Finally busted ....
High Plains Thumper
I found out that AIOE uses an encrypted ID for posting host, but it is not
randomised by contact. It is related to the IP address that posting host
uses and is consistent.
I figured that since the trolls use AIOE to anonymise themselves, why not?
I have found out that it can be tied to a particular user. My ISP does not
change my IP address.
Live and learn ....
Anyway, I got a kick out of some of the responses as "Wendy Toiletwater",
LOL.
Well, I figure that trying to be like the trolls and do some limited
trolling is probably, well, best left up to trolls.
It was fun trying, but it is too much trouble to look for anonymising
servers.
BTW, Tim Smith is still on his high horse, believing the COLA charter is in
error. His position is what it states is not what it means. Now he has
backed down his claim that 400 advocacy messages are now 200, between the 10
days that David Sill first posted a straw poll to see if there was an
interest in creating new newsgroups to replace comp.os.linux.help, then
modified it to include COLA back in Fall 1994.
In a casual look on Google, I found that so called advocacy posts on COLH
took on different flavours. Not all were advocacy related.
Tim Smith keeps shifting the goal post. Basically he wants a newsgroup that
matches the comp.unix.advocacy charter created back in 1993.
It states,
| CHARTER: For discussions of the form 'Unix sucks!', 'Unix rules!', 'Unix
| is obsolete!', 'Unix is better/worse than system X', and similar.
Oddly they got what they wanted back in 1993, but that group now has very
few posts.
--
HPT
BearItAll
You would have to expect different types of post in 1994, Linux in the
desktop had a lot more problems than it does now so they was more to talk
about.
These days you whop in a DVD, 30 mins later you have a desktop. It means you
have to find something else to talk about.
So, why do you never see a baby pidgeon?
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Oddly they got what they wanted back in 1993, but that group now has very
>> few posts.
>
> You would have to expect different types of post in 1994, Linux in the
> desktop had a lot more problems than it does now so they was more to talk
> about.
Actually, no. The reason is buried in the history of .advocacy groups as a
whole, not cola in particular.
The first .advocacy group created was comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, and was the
result of the comp.sys.amiga hierarchy reorganization. Amiga users were
considered to be pretty zealous, though not on the order of today's Linux
and other open source zealots (not to be confused with mere advocates).
Because Amiga zealots had spent a great deal of time and effort abusing
other newsgrous, there was a rather large number of "retaliatory" strikes
on comp.sys.amiga by users of Mac, Unix, and Windows. This made
comp.sys.amiga all but unusable.
So, during the reorg, csaa was born, and it turned out to be very
successful in terms of "playpenning" this kind of talk, and was rather
quickly adopted by windows, unix, next, mac, and of course linux
newsgroups, because this sort of thing was common to all computer
hierarchies.
Tim Smith
> BTW, Tim Smith is still on his high horse, believing the COLA charter is
> in error. His position is what it states is not what it means. Now he
No, you keep misrepresenting my position. My position is that it means
what it states. Your position is that "compared to other systems" means
only favorable positions, despite that being contrary to the normal
meaning of the word "compared", and to the arguments that were given in
the discussion that led to the creation of the group.
DFS
The charter says "the benefits of Linux compared to other operating
systems", so apparently cola IS supposed to be a huge circle-jerk where you
can only praise the amateurish mess of community-developed crud. The
founders of cola must have known what a hackjob it was, so they tried to
prevent open discussion.
90% of the "advocates" posts are off-topic, because all they discuss is "the
drawbacks of Windows compared to other operating systems". I can only
imagine what a moderated cola would look like...
Tim Smith
> The charter says "the benefits of Linux compared to other operating
> systems", so apparently cola IS supposed to be a huge circle-jerk where you
> can only praise the amateurish mess of community-developed crud. The
I don't see how you get that. When someone posts that Linux handles
multimedia well (a benefit of Linux) and, say, Flatfish, says that
Windows does it much better, he is talking about a benifit of Linux,
compared to another system (Windows). He's saying the comparison favors
Windows.
That's within the words of the charter.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:48:01 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:22 +0000, BearItAll wrote:
>
>>> Oddly they got what they wanted back in 1993, but that group now has very
>>> few posts.
>>
>> You would have to expect different types of post in 1994, Linux in the
>> desktop had a lot more problems than it does now so they was more to talk
>> about.
>
> Actually, no. The reason is buried in the history of .advocacy groups as a
> whole, not cola in particular.
