| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 22.10.99 02:19l 224 Lines 6891 Bytes #-9710 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_264D
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/264D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0PV<OE2XOM<OE5XBL<OE3XSR<OK0PBX<OK0PHL<OM0PBC<OM0PBB<
HA5KDF<HA5OB<HA3PG<SV1AAW<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991021/2121Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:9505 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_264
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA21771 ; Thu, 21 Oct 99 20:58:43 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016502 ; Thu, 21 Oct 99 18:18:59 MET
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 99 18:16:36 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_264D>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/264D
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 14:32:58 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
Steve Sampson <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
news:s0jo95sqr0175@corp.supernews.com...
> Charles Brabham wrote
>
> >I gave LINUX a fair trial, and it turned out to be garbage. I'll give
> >it another try later on, but not until the problem I mentioned has been
> >resolved.
>
>
> You want us to believe you are an authority on packet radio, with all
> the right opinions.... Then you want us to believe that you are an
> expert on Operating Systems, with all the right opinions.
Oh boy; Another one of Steve's personality attacks he comes up with, when he
knows he's been proved wrong and has no rational arguement to offer.
Steve, what "us" are you referring to? Redneck drunks? LandLine Lids?
>
> I've been employed as a Unix administrator for years, and Linux
> represents what most modern Unix systems use as state of the art.
No wonder it's so screwed up!
> I only run the stable versions, not the development versions.
Uh oh! Steve admitted to the existence of "unstable" versions of LINUX...
Better watch out, Steve, or the LINUX thought police will be after you!
>There
> is no truth to the fact that Linux is unstable.
You just got through admitting it. Sharp as a tack today, aren't you Steve?
>Even IBM ships Linux
> now with their Netfinity servers (high-end NT server base machine).
>
> The only bad thing about Linux, is that it is harder than IBM AIX to
> administer. But with AIX I have to wait 3 years to afford the next
> update.
>
> My opinion, is that RedHat Linux (I run 5.2) is more stable than
> Sun Solaris 2.7 on a dual Pentium motherboard I run.
I'm real happy for you. RedHat 5.2 proved to be extremely unstable here, and
not worthwhile on those occasions where it did work for a few minutes.
As I mentioned earlier, it all looked like stuff you might expect from
"junior programmer wannabee's". I don't have the patience for "amateur
software", thank you. Unreasonable as I am, I prefer to work with software
developed by professionals.
>My other
> opinion is that Charles doesn't understand Packet radio, and he
> doesn't understand Operating Systems. Just my opinion...
That's cool. We all have our opinions.
>
> That leaves us with a question: why the hell do you even subscribe
> to this newsgroup? DOS and GUI-DOS pro-arguments belong
> in the fringe alt.* groups...
Is that why you are here now, arguing about LINUX?
>
> If you are going to do TCP/IP, and everyone will; then you need to
> use a good platform to develop on.
Is that the same "everyone" you referred to earlier? Redneck drunks and
LandLine Lids?
If so, then your "everyone" doesn't amount to much, does it?
>Linux is good, DOS would be
> the third choice after some of the single-board microcontrollers
> that are available now to TCP/IP anything.
Well, when I see something LINUX is "good" for that I have some interest in,
I'll be sure and let you know. Until then, I'll stick with software that
works.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 16:42:56 -0500
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
Charles Brabham wrote
>>Steve Sampson wrote
>>
>> I've been employed as a Unix administrator for years, and Linux
>> represents what most modern Unix systems use as state of the art.
>
>No wonder it's so screwed up!
Illogical.
>> I only run the stable versions, not the development versions.
>
>Uh oh! Steve admitted to the existence of "unstable" versions of LINUX...
>Better watch out, Steve, or the LINUX thought police will be after you!
Development versions are leading edge. It is a well known fact that
Linux has a development series, and a stable series. As the system
grows and is declared stable by the developers and testers, it is given
an even version number. RedHat 5.2 distribution uses Linux 2.0.36.
This is so stable, that only an idiot would complain about it.
>
>>There
>> is no truth to the fact that Linux is unstable.
>
>You just got through admitting it. Sharp as a tack today, aren't you Steve?
You misunderstand. There is no truth to "your" fact, that Linux is
unstable.
Linux development kernels can be unstable, but 98.2% of the worlds
population do not use them. Only a hillbilly GUI-DOS operator would
attempt it, without cause.
>I'm real happy for you. RedHat 5.2 proved to be extremely unstable here,
and
>not worthwhile on those occasions where it did work for a few minutes.
I doubt you invested more than an hour total, before GUI-DOS BBS withdrawal
symptoms appeared.
>As I mentioned earlier, it all looked like stuff you might expect from
>"junior programmer wannabee's". I don't have the patience for "amateur
>software", thank you. Unreasonable as I am, I prefer to work with software
>developed by professionals.
Your misunderstanding arises from the fact that you have no idea what a
"server" is used for. Thus, as a client operator, you see no need for the
change. On a machine operating as a file server, or database server, or
whatever server, you don't want to consume all of the memory for a GUI
unless you have tons of memory. I would suggest you have at least 128 Meg
if you want to run a GUI and a server. Virtual memory is nice, but raw
speed
wins every time.
>Well, when I see something LINUX is "good" for that I have some interest
in,
>I'll be sure and let you know. Until then, I'll stick with software that
>works.
Well, I don't think there's going to be much need for an anti-network radio
operator, and his downloaded BBS, type customer.
Steve Sampson, K5OKC
>.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Oct 1999 06:05:53 GMT
From: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
Charles Brabham <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <hamish@rising.com.au> wrote in message
> news:7ubpb2$171d$2@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
>> Really, I thought you had a more open mind than this, Charles.
> I do. I gave LINUX a fair trial, and it turned out to be garbage. I'll give
> it another try later on, but not until the problem I mentioned has been
> resolved.
Run it past me again before I give up completely.
Hamish
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 21:16:13 -0700
To be continued in digest: hd_99_264E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
