Linux-Advocacy Digest #568, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (nohow)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Open Software Reliability ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (nohow)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Drestin Black")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("2 + 2")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Drestin Black")
Re: BSD & Linux (Bill Woodford)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 22:13:02 -0800
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:01:26 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"nohow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> <EVEN BIGGER SIGH>
>> I can only assume you're lying on purpose as this ground has been gone
>> over and over. NT 3.5 was redbook certified in 1995. NT 4 only
>> received *ANY TYPE* of C2 certification in 1999 - approximately 3
>> years after NT 4's release. I'm not sure if 3.51 ever received C2
>> certification though a system did get the equivalent British rating.
>
>What?
>
><sigh> Do you even have any clue?
>
More of a clue than you.
>NT 4.0 was C2 Red book for quite some time. Since 1996 or 7.
No it wasn't. See below.
>
>Note that the NT resource kit came with the "C2 Configurator" which
>set up NT 4.0 Server or Workstation to be "C2 Compliant", but it was
>still only Redbook.
Which was totally misleading and one of my complaints about how MS
fuzzed the issue on NT C2 certification. Nowhere in the reskit C2 tool
did it ever mention what OS version was applicable. For more
information on this and other fuzziness do some web research on Ed
Curry's (he did the NT 3.5 C2 certification) now defunct lawsuit
against MS and his testimony before congress.
Here's a news story from last spring which talks a bit about it:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014704,00.html
>
>NT 3.5 had Red and Orange.
No it didn't - only Red.
Here's a Microsoft website dated May12 1999 that shows the C2 levels
at that time: NT 4.0 - not C2 certified, 3.5 - only red book.
http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/security/exec/feature/c2_security.asp
>
>NT 4.0 now has Red and Orange as well. It received the OrangeBook in 1999.
Over three years after its relase - not shortly as you stated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 9 Mar 2000 06:11:28 GMT
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:16:14 GMT, Christopher Wong wrote:
>their auction & surplus section. The Optra 40 is obsolete, replaced I
>believe by the Optra 45.
Correct.
> That printer is selling new at PC Connection
>for $749.
I guess that makes those deals on the 40 pretty good (-; The 45 doesn't
offer much over the 40.
> When you are talking about obsolete, surplus or special offers
>then of course you get prices all over the map.
However, the "obsolete" printers often have the same functionality as
the newer models. There is very little the 45 offers over the 40 --
possibly just boils down to a faster chip.
Anyway, the claim was that postscript printers are always expensive,
and I've offered an example that shows that this is clearly not the case.
> In the general case,
>however, Postscript printers tend to cost quite a bit more.
Yes, that is correct. However, there are models of postscript printers
that are available that fall within the home buyer's budget.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 00:11:23 -0600
by wrote:
> "Frank Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8a2uvc$23mf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I wonder if someone could help me understand a claim that the development
> > paradigm for open source software in general (and for Linux in particular)
> > yields higher reliability, maintainability and stability.
> >
>
> I doubt this. From my experience using windows, linux, & bsd, I think
> OS-wise, open source has probably produced more stable OS, but with poorer
> hardware support.
The hardware support issue cuts both ways. For example, Linux is less likely
to have support for this week's new PCI card, but Windows is less likely to run
on your non-x86 system. What does this tell us about the pros and cons of the
different methodologies used to develop the twain? Not much, IMO.
On the OSS side, part of the issue is availability of hardware specs, which is
a complete non-issue as far as comparing the methodologies is concerned. It's
like asking which rocket is fastest when only one of them has access to the
fuel; it's a pragmatic issue, certainly, but it tells us nothing about the pros
and cons of the methodologies used by the two design teams. But when you look
at basic computing platforms, you see that (e.g.) Linux has been ported many
places and continues to be ported to more, whereas (e.g.) Windows runs
essentially on a single platform, and for NT at least the list has historically
shrunk rather than grown.
So the Linux case tells us that OSS "can do" when the necessary information is
available (unlike PCI card makers, most CPU makers will gladly tell you more
than you want to know about the architecture -- certainly all you need to know
to write an OS for it). The problem on the Windows side of the equation isn't
clear to an outsider. (That fact itself is a criticism of closed-source
development.) Are the platform restrictions for Windows a matter of technology
(code too tightly bound to the x86 platform) or of marketing (MS seeing some
economic advantage for a one-architecture-fits-all product)? Either answer
would seem to show that OSS has a big advantage if you prize portability.
