Linux-Advocacy Digest #417, Volume #25 Sun, 27 Feb 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Freewwweb Setup HOW? (JW)
Re: IE on UNIX (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Anthony Ord)
Re: IE on UNIX ("Chad Myers")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Jim Richardson)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Bob Lyday)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (mr_rupert)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Bob Lyday)
Re: government incentives for free software (phil hunt)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Bob Lyday)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Bob Lyday)
Re: C2 Conformance not considered a big deal (Anthony Ord)
Re: C2 Conformance not considered a big deal (Anthony Ord)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Anthony Ord)
Re: IE on UNIX (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JW)
Subject: Freewwweb Setup HOW?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:08:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am having problems seting up Freewwweb.
I would like to set up Freewwweb on my Linux box. I am running Redhat
Linux 6.0.
I set up my dialer which is simple 'usernet'. From a terminal window
I login as root, I type "linuxconf" and I then setup my dial via:
PPP/SLIP/PLIP under network/clients. This lets me add a new ppp
connection with the phone number I need to dial and also my username
and password. Then I set the primary and secondary DNS using
linuxconf via: Name Server Specifications (DNS) which is also under
network/clients.
The DNS that I provided are:
216.70.64.1
216.70.64.2
I checked my etc/resolve.conf file and it shows my
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the (2) DNS numbers that I mentioned above. This is all that is
in my etc/resolve.conf file.
I have another service provider that I setup exactly the same way as I
described above and that connection works fine.
I've read other people have success using kppp. I've also read that
kppp is similar to usenet but is much more refined and more useful.
It shouldn't matter which dialer I use should it?
Any help please. Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 27 Feb 2000 20:12:21 GMT
On 27 Feb 2000 10:02:53 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>Oh please, Eric.
>
>If NTFS was so good, why NTFS5?
You know the answer to that Craig. NTFS was real good, but NTFS5 is gonna
be even more good.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 15:13:41 -0500
In article <89but1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>David Misner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>But it [Linux] is like impossible to install
>>
>>David
>>
>
>[Windows installation instructions omitted]
Oops - I forgot to include the "intuitive point and click" Ethernet
network setup, and in my case, firewall installation. That is a
whole specialty in itself so I put it in a
separate setup file (for my personal reference). But I won't burden
you with it here; I trust you've gotten the idea.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:15:28 GMT
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 22:23:25 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:44:26 GMT, someone claiming to be Anthony Ord
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:50:21 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
>>>On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 12:38:16 GMT, someone claiming to be Anthony Ord
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:03:07 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
>>Roger wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:26:50 -0800, someone claiming to be Lewis A.
>>> Mettler wrote:
>
>>> >Ask Bill Gates.
>
>>> He did not make the claim
>
>>> >Ask Mr. Clark.
>
>>> He did not make the claim
>
>>> >Are you suggesting that Bill Gates will lie again?
>
>>> No, I'm flat out saying you did / do.
>>
>>--- END INSERT ---
>
>>You now appreciate that calling Mr Mettler a liar was incorrect.
>
>I do? So Lewis did not, until his recent mysterious silence, claim
>several times to have purchased at retail a copy of IE which was not
>included with any other software?
a. I do not have a copy of any of those messages. Do you have a copy?
b. The topic of the subject was on Bill Gates statements Re Netscape. To call
Mr Mettler a liar when he asserts something on that subject that is provably
true - then to subsequently claim you were talking about something else -
makes you seem stupid or dishonest. That's an inclusive-or BTW.
<snip>
>>>Just remember to do a proper cite next time.
>
>>"GX 41, at MS6 6012954-56." is a proper cite. That is the DoJ's reference for
>>the original emailed evidence. What you wanted was an URL which you failed to
>>ask for. The two are not equivalent. The Web is not the Matrix. Things exist
>>outside of the Web. References exist that are not URLs.
>>
>>If you want URLs, then you need to learn to ask for them.
>
>No, "GX 41, at MS6 6012954-56" is a string of numbers and letters.
>Had you made it clear that you were referring to an internal DoJ
>designation, we would likely not have had the discussion we are.
You mean like...
--- START INSERT ---
On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 22:22:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2000 20:36:10 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 07:24:22 GMT, someone claiming to be Anthony Ord
>>wrote:
<snip>
>>>Hey ask me another...
>>
>>The question was a specific cite, but we'll let that go.
