Linux-Advocacy Digest #445, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: IE on UNIX (Michael Wand)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Michael Wand)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Michael Wand)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Drestin Black")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Darren Winsper)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Greg Yantz)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Linux sales. (John Culleton)
Verwirrung (Borgardt)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Donovan
Rebbechi)
prepare Income Tax under Linux? (Jon Claerbout)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (John Culleton)
Re: IE on UNIX (John Culleton)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: 29 Feb 2000 21:24:06 +0100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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...)
It works with NT, too, if you get the msshaver.dll Version 5.2.101.7
(which will prevent your hair dryer from working), reboot your system
and change the registry key \HKEY_WHATEVER\SHAVERS\TVXD\RCD3567248\
D4378932795VF\value to 32 (don't forget to reboot).
Having done this, you may just put the driver cd in your PC (which will
start automatically, spreading some more viruses on your system),
install the drivers and utilities and reboot. By the way, before installing,
you should reboot to make sure no system library is changed that is
currently in use.
I hope your shaver works well.
Michael
--
Looking for a good, interesting signature for work in various places
of the Usenet. English language required.
Please send applies to [EMAIL PROTECTED], including information about your
former work and your salary expectations.
------------------------------
From: Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 29 Feb 2000 22:36:13 +0100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 a Unix-based solution. A good admin will choose not only a
good, but the *very best* system for every task. As all Unices have
a common base (I don't mean codebase), they are easy to mix.
> Reason #1029102 to migrate homatil.com to Windows2000 - end-to-end
> solutions
I could tell many things about the consequences of integration of
apps in the OS, as I had to cope with.
> --
> Chad Myers
Michael Wand
> --
> Have you recompiled your kernel today?
No, but I could do it, which YOU can't do.
--
Looking for a good, interesting signature for work in various places
of the Usenet. English language required.
Please send applies to [EMAIL PROTECTED], including information about your
former work and your salary expectations.
------------------------------
From: Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 29 Feb 2000 22:14:46 +0100
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ Hotmail without NT ]
> > The lesson here is: If you run Solaris and do something remotely
> > similar to Hotmail, you don't need NT ...
>
> I do not agree.
Let's do it step by step. Begin with question 1 and answer true or false.
Continue with the given number.
1. Hotmail is not mainly running NT, i.e. they are running other OS's.
[ ] TRUE -> 3 [ ] FALSE -> 2
2. You lose.
3. Microsoft could easily have ported Hotmail to NT, if they had *really*
wanted.
[ ] TRUE -> 5 [ ] FALSE -> 4
4. If Microsoft cannot do a migration in more than one year, who else
can do it? Who might even think of using an OS that needs two
years to migrate to?
You lose.
5. Microsoft did not want to port Hotmail to NT.
[ ] TRUE -> 7 [ ] FALSE -> 6
6. So why didn't they. You lose.
7. Hotmail runs well with what is running now.
[ ] TRUE -> 9 [ ] FALSE -> 8
8. I don't believe you. You lose.
9. You don't need NT to run Hotmail.
[ ] TRUE -> 11 [ ] FALSE -> 10
10. You've cheated, for you agreed to (1) and (7). You lose.
11. You have won! Congratulations!
> > > But, again, what is the point? So, we announce: Hotmail
> > > is running W2K and is now faster than ever before.
> >
> > And the W2k licenses alone cost more than the old licenses *plus*
> > hardware, not to mention that you need 5 times the machines?
>
> License cost is not a concern to MS - wouldn't you think? :)
But to other people, wouldn't you think? MS has to convince *other*
people of buying their products.
> I applaud you for not being a typical sing-a-long anti-MS type. However,
ACK. AOL (== me too).
> W2K isn't perfect. Nothing is. NT4 was good. W2K is much better. VERY much
> better. It can still be better. It has bugs, like any software ever written.
Yes. Yes. For some tasks. I hope so. If it isn't, Microsoft won't get a
second chance easily. Yes. Yes.
(etc.)