>
> The first .advocacy group created was comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, and was the
> result of the comp.sys.amiga hierarchy reorganization. Amiga users were
> considered to be pretty zealous, though not on the order of today's Linux
> and other open source zealots (not to be confused with mere advocates).
>
> Because Amiga zealots had spent a great deal of time and effort abusing
> other newsgrous, there was a rather large number of "retaliatory" strikes
> on comp.sys.amiga by users of Mac, Unix, and Windows. This made
> comp.sys.amiga all but unusable.
>
you claim that todays Linux "zealots" are more "zealous" than the Amiga
zealots. you also claim that the amiga zealots " spent a great deal of
time and effort abusing other newsgrous"
Since one is worse than the other (or so you claim) perhaps you can show
me the "great deal of time and effort abusing other newsgrous" done by
the Linux folks?
> So, during the reorg, csaa was born, and it turned out to be very
> successful in terms of "playpenning" this kind of talk, and was rather
> quickly adopted by windows, unix, next, mac, and of course linux
> newsgroups, because this sort of thing was common to all computer
> hierarchies.
I see the Mac and Windows zealots coming here, I don't see the reverse
being any ways near the same level of problem.
Judging by that, I'd say the Mac and Microsoft Zealots are the worst of
the bunch...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFdflwd90bcYOAWPYRAp8jAJ9BoId+67cejCwi0nNrmFpmEvgCnwCeKiyu
I2H0Bl2CZ4OR3cAS8NB/rko=
=zcek
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"I think you should defend to the death their right to march,
and then go down and meet them with baseball bats."
-- Woody Allen, on the KKK
DFS
The first one is on-topic; flatfish's isn't, since it doesn't discuss the
[relative] benefits of Linux.
Taking the description literally, you can't criticize Linux on cola.
I don't accept the literal cola description, and neither does anyone else.
It needs to be changed.
Peter Kai Jensen
Hash: SHA1
Tim Smith wrote:
>> BTW, Tim Smith is still on his high horse, believing the COLA charter
>> is in error. His position is what it states is not what it means.
>
> No, you keep misrepresenting my position.
No, your position is just wrong, that's it.
> My position is that it means what it states.
No, your position is clearly that half the charter means something
entirely different from the whole charter.
> Your position is that "compared to other systems" means only favorable
> positions, despite that being contrary to the normal meaning of the
> word "compared", and to the arguments that were given in the
> discussion that led to the creation of the group.
And the whole charter reads "For discussion of the benefits of Linux
compared to other operating systems". Notice the word "benefits"?
Notice how it qualifies the rest of the sentence? You were wrong, and
if you continue to maintain your position, I'll assume bad faith on your
part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFdnERd1ZThqotgfgRAiUXAJ0XHH/s6/YD5fNTGcA+oum+PmdScACgjVFy
vmr084sU9IWoGvJ6rN6V6wk=
=trY/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
PeKaJe
Word is a fine tool when you don't need your output to look identical on
every machine that might use it. -- Erik Funkenbusch, Microsoft apologist
Hadron Quark
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>>> BTW, Tim Smith is still on his high horse, believing the COLA charter
>>> is in error. His position is what it states is not what it means.
>>
>> No, you keep misrepresenting my position.
>
> No, your position is just wrong, that's it.
>
>> My position is that it means what it states.
>
> No, your position is clearly that half the charter means something
> entirely different from the whole charter.
>
>> Your position is that "compared to other systems" means only favorable
>> positions, despite that being contrary to the normal meaning of the
>> word "compared", and to the arguments that were given in the
>> discussion that led to the creation of the group.
>
> And the whole charter reads "For discussion of the benefits of Linux
> compared to other operating systems". Notice the word "benefits"?
> Notice how it qualifies the rest of the sentence? You were wrong, and
> if you continue to maintain your position, I'll assume bad faith on your
> part.
It's always amusing when bigheads like Peter & Mark throw in "and I will
assume bad faith" or something similar. They see it as the most severe
of warnings. LOL.
Notice the word "discussion". Which immediately negates the rest of your
self righteous bilge.
