Linux-Advocacy Digest #481, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 19:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (Chad Irby)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Donn Miller)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Donn Miller)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Mark Robinson)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Stefan
Ohlsson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:02:40 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 21:34:43 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:52:31 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 2 Mar 2000 20:40:34 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Shared code is certainly preferable but not necessary.
>>
>> It's not like we're talking about reimplementing OpenGL from
>> scratch here.
>
>The problem is that the absence of shared code makes life harder
>for the user.
No it doesn't. Vendor stupidity makes life harder for the
end user. Lack of a proper API only makes life hard for
applications vendors that can't quite manage by themselves
or won't bother.
>
>> Compared to the rest of the coding going on in
>> some of the larger everything-and-the-kitchen-sink apps, a
>> font print renderer is not such a huge burden.
>
>You would need to re-write both the display and print parts, unless
>you're willing to print at screen resolutions. In other words, you are
>essentially suggesting that the developers replace the font handling
>function of the X server in their applications. This is not only very
>difficult ( especially if you want to maintain network transparency ),
>it involves a lot of low level programming.
What, are these guys secretaries to be coddled? Really...
[deletia]
The lack of a standard font print rasterizer is NOT an
excuse for what commercial Unix app coders put their
users through wrt fonts.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:03:26 GMT
The fact that it automatically finds the redundant files
is nice. Also I'll bet the feature maintains two logically
distinct files, so if you edit 'one' of them, a separate copy
is made (this is different than links).
The text-to-speech feature could be nice too, although
my amiga 500 had that, too. Let's hope it's much improved.
Can you believe this statement about Single Instance Store, though?
"The result is a feature that frees up as much as 80 to 90 percent of
the space on a server, allowing users to store as much as five to 10
times the information as they could before."
That is just ridiculous. Surely they studied this issue before
implementing this feature, and now they claim that 80 to 90 percent
of files are identical to at least one other file?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dave Pitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello:
>
> In a press release from Micro$oft they mentioned that their
> R&D people, at the "Redmond Home for the Addeled" after
> wetting themselves, "Discovered" that disk space can be
> saved through the use of links. Who would have thought?
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 2 Mar 2000 23:10:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2000 02:23:29 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
>[ largely sensible stuff snipped ]
>
>Hey Mark, you actually sound reasonably intelligent when you talk about
>political theory instead of usenet conspiracy theory ...
Wow, talk about "faint praise"...
I take it that what you mean by "usenet conspiracy theory"
is the strong suspicion I've expressed that the high-volume
propagandists like Chad Myers and "Drestin Black" are being
paid, probably indirectly, by Microsoft to post their many
hundreds of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux articles every month.
A conspiracy is simply people working together to do some-
thing harmful and not announcing the details of their
collaboration publicly. This happens to be the way almost
*all* harmful activities are carried out by businesses in
our society.
The term "conspiracy theory" is applied as a disparaging,
invalidating label, generally by Right-wing propagandists
against people who research and publicize covert Right-wing
operations. The labelling is intended to prevent the public
from accessing the information that such researchers provide.
Of course, after the Iran-Contra and Iraqgate conspiracies
were documented beyond any possibility of doubt, these
attempts at invalidation don't carry much weight, at least
among people who make the effort to inform themselves on
these matters.
As to your reason for trying to keep people from thinking
about a connection between Microsoft and the spammers,
perhaps it comes from a misplaced and very overextended
attempt to "give them the benefit of the doubt", in spite
of a great deal of circumstantial evidence to the contrary.
But you are making progress. You recently wrote, in response
to Jeff Szarka, a lying pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
spammer of long standing:
] And the very fact that I am running semi modern hardware
] with Linux proves that your statement is a lie ( I would
] have merely said "your statement is false" but when you
] repeat a false statement after it has been refuted, it
] becomes a "lie". )
That's telling it like it is, Donovan! Apparently even
you have gotten fed up with the flood of lies posted by
the spammer gang on behalf of Microsoft, and you're not
gonna take it any more. Good for you!
>>So GNU/Open Source/GPL is similar to true communism, not to
>>capitalism nor to the Russian/Chinese state capitalist system.
>
>Well sort of yes, sort of no. The main difference is that participation
>in these software communities is entirely voluntary.
We're drawing an analogy here, and that's always a matter of
interpretation, but once someone distributes software that's
based on GPL'ed sources, participation in the subsequent
sharing process is *not* voluntary, it's mandated by the GPL.
Regarding the issue of voluntarism in general, I personally
favor a social-democratic system, in which capitalist
businesses are regulated to prevent them from doing harm,
and in particular are limited in the degree of exploitation
they can practice. For example, a limit is placed on the
ratio of the highest to lowest salary (including benefits)
that they can pay. So the CEO can't make more than, say,
thirty times what he pays the mail boy. There's also a
robust public sector, financed by a sharply graduated income
or wealth tax, to provide the necessities that business,
for lack of profit, will not.
