Linux-Advocacy Digest #506, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Timberwoof)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Andy Newman)
Re: which OS is best? (Bob Lyday)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Aaron J Reichow)
Re: Linux Developer survey ("Chad McCullough")
Re: Linux is a lamer ("Dirk Gently")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
how? (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=C0=EE=CE=E4?=)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: which OS is best? (George Marengo)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Drestin Black")
Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace" ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Drestin Black")
Re: Dell picks Linux over Windows 2000 for dellhost.com ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux for the Navy (Matt Gaia)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Hexdump)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 19:04:33 -0800
In article <e2iw4.186$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "LP"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mike Timbol wrote:
> > >
> > > In case anyone actually cares, the reason for this (on Windows) is
> > > that
> > > the 256 colors are not a fixed set of colors -- programs are allowed
> > > to
> > > change the color palette to something more suitable to their needs.
> > >
> > > In general, there are 16 "fixed" colors, which are supposed to be the
> > > same in any color palette. These are the colors that are usually
> > > used
> > > for the icons.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure how the Mac works, because there's no guarantee that the
> > > 256 colors in one icon are going to be the same 256 colors used in
> > > the
> > > other icons. On the other hand, maybe the 256 colors on the Mac are
> > > fixed, and can't be changed, which means all the icons *would* use
> > > the same palette.
> >
> > Icons can use any 256 colors, and they are displayed using their
> > closest
> > approximation with the colors available on the current palette.
>
> "their closest approximation with teh colors available on the current
> palette".
>
> You mean displayed incorrectly.
What do you want? The correct colors aren't available. Oh, you want
icons limited to 16 colors and those colors reserved in the palette so
that the palette in turn is limited to 240 colors instead of 256, which
makes whatever used that palette even less correct than before.
--
Timberwoof; woofy<at>infernosoft<dot>com; http://www.infernosoft.com
Christians should have the same right to post the Ten Commandments in public
schools that the Buddhists have to post the Eightfold Path or that the Pagans
have to post the Wheel of the Year.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 12:15:21 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Ross wrote:
>Fonts suck, even with TrueType fonts (need antialiasing).
This is the only point you make that is a result of the X11 design.
Someone needs to define a protocol extension for rendered glyphs
that includes support for anti-aliasing (using the "over" compositing
operator with translucency support so they blend into the background
properly).
These,
>2D/3D performance sucks (on XFree86 3.3 series anyway)
>Copy, paste works only half the time.
>Drag and drop, forget about it.
>Xserver traffic making scroll, resizing slow for big apps.
>Resolution change requires Xserver restart.
are implementation or toolkit issues. As Jim Gettys pointed out
X11 is a layer on which you build GUIs. Comparing raw X11 to things
like the Win32 controls is wrong, you should compare X11 to the GDI
layer if anything.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 19:25:40 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
George Marengo wrote:
>
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:39:13 -0800, Bob Lyday
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Eric Blair wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Is that why you used Windows 95 to post your reply??
> >
> >Maybe he is practically forced to like most everybody else.
>
> I can see how someone could feel they have no choice to run
> Windows if you're talking about work requirements, but that's
> not the case here. This is a Usenet posting in an advocacy
> group(s) -- please explain how anyone could be "forced"
> into using Windows to post to cola, coma, etc.
Hmmm, no apps, no drivers, no support, school mandates Windows s/w, hard
to get an ISP, hard to do online banking/accounting, reduced Internet
experience. Plus, bought a computer with Windows and due to proprietary
idiocy, now cannot put another OS on, and not being rich, can't afford a
new box.
I meet people all the time saying they hate Windows and feel like they
are practically forced to use it. They're all mistaken?
>
> >But a lot have to run it for business/work-related reasons.
>
> Absolutely -- now explain the post to advocate groups.
Hmmmm, uh, maybe they work from their homes like millions of people do?
>
> >Interesting. I remember when Lose95 first came out. It was hailed all
> >across the land as a wonderful, fantastic, revolutionary new OS that
> >they whole sane world would soon be adopting (remind anyone of
> >Lose2K hype?).
>
> While I agree with your impression of Win95 hype, the Win2K
> media coverage doesn't remind me of Win95 coverage at all.
> Almost everything I've read says that unless certain and specific
> conditions apply, just wait before going to Win2K. Conversely, the
> coverage for Win95 almost universally said there's no reason
> not to upgrade.
Uhhhhh, read the new PC Magazine and tell me if that is not an orgasmic
come-on for Win2K. Or Smart Computing. Or PC World. Or any of them.
One thing I am not reading is, "Hey, wait."
--
Bob
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ .. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
\_ U_/
------------------------------
From: Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 21:38:29 -0600
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Sal Denaro wrote:
Good post. I agree wholeheartedly with you.