"discuss"
,----
| advise with, agitate, air, analyze, argue, bargain, call in, canvass, collogue, comment upon, compare notes, confer, confer with,
| consider, consult, consult with, controvert, counsel, criticize, deal with, debate, deliberate, deliberate over, deliberate upon,
| descant, discept, discourse, discourse about, discuss with, dispute, dissert, dissertate, examine, exchange observations, exchange views,
| go into, handle, have conversations, hold conference, inquire into, interpret, investigate, knock around, moot, negotiate, palaver,
| parley, pass under review, powwow, pro and con, put heads together, rap, reason, reason about, reason the point, reason with, refer to,
| remark upon, review, sift, sit down together, sit down with, study, survey, take counsel, take up, take up with, talk, talk about, talk
| of, talk over, thrash out, thresh out, toss, touch upon, treat, treat of, ventilate, write up
`----
,----
| 4. To examine in detail or by disputation; to reason upon by
| presenting favorable and adverse considerations; to
| debate; to sift; to investigate; to ventilate. "We sat and
| . . . discussed the farm . . . and the price of grain."
| --Tennyson. "To discuss questions of taste." --Macaulay.
| [1913 Webster]
`----
BearItAll
I agree with Jim. I for one am all for Linux, I'm not in the least
interested in prying MS Win from those who want it, that doesn't serve any
purpose.
But if I see a need that Linux can fill I will mention it. Such as in
company servers where the IT person is at their wits end trying to keep
their NT from flying apart, or getting endless grumbles from users about
the downtime or lost connections, being brought before the directors for
the downtime and trying to explain that it's NT and not the IT person that
is the problem.
That very horrible time I sat across the road from here with their IT person
who had just restored his NT from scratch because the main drive had died
only to find that he couldn't get his users data back 'You do not have
permission....'. Between us we did eventually get it back, we also slipped
in a Linux server on an older machine to give him a buffer for next time.
That is all Linux really needs to do, wait for the need, because it is ready
to fill it.
cc
For every post like yours there are 17 posts calling people stupid for
using Windows in the first place, even though they have a legitimate
need.
Peter Köhlmann
The windows (-only) users in cola *are* stupid. Very much so
Can you give *any* reason why slime like flatfish, billwg or DFS should post
their lies here?
If you look into other OS newsgroups you rarely find a linux user trolling
there. Yet windows-trolls and mac-trolls can't stop slamming an OS they
don't use and don't know much about. Why is that?
The only answer making at least some sense is that they are insecure and
stupid. And they are insecure because they know that they are stupid and
unable to change should the need arise
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
If it starts working, we'll fix it. Pronto.
cc
They have posted many times that they use linux. I know you think they
lie about that, but you have offered no proof, and I've seen nothing
from them to make me doubt it.
> If you look into other OS newsgroups you rarely find a linux user trolling
> there. Yet windows-trolls and mac-trolls can't stop slamming an OS they
> don't use and don't know much about. Why is that?
You don't see anyone trolling there because when a flaw or a problem is
pointed out, it's discussed. In here it's always the users fault. Linux
is perfect. So any critique is considered trolling. In other newsgroups
it's called a discussion.
> The only answer making at least some sense is that they are insecure and
> stupid. And they are insecure because they know that they are stupid and
> unable to change should the need arise
Ahhh ironic coming from someone who refuses to admit when he's wrong.
Peter Kohlmann #1 Troll Feeder!
BearItAll
Yes I know they are those who do that. I don't, personally all I want MS to
do is make Windows and their applications absolutely safe and to stop
attempting to break anything that is in competition with them. There is
room in the world for more than one taste in anything whether that is an
OS, an application or a bit of music.
MS have done a lot of good for the computing world, unfortunately they have
also done a lot that is bad for it. Ballmer is far too aggressive,
tyranical I would say. MS have stiffled software development, Linux gives
us the ability to move on, there is a lot still to do in the computing
world and because MS have bought up or trodden under any who tried to
advance we have all been held back. Remember it isn't simply the ideas that
are lost when MS buys a company to take the code, the people who are
clearly able to carry us forward are thrown out to the scrap heap, it is
those people that the computing world needs.
If MS had a safe and secure OS, then I still think that eventually Linux
will still win a large part of the world market. It already has the server
side, MS already know they have lost that which is why they want Novell. We
will also gain in the workplace on office PCs. A bit slower with the home
PCs, but Linux gaming is gaining momentum and will very likely advance a
great deal with the likes of wii (it's only a matter of time before we have
proper access to the graphics side of wii and others that come out).
So if you are a user of MS Win and happy with it thats great. I'm a
Linux-only user and happy with that. if we were enemies just because of
that then it would be no difference than being enemies because of skin
colour.
