Linux-Advocacy Digest #410, Volume #25 Sun, 27 Feb 00 02:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (crashed)
BSOD and Penis Problems (Jessica69)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Mark Brown)
Re: IE on UNIX (Christopher Browne)
Re: IE on UNIX (Christopher Browne)
Re: IE on UNIX (Christopher Browne)
Re: IE on UNIX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:32:24 -0600
Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MS has done a partial Migration.
Hotmail uses NT in several areas.
>
> Not even the MS webpage claims that. the "several areas", that
> is. For all we know, 3 secretaries might use it to run word and 4
> operaters might run exeed to access unix machines. That surely
> would be an "operating system[s] in use", neh?
You're grasping at straws. It doesn't say that aliens aren't running
hotmail either.
> > > Further, MS knew before anyone that they were going to have w2k.
> > > They did not alter that particular page yet.
>
> > Do you know how many pages are on MS's web server?
>
> Do you know how many people are with MS?
Oh sure, let's just break the web site up and assign a thousand pages to
each MS employee. Do you know how stupid that sounds?
> Because, just *maybe* hotmail was *bought*? And they did not fire
> everyone, maybe? And probably some of the former hotmail, now
> MS-hotmail staff at that time still saw themselves as hotmail, not
> MS? Maybe they even see themselves as technicans and 'they' are
> the managers and the new NT-engineering team?
A lot of maybe's there. Grasping at straws again?
> Sure, I do give you that the report has no more value than a
> rumour. However, reading between the lines on the MS webpage,
> even if MS speaks no lie, they did try a partial migration. And
> it did not go well enough, so hotmail's still not mainly a MS
> shop.
Reading between the lines you can read anything you want to.
> > Few businesses have the demands of Hotmail.
>
> Hotmail is a giant database with a web interface. Just like
> ecommerce today needs (just with different data and a different
> interface).
It's more than that. Have you ever run a mail server? The volume of mail
recieved for a medium sized company can put a modest server under heavy
stress. And that's not even generating dynamic content and dealing with the
massive number of hits the web servers get.
> > MS runs their entire
> > www.microsoft.com domain and msn.com domain on NT,
>
> They can be done for the most part as static webpages. Which is
> less and less useful in ecommerce. Or do you disagree?
You really think that microsoft.com is all static web pages? Been to the
MSDN web site lately? Been to www.msn.com lately? It's all dynamic content
customized to each individual user.
> > and it's one of the busiest sites on the net.
>
> So, you have numbers? URL?
> I would especially like to compare the numbers of hits per
> NT-Server with the hits per server on hotmail, even if they are
> not too comparable (see DB).
All it takes is some common sense. 60% of the internet users use IE, which
defaults to msn.com, which most probably haven't changed.
>
> -Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 27 Feb 2000 05:30:39 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:899ao9$q58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Perry Pip wrote:
>> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:09:36 -0800, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> > >On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:56:59 -0500,
>> > > Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > brought forth the following words...:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> > >>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:07:29 -0500,
>> > >>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> > Oh really? Think again. MOST banks use windows in their branches
> almost
>> > >>> > exclusively. Do you consider Prudential a small "banking"
> operation?
>> > >>60,000
>> > >>> > copies of W2K pro going on-line during these first 6 months
> (10,000
>> > >>> > laptops). I think it's time you visit your banks again.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> My bank (Deutsche Bank) changed from terminals to NT a couple of
>> > >>> years ago. I had a few lines with their people, saying that these
>> > >>> machines (just workplace ones were NTs, not the ATMs) crashed
>> > >>> often. I got an enthusiastic "yes, you should have told that to
>> > >>> our management before they changed". Guess the terminals were
>> > >>> more stable.
>> > >>>
>> > >
>> > ><Snip a bunch of German banks, few of which use NT or IIS>
>> > >
>> > >>>
>> > >>> as they say, the ball is on your side now ...
>> > >>
>> > >>German banks - not US. I will grant you that there are more German
> banks
>> > >>using some form of unix for their external website than IIS. I can't
> address
>> > >>the topic of German OS choices very well. I was speaking of US banks.
> Also,
>> > >>consider the important transactions happen on SSL - take a look at
> your
>> > >>netcraft survey regarding SSL servers - overwhelming majority are IIS
> and
>> > >>growing.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >Bank Of America, www.bofa.com SSL on Netscape-Enterprise
>> > >Couldn't find an SSL server on www.wellsfargo.com, but the http
>> > >was running on Netscape-Enterprise.
>> > >www.chase.com is also running SSL on Netscape-Enterprise
>> > >www.bankamerica.com um, Netscape-Enterprise for SSL
>> >
>> > Not to mention the very bank he mentioned:
>> > www.prudential.com: SSL on Netscape-Enterprise on AIX.
