumers. No doubt they thought this was necessary
> because of all the confusion caused by their fragmented os.
>
Well, MSFT must have changed gears. I just bought a copy of Win2k Pro.
Edition for $70 (after rebate). And I just (about 30 minutes ago) got rid
of those annoying EXT2 Linux partitions on my HD and deleted the Linux
(virus) OS.
> So, where can someone get a legit copy of w2k for free?
>
Not legit. Illegit. But where there is a will, there is a way...
> What do you mean by "much better apps"? Better than linux apps?
> Which ones? Better than winnt or win98 apps? Don't those run on
> w2k? Are you suggesting that Joe Home User should go out and
> blow a bundle on a new os and all new apps just because they are
> available? How many w2k certified apps are available?
>
And they will! Buy MSFT stock. As for w2k certified apps, I don't know if
that is really necessary. I will let this NG know whether I have problems
with w2k with my old (uncertified) apps.
> BTW, you say "Why would anybody care to use Linux, now that
> Win2k is out?" - are you admitting that linux offered benefits
> over previous MS products and that w2k addresses some of those
> deficiencies in MS products? So Joe User with an NT box would be
> better off with a Linux box if s/he doesn't have the money or
> desire to "upgrade" to w2k?
>
Yes and no. Joe User is better off with Linux if he craves stability, but
worse off if he, as a consumer, intends to be productive with the rest of
the computing world, sans Linux users themselves. My point is that now that
w2k is stabler [sic] than NT4 and certainly Win98, the Linux advantage is
nil.
> Since when is "nearly crash proof" a selling point? Shouldn't
> stability be a given for an "enterprise level" os? Or for that
> matter, an os aimed at the home pc market?
>
Yes, you're right. MSFT has answered with w2k.
> As an American, I am embarressed at the lengths MS has gone to
> to protect and extend their monopoly. I choose products based on
> quality, suitability to task at hand, and price. Only
> occassionally does country of origin enter into the equation.
Yes, you are partially correct. (BTW, your name, West African / Nigerian,
no?) Nationality is only used by myself as a point of contention to get a
rise out of the Linux posters here...really I am not a bigot (hard to
imagine). But, I think MSFT is despised by the Europeans, who want Linux to
succeed, because it is "home grown". Witness the EC/ French persecution of
MSFT, Yahoo (with that ridiculous FR decision about anti-semetism, the sale
of Nazi paraphenalia, and their website recently).
> Also, as you have probably heard, at least two or three
> important countries are looking into alternatives to MS
> precisely because MS is an American company. I am sure that
> other countries are also looking into ways to avoid becoming
> dependent on MS.
>
Yes, you are correct.
> I don't know anything about cars so I will not comment on your
> analogy.
>
Neither do I, but clearly the marketplace (in America, and the rest of the
world, when they can afford it) favors automatic transmissions, hands down.
Only "purists" demand standard transmissions, like the computer "purists"
here demand Linux. A matter of principle winning over expediancy.
> I will dispute your "no hassles" claim. Frequent crashes, other
> unpredictable behavior, non-existant security, and all around
> lack of innovation qualify as "hassles" in my mind. MS products
> might get you from point A to point B, but MS will choose the
> route and you will have no control over it. It is a bit like
> having to trust a taxi driver when you are in an unfamiliar
> city. Sure, s/he might be taking the best route, but you have no
> way of knowing.
True, true. But taxis are "no hassles"; try parking in NY City with a
private car.
>
> Lets be honest, win98 is a piece of shit. (I have not used w2k
> so cannot comment). It crashes regularly. It has many, many
> small problems. The task bar is one - close to half the time (in
> my experience) the window shown as active by the taskbar is not
> the one that is actually active. Many times, windows are shown
> on the task bar even after you close them. Also, the screen
> saver shows up as an active window for many minutes after it
> turns off. These are just a few problems with the taskbar. No
> doubt the list for all problems with all parts of a standard
> install is much longer. When will these problems be fixed? Will
> I have to pay over $100 American for win-me just to get the
> fixes for the above mentioned minor problems?
You are correct, win98 is a POS.
>
> Where is MS's innovation? KDE (for example) puts () around
> minimized windows so that you know which are minimized and which
> aren't. A small but useful feature, one much more important to
> me than having streaming internet video support as part of the
> os.
>
> Gotta go teach a class now.
>
Good luck my e-friend of sorts.
> Ray, if you really don't like linux, then don't use it. If w2k
> works for you, then great. But if you want to spout stupidity in
> linux newsgroups (and it certainly is your right to do so),
> realize that it accomplishes nothing.
>
I beg to differ. I am a veteran here, and slowly I see this NG coming
around to my way of thinking. Call me delusional, but I see it.
> --
> Osugi Sakae
>
Cool name, like Dries van Oosten.
Bye.
--
RL (not my real name, I like to go by "Bill Gates" sometimes)
Smitty
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
> Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
> cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are written
> for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux is
> like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in value
> of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and, though
> you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
> manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
>
> Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from A
> to B with no hassles.
>
> BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto race
> before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
> stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a lot
> of "custom" Linux boxes).
>
> Better luck next time, Linux lo-Users!
>
> --
> RL
Ray, get a life.
Frederick Artiss
RHAT is up to 6.1 (6.2 beta) FYI.
OK, I use both Linux AND Windows, depending on what for (e. g. Linux gives me
more flexibility in CD burning).
But if there's one thing that irks me about Microsoft is that they are so
hardheaded that they do REALLY stupid things. For example, they've managed to
set up their own website to not work properly with Netscape browsers for
downloading. So a user with a Sun Solaris or HP-UX computer who wants to
download a copy of Internet Explorer 5 for Unix CAN'T DO IT, because he more
than likely will come to the site initially armed only with Netscape!
The other thing is their disrespect of customers, which I think will hurt them
in about a year or two. I think by that time, the "convenience gap" will be
closed between Windows and Linux.
Ray Lopez wrote:
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
> Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
> cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are written
> for MSFT, not Linux. (So why is it taking so long for Adaptec to write a
> decent program to burn CDs and run in Windows-2000?) So the money you save in
hobo...@my-deja.com
mai...@gmx.net (Bastian) wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2000 04:56:08 GMT, Ray Lopez wrote:
> >Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or
automatic
> >transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a
large
>
Autobahn!
>
>
Ok, i'm a Stupid American. Are you saying that the German Autobahn is a
bad road? Or are you saying the exact opposite?
Bob Niederman
>
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
Ray, you just keep coming back for more. And you keep flattering me by
disparaging me (if a moron like you is pissed at me, I must be doing
somethng right - guess I really zinged you somewhere along the line).
First, the Amiga and OS2 have nothing to do with it. You keep bringing
them up, but it's just a red herring to attempt (unsuccesssfully) to
hide that your argument has no legs and you're not smart enough to make
it anyhow.
> Question for you "control freaks":
Ray, as usual, you've missed a big part of the point. More than
control, the issue is freedom. Linux and free/open-source software give
you freedom you'll never know with microschlock. Just this last
weekend, I discovered a package I needed bady that simply is not
available for other operating systems. It included a function I needed
badly for my work. It is still under developement, so the part I needed
wan't quite done. I worked with the developer to fix what was wrong,
and voila! I have a network troubleshooting tool that almost no-one else
has. If I limited myself to proprietary stuff like Winblowz, I'd
probably be out of luck. In this case in fact, I would definitely be
out of luck.
More to the point, no part of my effort or earnings go to feed that
greedy bastard Gates. His backing of DMCA and UCITA are doing more to
undermine our rights and freedoms than communists ever did. Shitheads
like you are his rightful prey.
Linux (or other open source OSs) are an open door to a world you haven't
the sense to even dream about.
> and quality programs are written
> for MSFT, not Linux.
Why are the newsgroups alive with people complaining about this quality
software? And how much do you want to pay to write an email, anyhow?
And if you want to brag about cutting costs by way of software piracy,
grow some balls and give us a real address - the SPA would love to talk
to you, I'm sure.
Also, how come microschlong (oh, wait, that's you, sorry) has certifed
so few of these quality programs as ready for w2k?
> So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux is
> like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in value
> of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and, though
> you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
> manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
No, Ray, those of us who pay the price for software, (unlike assholes
like you), and who also choose to use MS, pay over and over again - for
the continuous round of upgrades and the continuous efforts at making it
work in the face of MS's complete indifference to quality and support.