Probably the main thing that the hardware support issue tells us about
methodology is that motivation matters on both sides of the fence. Even if all
the information is available, the OSS model will never produce a driver for
that x86 card unless some geek capable of writing drivers decides he wants to
do it. But similarly, a "central authority" won't provide hardware support
unless it feels the motivation either. We see that both methodologies can and
do produce hardware support in some cases, but also that both can't or don't in
others. I really don't see how we can draw any conclusions about the
methodologies based on observations of hardware support, unless it turns out
that with equal motivation and equal access to hardware information one
methodology tends to produce support software that is efficient and reliable
and the other tends to produce software that fails in one or both categories.
So far as I know, no one has ever shown this.
> I personally haven't seen any stablity difference between
> Linux & NT, but I mostly used them as workstations, not as servers.
>
> On the application side, I'd to divide it into two categories:
>
> 1. command-line/console applications. These applications/programs tend to be
> highly technical in nature, and open source & closed source produced
> software of roughly the same quality.
I'm not sure I agree with the generalization that these tend to be highly
technical in nature, and certainly not in comparison with a GUI equivalent. Is
a CLI mail reader, compiler, or system configuration tool more highly technical
than a GUI one? Were DOS applications more highly technical than Windows apps
are?
> 2. GUI applications. Open source generally failed to produce reliable &
> stable applications.
I would have said, "generally failed to produce applications". You're phrasing
seems to imply that the applications are out there, but that they are not
reliable and stable. Do you use GUI based OSS apps that are unreliable and
unstable? More so than similar apps created by traditional methods? I can't
think of any that I would describe that way, unless you want to get into the
unfair process of comparing alpha apps vs. published apps. The few OSS/GUI
apps that I do use (Lyx, Freeciv, The GIMP, xv, xfig, etc.) are perfectly
stable and reliable. My single most unreliable GUI app is Netscape, which was
not produced by the OSS model. When I used Windows I used non-OSS apps
exclusively, and crashes were a daily (if not hourly) expectation. If you can
make any differential at all in terms of reliability and stability, my
experience is that the differential will favor OSS. YMMV, though I'd be
curious to hear of any OSS/GUI apps at version > 1.0 that you do not find
stable and reliable. And doubly so, if you can make a long enough list to
demonstrate that stability and reliability are endemic problems with OSS/GUI
applications.
And even with my revised phrasing ("generally failed to produce [GUI-based]
applications"), the argument is evaporating pretty rapidly. The last couple of
years have seen a couple of toolkits become popular (Qt, GTK+), and they have
spawned a whole cottage industry of open-sourced GUI apps. In another year or
two we'll take OSS/GUI for granted just as much as we take OSS servers for
granted today.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 9 Mar 2000 06:16:27 GMT
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:33:40 GMT, Christopher Wong wrote:
>I suspect you are understating the quality degradation at usable font
>sizes. Of course, I cannot tell until I see what you are actually
>working with. Still, I cannot see how I can prefer Type 1 fonts now that
>I have seen them alongside good TrueType fonts.
Obviously, if your main application is on-screen viewing, your best bet
would be a decent collection of well hinted TrueType fonts. The Microsoft
fonts are a good start. Adobe also have a collection of "Web fonts", including
their Minion and Myriad faces ( which they use on their website. ) They are
nice looking faces though I can't verify how well they're hinted.
BTW, this is a diversion, but if you have a Type1 version and TrueType
version of a font face, you can use the TrueType on screen and the Type1
for printing. I mentioned this because you complained about printing
TrueType fonts. ( personally, I haven't seen ghostscript try to print
TrueType -- my postscript printer renders them. )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:05:32 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a70kg$8omm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> : "Michael C. Vergallen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> If I still had the link to the site that certified linux I would have
bet
> :> you 2000 USD. But I can't find the original link anymore...However I
would
> :> stake 2000 USD that Linux was certified. You prove the contrary.
>
> : Um...no, I can't. *YOU* claimed/claim that Linux is C2 certified. ALL
the
> : burden of proof is on you, none on me.
>
> : Hmmm... How COULD I do this? I can point to a page, any page, on the
> : internet and say: "Look, on this page it does NOT say that Linux is C2
> : evaluated, therefore it is not."
>
> Drestin Black is a FUD-spreading person who hates anyone who actually
> has the gall to like something he doesn't, and I can't stand him.
