Linux-Advocacy Digest #621, Volume #25 Tue, 14 Mar 00 00:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jason Bowen)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(5X3)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jason Bowen)
Novell + Linux = Two Losers Screwing in a Lightbulb (Hugh G. Rexshun)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Marty)
Re: Novell + Linux = Two Losers Screwing in a Lightbulb (5X3)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("Chad Myers")
Re: US politics (Steve Mading)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (Matt Gaia)
Re: which OS is best? (Bob Lyday)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("MJP")
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(George Marengo)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("MJP")
Re: Caldera Going Public, IPO date? ("2 + 2")
New MS commercials.. ("Gooba")
35 per annum is outrageous for domain name registration. ("Edward Ing")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 03:45:09 GMT
In article <38cdaf5b$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>No I'm not dense, but you are a pathetic whiner who wouldn't believe the proof
>if knocked you over. Go away with your wincrap -- because you know what: I
>really don't give a shit what you and your windoze buddies think.
You didn't provide proof and I don't use Windows. So tell me how OS/2
speeds up memory reads to uncached memory?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: 14 Mar 2000 03:54:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you describe is quite mysterious. I won't say it didn't happen - but, I
> will add (and I can hear the sigh already): I've never seen a FS (any OS)
> that just deleted directories/files without warning/reason.
Ive been thinking about it for a while, and I have seen similar problems
now and again with filesystems like HFS and whatever the hell Be uses. In
those cases, whats happened is that the Mac and Be equivalents of unix Inodes
(except journaled, in MacOS the "desktop" file) become slightly corrupted and
the files become "lost". Theyre still there, but since their indexed
placement becomes corrupted, they are gone for all intents and purposes.
Its recoverable in these cases by simply rebuilding the index file. Is there
a W2K equivalent?
p0ok
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:55:49 -0800
In article <2vmy4.1701$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Ross"
<snip>
>Here's easy to use.
>
>Install MS Office 98 in MacOS.
>Insert CD. Wait. You are done.
>
>Under Linux.
>Since MS Office 98 doesn't exist for Linux or Windows, I'll use
Wordperfect
>for an example.
>
>Download this big file.
Good point - freely available. How much did you pay for Office98?
But my version of Wordperfect came on the Caldera OpenLinux cds.
No download required.
>Rename the file because Netscape screwed up the filename.
Underscores, etc.
I have never seen this problem.
>
>Or put in your cd with Wordperfect on it.
>Figure out how to mount the cd and how to access the file.
Should someone who doesn't know how to access a file be
installing software?
>Better copy it
>to your harddisk because of the next point.
>Rename the file again. Corel screwed up the filename. (It's
not a gz, but
>actually a tar file).
>Untar it somehow.
How many windows users know what winzip is, where to get it, how
to install it or how to use it? Among my relatives and
aquantences, maybe 10% can do all of those. 30% can do one or
two.
>Know enough to run ./setup instead of setup.
>Wait.
>Now unmount your Wordperfect cd.
>
>I estimate under MacOS you had to know 1-2 pieces of
imformation.
>Under Linux, you likely had to know 10-15 pieces of information.
>Unscientifically you like had to know up to 7 times more about
the process
>and ran into several "show-stoppers" along the way.
>
>Even for the experienced, these extra steps are still
unnecessary.
>
>Mounting, come on.
windows scenario: I have a usb zip drive. I install game B from
cd. next time i try to play it, the zip is not plugged in and
the cd drive letter is different - result, the game can't find
the cd. Drive letters, come on. At least mounting means
everything will always be in the same place, or a different
place, if that is what I want.
>dos didn't require mounting of removable media for what 15
years now.
Mounting is a very useful security feature. But windows users
enjoy virii and generally insecure computers I suppose.
>Linux has a way to go to become a decent desktop for normal
people.
Linux by itself? Sure. Linux plus XFree86 and KDE? MY wife
cannot tell the difference between my kde box and her windows
machine except for the fact that I never have to reboot mine.