Peter Köhlmann
>
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> cc wrote:
< snip >
>> > For every post like yours there are 17 posts calling people stupid for
>> > using Windows in the first place, even though they have a legitimate
>> > need.
>>
>> The windows (-only) users in cola *are* stupid. Very much so
>>
>> Can you give *any* reason why slime like flatfish, billwg or DFS should
>> post their lies here?
>
> They have posted many times that they use linux.
Claiming something does not make it true
> I know you think they
> lie about that, but you have offered no proof, and I've seen nothing
> from them to make me doubt it.
>
I don't need any "proof". Just read their posts, and you know immedeately
that they are basically clueless. They don't *use* linux, they have it
installed to find fault with it
Bill Weisgerber (billwg) is even totally clueless about it, and he has not
even used a liveCD, which is mostly what DFS does
Hell, even Erik F and Hadron Quark (especially HQ) don't really know their
way around with linux, yet they slam it at every opportunity. Erik F often
claims things which even beginners know to be false about linux
Hadron Quark even goes so far to claim that he is a "kernel hacker" and
a "true linux advocate". And he also claims that he uses windows only for
games and otherwise uses linux.
Yet, when you read his posts here and also in the Ubuntu NG, you know that
all this are outright, blatant lies, since he has problems with even basic,
simple things. His "using linux" claim simply does not wash
>> If you look into other OS newsgroups you rarely find a linux user
>> trolling there. Yet windows-trolls and mac-trolls can't stop slamming an
>> OS they don't use and don't know much about. Why is that?
>
> You don't see anyone trolling there because when a flaw or a problem is
> pointed out, it's discussed. In here it's always the users fault. Linux
> is perfect. So any critique is considered trolling. In other newsgroups
> it's called a discussion.
You are not serious, are you? That is the most idiotic thing I have read in
a long time
>> The only answer making at least some sense is that they are insecure and
>> stupid. And they are insecure because they know that they are stupid and
>> unable to change should the need arise
>
> Ahhh ironic coming from someone who refuses to admit when he's wrong.
> Peter Kohlmann #1 Troll Feeder!
Which has, even if it were true, nothing at all to do with wintrolls
infesting cola (and being stupid)
BTW, I *do* notice that you try very hard to support Michael Glasser (Snot)
in his trolling spree. Now why might that be?
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad. --- Dave Barry
cc
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> cc wrote:
>
> > You don't see anyone trolling there because when a flaw or a problem is
> > pointed out, it's discussed. In here it's always the users fault. Linux
> > is perfect. So any critique is considered trolling. In other newsgroups
> > it's called a discussion.
>
> You are not serious, are you? That is the most idiotic thing I have read in
> a long time
Dead serious. Why is it idiotic? Unless you mean where I say "you don't
see anyone trolling", which is of course an exaggeration. "You see less
trolling" would have been a more accurate statement.
> >> The only answer making at least some sense is that they are insecure and
> >> stupid. And they are insecure because they know that they are stupid and
> >> unable to change should the need arise
> >
> > Ahhh ironic coming from someone who refuses to admit when he's wrong.
> > Peter Kohlmann #1 Troll Feeder!
>
> Which has, even if it were true, nothing at all to do with wintrolls
> infesting cola (and being stupid)
>
> BTW, I *do* notice that you try very hard to support Michael Glasser (Snot)
> in his trolling spree. Now why might that be?
I wasn't aware I was supporting Snit, much less trying very hard to
support him. I did back him up on the file being "in" the program, but
that's just common sense in that that is how beginners see it. It
wasn't support of Snit, more of support of a correct idea. Sorry, I
don't lend my support to someone because of who they are or what OS
they use. I've criticized(ok name called too, I'm obviously not above
it) flatfish, hadron, etc. numerous times I thought they were wrong. It
didn't stop me from agreeing with them later, or stop them from
agreeing with me later. That's how rational people operate Peter. So
once again I'm going to have to ask for some proof of this accusation,
which of course you won't give because it doesn't exist.
Tim Smith
Peter Kai Jensen <use...@pekajemaps.homeip.net> wrote:
> And the whole charter reads "For discussion of the benefits of Linux
> compared to other operating systems". Notice the word "benefits"?
> Notice how it qualifies the rest of the sentence? You were wrong, and
> if you continue to maintain your position, I'll assume bad faith on your
> part.
You are ignoring "discussion". Discussion includes dissent.
