Linux-Advocacy Digest #444, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 17:13:17 EST
Contents:
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (5X3)
Re: Another Big Lie About Linux From "Drestin Black": "Debian has 10,000+ bugs..."
(Will Ganz)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Mike Marion)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? ("Chad
Myers")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (petilon)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
netzero and linux (welder)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Mike Marion)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:57:26 -0600
"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> If the company was truly interested in making the customer happy, as you
> state, the company would have produced a stable OS in the mid 90s. Your
> argument is moot. Shooo, troll, shooo...
First, I'm not a troll, I didn't start this thread.
Secondly, what it had in the mid 90s was a decent OS that the customer
liked and used to get their job done.
It wasn't the best it could be, but then, no OS is, there's always
room for improvement.
Companies that don't provide software that works or meets the customers'
needs don't last very long.
Note that Corel was struggling because the software it was providing
was crap and it was barely scraping along.
They realized that there was a need for a better Linux and released their
linux. That was something that people wanted, and now Corel is doing
much better.
See how that works?
Of course, you live in the U.S., you know how it works. You buy what
you like and what you think works the best. For most people, Windows
works the best and OSS does not. That doesn't make OSS bad, nor does
it make Windows/Microsoft bad, as you are trying to imply.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:59:57 -0600
"Hobbyist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who
> > logged in hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the
> > freakin DLLs.
>
> In this sited example. Doesn't the problem lie with MS Office, whose
> DLL's are unnecessarily placed in the system directory ... 40MB of
> DLL's and other files in a typical install BTW!
First, yes, Microsoft Office97 had a ways to go with the multi-user thing.
Secondly, Office2000 works much better.
Thirdly, Office97 only installs 1-3 DLLs in the System32 folder for
Office use.
If you have outdated control libraries or whatnot, it may update them,
but as far as actually Office-only related DLLs, there's only a few.
While there shouldn't be any at all (I agree), the few that are there
are easily permissioned and protected from abuse/modification/tampering.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:11:44 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> Thank you. You cleared that up just fine. Can you explain how it is you
> expect that machine to run better when it's suddenly hit with 4 times the
> memory load (new features). Tell ya what: Get yourself into the 90s (hell,
> the late 80s even) and fire up a P233 with 32 megs. OK, run W31 then W95 -
> suprise!
Uh, this was way back when 95 first came out. This also disproves your point...
_if_ "every version of windows is faster" then as long as the system meets the
requirements, it should run faster... which _isn't_ the case.
BTW, MS' own requirements for win95 is at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/winresource/dnwin95/S61F2.HTM
to summarize (compared to the 486dx4-100 I mentioned with 16Meg RAM):
CPU: 20MHz 386 (beat it by a mile)
MEM: 8MB recommended (doubled)
VID: Super-VGA recommended (I had a 2Meg, 1024x768x64k card at the time IIRC,
which was just fine).
I also had something like a 420 Meg HDD at the time which I cleared to install
95, a mouse of course, etc... everything that was well above the requirements.
So if what you say is true the system should have run noticably faster/more ,
when in fact it ran like a dog and I had to upgrade it soon after to play any
decent games.
IM(and _all_ my friend's)E windows does not get "faster" with each release. It
gets more bloated. Sure it has more features, which are a good thing, but to
claim that it's faster is rediculous IMO, unless you can load it on the same
hardware that the previous version ran (as long as it meets the new version's
specs of course) and it is clearly faster.
Running it on very new equipment (well, new at the time) like you mention only
shows that it has a new feature... but one that only comes into play on certain
hardware. This doesn't mean the core OS is faster, otherwise it would be faster
on all hardware that it's made to run on.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"The Tuxomatic 2200(TM) with patented Gates-Be-Gone(TM) gets rid of blue
screens in a flash! It forks! It blits! Look at those fantastic pixels!
It surfs the web! You could even host an ISP with it!"
