The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.
Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
the directory.
Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.
Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.
Amarok crashed trying to do it.
Winamp takes 7 minutes.
Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.

Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
MSoffice 2003 takes 3 seconds.
k3b takes 4 minutes to burn a 650mg CD.
Nero takes 2.7 minutes.
Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
Internet Explorer takes 2 seconds or less to load.

Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
DMA is turned on for both.

WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
is consistant.
Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.

Kontact opens so slow that if you move the mouse around you get trails.
Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
also very slow compared to eudora.


Machine is a 2.6ghz P4HT with 1g memory and 7k WD drives with 8mb
buffers.
Motherboard is Asus.

So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand going into denial.
You might want to take a look at "why is Linux so slow" threads because
their seems to be an awful lot of them.

The Homo K wrote:
> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
> The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
> Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.
> Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
> including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
> the directory.
Because, as well all know, it's a fair comparison to pit the slowest 
file manager on a platform against the fastest on the other. What was 
this test supposed to prove anyway? Other than Konqueror having to 
resolve more data.

> Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.
In list view maybe.

> Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.
Rhythmbox or XMMS would do this in 1/16th the time. I don't have 40k 
mp3s to test it against, so I can't give exact numbers.

> Amarok crashed trying to do it.
> Winamp takes 7 minutes.
> Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.
> 
> Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
> MSoffice 2003 takes 3 seconds.
Because you have most of MS Office pre-loaded all the time. Rather than 
sucking up a ton of resources when your using it, it sucks up a ton of 
resources even when your not. OO.o has a pre-loader as an option. If 
quick startup time is that important, use it.

> k3b takes 4 minutes to burn a 650mg CD.
> Nero takes 2.7 minutes.
I haven't noticed any time difference between Nero and Nautilus. Though 
Nero takes a lot longer to set up a burn with.

> Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
Odd. Galeon takes ~3 seconds to start on my box. I suppose it could be 
the themes. Oh, wait, your using KDE--it's got to load the GTK libs on 
Linux. Use Konqueror.

> Internet Explorer takes 2 seconds or less to load.
It's pre-loaded like Office is.

> 
> Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
> Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
> DMA is turned on for both.
Sounds like a configuration error on your part--or poorly supported 
hardware.

> 
> WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
> is consistant.
> Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.
This is most certainly not true. Linux's network stack is much, much 
faster than Windows XP's.

> 
> Kontact opens so slow that if you move the mouse around you get trails.
> Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
> also very slow compared to eudora.
Maybe you should stop using KDE?

> 
> 
> Machine is a 2.6ghz P4HT with 1g memory and 7k WD drives with 8mb
> buffers.
> Motherboard is Asus.
> 
> So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand going into denial.
Your experience does not match mine, so I'll most certainly deny your 
claims.

> You might want to take a look at "why is Linux so slow" threads because
> their seems to be an awful lot of them.
It's quite speedy here. More-so than XP on the same box.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:39:05 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
> The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
> Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.
> Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
> including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
> the directory.
> Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.
> Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.
> Amarok crashed trying to do it.
> Winamp takes 7 minutes.
> Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.
> 
> Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
> MSoffice 2003 takes 3 seconds.
> k3b takes 4 minutes to burn a 650mg CD.
> Nero takes 2.7 minutes.
> Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
> Internet Explorer takes 2 seconds or less to load.
> 
> Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
> Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
> DMA is turned on for both.
> 
> WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
> is consistant.
> Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.
> 
> Kontact opens so slow that if you move the mouse around you get trails.
> Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
> also very slow compared to eudora.
> 
> 
> Machine is a 2.6ghz P4HT with 1g memory and 7k WD drives with 8mb
> buffers.
> Motherboard is Asus.
> 
> So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand going into denial.
> You might want to take a look at "why is Linux so slow" threads because
> their seems to be an awful lot of them.

I guess it must be so slow because you don't have it set up properly - I
don't have most of those issues. I will admit that OpenOffice is slow,
that's why I use AbiWord and Gnumeric. Other than that, my observations do
not agree with yours.

 ... lousy troll attempt.
-- 
Rick

On Sunday 28 August 2005 01:39 The Homo K wrote:

> The Linux community is comprised

Hi Homo/Josh/Susan/Ellen

Do please stop the x-posting, there's a good pillock.

Bill

On 27 Aug 2005 17:39:05 -0700, "The Homo K" <the_homo_k@yahoo.com>
Gave us:

>The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
>foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.

  You're an idiot.  The people that run Linux do so from a desire to
investigate it as an alternative.

>The truth is Linux sucks.

  The truth is, you are a troll retard, Flatbrain.

> I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
>Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.

  You didn't "use" anything.  You piss and moan your entire way
through life, everyday.  You are worse than "Bob" over in the BeOS
group.  He too is an idiot.

>Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
>including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
>the directory.

  Sounds like your shit is weak.

>Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.

  Windows' file explorer take several seconds to return control to the
user when opened.  I wouldn't be surprised if it still doesn't crash
when a bad CD is inserted.  Never saw windows able to read any other
file systems either.  Linux can read nearly any if not all file
systems.

>Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.

  Whoopie doo.  I think you're an idiot.  40,000 files in one
directory is only about as stupid as it gets.

>Amarok crashed trying to do it.
>Winamp takes 7 minutes.
>Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.

  So what? It doesn't preclude the fact that you are stupid for
handling the task the way you did.
>
>Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.

  Open office is an integrated package. The entire suite is available.
MS Office opens ONE applet in their suite at a time.

  Time how long it takes to open all five apps.

>MSoffice 2003 takes 3 seconds.

  No.  MS Word, OR MS Excel OR....

 There is a difference.  Also, try opening Open Office again, once it
has been run once.  It opens nearly instantly.  One won't see that
with MS Office products.  Also, Billy make windblows and office work
together.  Open Office is made by one author, and the OS by others.
Not bad, considering the way the open source realm works.

>k3b takes 4 minutes to burn a 650mg CD.

At one given speed.

>Nero takes 2.7 minutes.

  At an entirely different speed.

  Try it again where both sessions are done at the same speed, and
you'll get the same time elapse, dumbass.

>Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
>Internet Explorer takes 2 seconds or less to load.

  Internet exploder is part of the vulnerability problem idiots like
you seem to ignore being an issue.

>Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.

  There are no hard drives that run at 7000 RPM.  Get your numbers
straight.

>Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
>DMA is turned on for both.

  You're an idiot.

>WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
>is consistant.

  The word is spelled consistent, dumbass.

 Bullshit.  I have done both cable and DSL speed tests and the speed
is the same for whichever OS is used, and that is across several.

>Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.

  There is no map, and you are a retarded troll.

>Kontact opens so slow that if you move the mouse around you get trails.
>Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
>also very slow compared to eudora.

  So don't use kontact.  You act as if that app is somehow connected
to Linux.  They are distinctly separate entities.

>Machine is a 2.6ghz P4HT with 1g memory and 7k WD drives with 8mb
>buffers.
>Motherboard is Asus.

  You're an idiot.

>So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand going into denial.

  I don't see any sand around here, nor anyone looking for any.

>You might want to take a look at "why is Linux so slow" threads because
>their seems to be an awful lot of them.

  Why are you a troll?

  Ever heard the expression "sit on it and spin"?

The Homo K wrote:
> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots

Who're you calling a sicko zealot, Flatty?

  who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.

No suckering involved. People may choose to or not, look for themselves.

> The truth is Linux sucks.

In your completely uninformed, biased, and MicroShilled opinion.

  I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
> Mandrival

oh, bullshit.

  and they all are so slow it's not even funny.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

> Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
> including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
> the directory.

9 minutes to come up with a listing of 37,590 mp3 files over a Windows 
SMB share. And when it does finally show the list, it scrolls as smooth 
as you like.

> Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.

Bull.
Windows XP took only slightly less time to display the listing, but 
then, trying to scroll pretty much locked the CPU. /I/ ran the 
experiment and posted the timings, if you remember. XPSP1 vs. Knoppix 
EKDE 3.4.

> Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.

Never used it.

> Amarok crashed trying to do it.

Never used that either.

> Winamp takes 7 minutes.

In your dreams. Even on a local RAID0, that same list took 11 minutes 
(yes, SLOWER than over the network to a Linux box!!) to load into Winamp.

> Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.

Never used it.

NB: iTunes for Windows XP took 17 minutes to load the list. iTunes for 
Mac OS X (Tiger on a G3/400) took 8.

> 
> Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.

Because it has to load the DLLs at load-time. And try 19 seconds on a 
P4m/2.0.

> MSoffice 2003 takes 3 seconds.

Because Windows XP loads the Office and IE DLLs at /boot time/. Ever 
wonder why the desktop is unusable for a few minutes after it's 
apparently "ready"? It's an MS trick they've been doing since Win2K to 
FUD down the advantages of loading the relevant data into memory /when/ 
it is called then displaying it /after/ it is completely loaded, because 
it's something that Microsoft have apparently been completely unable to 
even emulate.

> k3b takes 4 minutes to burn a 650mg CD.
> Nero takes 2.7 minutes.

We did the math on this and showed you to be a bullshitter, Flatty. Stop it.

> Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
> Internet Explorer takes 2 seconds or less to load.
> 

5, 8 and right (read 2 paragraphs up)

> Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
> Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
> DMA is turned on for both.

Benchmarks, please?

> 
> WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
> is consistant.
> Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.
> 

Benchmarks, please?

> Kontact opens so slow that if you move the mouse around you get trails.
> Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
> also very slow compared to eudora.
> 
> 
> Machine is a 2.6ghz P4HT with 1g memory and 7k WD drives with 8mb
> buffers.
> Motherboard is Asus.
> 

small fuckin' wonder you box is so slow. LCD on the board. You do 
realise, don't you, that with a shitty board like that, you're not 
getting the most out of the rest of your kit?

> So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand going into denial.
> You might want to take a look at "why is Linux so slow" threads because
> their seems to be an awful lot of them.
> 

'Cos you parented most of 'em (go on, prove me wrong, Flatty, I defy you 
to) and were shown by myself, among others who were also able and 
willing to run live, side by side experiments just to show you publicly, 
what a complete fraud you are.

Now, may I suggest you go out and buy a MacIntosh with Mac OS X "Tiger" 
on it, and stop bothering the good people of this LINUX ADVOCACY group, 
because I'm getting really tired of pointing out old answers to the same 
old bullshit you keep recycling.