Bye,
Michael
--
Looking for a good, interesting signature for work in various places
of the Usenet. English language required.
Please send applies to [EMAIL PROTECTED], including information about your
former work and your salary expectations.
------------------------------
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 16:41:44 -0500
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
A run? Well, lets say competition is good for everyone. But, I don't see
Intel very afraid of AMD at this point. I like the AMD chips, don't get me
wrong, but let's not just bang the drums for AMD just because they are the
underdog.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:45:01 -0500
"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.
>
> What happened to the much touted "System File Protection"?
SFP has NOTHING to do with the problem . NO system files are overwritten or
corrupted. There is no DLL hell. SFP does NOT apply. What DOES apply is that
Symantec, in version 8 had code in their video takeover that performed big
no-nos in the new W2K driver model (that and some more goofs in their
symevnt libraries (yes, again)). Again, all Symantec's fault. AND, they did
patch 8 and version 9 does not have these problems.
>
> Please note that I am not denying the bug is in pcAnywhere.
> Symantec has admitted to the problem and they have a fix.
Thank you.
>
> 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.
Then you have been misinformed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: 1 Mar 2000 05:53:30 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:47:34 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? Well, goody for you. Unlike myself who has found that particular
> improvements in memory management in Win98 ad improvements in drivers
> overall has helped W98 outperform W95 on any benchmark or real world test I
> could find. Of course, provided the hardware in the first place is decent
> enough to run W98. Yes, W98 on your mothers 486 is slower than W95 - but why
> do we wanna talk about that?
I seem to remember you having a disliking of anecdotal evidence.
Perhaps you would care to point to some more 'official' evidence.
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:01:47 -0600
Of course, your simplistic and childish look at it blows
over several major points.
Oh yeah, and you're forgetting common sense.
1.) Why would Microsoft expend the effort, time and money to
port to NT when Windows2000 Win64 was coming out and Itanium
is coming out?
I mean, if they are going to do all this reengineering,
why not increase the performance? Why waste the time to make
a minor upgrade, when you could make a major upgrade with
a tad bit more effort?
3.) No one could've easily ported Hotmail to anything. In fact,
they didn't even easily write it in the first place, it
required a major overhaul of Slowaris, which I'm sure is not
any small task.
4.) If the potential benefits outweigh the benefits of sticking
(and hacking with) Slowaris, why not migrate? Two years of
migration to meet a long term goal is worth the effort over
staying with Slowaris and dealing with all it's problems.
7.) Of course it doesn't. It runs like crap because it's bandaided
together.
9.) You don't need Slowaris either.
--
Chad Myers
--
Have you recompiled your kernel today?
"Michael Wand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [ Hotmail without NT ]
>
> > > The lesson here is: If you run Solaris and do something remotely
> > > similar to Hotmail, you don't need NT ...
> >
> > I do not agree.
>
> Let's do it step by step. Begin with question 1 and answer true or false.
> Continue with the given number.
>
> 1. Hotmail is not mainly running NT, i.e. they are running other OS's.
>
> [ ] TRUE -> 3 [ ] FALSE -> 2
>
> 2. You lose.
>
> 3. Microsoft could easily have ported Hotmail to NT, if they had *really*
> wanted.
>
> [ ] TRUE -> 5 [ ] FALSE -> 4
>
> 4. If Microsoft cannot do a migration in more than one year, who else
> can do it? Who might even think of using an OS that needs two
> years to migrate to?
> You lose.
>
> 5. Microsoft did not want to port Hotmail to NT.
>
> [ ] TRUE -> 7 [ ] FALSE -> 6
>
> 6. So why didn't they. You lose.
>
> 7. Hotmail runs well with what is running now.
>
> [ ] TRUE -> 9 [ ] FALSE -> 8
>
> 8. I don't believe you. You lose.
>
> 9. You don't need NT to run Hotmail.
>
> [ ] TRUE -> 11 [ ] FALSE -> 10
>
> 10. You've cheated, for you agreed to (1) and (7). You lose.