>There are too many things (like fonts) where the finger gets
pointed, but
>the problem doesn't get solved.
For people that care, the problem is solved (at least two or
three servers available - I think they are even included in
Xfree 4.0 (but could be wrong)).
>Why overlook so many problems when better alternatives exist
for the
>desktop?
Depends on what you want to do with your computer and how you
feel about supporting monopolies.
>
>Jim
>
Osugi Sakae
* 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] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 14 Mar 2000 03:51:01 GMT
In article <38cdae7b$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> This is true, but it is limited to the value of the chip cache. OS2 does over
>>> come it in the sense that it does keep track of files and other things, which
>>> do increase the overall performance levels to something beyond what we see
>>> from Winwhatever.
>>>
>
>>OSes have no bearing on this. This a hardware, chipset level
>>limitation.
>
>I didn't say it wasn't.
>
>>All OSes "keep track of files and other things" via buffers and OS-level
>>caches. These buffers and caches are stored in main ram memory. This has
>>nothing to do with the *hardware* CPU cache, which is what we are discussing
>>here. The limitation is that the Intel 430TX Pentium motherboard chipset
>>does *not* cache main ram above 64 megs. You can install as much ram as you
>>want, and it all will be used by whatever OS you are running (well, all
>>except plain old DOS I suppose!), it's just that the memory over 64 megs will
>>not be cached by the hardware
>>motherboard static ram cache.
>
>I never said it had anything to do with the hardware cache. I simply tried to
>say that OS2 does a very good job of minimizing the performance hit.
Prove it. How does OS/2 speed up accesing non-cached memory? You are
saying that OS/2 makes the memory reads faster, that it somehow speeds
the hardware up. Your reference means nothing. CPU reads to uncached
memory will occur at the same rate no matter what os is being used. In
fact cached reads will occur at the same rate, we were talking about
hardware, not software. Your inability to realize that and admit the
error shows just what kind of person you are. The topic at hand was the
memory caching of the 430TX chipset which Boob couldn't understand and
which you try to divert attention away from. We aren't talking about disk
caching or paging.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hugh G. Rexshun)
Subject: Novell + Linux = Two Losers Screwing in a Lightbulb
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:00:17 GMT
Now Novell has really scraped the bottom of the barrel. They have thrown in
the towel and are offering NDS for Linux.
It is like watching two iMac users try to install Quake! Funny as shit and a
losing proposition at best.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:04:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Now one can can go on all day about hardware caching, but I really doubt if
> hardware caching was or could make the 25%-30% speed differences.
Test your theory by popping into your BIOS and disabling hardware caching.
Tell us if you think your figure is accurate. I could bore you with a lecture
on PC architecture, but it'd be easier on both of us if you check it out for
yourself.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Subject: Re: Novell + Linux = Two Losers Screwing in a Lightbulb
Date: 14 Mar 2000 04:14:17 GMT
Hugh G. Rexshun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now Novell has really scraped the bottom of the barrel. They have thrown in
> the towel and are offering NDS for Linux.
> It is like watching two iMac users try to install Quake! Funny as shit and a
> losing proposition at best.
Ummm...I just double clicked on the installer and it just worked.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:18:43 GMT
"Ciaran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Equal-opportunity hate. Wonder what the little symbol is for
> that?
>
> The little symbol for equal opportunity hate? Its kinda a square
> divided into four and each quadrant is colored differently; red,
> green blue yellow. It has these wavey black bits to the left.
More like a satanic, greedy looking penguin sitting on his duff
contemplating the end of everyone who disagrees with the "Linusophy"
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: 14 Mar 2000 04:15:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 17 Aug 1999 19:11:14 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brent Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>All you have to do to see the inherent racism in US policy about
:>foreingers (whether we talk of immigration, border patrol or whatnot)
:>is to look at the difference between how we treat Canadians and how
:>we treat Mexicans.
