X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f996b,9ba64c635b2340c1 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-Thread: fcfb9,6927bbf7d6fa9019,start X-Google-Attributes: gidfcfb9,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-01 10:34:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.home.com!news.home.com!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: "mjcr" Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art,comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Dead or alive... Followup-To: alt.ascii-art,comp.os.linux.advocacy Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:30:59 -0700 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 116 Message-ID: References: <4tcuqt0h924vpaid8ue9g8h33bl2pj7o0n@4ax.com> Reply-To: mjcr@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.cc.8d Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Server-Date: 1 Oct 2001 17:35:22 GMT User-Agent: Pan/0.9.90 (Unix) Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:8238 comp.os.linux.advocacy:125370 In article , "drsquare" wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 02:44:14 -0000, in alt.ascii-art, > (anonymous@bogus_address.con) wrote: > >>On 2001-09-24 nowhere@nowhere.co.uk said: >> >> >Why would you want to use DOS anyway? It's the worst OS there is. >> >>Not so. DOS is a small, relatively efficient O.S. ...unlike that >>bloated pointee-clickee abomination. > > Linux is an even smaller, yet much more efficient OS, which, get this, > actually lets you run more than one program at once. You can even fit it > on a boot disk. drsquare, you can not sell people on the use of Linux by employing such lies anf half truths. A very minimal Linux can be made to fit on a floppy or two; however, that would be be workable for only certain limited purposes, such as running a firewall/router, a rescue floppy, or a emergency restore from backups. But that is not what your are refering to here, you are referring to a boot floppy, that is a floppy disk that contains only the Linux kernel or perhaps a Linux kernel and a boot loader like syslinux or lilo. There is no way that Linux is smaller than Dos. Linux has many strong selling points and can stand on those facts alone. You do not need to lie inorder to promote it. Getting people to try Linux based on your lies, you are setting them up for disappointment and will hurt rather than help Linux's reputation. Perhaps that is a new tactic of the winvocates. >>But more importantly, DOS allows the =user= to make the decisions about >>how he wants his machine to look, act and perform. It's a much more >>'down-to-the-metal' O.S., where the =user= is in control...not some >>megalomaniac in Redmond, Washington, U.S.A. > > No it doesn't, you can't even change the code, let alone change how it > works. Linux is the OS of choice if you want full control. Are you still unaware of FreeDos for which the source code is freely available? If you need to alter Dos's code, that is the one to try. >>Besides, DOS is ten times faster than WinDoze on any given machine. > > Then Linux is 15 times faster. Offer benchmarks to support your statement, or do not make such claims. >>Plus, the DOS executable files for any productivity software programs >>are 20 to 50 times smaller than a comparable WinDoze program. A 500 meg >>hard disk is =more= than sufficient for a DOS-based machine. You simply >>don't need a mega-gigabyte drive. > > You don't need a hard disk for a Linux-based machine!. You can load it > off a boot disk or boot over the network. Stop FUDing. Yes, Linux can boot from a floppy or a network boot PROM and use a NFS fileserver to provide its root parition. But that says nothing about how much disk it does need on the fileserver. >>And we haven't yet mentioned security. I think we all know how 'secure' >>WinDoze is. Not! :) > > Exactly. With DOS, there is nothing to break into! > >> >If you're going to use the console, at least use something decent >> >like Linux. >> >>Although it's a 'techie' O.S., and therefore not everyone's cup of tea, >>Linux is okay. But it suffers from many of the same ailments that >>afflict WinDoze: bloat, > > Linux does not have bloat? > >>hogging of system >>resources, > > What? Are you serious? Linux is one of the most efficient OSes there is. > It only needs 4MB of RAM! That may be the minimun RAM required, however you need at least 12Megs to 16Megs of RAM for a general purpose host, in order to avoid thrashing of the swap partitions and or swap files. Of course that amount you need is dependent what software you plan to run and how many simultanious users you plan to have running programs at once. What about an 8086, 8088, 80186, 80188, or 80286? What about a 80386 with 1Meg or 640K RAM? Dos and Minix can run on those boxes while Linux can not. As to bloat, my first Linux installation was on a 20Meg HD partition and the installation media was about a quarter of one CD. Today's Linux comes on multiple CD's. That may seem to be bloating; however, what is in fact being delivered is much more software than was available a decade ago. No one had to install all or most of that software. It is up to the sysadmin to install the software as per the needs of the host's userbase or that required by the dedicated taks(s) of that host. BTW one would shudder to think of the cost and storage requirements of that much software provided for the Windows platform. P.S. I have crossposted this message to COLA, so that real Linux Advocates can see how drsquare is representing Linux beyond the confines of COLA. [...] -- I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, Slackware, or Corel, just Linux. Linux accepted my new hardware without any effort on my part. Windows took one look at my new hardware and committed suicide.