-- Matthew Sachs on Slashdot
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:10:18 -0600
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rob Hughes wrote:
>
> > Again, genuis, pcAnywhere wasn't written by MS. How, on god's green earth,
> > can whatever excuse you use for a mind come to the conclusion that this is a
> > problem in windows? This is exacly akin to me calling a crappily written and
> > crashing xserver a bug in *NIX
>
> The point is that no application should ever be able to take down the entire
OS.
I agree. However, this application doesn't run entirely in User Mode, it,
for some damned stupid reason, hooks itself into the Kernel mode somewhere
and mucks with the video drivers and just about everything else.
Symantec/Norton is/are notorious for this type of rediculous, outrageously
stupid behavior/coding style, which is why I refuse to use any of their
products.
> A crashing Xserver might be an inconvenience, but it's not going to take down
> the OS, unless there's a bug in the OS itself.
It's not the OS. If a kernel mode app/driver is written poorly and pukes
all over the kernel memory space, there's not much the OS can do.
Developers should avoid writing things in kernel land, however, Symantec
must've missed that day in school.
> If my Xserver crashes, I can
> also try to figure out what caused it, or run another Xserver that I know is
> stable. On my boxes, I think I've crashed the Xserver a total of 8 or 9
> times... and that's over 6 years or so on Linux and solaris boxes. It's
always
> been either a known bug that I just needed to get a patch for, or was due to
my
> using an alpha or beta Xfree server.
But almost any OS will go down if a kernel-mode driver goes haywire and starts
writing to random parts of the kernel memory.
> I think in that same time frame that I've had either Linux or Solaris
themselves
> panic 3 times due to things other then a hardware failure (or a config goof on
> my part which made it choke on boot)... the 2 linux ones were due to a devel
> kernel and using beta RAID drivers respectively (and hammering the RAID
> partition). The solaris one was another known bug that we hadn't patched yet.
You see my point, then. If you have something bum in kernel land, you'll
have a heap-load of trouble.
PCAnywhere = something bum in kernel land = heap-load of trouble
If I was part of the Linux/OSS crowd, I be forming a group to prevent
Norton/Symantec from EVER writing anything for Linux (or anything,
for that matter).
The last thing any OS needs is Norton writing more of his viru *cough*
"utilities" for it.
Just a little advice =)
Consider it a contribution to the Linux/OSS movement
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:14:58 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> hehehe. yea, had to reread that AFTER (damnit) I hit send. :) oops Yer spot
> on with the 4th quarter though, I remember playing Total Annihilation
> (*cough* to test graphic card/directx compatibility, of course *cough*) and
> having the upper hand over 166 mhz players.. :)
Hey, games _are_ acceptible for use in benchmarking a system dammit! :)
Actually, games tend to push the hardware well before anything else out there...
I know they've pushed me into buying new systems more then anything else.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Bill Gates is a white Persian cat and a monocle away
from becoming another James Bond villain."
"No Mr Bond, I expect you to upgrade." --Dennis Miller
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: 29 Feb 2000 21:21:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> If the company was truly interested in making the customer happy, as you
>> state, the company would have produced a stable OS in the mid 90s. Your
>> argument is moot. Shooo, troll, shooo...
> First, I'm not a troll, I didn't start this thread.
> Secondly, what it had in the mid 90s was a decent OS that the customer
> liked and used to get their job done.
Actually, I remember myself and nearly everyone I knew passionately
hating windows in the mid ninties.
> It wasn't the best it could be, but then, no OS is, there's always
> room for improvement.
No, OpenStep 4.2 was "the best it could be" and actually had almost
no room at all for improvements. So in actuality, and operating system
DID exist that was stable and useful in that era.
Its too bad the developer's release ran into the thousands.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will Ganz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another Big Lie About Linux From "Drestin Black": "Debian has 10,000+
bugs..."