>> >
>> > And his business, drestinb.ic.net is running Apache on FreeBSD.
>>
>> I just think he has a subdomain there at ic.net. He's main business seems
>> to be at www.callitechnic.com.
>>
>> The strange part is that he claims to be a major operator on Networking on
>> NT (claims of installing software on Windows for "14000 seats" once -
>> this is very big). So i wonder why he does not host his own business. :)
>>
>> Greetings
>>
> Gee - maybe because you continue to chase the wrong person - haven't you
> figured it out yet - you haven't a clue who I am.
Oh I dont know...whats Ann Arbor from Southfield? Bout 40 miles or
so? Less than an hour drive, for sure...
I bet you drive fast though, dontcha dresden.....
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:34:31 -0600
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Except for MS to use it as a marketing tool.
>
> Actually, that's not true. The stack had minor changes made to it to
> handle the nature of the site. As I understand it, those changes are
> now standard part of OS because the need for it is no longer considered
> a niche. Furthermore, having/not having UDP has no impact here. I
> stick to my original comment. You've provided no new information.
Where do you get the information that it had only minor changes? And where
did you get the information that it's now a standard part of Solairs?
------------------------------
From: crashed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 05:53:05 GMT
Just to clarify
Windows 2000 has potentially 63000 bugs. This number was generated by a program
auto-scanning the source code which also included 10000 lines of code that was not
used in the final release-
I am by no means a Microsoft supporter but the distribution of FUD is
counter-productive.
Linux will eventually surpass Microsoft in the server market based on it's own
merits, not propoganda. The way it should be
-Crashed-
Charles Blackburn wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 04:05:13 GMT, Miguel Vega wrote:
> >If any of you people out there is planning to replace your Linux server
> >with a windows 2000 server, better think again!
>
> Why should we :)???
>
> --
> Charles Blackburn -=- Remove NOSPAM to email a reply.
> Summerfield Technology Limited - SuSE Linux Reseller & Birmingham L.U.G sponsor
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1:34pm up 2 days, 13:11, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: Jessica69 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: BSOD and Penis Problems
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:02:01 +0000
Hello Everyone :)
My friend Kim said only men with small dicks use Windows. Personally,
I watched in amazement as my boyfriends penis shrunk every time BSOD
appeared. He was once 9" and now he's 3". I need help fast!!!!! Someone
told me that Linux could reverse the problem. Is this true? What can I
do?
Thanks in advance
Jessica 69
http://jessica-69.secret-playmates.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:10:20 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:05:41 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:897m88$5lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> The above is along the lines of "Although McDonalds claims that the
>BigMac
>> >> is the healthiest burger on its menu, 75% of McDonalds customers still
>> >> buy fries". Or how about "Although Thyssen touts the Transrapid to be
>the
>> >> most advanced and most mature of the magnetic levitation trains, 99% of
>all
>> >> customers using Thyssen equipment still choose older, rail-bound train
>> >> transport".
>>
>> >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
>>
>> Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
>> *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit address
>> spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
>
>MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs on
>64 bit processors right now.
And what 64 bit chip would that be?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:29:54 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:05:41 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:897m88$5lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> The above is along the lines of "Although McDonalds claims that the
>BigMac
>> >> is the healthiest burger on its menu, 75% of McDonalds customers still
>> >> buy fries". Or how about "Although Thyssen touts the Transrapid to be
>the
>> >> most advanced and most mature of the magnetic levitation trains, 99% of
>all
>> >> customers using Thyssen equipment still choose older, rail-bound train
>> >> transport".
>>
>> >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
>>
>> Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
>> *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit address
>> spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
>
>MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs on
>64 bit processors right now.
Strange, everything I can find on Djanews et al, say that W2k/64
might ship beta in 3-6 months. Where do you hear that it is
available now? and on what hardware is it available (in beta)
now?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 27 Feb 2000 06:02:00 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) writes:
> On 26 Feb 2000 02:23:00 -0800,
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm not sure an advocate of free software would want to draw that
> >particular comparison, as the primary difference between theatrical movies
> >and TV programs is that theatrical movies are significantly higher quality
> >in pretty much all technical respects and even in most creative respects.
> >(There are, of course, exceptions.)
> Cinematic movies cost more money than TV shows, certainly. But does that
> make them better quality? IMO, no. The only way I'd say quality is
> definitely better is regarding expensive special effects. In terms of the
> quality of the scripts, the quality of the acting, etc, there is little
> difference.
Bog standard 35mm film can do things that are basically impossible to
achieve with TV - even on fairly low-budget indie films. There are
things that work beautifully in widescreen on a huge, high resolution
image that just can't have the same impact on TV. Similarly for sound
and even audience, although to a lesser extent. You can loose some of
these things, but you loose some of the film. What TV gains in
exchange is generally time, which allows it to do it's own things that
film can't. The target medium is an important constraint.