>A capitalist could
>justify giving their software away as a voluntary act. They may see the
>software as an asset that they have every right to hoard, but choose
>to give it up.
Well, they *could*, but such an action would be completely
unrelated, and even counter to the way businesses function
under capitalism. That's not the way the owners make their
profits.
I guess that brings us to companies like Red Hat. I don't
know whether to categorize them as service companies that
give away the software as a promotion, or anarcho-syndicalist
communes fiendishly disguised as capitalist corporations
to burrow from within and BRING THE SYSTEM DOWN!!!
(Gotta get some lunch, I think my blood sugar is low... 8^)
>>Yes, except that Communism Russian style is simply *not*
>>communism in any respect except the name. The use of that
>>name by the controlling class of that system is simply
>>a lie designed to induce people to obey.
>
>An interesting fact about China -- the second biggest name as far as the
>Chinese are concerned ( after Marx, of course ) is Plato. If you know what
>Plato stood for ( essentially, he was an aristocrat and in favour of
>a totalitarian rule by supposedly "enlightened" philosopher-kings )
>this will sound somewhat contradictory, but when you look at their
>government, you can see how they get it to work ( they take the worst of
>each and combine them ;-)
Interesting! So they use Plato's elitest model to justify
their own non-democratic oligarchy.
>BTW, you're dead right about the Chinese. There are entrepreneurs there,
>but the government essentially decides who can and can't be an entrepreneur.
>It's certainly not communist, it's more like a state capitalist economy
>with some pseudo-private business enterprise ( ie the systems rigged
>to give easy money to the business ventures of the leaders and their cronies )
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:57:11 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:06:20 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Show me an x86 system with more than 4 processors please. Win2k doesn't
>support Alpha or PPC therefore it can't run on more than 4 processors
>right now.
Linux vendors sell such systems.
>
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> > >Ouch! Looks like you missed the windows 2000 launch.
>> > >You should head to MS and view the video of the event.
>> > >You'll see a live demo where they fire up a 16 processor
>> > >unisys box and run an application on it with 8 processors.
>> > >Then
>> >
>> > That's interesting.
>> >
>> > The version of NT5 that was realeased then hasn't been
>> > advertising that capability. Neither has the version
>> > that will eventually be called 'Datacenter'.
>>
>> Yes, both of them have.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/
>> default.asp
>>
>> (URL wrapped for readability, sorry)
>>
>> Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
>>
>> Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
>>
>> Windows 2000 DC Server supporst 16GB (I believe?) and
>> 32 processors
>>
>> > Not to mention those TPC/C benchmarks that are still being
>> > done on 4-cpu boxes.
>>
>> What? Man, do you even try to review your statements for
>> truth before you state them?
>>
>> That's completely wrong. The Compaq Proliant 8500 has
>> 8 processors.
>>
>> 12 Compaq Proliant 8500s, 96 processors total.
>>
>> What's 96/12? Yes, that's right. 8.
>>
>> > A dog and pony show, or some docttored video doesn't
>> > really prove anything.
>>
>> Heh... man, you guys really are something. I bet you
>> watch X files because "it's so real life".
>>
>> -Chad
>
>--
>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
>--
>Mac and Windows users, make some free cash:
>http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HRK719
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 22:54:45 GMT
"LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to mention that the best HDTV's are still grainy, have large pixel
> size and do not have as good a picture quality as a good
> monitor.
> HDTV still requires you to sit several yards/meters away to get an
> acceptable picture.
A real HDTV system (instead of the cheap, pseudo-HDTV that's sold in
places like Best Buy) is incredible. Of course, a CRT-based HDTV with a
.25 dot pitch would only need to be about 23" diagonal to get full res.
A larger CRT with .30 or .35 dot pitch could still handle native HDTV,
if it had the support circuitry to handle the frequencies.
But from the look of things, HDTV is going to be a projection game, not
a CRT or LCD one. It's actually cheaper to build a projection rig for
larger formats than it is to make CRTs that can handle the signal.
All they have to do is get the resolution up to scratch on the Texas
Instruments DLP setups, and a shoebox-sized projector that can hang from
the ceiling and put a six foot HDTV signal on the wall should run about
a thousand bucks... (I met some guys who are working on this very thing
at InfoComm this year).
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:17:47 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> I take it that what you mean by "usenet conspiracy theory"
> is the strong suspicion I've expressed that the high-volume
> propagandists like Chad Myers and "Drestin Black" are being
> paid, probably indirectly, by Microsoft to post their many
> hundreds of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux articles every month.