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:29:23 GMT
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:88573h$fhe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Drestin Black", one of the high volume pro-Microsoft/anti-
>> Linux propaganda spammers operating in Usenet (see the list
>> at the end of this article), has posted another lie about
>> Linux, this time a really big one.
for this post, let us _assume_ that the number of 10000bugs/debian
release is correct. That is still only 16% of what is in Win2000.
Given that Win2000 & Linux is aimed at the same server type of market,
that works out to USD$0.008/bug for Win2000 vs. USD$0.002/bug for
Debian. Now it would seem that reduced to this level, that Debian with
10,000 bugs is a better value than Win2000.
Something to think about,
Will
** This is a simplistic relationship that assumes that the severity of
the bugs in Win2000 == the severity of the bugs in Debian, Also, the
numbers are based on the common street prices of Win2000 in the Dallas
area(~$500) and of a Debian CD @ MicroCenter($19.95)
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:21:37 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Newer versions of windows require more memory. If you upgrade your memory
> at the same time as installing the new OS, then you will notice a speed
> difference. Additionally, Win98 was signifcantly faster than Win95 with
> IE4.
That's basically part of my argument. If the OS itself is faster, then it
should be easy to see this on the same hardware. If you have to upgrade _any_
of the hardware at the same time to see this "faster" ability, then you've just
invalidated the comparison. Of course, if I add more RAM (faster CPU, mobo,
disk, etc) when I upgrade the OS, it's going to seem faster. That's sort of a
no brainer..
What was the quote I saw on a commercial for "Family Guy" last night.. something
like:
Brother: "He's [pionts to baby] going to help me with my math homework."
Mom: "But he's just a baby."
Baby: "Well done mother, you're a true Rhodes scholar. You must've graduated
from the University of DUhhhhh... [as he lets his tongue hang out]."
So I forget the character names.. so sue me :) Made me laugh when I saw it
though.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Because right now, developing software for Microsoft is like brushing the
teeth of a Great White Shark with a piece of raw steak." - Robert G. Brown,
Linux Today; Nov 13th, 1998
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:27:02 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
Another comparison can be:
> He has nothing to lose/gain, he's trying to solve HIS problem in
> HIS own way with little reguard to usability, accesibility, or
> anything else that doesn't directly benefit him.
He answers the problem by writing the most elegant and/or efficient solution
possible, often with help of others interested in the same problem. Also often
takes advantage of the device in every way he can.
> OR
>
> A company who makes money by making a customer happy and pays developers
> good money and treats them well to make the customer happy.
Time tables controlled by when marketing promised the product. Drivers do as
much as was promised (sometimes not even that) and rarely more... just enough to
keep a majority of customers from complaining too much.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Well, what else is important to them? As far as stimulants go, both of our
generations know the feeling of jonesing for product from Columbia; it's just
that their product is coffee. -- Dennis Miller on GenX
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:27:42 -0600
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89hc2v$mmb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : He has nothing to lose/gain, he's trying to solve HIS problem in
> : HIS own way with little reguard to usability, accesibility, or
> : anything else that doesn't directly benefit him.
>
> Eh? Doesn't usability benefit the author? He's the one who has
> to *use* it, after all.
But the customers will use it more intensively, and in many more
differnt ways than intended.
That's why you have to have extensive QA, Testing, focus groups,
usability samplings, everything. It's not something you just sit
at your home computer and whip up. This is another reason that
Linux's usability sucks. I'm not bashing on Linux, it has the
potential. What I'm saying is, more attention is focused on
the limited functionality as deemed important by the developer,
who has a limited view on what the functionality of FOO should
be.
Usability suffers because the needs of the few are considered,
as opposed to the needs of the many.
Granted, since it's open source, if a person comes along and
sees that something needs to be added, they can just add it,
but there are a very few persons who can do this.
Given that the average PC user has trouble contemplating the
startment, let alone gcc, it's unlikely that functionality
that is desperately needed will get done in a timely fashion
and to the expectations of the people who need it the most.