: There is no "inherent racism". Mexicans get a harder time, because
: more of them immigrate. The US want to accept a balanced group of
: immigrants, rather than giving all available working visas to Mexicans.
: The amount of illegals coming in from Mexico doesn't help. ( The US
: deports over a million illegals each year )
: Let me elaborate: the US have a set quota of working visas that they are
: willing to give to nationals of each country. ( I believe it's the same amount
: for each country ). This means that if you come from a country that doesn't
: include a lot of would-be migrants ( such as Canada, Australia, and Western
: European countries ), it is much easier to immigrate.
I doubt that the number is fixed per nationality (although I admit that
I don't know what the policy actually is). If the number were fixed
per nationality then places with tiny populations like Luxembourg
would have many unused visas allocated to them while people from a
more populous country would not have enough.
Mexico has over three times the population of Canada, so there *should*
be more visas from there, proportionally.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:22:30 GMT
So then just admit Linux is for hobby and let's get it over with.
NT is serious, Win2K is serious. It's not meant for kids and hobbyists
to take it apart and put it back together, it's for getting business
done.
When Linux grows up, let us know, perhaps we could have a relevant
and poignant conversation then, no?
-Chad
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:52:53 -0500,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sun literally modified the solaris tcp stack for
> > hotmail.com. this does not have to necessarily be interpreted as a weakness
> > of solaris - all software needs tweaking. If it didn't we wouldn't have 2000
> > linux kernel revisions.
>
> Nor Build 2xxx for NT4. (Not to mention hotfixes or service
> packs.)
>
> And then there are people tweaking the linux kernel for their
> private fun, simply because they _can_. Or because they are
> efficiency freaks. Or because they want their pet project in the
> kernel (e.g. ReiserFS).
>
> -Wolf"But I know of noone tweaking and building NT for fun"gang
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:25:11 -0500
: With Multiple Personality Disorder, you're never lonely!
Hey, being that Steve/Heather/whoever the hell/etc.. threatens to kill
themselves, and seeing that they have Multiple Personality Disorder, if
one of them tries to commit suicide, would it be a hostage situation? <g>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 20:26:10 -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?
Charles Kooy wrote:
>
> Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > M Merced wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Duallaser wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel like causing a big stink, so here we go:
> > > > > Which OS is best?
> > > > >
> > > > > Windows 9x? windows is buggy, windows takes too long to load, lots of
> > > > > windows apps are junk, windows is big...
> >
> > Don't forget unstable and made by criminals.
>
> But its getting better. Still made by dodgy geezers, though.
I am getting sick and tired of this line. Every single Losedoze
from the first to the latest has been "getting better." So
what? It's still one of the worst OS's ever made.
> >
> > > > > MAC? Mac OS is slow, (maybe less) buggy, takes long to load, has all
> > > > > sorts of problems running old 680x0 software, I've never checked but I'm
> > > > > sure its just as big as Windoze...
> >
> > Don't forget no protected memory and no preemptive multitasking.
> Yep, way overdue for a change. Hopefully we'll have a replacement soon,
> but I'm not holding my breath for an on-time delivery.
> > > > > Linux? linux is not buggy, linux does not have junk applications written
> > > > > in Visual Basic that are really slow, but linux is also huge (hundreds
> > > > > of MB for avg install) and more complicated...
> >
> > How about Amiga, OS/2 or BeOS? They are all really great.
> Dead, not so dead and pretty cool respectively. What about Linux? One
> day it'll be truly ready for the desktop
Amiga is not dead at all. Anyway we are talking about whether
an OS is the best or not and that has absolutely nothing to do
with whether it is popular or not. OS/2 may have 10-20 million+
users. Personally, I think that Linux will never be as easy to
use as Losedoze or the Mac. Why? Because, being Unix, you are
always going to have to go to the command-line. Am I wrong?
> > > > > so which is best?
> > > > > DOS!