> Adopting Linux would not erase Apple's borders. Linux is a kernel not a
> panacea.
Amen!
> Personally, I think that Apple would have a lot more to gain shipping WO
> for Linux than migrating OSX into OSlinuX. Not because I think Mach+BSD is
> better than Linux but because there isn't a big enough difference to matter
> and "Just being Linux" isn't enough to ensure success.
I think I'd be *great* to see WO (presumably only the deployment version,
and not development) on Linux, and think it'd be good for them, unless
they're planning on dropping Solaris and NT support and making it Mac OS X
only.
Why everyone insists that Apple switch to Linux is beyond me. There would
be almost no gain in doing so, and would set the whole project back by
along time. Avie knows Mach like the back of his hand; why bother with
Linux?
Aaron
------------------------------
From: "Chad McCullough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Developer survey
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 03:43:15 GMT
I agree.....Get lost.
No Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89ohno$p3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 01 Mar 2000 14:51:30 EST, Resarch said:
> >Hello,
> >We are an independent market research firm specializing in the software
> >development community.
> >
> > <deletia>
>
> No,no,no. You should have said: "we are a bunch of spammers specialized
> in the annoyance of the Linux community"
>
> Get lost.
------------------------------
From: "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 03:51:04 GMT
No. Over 10
--
Jeff Lacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Andrew Higgs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> They say that Linux is for people with an IQ over 95. Some of us now how
to set up a system.
>
> Ain't nobody going to rip me from my Slackware box.
>
> Kind regards
> Andrew Higgs
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > After a week of playing around with this Corel Linux shit I have gotten
my money back at
> > the local computer shop. I can't believe that they are trying to sell
shit like this.
> >
> > i agree with others in this club that Linux is really a total waste of
time.
> >
> > My suggestion is save your money, buy Windows and live your life instead
of dedicating it
> > to trying to make a system run.
> >
> > What a piece of junk this Linux is.
> >
> > BOOOOOOBBAAAAAAAAA
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:02:02 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > What's crashing the system is 'two X's' trying to bit bang the
> > > same hardware at once. That's a considerable difference.
> >
> > So Linux can't handle switching between video modes very well ?
>
> Come back after you've run 2 Direct3D games at the same time.
>
> [snip]
Oh - but I already have! I think you should revisit what you think NT is up
to...
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C0=EE=CE=E4?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: how?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 11:59:30 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi, all
i want to set my net card to promisc mode in linux. i know in kernel
2.2 and above , thers exist a new way that call setsockopt() to realize
it. but how?
give me some hints, or give me some code. thank you.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:03:26 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89mbim$1n6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Ever get 2 DirectX games running on NT at once?
>
> > sure, what's the big deal? UT and TA - one minimized while the other is
> > running... yawn...
>
> No. Both running AT THE SAME TIME. Not one "minimized". Both sharing
the
> same console at the same time, accessing the same hardware, both running,
> both being played.
>
> Because thats the equivalent of two X servers accessing the same hardware
> at the same time.
Yes, take your pick, one minimized and one full screen (how else could it
be) OR both in windows next to each other, overlapped or one on one monitor
and the other on another monitor, or how about both split between two
monitors stacked atop each other?
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: 5 Mar 2000 04:04:09 GMT
Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Why everyone insists that Apple switch to Linux is beyond me. There would
: be almost no gain in doing so, and would set the whole project back by
: along time. Avie knows Mach like the back of his hand; why bother with
: Linux?
Where is this "everyone"? In the last few months think I've been fairly
consistent in making comparisons to Linux without making recommendations.
As an illustration, here is snippet from a post I made on 1/10/2000:
"I think we are seeing an interesting and valuable differentiation in
the market. Apple is positioning itself as a vertically integrated
one-stop shop for ease-of-use, while Linux is spreading to create a
different kind of non-integrated and diverse platform.
I think there are valid reasons to chose each platform, but I think
we should be wary of miss-applications: people who choose Linux for
its ease-of-use, or people who choose Apple as a standards-based
platform. Linux can achieve some ease-of-use, and Apple will support
some standards, but in both cases it is not what they are built-for."
I think that is pretty close to what I have been saying today. Back when
Rhapsody (as it was then called) was having trouble getting traction I
might have leaned more towards Apple adopting a Linux solution. At this
point, they've long since made their play and have to carry it through.
The difference between that 1/10 post and today's is one of focus. In
January I was looking at the consumer benefit of having both choices: Mac
OS X and Linux. My subject today is why I personally find Linux to be
more interesting.
John
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 04:04:27 GMT
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 19:25:40 -0800, Bob Lyday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Marengo wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:39:13 -0800, Bob Lyday
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Eric Blair wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Is that why you used Windows 95 to post your reply??
>> >
>> >Maybe he is practically forced to like most everybody else.