What Linux/OSS needs is a QA/Testing/Focus study deparment,
of some sorts. A group of volunteers, a company, someone, anyone
that polls corporations, home users, and everyone else for their
needs.
They need to have testing labs where they test existing ideas
and obtain new ideas from the people using it.
They (Linux/OSS) need to get more feedback from the average joe.
> And for the problems that don't directly
> benefit him, there are others who would benefit. So, they're
> free to solve those individual problems so the author doesn't
> have to.
But not everyone is capable of solving (i.e. coding in new features)
their particular problem. They rely on the developers. They use
their dollars to let the developers know what they want.
Just like they let their grocery stores know what they like and don't
like by talking with their dollars.
> : Honor may, in some cases help him develop something a little better
> : than he would have normally, but then, there's little incentive to
> : do that.
>
> Why shouldn't the author solve the problem the best way he knows how?
Because he doesn't always know the best way to solve a particular
problem. Also, he only knows a small fraction of the problems that need
to be solved.
Many people are not being served if all code is only written to serve
developers.
> It's his problem to begin with, there's no time constraint or
> deadline, and he's the one that benefits by all the improvements.
What about everyone else? That's kind of exclusionary, isn't it?
> And by distributing the problem solution freely, he gets the
> benefits of distributed bug-fixes and improvement suggestions to boot.
Again, it's only for developers. The largest part of the user based
is just being passed on by.
It's a catch 22, really. Most people don't use Linux because it
doesn't have enough (or the right) features for them, so they
don't give any feedback.
And because they don't get feedback, the developers can't improve
the software to meet their needs, which is why the developers
(or a group on behalf of the developers) needs to proactively
seek out these user groups and get their feedback.
> He wouldn't have bothered developing if the results didn't matter to
> him personally.
Exactly! There are many results that the individual developer doesn't
need, or perhaps any of the developers, but the average user needs
desperately. This is usually a consistent, intuitive interface,
which many Linux applications lack.
I'm not being argumentative, I'm not trying to bash, I'm merely
offering constructive criticism. Usability is a big thing, and it's
being overlooked in a big way.
>
> : OR
>
> : A company who makes money by making a customer happy and pays developers
> : good money and treats them well to make the customer happy.
>
> Companies would make a lot of customers happy by delivering
> product free of charge. That doesn't make them any money, however.
> In reality, companies make money by charging customers money,
> not by making them happy.
Companies would pay big money to have something that works.
In most cases, Windows works for them. There are some quirks in
old Windows, but in general, it works for them.
Linux may have a few good points, but it doesn't serve their needs
in any area.
They would rather pay for something that works, than get something
that doesn't work (or doesn't work well) for free.
> : The developer's focus is always on the customer, because that's why
> : he gets paid, because if he makes the customer unhappy, he gets fired
> : or doesn't get a raise.
>
> The paid developer's focus is on the customer's money.
The customer speaks with his money. He doesn't pay if he's not
getting what he wants. This system works.
-Chad
------------------------------
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:33:30 -0800
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What makes you think that pcANYWHERE is strictly an
> application?
Because pcAnywhere installs just like any other application.
Period.
What happened to the much touted "System File Protection"?
Please note that I am not denying the bug is in pcAnywhere.
Symantec has admitted to the problem and they have a fix.
But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
Protection" does for me.
If any application requires modification of operating system
files, device drivers etc then that should not be done in a
clandestine manner. That's the key point. Instead, Windows 2000
should require the end-user to explicitly launch an "OS Updater"
utility to modify the system files.
Random applications should not be allowed to trash the OS.
I was previously under the impression that "System File
Protection" allows me to install and try out applications of
unknown quality, without fear of corrupting the OS. Now I
know better.
"System File Protection" is a sham.
>
> X servers are usually setuid-root. As such, they *CAN* take
> down the OS, and not necessarily due to an OS bug.