>
> 11. You have won! Congratulations!
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:05:16 -0600
"Michael Wand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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 a Unix-based solution. A good admin will choose not only a
> good, but the *very best* system for every task. As all Unices have
> a common base (I don't mean codebase), they are easy to mix.
"common" but dissimilar. Now I have to learn n systems instead of
one or two systems. That's nice. Just what I need, a bunch of different
systems all with varrying strenghts and weaknesses and various
caveats to keep track off.
Why not just go with one "very best" system?
> > --
> > Have you recompiled your kernel today?
>
> No, but I could do it, which YOU can't do.
I don't NEED to. I don't have the daily root-compromising security
patches to apply.
-Chad
----
Linux and Slowaris: Which eCommerce site do you want to DDoS today?
------------------------------
From: Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:12:45 GMT
If you read Sony's roadmap they plan to make low cost workstations based
off of the EE2. An EE1 is terribly cheap compared to a P3 or G4 and it
is around 2x faster at floating point than either of them. That of
course is a 300mhz EE compared to a 600mhz P3 and I can't remember what
speed G4. Correct me if I am wrong about the G4, it might've been a G3.
An EE running at 500mhz-1gz would be insanely fast though and no x86
system would be able to match its FP performance for at least another
year. The EE was designed for FP, not integer. It sucks at integers.
Todd wrote:
>
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > HDTV+Playstation3 will be the thing to beat for PC's and Macs. That
> > combo will be sooooo fast and gorgeous.
>
> By the time the PS3 + HDTV + network connects + everything else that makes a
> PC a PC, you are going to be spending more money on that system than a PC!
>
> And, you can still do other things with a PC as well...
>
> -Todd
>
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Todd Kepus writes:
> > >
> > > > How high can HDTV's go in terms of resolution? PC gamers are now
> pushing
> > > > 1600x1280 with GeForce based cards... the new Voodoo's will go even
> > > > higher...
> > > >
> > > > I find it hard to believe that HDTV's are going to have this kind of
> > > > resolution *and* be as clear as computer monitors need to be.
> > >
> > > Why do you find it so hard to believe, Todd? Perhaps you should read
> > > up on HDTV.
> >
> > --
> > You say it's cool to be yourself,
> > but you want me to be like you
> > and that is not being myself
> > http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
--
You say it's cool to be yourself,
but you want me to be like you
and that is not being myself
http://digitalheresy.tripod.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Feb 2000 17:15:29 -0500
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Michael Wand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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 a Unix-based solution. A good admin will choose not only a
> > good, but the *very best* system for every task. As all Unices have
> > a common base (I don't mean codebase), they are easy to mix.
Having more than one way to do something is GOOD.
> "common" but dissimilar. Now I have to learn n systems instead of
> one or two systems. That's nice. Just what I need, a bunch of different
> systems all with varrying strenghts and weaknesses and various
> caveats to keep track off.
You don't have to know *everything* to make reasonable choices.
> Why not just go with one "very best" system?
Because there is no such thing. You *could* go with NT but that gets you
a mediocre one-size-fits-all solution that doesn't do ANYTHING
especially well, and signs away your future to vendor lock, to boot.
> I don't NEED to. I don't have the daily root-compromising security
> patches to apply.
Prompt bugfixes are somehow *bad*? Or would you rather buy product
from a vendor that describes major security flaws as features, as
part of the design, and choose not to fix them?
-Greg
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:15:50 -0500
petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> What makes you think that pcANYWHERE is strictly an
>> application?
>
>Because pcAnywhere installs just like any other application.
>
Which is how, exactly?
>
>What happened to the much touted "System File Protection"?
>
What system files were lost?
>
>If pcAnywhere [...] installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
>should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install.
>
Are you seriously suggesting that Win2K should never allow the
installation of device drivers?
>
>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.
>
Again, what system files were modified?
By the way, no version of Unix can stop a user with sufficient
privilege from trashing the OS completely. Does that mean Unix is
fundamentally flawed?