>
> Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from A
> to B with no hassles.
Yes Ray, stick with microsoft, idiots like you can do no better.
--
- Bob Niederman http://bob-n.com
Fight UCITA! http://www.4cite.org, http://bob-n.com/ucita
Coffee
Ray you ignorant slut.....
>
> Dries van Oosten--change your name to something more American, no? I have
> yet to delete Linux, but I like talking about it, since the imagery is so
> pleasing.
Im trying to figure out what Ray means by "An American name".
>
> K@arma Killer--MSFT does not care if you, a home user, pirates their stuff
> (unofficial policy). What they want to capture is the commercial market.
> In fact many commercial outfits have site licenses that allow their users to
> make a home copy.
OH MY, Thats just wonderful Ray. I have to go throw up now ray...
> Just like MSFT will beat Linux over the long
> haul, once you get over the neat little tricks built-into Linux, that are
> really, for most people other than SysOps, gimmicks that you don't need.
Well, Im really not into M$ tricks and gimmicks myself
>
> Kevin Gavitt--good rebuttal, but I think my analogy still stands--automatic
> transmissions are easy to drive and get you from point A to point B, just
> like MSFT. The masses don't want to learn the ins and outs of an OS before
> they can run their computer--stability was the ONLY selling point of Linux
> for the average user; now with MSFT Win2k that selling point is gone. And
> this reality is reflected in the market share price of Linux stocks, like
> Red Hat (RHAT), which are off 80% from their highs. yes, Linux is dead
> (long live Linux for the hobbiests like yourselves).
Hey Ray, Engage your brain and think a minute. RHAT is a recent IPO. The
tendency of IPOs are to seek support at a lower level after the hype. Thats
typical of any IPO stock. Go take a look at some charts.
You know, I wouldnt really talk here. M$ is dropping like a rock you know.
Pretty soon we can all own a piece of M$ if they slice it up thin enough!
Lets face it Ray, Microsofts days are truly numbered.
coffee
>
> --
> RL
Jules
computer changes gear for you... a lot like, say, LINUXCONF!!! or
X-windows!!!
MS WINDOZE IS STILL PURE, SLIPPING, SLOW AUTO
haha
bite me
"Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:v_VW4.31760$S31.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Craig Phillips <anal...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ehunissivuojt15d8...@4ax.com...
> > Goddamn it dude! When are you going to remember that a real server
> > doesn't use a GUI? Personally I really don't give a fuck if Linux,
> > OS/2, VMS, or whatever.. is the platform for my stuff, as long as it
> > is stable and doesn't make a stink!
> >
>
> OK, you are correct. MSFT Win2k Pro. uses a "kernel" architecture that is
> very stable, taking away the one advantage Linux/Unix had over MSFT.
>
> To the rest of my critics:
>
> Dries van Oosten--change your name to something more American, no? I have
> yet to delete Linux, but I like talking about it, since the imagery is so
> pleasing.
>
> Jules--the automatic does indeed break down faster than a stick, does
indeed
> weigh more, have more slippage, burn more gas, but in a Gran Prix race
about
> 5 years ago over a very winding course (one of those run in a French town,
> using city streets), the winner rode a race car that had a computer
> controlled automatic transmission. Subsequently this setup was banned.
> {UPDATE: the automatic in question used a clutch plate rather than a pure
> fluid drive, see the post by Kevin Gavitt, but this is not unusual amongst
> automatics (even my Nissan has such a system) because for the "fifth" gear
> many automatics will directly couple engine and drive shaft, arther than
use
> a pure fluid connection.}
>
> K@arma Killer--MSFT does not care if you, a home user, pirates their stuff
> (unofficial policy). What they want to capture is the commercial market.
> In fact many commercial outfits have site licenses that allow their users
to
> make a home copy.
>
> Bastian--Autobahn is an exception--most Euro roads are shiiitty.
>
> John Hasler--have you resorted to personal attacks now? It used to be you
> were a scholar.
>
> Cage47-- You are a witless idiot. I dare you not to respond to that.
>
> James Suttie--you are a witless tosser; motorbikes use manual
transmissions
> (though Honda did make a neat little automatic dirtbike/tricycle some
years
> ago) for power-to-weigh reasons. But here's where the analogy is telling:
> race a motorcycle over a sixteenth of a mile, and the motorcycle wins; but
> race over a quarter or half mile, and the car (with or without an
automatic)
> wins. A new Mercedes or Jaguar with an automatic beats any motorcycle or
> Porche over long distances. Just like MSFT will beat Linux over the long
> haul, once you get over the neat little tricks built-into Linux, that are
> really, for most people other than SysOps, gimmicks that you don't need.
>
> Kevin Gavitt--good rebuttal, but I think my analogy still
stands--automatic
> transmissions are easy to drive and get you from point A to point B, just
> like MSFT. The masses don't want to learn the ins and outs of an OS
before
> they can run their computer--stability was the ONLY selling point of Linux
> for the average user; now with MSFT Win2k that selling point is gone. And
> this reality is reflected in the market share price of Linux stocks, like
> Red Hat (RHAT), which are off 80% from their highs. yes, Linux is dead
> (long live Linux for the hobbiests like yourselves).
>
Dries van Oosten
The Autobahns are one of the best roads in the world. Miles and miles of
it, without a speed limit *grin*.
Groeten,
Dries
Mr Foo Bar
having a written constituion guaranteeing free speech.
BTW I have a hand built, BRITISH, sports car that would leave any merc or
jag or american sofa-on-wheels and most motorbikes standing, over any
distance (sure I'd run out of fuel first but then with the huge lead I'd
have gained by then I'd have enough time to stop, refuel, have some
breakfast and carry on.)
Mr Foo Bar
highways in Minnesota. Pot holes, uneven surfaces, tarmac disintegrating.
And that's their major roads. And in addition to that they were packed with
fat yanks driving beds on wheels.
Ray Lopez <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to
think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
> Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
> cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
written
> for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux
is
> like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in
value
> of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
though
> you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
> manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
>
> Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from
A
> to B with no hassles.
>
Matt Gaia
>I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
>installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
>anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
>applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
>like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
a) If you don't like Linux, then why the hell did you install it in the
first place? Oh wait, yes, the trolling factor.
b) You do know Linux is just a derivative of Unix, and Unix started in
the US, right?
>
>Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
>with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
>Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
>they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
>they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
>Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
>transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
>installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
>really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
>Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
>pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
>cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are written
>for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux is
>like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in value
>of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and, though
>you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
>manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
Hey, nothing wrong with gear-shifting. Takes only about a day to really
learn how to do, and it's frankly a hell of a lot more fun. Maybe the
only people who don't like manual are the ones who can't quite get the
grasp on it. <g> Oh, if M$ software is only a fraction of the cost, then
why can I probably build a decent computer for thie price to get W2K full
version and Office 2K Premium. Logicially, like many of your arguments,
it just don't add up.
>
>Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from A
>to B with no hassles.
>
With a breakdown every 10 miles are so, and having to take out and
replace the engine every 6 months or so. Wow, I guess that really is my
dream car.
>BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto race
>before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
>controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
>stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
>operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a lot
>of "custom" Linux boxes).
*chuckles* God, it really does suck to be you, doesn't it?
Daniel Davis
> no?) Nationality is only used by myself as a point of contention to get a
> rise out of the Linux posters here...really I am not a bigot (hard to
> imagine). But, I think MSFT is despised by the Europeans, who want Linux to
> succeed, because it is "home grown". Witness the EC/ French persecution of
> MSFT, Yahoo (with that ridiculous FR decision about anti-semetism, the sale
> of Nazi paraphenalia, and their website recently).
You do realize that a double digit percentage of the people working on Linux
code at any time are either in the US or Canada don't you? I'm an American,
born in Illinois living in Florida who's owns an American car yet I am
completely unsatisfied with MSFT and I run Linux. Go figure.
Daniel
Paul Williams
will see him, and he can fester away in his own little hole to his
heart's content.
On Thu, 25 May 2000 09:36:10 -0400, Matt Gaia <mg...@cis.ysu.edu>
wrote:
Paul (aka Riff)
Live now
cnf
"Peter Colman" <pe...@mssint.com> schreef in bericht
news:392B9448...@mssint.com...