For example, if someone posts that Linux does foo better than Windows
95, it is perfectly on-topic for someone else to post that Windows NT
does foo better than Linux. Foo is a benefit of Linux, and a discussion
of it in comparison to any other operating system is on-topic. There's
nothing in the charter that limits discussion to only those benefits
where Linux is the best.
--
--Tim Smith
King Cnut
>
> Claiming something does not make it true
Only when your name is Peter KKKohlmann, 7, B Gruff, Linonut, Peter Jensen,
High Plains Porter, Lie-am Throat Slider, Mark Kent, Kelsey Bjarnason,
William Poser, Andrew Halliwell, Roy Scheissowitz, Rex Ballard, Doug Mental
or Jerry McBride, all self-proclaimed linux advocates.
King Cnut
> <bugger all>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Only assholes use GnuPG.
The Ghost In The Machine
<znqrl...@guvflbhqhss.phag>
wrote
on Wed, 6 Dec 2006 11:25:26 -0600
<el6ueh$u9k$1...@aioe.org>:
Exactly. Far better to use unsecured email and confuse
everybody. After all, spammers can be your friends,
if you let them, and of course giving out one's computer
bandwidth for free in order to send out pharmacopia adverts
and announcements regarding dead Nigerian nationals is a
public service.
Or did you have an alternative in mind? Does Microsoft
have anything in this venue at all? After all, they need
to ensure that "white hat" spam mails go out to the
proper recipients.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mark Kent
BearItAll <sp...@rassler.co.uk> espoused:
> interested in prying MS Win from those who want it, that doesn't serve any
> purpose.
I'm not really sure that all that many people "choose" windows, I think
that the vast majority do not get any kind of choice to make. For most
of them, the operating system is provided by some 3rd party, and for
most of them, they don't even know that there are alternatives.
Microsoft have put in a huge amount of effort to be sure that people do
not know about alternatives, particularly by abusing their monopoly to
ensure that eg., Beos was not available dual-boot.
>
> But if I see a need that Linux can fill I will mention it. Such as in
> company servers where the IT person is at their wits end trying to keep
> their NT from flying apart, or getting endless grumbles from users about
> the downtime or lost connections, being brought before the directors for
> the downtime and trying to explain that it's NT and not the IT person that
> is the problem.
There are many other reasons for wanting to use Linux, not all of them
are related directly to Windows, most are more about the economics of
avoiding vendor lock-in.
>
> That very horrible time I sat across the road from here with their IT person
> who had just restored his NT from scratch because the main drive had died
> only to find that he couldn't get his users data back 'You do not have
> permission....'. Between us we did eventually get it back, we also slipped
> in a Linux server on an older machine to give him a buffer for next time.
>
> That is all Linux really needs to do, wait for the need, because it is ready
> to fill it.
>
The question being what constitutes a need. Avoidance of vendor lock-in
for me is a very compelling need indeed.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
I've always considered statesmen to be more expendable than soldiers.
High Plains Thumper
> BearItAll espoused:
>
>> But if I see a need that Linux can fill I will mention it. Such as in
>> company servers where the IT person is at their wits end trying to keep
>> their NT from flying apart, or getting endless grumbles from users about
>> the downtime or lost connections, being brought before the directors for
>> the downtime and trying to explain that it's NT and not the IT person
>> that is the problem.
>
> There are many other reasons for wanting to use Linux, not all of them
> are related directly to Windows, most are more about the economics of
> avoiding vendor lock-in.
Another reason is software stability and security. This is one of the
reasons why Linux has become a preferred choice for servers. It is also
why Linux is gaining ground on the desktop market. From what I gather, in
North America, it has around 1%. However, in Eastern Europe, it has around
5%.
>> That very horrible time I sat across the road from here with their IT
>> person who had just restored his NT from scratch because the main drive
>> had died only to find that he couldn't get his users data back 'You do
>> not have permission....'. Between us we did eventually get it back, we
>> also slipped in a Linux server on an older machine to give him a buffer
>> for next time.
>>
>> That is all Linux really needs to do, wait for the need, because it is
>> ready to fill it.
>
> The question being what constitutes a need. Avoidance of vendor lock-in
> for me is a very compelling need indeed.
There is another reason. The EU currently in buying power according to CIA
Factbook statistics, on par with US. I have seen other statistics that
actually place it higher, some almost twice in terms of productivity.