> > > > > -DOS will run on virtually any PC with no configuring
> > > > > -full install of MS-DOS 6.22 is less than 7mb (thats full install)
> > > > > -no matter how many times you type DIR or CHKDSK or DEFRAG or any other
> > > > > of the multitude of utilities, DOS WILL NOT LOCK or cause any kind of
> > > > > faults or anything
> > > > > -DOS boots in a few seconds
> > > > > -DOS always does what you tell it to
> > > > > -no fiddling around with a mouse is required
> > > > > -DOS does not disturb other programs on your computer
> > > > > -if you absolutely must use some graphical apps (like a web browser) you
> > > > > can run Windows 3.11 for workgroups which is faster and smaller than
> > > > > '95- then when you are done you can go right back to DOS with no
> > > > > problems
> > > > > -DOS does not constantly interrupt and harrass applications and slow
> > > > > them down
> >
> > I agree, in a way, but saying that DOS is great is like saying a
> > guy on crutches is a great athlete cuz he never falls down. DOS
> > never crashes though, that's for sure. Windows was a downgrade!
> Uhm, DOS never crashed? Uhhhhhh. No.
I used DOS heavily from 1985 to 1996 and it never crashed one
time. Ti never gave me any problems other than slowing down.
File corruption? What is that? I guess it does crash, though,
just never seen it.
My list (PC only):
1. Amiga!
2. OS/2!
3. BeOS!
4. NextStep!
5. Linux!
6. Mac OS 9!
(all are great)
Since all LoseDoze sucks, none of it gets listed!
Anybody else got a list?
--
Bob
@..@
(--)
(>__<)
""""
(frog)
------------------------------
From: "MJP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:31:58 -0600
"Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:1bgz4.531$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[cut]
> Why? I already said that many common software packages build with
> "./configure ; make install"-- ie, with zero porting effort at all.
Ehm... I hope you don't mean this. Significant porting was necessary to fix
the XEmacs source tree so that it could be run on Windows. Similar porting
was done so that it could run on MacOS.
> Other software requires some changes, but MOSXS closely resembles FreeBSD
or
> NetBSD, and any package which was intended to run under a BSD 4.4
environment
> should be trivial to deal with.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. It depends on a number of things. MacOS X might
ship with buggy C libs that require workarounds. It could include namespaces
that clash with existing software. Any number of small discrepancies could
break software portability. Even early versions of LinuxPPC had
compatibility problems with x86 Linux software; I don't expect MacOS X to do
better, and I do expect it will be somewhat worse.
At best, you can argue that MacOS X is compatible for console Unix software
and software depending only on the GNU toolchain. Beyond that, all bets are
off. GTK, QT, SDL... any of these available on MacOS X yet? You already
mentioned kernel modules and X11. In other words, the lion's share of Linux
software; the very argument made by many who advocate the use of a Linux
Unix operating system layer.
MJP
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:33:53 GMT
On 14 Mar 2000 03:54:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What you describe is quite mysterious. I won't say it didn't happen - but, I
>> will add (and I can hear the sigh already): I've never seen a FS (any OS)
>> that just deleted directories/files without warning/reason.
>
>Ive been thinking about it for a while, and I have seen similar problems
>now and again with filesystems like HFS and whatever the hell Be uses. In
>those cases, whats happened is that the Mac and Be equivalents of unix Inodes
>(except journaled, in MacOS the "desktop" file) become slightly corrupted and
>the files become "lost". Theyre still there, but since their indexed
>placement becomes corrupted, they are gone for all intents and purposes.
>
>Its recoverable in these cases by simply rebuilding the index file. Is there
>a W2K equivalent?
It sounds like the Master File Table (MFT), which is the NTFS
equivalent of the File Allocation Table -- but I've never heard of it
being rebuilt.
http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Content/3455_01.html
------------------------------
From: "MJP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:39:56 -0600
"Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qYfz4.527$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Any piece of software which can be made to run on a platform is portable
(or
> "can be ported") to that platform, by definition.
That is quite a different thing than saying that it makes the underlying
platform, itself, portable -- or conducive to app porting. I can't tell
whether you're really confusing the two in your mind, or just being
disingenuous.
