Linux-Advocacy Digest #441, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 12:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Rob Hughes")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (void)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (void)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (void)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (void)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (void)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Jason McNorton)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Jeremy Nelson)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:49:08 -0500
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:89eujs$q0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > You fool - don't you realize what you yourself admit. The REASON Intel
> > CAN
> > make their release dates dependent on release dates of AMDs is because
> > the
> > chips are done and ready they just wait for AMD to come out with
> > something
> > and then they just trump them. Don't you read? Haven't you noticed this
>
> What a stupid argument.
>
> PC sales growth is slowing (single digit in a lot of cases). If Intel
> could release a much faster chip than they currently sell, they could
> get a lot of people to upgrade their computers sooner than otherwise. In
> effect, Intel has two competitors--AMD and the consumer's existing
> computer.
>
> If Intel's current chip is only 30% faster than the current computer, x
> number of people will upgrade. If it's 50-60% faster, more people will
> upgrade. And that's not even considering the sales they've lost to AMD
> (have you seen AMD's market share recently?)
>
> There's no conceivable scenario where Intel benefits from not releasing
> their fastest chips--even at a big price premium.
No conceivable scenario? You make this sound as if it hasn't happened a
dozen times already!
>
> But it doesn't surprise me when clueless people who don't understand
> business cook up wierd stories like this.
It doesn't suprise me when you ignore history and fact to promote your
version of the story. Intel has sat on chips before - why would you be even
remotely suprised if they did it again?
>
> > happening over and over and over and over. Show me once when AMD has had
> > the
> > faster processor out for more than a month. Oh, and did we mention
> > actually
> > available for purchase as opposed to back ordered? You go and try to get
> > one
> > of those latest AMDs - and keep waiting and waiting and waiting...
>
> Gee. Just like trying to get one of those latest Intel chips.
>From someone who spams surf for free and get paid to surf kinda spue below -
what are we to think of your buying powers... not much.
>
> --
> 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: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:53:13 -0500
"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> [some stuff trimmed]
> > >Greg Wrote:
> > > Hmmm... Almost everyone I know, including extreme Windows people are
> > > taking a wait and see position. Generally, they tell me that they
want
> > > to wait for the first two or three service packs to come out and let
> > > other people field the problems that are sure to shake out with new
> > > product that is that complex and has that much change at one time.
> > > Rightfully so. I personally would fire anyone that brought W2K in for
> > > critical system. If it had to be NT, it would be NT 4.0+SPs or else
I'd
> > > walk them out the door. That's called gross negligence and
incompetence
> > > no matter what product it is.
> >
> > First: Anytime I here this: "Wait for one or three SPs" I laugh outloud.
Who
> > are they fooling? Tell me anyone that waited for 3 SPs from NT4 before
> > installing? Who waits a year? Especially cause SPs are different for W2K
> > than they were for previous NT versions.
> >
> > Also, go ahead and fire then - send them to me. We're using W2K right
now
> > (and have been) in the most mission critical applications you can
imagine.
> > Why? Cause they work and working fucking great. We haven't been able to
> > crash a server yet and they run faster on the same hardware. Bugs? If
they
> > are there, we haven't found them. Huge companies are racing to install
W2K.
> > You go ahead and wait a year... pick up your unemployeement check on the
way
> > out.
>
>
> Hmmm. That's an interesting observation, but contrary to the position
that
> you've taken, EVERY survey that I've seen says that corporations are
talking
> a very long/slow wait-n-see stance with W2K.
Someone tell the 2 million new seats going in this year about that.
> I'm glad to hear that it's
> working well for you. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that
> it would be negligent and incompetent for choosing such a new and untested
> product for a critical system.
I guess you missed the 9 month 750,000 user testing period including live on
the web and in production testing at huge corporations. New? I'd hardly call
W2K new - new to general consumers maybe not "been around" to IT
professionals who've been running it for months already.
> I would not have any problem with someone
> installing and using it. The distinction I make now and then was that of
> a critical system. If you can afford down time, it is, by definition, not
> a critical system. If the company has little to no finacial loss because
> the system went down, it is not a critical system. Now that I've stressed
> that, anyone that uses W2K, as is, and doing so now, on a critical
business
> system is incompetent or overstating the importance of the
server/applications.
