Linux-Advocacy Digest #738, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Disproving the lies. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (A transfinite number of
monkeys)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (abraxas)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Thinking Born From Adversity (Earl of URL)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Producing Quality Code ("by")
Re: which OS is best? (Roger)
Re: How can use linux? debates (JEDIDIAH)
Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail (mr_rupert)
Re: Salary? (Stewart Honsberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:53:16 GMT
In article <v9LB4.22$US1.296@client>,
"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8b7g9k$uqt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > And anyway it doesn't invalifdate my original
> > > (which you seem to have snipped) that spread
> > > the FUD about needing CALs for
> > > an NT webserver which is BS.
O.K. - The web server is free - IIS is free, there's no limit
to the number of connections, you'll never get a "connection limit
exceeded" and you can serve all the static web pages you want.
Are the SQL Server CALS free too?
What about Back-Office when you use NT as a POP3 server over the
internet?
What about when you use E-Commerce software?
What does a lawyer say?
The wording of the EULA for NT server and some of these other
products gives Microsoft the right to collect as many Client
Access Licenses as it wishes. You have the choice of paying
"per seat" or "per concurrent user" - and the "per concurrent
user" price makes no specification of the period of concurrency.
The wording of the licenses is deliberately confusing. Brian
Whitehead of McGraw-Hill once insisted that the NT Server License
gave you the right to download NT workstation into a PC for $60/user.
I spent several sessions and e-mails and written reports trying to
explain that the $60 was the price to ACCESS the server. The price
for a user account if you like. By the time he realised that I was
correct (due to a conversation between McGraw-Hill's lawyers and
Microsoft's lawyers) he had loaded up about 100 workstations and
didn't have the budget for the $600 licenses that Microsoft now
expected to be paid.
Key officials at Prudential assumed that because the web server
was free, that databases, user accounts, and access to customer
accounts stored on NT were free too. This is when they ended
up getting a suprise bill for 250,000 Client Access Licenses.
I suspect that part of the problem was that Prudential decided
NOT to upgrade to Office 97 when it learned that it would have
to purchase full licenses (not upgrades) for every employee who
had a home PC. It was a really big problem for me since I had
8 PCs at home. It didn't seem to matter than only one ran Office 95,
when I wasn't booted in Linux mode.
> > The entire definition of Client Access License has been a
> > feature Microsoft has played many interesting games with.
> > For example, the definition that was used prior to Back-Office
> > and Enterprise edition specified no duration. Typically, the
> > CALs were estimated based on concurrent connections.
> >
>
> Still doesn't change the point that
> CALS are not needed for web access, why
> not just admit it instead trying to move the goalposts.
O.K. - CALS are not needed for access to static HTML web pages.
===== for the moment. At least until Microsoft lawyers come
knocking at your company's door demanding a license audit.
You are saying that no matter how many back-end services and
servers I access, I will never have to pay for a single Client
Access License so long as the user comes in via the web?
(I don't think so).
> > > > > NT boxes can also do their own DNS,
> > > > > so the same rather crude DNS load
> > > > > balancing is possible.
> > > > > However CISCO local director and similar solutions
> > > > > are much more popular at web sites because they
> > > > > give finer granularity.
> > > > And CISCO runs BSD UNIX as it's core operating system.
> > >
> > > So what, a router is a blackbox.
> > > The main reason they run things like a BSD
> > > kernel is hsitorical, CISCO has been developing
> > > routing code on top of BSD
> > > kernels since the mid-80s why would they change.
> >
> > They've changed quite a bit since 1980.
>
> Certainly have CISCO didn't exist in 1980.
O.K. since the mid-80's then. Pick nits :-)
> > Even the types of
> > UNIX being used, the user interfaces, and the management
> > functionality has changed radically, even the scheduling
> > has become more sophisticated - supporting multilevel cache,
> > SCSI multi-spindle scheduling, and RAM.
>
> Of course there has been evolution in
> the platform, but they've built on
> foundations they created in the 80s
> it doesn't make sense to rip everything
> out and start anew on top of a heavily customsied kernel.
But it makes sense to scuttle existing UNIX servers if they
are WEB servers!
It makes sense to ignore code that has been field proven for
20 years and use Microsoft's latest Kernel, newest infrastructure
tools, and totally new APIs instead!
> > > However, a BSD kernel is
> > > not a requirement for Local Director like functionality,
> >
> > > WLBS is a "shim"
> > > driver in the network stack on NT and does just the same.
> >
> > Perhaps, if Win2K is sufficiently reliable, we may see the the
> > use of W2K based Local Director like functionality. I don't see
> > Cisco replacing millions of routers with NT or Win2K any time
> > soon.
>
> I don't see anybody (least of all me) saying that Cisco should or
could
> replace the core routing code in their product line with NT. My point
was
> that UNIX is not a requirement for Local Director like functionality.