-- 
Cheers,					http://www.dotware.co.uk
Jim			  http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

The path to inner peace begins with letting go of everything you are 
afraid to lose.

And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
Blame the user.
Blame the hardware.
Blame the configuration.
Blame the gui.
Blame.......

Blame anything but Linux itself and that is really sad because it is
Linux that IS the trouble.

For instance, who cares if MSOffice pre-loads things?
All I want to do is start my Office Suite and switch back and forth
between applications.
Windows does this in a heartbeat.
Linux and Openoffice?
Slow as molassas at 40 degrees F.

That's the problem with Linux advocates, they can't see the forest for
the trees.
IOW an end user only cares about how fast something loads and runs.
All the crying about Microsoft doesn't change a thing.
You want the end user to switch to Openoffice?
Make it load faster.

Also notice the clever switches to other applications.

BTW Rythum Box is terrible.
That one took almost 2.5 hours to load in 40k mp3s and when it plays it
takes up tons of resources.

BTW how do I select which sound system and card I use with it.
Xmms, for all it's faults does this easily.
Juk, Rhythm box,amarok seem to have no way of doing this.
BTW I am not interested in gstreamer which is yet another Linux
braindead soundsystem.
And that's another question, why so many dam sound systems with Linux?
Windows has ONE and it works with EVERYTHING.
Linux must have 10 and they all suck.




The Homo K wrote:
> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
> The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
> Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.
> Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
> including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
> the directory.
> Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.
> Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.
> Amarok crashed trying to do it.
> Winamp takes 7 minutes.
> Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.
>
> Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
> MSoffice 2003 takes 3 seconds.
> k3b takes 4 minutes to burn a 650mg CD.
> Nero takes 2.7 minutes.
> Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
> Internet Explorer takes 2 seconds or less to load.
>
> Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
> Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
> DMA is turned on for both.
>
> WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
> is consistant.
> Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.
>
> Kontact opens so slow that if you move the mouse around you get trails.
> Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
> also very slow compared to eudora.
>
>
> Machine is a 2.6ghz P4HT with 1g memory and 7k WD drives with 8mb
> buffers.
> Motherboard is Asus.
>
> So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand going into denial.
> You might want to take a look at "why is Linux so slow" threads because
> their seems to be an awful lot of them.

On Sunday 28 August 2005 01:39 The Homo K wrote:

> The Linux community is comprised of sicko

Nonono Josh - that's very naughty.
"susan", Ellen", "josh" are fine, but don't usurp k-man.

- and do stop the x-posting, there's a good boy.

Bill

begin��trojan.vbs  ... On Saturday 27 August 2005 05:39 pm, The Homo K had
this to say in comp.os.linux.advocacy:

> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
> The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
> Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.

No problem at all here. Linux runs at least twice as fast as XP on less
hardware by my experience. Then again, if you're using a Commodore 64, you
can expect some hesitation.


-- 
Have you been MicroShafted today?
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work *at* it.
To mess up a Windows box, you need to work *on* it.

The Homo K wrote:
> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
> Blame the user.
Exactly.

> Blame the hardware.
Ditto.

> Blame the configuration.
"

> Blame the gui.

> Blame.......
> 
> Blame anything but Linux itself and that is really sad because it is
> Linux that IS the trouble.
Not for me. You must have really bad luck.

> 
> For instance, who cares if MSOffice pre-loads things?
Well, you can set OpenOffice to pre-load as well, but you didn't. 
Besides, it doesn't take 45 seconds on my system. More like 10.

> All I want to do is start my Office Suite and switch back and forth
> between applications.
> Windows does this in a heartbeat.
> Linux and Openoffice?
> Slow as molassas at 40 degrees F.
Works fine for me, sucks to be you.

> 
> That's the problem with Linux advocates, they can't see the forest for
> the trees.
> IOW an end user only cares about how fast something loads and runs.
Which is why so many of us use Linux.

> All the crying about Microsoft doesn't change a thing.
> You want the end user to switch to Openoffice?
> Make it load faster.
It can, if you enable pre-loading like Office has.

> 
> Also notice the clever switches to other applications.
Well yes, there are so many after all.

> 
> BTW Rythum Box is terrible.
> That one took almost 2.5 hours to load in 40k mp3s and when it plays it
> takes up tons of resources.
Tested that just now did you?

> 
> BTW how do I select which sound system and card I use with it.
Rhythmbox works over Gstreamer--you set this in Gstreamer preferences. I 
don't use KDE, and don't remember how you do that with Juk or amarok.

> Xmms, for all it's faults does this easily.
> Juk, Rhythm box,amarok seem to have no way of doing this.
> BTW I am not interested in gstreamer which is yet another Linux
> braindead soundsystem.
No it's not, it's a multimedia framework. You can use it with ALSA, or 
OSS, or even ESD.

> And that's another question, why so many dam sound systems with Linux?
Why not? They all serve different functions.

> Windows has ONE and it works with EVERYTHING.
No, it's got a few. DirectSound seems to be the most common though.

> Linux must have 10 and they all suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Homo K wrote:
> 
>>The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
>>foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
>>The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
>>Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.
>>Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
>>including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
>>the directory.
>>Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.
>>Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.
>>Amarok crashed trying to do it.
>>Winamp takes 7 minutes.
>>Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.
>>
>>Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
>>MSoffice 2003 takes 3 seconds.
>>k3b takes 4 minutes to burn a 650mg CD.
>>Nero takes 2.7 minutes.
>>Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
>>Internet Explorer takes 2 seconds or less to load.
>>
>>Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
>>Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
>>DMA is turned on for both.
>>
>>WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
>>is consistant.
>>Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.
>>
>>Kontact opens so slow that if you move the mouse around you get trails.
>>Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
>>also very slow compared to eudora.
>>
>>
>>Machine is a 2.6ghz P4HT with 1g memory and 7k WD drives with 8mb
>>buffers.
>>Motherboard is Asus.
>>
>>So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand going into denial.
>>You might want to take a look at "why is Linux so slow" threads because
>>their seems to be an awful lot of them.
> 
> 

On Sunday 28 August 2005 03:30, The Homo K stood up and spread a lot of
hogwash onto the masses...

Okay, so first you were Josh M. Anderson, then you were Flatfish, and
now you are some unspecified gay person.  Well, I don't know who you
really are, but that you are a troll is quite evident.

For the record, I haven't experienced any slowness in Gnu/Linux yet,
which is more than I can say of all the Wintendo boxen I have had to
sit at while reinstalling and rebooting that junk as a service to
people who choose to run Windows.

In fact, I have a second hand Celeron laptop with 128 MB that ran like a
turtle uphill when I bought it from that guy.  It had Wintendo eXPires
on it, and it already crashed right away.  I installed MDK on it and
I've had it running for over 140 days once, without a single reboot or
crash.

Hey, it's your choice if you want to use a kitchen sink appliance and
call it a PC.  But that doesn't change the fact that Windows is junk
_and_ that it's slow.

So, you can go ahead and change e-mail addresses for as much as you
like, but you really don't have any reason to be so smug.  You may
_think_ that you're smarter or better than we are, but the only one
who's actually making a fool out of himself is you.  Your attempts are
pathetic.

So...  You know in what basement I stuffed you last time, so you know
the place.  I hope you were comfortable there, because you're gonna go
back there...

        < *PLONK!* >

P.S.: Get a life.  Grow a brain.  Start seeing a shrink to help you deal
with your delusions.  Or better still, sell your PC and cancel your
internet contract. <grin>

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:25:03 +0000, Aragorn wrote:

I have a better suggestion "Aragorn", please stop advocating Linux because
you are obviously working for the other side in an effort to damage Linux.
I doubt anyone takes your tripe seriously.
-- 
The Anthill Mob	
Kill the RAID to reply 

The Anthill Mob wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:25:03 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
> 
> I have a better suggestion "Aragorn", please stop advocating Linux because
> you are obviously working for the other side in an effort to damage Linux.
> I doubt anyone takes your tripe seriously.
I find his experience to be more correct than your tripe.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:29:21 -0400, TheLetterK wrote:

> The Anthill Mob wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:25:03 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
>> 
>> I have a better suggestion "Aragorn", please stop advocating Linux because
>> you are obviously working for the other side in an effort to damage Linux.
>> I doubt anyone takes your tripe seriously.
> I find his experience to be more correct than your tripe.

Of course you do.
You are a Linux nutjob.
You are hard wired to report right back to Linus and you have been
lobotomized to understand Linux and nothing else.
So?

-- 
The Anthill Mob	
Kill the RAID to reply 

The Anthill Mob wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:29:21 -0400, TheLetterK wrote:
> 
> 
>>The Anthill Mob wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:25:03 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
>>>
>>>I have a better suggestion "Aragorn", please stop advocating Linux because
>>>you are obviously working for the other side in an effort to damage Linux.
>>>I doubt anyone takes your tripe seriously.
>>
>>I find his experience to be more correct than your tripe.
> 
> 
> Of course you do.
> You are a Linux nutjob.
Who uses Windows and OS X as well as Linux?

> You are hard wired to report right back to Linus and you have been
> lobotomized to understand Linux and nothing else.
Others have called me 'Maccie' and 'Wintroll', I'm glad to have 'Linux 
nutjob' added to my list of occupations.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:42:51 -0400, TheLetterK wrote:


> Who uses Windows and OS X as well as Linux?

Nobody.
They either use Windows or OSX.

But that doesn't hold true for Linux.

Tell me, if Linux is so good, why do you need to dual boot?
Why do you need wine?
Do you see Windows users dual booting to Linux?
Nope...
Linux users dual boot to Windows.

Ever see an OSX user with 2 computers so they can run Windows or Linux?

How many OSX users do you know that have wiped OSX and installed Linux?
God what an awful idea.
THats like taking a Corvette and making it a Chevette.

Linux is a bastard child that nobody wants.
Face it, Linux is free yet has a dismal market share as a desktop system.
It is headed the way of BEOS.

 
>
-- 
The Anthill Mob	
Kill the RAID to reply 

The Homo K wrote:

> Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
> also very slow compared to eudora.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You fucking idiot. Nothing on the planet is as slow as
Eudora.

TheLetterK wrote:

>> Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
> Odd. Galeon takes ~3 seconds to start on my box. I suppose it could be
> the themes. Oh, wait, your using KDE--it's got to load the GTK libs on
> Linux. Use Konqueror.

