Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
Re: IE on UNIX (Mike Marion)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!! (Mike Marion)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: IE on UNIX ("Chad Myers")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Chad Myers")
Re: IE on UNIX (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Chad Myers")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (mlw)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:56:32 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:40:37 -0600, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >of course everyone will replace their apps. M$ will just release a new
> >version of office that runs better on win2k.
> >
>
> And since the old versions will run slower under W2K, they'll get
replaced.
Amazing that you would try to spread such a lie. Considering that every
single version of windows ever released (including every incremental change)
has ALWAYS been faster than the version preceding it - to even suggest that
it's suddenly not true is ludicrous.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:00:10 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> is really just an enhancement, ext3 and the like are pretty much completely
> new filesystems.
Funny you should say that, as ext3 is "really just an enhancement" too. It is
_not_ a completely new filesystem. It's basically a jfs on top of ext2. If
you'd bother to read about it, you'd see that ext3 is completely compatible with
ext2. You can mount an ext2 fs as ext3 and have journalling, then umount the
ext3 and remount it again as ext2 (as long as the umount was clean, i.e. you
can't hard reboot while ext3 is mounted then mount it ext2 without an ext3
fsck).
Reiserfs OTOH, _is_ a completely new FS. It's supposed to be much faster then
ext3 too.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"...In my phone conversation with Microsoft's lawyer I copped to the fact that
just maybe his client might see me as having been in the past just a bit
critical of their products and business practices. This was too bad, he said
with a sigh, because they were having a very hard time finding a reporter who
both knew the industry well enough to be called an expert and who hadn't written
a negative article about Microsoft." -- Robert X. Cringely
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:12:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do you have a source for this assertion?
> yes - every time I look at figures of Unix installs and NT installs you see
> the unix count dropping and the NT count going up. BUT, ignoring stats
> "other guys" do.
Stats? "every time I look at figures" tells me nothing. What figures?
How were they analyzed?
> My own company. We do migrations from *nix to NT all the
> time. We love it.
Thats because youre a bunch of tools. I have confirmation of this.
> Yanking out crap hardware and nightmare software
I'm sitting 1000 feet away from a machine running solaris that can kick
the ass of anything that you're running NT on, guaranteed.
> (usually
> left in worse states than you can imagine by archiac sys admins who spit on
> Windows and therefore have no knowledge and are usually out of a job after
> we're through and you can be sure they didn't leave everything in a "nice"
> state when they leave). The people in the industry I talk to daily who are
> making a WAY more than healthy living replacing *nix with NT all over the
> country.
Oh that I believe. Though having an MCSE is no more a measurement of
intelligence than say, breathing, it is still a fairly lucerative posession.
> THAT supports my assertion better than any graph.
Anecdotal evidence. Neat. You're real good at that.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 23:14:27 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89csh3$2e4s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Drive fast? Buddy - you don't know! Take your pick 157 was the best I
> did on
>> > my FZR-750 many years ago, but 191 is better in my Viper these days (I'm
>> > lazier now).
>>
>> Theres a guy named dan that swears you dont own a viper.
> theres a guy named kelly that swears you slept with him. (and he wants to
> know why you don't call anymore you bitch)
Uncanny. I had no idea you knew anyone in gleandalaoghaire, ireland.
> but, I can do better: when you get your learners permit I can swing through
> the Windy City and let you take it for a spin.
Neat. I'll meet you there, but you're going to have to pay my train fare.
> (I don't think I even know a dan who knows what I drive, I typically fly
> then rent-a-car...)
Ohhh yes you do. What sucks is that he doesnt have any pictures.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:29:20 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> Amazing that you would try to spread such a lie. Considering that every
> single version of windows ever released (including every incremental change)
> has ALWAYS been faster than the version preceding it - to even suggest that
> it's suddenly not true is ludicrous.
Eh?!?
I've yet to find a single person who upgrade from '95 to '98 (without also
upgrading hardware) that didn't find their system slower afterwards. Unless
they upgraded from a really old FAT16-based '95 install... which noone in their
right mind was still running.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Black holes are where God divided by zero.