35mm film is also rather expensive stuff to play with at any point in
the process from shooting to projection.
> In creative respects, most cinematic movies are sorely lacking. This is
> partly because, with the amount being spent per film, movie executives
> are very cautious -- so every successful film gets loads of sequels,
> usually of decreasing quality every time, and other films attempt to
> copy the idea of a successful one.
Holywood != film. In any case, the problem isn't just the lack of
creative risk (although that's certainly a problem), it's that people
put a lot of money into making films. Having done this people aren't
about to just bin it if it sucks - people will pretty much try to sell
whatever they end up with. Often a movie with big enough names it's
going to make enough on release to make some worthwhile impact on the
costs, so out on release it goes.
In part, what's happening is that you're seeing more of the rubbish
getting more attention - there are plenty of shelved pilots or
whatever that never make it onto TV at any time you'd notice.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:47:22 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Michael Wand would say:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Then why hasn't Unix progressed beyond what it has?
>
>In what respect do you think Unix has not progressed? Just because an old,
>good concept is still used? (This includes a well-structured filesystem,
>for example).
The "industry standard" GUI tools, X + Motif, had had little progression to
speak of over the last several years.
Various folks fiddled around with one alternative or another; only
lately have GTK and Qt provided realistic alternatives for people to
throw support behind to rival Motif.
And XFree86 has not yet released the "fabled 4.0 release" that we hope
can revitalize the progression of X.
--
"Purely applicative languages are poorly applicable." -- Alan Perlis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:54:05 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Erik Funkenbusch would say:
>Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Then why hasn't Unix progressed beyond what it has?
>>
>> In what respect do you think Unix has not progressed? Just because an old,
>> good concept is still used? (This includes a well-structured filesystem,
>> for example).
>
>I'm not the one claiming that Microsoft has held the computing world back by
>a decade.
>
>And, if ext2 is so wonderful, why are there 5 projects going for next
>generation filesystems?
Um, because:
a) ext2 was "good enough" that the kernel developers have been putting
far more attention into TCP/IP over the last couple of years.
b) The proliferation allows experimentation, competition, and allows
both success and failure to take place without resulting in anything
overly destructive.
>Microsoft knows that users would rather just stick with the OS they have if
>there is a significant reason not to upgrade. Back when MS and IBM were
>pushing OS/2, users stuck with Windows because it was more compatible than
>OS/2 was at the time, and later when MS and IBM split, users stuck with
>windows over OS/2 to MS's benefit.
No, people "stuck with" Windows because:
a) It was pre-bundled with their systems, *EVEN BY IBM.*
b) IBM was in a phase of being unable to market their way out of a wet
paper bag.
c) Microsoft succeeded at supplanting IBM's ability to sell via Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt.
d) The better that OS/2 did in emulating Windows, the less point there
was in creating native applications.
e) The IS people that had adopted PCs due to a desire to put off the
"shackles" of IBM control hadn't retired yet, thus meaning that there
was a population that was suspicious of the potential of IBM control,
whilst not expecting that Microsoft would supplant IBM in the attempt
to control the market.
--
"People need to quit pretending they can invent THE interface and walk
away from it, like some Deist fantasy." -- Michael Peck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:57:14 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Erik Funkenbusch would say:
>nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> When MS was pushing OS/2 the size of the Windows market was miniscule,
>> it was a DOS world. Users got shifted to Windows because of the OEM
>> computer market's dependency on DOS not because they choose Windows
>> over OS/2.
>
>Umm.. how do you think the Windows market got started? Users *CHOSE*
>windows over OS/2.
Um. No.
IBM really didn't comprehend the "Pee Cee" market at the time. They did
not know how to deal directly with users outside their usual role of
selling support contracts within IS departments.
Microsoft quite clearly grasped the need to have Windows preloaded on
PCs, and set up contracts with vendors that tremendously encouraged
this.
--
"If we believe in data structures, we must believe in independent
(hence simultaneous) processing. For why else would we collect items
within a structure? Why do we tolerate languages that give us the one
without the other?" -- Alan Perlis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:54:53 GMT
In article <Re2u4.1911$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > When MS was pushing OS/2 the size of the Windows market was
miniscule,
> > it was a DOS world. Users got shifted to Windows because of the OEM
> > computer market's dependency on DOS not because they choose Windows
> > over OS/2.
>
> Umm.. how do you think the Windows market got started? Users *CHOSE*
> windows over OS/2.
Now people are starting to *CHOSE* linux over windows!!! And you're all
huffy about it!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