>
>How much more specific do you want? Incidently, the code at the end is a DoJ
>reference to the original email (as original as email can get).
--- END INSERT ---
Incidently, look at the date. The sixth of February. I made clear three weeks
ago what the reference was.
>A
>citation which cannot be cross checked is no citation.
It can be checked. If *you* can't, or can't be bothered, then ask for some
different way. I'm not clairvoyant, I don't know what your difficulties are. I
know that you can't use a good search engine.
>The referenced
>attempt is equivalent to my saying that in the January issue on page
>such and such, the following quote appeared...
If you want URLs, then you need to learn to ask for them.
Regards
Anthony
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:17:13 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 27 Feb 2000 10:02:53 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> >Oh please, Eric.
> >
> >If NTFS was so good, why NTFS5?
>
> You know the answer to that Craig. NTFS was real good, but NTFS5 is gonna
> be even more good.
Heh, you guys are such arrogant, hypocritical assholes.
Why is there a need for Linux kernel 2.3.48? If everyone says Linux is
so great, stable, reliable, etc. Why do they keep coming out with new
versions?
Because there's always room for improvement. NTFS is solid, stable, reliable,
etc etc. However, there is room for improvement. New features, added
reliability,
added functionality to existing features.
Whereas, with Ext2, which started this sub thread, a major overhaul is in
need, thus the umpteen replacement filesystems in the work.
Let the (market) fragmentation begin.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:42:59 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:42:13 GMT,
Kaz Kylheku, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:47:56 -0000, Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I suppose when 'WINE' for windows is finished then linux could be a direct
>>windows replacement, especially if they decide to somehow merge it into
>>xfree to directly run all windoze applications easily without having the
>
>I think that to do this, you would need kernel support, not xfree support. The
>kernel would recognize the Windows EXE binary and run an appropriate handler,
>which would happen to be a special version of WINE.
Linux 2.2 and up allready do this. Read up on the misc binaries
module. (This isn't just for wine or dosemu, but can also be used
with java etc.)
--
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
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:11:09 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:54:12 -0500,
Jeff Szarka, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:47:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr) wrote:
>
>:
>:Total sales of shrink-warp Windows 2000 in major retail stores
>:has not exceeded 100 in the greater Houston area, reported in the
>:Houston Chronicle business section today.
>
><snip>
>
>Yea because you know... Linux zealots blindly roll out new versions
>that their business might depend on since THE GREAT ONE (Linus) says
>so.
Do you have any references for Linus telling people to upgrade to
a new version of anything? or are you simply lying?
>
>My NT4 servers/workstations work fine. All my new systems will use
>Win2k and when/if the NT3.51/4 systems need Win2k features they'll be
>upgraded too.
features like auto-update? *snigger*
>See how the real world works? Neat huh? You use what works and don't
>worry about promoting your political agenda.
Coming from you, in cola, this is funny...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:26:33 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> Is it correct what I have heard about there being a new amiga which is based
> on Linux?
>
> Sorry I forgot to mention some operating systems (bsd, solaris, nextstep,
> multics - predecessor to unix but there may still be 1 or 2 users, gem,
> minix, etc) but there are probably lots of operating systems in use
> somewhere so I was bound to miss a few :-)
There is indeed a new Amiga coming out. A new Amiga box that is.
Gateway sat on it for 2 years, got everyone's hopes up, and then killed
it for uncertain reasons. Now apparently the Amiga patents have been
licensed to something called Amino, which is run by some true Amiga
lovers, including some who were in it from the old days, like Fleecy
Moss. They have pledged to make a new Amiga box soon with a much faster
CPU then the present. There already is a new Amiga OS out -- 3.5. I'm
not sure if they are updating it or not. The whole talk about merging
it with Linux and all that came out of Gateway and they are gone now.
The new folks may not do that at all. If they can get that OS running
on a fast chip it will be a wonder to behold.
Bob
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ .. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
\_ U_/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:31:12 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:15:43 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"mr_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>>
>> Finally a voice of reason from the MS camp. Thanks Boris for
>> providing some valid reasons to this issue.
>
>That's an interesting comment given that Boris is basically saying the exact
>same thing every other NT advocate has been wrt the Hotmail issue......
>
I just meant thanks in the sense that Boris addressed the issues
without being a fanatical screaming baby wetting his dyper like
Drestin or Chad.