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[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 18:34:41 -0500
But elaborate client side activities are exactly where the security problems
show up... because they include screwing with your hard drive.
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89eq49$ror$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "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: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:33:10 GMT
Mike Marion wrote:
> I've yet to find a single person who upgrade from '95 to '98 (without also
> upgrading hardware) that didn't find their system slower afterwards. Unless
> they upgraded from a really old FAT16-based '95 install... which noone in their
> right mind was still running.
Oh, and I forgot to mention how upgrading a machine that ran win3.1 decently (a
486dx4-100 with 16Meg of RAM) to win95 suddenly ran like a dog.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
President Grant: "Mr. West, not every situation requires your patented approach
of shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more and then when everybody's dead try
to ask a question or two." -- Wild Wild West
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:34:18 GMT
Tim Kelley wrote:
> 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.
You should try running IE on Solaris sometime. If it'll even run (the lastest
versions either lock after a few minutes, or lock my entire window session) it
still overrides your settings and will jump up/down on it's own.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
President Grant: "Mr. West, not every situation requires your patented approach
of shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more and then when everybody's dead try
to ask a question or two." -- Wild Wild West
------------------------------
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
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:37:17 -0600
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89eudq$q0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
http://www.computerworld.com/home/news.nsf/all/9909013win64
http://www.entmag.com/breaknews.asp?ID=1218
http://www.crn.com/dailies/digest/breakingnews.asp?ArticleID=8852
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/Feb00/MSWin64Pr.asp
Looks like there's silicon and a running version of Win2K to me,
what do you think?
But then, you've never been bothered by those pesky facts...
Heck, Microsoft even has a Developer's lab where you can bring in
your apps and test them on Win64/Itanium boxes to make sure that
you're headed in the right track.
How's the Trillian Linux64 team doing?
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2431772,00.html
Hey! A public beta... but wait... when you start reading the
fine print, SMP has got a long way to go (gasp! I thought linux
was so well designed, it should've been a snap to get SMP working
in 64-bit, guess that hacked puke of SMP support in the Linux
kernel was a more hacked piece of puke than they thought).
Mind you, the Trillian team is comprised of Caldera, CERN, HP,
IBM, Intel, Red Hat (Cygnus div.), SGI, SuSE, TurboLinux, and
VA. And with all these great minds (well, Caldera excluded of
course), they are having problems with SMP. Hmm....
"But at today's press conference, some of the participants did
acknowledge that a number of these high-end facilities are
only now entering rudimentary beta test. Two-way SMP support
for 64-bit Linux is "working mostly;" say Project members;
four-way and 16-way support is further behind."
Working mostly... hmmm... Then, I suppose, it's Enterprise
Ready--mostly, right? That makes me feel a whole lot better.
That's what Fortune500 wants to hear.
"Yeah, this is a really great mostly scalable, mostly reliable,
mostly high-performance OS, mostly"
But, gasp! What's this? A 16-way Itanium box already up and
running 64-bit SQL Server on 64-bit Windows 2000!?!
http://www.nec.co.jp/english/today/newsrel/9911/2401.html
(watch the TPC-C marks go through the roof with this baby)
> Which is exactly the same thing for testing purposes, but the fact is you
> lied.
Well, let's review the score, shall we?
A Drestin said there were manufacturer's samples available, and Win2K
was running on them.
Drestin: 1 l33t p0ok: 0
B p0ok claims that MS doesn't have their hands on real silicon, which is,
of course, not true.
Drestin: 2 l33t p0ok: 0
C p0ok claims that Drestin lied, which is, of course, not true
Drestin: 3 l33t p0ok: 0
Man, you're really strikin' out here, p0ok. What next? Insults?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:41:17 -0600
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > is really just an enhancement, ext3 and the like are pretty much completely
> > new filesystems.
>
> Funny you should say that, as ext3 is "really just an enhancement" too. It is
> _not_ a completely new filesystem. It's basically a jfs on top of ext2. If
> you'd bother to read about it, you'd see that ext3 is completely compatible
with
> ext2. You can mount an ext2 fs as ext3 and have journalling, then umount the
> ext3 and remount it again as ext2 (as long as the umount was clean, i.e. you
> can't hard reboot while ext3 is mounted then mount it ext2 without an ext3
> fsck).