The troll's full of it. Firefox loads in 7 seconds on my Linux machine, and in
about the same time under Windows.

The Anthill Mob wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 00:42:51 -0400, TheLetterK wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>Who uses Windows and OS X as well as Linux?
> 
> 
> Nobody.
> They either use Windows or OSX.
> 
> But that doesn't hold true for Linux.
> 
> Tell me, if Linux is so good, why do you need to dual boot?
You've got some Windows-specific app? I dual boot for the occasional 
game, and to keep up my winders skills. I don't use it for anything 
remotely serious.

> Why do you need wine?
I don't.

> Do you see Windows users dual booting to Linux?
Yes.

> Nope...
> Linux users dual boot to Windows.
That works both ways you know.

> 
> Ever see an OSX user with 2 computers so they can run Windows or Linux?
Yes. I've got two Macs, and three PCs. Only one of those PCs runs 
Windows primarily, and this one only runs it <10% of the time.

> 
> How many OSX users do you know that have wiped OSX and installed Linux?
Linus has, so have all the Debian/PPC maintainers... Oh, and the 
Gentoo/PPC maintainers. TerraSoft seems to be turning a buck selling a 
Mac-only Linux distribution.

> God what an awful idea.
> THats like taking a Corvette and making it a Chevette.
I've been considering it. I'll probably go for it when 10.5 is released, 
because I'm just too lazy to repartition it.

> 
> Linux is a bastard child that nobody wants.
> Face it, Linux is free yet has a dismal market share as a desktop system.
> It is headed the way of BEOS.
Umm, no. Linux's desktop marketshare has been growing fairly steadily 
for the last few years. The only platform with such distinction. There 
are currently more Linux distributions being *sold*, than there are Macs 
being sold.

The Homo K wrote something like:

> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
> The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
> Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.
> Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files

Wow. That's a lot of stolen music...

> including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
> the directory.
> Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.
> Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.
> Amarok crashed trying to do it.
> Winamp takes 7 minutes.
> Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.
> 
> Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.

And only 6 seconds on my 2800... Amazing.

troll. 

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

The Homo K wrote something like:

> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
> Blame the user.
> Blame the hardware.
> Blame the configuration.
> Blame the gui.
> Blame.......

Blame Canada...

-- 
-
 I use linux. Can anyone give me a good reason to use Windows?
- 

The Homo K wrote:

>

*plonk*

The Homo K wrote:

> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
> Blame the user.
> Blame the hardware.
> Blame the configuration.
> Blame the gui.
> Blame.......

This is written into the bible of typical windope help desk guidelines
to save money and a barrage of abuse from windope users
wanting refunds and put into the microshat get the facts wrong campaign.

In article <1125189545.677428.230930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 "The Homo K" <the_homo_k@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
> including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
> the directory.
> Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.

I suspect you are not being completely truthful here, as XP is not 
anywhere near that fast on directories of that size.


....
> Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
> Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
> DMA is turned on for both.

Assuming you aren't simply lying, you've got the settings botched on 
Linux.  Use hdparm, and check all the settings.

> WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
> is consistant.
> Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.

Nonsense.  Both Windows and Linux are easily faster than any consumer 
internet connection.  You need to be measuring on a LAN to see 
differences (and those differences will favor Linux in most cases, 
because its TCP stack dynamically tunes parameters such as the window 
size, which require tweaking with third-party utilities on Windows if 
you want to get maximum throughput).


-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <pa32h1heigpntd13c496bd2frgvnlouflu@4ax.com>,
 TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
>  There is a difference.  Also, try opening Open Office again, once it
> has been run once.  It opens nearly instantly.  One won't see that

No, that's not correct.  OpenOffice apps are slow, even if they have 
been previously launched recently.

....
> >Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
> 
>   There are no hard drives that run at 7000 RPM.  Get your numbers
> straight.

He didn't say 7000.  He said 7k.

-- 
--Tim Smith

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:39:05 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
> The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
> Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.

Neither is you spelling for a start. trol count now up to
876542399876524364765124397465235894312548 and counting

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The Homo K wrote: a lot of things

I'd like to see you try and run multiple servers off your desktop
computer under Windows. I have the one Linux box, and it handles all my
servers while playing me some nice music while I lie on my bed and chat
on IRC. I could never do all that under Windows. I even tried, because I
play some Windows games...but it didn't work out.
- --
Ray (Our name is Legion, for we are many.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDEXl/KwExTSbpHqgRAhAYAJ0Z5XWdkd0ZdYQIwaNuEJ8vDdmsdwCfRWRq
FEnKsFgUOrAmG9V9dfTyOX0=
=J4Cq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

7 wrote:

*plonk*

> The Homo K wrote:
>
>>
>
> *plonk* 

7 wrote:
> The Homo K wrote:
>
>> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
>> Blame the user.
>> Blame the hardware.
>> Blame the configuration.
>> Blame the gui.
>> Blame.......
>
> This is written into the bible of typical windope help desk guidelines
> to save money and a barrage of abuse from windope users
> wanting refunds and put into the microshat get the facts wrong
> campaign.

Try Windows XP-SP2, cos Linux is too fucking slooooooooooooooooooooooow and 
it's making you stupid as well! 

dr. Bill wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>> The Homo K wrote:
>>
>>> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
>>> Blame the user.
>>> Blame the hardware.
>>> Blame the configuration.
>>> Blame the gui.
>>> Blame.......
>>
>> This is written into the bible of typical windope help desk guidelines
>> to save money and a barrage of abuse from windope users
>> wanting refunds and put into the microshat get the facts wrong
>> campaign.
> 
> Try Windows XP-SP2, cos Linux is too fucking slooooooooooooooooooooooow
> and it's making you stupid as well!


You friend of Homo K lying bum boy?

Have we still got anywhere near this I wonder....

dr. Bill wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>> The Homo K wrote:
>>
>>> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
>>> Blame the user.
>>> Blame the hardware.
>>> Blame the configuration.
>>> Blame the gui.
>>> Blame.......
>>
>> This is written into the bible of typical windope help desk guidelines
>> to save money and a barrage of abuse from windope users
>> wanting refunds and put into the microshat get the facts wrong
>> campaign.
> 
> Try Windows XP-SP2, cos Linux is too fucking slooooooooooooooooooooooow
> and it's making you stupid as well!


Well, gurl fiend of Homo K, and butty doctor for microshaft,
donating all your free time free of charge to microshaft
attacking free software making yourself poorer while
those microshaft executives get richer laughing all the way
to their banks, lets see if any of your windope ex-peeh time
wasting was worth it and can do any of this...

With a 750MHz PC, 256Mb RAM, I can burn 4Gb of
files (14,000+ files) to DVD at 4x speed, and
download 2Gb file to that SAME hard disk through
a 100MHz network card!!
The 2Gb file transfer finishes before the 4Gb of files
are burned. And I'm listening to uninterrupted MP3 music
with Mepis. And there some 300 free liveCDs that out there that
can do this free with source code http://www.livecdlist.com/

BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

7 wrote:
> dr. Bill wrote:
>
>> 7 wrote:
>>> The Homo K wrote:
>>>
>>>> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
>>>> Blame the user.
>>>> Blame the hardware.
>>>> Blame the configuration.
>>>> Blame the gui.
>>>> Blame.......
>>>
>>> This is written into the bible of typical windope help desk
>>> guidelines to save money and a barrage of abuse from windope users
>>> wanting refunds and put into the microshat get the facts wrong
>>> campaign.
>>
>> Try Windows XP-SP2, cos Linux is too fucking
>> slooooooooooooooooooooooow and it's making you stupid as well!
>
>
> Well, gurl fiend of Homo K, and butty doctor

See me fuck your missus at work!
http://www.orsm.net/fem/trustyourdoc/images/trustyourdoc06.jpg
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! the 7 twat took the bait again! I own you, 
he!

> for microshaft,
> donating all your free time free of charge to microshaft
> attacking free software making yourself poorer while
> those microshaft executives get richer laughing all the way
> to their banks, lets see if any of your windope ex-peeh time
> wasting was worth it and can do any of this...
>
> With a 750MHz PC, 256Mb RAM, I can burn 4Gb of
> files (14,000+ files) to DVD at 4x speed, and
> download 2Gb file to that SAME hard disk through
> a 100MHz network card!!
> The 2Gb file transfer finishes before the 4Gb of files
> are burned. And I'm listening to uninterrupted MP3 music
> with Mepis. And there some 300 free liveCDs that out there that
> can do this free with source code http://www.livecdlist.com/
>
> BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 

>
> No problem at all here. Linux runs at least twice as fast as XP on less
> hardware by my experience. Then again, if you're using a Commodore 64, you
> can expect some hesitation.
>

I'm glad to here that Linux can be faster than Windows. In my experience 
Linux (+X), it's somewhat slower. What can I do to make it faster?

Nevertheless, I'm using it more and more. Open source is important to me. 
Because, if I develop something, and it doesn not work as expected, I want 
to be able to see the source of the libraries I use. Lately I wanted to make 
a small program which would calculate relative paths. No problem. You call 
shlwapi.dll and there it goes. But not! It didn't work ad expected and I 
realised that the problem was in shlwapi.dll. I wouldn't even call it a bug. 
It just gives the wrong result, that's it.

And regarding ooo, it might be interested in this discussion: I use ooo even 
on the Windows machine now, because I offen work with rather long documents. 
And I'm not talking about tens of thousends of pages. A few houndred pages 
are too much for Word! It brings my CPU to 100% or refuses to check spelling 
because "there are too many errors in the document" where there really only 
are too many pages and very few errors indeed. 

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:24:30 GMT, Jim <james@the-computer-shop.co.uk>
Gave us:

>
>Who're you calling a sicko zealot, Flatty?

 Yeah....  imagine that!

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:30:21 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. Blame the user.
> Blame the hardware.
> Blame the configuration.
> Blame the gui.
> Blame.......
> 
> Blame anything but Linux itself and that is really sad because it is Linux
> that IS the trouble.
> 
> For instance, who cares if MSOffice pre-loads things? All I want to do is
> start my Office Suite and switch back and forth between applications.
> Windows does this in a heartbeat.
> Linux and Openoffice?
> Slow as molassas at 40 degrees F.