That's you opinion - fortunately others are much more in synch and in tune
with W2K's true status and are enjoying the fruits of a long and extensive
testing period already. Honestly, I hope every *nix guy out there takes a
VERY long wait and see approach - the further behind the curve they will
remain.
> I would not use W2K for a critical production system any more than I would
> use the latest Linux devel kernel.
I wouldn't use a devel kernel either. But fortunately W2K is neither beta
nor a devel kernel nor untested nor new.
Foolish is foolish. Period.
Easy to agree with.
>Something
> you seem to forget is that NT 4.0 is basically NT version 1.4. With W2K,
> that makes it 2.0. There are significant changes in W2K down to the core
> OS services. NT 4.0 was MOSTLY named 4.0 for pure marketing reasons and
> could have easily been NT 3.6 (versus using Microsoft's pick-a-number
> versioning/counting scheme).
That is correct. So, I give W2K it's due for being a .0 release - but that's
all. I have no unreal plans to wait for 5-10 service packs in 20 years
before considering to think about release it into testing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: 29 Feb 2000 15:55:33 GMT
On 29 Feb 2000 07:10:46 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 16:25:25 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>MS published the docs, then realized that openfile formats, even if
>they are designed in such a way as to make them as difficult to parse
>as possible on more then one platform, would not help them keep people
>from using other platforms.
You're talking a load of hogwash.
(1) Microsoft's document formats were never
"open", and neither were the document formats of any other office
application vendor. The formats were always controlled by the vendor.
(2) Once you do things like embed applications within applications, it
makes it somewhat harder to make a format "easy to parse". Speaking
of "easy to parse", I believe Office 2000 is based on XML. But that
in itself doesn't help much ( see (4) )
(3) You can repeat your lies as often as you like, but it doesn't alter
the fact that MS still publish their document formats.
(4) It doesn't really help that much that the format *is* published,
because their document formats depend on nonstandards like OLE and
Visual Basic.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:57:23 -0600
I'm talking about SCAM, genius. Try reading the posts before your knees jerk
you into a usenet group next time.
"Hobbyist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> > The ID is determined by the device's position on the SCSI chain.
>
> Really? The ID my SCSI devices get are the ID's I assign them through
> switches on each device. It has nothing to do with their position on
> the chain.
>
>
> --
> -=Ali M.=-
>
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
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
Date: 29 Feb 2000 16:29:10 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:39:14 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nospam> wrote:
>
>You fool - don't you realize what you yourself admit. The REASON Intel CAN
>make their release dates dependent on release dates of AMDs is because the
>chips are done and ready they just wait for AMD to come out with something
>and then they just trump them.
Balls. Intel has been concentrating too much on 64-bit processors, AMD
is really giving them a run for their money.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: 29 Feb 2000 16:33:34 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:19:48 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@lexi.
athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on 28 Feb 2000 17:50:07 GMT
><[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.
>
>Most consumers are going to be on x86 equipment.
Well, I mean a broader definition of consumer, one that includes anyone
who's running Windows. I agree that in the short term, x86 would be
more attractive for almost any application of Windows, but in the long
term, Microsoft *and* its customers could benefit greatly if MS nurtured
an alternative processor to the point where it could achieve economy of
scale comparable to Intel's.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
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: 29 Feb 2000 16:22:08 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:21:53 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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.
What about the development tools? Were they shipping Alpha dev tools on
the CDs they send out to developers?
>Also, water is wet.
Cite?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
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
Date: 29 Feb 2000 16:27:22 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:53 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
nospam> wrote:
>
>Lies? Pooky? Lies? You and MiG are the only liars around - how about helping
>MiG in proclaiming that NT is not a multiuser OS (he doesn't even know the
>definition) or are you at least smart enough to fail in that claim too.
NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
environments and they will continue to do so.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
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: 29 Feb 2000 16:36:44 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:29:32 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The costs of developing and supporting NT+associated essential software for
>four different platforms simultaneously would be enormous, even when shared.