Journaling, support for >2GB files, larger address space-- those are some
fundamental changes in the FS. Reguardless if they mount as each other
(what happens to the journal then? It'll get grossly out of sync if you
write while loaded in ext2 mode, won't it?) there are fundamental design
differences between ext2 -> ext3, that's my point.
> Reiserfs OTOH, _is_ a completely new FS. It's supposed to be much faster then
> ext3 too.
<Off topic and Genuine curiosity>
When is Reiserfs due (approximately)?
What are the caveats of using Reiserfs to ext2?
</Off topic and Genuine curiosity>
-Chad
------------------------------
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 17:44:12 -0600
"Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WxDu4.425$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But elaborate client side activities are exactly where the security problems
> show up... because they include screwing with your hard drive.
I wholeheartedly agree. However, in an intranet-type environment, where
security can be more easily controlled, client-side activities are
very helpful, if not vital to a functioning intranet application.
-Chad
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89eq49$ror$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Let's see you do streaming video in HTML.
> >
> > Or anything that requires elaborate client-side activities.
> >
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:58:53 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Remember Win32s?
> > >
> > > What about it? It didn't work particularly well.
> >
> > It shows that Win32 was in Windows 3.1; they didn't *need* to release
> > Windows 95 in order to facilitate it.
>
> Win32s was a tiny subset of Win32. It supported only a fraction of what
> Win95 did.
The word fraction in this sentence is ambiguous. Win32s supported much
of what Windows 95 did. The only thing a windows 3.1 and a Win32s
environment did not have was preemptive threads within the Windows
virtual machine. So, by fraction, one could use 99/100.
>
> > > Then explain the existance of WDM, if not to get hardware vendors
> writing
> > > drivers that will work in NT?
> >
> > They were already doing that anyway. 99% of the drivers available for
> > Windows 95 were also available for NT...(discounting USB, for obvious
> > reasons).
>
> 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?
>
> And with the exception of Network and storage drivers, most of the NT
> drivers lacked a great deal of functionality that their windows 9x
> counterparts had if they existed at all.
This is true, and oddly enough, I find better support on Linux for
esoteric devices than I do for NT. However, it is true that storage,
network, and video display devices are usually better supported under
NT.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:46:21 -0600
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > Amazing that you would try to spread such a lie. Considering that every
> > single version of windows ever released (including every incremental change)
> > has ALWAYS been faster than the version preceding it - to even suggest that
> > it's suddenly not true is ludicrous.
>
> Eh?!?
>
> I've yet to find a single person who upgrade from '95 to '98 (without also
> upgrading hardware) that didn't find their system slower afterwards. Unless
> they upgraded from a really old FAT16-based '95 install... which noone in
their
> right mind was still running.
Are you kidding? Windows98 ran faster on older hardware than Win95 did.
I remember some of our clients (back when I was a consultant) that we installed
Win98 on their machines to replace 95 and there was a huge performance increase.
These were mid-Pentiums (120-166, etc) that were dogs on Win95, but reasonable
in Win98.
That's without Fat32, although fat32 made a difference.
Note, also, that upgrading usually always fucks stuff up. You need a clean
install. Bah... Win9x... bah...
-Chad
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:17:47 -0500
Roger wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:33:15 -0800, someone claiming to be Bob Lyday
> wrote:
>
> >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?
>
> Of course, it's not happening, but what do you care -- you'll still
> make the claim without any proof...
Actually it is happening, but it is much more subtle. Better breaks,
better internal MS QA support, incusion of drivers with distribution,
etc. The term "pressure" is an appropriate term.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: 29 Feb 2000 00:04:08 GMT
>> Let's see you do streaming video in HTML.
>
Two options:
-Use an external app-- provide a link to the file which the browser can hand
off to a viewer, or a line of text that says "Point Acme StreamingVideoViewer
at dracolisk400.example.net:4040"
-Use a single image, and a page that refreshes itself.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"New Windows feature: distributed.microsoft.com-- Fifty million machines
generating random C code in an attempt to produce the next version of Windows."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
