Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Darren Winsper)
Re: IE on UNIX (Steve Mading)
Re: Day One (Cliff Wagner)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Chad Myers")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (NF Stevens)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (fred)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (fred)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A Trip to the Store (mlw)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Russ Allbery)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (void)
Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Matt Gaia)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: IE on UNIX (5X3)
Re: IE on UNIX (5X3)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (5X3)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (5X3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 15:14:30 -0600
Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What do you recommend in place of ActiveX? Java? Hahahaha.... that's
> > funny.
>
> On normal webpages? HTML, of course.
Let's see you do streaming video in HTML.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
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: 29 Feb 2000 05:11:56 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:01:24 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, there's a new problem; apparently, <APPLET ...>
> ... </APPLET> is no longer the "preferred" method for adding
> applets to one's webpages. I'm going to have to research this
> (it appears to be related to issues regarding the JVM plugins),
> but this worries me, as it means I as a webpage developer have
> to do kludgy things again. Yecch.
According to the HTML4 specs, <APPLET> has been deprecated in favour of
<OBJECT>. It doesn't appear that there is anything kludgy about it.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
"Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these [bugs] are likely to be 'real'
problems [in Windows2000]."
-http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 28 Feb 2000 21:10:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: You have the "infinite monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters"
: approach. The more people that do something, someone is bound to hit on
: something successful. Think of how many 10's or hundreds of thousands of
: man hours have been wasted (or at least not used as efficiently as they
: could be).
But those are man-hours that are going to waste *anyway*. If a close-
source software user disovers a bug, the means of reporting it are more
of a barrier to him than to the same user using open-source software.
Reporting a bug in open-source is merely a matter of e-mailing the
address listed in the documentation file, and there are typically less
layers of management to mess up the message before it reaches the
programmer who can do something about it.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Subject: Re: Day One
Date: 28 Feb 2000 21:23:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:30:27 GMT, ndg typed something like:
>If one were starting computing at day one and wanted to learn Linux;
>what advice would you give?
>Get a computer science degree? Take a unix os course?; don't know if
>colleges offer linux courses.
>I mean, it's nice to learn on your own, but a little direction would
>really cut down on the proverbial time factor; like on sci-fi.
>Can't wait to start sliding.
>Just scanning around briefly I see the linux community thing and free
>and all that; but aren't most of the gurus employed as unix system
>administrators?
>Who says there's no money in linux?
>Sys adms make beaucoup bux; but are in a world of their own (little jab
>waiting for reactionaries there).
Well, I'd say start with the basics. Unix for Dummies is a
good starting point. From there, it's easier to move up
to the meatier books. Eventually get books publics by
ORA (ORA books take a little getting used to if you're
not accustomed to them)
>Seems it takes a lot of energy and time, preferrably uninterrupted time.
>Myself, I have so many distractions and battles going on with punks in
>the neighborhood and the local streets, it's sometimes difficult to keep
>a focus. I go out for a bike ride to relax and think about it, and
>someone's wanting to test how tough I am. Just got one of those faces.
It isn't too bad. Once you understand the basic commands,
the rest gets a lot easier. It's possible to throw a GUI
on it and go (ala Corel Linux), however, the time spent
even learning the basic commands pays off in the long run,
and learning the systems administration end definitely adds
to one's marketability.
-c-
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 15:39:08 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pwBu4.2287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > What do you recommend in place of ActiveX? Java? Hahahaha.... that's
> > > funny.
> >
> > On normal webpages? HTML, of course.
>
> Let's see you do streaming video in HTML.
Or anything that requires elaborate client-side activities.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:05:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:46:15 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 24 Feb 2000 00:46:47 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>If someone borrows your car without your permission, it is a crime whether
>>>or not they return it. Even if you are on holiday, and not intending
>>
>> I am also deprived of the ability to use it as a consequence.
>
>This is a diversion. Even in the event that you are not deprived
>of utility, it is still considered a crime for someone to use
>your property without authorisation.
>
This example is fatally flawed, since in the UK at least, car "theft"
is a specific crime (taking and driving away, TDA). Theft requires the
intent to _permanently_ deprive the lawful owner of the property in
question.