EU wants to succeed as an independent world market entity. This means
granting its business independence from other country's products and
pushing its own. North American's proprietary product monopolies do not
grant them this independence. These two product lines are Microsoft and
Apple.
The most viable choice for the moment is Linux. I think we will see that EU
will become a major driving factor for Linux development. Also, India and
China will play an important role. Some have mistakenly overlooked the
abilities and resourcefulness of these "sleeping giants".
--
HPT
Erik Funkenbusch
>> I agree with Jim. I for one am all for Linux, I'm not in the least
>> interested in prying MS Win from those who want it, that doesn't serve any
>> purpose.
>
> I'm not really sure that all that many people "choose" windows, I think
> that the vast majority do not get any kind of choice to make. For most
> of them, the operating system is provided by some 3rd party, and for
> most of them, they don't even know that there are alternatives.
That may be true, to some extent. However, they're not buying the computer
for the OS, they're buying to for the applications it can run. If it can't
run the latest game Jr wants to play, or it can't run Quicken or Quickbooks
(which they need to run because their accountant also runs those
applications) or any number of other apps they want to run, then it doesn't
matter.
Take gaming consoles, for instance. Most people don't buy a particular
console because of the OS it runs. They buy it because they want to play a
specific game or games. Maybe because their friend has a bunch of games
they can borrow. They couldn't care less what OS it runs, so long as it
plays the game.
> Microsoft have put in a huge amount of effort to be sure that people do
> not know about alternatives, particularly by abusing their monopoly to
> ensure that eg., Beos was not available dual-boot.
People don't CARE about alternatives. Otherwise, they'd probably buy a
Mac, which is often right next to the PC department in many stores.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Another reason is software stability and security. This is one of the
> reasons why Linux has become a preferred choice for servers. It is also
> why Linux is gaining ground on the desktop market. From what I gather, in
> North America, it has around 1%. However, in Eastern Europe, it has around
> 5%.
I'm not so sure about that. Certainly, Linux is stable. But I don't
believe they choose linux strictly for that, since Windows is also very
stable on the server and has been for a number of years. There's also
Solaris (even on x86), BSD, etc...
I think it has more to do with the active support system of commercial
Linux, like Red Hat. Red Hat has the majority of enterprise Linux servers
out there. There's also a ton of other reasons that I can think of, but I
don't think they purposely choose Linux for Stability alone (though that is
of course in the equation).
The Ghost In The Machine
<er...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
wrote
on Thu, 7 Dec 2006 17:49:30 -0600
<kiar5c3e...@funkenbusch.com>:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:34:45 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Another reason is software stability and security. This is one of the
>> reasons why Linux has become a preferred choice for servers. It is also
>> why Linux is gaining ground on the desktop market. From what I gather, in
>> North America, it has around 1%. However, in Eastern Europe, it has around
>> 5%.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. Certainly, Linux is stable. But I don't
> believe they choose linux strictly for that, since Windows is also very
> stable on the server and has been for a number of years. There's also
> Solaris (even on x86), BSD, etc...
On the desktop, nobody *chooses*, and certainly not for
stability. Have a problem? Reboot. It's that simple,
for the pointy-headed crowd -- especially procurement
managers who have a Microsoft or OEM/Microsoft contract.
Microsoft Windows also has more applications, though
one might ask which offering has the most useful set
thereof, especially if one is a development engineer.
>
> I think it has more to do with the active support system of commercial
> Linux, like Red Hat. Red Hat has the majority of enterprise Linux servers
> out there. There's also a ton of other reasons that I can think of, but I
> don't think they purposely choose Linux for Stability alone (though that is
> of course in the equation).
Ideally, Linux on the server is chosen because it costs
less over the lifetime of the hardware/software solution.
However, Microsoft's TCO campaign has thrown some FUDmud
on that issue, and the pointy-headed crowd can certainly
see the advantages of a form allowing for "easy" creation
on Microsoft SQL Server as opposed to a highly competent
EJB/DB, SQL/Java, or LAMP solution created by a programmer
specializing in such.
And then there's time to market. Managers may not have *time*,
and if not, they may opt for the easy solution -- Microsoft.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
People think that libraries are safe. They're wrong. They have ideas.
(Also occasionally ectoplasmic slime and cute librarians.)
yttrx
Every time of the dozens of times ive chosen *anything*, including linux
over windows in a server capacity, I have done it almost exclusively because
of stability.