I thought Chad Mulligan was really Bill Gates. To me, Mulligan had
the same exact temperament as Bill G. himself. He really did act a
lot like Bill Gates, don't you think? Like, when you brought up TCO
-- he got all pissed off and stuff... This sounds like something Bill
would do if you brought up TCO.
Maybe Mulligan was really Billy in the flesh, and he was coordinating
the activities of all these other paid Microsoft guys. =)
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:10:20 GMT
On 02 Mar 2000 14:50:17 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
>> On 2 Mar 2000 20:40:34 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:45:06 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >>On 2 Mar 2000 15:28:04 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>The main problem with Linux apps is that you either can't (easily) add new
>> >>>fonts, or it doesn't print the right fonts reliably. Try adding some TrueType
>> >>>fonts and get them to display and print with Ted. This is not a problem
>> >>>with each and every app, it's a problem with the way UNIX works.
>> >>
>> >> Actually this IS a problem with each and every app.
>> >
>> >No, it is not. You don't even understand the problem, yet you argue. This is
>> >the kind of thing that should be implemented only once, not once in every
>> >application, but once, period. The reason is that I only want to install fonts
>> >once, not once into every application.
>>
>> Shared code is certainly preferable but not necessary.
>
>Will you give this tired argument up already, Jedi?
>
>You've been saying this for years now.
My font madness phase hit about 1989. Past that point, I
really haven't been impressed much by most of these font
arguments. Furthermore, I was never that impressed by TT
fonts to begin with.
>
>> It's not like we're talking about reimplementing OpenGL from
>> scratch here. Compared to the rest of the coding going on in
>> some of the larger everything-and-the-kitchen-sink apps, a
>> font print renderer is not such a huge burden.
>
>Then why has it proven so difficult.
>
>Thankfully, the gnome-print people (who are talking with VA about
>their spooling system) don't think this way.
Of course they think this way. They're doing what obviously
could have been done by any other X coder over the last 15
years. There's no magic voodoo in gnome-print that couldn't
have been implemented by others, shared or not.
They're actually bothering to implement a font renderer.
>
>> >> As monsterous
>> >> as some apps are, a decent font rendering subsystem wouldn't be
>> >> that much more of a burden.
>> >
>> >It has nothing to do with "font rendering subsystems". It's about matching
>> >printer fonts to screen fonts. The main problem is that each application
>> >has to do its own X11 font <-> outline/metric file mapping. Having every
>> >application do this is hardly an acceptable answer.
>>
>> Whynot? There are certain classes of applications, even on
>> Win32 or MacOS that constantly re-invent things that would
>> typically be considered bits of the core API.
>
>Hmmm, n applications times n printers = n^2 combinations.
>
>Nice and simple. Yep.
You're confusing a renderer with the spooler spooler (probably again).
>
>> >The users do not want to have to reinstall[1] all of their fonts every
>> >time they install a new application. One would hope for some kind of
>> >infrastructure to handle this sort of thing.
>>
>> That's more an application issue. The font paths and the fonts
>> themselves are available to any application that cares to use
>> them.
>
>Wow! Let me use your system.
>
>I'd love to be able to use TeX, Type1 and TrueType fonts in all my
>applications. It's just an "application issue" and not a big deal,
>right? (wrong)
Where do I get to tell NT or MacOS I want to use some TeX fonts?
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:12:58 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:27:50 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What the press release doesn't quite adequately say is that this is a
>transparent process that happens in the background. Links are not created
>manually, the OS finds identical duplicate files and coalesces them into a
>single file with links without any user interaction.
Yep, it's going to second guess you. That should be real fun.
>
>Moreover, it does this without effecting system performance through a new
>method that allows non-important tasks to run without taking any resources
>from more important ones (and we're not just talking nice here. Even niced
Actually, nice can buy you quite alot all by itself.
>programs can interfere with interactive tasks. We're talking about the
>program really noticing that more system activity is going on and giving up
>it's run-time until the system becomes idle again).
>
That just sounds so 'classic MacOS'.
>Dave Pitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hello:
>>
>> In a press release from Micro$oft they mentioned that their
>> R&D people, at the "Redmond Home for the Addeled" after
>> wetting themselves, "Discovered" that disk space can be
>> saved through the use of links. Who would have thought?
>> Think anybody ought to mention to them that links have
>> been around for MANY years in Unix systems? Think that
>> they'll try to patent the idea?
>>
>> The press release URL for your amusment is:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/02-28w2k.asp
>>
>> --
>> Dave Pitts PULLMAN: Travel and sleep in safety and
>comfort.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] My other RV IS a Pullman (Colorado Pine).
>> http://www.dknsolutions.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 2 Mar 2000 23:28:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
>> I take it that what you mean by "usenet conspiracy theory"
>> is the strong suspicion I've expressed that the high-volume
>> propagandists like Chad Myers and "Drestin Black" are being
>> paid, probably indirectly, by Microsoft to post their many
>> hundreds of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux articles every month.