Furthermore, until quite recently, squatting and trespass were not
_criminal_ offences.
Norman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:05:04 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:53:00 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Really? Hmmm, maybe I should double check. I would not use SCAM support
>for a hard disk, I mean, really something like a zip drive, maybe, but
>absolutely not a boot disk. That would be silly.
Glad you agree. Unfortunately that's basically petilon's problem in
this thread. :(
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:09:39 +0000
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donovan> On 28 Feb 2000 17:59:57 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>> Contracts also require law enforcement, so that does not really
>> apply. As for technical measures we all know how ineffective
>> these are in the long term. As the DeCSS case shows someone
>> always overcomes them no matter how intractable.
Donovan> It shows no such thing. If there were no legal obstructions
Donovan> to illegitimate copying, there would be stronger, better
Donovan> thought out measures to stop it. Perhaps the industry
Donovan> would band together and develop a very robust scheme.
Donovan> We've already seen ciphers and security measures that are
Donovan> essentially uncrackable ( cracking them requires a
Donovan> supercomputer ).
This is a good point. I guess it would depend on a number of
things including the cost of such an encryption scheme. Its one of the
those unanswerable what if situations. I think people would still find
a way around it (if there were no copyright of course then the big
industrial players would be more likely to attempt to cut each others
throats rather than band together I think!).
Donovan> There are certainly tougher, and nastier schemes that the
Donovan> industry could come up with if they cared that much. And
Donovan> not all consumers would be prepared to use the "cracking
Donovan> software" because it would be largely regarded as morally
Donovan> questionable.
I find this dubious. How many people do you know how wont
pirate M$ software because they find it morally questionable. It might
legally be considered theft but I can think of almost no one who
does. Of course it depends on the size of the firm (or artist for
other copyright works). This shows a moral decision, but I dont think the
large multinationals are going to benefit from it.
Donovan> The end result would be much the same -- the honest people
Donovan> would pay up, and the cheats would still be cheats. The
Donovan> difference is that life would be more inconvenient for
Donovan> everyone.
As before I am not arguing to change copyright in our current
society. I find the idea that we can significantly alter the current
system by tinkering with copyright rather nieve. I was simply arguing
that the current system we have requires force to maintain it, which
was a point some one said a while back about a non copywrite-able
society...
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:08:26 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:20:33 -0800, petilon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Have you no shame? You are justifying this serious bug in
>Windows 2000 -- a product that corporations pay hundreds of
>thousands of dollars to Microsoft for -- by saying Linux --
>a FREE product -- has the same problem too?
Don't worry. I'm already convinced that you are both a troll and an
idiot.
>Do you realize decent enterprise operating systems such as
>Solaris don't have this problem? Do you realize that the Linux
>guys have already fixed this problem in the forthcoming
>version?
Would you like me to verify this for you? I think with some small
effort, I could misconfigure a machine like you have.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:12:09 GMT
On 28 Feb 2000 12:48:26 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>In gnu.misc.discuss, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Speeding laws in the United States, at least for highways, are not based
>on safety. Widely published studies of the highway system show that both
>our roads and our vehicles are just as safe at maximum speeds 10-20 mph
>above the current speed limits. The speed limits were chosen for fuel
>conservation.
Saying that your vehicles are safe at 10-20mph over the speed limit is
*not* the same thing as saying that it is safe to raise the speed limit.
The problem is that you need to assume that people will drive slightly
faster than whatever speed limit is in place.
However, I disagree with using speed limits to constrain fuel consumption.
A 57 Chevy burns more fuel at 60mph than a Mazda 323 at 80mph. The obvious
way to discourage excessive fuel consumption would be via a fuel consupmtion
tax (duh!)
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:15:01 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:05:18 GMT, NF Stevens wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>This example is fatally flawed, since in the UK at least, car "theft"
>is a specific crime (taking and driving away, TDA). Theft requires the
Are you saying that taking someone else's car for a joyride is not a crime ?
