Linux-Advocacy Digest #428, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: IE on UNIX ("Christopher Smith")
Re: IE on UNIX ("Chad Myers")
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Ext2 Limitations, or *CLAIMED* Limitations (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Giving up on NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:03:20 +1000
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 27 Feb 2000 22:08:48 -0600 <89cscg$17ls$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In article <kvgu4.2620$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>What does this have to do with ext2 being a crappy filesystem and it's
> >>needing to be replaced/overhauled?
> >>
> >>NTFS will work fine in just about every situation, whereas, ext2 will
not
> >>due to major, glaring limitations.
> >
> >Ummm, try letting that NTFS fill completely with subdirectories
> >of tiny files. Then delete them and wonder why you don't get
> >the space back...
>
> And it fragments like crazy, directories can't move while defragmenting,
> and the control area will grow and grow and grow unchecked during
> the aforementioned filling of the file system with tiny little files.
> (Diskeeper Lite is a useful tool... :-) )
>
> To be fair, it should be possible to put an ext2+ file system (the
> + is because NT needs ACLs) on NT. It would require some sort of
> DLL (of course). The main problem here is documentation; I've seen
> 'fsdext2' for Windows which allows read-only access to ext2 partitions.
>
> I also wouldn't mind seeing a fragment display on Linux, as well.
> It might give the NT folks something to compare to. :-)
I have always been highly suspicious of the "fragmentation" reports produced
by Diskeeper. Mainly because the performance difference of every machine
I've ever tested between "95% fragmented" and "5% fragmented" was
nonexistant.
NTFS *may* "fragment", but IME it doesn't affect performance at all.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:03:05 -0600
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89ed99$vba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89dvgr$4in$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Neat. I wonder why that USB camera I have constantly bluescreens W2K.
>
> I get the impression your electric shaver could bluescreen it.......
However, that same shaver works in 2.3.48 with the development drivers
and a kernel recompile. Oh yeah, make sure you have glibc 1.12.1.34.1.1.3
and edit your blah.conf file, and then recompile again. Then you have to
compile the driver and ... (and on and on...)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:14:23 -0600
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 99%? What world do you live in? I would rate it more like 40%, and
then
> > mostly video, network and storage drivers. How many Video Capture cards
> > work in NT? only a handful. How many Winmodems? How many Windows
> > Printers/scanners? How many TV Tuner cards? How many Sound cards?
>
> I've been using NT4 for about 3 years now, and the only problem I ever
> had was with DVD hardware. That was resolved in a couple of months by
> Creative.
>
> Every single scanner, modem and sound card has worked (although some
> sound cards have given me headaches with isapnp). In fact, NT4 has
> been much more reliable than Windows95 was on the same hardware.
And how many scanners, modems and sound cards have you used? There are
literally hundreds of cards out there, thousands in some cases.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 18:09:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I find nothing wrong
: with having a law that is mostly unenforcable, but exists to establish social
: norms.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that, regardless of
original intent, fascist rat-bastards will sometimes attempt to
enforce these "unenforceable" laws, perhaps very selectively, leading
to massive violations of civil liberties. (Examples include the U.S.
"war on drugs," which has had the effect of undermining the entire
Bill of Rights, and also has led to the unjust imprisonment of a
sizable fraction of the Black male population.)
Another problem is that it makes _de jure_ criminals out of nearly
everyone. An example is the very widespread (at least in the U.S.)
practice of setting speed limits artificially low. Most people
violate them with impunity - it would cost thousands of dollars a year
in lost time not to - but dishonest local governments use the ability
to "legally" stop any driver they want to gain considerable revenue,
and also to intimidate Black and other minority drivers by selectively
enforcing these laws against them alone.
Laws that are not necessary to protect life, liberty, or property are
especially prone to abuse, and in my 32 years I've yet to hear of a
compelling justification for even a single one.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:12:05 -0600
5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89dvkv$4in$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> So if my question is:
> >> Is Win2K able to use Win98 drivers?