-----yttrx
Linonut
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not so sure about that. Certainly, Linux is stable. But I don't
>> believe they choose linux strictly for that,
I like this one:
>> since Windows is also very
>> stable on the server and has been for a number of years.
We'll have to keep telling ourselves that at work. We'll have to keep
reminding ourselves that having a small (20-30 stations) domain working
well for a month or two in a row is some "crazy uptime".
Or that having DHCP problems or downed corporate (NMCI) servers every few
days makes for some real "crazy uptime".
Yeah, we'll keep whistling in the dark. The Boogey Microsoft won't get
us.
> Every time of the dozens of times ive chosen *anything*, including linux
> over windows in a server capacity, I have done it almost exclusively because
> of stability.
A linux server is also easier to maintain and runs more services with
less hardware, in my admittedly limited experience.
--
Windows -- The nudgy OS.
Donn Miller
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:22 +0000, BearItAll wrote:
>
>>> Oddly they got what they wanted back in 1993, but that group now has very
>>> few posts.
>> You would have to expect different types of post in 1994, Linux in the
>> desktop had a lot more problems than it does now so they was more to talk
>> about.
>
> Actually, no. The reason is buried in the history of .advocacy groups as a
> whole, not cola in particular.
>
> The first .advocacy group created was comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, and was the
> result of the comp.sys.amiga hierarchy reorganization. Amiga users were
> considered to be pretty zealous, though not on the order of today's Linux
> and other open source zealots (not to be confused with mere advocates).
Actually, most of the posters in here are pretty tame compared to those
original Amiga advocates. I really don't see any rabid advocacy in here
at all - just arguments between Windows/Mac and Linux advocates. And
those aren't really bad.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 14:48:22 +0000, BearItAll wrote:
>>
>>>> Oddly they got what they wanted back in 1993, but that group now has very
>>>> few posts.
>>> You would have to expect different types of post in 1994, Linux in the
>>> desktop had a lot more problems than it does now so they was more to talk
>>> about.
>>
>> Actually, no. The reason is buried in the history of .advocacy groups as a
>> whole, not cola in particular.
>>
>> The first .advocacy group created was comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, and was the
>> result of the comp.sys.amiga hierarchy reorganization. Amiga users were
>> considered to be pretty zealous, though not on the order of today's Linux
>> and other open source zealots (not to be confused with mere advocates).
>
> Actually, most of the posters in here are pretty tame compared to those
> original Amiga advocates. I really don't see any rabid advocacy in here
> at all - just arguments between Windows/Mac and Linux advocates. And
> those aren't really bad.
I wasn't particularly referring to COLA people, I was referring more to the
people who fill any blog that mentions IE or Windows with all kinds of
obnoxious comments, or the guys you "meet" in a computer store who barrage
you with stuff when the see you look sideways at a copy of Office.
Sinister Midget
That certainly should have been intuitive, huh?
The talk was of advocacy groups and you mentioned an Amiga advocacy
group as being particularly bad. But you were talking about something
else, without specifying it, when you mentioned how much more awful
open sourcers are in general. In fact, discussion was of posts in 1994
vs. today at one point, and slipped to the Amiga group afterward by
you. But you were talking about open source blogs and mean people in
stores, things that didn't exist or happen when Amiga advocacy was
started or in 1994.
Is that a fair summary of the sequence of events?
--
Windows doesn't have any bugs. It just develops random features.
flatfish+++
> I wasn't particularly referring to COLA people, I was referring more to the
> people who fill any blog that mentions IE or Windows with all kinds of
> obnoxious comments, or the guys you "meet" in a computer store who barrage
> you with stuff when the see you look sideways at a copy of Office.
Interesting you should mention this because prior to last week, I had
never seen this Computer Store Linux quack behavior in person.
An older gentleman was asking a salesman about a DVD burning program that
he was considering buying.
It was not Nero or Adaptec, but some oddball thing which I can't for the
life of me remember the name of.
Anyhow, some Linux freak was standing close by and immediately thrust
himself into the conversation by telling the customer the software was
crap and overpriced, and it might well have been because I had never heard
of it before. Anyhow, I was waiting for the guy to start suggesting Nero
or something more mainstream but nope, he starts the Linux mantra.
To make a long story short, the customer left without buying anything and
more than likely with his head spinning in circles.
The salesperson looked annoyed.
I was laughing under my breath until I happened to wander down the same
aisle as the Linux guy and suddenly noticed a foul stench.
The guy reeked of body odor and had food stains on his pants legs and
shirt.