>Furthermore, until quite recently, squatting and trespass were not
>_criminal_ offences.
Ah huh. I'd also agree that there shouldn't be criminal penalties for
copyright infringement. ( excluding large scale infringements like distributing
warez )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 23:32:58 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On 22 Feb 2000 10:58:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> :That's in contrast to the anti-Linux propaganda spammers
> :like you, Jeff, who are proven liars -- for example, you
> :with your Phat Linux installation that you purposely rigged
> :to fail and then claimed that it proved that Linux was
> :totally useless for anyone.
>
> Yea... I guess I did. Damn me for buying semi-modern hardware and
> expecting Linux to support it.
That is why there is a hardware compatibility list. One should always
check the HCL for ANY OS for which they are buying hardware. It is an
impossible expectation that 100% of the hardware will be supported by
any one OS. Yes, that even goes for Windows.
>You got me Mark... I purposely used
> semi-modern devices like a USB mouse and a netcam. I purposely used a
> 3 generation old video card (TNT1) which is "supported" by Linux and I
> purposely used the most popular sound card on the market (SB Live)
>
> Yes, I certainly am clever. I rigged an install of Linux by simply
> using modern/popular hardware. Exactly what does this prove? Yep,
> that's it. Linux is totally incapable of handling semi-modern, popular
> hardware.
The issue is that you did not do what a person wishing to accomplish a
goal should. You did not check what you needed vs what you had. I have a
future domain SCSI card, it has no Windows driver, is windows broken
because it does not support it? No. Windows is broken for its own
reasons.
The issue of driver support is more of a Microsoft DOJ/Monopoly issue,
not a technical one.
>
> What was your point again? Oh yes, I remember now. That Linux has
> horrible hardware support and you can rig an install by simply using
> modern hardware. Yes, I agree Mark. I'm glad you see things my way.
I like your choice of words: "Modern Hardware" like that is some sort of
classification. Age or "modern-ness" of hardware has nothing to do with
it. It has to do with priority of development efforts. That, again, is
why any intelligent person wishing to setup a system will read the
hardware compatibility list for the OS they are choosing. It should also
be noted that this is important for Win2k, Winnt, and Win9x as well.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 14:17:28 -0800
In gnu.misc.discuss, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Saying that your vehicles are safe at 10-20mph over the speed limit is
> *not* the same thing as saying that it is safe to raise the speed limit.
> The problem is that you need to assume that people will drive slightly
> faster than whatever speed limit is in place.
> However, I disagree with using speed limits to constrain fuel
> consumption. A 57 Chevy burns more fuel at 60mph than a Mazda 323 at
> 80mph. The obvious way to discourage excessive fuel consumption would be
> via a fuel consupmtion tax (duh!)
I'll take the conclusions of well-publicized studies by actual highway
safety engineers and automobile manufacturers over the conclusions of
random people in gnu.misc.discuss. No offense. My understanding is that
there reaches a point of diminishing returns where 10-20 mph change in the
average speed don't have much of an impact on safety. If you run into
stationary objects at highway speeds, you're pretty much screwed anyway.
As for the fuel consumption, bear in mind that the studies on which that
decision was based were conducted in the 1970s when the law was originally
passed, and presumably were taking into account the fuel consumption
patterns of vehicles of that era.
I highly doubt that the studies were completely out to lunch. The
government may be dim at times, but it's not *that* stupid.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
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!!
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:22:45 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>"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.
>
Wrong, the majority of consumers may have spoken and want that.
>If they decide that they want Foo64 processor, then MS will support
>that.
>
Maybe if the majority want it.
> However, they all want x86 and IA-64, so that's what MS supports.
>
Wrong, not all want x86 and IA-64.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
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: 28 Feb 2000 22:09:57 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:13:23 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Is it Microsoft's fault that 3rd party vendors didn't support the
>other platforms?
Probably. When Microsoft says "jump", developers ask "how high?"
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:20:10 -0600
Brian M wrote:
>
> So your point is that the only company to write a decent html client for
> linux makes crap calls in windows, so you thought you would write to a linux
> advocacy ng to complain .. about Microsoft, because the netscape programmers
> make crap OS calls, and the OS complies?