What does startup time have to do with switching between apps.

 
> That's the problem with Linux advocates, they can't see the forest for the
> trees.
> IOW an end user only cares about how fast something loads and runs. All
> the crying about Microsoft doesn't change a thing. You want the end user
> to switch to Openoffice? Make it load faster.
> 
> Also notice the clever switches to other applications.
> 
> BTW Rythum Box is terrible.
> That one took almost 2.5 hours to load in 40k mp3s and when it plays it
> takes up tons of resources.
> 
> BTW how do I select which sound system and card I use with it. Xmms, for

Why are you asking for support on an OS you do not want to use?

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <pa32h1heigpntd13c496bd2frgvnlouflu@4ax.com>,
>  TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
> 
>> There is a difference.  Also, try opening Open Office again, once it
>>has been run once.  It opens nearly instantly.  One won't see that
> 
> 
> No, that's not correct.  OpenOffice apps are slow, even if they have 
> been previously launched recently.
> 
> ...
> 
>>>Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
>>
>>  There are no hard drives that run at 7000 RPM.  Get your numbers
>>straight.
> 
> 
> He didn't say 7000.  He said 7k.
> 

^^^^^^^^^
Riiiiiight..... K means 1000.... do the math...

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 07:34:06 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> Gave us:

>In article <pa32h1heigpntd13c496bd2frgvnlouflu@4ax.com>,
> TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
>>  There is a difference.  Also, try opening Open Office again, once it
>> has been run once.  It opens nearly instantly.  One won't see that
>
>No, that's not correct.  OpenOffice apps are slow, even if they have 
>been previously launched recently.

  Perhaps I am thinking of StarOffice.  OK, so open it, and leave it
open in a different desktop.
>
>...
>> >Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
>> 
>>   There are no hard drives that run at 7000 RPM.  Get your numbers
>> straight.
>
>He didn't say 7000.  He said 7k.

  k means kilo or 1000.  Particularly when referring to a spindle
speed number. A kilobit is 1000 bits.  A kiloByte is 1024 bytes. 
Note that the ONLY instance that it is 1024 in number is for the base
two reference.

 Never knew hard drive spindles to have their speed counted in byte
length integers, so....   try again.

dr. Bill wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>> dr. Bill wrote:
>>
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>> The Homo K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
>>>>> Blame the user.
>>>>> Blame the hardware.
>>>>> Blame the configuration.
>>>>> Blame the gui.
>>>>> Blame.......
>>>>
>>>> This is written into the bible of typical windope help desk
>>>> guidelines to save money and a barrage of abuse from windope users
>>>> wanting refunds and put into the microshat get the facts wrong
>>>> campaign.
>>>
>>> Try Windows XP-SP2, cos Linux is too fucking
>>> slooooooooooooooooooooooow and it's making you stupid as well!
>>
>>
>> Well, gurl fiend of Homo K, and butty doctor
> 
> See me fuck your missus at work!
> http://www.orsm.net/fem/trustyourdoc/images/trustyourdoc06.jpg
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! the 7 twat took the bait again! I own
> you, he!


Its a fake everyone.
Ok, what did you do with the picture of billy goat
mounting you from behind and you saying thank you
and donating him some money for getting shafted from behind?

 
>> for microshaft,
>> donating all your free time free of charge to microshaft
>> attacking free software making yourself poorer while
>> those microshaft executives get richer laughing all the way
>> to their banks, lets see if any of your windope ex-peeh time
>> wasting was worth it and can do any of this...
>>
>> With a 750MHz PC, 256Mb RAM, I can burn 4Gb of
>> files (14,000+ files) to DVD at 4x speed, and
>> download 2Gb file to that SAME hard disk through
>> a 100MHz network card!!
>> The 2Gb file transfer finishes before the 4Gb of files
>> are burned. And I'm listening to uninterrupted MP3 music
>> with Mepis. And there some 300 free liveCDs that out there that
>> can do this free with source code http://www.livecdlist.com/
>>
>> BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:30:21 -0700, The Homo K wrote:

> And there you have it ladies and gentlemen.
> Blame the user.
> Blame the hardware.
> Blame the configuration.
> Blame the gui.
> Blame.......

Blame the liar who wrote this lying nonsense - you. That's who we blame.
We're not fools, you know. We can spot bullshit like this a mile off.

> 
> Blame anything but Linux itself and that is really sad because it is
> Linux that IS the trouble.

I'm not having any trouble with Linux. I use it every single day. It works.

> 
> For instance, who cares if MSOffice pre-loads things?

You do, apparently, since you whine about speed.

> All I want to do is start my Office Suite and switch back and forth
> between applications.
> Windows does this in a heartbeat.

That depends entirely on your hardware. Try it on a slow box, and you'll
see a big difference.

> Linux and Openoffice?
> Slow as molassas at 40 degrees F.

So what? You want to open it *how* many times in a day? Open it and leave
it open on one of your desktops. Flip to it when you need to.

> 
> That's the problem with Linux advocates, they can't see the forest for
> the trees.

No, the 'problem' is trolls like you making up stories to discredit Linux
and its users.

> IOW an end user only cares about how fast something loads and runs.

Some do, some don't. Considering I can leave my apps open 24/7 for days if
not weeks and they are still usable, why should I worry about how fast
they load?

> All the crying about Microsoft doesn't change a thing.
> You want the end user to switch to Openoffice?
> Make it load faster.

Why? Since that is a stupid reason for switching to another app. If a
user wants a reliable alternative to MS Office, one that is less expensive
to obtain and is broadly compatible, and has several advantages over MS
Office, *that* is a good reason to switch to it. Speed comes way down the
list for anyone with sense. FYI, OO.writer usually loads in about eight or
so seconds on my box after it's been opened once. If fact I just timed it,
and it took exactly ten seconds.

If you can't wait ten seconds for anything, you must have a hard time
living.

> 
> Also notice the clever switches to other applications.
> 
> BTW Rythum Box is terrible.

Wouldn't know, I use AmaroK and Xmms to play music files.

> That one took almost 2.5 hours to load in 40k mp3s and when it plays it
> takes up tons of resources.

Funny how we are supposed to believe you, yet whatever a Linux advocate
says is automatically untrue, isn't it? You have 40,000 mp3s all in one
directory? Well, it makes a change from 90,000, which was the lie you used
last time to peddle this trash. Do you imagine we can't remember that far
back?

> 
> BTW how do I select which sound system and card I use with it.
> Xmms, for all it's faults does this easily.
> Juk, Rhythm box,amarok seem to have no way of doing this.
> BTW I am not interested in gstreamer which is yet another Linux
> braindead soundsystem.

Once again, you fling an accusation without providing any verification.
Explain why gstreamer is supposed to be 'braindead'.

> And that's another question, why so many dam sound systems with Linux?

Versatility. Choice.

> Windows has ONE and it works with EVERYTHING.
> Linux must have 10 and they all suck.

It doesn't have ten, and they don't all suck. Put an IMO in front of it
and you might get by. 

And don't fucking top-post and cross-post, you idiot.

-- 
Kier

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:20:01 +0200, Zvuk <tmp4@mim-sraga.hr> wrote:

> I'm glad to here that Linux can be faster than Windows. In my experience 
> Linux (+X), it's somewhat slower. What can I do to make it faster?

I guess that depends on what, exactly, you think is slower.  The most
likely things are disk DMA (is it turned on), and your video card (is it
using the proper driver or is it running generic VESA).


-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| A proud member of the reality-based community.
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

In article <jv73h1pol2qunk7h3s496ou55kkn53gl3e@4ax.com>,
 TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
> >> >Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
> >> 
> >>   There are no hard drives that run at 7000 RPM.  Get your numbers
> >> straight.
> >
> >He didn't say 7000.  He said 7k.
> 
>   k means kilo or 1000.  Particularly when referring to a spindle
> speed number. A kilobit is 1000 bits.  A kiloByte is 1024 bytes. 
> Note that the ONLY instance that it is 1024 in number is for the base
> two reference.

That would be relevant if he had said 7.000k.  However, he only gave one 
significant digit, so his 7k covers everything in [6500,7500).

-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <5287d$4311a1c3$cf70321d$4234@PRIMUS.CA>,
 McScratchy <Null@void.add> wrote:
> > 
> > He didn't say 7000.  He said 7k.
> > 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Riiiiiight..... K means 1000.... do the math...

Good.  Now contemplate what "7" means.

-- 
--Tim Smith

> The Homo K wrote: a lot of things
>
> I'd like to see you try and run multiple servers off your desktop
> computer under Windows. I have the one Linux box, and it handles all my
> servers while playing me some nice music while I lie on my bed and chat
> on IRC. I could never do all that under Windows. I even tried, because I
> play some Windows games...but it didn't work out.
> - --

Dumb Moron.  How many freaking people so that?  All you do is spout
crap nobody really wants to do.

How many people to support that?
Lucky if they get it right!  
Give me a freaking reboot any day!

In article <jv73h1pol2qunk7h3s496ou55kkn53gl3e@4ax.com>,
 TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
> >No, that's not correct.  OpenOffice apps are slow, even if they have 
> >been previously launched recently.
> 
>   Perhaps I am thinking of StarOffice.  OK, so open it, and leave it
> open in a different desktop.

That can work, although you have to figure out that you can't just open 
it on a blank document in another desktop.  You have to have something 
in the document.  Otherwise, when you open a document in a different 
desktop, it will replace the blank document on the other desktop, and 
(perhaps depending on the desktop manager) switch you to that other 
desktop.

So, basically, you can have a dummy spread sheet, and a dummy work 
processing document, etc, and keep those open on another desktop.

Such kludges are only necessary because the menu bar is tied to windows 
on most Unix window managers (and on Windows), so there is no reasonable 
way for a GUI app to work without having at least one open window.


-- 
--Tim Smith

In article <ACbQe.12679$HM2.4243@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
 TheLetterK <theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> wrote:
> Umm, no. Linux's desktop marketshare has been growing fairly steadily 
> for the last few years. The only platform with such distinction. There 
> are currently more Linux distributions being *sold*, than there are Macs 
> being sold.

What makes you think this?