>>
>> I can see how someone could feel they have no choice to run
>> Windows if you're talking about work requirements, but that's
>> not the case here. This is a Usenet posting in an advocacy
>> group(s) -- please explain how anyone could be "forced"
>> into using Windows to post to cola, coma, etc.
>
>Hmmm, no apps, no drivers, no support, school mandates Windows s/w,
>hard to get an ISP, hard to do online banking/accounting, reduced Internet
>experience. Plus, bought a computer with Windows and due to proprietary
>idiocy, now cannot put another OS on, and not being rich, can't afford a
>new box.
Oddly enough, most Linux advocates say that there are plenty of
drivers and plenty of apps. You're saying that's not true?
Hard to get an ISP? How hard could it be to get an ISP which allows
you to do your own TCP setup?
Hard to do online banking? Doesn't Linux have a 128 bit version of
Netscape?
Reduced Internet experience? Gosh, I haven't heard that one from
the Linux advocates either.
Can't figure out how to put another OS on the Windows machine?
Shouldn't be playing in advocacy groups if you can't figure that
one out.
>I meet people all the time saying they hate Windows and feel like
>they are practically forced to use it. They're all mistaken?
Of course not, but are those people praising Linux and bashing
Windows in advocacy groups while simultaneously lacking either
the brain power or will (or both) to install and actually use the OS
that they prefer?
>> >But a lot have to run it for business/work-related reasons.
>>
>> Absolutely -- now explain the post to advocate groups.
>
>Hmmmm, uh, maybe they work from their homes like millions of people do?
Certainly possible... but it's odd nonetheless to see total one-sided
comments posted via the hated platform.
>> >Interesting. I remember when Lose95 first came out. It was hailed all
>> >across the land as a wonderful, fantastic, revolutionary new OS that
>> >they whole sane world would soon be adopting (remind anyone of
>> >Lose2K hype?).
>>
>> While I agree with your impression of Win95 hype, the Win2K
>> media coverage doesn't remind me of Win95 coverage at all.
>> Almost everything I've read says that unless certain and specific
>> conditions apply, just wait before going to Win2K. Conversely, the
>> coverage for Win95 almost universally said there's no reason
>> not to upgrade.
>
>Uhhhhh, read the new PC Magazine and tell me if that is not an orgasmic
>come-on for Win2K. Or Smart Computing. Or PC World. Or any of them.
>One thing I am not reading is, "Hey, wait."
ZDNet discusses the downside: hardware and software that may not
work, hidden upgrade costs such as memory and training. Lastly, they
list alternatives, including Linux
http://www.zdnet.com/zdhubs/stories/special2000/0,9968,2429938-4,00.html
PCMag has always been a rah-rah MS pub. Nothing new.
I go to PCWorld and don't even see them discussing Win2K
http://www.pcworld.com/home/
I don't see InfoWorld doing much Win2K cheering:
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/02/07/000207opreed.xml
There's been an almost universal yawn in the media regarding Win2K,
especially if you compared it to Win95/98 releases.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:19:48 -0500
"mr_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 15:38:43 -0500, "Rick Bestany"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >> IIS is *awful
> >
> >
> >Could you clarify please?
> >
>
> Simple. Create a CGI program that allocates dynamic memory
> which terminates without freeing the memory.
>
> IIS pools the memory created by a CGI program. No matter how
> poorly a program has been written in regards to freeing memory,
> the memory should be freed upon program termination. This is not
> the case with IIS.
>
> One simple, but poorly written CGI can bring WSK and IIS down to
> its knees in a heart beat.
>
The funniest lies are the ones easiest to disprove and ignore...
hahahaha
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:33:53 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89mb1u$508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Can't quite tell which parts are satire and which are serious.
>
> I've heard reasonably good things about W2K's reliability as well, and
> hope those things prove to be correct, but I still won't purchase or
> recommend Microsoft software until Microsoft ceases and desists from
> unethical and/or criminal behavior (including but not limited to
> subverting formerly open standards such as Kerberos).
someone should sue this guy for his continued criminal behaviour claims.
of course, this Kerberos thing? MS just followed the standard and used a
field that was left for exactly the purpose they needed. They followed the
rules and obeyed the standards - too bad others can't read so well.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace"
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:35:31 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:56:47 -0000,
> Neil, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:89miqc$rnn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> The "truth" from Microsoft, posted very quickly by its
> >> faithful and diligent servant, Chad Myers.
> >>
> >> On the other hand...
> >
> >My understanding of the Kerberos situation, is that Microsoft have made
use
> >of a current aspect of "whitespace" in the spec, to add security
> >information, pertinent to the W2K environment to the ticket.
> >
> >Not fundamentally changing the manner in which Kerberos authenticates,
per
> >se, but adding info to an current undefined portion of the ticket, in a
> >similar method to that which they did to "tokens" in the previous NT
domain
> >model.