---
The always friendly, always lovable, and highly presentable,
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:33:15 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> I suppose when 'WINE' for windows is finished then linux could be a direct
> windows replacement, especially if they decide to somehow merge it into
> xfree to directly run all windoze applications easily without having the
> wine libraries loaded when only running xfree applications. This would be a
> serious rival to microsoft, linux reliability with direct windows software
> compatibility.
> Yes Wine is indeed the savoir all right. did you know that there are 2 other
>efforts -- Odin for OS/2 and Bewine for BeOS which are doing the same thing. After
>Wine is running on *nix, it should be quite easy to port it over to Odin and Bewine.
>You may be interested to know that OS/2 has reportedly been running all Win32
>software, including games, for some time now in the basement at IBM. I know people
>who work for IBM and they have seen it with their own eyes. M$ reportedly wanted
>$1000 a copy to license out the Win32 API to IBM, so of course IBM had to say no.
> One of the main problems with linux is the way hardware companies make
> equipment which uses proprietry commands, therefore making it very difficult
> to run it on an non-win9x operating system (quite a few of these devices
> won't work on WinNT either).
Not sure if I understand what you mean. Can't you just write a driver
for it? Actually a worse problem now is M$ pressuring HW makers to
support only their platform -- this will get worse with Lose2K. Of
course it's illegal but what do they care?
>
--
Bob
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ .. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
\_ U_/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: government incentives for free software
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 14:25:50 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26 Feb 2000 07:31:39 GMT,
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>: I don't advocate the dismantling of copyright laws. I'm rather in favor of
>>: measures to make it illegal to distribute software without source code,
>>: regardless of the licensing arrangements.
>>
>>I'm hoping that the market will accomplish the same result without
>>need for oppressive legislation, by favoring software vendors who
>>release software (even proprietary software) with source.
>
>That would be nice.
>
>I too do not favour abolishing copyright laws. Some relatively
>minor tinkering, such as reducing the duration, could be good.
>But more importantly, I think it would be good for governments
>to use tax rates and government spending policies as incentives
>to encourage open-source software.
>
>For example, the tax rates on open-source software could be set lower
>than the tax rates for proprietry software. That makes sense, since
>companies producing open-source software are already giving something
>back to the community; why should they have to pay the same tax rates
>as companies that don't give anything back?
A simpler way would be to have:
(1) copyright on software last 10 years
(2) for any proprietary program to get copyright protection, its
source must be disclosed -- otherwise there is no legal way to
prevent anyone making copies (though companies would still be
able to use technical means such as dongles).
This means that all software automatically becomes public domain 10
years after it is released. Given that virtually no shrink-wrapped
software is more than 10 years old, this will not be an impediment
to its sale -- provived that it actually offers more functionality
than 10 year old software, and not just extra bells and whistles.
>Similarly, the rules for evaluating tenders for government contracts
>should be set so that open-source solutions are favoured over proprietry
>ones. This would take into account the benefit to the public of
>open-source solutions. In addition, using open-source solutions leads
>to a much more competitive market for later improvements and upgrades,
>which will lead to lower costs in the long term. If the choice is
>between say a proprietry solution costing $1M up-front, and an
>open-source solution costing $1.2M up-front, the open-source solution
>may well end up cheaper in the long term due to the more competetive
>market for later enhancements.
No argument here.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:36:24 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> Actually the whole point of linux in the beginning was that Linus Torvalds
> was forced to use a crap version of unix called 'Minix' at university and
> thought he could do better and linux quickly killed off minix.
It's not really crappy; it's a version of *nix that is used to teach
Operating System theory to computer science students. It's been used
for a long time.
>
> Linux is not about world domination but a university project that worked out
> better than the student first thought.
Linus himself has stated that his goal is "world domination".
>
--
Bob
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ .. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
\_ U_/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:38:38 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> Damien wrote in message ...
> >On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:37:24 -0000, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
> >Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >| I thought the whole point of linux was to give users a choice as to which
> >| system to run on their machines.
> Actually the point of linix was to replace the version of unix used at
> university by linus torvalds which was called minix and was very unstable
> and had various other problems so linus thought he could do better and as we
> all know he succeeded (afterall, who now uses minix)
If I'm not mistaken they still use it all the time to teach students.
It is a great teaching tool; I think cuz it is easy to understand.
--
Bob
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ .. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
\_ U_/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 Conformance not considered a big deal
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:45:48 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:18:00 -0600, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Anthony Ord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >motherboards that store chassis intrusion actions while power is off - we
>> >use those, that's part of the security picture.