-- 
--Tim Smith

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:00:38 GMT,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <jv73h1pol2qunk7h3s496ou55kkn53gl3e@4ax.com>,
>  TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
>> >No, that's not correct.  OpenOffice apps are slow, even if they have 
>> >been previously launched recently.
>> 
>>   Perhaps I am thinking of StarOffice.  OK, so open it, and leave it
>> open in a different desktop.
>
> That can work, although you have to figure out that you can't just open 
> it on a blank document in another desktop.  You have to have something 
> in the document.  Otherwise, when you open a document in a different 
> desktop, it will replace the blank document on the other desktop, and 
> (perhaps depending on the desktop manager) switch you to that other 
> desktop.
>
> So, basically, you can have a dummy spread sheet, and a dummy work 
> processing document, etc, and keep those open on another desktop.
>
> Such kludges are only necessary because the menu bar is tied to windows 
> on most Unix window managers (and on Windows), so there is no reasonable 
> way for a GUI app to work without having at least one open window.
>
>


I am not sure I follow what you are saying. I open oowriter2, and
minimize it, go to some other desktop, and open a .odt doc, the minmised
instance of oowriter2 is opened, with the doc, on my current workspace. 

Why would I need to leave the oowriter2 window open rather than
minimising it as above? 

OOwriter2 is slow to open the first time, but it gets much faster after
that. Although it's still slower than MS-Word on the smae machine. But
given the loathing I have for �S-Word, I'll put up with a few seconds
on launch... 


  

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDEfv0d90bcYOAWPYRAl+oAJ9FWr9SM4M09YKnbEPVrASQnT57bwCfd0jD
hkRNtgu5dqi4W4MH2v/6Czs=
=gQ7l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null
word.
        -- Lazarus Long

[snips]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 09:38:01 -0700, tab wrote:

>> I'd like to see you try and run multiple servers off your desktop
>> computer under Windows. I have the one Linux box, and it handles all my
>> servers while playing me some nice music while I lie on my bed and chat
>> on IRC. I could never do all that under Windows. I even tried, because I
>> play some Windows games...but it didn't work out.
>> - --
> 
> Dumb Moron.  How many freaking people so that?  

A lot of us, actually.  I do it regularly.  I do a lot of web coding,
which means I need to have a web server and usually a DB server, at the
very least, for testing purposes.  If I'm doing it for a client, I'll
probably put in a DNS server as well so I can - locally, for testing,
masquerade as them.

Then, too, a lot of us nowadays are running media servers, sharing media
files amongst our various machines.

Then there's things like leafnode, which works as a news server - and can
merrily reduce bandwidth across common newsgroups or - as I use it -
across disparate client OS installs.

And let's not forget tools such as squid, which also helps across multiple
installs, multiple browsers, multiple desktops.

I think Windows folks have something of a conceptual failing when it comes
to servers; they seem to regard servers as large, heavy-duty, difficult
things that consume vast amounts of resources.  In fact, this isn't the
case; Linux servers are often lightweight, low-resource tools which can
happily run on modest machines and which generally require little work to
get them working.

Net result; a lot of Linux users _will_ run a lot of servers, as those
things make a lot of sense in a lot of cases, where Windows users
typically won't run servers, as Windows servers _do_ tend to be overkill
for such uses.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

tab wrote:
>>The Homo K wrote: a lot of things
>>
>>I'd like to see you try and run multiple servers off your desktop
>>computer under Windows. I have the one Linux box, and it handles all my
>>servers while playing me some nice music while I lie on my bed and chat
>>on IRC. I could never do all that under Windows. I even tried, because I
>>play some Windows games...but it didn't work out.
>>- --
> 
> 
> Dumb Moron.  How many freaking people so that?  All you do is spout
> crap nobody really wants to do.
> 
> How many people to support that?
> Lucky if they get it right!  
> Give me a freaking reboot any day!
> 
Did I mention that there are a bunch of people who regularly login to my
computer to use it for email, web hosting, storage, or even just having
a UNIX shell? Some of these people run Windows, but would switch to
Linux even with just the command line, after using their shell accounts.

A shell account on my box entitles you to:
- -file storage in your home directory
- -web hosting in your ~/public-htroot directory
- -FTP access (there's anonymous FTP too, but it's restricted)
- -email with my POP and sometimes SMTP server, if you use GPG
- -i am constantly available on IRC to answer any questions
- -usage of my IRC server, for that matter
- -and of course, access to a UNIX shell, which is incredibly useful

I'd like to see you provide ANY sort of shell access to remote users
under Windows. My box is of use to quite a few people.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDEgpsKwExTSbpHqgRAgH8AJ0aCXp9NZv4LNnZKzVAndvSgwYQ3ACfQYMV
UwIKXcFDtWWiXuP/IMtyA2U=
=EsNx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jim Richardson wrote:

some snippage

> OOwriter2 is slow to open the first time, but it gets much faster after
> that. Although it's still slower than MS-Word on the smae machine. But
> given the loathing I have for �S-Word, I'll put up with a few seconds
> on launch... 

It only took 10 seconds to open on the other computer this morning.  I 
closed it and restarted it an hour or so later and it only took 4.  This 
was in SuSE 9.3, so I think Mr. Smith is mistaken.

BK

On Sunday 28 August 2005 17:38 tab wrote:

> Dumb Moron.  How many freaking people so that?  All you do is spout
> crap nobody really wants to do.
> 
> How many people to support that?
> Lucky if they get it right!
> Give me a freaking reboot any day!

Yep... that's the tab we know and love:-)

How's things in Ohio, tab?
How's your sister doing?
(and rest assured that I'd dearly like to give you a boot)

Bill

[snips]

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:20:01 +0200, Zvuk wrote:

> I'm glad to here that Linux can be faster than Windows. In my experience 
> Linux (+X), it's somewhat slower. What can I do to make it faster?

Part of it is what, exactly, does one mean by faster?  Take, oh, MS Word
versus OOo.  Does Word open faster?  Sure.  Might even load documents
faster.  Good.  Now, try something a little more involved.  Say burning a
disc, doing a large software build, do some other CPU, memory and disk
intensive things.

Windows may be faster insofar as quicker to load or to respond via the UI
- though this is far from a guaranteed situation - but system-wide, which
delivers more throughput?  For a lot of us, the answer's clear - Linux.

That said, there are, in fact, a lot of things you can do to improve it
further.  For example, most distros default to safe settings for things
such as hard drives - yet most include hdparm.  Using hdparm, you can kick
your drive's throughput up by a factor of 5 or more, oftentimes, just by
setting faster - though less safe - options.

A lot of distros also include a number of things you don't necessarily
need, notably services which are auto-launched.  Remove 'em.

Where Linux can really gain speed, though, is when dealing with things you
do use frequently, but which load slowly - OOo, say.  Load it once, toss
it onto desktop 2, it's out of the way, not bothering anybody, and ready
to go instantly.  Basically, you're duplicating what Windows does, since
it preloads a mess of DLLs to reduce the load time.  Hey, if you use OOo
often enough that its load time is an issue, this will reduce load time to
zero - let's see Windows beat that. :)  Of course, you can do the same
with Word, but then it's stuck on your destkop, in your taskbar, rather
than simply out of the way, out of sight until you need it.

Rocket Robin Hood wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:23:23 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
> 
> 
> I found this really interesting as a point of discussion. I thought "Wow,
> does it really?" So I gave it a whack. I'm on Gnome, which is a pretty big
> WM/environment in terms of CPU suckage, AND I'm also using tovid right now
> to convert an .avi into an svcd compatible mpg for me, which is really
> ripping my modest 1.8 GHz Celeron processor.
> 46 seconds, timed!
> 
Thought I'd have a go too.  On my bog standard Cybercom P4 machine 
running SuSE 9.3 Pro, OpenOffice 2.0 took 25 seconds to open a new, 
blank word processing document.  My copy of OOo 1.1.4 (Welsh version) 
took 10 seconds.

Isn't this fun.

Peter

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:23:23 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:

>>Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.

I found this really interesting as a point of discussion. I thought "Wow,
does it really?" So I gave it a whack. I'm on Gnome, which is a pretty big
WM/environment in terms of CPU suckage, AND I'm also using tovid right now
to convert an .avi into an svcd compatible mpg for me, which is really
ripping my modest 1.8 GHz Celeron processor.
46 seconds, timed!

B. Kildow wrote:
> Jim Richardson wrote:
> 
> some snippage
> 
>> OOwriter2 is slow to open the first time, but it gets much faster after
>> that. Although it's still slower than MS-Word on the smae machine. But
>> given the loathing I have for �S-Word, I'll put up with a few seconds
>> on launch... 
> 
> 
> It only took 10 seconds to open on the other computer this morning.  I 
> closed it and restarted it an hour or so later and it only took 4.  This 
> was in SuSE 9.3, so I think Mr. Smith is mistaken.
> 
> BK

In my case, (Mandrake 10.1), it takes three seconds....

MH

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:53:18 +0100, peter wrote:

> Rocket Robin Hood wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:23:23 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
>> 
>> 
>> I found this really interesting as a point of discussion. I thought "Wow,
>> does it really?" So I gave it a whack. I'm on Gnome, which is a pretty big
>> WM/environment in terms of CPU suckage, AND I'm also using tovid right now
>> to convert an .avi into an svcd compatible mpg for me, which is really
>> ripping my modest 1.8 GHz Celeron processor.
>> 46 seconds, timed!
>> 
> Thought I'd have a go too.  On my bog standard Cybercom P4 machine 
> running SuSE 9.3 Pro, OpenOffice 2.0 took 25 seconds to open a new, 
> blank word processing document.  My copy of OOo 1.1.4 (Welsh version) 
> took 10 seconds.
> 
> Isn't this fun.

It is fun! Tovid is finished now, and I got 26 seconds for 2.0..so it
appears the poster is doing some heavy, heavy processor-intensive stuff in
the background or (more probably) lying.

Rocket Robin Hood wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:53:18 +0100, peter wrote:

>>Thought I'd have a go too.  On my bog standard Cybercom P4 machine 
>>running SuSE 9.3 Pro, OpenOffice 2.0 took 25 seconds to open a new, 
>>blank word processing document.  My copy of OOo 1.1.4 (Welsh version) 
>>took 10 seconds.
>>
>>Isn't this fun.
> 
> 
> It is fun! Tovid is finished now, and I got 26 seconds for 2.0..so it
> appears the poster is doing some heavy, heavy processor-intensive stuff in
> the background or (more probably) lying.
> 
I'm shocked!  Do people lie in newsgroups?  What is the world coming to?