> >> What's the answer?
>
> > Maybe.
>
> The answer is absolutely, flat out NO; at least not network, (incl.
> pcmcia) video (nvidia, riva, voodoo), USB (scanner, camera), or
> sound (SBLive, Aureal, Aureal2).
>
> All of drivers tested were WDM, windows 98 specifically.
>
> And if you dont believe me, try them all yourself.
I don't believe you because Video drivers are *NOT* WDM.
You lied.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:07:39 -0600
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:59:16 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >The design still supports it.
>
> Fat lot of good that does for the consumer.
Except that the consumers didn't want anything other than x86,
so they're needs are being met. The consumer has spoken, and they're
getting what they want.
If they decide that they want Foo64 processor, then MS will support
that. However, they all want x86 and IA-64, so that's what MS supports.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:12:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill
Vermillion) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
> >
> >There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any
> >plans to put W2K on.
>
> And the sad part is that there are 64bit processors out there that
> MS did support - but no longer.
>
> Remember when MS promoted NT as being cross-platform. Four
> supported processor families. Down to one now.
And that one doesn't make sense.
MS had already done the hard work by getting NT running on 4 different
processor families. And, if they did their homework up front, it's
portability should have made it easy to maintain.
Yet they dropped the others. I wonder why? Sure, they probably didn't
make money on them, but when did MS let P/L get in the way of extending
their monopoly? It doesn't make sense.
And, before anyone jumps in with stupid comments, I said the same thing
about Apple with OS X Server. They should have released the Intel
version IMHO.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:17:52 -0600
Anonymous Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:01bf81ee$8023e9a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sorry but Hotmail was running on Solaris when bought, now its on FreeBSD.
> So the opportunity was there to migrate to NT but MS chose an open source
> alternative. Can't have been a licencing issue so must be lack of faith in
> NT!
It is *NOT* running on FreeBSD. FreeBSD is used only for load balancing,
which is why it's network characteristics shows up in the netcraft search.
Hotmail uses many different kinds of servers.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:20:54 -0600
Jaro Larnos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Argh, again this blabbering about TCP/IP stacks, doesn't MS
> know how deeply it hurts someone who knows tcp/ip stacks
> have nothing to do with porting a load of html, java, cgi and
> a two million user database plus many more of in messages.
You could port Hotmail the application to any OS fairly easily, that doesn't
mean it would work under the load that Hotmail presents. The TCP/IP and
filesystem customizations were written to deal with the massive load Hotmail
comes under.
> It doesn't take anything else than a big complex of computers
> and reasonable sized Raid's to do. If NT can't handle such,
> it's bad luck.
Solaris can't handle it either without said customizations.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:16:34 -0600
As typical with a Un*x based solution. Nothing works end to end, so you
have to mix and match to make up for each components failings.
Reason #1029102 to migrate homatil.com to Windows2000 - end-to-end
solutions
--
Chad Myers
--
Have you recompiled your kernel today?
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QWyu4.2251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:01bf81ee$8023e9a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sorry but Hotmail was running on Solaris when bought, now its on FreeBSD.
> > So the opportunity was there to migrate to NT but MS chose an open source
> > alternative. Can't have been a licencing issue so must be lack of faith in
> > NT!
>
> It is *NOT* running on FreeBSD. FreeBSD is used only for load balancing,
> which is why it's network characteristics shows up in the netcraft search.
> Hotmail uses many different kinds of servers.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 18:21:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:32:24 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Well, if you are completely naive, you probably believe everything
politicans and used car salesmen say, too. There's no reason to
believe that aliens might or might not be running hotmail. And it
does not say anything about the quality of NT either. You know
perfectly well how MS can formulate things that they just don't
lie blatantly ... cue B.G. and "what do you mean by concerned".
> > > > 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?