> >
> >Neil
> >
> >
>
> Except that they haven't released the documentation of what they
> did. "Embrace and Extend" at play.
You didn't finish your sentence: "haven't released teh documentation of what
they did yet."
...yet...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:37:16 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:89mdbo$un0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
> > and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> > reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
> > servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
> > pretty stable to me. Then, when I went to www.microsoft.com, the web
>
> That would sound stable to a MS user. To a Unix user 1 or 2 MONTHS is
> NOTHING! We Unix and Linux users expect and get up-time in YEARS!
Hmm... let's rephrase that. Instead of saying 3 months lets be equally
accurate and say:
It's been up and running since the day it was installed and has never ever
in it's entire run time crashed or rebooted for any reason. That sound more
linux like?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dell picks Linux over Windows 2000 for dellhost.com
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:38:07 -0500
"Timothy J. Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89malj$qol$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |Dell offers linux as a low cost alternative. You can see from the above
who
> |they trust for their own uses.
>
> Just like Microsoft Hotmail?
>
I'm sure ms doesn't use hotmail for it's own mail accounts eh? it's just an
aquired property.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:41:06 -0500
"Stanislav Kogan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >
> > "Just one amongst others." What others? Hotmail is a property owned by
MS,
> > yes. But, when someone buys property it does not always follow that they
> > will then immediately take and strip it down to it's very core (OS and
> > Application), rewrite it all over again and carry on. If they had wanted
to
> > do that, why not just build their own hotmail from the ground up? name
> > recognition is the answer to that. So, why convert at all? Let's put it
this
> > way: Not everything that MS owns or has shares in runs Windows on every
> > single screen - hotmail is not an exception either. Gates owns 51% of a
> > naval shipyard, I'm sure there are non-windows computers in that
operation
>
> Oh, you bring up an interesting story. The Cruiser story. (or should we
> call it "NT and division by zero"?)
Fortunately, just like the hotmail lies, "The Cruiser" story is inaccurate
as well.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:41:24 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:20:03 +1000,
> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Stanislav Kogan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Just one amongst others." What others? Hotmail is a property owned
by
> >MS,
> >> > yes. But, when someone buys property it does not always follow that
they
> >> > will then immediately take and strip it down to it's very core (OS
and
> >> > Application), rewrite it all over again and carry on. If they had
wanted
> >to
> >> > do that, why not just build their own hotmail from the ground up?
name
> >> > recognition is the answer to that. So, why convert at all? Let's put
it
> >this
> >> > way: Not everything that MS owns or has shares in runs Windows on
every
> >> > single screen - hotmail is not an exception either. Gates owns 51% of
a
> >> > naval shipyard, I'm sure there are non-windows computers in that
> >operation
> >>
> >> Oh, you bring up an interesting story. The Cruiser story. (or should we
> >> call it "NT and division by zero"?)
> >
> >Or perhaps "OSes can't save broken applications" ?
> >
> >
>
> Broken apps shouldn't crash the OS.
Fortunately they did not. whew!
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for the Navy
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:43:26 -0500
: http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/13987.html
Gotta love the quote from that article too:
"Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist
in the enterprise would be a topic appropriate for
an investigative report in the field of psychology
or marketing, not an article on information
technology," said John Kirch, a networking
consultant and Microsoft certified professional,
in his white paper, Microsoft Windows NT Server
4.0 versus Unix. "Technically, Windows NT
Server 4.0 is no match for any Unix operating
system."
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 05:05:46 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89s8qj$9mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89mbim$1n6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No. Both running AT THE SAME TIME. Not one "minimized". Both sharing
> the
> > same console at the same time, accessing the same hardware, both running,
> > both being played.
> >
> > Because thats the equivalent of two X servers accessing the same hardware
> > at the same time.
>
> Yes, take your pick, one minimized and one full screen (how else could it
> be) OR both in windows next to each other, overlapped or one on one monitor
> and the other on another monitor, or how about both split between two
> monitors stacked atop each other?
How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be useless,
I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
on two screens really provide?
<grin>
That's my below-the-belt Linux punch for today, since ya'll seem so eager
with your unfounded below-the-belt Windows punches =)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hexdump)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 5 Mar 2000 05:08:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:41:24 -0500, Drestin Black wrote:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:20:03 +1000,
>> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >
>> >"Stanislav Kogan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
>> >> Oh, you bring up an interesting story. The Cruiser story. (or should we
>> >> call it "NT and division by zero"?)
>> >
>> >Or perhaps "OSes can't save broken applications" ?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Broken apps shouldn't crash the OS.
>
>Fortunately they did not. whew!
>
>
I'm sure that would have been a great relief to everyone on board had this
happened during a battle.
JC
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