:)

Yes, I agree with you.  Tovid made a mistake this time.  Really good 
trolls don't post facts and figures that can be used to show them up for 
what they are.  They just grind on about unnamed schools and colleges 
that won't allow Linux use, or unnamed professors who think Linux is a 
poor substitute for "real Unix".  Because they never give details, they 
can just let the story stick around like lots of urban myths do.

So a pretty poor trolling effort, this one.

Peter

The Homo K dribbled incoherently:

> And that's another question, why so many dam sound systems with Linux?

Why do we have so many brands of cars/TVs/toothpaste/condoms/[insert consumer
product here]?

> Windows has ONE and it works with EVERYTHING.

That's what they want you to believe.  The US judicial system has a problem with
this though.

In which other industry can you get something absolutely free, without having to
read the small print to discover how you get screwed, or as a ploy by the
marketing department to part you from your hard-earned cash?

P.

-- 
"This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God
who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny that feeds them
to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen

The Homo K wrote:

....

Why did you subscribe in the Linux book? Stay in Windows or go to store or
look online about operating system(s)...

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <ACbQe.12679$HM2.4243@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
>  TheLetterK <theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> wrote:
> 
>>Umm, no. Linux's desktop marketshare has been growing fairly steadily 
>>for the last few years. The only platform with such distinction. There 
>>are currently more Linux distributions being *sold*, than there are Macs 
>>being sold.
> 
> 
> What makes you think this?
Sales numbers, when compared with global sales in the same amount of 
time. This is how you generate market-share. Consequently, it's also why 
'free beer' Linux distros aren't counted.

TokaMundo wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 07:34:06 GMT, Tim Smith
> <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> Gave us:
> 
> 
>>In article <pa32h1heigpntd13c496bd2frgvnlouflu@4ax.com>,
>>TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a difference.  Also, try opening Open Office again, once it
>>>has been run once.  It opens nearly instantly.  One won't see that
>>
>>No, that's not correct.  OpenOffice apps are slow, even if they have 
>>been previously launched recently.
> 
> 
>   Perhaps I am thinking of StarOffice.  OK, so open it, and leave it
> open in a different desktop.
> 
>>...
>>
>>>>Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
>>>
>>>  There are no hard drives that run at 7000 RPM.  Get your numbers
>>>straight.
>>
>>He didn't say 7000.  He said 7k.
> 
> 
>   k means kilo or 1000.  Particularly when referring to a spindle
> speed number. A kilobit is 1000 bits.  A kiloByte is 1024 bytes.
kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.


> Note that the ONLY instance that it is 1024 in number is for the base
> two reference.
> 
>  Never knew hard drive spindles to have their speed counted in byte
> length integers, so....   try again.

In article <koa9u2-gic.ln1@fimbul.myth>,
 Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
> I am not sure I follow what you are saying. I open oowriter2, and
> minimize it, go to some other desktop, and open a .odt doc, the minmised
> instance of oowriter2 is opened, with the doc, on my current workspace. 
> 
> Why would I need to leave the oowriter2 window open rather than
> minimising it as above? 
> 
> OOwriter2 is slow to open the first time, but it gets much faster after
> that. Although it's still slower than MS-Word on the smae machine. But
> given the loathing I have for �S-Word, I'll put up with a few seconds
> on launch... 

I'm using 1.3 (or whatever the current one on SuSE is), not 2.

Here's what the rules appear to be, on KDE on SuSE 9.1 or 9.2.

1. If you try to open a document, and OO is not running, it opens on the 
current desktop.

2. If you try to open a document, and OO is running on another desktop, 
and it has a blank document on that other desktop, you are switched to 
that other desktop, and the window that had the blank document opens 
your document.

3. Same as above, but the document on the other desktop is not blank.  
Then, your document opens in a new window on your current desktop.

Hence, to get it so I can leave a copy of OO running, so it will open 
things fast, but also have it so they open on whatever desktop I'm 
working on, the procedure is to open the writer or the spreadsheet on 
some other desktop, either on an existing document, or type something in 
the blank document so it is no longer blank.  Then I can leave those 
there, minimized or not, and go work on my other desktops.

-- 
--Tim Smith

Rocket Robin Hood wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:23:23 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:
> 
>>>Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
> 
> I found this really interesting as a point of discussion. I thought "Wow,
> does it really?" So I gave it a whack. I'm on Gnome, which is a pretty big
> WM/environment in terms of CPU suckage, AND I'm also using tovid right now
> to convert an .avi into an svcd compatible mpg for me, which is really
> ripping my modest 1.8 GHz Celeron processor.
> 46 seconds, timed!


  I didn't post that, doofus.  Learn how to quote properly.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:50:35 GMT,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <koa9u2-gic.ln1@fimbul.myth>,
>  Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> I am not sure I follow what you are saying. I open oowriter2, and
>> minimize it, go to some other desktop, and open a .odt doc, the minmised
>> instance of oowriter2 is opened, with the doc, on my current workspace. 
>> 
>> Why would I need to leave the oowriter2 window open rather than
>> minimising it as above? 
>> 
>> OOwriter2 is slow to open the first time, but it gets much faster after
>> that. Although it's still slower than MS-Word on the smae machine. But
>> given the loathing I have for �S-Word, I'll put up with a few seconds
>> on launch... 
>
> I'm using 1.3 (or whatever the current one on SuSE is), not 2.
>
> Here's what the rules appear to be, on KDE on SuSE 9.1 or 9.2.
>
> 1. If you try to open a document, and OO is not running, it opens on the 
> current desktop.
>
> 2. If you try to open a document, and OO is running on another desktop, 
> and it has a blank document on that other desktop, you are switched to 
> that other desktop, and the window that had the blank document opens 
> your document.
>
> 3. Same as above, but the document on the other desktop is not blank.  
> Then, your document opens in a new window on your current desktop.
>
> Hence, to get it so I can leave a copy of OO running, so it will open 
> things fast, but also have it so they open on whatever desktop I'm 
> working on, the procedure is to open the writer or the spreadsheet on 
> some other desktop, either on an existing document, or type something in 
> the blank document so it is no longer blank.  Then I can leave those 
> there, minimized or not, and go work on my other desktops.
>


Well here, (Ubuntu Breezy w/oo.org2) it does what you'd expect. If you
have a blank window open on another desktop, and click on a file
associated with the app (I created a test.odt file for this) it "steals"
the blank OOwriter window, moves it to the current desktop, and opens
the file in it. Doesn't matter if the window was minimised or not, It
simply moves it to the current desktop. If the oowriter window held a
document, then a new oowriter window is opened, again, in the current
desktop. 

Don't know if this is new in OO.Org2, or something to do with how Ubuntu
is running things, but that's the way it's working for me. 

Aparantly, a lot of things changed with OO.Org2, maybe this was one of
them. 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDEoVYd90bcYOAWPYRAv3yAJ4wHfEjYnWKorVahWlQyqWrtyPoJACglwY5
TE4IxB7C4iT0yD7GI8B3v4M=
=1PtF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Microsoft gives you Windows... Linux gives you the whole house

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:14:36 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> Gave us:

>In article <jv73h1pol2qunk7h3s496ou55kkn53gl3e@4ax.com>,
> TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
>> >> >Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
>> >> 
>> >>   There are no hard drives that run at 7000 RPM.  Get your numbers
>> >> straight.
>> >
>> >He didn't say 7000.  He said 7k.
>> 
>>   k means kilo or 1000.  Particularly when referring to a spindle
>> speed number. A kilobit is 1000 bits.  A kiloByte is 1024 bytes. 
>> Note that the ONLY instance that it is 1024 in number is for the base
>> two reference.
>
>That would be relevant if he had said 7.000k.  However, he only gave one 
>significant digit, so his 7k covers everything in [6500,7500).

  No.  He said 7k rpm. That means 7000.  It even means only 7000 and
7000 only with only one significant digit as well.

  This ain't a 20% resistor, doofus, and nobody rounds up or down 500
counts.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:00:38 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> Gave us:

>In article <jv73h1pol2qunk7h3s496ou55kkn53gl3e@4ax.com>,
> TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
>> >No, that's not correct.  OpenOffice apps are slow, even if they have 
>> >been previously launched recently.
>> 
>>   Perhaps I am thinking of StarOffice.  OK, so open it, and leave it
>> open in a different desktop.
>
>That can work, although you have to figure out that you can't just open 
>it on a blank document in another desktop.  You have to have something 
>in the document.  Otherwise, when you open a document in a different 
>desktop, it will replace the blank document on the other desktop, and 
>(perhaps depending on the desktop manager) switch you to that other 
>desktop.

  Yes, but it will open faster in either case as the base system is up
and running.
>
>So, basically, you can have a dummy spread sheet, and a dummy work 
>processing document, etc, and keep those open on another desktop.

  No.  ANY Open Office app will do.  It opens as a suite, not singular
modules.  Once a blank document, for example, has been opened, a new
document or a spreadsheet will both open quicker.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 12:06:04 -0700, "B. Kildow"
<piobaire@spamenot.foxinternet.invalid> Gave us:

>Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>some snippage
>
>> OOwriter2 is slow to open the first time, but it gets much faster after
>> that. Although it's still slower than MS-Word on the smae machine. But
>> given the loathing I have for ?S-Word, I'll put up with a few seconds
>> on launch... 
>
>It only took 10 seconds to open on the other computer this morning.  I 
>closed it and restarted it an hour or so later and it only took 4.  This 
>was in SuSE 9.3, so I think Mr. Smith is mistaken.
>

  No.  It was Flatfish's claim.  I think the very first time it is
opened a whole lot of things take place.  He likely timed that.  After
it has been used a time or so, it seems to open much faster.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:50:35 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> Gave us:

>In article <koa9u2-gic.ln1@fimbul.myth>,
> Jim Richardson <warlock@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> I am not sure I follow what you are saying. I open oowriter2, and
>> minimize it, go to some other desktop, and open a .odt doc, the minmised
>> instance of oowriter2 is opened, with the doc, on my current workspace. 
>> 
>> Why would I need to leave the oowriter2 window open rather than
>> minimising it as above? 
>> 
>> OOwriter2 is slow to open the first time, but it gets much faster after
>> that. Although it's still slower than MS-Word on the smae machine. But
>> given the loathing I have for ?S-Word, I'll put up with a few seconds
>> on launch... 
>
>I'm using 1.3 (or whatever the current one on SuSE is), not 2.
>
>Here's what the rules appear to be, on KDE on SuSE 9.1 or 9.2.
>
>1. If you try to open a document, and OO is not running, it opens on the 
>current desktop.
>
>2. If you try to open a document, and OO is running on another desktop, 
>and it has a blank document on that other desktop, you are switched to 
>that other desktop, and the window that had the blank document opens 
>your document.
>
>3. Same as above, but the document on the other desktop is not blank.  
>Then, your document opens in a new window on your current desktop.
>
>Hence, to get it so I can leave a copy of OO running, so it will open 
>things fast, but also have it so they open on whatever desktop I'm 
>working on, the procedure is to open the writer or the spreadsheet on 
>some other desktop, either on an existing document, or type something in 
>the blank document so it is no longer blank.