> It requires a lot less effort to run dselect, pkg_add, or double-click on
a
> pre-built package. So yeah, software which has already been ported is
easier
> to deal with, particularly in combination with advanced software
management
> facilities which deal with dependencies.
No, now you're talking about the difference between pre-compilation and
source access. XEmacs has been ported to Windows 98/NT, whether I get it in
source form or in a binary kit. It makes no difference.
> You don't see a difference between the intrinsic difficulty of porting
> software to a platform and the simple fact that a platform with a larger
or
> dominant marketshare has more software available for it?
Yes, that's precisely the difference you glossed over and perverted with
your posting.
> Windows has more programs available not because it is more portable, but
> because a huge number of software products were written against Windows
first,
> and because there are so many users that it is likely that good software
from
> other plaftorms will either be cloned or ported.
Likewise, MacOS has more programs available than Linux not because it is
more portable, but because it has a larger, more longstanding marketshare
than Linux. As you're pointing out more and more clearly on your own,
portability can't be measured via software availability, so why did you make
that very argument in your posting?
> If you want to play the "tile game of a thousand pictures" on a Mac,
wouldn't
> you rather simply play the native MacOS version rather than digging up an
X
> server, configuring xmille and getting it working?
>
> If someone mails you a PowerPoint presentation or a Word document,
wouldn't
> you rather simply run Mac Office 98?
I might. I still don't know what you're trying to say about portability at
this point.
MJP
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caldera Going Public, IPO date?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:41:24 -0500
>>whispers
Yes, they are rumored to have a big new product.
It's called Secret Microsoft Antitrust Info.
Their is great market demand of this that should drive the IPO.
2 + 2
Adam Mansfield wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Does anybody know when Caldera is going public?
>There's some information at
>http://www.redherring.com/ipo/2000/0310/ipo-critic031000.html?id=yahoo
>And their symbol is CALD. But the volume and price are both still 0, so
>they haven't begun trading yet.
>Any info???
>
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: New MS commercials..
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:41:59 GMT
Just tonight I was watching TV and there's a new ad campaign by Microsoft.
They are now advertising 100% reliability for Windows 2000.
Anyone crashed Win2k yet? False advertising if it crashes even once, right?
------------------------------
From: "Edward Ing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 35 per annum is outrageous for domain name registration.
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:49:32 GMT
I should not cost more than a few dollars. It use to be free.
Some notable free internet advocate, who everybody trusts, (I nominate the
linux guy (what is his name?) should setup a registry.
If everybody here on comp.os.linux.advocacy were to give him a dollar, he'd
have enough to be a certified ICANN registrar and under-cut every other
slime green for-profit name registrar with 5 dollar per year subscriptions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:57:36 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:22:30 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So then just admit Linux is for hobby and let's get it over with.
>
>NT is serious, Win2K is serious. It's not meant for kids and hobbyists
>to take it apart and put it back together, it's for getting business
>done.
Serious tools are typically meant to be serviced by the
organizations that deploy them. This is why companies
hire sysadmins, mechanics, technicians and engineers of
various kinds.
>
>When Linux grows up, let us know, perhaps we could have a relevant
>and poignant conversation then, no?
>
>-Chad
>
>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:52:53 -0500,
>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Sun literally modified the solaris tcp stack for
>> > hotmail.com. this does not have to necessarily be interpreted as a weakness
>> > of solaris - all software needs tweaking. If it didn't we wouldn't have 2000
>> > linux kernel revisions.
>>
>> Nor Build 2xxx for NT4. (Not to mention hotfixes or service
>> packs.)
>>
>> And then there are people tweaking the linux kernel for their
>> private fun, simply because they _can_. Or because they are
>> efficiency freaks. Or because they want their pet project in the
>> kernel (e.g. ReiserFS).
>>
>> -Wolf"But I know of noone tweaking and building NT for fun"gang
>
>
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