Setting setuid-root does not make something part of the kernel.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:33:19 GMT
Mike Marion wrote:
> IM(and _all_ my friend's)E windows does not get "faster" with each release. It
> gets more bloated. Sure it has more features, which are a good thing, but to
> claim that it's faster is rediculous IMO, unless you can load it on the same
> hardware that the previous version ran (as long as it meets the new version's
> specs of course) and it is clearly faster.
Actually, us comparing an upgrade from 3.1 to 95 (which I admit I started) isn't
as good as a 95 to 98 upgrade as 3.1 is a different beast entirely. It (3.1)
also doesn't take advantage of most features of modern CPUs, so of course on
newer hardware it's going to be a dog compared to an OS that does take advantage
of the new features.
Continuing with my argument, however, my experience with 95 to 98 upgrades has
been the same: No speedup has been seen on the same hardware. In fact the
reverse has been true: boots take longer, and the system runs slightly slower,
though it does have more features.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
#define QUESTION ((2b) || !(2b)) /* Shakespeare */
------------------------------
From: welder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: netzero and linux
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 20:21:53 -0500
if freewwweb is available in your area give them a try. they mail and
news and they are linux friendly.
http://www.freewwweb.com dawg
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 21:37:22 GMT
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" wrote:
> What makes you think that pcANYWHERE is strictly an application?
So pcA is part of W2k now eh?
Same goes (OS shouldn't crash) for 3rd party services and such too.
> X servers are usually setuid-root. As such, they *CAN* take down the
> OS, and not necessarily due to an OS bug.
True, but in my experience I've yet to see it happen firsthand and have only
heard of it happening a few times from friends.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
#define QUESTION ((2b) || !(2b)) /* Shakespeare */
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:37:09 -0600
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What makes you think that pcANYWHERE is strictly an
> > application?
>
> Because pcAnywhere installs just like any other application.
> Period.
No, it doesn't. Have you ever used it? Obviously not.
> What happened to the much touted "System File Protection"?
Do you even realize you speak out of your ass, or does it
just come naturally?
Speaking of trolls...
System file protection "protects system files" (e.g. the
clever name). It doesn't "protect stupid developers from
writing, and stupid administrators from installing programs
that embed themselves into the kernel and have many bugs
that crashes the kernel and thusly the machine".
>
> Please note that I am not denying the bug is in pcAnywhere.
> Symantec has admitted to the problem and they have a fix.
>
> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
> Protection" does for me.
Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
there's no system files to protect.
Want me to explain 2 + 2 to you too?
> If any application requires modification of operating system
> files, device drivers etc then that should not be done in a
> clandestine manner. That's the key point. Instead, Windows 2000
> should require the end-user to explicitly launch an "OS Updater"
> utility to modify the system files.
<sigh> It's not updating the system files, it's installing a driver.
What's so hard about this distinction? Do linux drivers directly
install themselves into the kernel and "merge" with the kernel
forever? No. Do they replace all the libs? No. Why would you
think that it would in this case?
> Random applications should not be allowed to trash the OS.
Agreed. However, how is the OS supposed to differentiate
between a "good" kernel driver and a "bad" kernel driver?
The answer: The admin. You shouldn't install buggy software.
So don't install any Symantec products.
You should also test, on a dev server, new software to understand
any complications that may occurr, should the software have bugs.
> I was previously under the impression that "System File
> Protection" allows me to install and try out applications of
> unknown quality, without fear of corrupting the OS. Now I
> know better.
It works, really well, actually. However, since PCAnywhere is
merely installing itself as a driver, it's not modifying
system files.
> "System File Protection" is a sham.
SFP has nothing to do with PCAnywhere, so on what grouns do you
claim it's sham? On the "speaking out of ass" grounds?
If you're going to troll, at least have half a fscking clue
what you're talking about.
*PL0NK*
-Chad
------------------------------
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 16:40:04 -0500
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Such as? Can you document some of these "single-user assumptions" and some
of the problems they caused?
I maintain that NT was written from the ground up to be a multiuser OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