Funny, most businesses *I* can think of would not survive with
such sloppy updates. But then I remember that MS never needed
to do things carefully in the recent past.
> > 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?
The story's out, and unlike most other times MS did not deny
everything just that a complete conversion had not taken place.
*shrug* Find your own truth.
> Reading between the lines you can read anything you want to.
Nope.
> > > 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.
If you are running M-SE^H^H^HS-Exchange, surely. Other mailers
manage on less ... But then, as an admin, you are expected to be
able to make sure you have enough computing power and IO and
Bandwidth for whatever you need. If you are unable because of
management, leave. If you are unable because you are
cluon-starved, get sacked.
> And that's not even generating dynamic content and dealing with the
> massive number of hits the web servers get.
And now tell me that big e-commerce needs less power(especially
IO) for their DB apps.
> > > 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?
Doesn't look too exiting. Especially in lynx. Which is, BTW,
my favorite browser. Also lately? Just now, to look at it.
Before that? Well, I was looking up something a year or 1.5
ago, somewhere in the MS-Knowledge base. It tried to force a
cookie on me and would not let me pass without.
> It's all dynamic content
> customized to each individual user.
If you choose to do so. Like your 60% IE users, "most probably
haven't" customized their content.
> > > 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.
Common sense dictates that "nobody gets fired for choosing IBM".
Common sense tells you that there's no speed of light.
Common sense would have everyone running from|to Microsoft.
Obviously you have just speculations. Which don't count much as
far as facts go ... and I am sure I'd rather have somebody else in
the jury, should I ever be accused of something criminal.
> 60% of the internet users use IE, which
> defaults to msn.com, which most probably haven't changed.
So is msn.com getting more or less traffic than, say, hotmail,
altavista, yahoo? That was the question.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:27:14 -0600
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why is it crap?
>
> It's single-platform, it's not an implementation of an open standard,
> it locks you into the products of a single vendor; it's got security
> holes as big as a barndoor. To me, that means ActiveX certifies as
> crap.
You mean you don't consider the Open Group to be an Open Standards group?
http://www.opengroup.org/comsource/techref2/TITLE.HTM
ActiveX is a published open standard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:39:48 -0600
Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reading between the lines you
can read anything you want to.
>
> Nope.
No? You're denying that "reading between the lines" is an entirely
subjective interpretation?
> > 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.
>
> If you are running M-SE^H^H^HS-Exchange, surely. Other mailers
> manage on less ... But then, as an admin, you are expected to be
> able to make sure you have enough computing power and IO and
> Bandwidth for whatever you need. If you are unable because of
> management, leave. If you are unable because you are
> cluon-starved, get sacked.
We're not talking about Exchange here. We're talking about the amount of
processing power necessary to handle the huge volume of mail that Hotmail
gets.
> > You really think that microsoft.com is all static web pages? Been to
the
> > MSDN web site lately? Been to www.msn.com lately?
>
> Doesn't look too exiting. Especially in lynx. Which is, BTW,
> my favorite browser. Also lately? Just now, to look at it.
> Before that? Well, I was looking up something a year or 1.5
> ago, somewhere in the MS-Knowledge base. It tried to force a
> cookie on me and would not let me pass without.
Most sites of any size on the net require cookies to track information
entered from page to page, where you are in the site, and what your settings
are.
> > It's all dynamic content
> > customized to each individual user.
>
> If you choose to do so. Like your 60% IE users, "most probably
> haven't" customized their content.
That doesn't change the fact that it still has to be dynamicly generated,
even if it's a default page. Making it dynamic for one user makes it
dynamic for all.
> > All it takes is some common sense.
>
> Common sense dictates that "nobody gets fired for choosing IBM".
> Common sense tells you that there's no speed of light.
> Common sense would have everyone running from|to Microsoft.
>
> Obviously you have just speculations. Which don't count much as
> far as facts go ... and I am sure I'd rather have somebody else in
> the jury, should I ever be accused of something criminal.