Thanks for the below - but... um, excuse me? FUD spreading? Never. I don't
hate anyone in these newsgroups, not even people like MiG and 5x3 who seem
to exist to taunt me :) I cannot hate anyone for having a strong opinion
about their preference for software. Hate is far too strong to be used on a
mere disagreement on some aspects of running computers, tools. I'm sorry you
cannot "stand me" but you are wrong to label me a FUD spreading person and
certainly not a "hater."
> But in this case, he's absolutely right, Micheal. The burden of proof
> lays with the one making the posative claim, not the negative one.
> The negative claim is the default starting position when no proof one
> way or the other is present. This is true for many propositions, such
> as "You owe me $10,000", or "You committed this crime", or "Linux got
> a C2 certification once".
>
> (The same is also true for the proposition "God exists", but good
> luck getting the true believers to admit *that*.)
>
> --
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
> Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 22:24:11 -0800
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:10:12 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8a708d$8omm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> :> As of today, W2K is as much C2 as Linux. Untested.
>>
>> : However, since Win2K is built primarily on NT, which is C2 certified,
>> : it's a lot more likely Win2K will be able to be ceritified without
>> : much modification.
>>
>> When NT went to version 4.0, it already lost the bragging rights
>> to C2 certification. Only 3.51 was certified. A system based on
>> 4.0, which was in turn based on 3.51 is not likely to retain the
>> properties that make it certified.
>>
>
>C'mon people! If you're going to argue this, at least have your facts
>HALF WAY right. You guys aren't even close.
>
><sigh>
>
>NT 3.5 = C2 Orange and Red Book
Wrong - no C2 Orange only Red.
>From the report "Because the evaluated configuration does not include
a network environment, both products are considered stand-alone
workstations"
>
>NT 3.51 = No ratings (except for E3/FC2 I believe)
Correct - no C2. E3 - October 1996
>
>NT 4.0 = C2 Red Book (no network) in 1996 or 7 (shortly after release)
Wrong C2 - Red and Orange - November 1999.
>
>NT 4.0 = E3/FC2 in 1998 or 9
Correct E3 - March 1999.
>
>NT 4.0 = C2 Orange Book (w/ network) in 1999
Correct C2 - Red and Orange - November 1999.
>
>There! If you don't believe me
>http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/epl-by-class.html
>there it is in black and white (with a few cheesy colors)
>
>Oh, and yes, it is about the OS.
Next time read it yourself and you wouldn't have made the mistakes you
did.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 9 Mar 2000 06:20:39 GMT
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 05:43:26 GMT, Christopher Wong wrote:
>were competing against TrueType, after all). The fonts would look fine
>under OS/2, Mac or Windows, but would look horrible in X. The problem is
>not the lack of hinted fonts, but the lousy rasterizer in X.
This is interesting. One thing I'd
be interested to know -- how do the URW fonts look under ATM ? URW are
a major foundry, so one would hope they'd be as good as Adobe's fonts
( at least up to an order of magnitude , esp considering these are fairly
generic fonts. )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:11:07 -0500
"Jeremy Allison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a724n$ans$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >of course, this Kerberos thing? MS just followed the standard and used a
> >field that was left for exactly the purpose they needed.
>
> Indeed they did. Now where is the *documentation* for
> what they did ?
Agreed - they need to release the documentation promptly. I'm told it will
appear in less than a month. I hope this is true.
>
> Normally that's part of "adding" to a standard. Telling
> others what you did (or at least in the IETF world that you're
> claiming Microsoft is playing in).
>
> Note: I do expect Microsoft to release this info eventually (I have
> a personal assurance from someone I trust very much at
> Microsoft that this will be done). It's just that we've been asking
> for this for *2 YEARS* - don't tell me that with the resources
> Microsoft has they couldn't document their PAC format within
> that timeframe.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeremy Allison,
> Samba Team.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:37:08 -0500
Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
You got that right. It's much too long to read.
2 + 2
>
>This report from Aberdeen Group is something I waited for for some time. I
>knew they were creating it but had no idea it had come out already. They
are
>reporting now factually what I've been saying for some time and what I
>continue to say. NT is reliable and definately enterprise ready. W2K even
>much more so.
>
>NT Advocates will find themselves nodding their heads and probably smiling
a
>lot at things they will think "I have been saying that!" and will also find
>some very nice supporting documentation to our claims. A *FAIR*
>anti-MS/anti-NT type IF they are capable of setting aside prejudgment and
>bias will probably find suprises in the report. I hope, but doubt, that
many
>linvocates will at last find that we've been making claims consistant with
>reality as regards enterprise readiness and uptime reliability for NT.