NetBSD doesn't seem to find it so difficult. Perhaps MS' development
model is lacking.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: 29 Feb 2000 16:34:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> George Richard Russell wrote:
>> Or the keybindings to open and
>> navigate the bindings in the GUI (X|GNU(emacs)) versions, either.
>>
>> Menus should not be mouse accessible only,
>
> Why not?
Worry not, the menus in GNU emacs are accessable in the absence of a
raster display with modern keyboards. Just press F10...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Jason McNorton <[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: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:40:23 -0600
In article Joe Ragosta, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <JbGu4.3115$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, the thing is, they didn't need to charge for IE, because they
> > use IE in many different applications for many different things. Having
> > a robust application like IE allows them to get many miles out it. They
> > save so much time by using what IE already has, or by only having to make
> > minor modifications (as opposed to designing a whole new type of
> > interface)
> > that they save time and money. IE pays for itself several times over.
> >
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Total, unadulterated nonsense.
>
> MSIE cost Microsoft a lot. It seems to be a major factor in introducing
> instabilities into the system. Yet they give it away.
And Redhat and Corel spend a lot on their Linux versions, yet they give
it away for free. New methods for a new economy..
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:55:26 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:33:10 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
And even moved to a 120mhz pentium w/ 48Mram, the 3.1 apps had to be
replaced because they made they system run like a dog. Those same apps
would make a dual CPU 500mpz pIII w/ 1G of ram run like a dog due to the
moronic implementation of multitasking where the system is waiting for I/O
w/tout a chance of doing anything but poll in the mean time.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:53:04 -0600
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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.
>
> What about the development tools? Were they shipping Alpha dev tools on
> the CDs they send out to developers?
Yep, in fact I loaded Visual Source Safe and Visual C++ on an Alpha box
we have here because I needed some of the source control and debugging
features for a project we were working on.
Just about all their enterprise back-office type stuff is made for Alpha.
I remember being able to load all of the back office suite and having
the ability to load the entire Visual Studio 6 suite on there.
I do remember a few tools (the unsupported, back web page type stuff) only
had an x86 version, so that kinda sucked, but they were infrequently used
stuff.
All their major apps work on Alpha. I don't think a lot of their client-
side stuff works though. I'm pretty sure there's no Office97 Alpha, but
I could be mistaken.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Nelson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 29 Feb 2000 16:58:57 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The right to property would be the main capitalist principal I would cite.
>Denial of the validity of intellectual property is a thinly vieled attack on
>the right to property.
I disagree, and IMO, your sweeping generalizations are patently unfair.
"Intellectual property" is a new beast and some of us feel that there are
many who abuse society by claiming something to be "intellectual property"
and demanding protection, when there is no "property" and there is no
reasonable basis for "the right to property". Some of us would rather not
see things which have for eons been common property turned into someone's
private property simply becuase they force it upon us and _then_ tell us we
are evil anti-capitalists because we dare to question their right to take
from the public domain that which they are greedy for.
Jeremy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Four
Lines
Suffice.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:57:30 -0600
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Most consumers are going to be on x86 equipment.
>
> Well, I mean a broader definition of consumer, one that includes anyone
> who's running Windows. I agree that in the short term, x86 would be
> more attractive for almost any application of Windows, but in the long
> term, Microsoft *and* its customers could benefit greatly if MS nurtured
> an alternative processor to the point where it could achieve economy of
> scale comparable to Intel's.
I agree. I believe Microsoft gave it a good shot, but the 3rd party
ISVs just wouldn't latch on.
POSIX in NT was a half-assed attempt. NT on Alpha was a full-blown effort.
I really believe that MS gave almost all that would be expected.
I suppose they could've blown a lot of money and paid for some major
3rd party applications to be ported I guess. But, I think that they
did some thinking and realized that there just wasn't a market at this
point.
Perhaps when Win64 is out, stable and popular, perhaps the effort will
be revived, as there will be 64-bit apps and porting to Alpha shouldn't
be a big deal for the 3rd party ISVs anymore.
Who knows?
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