> This is wonderful news! Please remove all versions of Linux from your
systems
> and discard any CD's you may have. Install Windows and cease fouling up
this
> ng. Rather join one of 1000+ microsoft groups.
>
> bye
>
>
> Ray Lopez wrote:
>
> > I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> > installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why
would
> > anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much
better
> > applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it
commercially,
> > like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
> >
> > Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> > with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> > Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to
think
> > they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS
that
> > they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
> >
> > Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> > transmissions in your vehicle?
stick > any time
automatic drives are fer lamers who can't drive
no matter how good yer roads are
If you have decent roads (read: a large
> > installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> > really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a
benefit.
> > Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline
is
> > pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since
software
> > cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
written
> > for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux
is
> > like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in
value
> > of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
though
> > you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting
gears
> > manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
> >
> > Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely
from A
> > to B with no hassles.
> >
> > BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto
race
> > before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> > controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with
a
> > stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> > operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a
lot
> > of "custom" Linux boxes).
hhmm
idd
but those F1 boxes are tuned for every track
so every race the settings are different
that my friend is the linux way
win way is same stuff all over
so whether you drive offroad
or on a race track
: it has the same settings
you like to race ??
or you like to chill in yer car ??
sorry
: same settings fer all
because we are M$
> >
> > Better luck next time, Linux lo-Users!
so this should be
better luck next life winblower
maybe you can figure out how to use linux then
when you got some more than yer current pea brain
cnf
Matt Gaia
>Just killfile Ray Lopez like I have. If everyone does that, no-one
>will see him, and he can fester away in his own little hole to his
>heart's content.
Naw, it's just fun listening to Ray's ass backwards logic, and then having
him change the subject when he is proven wrong. <g>
Jack Kelly Dobson
Besides... Just installed W2k for the first time... great is not
a word I would use for it.
So far all I can say is: slightly faster than NT 4.0, more
convoluted than NT and I managed to crash the API within ten
minutes and get a "You're running out of virtual memory" message
within fifteen minutes (on a PIII 500 with 128megs RAM).
I guess it is great if you don't expect it to really do anything.
--
Jack Kelly Dobson "Everything I say is factual,
Aggressive Media unless, of course, I'm wrong,
or lying."
"Providing technology solutions, whether you want them or not!"
DanH
Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> K@arma Killer--MSFT does not care if you, a home user, pirates their
> stuff
> (unofficial policy). What they want to capture is the commercial
> market.
> In fact many commercial outfits have site licenses that allow their
> users to make a home copy.
Unless specifically written into the license (hence 'site' part of the license)
that's illegal.
I don't use pirated software. Freeware, GNU, BSD licensed, and purchased
commercial, yes, but not pirated.
Ray, if you want to break laws, that's your business. If you suggest that
others do it, that's conspiracy.
DanH
--
UNIX - Not just for vestal virgins anymore
Linux - Choice of a GNU generation
Ray Lopez
Daniel Davis <dan...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:392D6022...@mediaone.net...
> > Yes, you are partially correct. (BTW, your name, West African /
Nigerian,
> > no?) Nationality is only used by myself as a point of contention to get
a
> > rise out of the Linux posters here...really I am not a bigot (hard to
> > imagine). But, I think MSFT is despised by the Europeans, who want
Linux to
> > succeed, because it is "home grown". Witness the EC/ French persecution
of
> > MSFT, Yahoo (with that ridiculous FR decision about anti-semetism, the
sale
> > of Nazi paraphenalia, and their website recently).
>
Linux
> code at any time are either in the US or Canada don't you? I'm an
American,
> born in Illinois living in Florida who's owns an American car yet I am
> completely unsatisfied with MSFT and I run Linux. Go figure.
>
> Daniel
>
>
Yes, yes, but are you completely satisfied with your CAR? That is the
question for this thread.
I regret now having deleted Linux. Now I won't have an excuse to complain
about it. However, if my w2k installation goes well (and so far only a
meagre four programs out of the several hundred I have on my HD have been
indicated by microsoft's analyser as being unsuitable for Win2k), I might
install Linux in my second HD. One good thing about Linux was that it had
the ability to coexist with another OS without having to be on the primary
partition.
Michael O'Connell
Dan wrote:
> Gay Ray,
>
> Why don't you do it and stop talking about it, you pathetic little twirp.
>
> Dan
>
> Ray Lopez <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> > installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> > anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> > applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> > like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
> >
> > Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> > with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> > Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to
> think
> > they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> > they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
> >
> > Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> > transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> > Better luck next time, Linux lo-Users!
> >
> > --
> > RL
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Osugi Sakae
$Sx.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Ray Lopez"
<raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>panacea. (redundant I know, but when you write for children, a
rule of thumb
>is to say the same thing three different ways; 3 times; repeat
yourself)
>
One rule of thumb when teaching children is to say the _same_
thing three times, but on the third time, add something new. For
example, "Hello. Hello. Hello, how are you?" Saying it three
different ways just confuses things.
>
>> More to the point, no part of my effort or earnings go to
feed that
>> greedy bastard Gates. His backing of DMCA and UCITA are
doing more to
>> undermine our rights and freedoms than communists ever did.
Shitheads
>> like you are his rightful prey.
>>
>
>UNITA? I thought they were fighting in Angola.
I don't recall the exact acronym - I think it is UCITA. I for
one find it worrisome. If I were a cracker (aka a bad guy) I
would be having wet dreams about all the possibilities that
MS "self-help" would give me. They can't make a secure system
even when they aren't intentionally leaving backdoors in it.
Also, I prefer to own my software, not license it.
>
>All but 4 of my 300+ applications passed the w2k test for
certification, and
>2 of the 4 that failed were printer drivers and fax modem
drivers, which I
>will get a newer version of from the manufacturer. Note the
distinction
>between "being certified" (true, few programs are) and "being
able to run
>with no problems under w2k" (the vast majority of programs are).
So you are counting drivers as applications? Here I was about to
enquire as to why you needed three hundred applications. How
many are pirated programs? How many do you actually use? Or do
you just like collecting them, because you can?
BTW, linux comes with lots of programs, but that is a totally
different case. Most windows users don't think of "dir" as a
program.
>> > So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux is
>> > like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but
your trade-in
>value
>> > of your manual transmission auto will be less than an
automatic, and,
>though
>> > you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of
shifting
>gears
>> > manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
>>
>> No, Ray, those of us who pay the price for software, (unlike
assholes
>> like you), and who also choose to use MS, pay over and over
again - for
>> the continuous round of upgrades and the continuous efforts
at making it
>> work in the face of MS's complete indifference to quality and
support.
>>
>
>That's capitalism. Deal with it, or go live in Cuba or North
Korea.
Actually, thanks to all the cool FSF / Linux / *BSD (etc)
programmers out there, I don't have to settle for either MS or
North Korea.
My office (I teach but work in an office) is currently upgrading
all the 'puters to Office2000. The computer guys are using it as
a good excuse to get themselves cool new hardware (yeah for
them), but aside from that, I cannot figure out what benefit
some PHB thinks to be getting from this huge outlay of money.
This place upgrades at the drop of a hat, for AFAICT no good
reason.
I can think of several thousand better uses for that money (like
say, the students).
>
>--
>
>RL
>
>(Better reinstallation luck next time, Linux l0-Users!)
>
>
Reinstallation? What the hell are you talking about?
--
Osugi Sakae
I am not a number, I am a free man. - The Prisoner
K@rma Killer
> K@arma Killer--MSFT does not care if you, a home user, pirates their stuff
> (unofficial policy). What they want to capture is the commercial market.
> In fact many commercial outfits have site licenses that allow their users
to
> make a home copy.
Yeah maybe so but I still wont do it for the pure fact that it is still
againt the law. And anyway, once Linux comes natrually to me, I wont be
bothering with MS products at all. =)
--
K@rma Killer
K@rma Killer
--
K@rma Killer
"Brad Hughes" <brhu...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote in message
news:392C6061...@americasm01.nt.com...
> Since this guy likes comparing Winblows to a car, I think this might be
> appropriate:
>
> If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving
> cars with the following characteristics:
>
> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy
> a new car.
> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you
> would just accept this, restart and drive on.
> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause
> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
> have to reinstall the engine.
> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
> "Car98"
> or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
> five
> times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five
> per
> cent of the roads.
> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
> replaced by a single "general car fault" warning light.
> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door
> handle,
> turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
> Rand
> McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither
> needed
> nor wanted them. Attempting to delete this option would immediately
> cause
> the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would
> become a target for investigation by the Justice Department.
> 12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
> how
> to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate
> in the
> same manner as the old car.
> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
>
>
> > Ray Lopez <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > > Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or
automatic
> > > transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a
large
> > > installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market)
there
> > > really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a
benefit.
> > > Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline
is
> > > pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since
software
> > > cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
> > written
> > > for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of
Linux
> > is
> > > like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in
> > value
> > > of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
> > though
> > > you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting
gears
> > > manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
> > >
Ray Lopez
That's harsh. You are a severe critic of MSFT aren't ya? Just as I am a
severe critic of Linux. I think the truth is somewhere inbetween.
Truth is, MSFT's stuff is easier to install, has more compatibility with
third party vendors (pop quiz: if Linux is so bad, how come more people
don't write viruses for it?), has a better GUI (always good for consumer
acceptance) and is PROFITABLE to code for (if you are a programmer, unlike
commie-ware Linux, favored by students looking to boost their resumes and
professors who are penny-poor).
Linux/Unix -> is more stable, is more "transparent" (open source, though the
DOJ might make MSFT go that route), might have fewer bugs (debatable, since
it does not have to accomidate as many third parties, but I will grant you
possibly their architecture is more 'threaded' or 'protected'), is as fast
or nearly as fast as Windows NT (the independent Mindspring lab test paid
for by MSFT last spring comes to mind) and, FOR NOW, is superior to Windows
OSes.
But, just because you have a better mousetrap does not mean you will win
market share, or that people will use your product. DVORAK typewriter
keyboards versus the conventional QWERTY keyboard layout of letters comes to
mind. There are real advantages to being part of the MSFT Windows
environment as a user, that go beyond 'grep' and other neat gimmicks of
Linux.
--
RL
(might reinstall Linux again just to tweak your goat)
Jack Kelly Dobson <jdo...@binc.net> wrote in message
news:392D97BB...@binc.net...
Ray Lopez
Bob Niederman <b...@bob-n.com> wrote in message
news:392CBC0A...@bob-n.com...
> Ray Lopez wrote:
> >
> > Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> > with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> > Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to
think
> > they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS
that
> > they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
> disparaging me (if a moron like you is pissed at me, I must be doing
> somethng right - guess I really zinged you somewhere along the line).
> First, the Amiga and OS2 have nothing to do with it. You keep bringing
> them up, but it's just a red herring to attempt (unsuccesssfully) to
> hide that your argument has no legs and you're not smart enough to make
> it anyhow.
Bob, you're not that bright, are you? This thread is flame bait. I
thought I made that clear last year, that I troll this NG just to see what
morons will reply to my provocative posts. BTW, I work for the Linux
community; I'm trying to pretend to be a Microsoft weenie just to piss
people off at Microsoft. Is it working?
>
> > Question for you "control freaks":
>
> Ray, as usual, you've missed a big part of the point. More than
> control, the issue is freedom. Linux and free/open-source software give
> you freedom you'll never know with microschlock. Just this last
> weekend, I discovered a package I needed bady that simply is not
> available for other operating systems. It included a function I needed
> badly for my work. It is still under developement, so the part I needed
> wan't quite done. I worked with the developer to fix what was wrong,
> and voila! I have a network troubleshooting tool that almost no-one else
> has. If I limited myself to proprietary stuff like Winblowz, I'd
> probably be out of luck. In this case in fact, I would definitely be
> out of luck.
>
Bullshiite. C'mon Bob. You expect me to believe that line of bull? You
have time to religiously follow each and every post in this NG, and yet you
"worked with the developer" of a package to include "a function", "voila!".
Impossible to do so much. Besides programming is not that easy; I should
know, I code. You make Linux sound like a magic bullet, a cure-all, a
panacea. (redundant I know, but when you write for children, a rule of thumb
is to say the same thing three different ways; 3 times; repeat yourself)
> More to the point, no part of my effort or earnings go to feed that
> greedy bastard Gates. His backing of DMCA and UCITA are doing more to
> undermine our rights and freedoms than communists ever did. Shitheads
> like you are his rightful prey.
>
UNITA? I thought they were fighting in Angola.
> Linux (or other open source OSs) are an open door to a world you haven't
> the sense to even dream about.
>
See above. Coding is not that easy. You make it sound so glib and easy. I
have a bug in my software, I email a Linux group, and "voila!" a patch is
out that weekend. Sure Bob.
> > and quality programs are written
> > for MSFT, not Linux.
>
> Why are the newsgroups alive with people complaining about this quality
> software? And how much do you want to pay to write an email, anyhow?
> And if you want to brag about cutting costs by way of software piracy,
> grow some balls and give us a real address - the SPA would love to talk
> to you, I'm sure.
Don't be stupid. I lie low; guerrilla capitalism at work.
>
> Also, how come microschlong (oh, wait, that's you, sorry) has certifed
> so few of these quality programs as ready for w2k?
>
All but 4 of my 300+ applications passed the w2k test for certification, and
2 of the 4 that failed were printer drivers and fax modem drivers, which I
will get a newer version of from the manufacturer. Note the distinction
between "being certified" (true, few programs are) and "being able to run
with no problems under w2k" (the vast majority of programs are).
> > So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux is
> > like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in
value
> > of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
though
> > you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting
gears
> > manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
>
> No, Ray, those of us who pay the price for software, (unlike assholes
> like you), and who also choose to use MS, pay over and over again - for
> the continuous round of upgrades and the continuous efforts at making it
> work in the face of MS's complete indifference to quality and support.
>
That's capitalism. Deal with it, or go live in Cuba or North Korea.
> >
> > Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely
from A
> > to B with no hassles.
>
> Yes Ray, stick with microsoft, idiots like you can do no better.
>
>
Thank you Bob. Like the fly in MacAlister's poem, your peace is my
disaster.
> --
> - Bob Niederman http://bob-n.com
> Fight UCITA! http://www.4cite.org, http://bob-n.com/ucita
What the hell kind of kook are you? Who the hell is UCITA? You're wacko,
jacko.
Jack Kelly Dobson
I love you.
I anoint you with tender kisses.
Your greed and deep feelings of self loathing excite me.
I want to put my evil inside you.
Come, let us embrace.
j-
eyez
>I regret now having deleted Linux. Now I won't have an excuse to complain
>about it. However, if my w2k installation goes well (and so far only a
So you're leaving? *throws you a 'goodbye, don't come back!' party*
Sadly, i know youre nothing but a pesky little troll and you will be back,
but, it was a nice thought while it lasted.
--
Rando Christensen
ey...@xanthor.net
<perception is reality>
Roberto Alsina
"Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why
would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much
better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it
commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
Please don't get nationalistic in public.
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would
disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina
You forgot to mention I live in Anctartica this time.
BTW: do you really believe Windows 2000 is free for personal use?
Do you realize you are commiting an illegal act?
And considering what has happened lately to the stock you claimed to
own, you can't afford the legal fees!
> Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or
automatic
> transmissions in your vehicle?
I don't drive. In a large city like Buenos Aires, public transportation
is about 3 times faster. Not to mention a lot cheaper.
> If you have decent roads (read: a large
> installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market)
there
> really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a
benefit.
> Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline
is
> pricy and the roads are poor.
If you call the european roads poor, it shows you are obviously
parochial.
Just ask a german what his average highway driving speed is, and you
will be scared.
--
Roberto Alsina
mor...@thorin.brooks.af.milmebaby
<jdo...@binc.net> wrote:
.......
>Besides... Just installed W2k for the first time... great is not
>a word I would use for it.
>
>So far all I can say is: slightly faster than NT 4.0, more
Not at everything. Network Computing magazine did a good evaluation
on Win2k. Gave it a B-. Why?