>
>If you intend to continue as an advocate you will do all of us a favor by
>reading this link.
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/reviews/dotcoms.asp
>
>if you are afraid of the truth there is always slashdot. org
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:23:50 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <v%sx4.6$897.392@client>,
<huge snip of redundant denial and crap>
I like you Rex because I can snip away huge chunks where it LOOKs like you
are about to actually make a point but never do and pluck information out of
the thin air that contradicts what everyone who actually uses the product
knows to be true. But the best part is finding that juciy paragraph where
you spout something so blatantly wrong that it's just impossible to miss and
therefore must be highlighted to demonstrate just how full of shit you
really are. Lets see... oh here it is:
> Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and IBM are offering their flagship databases
> on Linux and Linux compatible systems (the BSD variants). BEA is
> offering Tuxedo, and IBM has MQSeries in Beta. Windows 2000 breaks
> nearly all of the existing 3rd party software, most of the legacy
> Microsoft software, and doesn't show much promise of generating any
> significant revenue.
So, W2K breaks nearly all existing 3rd party software and most of MS's own
software?
Do you know how completely full of FUD/Shit you are? I have facts that show
that it's quite the opposite. The VAST majority of all Win9x and NT4
applications run just fine under W2K, and those that don't are being patched
quickly or new versions prepared for release. How do you think you can sneak
this crap in here and not have every one spot it immediately? I mean, people
have bought and are using W2K every single minute of the day and they are
the truth tellers and all over the world people are saying: hey, this damned
thing works and works friggin' great.
"doesn't show much promise of generating any significant revenue" - you
somehow missed the fact that in less than one month W2K has exceeded even
the most optomistic projected sales in the RETAIL market alone! Not even
counting large corporate sales and worldwide sales of any kind. I mean, MS
and not even a winvocate like myself ever predicted great sales in retail
(W2K is a business OS, we say) but, bingo it's so fantastic and so many
people are using it and telling everyone they know; "Hey buy W2K, it never
crashes and is faster and much better than anything else I've ever used"
that it's actually breaking sales expectations in retail. You are really
something Rex ol'boy... but no one is buying it... the crap you shovel that
is...
>
> Why create a database server to compete with SQL Server bundleware.
> Why create an Office Suite to compete with MS-Office bundleware.
> Why create new products for Win2K when Microsoft will put you out
> of business by feeding your trade secrets to a third-rate competitor.
Why start any new car company? Why start ANY new dot.com company? Why start
any resturant? Why make any independent movies? Why should anyone trying to
do anything that anyone else has done well? Let's just lay down and
surrender? Good thing people like you aren't in charge...
<snip bald faced lies and FUD>
> What remains? Specialty niche programs for niche industries? Custom
> solutions with more risk than a new venture start-up on a shoestring?
> Most companies aren't even letting their internal staff do development
> work because they can't get and keep the level of expertize required
> for real enterprise solutions.
oh really? you should get out more. more development is going on for W2K now
than any other OS. Programmers with W2K skills are so hard to get, we're
offering stock, car, relocation, sign-on bonuses, vacation time up the
wazoo - try looking in the real world for your answers - the truth is out
there.
>
> Creating a pretty VB display is relatively easy. Creating servers
> capable of providing compliance with government regulatory agencies
> at national or international capacities requires something special.
fortunately NT has long been up to the task...
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 1%/week!
holy shit - what is this? a *** 5 0 % *** drop in linux growth?! DAMN! Looks
like a HUGE slow down has occured in Linux growth. What happened? Run out of
computer users in the US to count cause they at one time or another visited
a website that mentioned the word "linux" so you counted them? And still,
you dare to claim that there are 6,000,000 new linux users every week?
6,600,000 the next week? Where DO you find these people? Cause they sure
ain't on any map that anyone else can document...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:30:08 -0500
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:10:40 -0500,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
>
> I was a part of a telephone study conducted by a group that refused to
> say who they were, only that they were employed by MSFT to survey W2k
> beta sites, which we were. The topics discussed by this report are
> exactly what I was asked.
refused to identify themselves? Oh puhlease, you are asking us to believe
this? Someone called you out of the blue, said: "Hi, we complete strangers
who will not identify ourselves but we work for satan, um, MSFT and have
mysteriously been able to get a list of beta sites and want you to answer us
questions about your operations?" and, you said: "OK" ??