>
>I thought Chad Mulligan was really Bill Gates. To me, Mulligan had
>the same exact temperament as Bill G. himself. He really did act a
>lot like Bill Gates, don't you think? Like, when you brought up TCO
>-- he got all pissed off and stuff... This sounds like something Bill
>would do if you brought up TCO.
>
>Maybe Mulligan was really Billy in the flesh, and he was coordinating
>the activities of all these other paid Microsoft guys. =)
"Chad Mulligan" was certainly vicious and arrogant, so that
fits. It's a shame I didn't tape the threatening phone call
he made to me. If it really was Gates, it might have been
worth money, one way or another. 8^)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: 2 Mar 2000 18:31:10 -0500
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The idea of "DNS integration with Directory" was vaguely described
>> in a memo written by a Microsoft employee before the release
>> of W2K:
>> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html
>> It was supposed to be part of a Microsoft strategy to rid the
>> Internet of free software.
>As opposed to the Linux-types' strategy to rid the Internet of
>useful software?
>Give me a break.
The authors of Linux and other free software aren't trying to rid
the Internet of anything.
--
Have you re-installed your operating system today?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:39:54 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Maybe Mulligan was really Billy in the flesh, and he was coordinating
> >the activities of all these other paid Microsoft guys. =)
>
> "Chad Mulligan" was certainly vicious and arrogant, so that
> fits. It's a shame I didn't tape the threatening phone call
> he made to me. If it really was Gates, it might have been
> worth money, one way or another. 8^)
You mean "Chad Mulligan" actually called your house?? What'd you do,
mention the word TCO? ;-) That was a sure fire way to piss off
Ozonis, I mean, Mulligan. Don't tell me you insulted his cute wittle
NT 4.0?
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:51:59 GMT
Jon wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2000 19:53:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:52:16 GMT,
> > Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:20:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > [2038]
> > > > I am not sure that I care about this one, it is 37 years away. In 37
> > > > years, 64 bit computers will be obsolete.
> >
> > > This is precisely the logic that *created* the Y2k problem.
> >
> > Yep, but it's not applicable ...
> >
> > > Thinking that the problem will go away by itself due to software
> > > or hardware obsolesence is a huge mistake.
> >
> > How many machines do *you* know that are in active use today
> > *and* were so 15,20,30 years ago?
>
> 2 that I've worked with personally. There are thousands of
> others... witness the demand for Cobol programmers that occured
> in 1999.
>
> > Also the 2038-problem differs because it is Not There on 64bit
> > machines with any semi-well written software (which uses the time
> > struct). Thus, repair means just a recompile on a 64bit machine.
> > Since you'll have to recompile anyway, there's no problem.
>
> This assumes the hardware will be replaced. This is not always
> true. Take XYZ Corp. who just invested $UmpteenMillion in their
> new WhizBang5000 Unix-based computer system. There's a *very*
> good chance that system will still be there in 2038, operating
> all of XYZ Corp.'s critical accounting and MRP functions. Why
> replace it? It cost a whole lotta cash and it still works just
> fine. Beside that, how would XYZ explain to their investors that
> they need to spend $UmpteenMillions times 2 to buy an all new
> system, just because their old multimillion dollar machine can't
> figure out what year it is?
>
> Jon
This assumes the that the WhizBang5000 is not already 64bit+. If it's not
they were ripped off. If it is they'll be fine.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 3 Mar 2000 00:59:01 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>C'mon, quit dicking with me. It's obvious, and if you
>can't see it than either you're too blinded by your
>anti-MS hate, or you just aren't that observant.
>
>It's going to cost lots of money to migrate anyhow.
>
Yep. Rewriting software to another platform always cost money,
time, or both.
>It's costing them lots of money to operate in its
>current, bandaided state.
>
Excuse me, but how do you know that?
>They have to migrate to something, sometime.
>Obviously, they want to migrate it to Windows2000.
>
That's quite understandable :)
>When they got hotmail, Win2K wasn't too far off
>in the distance.
>It doesn't make any sense to migrate it to NT,
>only to turn around and move it to Win2K.
>
How much different are NT from W2k really, from a programmer's POV?
>Well, now that Win2K is out, why not move it?
>Well the biggest and best Win2K has yet to be
>released: Win2K Datacenter server.
>
Myself I wonder why they make so many different versions of
one product.
>Likewise, the Itanium is close to release, so
>why not hedge the best until both are released,
>migrate the whole sucker to the best, and baddest
>platform and be done with it?
>It's common sense, really.
>
If, in the computer market, you wait for the better thing just around
the corner you will wait forever. Tere's always something better
available around the corner.
Shouldn't we wait for the IA-128 or -256 even? :)
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Presidental Campaign Solgans-- "Picard - Make it so."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