"Our server-performance test results surprised us. Based on
performance briefings from Microsoft, we expected Windows 2000 to
outperform NT 4 by a wide margin. It didn't. In fact, Windows 2000 and
NT 4 were pretty much neck and neck in just about every test, with NT
4 usually ahead by a nose. Windows 2000 performed better than NT 4 as
a Web server, worse as an Exchange server, and about the same as NT
for file services. Clearly, performance is not an indicator for
upgrading to Windows 2000."
http://www.nwc.com/1104/1104f13.html
And they were running an pretty impressive machines:
"Our test bed for file and application services included dual 500-MHz
Pentium III servers with 512 MB of RAM and five UW-SCSI disks--one for
the C drive, one for D and three for E in a striped set. One of the
servers was running Windows NT 4 with Service Pack 5 and also
served as a primary domain controller.
The second server was running Windows 2000 and served as a domain
controller. Our client machines were Pentium III 600s with 512 MB of
RAM. Each client was connected to an Alteon WebSystems' Aceswitch 180
10/100/1000 switch at 100 Mbps, full-duplex. The servers were
connected to the same switch via an Alteon ACEnic Gigabit Ethernet
adapter."
>convoluted than NT and I managed to crash the API within ten
Ah, you must have turned Active Directory on. This is why the Air
Force has banned implementation of AD until Feb, 2001.
>minutes and get a "You're running out of virtual memory" message
>within fifteen minutes (on a PIII 500 with 128megs RAM).
>
>I guess it is great if you don't expect it to really do anything.
--
Jay E. Morris
System Software Specialist
(confuses the PHBs to call us managers or admin)
General Dynamics Communication Systems
for/Epidemiological Surveillance Division
Brooks AFB, TX
noel
Ray Lopez wrote in message ...
>I am going to delete Windows 2000 Professional Edition from my system in
preparation of
>installing RHAT Linux 5.x. I am so excited. Why would
>anybody care to use Win2K, now that Linux is out? In Linux: much better
>applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
>like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
>Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
>with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
>Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
>they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
>they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.
>
>Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
>transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
>installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
>really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
>Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Win2k, because gasoline is
>pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Win2k in the US, since software
>cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
written
>for Linux not MSFT. So the money you save in the initial cost of Win2k is
>like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in value
>of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
though
>you will look "cool", like a win2k poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
>manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
>
>Stick with "auto transmission" Linux--it will take you safely from A
>to B with no hassles.
>
>BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto
race
>before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
>controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
>stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Linux machine
>operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a
lot
>of "custom" Win2k boxes).
>
>Better luck next time, Win2k lo-Users!
>
>--
>RL
>
>
>
>
>
H H Chau
>> operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a
Suspect, probably ... an example would be more
convincing.
> Wow, an american who knows how to drive a manual.... well, probably
> not, but at least the wanker has heard of it! Name me an automatic that
> outperforms its manual equivalent? Yeah, damn right: NONE. Name me a
A friend of mine came from the States and had a
hard time to rent a car with auto transmission.
It doesn't bother me too much. It just a matter
of taste. To my horror, one time I was in Boston,
most of the time when pedestrians were in crossing,
cars awaiting were kinda skipping, skipping forward.
Never saw once in England.
> version of windoze that outforms ANY unix / BSD derivative? Well whaddaya
> know, NONE! Yeah you can burn up the clutch and wreck the syncros in a
> manual, but only if ya dont know how to drive (read: MCSE). Auto
> transmissions are no end up trouble, especially in performance cars. Lucky
> to last 4 years (incidentally Linux machines have been known to stay up for
> over a year.... windoze machines are lucky to make a week).
A newbie and a lover of GUI had no clue how to
change the system time under linux. Easiness
and effectiveness -- I tends to have both in
linux.
Cheers
Hau Hing
Ray Lopez
inner city kids...if only ONE LIFE can be changed (in this case turned away
from the path of perdition leading to Linux Hell), then all my posts will be
worth it.
eyez <ey...@xanthor.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8is0d...@xanielle.xanthor.net...
Ray Lopez
Your post was very informative. I concluded that one reason Win2k is no
faster than NT 4 is that NT 4 is already smoking fast (beat Linux in the
Mindspring independent lab tests of last year). Also look at their
setup--very impressive hardware. Win2k is, therefore NT 5 with "plug and
play" and more stability (multi-threading and a more protected kernel).
Looking forward to installing win2k....
--
RL (better luck next time Linux lo-Users!)
PS-Jack you are a homo bitch queermo.... you'd do well here in CA ;-)
<mor...@thorin.brooks.af.milmebaby> wrote in message
news:392e7172...@news.brooks.af.mil...
Ray Lopez
noel <mac...@hotmailcom.comNOSPITTING> wrote in message
news:8gm6qu$s5c$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> ** message changed and posted to alt.os.windows2000 or somewhere.. **
>
> Ray Lopez wrote in message ...
> >I am going to delete Windows 2000 Professional Edition from my system in
> preparation of
>
Thanks noel. I did not realise there was a alt.os.windows2000 NG. I'll go
check it out now.
Ray Lopez
I'm stuck here for a while longer.
Funny though I notice that the more knowledgeable posters in this NG are
DUAL BOOT or multiple OS users. The ignoramuses are the ones that believe
in "Linux Only".
I don't mind having Linux (a virus OS) on my second HD, so long as it knows
its place. As a hobby, or to run Apache, Linux is fine (actually probably
Unix is better). MY beef is with the consumer (mass) market.
--
RL
Ray Lopez <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TYzX4.17817$Sx.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Matt Rickard
Brad Hughes wrote:
> > Ray Lopez <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:IhJW4.30686$S31.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > > Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or automatic
> > > transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a large
> > > installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market) there
> > > really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a benefit.
> > > Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline is
> > > pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since software
> > > cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
> > written
> > > for MSFT, not Linux. So the money you save in the initial cost of Linux
> > is
> > > like the gasoline you will save if you buy a stick--but your trade-in
> > value
> > > of your manual transmission auto will be less than an automatic, and,
> > though
> > > you will look "cool", like a Linux poser, the annoyance of shifting gears
> > > manually for city driving will far outweigh any savings.
> > >
> > > Stick with "auto transmission" MSFT Windows--it will take you safely from
> > A
> > > to B with no hassles.
> > >
> > > BTW, cement trucks use automatics, as did a winner of a Grand Prix auto
> > race
> > > before automatics transmissions were banned (it turns out a computer
> > > controlled automatic transmission racing car can outperform a human with a
> > > stick shift under certain conditions, as I suspect a Windows 2k machine
> > > operating under the "default" factory settings can probably outperform a
> > lot
> > > of "custom" Linux boxes).
> > >
CJ
> I don't mind having Linux (a virus OS) on my second HD, so long as it knows
> its place. As a hobby, or to run Apache, Linux is fine (actually probably
> Unix is better). MY beef is with the consumer (mass) market.
What's the matter pissed off because w2k is selling like an old diaper
and MSFT stock is circling the bowl on it's way down?
Ray I told you to sell your stock before it went in the toilet. I guess
you held on too long. Bummer. What did you lose? About half of your
investment?
CJ
--
Linux flyer 2.2.14 #5 Fri Feb 25 22:56:15 CST 2000 i586 unknown
4:00pm up 84 days, 4:52, 2 users, load average: 1.27, 1.13, 1.04
Brad Hughes
Matt Rickard wrote:
>
> Definitely the best post of this thread.
>
> Brad Hughes wrote:
>
> > Since this guy likes comparing Winblows to a car, I think this might be
> > appropriate:
> >
> > If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving
> > cars with the following characteristics:
> >
> > 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
> > 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy
> > a new car.
> > 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you
> > would just accept this, restart and drive on.
> > 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause
> > your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
> > have to reinstall the engine.
> > 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
> > "Car98"
> > or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
> > 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
> > five
> > times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five
<<SNIP>>
Richard Steiner
>LOL some of the shittiest roads I have *ever* driven on were interstate
>highways in Minnesota. Pot holes, uneven surfaces, tarmac disintegrating.
Do you have any idea how much effort is involved in maintaining a road
up here when compared to roads in a warmer climate?
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Who is John Galt?
Paul Williams
Paul (aka Riff)
Live now
Paul Williams
On Sat, 27 May 2000 00:37:16 -0500, rste...@visi.com (Richard
Steiner) wrote:
>Do you have any idea how much effort is involved in maintaining a road
>up here when compared to roads in a warmer climate?