  Cool.

>  Then I can leave those 
>there, minimized or not, and go work on my other desktops.

  Exactly.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 03:05:11 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:

> Rocket Robin Hood wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:23:23 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:
>> 
>>>>Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
>> 
>> I found this really interesting as a point of discussion. I thought "Wow,
>> does it really?" So I gave it a whack. I'm on Gnome, which is a pretty big
>> WM/environment in terms of CPU suckage, AND I'm also using tovid right now
>> to convert an .avi into an svcd compatible mpg for me, which is really
>> ripping my modest 1.8 GHz Celeron processor.
>> 46 seconds, timed!
> 
> 
>   I didn't post that, doofus.  Learn how to quote properly.

Don't call me a doofus, fuckface. I just highlighted the line and hoped
Pan would figure it out. It didn't. Sorry, fuckface.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:14:06 -0400, TheLetterK
<theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> Gave us:

>kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
>

  Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:53:18 +0100, peter wrote:

> Rocket Robin Hood wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:23:23 +0000, TokaMundo wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
>> 
>> 
>> I found this really interesting as a point of discussion. I thought "Wow,
>> does it really?" So I gave it a whack. I'm on Gnome, which is a pretty big
>> WM/environment in terms of CPU suckage, AND I'm also using tovid right now
>> to convert an .avi into an svcd compatible mpg for me, which is really
>> ripping my modest 1.8 GHz Celeron processor.
>> 46 seconds, timed!
>> 
> Thought I'd have a go too.  On my bog standard Cybercom P4 machine 
> running SuSE 9.3 Pro, OpenOffice 2.0 took 25 seconds to open a new, 
> blank word processing document.  My copy of OOo 1.1.4 (Welsh version) 
> took 10 seconds.
> 
> Isn't this fun.
> 
> Peter
I just tried it. Athlon 2600 took 12 secs.
-- 
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> I think Windows folks have something of a conceptual failing when it comes
> to servers; they seem to regard servers as large, heavy-duty, difficult
> things that consume vast amounts of resources.  In fact, this isn't the
> case; Linux servers are often lightweight, low-resource tools which can
> happily run on modest machines and which generally require little work to
> get them working.

I agree, in an office environment this is where linux really excels. I 
mean who would pay + $500 for windows 2003 if you needed a print server 
or file server? I mean a simple box with a 2Gz processor and 1gb ram can 
easily handle an office with 200 users. The cost of windows server OS 
cost just as much as the hardware. It also makes System Admins jobs 
easier because we don't have to request funds for a licenses(requesting 
funds for procurement is always fun right?) and we don't have to keep 
track of licenses(what is a real pain in the ass)

In article <fq35h1h42r9s94t8pl7bhdh4g57gr00rt7@4ax.com>,
 TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:14:06 -0400, TheLetterK
> <theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> Gave us:
> 
> >kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
> >
> 
>   Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?

<http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html>


-- 
--Tim Smith

begin  oe_protect.scr 
Zvuk <tmp4@mim-sraga.hr> espoused:
> 
>>
>> No problem at all here. Linux runs at least twice as fast as XP on less
>> hardware by my experience. Then again, if you're using a Commodore 64, you
>> can expect some hesitation.
>>
> 
> I'm glad to here that Linux can be faster than Windows. In my experience 

hear.

> Linux (+X), it's somewhat slower. What can I do to make it faster?

Install it?  Looking further down your post, you seem to have become
confused, and installed Windows instead of Linux...

> 
> Nevertheless, I'm using it more and more. Open source is important to me. 
> Because, if I develop something, and it doesn not work as expected, I want 
> to be able to see the source of the libraries I use. Lately I wanted to make 
> a small program which would calculate relative paths. No problem. You call 
> shlwapi.dll and there it goes. But not! It didn't work ad expected and I 
> realised that the problem was in shlwapi.dll. I wouldn't even call it a bug. 
> It just gives the wrong result, that's it.
> 

shlwapi.dll is a Windows library, I think?  :-)

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
T-shirt Of The Day:
	I'm the person your mother warned you about.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 09:38:01 -0700, tab wrote:

> 
>> The Homo K wrote: a lot of things
>>
>> I'd like to see you try and run multiple servers off your desktop
>> computer under Windows. I have the one Linux box, and it handles all my
>> servers while playing me some nice music while I lie on my bed and chat
>> on IRC. I could never do all that under Windows. I even tried, because I
>> play some Windows games...but it didn't work out. - --
> 
> Dumb Moron.  How many freaking people so that?  All you do is spout crap
> nobody really wants to do.
> 
> How many people to support that?
> Lucky if they get it right!
> Give me a freaking reboot any day!

Right so we agree, windows is a toy OS that needs constant reboots. If you
want to avoid reboots and actually do things on your computer then don't
use windows.

Glad that is cleared up then.

TokaMundo wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:14:06 -0400, TheLetterK
> <theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> Gave us:
> 
>>kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
>>
> 
>   Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?

I think I may have heard about it, but it was from someone who didn't like
the current terms.  As far as I know, it's never been "official".

TokaMundo wrote:

snippage

>   No.  It was Flatfish's claim.  I think the very first time it is
> opened a whole lot of things take place.  He likely timed that.  After
> it has been used a time or so, it seems to open much faster.

Ah, my mistake, then.  It certainly sounds like something the pressed 
piscine would claim.  I was piggybacking and having most of flatfish's 
nyms bozo-binned I screwed up.  My apologies to Mr. Smith.

BK

The Homo K (flatfish) wrote:

>(snip troll)

*plonk*

TokaMundo said the following on 29/08/05 00:29:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:14:06 -0400, TheLetterK
> <theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> Gave us:
> 
>> kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
>>
> 
>   Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?

A morsel of Lebanese food?

-- 
..snork

"Tanner, I think you should be reminded from time to time that you are 
one of the few people on this team who is not a Jew, Spic, Nigger, Pansy 
or a booger eating Moron. So you better cool it or we may be disposed to 
beat the crap out of you."

	Ogilvie (Bad News Bears 1976)

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 05:50:31 GMT, Tim Smith
<reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> Gave us:

>In article <fq35h1h42r9s94t8pl7bhdh4g57gr00rt7@4ax.com>,
> TokaMundo <TokaMundo@weedizgood.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:14:06 -0400, TheLetterK
>> <theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> Gave us:
>> 
>> >kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
>> >
>> 
>>   Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?
>
><http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html>

  Interesting.  That's new to me.  Thanks.  Haven't been to the NIST
site in a while.

  Somebody needs to tell the hard drive makers.

>>> >kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
>>> 
>>>   Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?
>>
>><http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html>
> 
>   Interesting.  That's new to me.  Thanks.  Haven't been to the NIST
> site in a while.
> 
>   Somebody needs to tell the hard drive makers.

Actually, I think they are the only ones to properly use kilobytes meaning
1000 bytes.


-- 
damjan

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:44:36 -0400, James Knott
<james.knott@rogers.com> Gave us:

>TokaMundo wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:14:06 -0400, TheLetterK
>> <theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> Gave us:
>> 
>>>kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
>>>
>> 
>>   Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?
>
>I think I may have heard about it, but it was from someone who didn't like
>the current terms.  As far as I know, it's never been "official".

  Actually, it apparently is.  NIST is da man!

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:15:13 -0400, Snorkelson MacBurp
<moc.liamg@prubcam.noslekrons> Gave us:

>TokaMundo said the following on 29/08/05 00:29:
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:14:06 -0400, TheLetterK
>> <theletterk@nomail.spymac.com> Gave us:
>> 
>>> kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
>>>
>> 
>>   Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?
>
>A morsel of Lebanese food?

 Hehehe...

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:07:13 +0200, Damjan <gdamjan@gmail.com> Gave
us:

>>>> >kilobyte = 1000 bytes. kibibyte = 1024 bytes.
>>>> 
>>>>   Never heard of a kibibyte.  Reference?
>>>
>>><http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html>
>> 
>>   Interesting.  That's new to me.  Thanks.  Haven't been to the NIST
>> site in a while.
>> 
>>   Somebody needs to tell the hard drive makers.
>
>Actually, I think they are the only ones to properly use kilobytes meaning
>1000 bytes.

  And then one performs the format.

Homo K, I agree with yout observations regarding Linux, it is highly
overrated, it is also used by very very few people due to its low
quality functionality and programs. Windows is better.

Eros Tintory

The Homo K wrote:
> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
> The truth is Linux sucks. I have used Suse and Mandrake as well as
> Mandrival and they all are so slow it's not even funny.
> Konqueror takes minutes to display a directory of 40k mp3 files
> including info and that's the same even after multiple times of opening
> the directory.
> Windows XP does it in 3 seconds, every single time.
> Juk takes 2 hours to add the above mp3s to it's database.
> Amarok crashed trying to do it.
> Winamp takes 7 minutes.
> Musicmatch takes 4 minutes.
>
> Openoffice takes 45 seconds to start.
> MSoffice 2003 takes 3 seconds.
> k3b takes 4 minutes to burn a 650mg CD.
> Nero takes 2.7 minutes.
> Firefox with Linux takes 20 seconds to load, 10 seconds with Windows.
> Internet Explorer takes 2 seconds or less to load.
>
> Linux transfers between 7krpm disks at about 6mb/sec.
> Windows is over 20mb/sec on the same disks.
> DMA is turned on for both.
>
> WindowsXP regularly gets higher data transfers on dslreports.com and it
> is consistant.
> Linux is all over the map but always slower than Windows.
>
> Kontact opens so slow that if you move the mouse around you get trails.
> Kontact/kmail is also very buggy at getting mail, not to mention it's
> also very slow compared to eudora.
>
>
> Machine is a 2.6ghz P4HT with 1g memory and 7k WD drives with 8mb
> buffers.
> Motherboard is Asus.
>
> So go ahead and bury your heads in the sand going into denial.
> You might want to take a look at "why is Linux so slow" threads because
> their seems to be an awful lot of them.