In X11 the end user can set a focus policy that overrides
whatever annoying crap the developers (well corporations, free
software developers never do that sort of crap) decided to do,
which is the way it should be.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 16:21:53 -0600
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:13:23 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Is it Microsoft's fault that 3rd party vendors didn't support the
> >other platforms?
>
> Probably. When Microsoft says "jump", developers ask "how high?"
heh, you guys just don't quit. I suppose that Microsoft kill Jon Bene <sp?>
too, huh?
Even with that false logic, why didn't they jump on Alpha, Microsoft had
pretty decent support for Alpha. If any ISVs started porting to it, Microsoft
would've upped it's already good support for Alpha.
All the service packs, hotfixes, BackOffice products, and many of the
little add ons and features that you can download from Microsoft.com
are available for Alpha.
The fact is, no one wanted alpha. MS hung in there for a long time, and
then finally dropped it.
Microsoft is a corporation, they have to make money. If there was money
to be made in Alpha, they would've kept it.
Also, water is wet.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 16:35:49 -0600
In article <89ee8g$nhn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
As typical with unix and other standards-conforming solutions you
can easily choose the best component and platform for each task.
>Reason #1029102 to migrate homatil.com to Windows2000 - end-to-end
>solutions
There is never any reason to be locked into a single vendor. In
this case it appears to be true even if you *are* that vendor...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 16:37:11 -0600
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >"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.
> >
> Wrong, the majority of consumers may have spoken and want that.
Ok, thank you for making my point.
> >If they decide that they want Foo64 processor, then MS will support
> >that.
> >
> Maybe if the majority want it.
Well, that's the only way they're going to make money.
> > However, they all want x86 and IA-64, so that's what MS supports.
> >
> Wrong, not all want x86 and IA-64.
But a large majority do.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:45:58 -0500
: I agree - which is why MS is moving hotmail to W2K "soon"
So by the MS standard of soon (now + 3 years), it will be moved by 2003,
right?
------------------------------
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 17:50:30 -0500
"Michael Wand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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?"
>
> Of course. But many sites are currently running either Unix or NT 4.
> Successfully. If it ain't broke, why switch to Windows?
>
That is right. If it ain't broke don't fix it. If your current Unix solution
works fine for you - why would I or anyone else insist you change? This is a
difference you'll find with us "Winvocates" - we like what we use but we
aren't on a religious crusade to force you to see it our way.
I don't make cold calls to companies running *nix - they call us to ask to
upgrade to NT. One of the first things we talk about is: why? Why do you
want to change? Is it already working? Do you just need a hardware upgrade?
Maybe get some better switches and routers and upgrade some NICs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:52:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, I was misinformed.
> You lied.
Oh, I lied about the other drivers then? Are you disagreeing with
the other wintroll?
Why dont you TRY them.
Idiot.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:53:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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...)
I refuse to believe you EVER used linux.
Either you are actually intelligent and lied about your linux experience,
or you didnt lie and are incredibly stupid.
Which one is it?
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:55:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89e3s9$9in$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Joe Ragosta <[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.
>>
>> He dresden, did you have something to add to this thread? I couldnt
>> help but notice your total silence regarding this particular lie.
> Bite me Pooky - I am talking about the recent 64 bit chips from both Intel
> and AMD - both which are in manufacturer samples right now. Shipping? No,
> didn't mention shipping - yet...
Wow, thats strange, because microsoft does not have their hands on those
physical chips yet, they're limited to emulation software at the moment.
Which is exactly the same thing for testing purposes, but the fact is you
lied.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 28 Feb 2000 22:59:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And you are CERTAIN of the ship dates for Intel and AMDs 64-bit chips ??
> You mean like when Intel released the 733 Piiis 6 months ahead of schedule?
Intel has been running a losing race with AMD for quite some time. The release
date of the Intel chip will be directly dependant on the release date of AMDs.
And AMD still has 3 more processors after the 850 in the athlon series
scheduled at LEAST. It will not be soon.
p0ok
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