Paul (aka Riff)
Live now
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>On Sat, 27 May 2000 00:37:16 -0500, rste...@visi.com (Richard
>Steiner) wrote:
>
>>Do you have any idea how much effort is involved in maintaining a road
>>up here when compared to roads in a warmer climate?
>
>Is that M$'s excuse then?
It's a lot better than anything I've heard from them. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Ever lob a live grenade into a basket of kittens?
Roman Bysh
Bob Niederman
>
> Bob, you're not that bright, are you? This thread is flame bait. I
> thought I made that clear last year, that I troll this NG just to see what
> morons will reply to my provocative posts. BTW, I work for the Linux
> community; I'm trying to pretend to be a Microsoft weenie just to piss
> people off at Microsoft. Is it working?
Ray, I know you're a troll. I just enjoy jerking your chain to see what
new piece of stupidity you'll produce.
You 'work for the Linux community'? Is that why you bad-mouth it with
in every post? Do us a favor, go work for microsoft.
>
> Bullshiite. C'mon Bob. You expect me to believe that line of bull? You
> have time to religiously follow each and every post in this NG, and yet you
> "worked with the developer" of a package to include "a function", "voila!".
> Impossible to do so much.
1) Why do you keep mis-spelling bullshit? are you that stupid?
probably. or are you intentionally trying to piss off a whole sect of
islam?
2) I don't follow every post. I do follow yours because your stupidity
and pathetic dishonesty are so amusing, and to correcc your many errors,
for the sake of those newer than myself.
3) You can choose to disbelieve it but it happened exactly that way. I
will admit that the other guy di nost of the programming, but I did do a
little, plus I tested.
> Besides programming is not that easy; I should
> know, I code.
Tell me what you've written so I can stay the hell away from it.
> You make Linux sound like a magic bullet, a cure-all, a
> panacea. (redundant I know, but when you write for children, a rule of thumb
> is to say the same thing three different ways; 3 times; repeat yourself)
I said it's an open door. That's all I said. I didn't say itr was
easy, but it is possible.
>
> > More to the point, no part of my effort or earnings go to feed that
> > greedy bastard Gates. His backing of DMCA and UCITA are doing more to
> > undermine our rights and freedoms than communists ever did. Shitheads
> > like you are his rightful prey.
> >
>
> UNITA? I thought they were fighting in Angola.
>
UCITA, moron. With a C, not an N. Check out www.4cite.org. and also,
learn how to read.
> > Linux (or other open source OSs) are an open door to a world you haven't
> > the sense to even dream about.
> >
>
> See above. Coding is not that easy. You make it sound so glib and easy. I
> have a bug in my software, I email a Linux group, and "voila!" a patch is
> out that weekend. Sure Bob.
>
Actually, many report exactly this result. I had this exact experience,
but I emailed the developer, not a newsgroup.
> > > and quality programs are written
> > > for MSFT, not Linux.
> >
> > Why are the newsgroups alive with people complaining about this quality
> > software? And how much do you want to pay to write an email, anyhow?
> > And if you want to brag about cutting costs by way of software piracy,
> > grow some balls and give us a real address - the SPA would love to talk
> > to you, I'm sure.
>
> Don't be stupid. I lie low; guerrilla capitalism at work.
thievery != guerilla capitalism. I'll stand behind what I say - you
hide like a coward.
Bob wrote:
> >
> > No, Ray, those of us who pay the price for software, (unlike assholes
> > like you), and who also choose to use MS, pay over and over again - for
> > the continuous round of upgrades and the continuous efforts at making it
> > work in the face of MS's complete indifference to quality and support.
> >
>
>
Ray wrote
>
> That's capitalism. Deal with it, or go live in Cuba or North Korea.
>
Ray, you shouldn't try and get philosophic - you screw it up like
eveything else. Capitalism means I get to to choose, and I choose to
use Linux. Microsoft, with its secretive, one-size-fits-all,
it's-my-way-or-the-highway attitude, its lying and corruption, its
attempts to stifle dissent, is much more reminiscent of the
dictatorships you name than is the Linux community.
>
> What the hell kind of kook are you? Who the hell is UCITA? You're wacko,
> jacko.
>
Do you ever read anything? How could you *not* know what ucita is?
Dipshit.
Brian
Bob Niederman wrote in message <392FE7D5...@bob-n.com>...
>Ray, I know you're a troll. I just enjoy jerking your chain to see what
>new piece of stupidity you'll produce.
>
>You 'work for the Linux community'? Is that why you bad-mouth it with
>in every post? Do us a favor, go work for microsoft.
Ray's too stupid to have a job.
Strider Centaur
To Ray, you know its all about you babe.
Wow I go away for a month and come back and Ray is still just as clue less as
they come, he rally does need some form of life outside of his apartment. Ray,
Buddy, Baby its a whole big world out there, go see it and learn something about
people.
BTW, anyone notice a huge shift in the market recently? Seems more of the
large scale development houses are adding Linux to their list of target os's
after IBM announced Linux Support for the S390. Add this to the near stagnate
growth of IIS over the last couple months and it all points to big problems in
redmond.
For the record most quality software has been available for Linux for about a
year now, that is SAP, Oracle, DB2, and a list of other super stars that are well
beyond the grasp of someone like Ray, who seems to think a powerful OS is
measured by its office suite and game list. :-)
In case you were wondering ray, the S390 is a main frame, a big one, from
IBM, and now makes linux the most scalable OS in the world. It can run on
everything from a palm to IBM's largest system ever built. Kind of sinks any
chance Micrsloth had in the embedded and mainframe world. :-)
Oh and ray, please, reply, I just love the way you reply to the Linux
Advocates trolls. Seems you have been a fool for years, maybe, just maybe the
joke is on you?
Again sorry all, please no need to reply unless you feel a burning desire
too. :-)
Strider Centaur
Akira Yamanita
>
> First to all my Linux friends, sorry about this.
>
> To Ray, you know its all about you babe.
>
> Wow I go away for a month and come back and Ray is still just as clue less as
> they come, he rally does need some form of life outside of his apartment. Ray,
> Buddy, Baby its a whole big world out there, go see it and learn something about
> people.
I've been away for 5 months and he's still at it! I'd need to be well
compensated to complain about ANYTHING that long. Check this out. I
think you'll get a kick out of it. :-)
Koen Witters
> Don't be stupid. I post here for the same reason liberals throw money at
> inner city kids...if only ONE LIFE can be changed (in this case turned away
> from the path of perdition leading to Linux Hell), then all my posts will be
> worth it.
Well Ray, you think linux sucks ha? Well, have I got news for you friend!
You said the linux on your computer was RH5.x. To be honest, a LONG time ago I
had that OS on my system, and I replaced it with the SuSE distribution (=the
Euro stuff). That RH5.x wasn't good at all. But now I have RH6.2 running, and
it is incredible. I suggest you keep a partition on your
hard disk free for RH6.2. Just buy the RedHat box, but if you are too miserly
you can alwas get it some way for free (and legal!).
Insert the boot disk and look how easy the installation goes (even for a dumb
shit like yourself).
If you choose Gnome or KDE as your desktop environment, your eyes will be
burned out. And when you return to your window$, it will just look primitive
and not adaptable to your needs (whatever they may be). You will ask yourself
"why doesn't windows has such a great desktop environment".
Ever used Photoshop or some other graphical $oftware? Well, I did, and I
thought it was great. But when I first used the GIMP, oh man, where has it been
all my life! Much better than those commercial products, thrust me. 3D studio
MAX, you know how much that costs? Ever looked at the FREE 3D software at
www.linuxberg.com? It has the same capabilities as 3D studio MAX, and for free.
Rendering, animation, editing in 3d, they can pull it all! MSOffice, don't make
me laugh. Just look at the linux variants.
You said that Linux runs *almoust* as fast as NT. When I read that I laughed my
ass off! A friend of my did a test with some other guys of his work. At there
work they have some Dell computers with the same hardware, so they did a test
on there own. They installed FreeBSD, Linux, WinNT, Win98 and Win2000 on the
same hardware. Then they downloaded the seti@home for all of them and run the
same packets. The FreeBSD did about 6 hours on it, Linux 8, and the windows
variants all about 24 hours. And there was nothing running on the Windows
computers that didn't had to (the windows freaks made sure about that).