>
>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.
>
How did you get this impression? A link would be nice.
>
>Now I know better.
>
>"System File Protection" is a sham.
>
Again, what system files were lost?
>>
>> 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.
>
Of course not. Setuid-root apps can take down the kernel, but they're
certainly not part of it.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux sales.
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:22:20 -0800
Linux is always free. You can pay for a CDROM for convenience
sake. I never have.
John Culleton
* 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: Borgardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Verwirrung
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:18:10 +0100
was ist hier denn los?????
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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 22:27:19 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:27:42 -0600, Chad Myers wrote:
>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.
This is already done somewhat informally through mailing lists. KDE and
GNOME have mailing lists where end users can talk about their concerns.
The idea of involving users this much is relatively new. The FSF had a
somewhat more aloof approach. To sum it up, it is changing, and this
seems to reflect in the improvements that KDE and GNOME have made over
traditional UNIX desktops and applications.
>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.
I think this is why there is a pace for proprietary software. The users
should always have the option of purchasing payware. I don't know if you've
been following a somewhat heated copyright debate, but I've been arguing
the case for copyright law in a fairly long thread...
>Many people are not being served if all code is only written to serve
>developers.
The KDE and GNOME projects are not just written to serve developers. Even
the development tools are there to help developers write applications that
ordinary people can use ( as opposed to applications that would have the users
resort to "pipeline wizardry" )
>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.
There's a problem with this reasoning. It's not so black and white. There
are people using Linux, despite the fact that it doesn't have every feature
they need. So they get onto these user mailing lists and start griping.
Pretty soon, the developer works out that the users want (X) and they
add (X) into the application.
>And because they don't get feedback,
Nice theory. Completely wrong in practice. Hell, I was able to get
unsolicited feedback on a 100 line perlscript that I posted on the web.
And I've had enough feedback to sink the ship with the font HOWTO that
I wrote. I've followed the KDE mailing lists, and those guys also get
a ton of feedback.
>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.
Actually, making a mailing list for users is usually enough.
>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.
This is the kind of problem that KDE/QT has been addressing.
>offering constructive criticism. Usability is a big thing, and it's
>being overlooked in a big way.
I don't believe it is. It certainly *was* overlooked for some time, because
in the earlier days of Linux development, there were more pressing concerns.
For example, it's pointless to try making the OS "user friendly" unless
you've got a decent GUI toolkit. QT and GTK started up some time in 1996,
two years after the first release of Linux. There were other things that
needed addressing in the early days such as hardware support, and package
management.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Jon Claerbout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: prepare Income Tax under Linux?
Date: 29 Feb 2000 22:27:39 GMT
How can I prepare my income taxes with nothing but Linux and Netscape?
I tried Intuit,
but they tell me to make pdf work as as a Netscape plug-in.
I did not succeed with that.
Have you guys found any solutions?
Or are we back to Win95 again this year :-(
--
o ~
_-'\_ ~ Jon Claerbout: jon @ sep.stanford.edu
(*)<(*) ~ http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:32:21 -0800
If you don't want RedHat for the reasons stated, try Slackware.
BTW I have never "bought" Linux, I always download what I need
from some friendly site. Slackware allows you to pick and choose
what you install.
John Culleton
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:40:55 -0800
BASIC was designed in the 60's at Dartmouth College (University?)
to teach students programming logic. It was an interactive
system, which was an innovation in that batch processing era. The
originators never intended it to be used for anything other than
teaching program logic to students in that pre-structured
programming era. It was essentially a simplified FORTRAN.
John Culleton
* 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 1 Mar 2000 06:46:07 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:53 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From an article dated 8-31-99
>
> "Intel produced the first Merced silicon two weeks ago, and is now shipping
> engineering samples of the processor to its OEM customers, the company
> announced. "
>
> This was over 9 months ago,
OK, let's assume the first Merced silicon appeared mid-August. Now,
it's the beginning of March i.e. around 6.5 months. 9 months ago it
was June.
--
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