The Homo K wrote:

Are you on the M$ paylist?

The Homo K wrote:
*snip...not worth the bandwidth!*

Perhaps you should use these 5 reasons not to use Linux in your next post.

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8124627492.html

Enjoy,

Alvin

On Tuesday 30 August 2005 16:57, eros.tintory@hotmail.com stood up and
spoke the following words to the masses...:

> Homo K, I agree with yout observations regarding Linux, it is highly
> overrated, it is also used by very very few people due to its low
> quality functionality and programs. Windows is better.
> 
> Eros Tintory

Oh, we have yet another top-posting Wintroll...

*<plonk>*

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

TokaMundo wrote:

>>It only took 10 seconds to open on the other computer this morning.  I 
>>closed it and restarted it an hour or so later and it only took 4.  This 
>>was in SuSE 9.3, so I think Mr. Smith is mistaken.
>>
> 
> 
>   No.  It was Flatfish's claim.  I think the very first time it is
> opened a whole lot of things take place.  He likely timed that.  After
> it has been used a time or so, it seems to open much faster.

The same thing happens with K3b. The first cd I burned with it went at 
about half-speed. While I never timed them, it seemed like subsequent 
cds burned at about the same rate as Nero.

TJ

The Homo K wrote:
> The Linux community is comprised of sicko zealots who will try and
> foist Linux on unsuspecting fools just to sucker them into Linux.
> The truth is Linux sucks.

<Stuff_Snipped>

Heres a number for you: 60,000. Guess what that number is? It's the
number of viruses, worms, and trojans available (for no extra
charge, I might add!) for the windoze platform.

Here's another number: 6. Guess what that number is? The number of
worms, viruses, and trojans available for the Linux platform.

Want some more numbers? Okay, 400. That's the $sss it takes to buy
WinXP
pro and load it up with (not-so)useful, bug-ridden, copyright-laden,
restrictive, closed-source and expensive win32 software. That's 400
more
dollars than it takes to download a VERY good linux OS (debian, gentoo,

etc) and load it up with Free (as in speech, and usually as in beer
too!), quality, easy to use, fast, and generally bug-free software.


And as for the Windoze testimonials, they are obviously an unsuccessful

attempt at discrediting linux. It is a commonly known fact that while
Firefox may be fairly slow on windoze, it is fairly fast on linux. The
only reason why IE starts up so fast is because it starts up when you
boot up your computer, in a sense. It is so integrated (sp? sorry!)
into
the operating system that any attempt to remove it will do everything
short of deleting your hard drive. This leads to many, many security
concerns. So many, in fact, that I would rather have a browser that
starts up in (*gasp!*) 10s then a broken, buggy, closed-source one that

starts up in 5s. Every distro I have tried so far is significantly
faster than windoze by default (that is, no extra configuration
required) that you won't even have to configure anything by yourself
unless you want a computer so fast that it scares you.

As for 40k mp3s, I wonder how many of them are Barney/Muppets theme
songs that he likes to  listen to while he takes his afternoon nap and
sips his cool-aid?

And DSL speed has nothing to do with your operating system, it has to
do
with your ISP. Everyone knows that. And even *if* windoze *might* be
faster then linux on the web (which, of course, is not true *AT ALL*),
wouldn't you have an OS that will *never* get a virus rather then one
that has to be updated *daily* because of exploits, and never seems to
get fixed? No doubt the windoze "updates" you're downloading are
actually Microsoft's first attempts to bring so-called "trusted
computing" (if you're not familliar with the term, it basically means
that M$ will force you to buy their products, the music industry won't
let you listen to your favorite songs more than three times without
paying for them, and basically invades your privacy) to your computer.

Oh, yeah, it's not "Mandrivial". It's "Mandrivia". Would you trust
somebody who can't spell more then 1/3 his words correctly?

To give this troller a small (and I mean *very* small) amount of
credit,
linux has a few insignificant problems. One of them being that modem
companies like giving M$ blowjobs so much that they make software
drivers that are M$ only compatible. This means that if you have
dialup,
there's a small (and I mean *small*) chance that your modem won't work
with linux (see note at bottom of post). This has been fixed, however,
by the very hardworking people who work to bring modem drivers to linux

(see http://linuxant.com). Their work is only hampered by modem
companies who refuse to release the source code for their drivers so
some very nice people can port it to linux. DON'T LET THIS TURN YOU
OFF!
Linux compatible modems (if yours doesn't have linux drivers already)
can be obtained for VERY CHEAP! $30-40 AT THE MAXIMUM! $10-15 if you
know where to look!

And as for Linux not being user friendly (okay, so you didn't say
anything about that, but I just want to clear up a pet peeve), that is
bullcrap as well. Linux is user friendly, just not IDIOT and RETARD
friendly like Windoze is. Yes, Linux users have to have a slight clue
about what they are doing to do something. If a user can't type in a
couple commands at the bash prompt then they should be using Mac OS X
(which is, by the way, UNIX based). If you can run windoze, you can run

linux. The terminology and techniques are just a tad bit different,
that's all. Hey, ever heard the acronym RTFM? It stands for Read The
Fricking Manual (The unpolite part has been replaced with slightly more

kid friendly terminology so "Homo K"'s mom doesn't get offended). There

is documentation in plain sight, the only difference between it and the

windoze documentation is that it doesn't come out and whack you on the
head like the windoze documentation does.

So long, and thanks for letting me rant (perhaps the longest reply to
this topic yet).


Note: The small modem problem is why I am posting this from (*gasp*)
windoze. My parents (yes, I am still living at home) are too cheap to
get broadband, and they wouldn't let me delete their favorite OS
(windoze, if you hadn't guessed), and I am currently unemployed (I'm
old
enough to get a job, it's just that I have better things to do in my
spare time then work).

ajtiM wrote:

> The Homo K wrote:
> 
> Are you on the M$ paylist?

Dearest,

It might all be true, but my experience is that it's mostly on so called
A-systems.
That's the more expensive machines whith less open hardware and
extenseability. They often advertize as to be made for W-and-W-alone.
If that's what we want, he's very right, if not, let me think about that,
waiting ervery 20 seconds openening my documents, feeling more free and
friendly

Wish you all the best.

Willem

James Knott wrote:

> Aragorn wrote:
> 
>> Then there is 20'000, which is the section of those 60'000 bugs known by
>> Microsoft to be fatal. ;-)
>> 
> 
> The user dies???  ;-)

If a Windows box is used on life-support or aviation systems, sure.

On Wednesday 31 August 2005 07:06, nate.pilk@gmail.com stood up and
spoke the following words to the masses...:

> Heres a number for you: 60,000. Guess what that number is? It's the
> number of viruses, worms, and trojans available (for no extra
> charge, I might add!) for the windoze platform.
> 
> Here's another number: 6. Guess what that number is? The number of
> worms, viruses, and trojans available for the Linux platform.
> 
> Want some more numbers? Okay, 400. That's the $sss it takes to buy
> WinXP pro and load it up with (not-so)useful, bug-ridden,
> copyright-laden, restrictive, closed-source and expensive win32
> software. That's 400 more dollars than it takes to download a VERY
> good linux OS (debian, gentoo, etc) and load it up with Free (as in
> speech, and usually as in beer too!), quality, easy to use, fast, and
> generally bug-free software. 

I would like to add another couple of numbers.  For starters, there's a
second 60'000, which stands for the number of known bugs in Windows
when Microsoft releases it to the public.  

Then there is 20'000, which is the section of those 60'000 bugs known by
Microsoft to be fatal. ;-)

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

Aragorn wrote:

> Then there is 20'000, which is the section of those 60'000 bugs known by
> Microsoft to be fatal. ;-)
> 

The user dies???  ;-)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:36:48 +0000, Aragorn wrote:

> On Wednesday 31 August 2005 07:06, nate.pilk@gmail.com stood up and
> spoke the following words to the masses...:
> 
>> Heres a number for you: 60,000. Guess what that number is? It's the
>> number of viruses, worms, and trojans available (for no extra
>> charge, I might add!) for the windoze platform.
>> 
>> Here's another number: 6. Guess what that number is? The number of
>> worms, viruses, and trojans available for the Linux platform.
>> 
>> Want some more numbers? Okay, 400. That's the $sss it takes to buy
>> WinXP pro and load it up with (not-so)useful, bug-ridden,
>> copyright-laden, restrictive, closed-source and expensive win32
>> software. That's 400 more dollars than it takes to download a VERY
>> good linux OS (debian, gentoo, etc) and load it up with Free (as in
>> speech, and usually as in beer too!), quality, easy to use, fast, and
>> generally bug-free software. 
> 
> I would like to add another couple of numbers.  For starters, there's a
> second 60'000, which stands for the number of known bugs in Windows
> when Microsoft releases it to the public.  
> 
> Then there is 20'000, which is the section of those 60'000 bugs known by
> Microsoft to be fatal. ;-)
They are making progress then - didn't it use to be 25000.
-- 
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email

You seem to misunderstand. Linux is not an operating system, It's
merely a Kernel and each distro serves as a seperate, although related,
"Operating System".

It's also a common misconception that there is more software available
for Microsoft.  There is definately more comercially advertised
software that runs on Microsoft because it is a comercial Operating
System. But there is a much larger amount of free software available
for Linux, and BSD.

The biggest issue appears to be support.  For instance a MAC is based
on BSD, it's supported and thus there is more comercial software
available for it as well.

A real coup could be accomplished when a fully free operating system
gets more support from comercial software vendors.  I'm interested to
see where Project Live! will end up. Such projects are the only real
threat to Microsoft.  see http://live.webpath.net/content/view/20/44/

But this is just my opinion.