Everytime I hear about viruses on computers, worms in Outlook, .... . I always
say "That is what happens when you run windows crap". There are alway backdoors
in that stupid OS, and the users of windows will always be the ones who are
fucked.
Why do some Amerikans always think that America is THE BEST? "I love America, I
love being an American, I would die for America"??????? Swear by the flag! Sing
your national song! What is that good for? Propaganda of the US governement?
American cars are the best, American technology is the best, in America there
is real freedom! Is it really?? I live in Belgium (Europe if you even didn't
knew this one Ray. Does Brussels ring a bell? (Brussels is not a country
Ray!)), and I knew a guy from America. He said to me: "I was shocked when I saw
your taxi's, in the US they are just taxi's, but here they drive with BMW and
Mercedes. In US that is conciderd as driving with a sport car."
If you ever talk about some Eurofag land, make sure you have been there, so you
won't make a fool of yourself. And if you have been there, you would see who
the real fag is.
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
Fifteen years ago people were saying "The free software people build some nice
toys and demos, but they haven't got what it takes to
build real tools". The FSF proved them wrong. Five years ago the same people
said "OK, GNU is a nifty programmer's toolkit but
they'll never build a viable operating system." Linux proved them wrong again.
Now they're saying "OK, so Linux is a nice sandbox
for hackers and it does Internet pretty well, but they'll never build decent
end-user applications." If the naysayers are right this time,
it will be a first. -- Eric S. Raymond --
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
My advice: Just install RH6.2, configure it, use it, and you will probably be
too scared to show your face here ever again. But enjoy your Linux!
Koen Witters
Belgium
http://www.trackerdogs.com
Oh, I forgot: How old are you anyway? 16? I think someone older than 16 would
contain more wisdom than you.
Jonathon Fowler
Jonathon
--
__________________________________________
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.
Jonathon Fowler - ICQ UIN 17263235
http://home.primus.com.au/jono_f
http://jonof.edgenetwk.com
http://www.dukeworld.com/jjduke - JJ Duke Nukem 3D
__________________________________________
Dries van Oosten <dvoo...@phys.uu.nl> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.000525...@ruunat.phys.uu.nl...
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 hobo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <slrn8innju...@lhost.ldom>,
> > mai...@gmx.net (Bastian) wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 May 2000 04:56:08 GMT, Ray Lopez wrote:
> > > >Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or
> > automatic
> > > >transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a
> > large
> > >
> > > "Decent roads"... Guy, you've never been on a three-lane German
> > Autobahn!
> > >
> > > Bastian
> > >
> >
> > Ok, i'm a Stupid American. Are you saying that the German Autobahn is a
> > bad road? Or are you saying the exact opposite?
>
> The Autobahns are one of the best roads in the world. Miles and miles of
> it, without a speed limit *grin*.
>
> Groeten,
> Dries
>
>
Jonathon Fowler
Jonathon
--
__________________________________________
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.
Jonathon Fowler - ICQ UIN 17263235
http://home.primus.com.au/jono_f
http://jonof.edgenetwk.com
http://www.dukeworld.com/jjduke - JJ Duke Nukem 3D
__________________________________________
Brad Hughes <brhu...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote in message
news:392C6061...@americasm01.nt.com...
> Since this guy likes comparing Winblows to a car, I think this might be
> appropriate:
>
> If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving
> cars with the following characteristics:
>
> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy
> a new car.
> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you
> would just accept this, restart and drive on.
> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause
> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
> have to reinstall the engine.
> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
> "Car98"
> or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
> five
> times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on five
> > > Question for you "control freaks": do you prefer standard or
automatic
> > > transmissions in your vehicle? If you have decent roads (read: a
large
> > > installed base, and decent software, like with the Windows market)
there
> > > really is no need for a manual stick shift. A burden more than a
benefit.
> > > Stick shifts are popular in Eurofag land, like Linux, because gasoline
is
> > > pricy and the roads are poor. No need for Linux in the US, since
software
> > > cost is but a small fraction of total cost, and quality programs are
> > written
Jonathon Fowler
Jonathon
--
__________________________________________
No amount of careful planning will ever replace dumb luck.
Jonathon Fowler - ICQ UIN 17263235
http://home.primus.com.au/jono_f
http://jonof.edgenetwk.com
http://www.dukeworld.com/jjduke - JJ Duke Nukem 3D
__________________________________________
Ray Lopez <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5%zX4.17835$Sx.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Don't be stupid. I post here for the same reason liberals throw money at
> inner city kids...if only ONE LIFE can be changed (in this case turned
away
> from the path of perdition leading to Linux Hell), then all my posts will
be
> worth it.
>
>
Koen Witters
> I don't mind having Linux (a virus OS) on my second HD, so long as it knows
> its place. As a hobby, or to run Apache, Linux is fine (actually probably
> Unix is better). MY beef is with the consumer (mass) market.
Oh my GOD NOOOOOO!!!! RAY.... think of what you are going to do!!!!!
Sure, first it starts innocent by keeping your second HD free, then you
install linux. Before you know it you start surfing the web with it, and
using
the desktop environment (and liking it!). Then you put linux as default
in the
LILO boot. After a while you think "why is that windows stuff taking
place on
my first HD", so you throw it away: and then my friend, you will be
doomed to
LINUX HELL forever!
Please man, stop it now, while you still can!
Choose Ctrl-Alt-Del ... choose RESET ... choose Windows!
Ray Lopez
Idiot.
Akira Yamanita <ayamanit...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:39304481...@bigfoot.com...
Ray Lopez
Strider Centaur <str...@scifi-fantasy.com> wrote in message
news:39302EF4...@scifi-fantasy.com...
> First to all my Linux friends, sorry about this.
>
> To Ray, you know its all about you babe.
>
> Wow I go away for a month and come back and Ray is still just as clue
less as
> they come, he rally does need some form of life outside of his apartment.
Ray,
> Buddy, Baby its a whole big world out there, go see it and learn something
about
> people.
Where did you go, Hell-sink-e? Or the nearest star? You know you can name
a star (for a fee). An outfit sells certificates (unofficial) to name
stars, and takes money from fools like you.
>
> BTW, anyone notice a huge shift in the market recently? Seems more of
the
> large scale development houses are adding Linux to their list of target
os's
> after IBM announced Linux Support for the S390. Add this to the near
stagnate
> growth of IIS over the last couple months and it all points to big
problems in
> redmond.
I did see that press release, and frankly I was kind of amazed IBM would
support Linux. Then I figured it was a marketing ploy, because Big Iron is
sinking. People are moving away from the mainframe model, as PCs become
more powerful. Only banks and ATM type insititutions (clearing houses) use
mainframes, because of the large number of ports you can simultaneously
open. But once networking has the bugs ironed out (it's not there yet),
then scalability will truely exist in the PC and the mainframe (and
Apache/Linux) will be dead.
Did you get that? I bet few did; but that's the curse of genius, not being
understood.
>
> For the record most quality software has been available for Linux for
about a
> year now, that is SAP, Oracle, DB2, and a list of other super stars that
are well
> beyond the grasp of someone like Ray, who seems to think a powerful OS is
> measured by its office suite and game list. :-)
>
You know Centuar, you're not that bright either. You and Bob should get
together for a coffee klatch. FYI, for reasons beyond your comprehension,
the office suite and game markets actually *DO* drive the OS market. Too
complicated for a peabrain like you to understand, but trust me. It's one
reason why, for example, floating point hardware was not added to the x86
series until very late (the 486). You don't need floating point arithmetic
for most office suites and games. (Floating point? Wuz dat? sez Centuar).
> In case you were wondering ray, the S390 is a main frame, a big one,
from
> IBM, and now makes linux the most scalable OS in the world. It can run on
> everything from a palm to IBM's largest system ever built. Kind of sinks
any
> chance Micrsloth had in the embedded and mainframe world. :-)
>
Microsloth never had real designs on the mainframe world. They don't want
to conquer the entire world, just most of it.
> Oh and ray, please, reply, I just love the way you reply to the Linux
> Advocates trolls. Seems you have been a fool for years, maybe, just maybe
the
> joke is on you?
>
Now this is interesting. Please point me to the Linux Advocate trolls. I
haven't seen one, unless you consider this whole NG a Linux Advocate troll.