>
> Ch.3 'On Scalability' - "Many dot.com managers intimated that they do
> not perceive an NT "scalability" problem and their IS infrastructures
> comprise multiple, distributed two- and/or four-way servers with
> load-balancing hardware and software front-ending their NT and Windows
> 2000 servers. Their attitude: "Need more power and scalability? Just
> add another server ..."
And, there is something wrong with that attitude? (I mean, you can add more
memory/CPU/drives but sometimes it's much more cost effective to add another
server and it does add to your pool of reserves and load balancing and
clusters) You say it like it's wrong?
>
> What is this? A RAIC (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Computers)???
> I'll take real scalability any day over simply adding more boxes.
And you can have it either way. Just keep adding CPUs and W2K scales across
them. no biggie... And, oh, as for your RAIC comment - did someone mention
Beowulf? I guess you and I agree that slapping a bunch of cheap crappy
computers together to try to emulate fewer more powerful computers is lame
eh?
We're getting along fine now...
>
> 'On Security' - "Many IS managers have stated over the past few years that
> NT-based security was not "industrial-strength" when compared to Unix
> and mainframe security technologies - especially in the areas of Kerberos
> and public key support. Windows 2000 has improved overall systems security
> by adding support for Kerberos version 5 (a security standard) and by
> building a Public Key Certificate Server into the operating environment."
>
> And rendered itself incompatible with the MIT kerberos v5... MS
> uses a field thatwas left empty and reserved for future use.
Um, this was a field that was left for vendors to modify. Try reading the
actual spec. MS used it in exactly the way it was intended. Exactly. Read
The Friggin Spec.
>
> Everyone - Full Control anyone?
Everyone - better than the original!
>
> The whole digitally signed driver thing is cute, but kind of dumb, if
> you ask me. I haven't seen a single driver, other than the ones that
> shipped on the CDs that was signed.
SoundBlaster Live drivers for 1... do you need others?
>
> I will say, however, that Win 2000 Professional was definitely easier
> to install than NT Workstation, in that the install was more automated
than
> NT Workstation install was. Other than that, it just feels like NT WS,
> with a prettier face put on, and support for a couple of newer things
> like DirectX 7 and the Windoze Installer.
oh, just DirectX and the MSI ... you say that like... oh, and just awesome
SMP and just a journaling file system... yawn...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 01:40:43 -0500
"Andrew Higgs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a7dpu$2a0a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> One very simple question :
>
> Who paid for the research?
>
> Kind regards
> Andrew Higgs
> Slackware user
Aberdeen.
enjoy,
db
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Woodford)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:08:56 GMT
In article <8a6t6a$1hb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, it's not pointless at all.
I guess I was answering the question (not posed to me) out of context.
I'll retract the statement.
>I can't speak for FreeBSD proper, but having Open, Linux, and Windows on the
>same machine is fairly trivial for me.
Depends on what you want to do with it. Im into interoperability, so
having one OS at a time is _pointless_ for me.
>I dare say I _use_ OpenBSD on that machine, every day.
So do I. I read mail on my OpenBSD box, read news, do a lot of day to day
activities on the BSD box. It also happens to be my firewall and NAT
server for my private network.
>I also dare say I need to have Linux around, for teaching purposes (yeah, I
>use my laptop in front of students), and the Windows partition is a hell of
>a lot more efficient than Wine to play games, some times at night.
I have Linux around for some mainstream apps (Star Office, for example) and
I have windows around for games (tribes, half life, Flight unlimted, etc).
>Why should *BSD be server-only ?
I never said it should. My point was that is its strength.
>This is just rubbish, OpenBSD makes a really good desktop, as far as I'm
>concerned.
Yes, and so does FreeBSD. Ive used both on the desktop... you're preaching
to the choir here pal.
>I don't see why I should have to buy two more laptops to have Linux and
>Windows around if I want to.
You completely missed the point. No one said you should _have_ to.
As I said before, I jumped in the the conversation in the middle (and im
really regretting it). The point Im trying to make, out of context of your
discussion with the original poster, is that one can gain a lot more
experience running mulitple OS's in their own environments. Of course I do
this for a living, and it's also my hobby. Im content to let this go. I
have no wish to argue with you and you've missed my points and I probably
had no business even addressing you. Im killing the thread so if you have
anything to direct towards me, please do it via email.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