Evidently he has not been instructed in the fine art of using soap and a
napkin.
So which one of you Linux nuts was in the CompUSA store in NYC on 5th Ave
and 37th street last week?
Kier
Do you really expect *anybody* to believe this load of old bollocks? Can't
you *ever* be honest?
And you have the nerve to call Linux advocates freaks.
--
Kier
flatfish+++
I am being honest.
It's a true story.
> And you have the nerve to call Linux advocates freaks.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=linux%2Badvocate%2Bfreak&btnG=Google+Search
Interesting Roy Schestowich shows up on the first page.
But then again, he shows up on the first page for just about any Google
search.
Hmmmmmmmmm.....
Interesting.......
Hadron Quark
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:03:36 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
>> I wasn't particularly referring to COLA people, I was referring more to the
>> people who fill any blog that mentions IE or Windows with all kinds of
>> obnoxious comments, or the guys you "meet" in a computer store who barrage
>> you with stuff when the see you look sideways at a copy of Office.
>
> Interesting you should mention this because prior to last week, I had
> never seen this Computer Store Linux quack behavior in person.
>
> An older gentleman was asking a salesman about a DVD burning program that
> he was considering buying.
> It was not Nero or Adaptec, but some oddball thing which I can't for the
> life of me remember the name of.
> Anyhow, some Linux freak was standing close by and immediately thrust
> himself into the conversation by telling the customer the software was
> crap and overpriced, and it might well have been because I had never heard
> of it before. Anyhow, I was waiting for the guy to start suggesting Nero
> or something more mainstream but nope, he starts the Linux mantra.
>
> To make a long story short, the customer left without buying anything and
> more than likely with his head spinning in circles.
> The salesperson looked annoyed.
Was there also a bad smell?
>
> I was laughing under my breath until I happened to wander down the same
> aisle as the Linux guy and suddenly noticed a foul stench.
Aha! The ring of truth.
> The guy reeked of body odor and had food stains on his pants legs and
> shirt.
> Evidently he has not been instructed in the fine art of using soap and a
> napkin.
How long was his beard?
>
> So which one of you Linux nuts was in the CompUSA store in NYC on 5th Ave
> and 37th street last week?
>
Did he have round, gold rimmed specs, breath wreaking of sausages and
leather boots on? That would be Köhlmann.
--
"And spellchecker won;t help." : Roy Schwestowitz from comp.os.linux.advocacy.
flatfish+++
No beard, but he was clearly unshaven.
>>
>> So which one of you Linux nuts was in the CompUSA store in NYC on 5th Ave
>> and 37th street last week?
>>
>
> Did he have round, gold rimmed specs, breath wreaking of sausages and
> leather boots on? That would be Köhlmann.
Glasses yes, I don't remember what kind though.
Don't know what he was wearing on his feet, if anything.
He smelled like a combination of body odor, garlic, onions and rotting
garbage.
Hadron Quark
Yuck.
I pity the poor customer. You can see the poor old duffer when Mr Linux
informs that all he has to do (for free) is
"cdrecord -v -pad speed=1 dev=0,0,0 -dao -audio -swab *.wav"
and it will "just work for him".
LOL.
I bet the salesman was happy.
Kier
Sorry, don't believe you. You always seem to have these tales to tell, and
they're always to the detriment of Linux.
>
>> And you have the nerve to call Linux advocates freaks.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=linux%2Badvocate%2Bfreak&btnG=Google+Search
>
> Interesting Roy Schestowich shows up on the first page.
> But then again, he shows up on the first page for just about any Google
> search.
Don't talk bollocks.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm.....
> Interesting.......
Not really.
--
Kier
Maverick
Why should "Obnoxious comments" about IE or Windows bother you?
Is your problem sort of like Fi Semper?
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:08:43 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote:
> I pity the poor customer. You can see the poor old duffer when Mr Linux
> informs that all he has to do (for free) is
>
> "cdrecord -v -pad speed=1 dev=0,0,0 -dao -audio -swab *.wav"
>
And once again, Hadron demonstrates his fundamental dishonesty. Hadron
knows there are easy-to-use GUI tools for such things. Hadron knows Linux
offers the users a greater choice, a greater flexibility, ye he chooses to
focus on the least friendly (for Joe Sixpack) option *and* present it in
isolation, as if it were the only option.
Way to go, Hadron. Just keep right on living up to our expectations of
you.