>
> Again sorry all, please no need to reply unless you feel a burning
desire
> too. :-)
>
> Strider Centaur
>
A hunk-a hunk-a burning love...
Ray Lopez has left the house...
Kart
"Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
xayY4.9843$VO2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html
>
> Idiot.
Yes. This one (29) is really perfect for you Ray, this is a very good
self-description !
What a good choice you made one time in your computing life ! Continue this
way, your teath will be brighter ... soon.
>
> Akira Yamanita <ayamanit...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:39304481...@bigfoot.com...
> > Strider Centaur wrote:
> > >
> > > First to all my Linux friends, sorry about this.
> > >
> > > To Ray, you know its all about you babe.
> > >
> > > Wow I go away for a month and come back and Ray is still just as
> clue less as
> > > they come, he rally does need some form of life outside of his
> apartment. Ray,
> > > Buddy, Baby its a whole big world out there, go see it and learn
> something about
> > > people.
Kart
sinking ! They can't have very stable choices over years and use too much
money to change their mind every 2/3 years.
One point about which others are right is that Linux is conquering the whole
computing world. And guess why ? Not because it's free, not because it's
quality designed, just because it is free with quality !
M$ takes the world as a big alpha testing group, With Linux you know which
version is stable and which other is not. It's up to you ! If you install
the version that is said as stable, then no problem, it will work ! Studies
showed that a NT4 server hangs at least once per month (average of cases
encountered), the same study showed Linux servers that were up and running
full functionnal for 3 years !! And it has been published in a Windows
dedicated worlwide paper mag.
Before launching W2K, M$ said that NT4 was not so far stable and that W2K
would be. And it is not ! It is slightly better, but so slightly !!! M$ will
never be able to publish a real pro stable OS. That's why they don't host so
much INet servers (someone told me that unixes had more than 70% percent
market share is this domain, is it true ?), That's why they don't host
routers, that's why they are dying ... The end of the dream had began ! Too
much free softwares out there now, JAVA growing (with full office suites
designed for it which will be able to run under Linux), etc.
Really, free software is the key. Not every software can be delivered as
free, some require really big teams to be done (SAP ?), but much of the
softwares that run today on low end PC under Windows will be free soon !
In my company we are revoking NT servers to use AIX instead. Just because we
can't pay someone having it's full day monitoring NT to be sure it still
works. We didn't choose Linux because we need special com cards that are not
still available (editor announces end of the year). Otherwise, we would have
done so.
This just means that Linux is pushing NT out by the backdoor of the
mid-sized companies. Larger ones will just come this way too. The end of NT4
means going to Linux instead of W2K for some big international companies I
know.
Think what you think is the best, but don't trust Bill too much, you could
lose with him.
"Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
5jyY4.9895$VO2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Strider Centaur <str...@scifi-fantasy.com> wrote in message
> news:39302EF4...@scifi-fantasy.com...
> > First to all my Linux friends, sorry about this.
> >
> > To Ray, you know its all about you babe.
> >
> > Wow I go away for a month and come back and Ray is still just as
clue
> less as
> > they come, he rally does need some form of life outside of his
apartment.
> Ray,
> > Buddy, Baby its a whole big world out there, go see it and learn
something
> about
> > people.
>
anonymous
do little fact checking. IBM mainframe hardware sales we up over 15%
last year according to both IBM and IDC. You probably didn't know that
because they didn't cover that in this years high school programming
class.
When I read these silly rants about the "mainframe" going away it just
shows how stupid and ill informed these people are.
Congrats Ray, I read two of your posts and that qualifies you for the
Kill file - not for flaming but for stupidity.
On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:04:49 GMT, "Ray Lopez" <raylo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Mr Slot
$VO2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Ray Lopez"
<raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I did see that press release, and frankly I was kind of amazed
IBM would
>support Linux. Then I figured it was a marketing ploy, because
Big Iron is
>sinking. People are moving away from the mainframe model, as
PCs become
>more powerful. Only banks and ATM type insititutions (clearing
houses) use
>mainframes, because of the large number of ports you can
simultaneously
>open. But once networking has the bugs ironed out (it's not
there yet),
>then scalability will truely exist in the PC and the mainframe
(and
>Apache/Linux) will be dead.
IBM is far from sinking. Admittidly, they're not as big as they
used to be, but they are so huge it would take a calamity to
destroy them. And while it is true that it's possible to link
PC's to give you mainframe power, you need a system like Linux
to do it.
>
>Did you get that? I bet few did; but that's the curse of
genius, not being
>understood.
>
Umm, okay.
>
>>
>> For the record most quality software has been available
for Linux for
>about a
>> year now, that is SAP, Oracle, DB2, and a list of other super
stars that
>are well
>> beyond the grasp of someone like Ray, who seems to think a
powerful OS is
>> measured by its office suite and game list. :-)
>>
>
>You know Centuar, you're not that bright either. You and Bob
should get
>together for a coffee klatch. FYI, for reasons beyond your
comprehension,
>the office suite and game markets actually *DO* drive the OS
market. Too
>complicated for a peabrain like you to understand, but trust
me. It's one
>reason why, for example, floating point hardware was not added
to the x86
>series until very late (the 486). You don't need floating
point arithmetic
>for most office suites and games. (Floating point? Wuz dat?
sez Centuar).
Actually, Floating Point Arthimetic was developed for
spreadsheets and CAD programs. Games utilised this feature for
polygon drawing.
Mr Slot
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Coffee
Foolish Trolls,
The age of Microsoft will soon be over. With your software outdated and your
company broken up you will have no where to go. I can see it now as I stroll
thru K-Mart and look in the
50 % off bin I will see copies of MS software.
Welcome to the Age Of Linux!
Its time to really learn how to run a real operating system. Not some crashing
GUI thats only good if you want to play a game.
Hurry! Time grows short for you trolls. The writing is on the wall!
--
coffee at indy dot net
RedHat 6.0
linux notes -----> http://www.indy.net/~coffee
Koen Witters
Hey-hey! Don't call me a troll! Maybe I forgot the tags <irony> </irony> in my
message (but I thought it was clear). My point was that Ray Lopez will sooner or
later be swallowed into the Linux world, and will like Linux more than windows, to
his regret ofcourse.
Linux was made by the hacker community, and nobody will beat the hacker community
at their own game. The MS days are over, real computerfreaks will take things from
here!
So Coffee, I am already in love with Linux. But I guess Ray will never change.
-- you can't teach a blind man to see --
Koen Witters
Belgium
http://www.trackerdogs.com
Oh, wait: Ray, boy, I almoust forgot you. I have found a cool background for you
to put on your windows desktop (too bad you can't install the whole theme):
http://unixthemes.tucows.com/enlightenment/preview/129-001-006-036C.html
Coffee
It really looked like you were supporting Ray in your last post. Sorry about
that.
I totally agree. MS days are numbered and will soon fade into history.
coffee
Ian Smith
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Smith
^^^^^^^^^^
wrong again Lopez. Do come back & apologize when you've looked it up .
. .
Travis Henson
run for the better os...LoL bill dont have a chance after next year...too
many linux versions and programs ......You cant beat a free os.Lol
Coffee wrote in message <3936553F...@nospam.net>...
Jay E. Morris
wrote:
>Well when they start selling linux at wal-mart you know that bill is in a
>run for the better os...LoL bill dont have a chance after next year...too
Well, Red Hat is being sold through Sam's. Is that close enough?
--
Hell no. There's honour among thieves. There's honour among solicitors,
but I repeat myself. But the only thing that binds monks together is
mutual fear, bitterness and stone cold rage, same as it always was.
Simon Cozens in ASR
The Raven
Ray Lopez wrote:
> I am going to delete RHAT Linux 5.x from my system in preparation of
> installing Windows 2000 Professional Edition. I am so excited. Why would
> anybody care to use Linux, now that Win2k is out? In Win2k: much better
> applications, nearly crash proof, free (if you don't use it commercially,
> like most people don't), and, made in the Good Ole US of A.
>
> Of course, people like Ian Smith, a blowhard from the UK, would disagree
> with the above, as would Mr. Aussy Osbourne, Roberto Alsina and Bob
> Niederman, but they are Linux fanatics, like Cyberwizard, who like to think
> they are on the cutting edge because they installed a non-standard OS that
> they can "control". Like OS/2 or the Amiga.