Common sense is none of those things. It doesn't take much of a brain to
figure out that MSN's home page is probably the most trafficed page on the
net. With Netscapes page second.
> > 60% of the internet users use IE, which
> > defaults to msn.com, which most probably haven't changed.
>
> So is msn.com getting more or less traffic than, say, hotmail,
> altavista, yahoo? That was the question.
Yes, it's probably getting more traffic than hotmail, altavista and yahoo
combined.
But traffic is only one part of the equation. You also have to look at the
amount of processing the servers do for things the user can't see.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Ext2 Limitations, or *CLAIMED* Limitations
Date: 28 Feb 2000 12:37:19 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[Subject, newsgroup fixed. When Internet Exploder isn't mentioned,
>even indirectly, why do people maintain the same subject line?]
Because, when following a discussion where topics naturally wander,
it is annoying to see it disappear...
>>The only glaring limitation of ext2 -- and it's only a problem on
>>32-bit machines, but the majority of machines are 32-bit -- is that
>>it can't handle files bigger than 2 gigabytes. As I understand it,
>>this is being worked on.
>
>The kernel sources reject >32 bit files on 32 bit platforms, which
>is more a matter of supporting APIs than anything else.
>
>The *true* point is that the data structure in use for files at
>present uses 32 bit values. That means that any program that has
>a file descriptor compiled into it has a forcible 32 bit dependancy.
>
>The "glaring limitation" is thus not one relating in any way, shape,
>or form, to ext2. It instead relates to LIBC.
Which is especially annoying considering that the same problem
was solved years ago in the *bsd's.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:39:59 -0500
Sorry but hotmail is running just as it was when MS bought it. Solaris
backend with BSD webserver front end. Neither OS could do both jobs so they
had to cobble two together. When I say "we" I mean the original hotmail
owners. MS hasn't changed it much since buying it - until now... you'll
see...
"Anonymous Coward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:01bf81ee$8023e9a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sorry but Hotmail was running on Solaris when bought, now its on FreeBSD.
> So the opportunity was there to migrate to NT but MS chose an open source
> alternative. Can't have been a licencing issue so must be lack of faith in
> NT!
>
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > OK, my reply at the top because there is no point in replying line by
> line.
> >
> > Look, you are trying to say that simply because MS has not ported
> > hotmail.com to NT that NT is a failure.
> >
> > Can you not see the stupidity of that remark? What does one site have to
> do
> > with the quality or success of NT? When you know that 1000s of other
> sites,
> > many of which are much bigger than hotmail are running NT - what is the
> > point of bringing up hotmail again? NT is capable of handling MORE than
> > hotmail - but hotmail was bought in a working state by MS. "If it ain't
> > broke, why fix it?"
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:40:27 -0500
"Geoff Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89dt3a$gg6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Look, you are trying to say that simply because MS has not ported
> > hotmail.com to NT that NT is a failure.
>
> The argument "if it's not broke, don't fix it" is perfectly valid reason
to
> leave HotMail alone.
>
> However, M$ is attempting to sell W2K as an "enterprise" level OS.
> Something that large sites should run their business on. It would have
been
> such a huge publicity win to announce W2K and the conversion of HotMail at
> the same time that not to do it leads people to think that it's not
> possible within a reasonable budget.
I agree - which is why MS is moving hotmail to W2K "soon"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 18:43:06 GMT
Mayor Of R'lyeh writes:
>> Todd Kepus writes:
>>> How high can HDTV's go in terms of resolution? PC gamers are now pushing
>>> 1600x1280 with GeForce based cards... the new Voodoo's will go even
>>> higher...
>>>
>>> I find it hard to believe that HDTV's are going to have this kind of
>>> resolution *and* be as clear as computer monitors need to be.
>> Why do you find it so hard to believe, Todd? Perhaps you should read
>> up on HDTV.
> Illogical!
What's allegedly illogical about a suggestion to read up on HDTV?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