>>
>> And these tell the person who stole your box that he opened the case?
>>
>> Or is it something more useless than that?
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Anthony
>> <snip>
>
>Heh..
>
>I'm not sure how much benefit it is on servers, since, like you said
>they end up getting completely stolen usually, however, intrusion
>detection is a component of C2, which is what started this.
>
>Intrusion detection seems to be more relevant when you have a
>box out "on the floor" where you have people that have easy access
>to a box and can easily swipe a DIMM or something without anyone
>noticing for a few weeks.
You don't want intrusion detection for this - you want a padlock.
a. Intrusion detection doesn't work when the power is off - it detects but
does not notify - and I wouldn't like to steal a DIMM whilst still "hot". When
the warning pops up the next time the machine is turned on - it is already too
late.
b. It would be better to stop it getting nicked in the first place wouldn't
it?
>Intrusion detection (on a Compaq Deskpro, for example)
They have intrusion detection? I've got one, and I've never noticed it.
>will immediately
>notify an administrator that an intrusion has occurred so that the
>sys admin can do something about it.
Like replace the DIMM for them to steal again? ;-)
>The point of intrusion detection in servers is to be able to track
>if someone opened the case swiped the HD, ghosted it, and then returned
>it. This would be valuable information if you were investigating a
>possible data theft.
But it would never work like that.
a. The intrusion detection on a Dell server (for example) is just a lever
microswitch which could be kept depressed with a thin piece of plastic.whilst
opening the case.
b. Most people would pop the case then replace it over a few weeks to
"de-sensitise" the IT department. Then ghost the drive.
Alas, it seems that "intrusion detection" is yet another product of a
standards committee trying to solve a problem with excessive technology. I
suppose "intrusion detection" rolls off the tongue in a standards document
better than "a ruddy great steel padlock that you have to saw through if you
want to open the case without a key".
>-Chad
Regards
Anthony
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 Conformance not considered a big deal
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:48:36 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:19:16 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Anthony Ord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 00:01:54 -0500, "Drestin Black"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >motherboards that store chassis intrusion actions while power is off - we
>> >use those, that's part of the security picture.
>>
>> And these tell the person who stole your box that he opened the case?
>>
>> Or is it something more useless than that?
>
>Anthony - stop. think for a minute. What if they didn't take the case but
>opened it - what could someone do.
>think... (ask someone else for help, don't be ashamed)... think some more.
>Ahhhh, now you see the value eh? If not, ask.
I got two replies to my message. Chad's was signal - yours is just noise. This
comes as no surprise at all.
Regards
Anthony
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:01:42 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:37:05 -0600, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8940np$5pc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Whats Linux got to do with it?
>
>Well, seeing as how mr_rupert was a linux troll, not unlike yourself,
>he made it relevant.
>
>> They have had several years to do this and have been incapable of doing it.
>
>s/incapable/unwilling/ They knew it was going to be a huge undertaking,
>and they wanted to wait until Win2K came out. What's the point of migrating
>it to NT, just to turn around and upgrade it to Win2K.
So upgrading from NT 4 to windows 2000 will involve a difficult migration
stage?
>Why not just wait
>and do it all lock-stock-barrel.
Regards
Anthony
<snip>
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 27 Feb 2000 21:05:50 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 20:17:13 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 27 Feb 2000 10:02:53 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>>
>> >Oh please, Eric.
>> >
>> >If NTFS was so good, why NTFS5?
>>
>> You know the answer to that Craig. NTFS was real good, but NTFS5 is gonna
>> be even more good.
>
>Heh, you guys are such arrogant, hypocritical assholes.
Whatever, Chad.
>Why is there a need for Linux kernel 2.3.48? If everyone says Linux is
>so great, stable, reliable, etc. Why do they keep coming out with new
>versions?
Take a look at the new features. A lot of them are much needed. Linux is
stable and reliable, but the point of the newer kernel has more to do with
scalability and better hardware support. At the moment, Linux is good for
certain tasks, and not as good for others. The newer kernels help address
those "others". Meanwhile, NT is touted as "good for everything", by Microsoft,
and at times, by yourself.
When you're on record saying this kind of thing:
http://x39.deja.com/
[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=533995753&CONTEXT=951685087.1053098029&hitnum=36
The burden of proof is on you to show that NT is in fact the best solution
for everything ( in this instance you failed )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