In
> fact a IP stack based approach on the web servers rather thin a
single point
> of failure like local director has somehting to be said for it
regardless of
> what OS the web servers are running.
> >
> > That's very interesting since PCI was first used on the MAC and
> > the MicroVAX - neither of which were Intel based.
>
> That's just complete rubbish, the first implementations of PCI came
with the
> release of the Pentium processor. PCI based MACs came a lot later,
and PCI
> slots in MicroVAX are figment of your imagination.
> >
> > Half true. The vendors decide what the consumers will buy,
> > and Microsoft decides what the vendors will sell. SCSI
> > makes Linux run faster with multiple drives while Windows NT 4.0
> > runs slower. Win2K has a multithreaded disk driver that will
> > be capable of managing multiple outstanding drive requests.
>
> NT 4.0 has always had multithreaded disk drivers and responds very
well to
> multiple disks, what is you assertion based upon.
>
> <rest of Rex's delusions snipped for brevity.>
> --
> Nik Simpson
>
>
--
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!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:13:25 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 11:03:13 -0800, john@servnospam <john@servnospam> wrote:
:
: Why is it in the Unix/Linux version of Netscape, it will not do
: URL completion for you? on windows, when I start typing a URL
: in netscape, and I have vistied that URL before, it automatically
: auto-complets for me.
:
: Is there something about Linux/Unix that makes this feature
: impossible to implement? it seems like a simple lookup hashtable
: for me.
There is something that prevents this. Good UI design, and forethought.
I find that stupid auto-complete more of an annoyance than anything else.
I start typing in a url, and I have to now hit the delete key, since it
autocompleted to a page within the site that I happened to visit first.
Awfully annoying. I'm quite glad that the *nix versions of Netscape
do not implement this "feature"...
--
Jason Costomiris <><
Technologist, cryptogeek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 22 Mar 2000 02:15:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting abraxas from alt.destroy.microsoft; 20 Mar 2000 15:43:41 GMT
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, you're installing Win95 on a Gateway 2600 laptop. Well, I gotta tell you,
>>> Norman, that you can't really blame Microsoft for all the problems with
>>> Windows on laptops. Laptops are just funny beasts by nature; the difficulty
>>> of building a real set of standards for laptop hardware makes driver problems
>>> a fact of life for laptop owners.
>>
>>Solaris 2.5.1 works just fine on my sparcbook.
>>
> What do you know? An entirely inappropriate single data point concerning a
> proprietary platform is offered as a useless contribution to a discussion on
> PC hardware. Imagine.
"Laptops are just funny beasts by nature"
"Solaris 2.5.1 works just fine on my sparcbook."
Whats not to understand?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Mar 2000 02:19:23 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:24:24 -0500, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Some of us can like MS _and_ Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, etc.
It's been my experience that those who actually figured out how to use
*nix-type systems, hated WinXX, and those who liked WinXX, were
eigther never exposed to *nix-type systems, or never learned how to
use them. I always attributed it to experiences similar to my own,
where, discovering the capabilities of a *nix system, I begin to
wonder why WinXX doesn't work as great as this system based on
30-year-old technology.
Look, the subject makes sense again!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:10:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 1. It's buggy.
They're not bugs, they're "issues". MSFT can't be wrong.
> 2. It's ugly.
You would prefer a solid blue screen, I see.
> 3. It's slow.
Then throw more hardware at it. It works for MSFT.
> 4. Netscape is owned by AOL
And Daimler-Benz is owned by Chrysler (or is it the other way around?)
> 5. It has no useful GUI
Useful GUI is an oxymoron.
> 6. Programmers who work free are bad programmers.
There are lots of paid bad programmers. Mostly in Redmond.
> 7. Corel makes a version
Competition.
> 8. No one has ever made money on it.
Missed the IPO, did you? No wonder you're bitter.
> 9. No one will ever buy Linux apps.
I did, my employer does. Falsehood.
> 10. Greenspan wore a green tie on St paddies day
WTF?
> 11. Apple is about to release OSX
And I'm about to release my lunch....
> 12. Beos is about to release 5
Five of what?
> 13. Windows 2000 is.
... the largest NT service pack yet released.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> piddy
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:28:17 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:13:09 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>>Ah, so * that's * why, ATI and certain other video card manufacturers
>>don't release the info required for the creation of Linux drivers --
>>because of licensing of MS's OSes.
>Need I bother disagreeing with such a ludicrous answer? No, but I will
>anyway, since its you, Roger. I assume they don't release their proprietary
>information because they are in business and are not stupid.
Ah, so it's * not * due to pressure by MS that they do not support
Linux.
>The reason they
>only bother developing Windows drivers themselves to begin with is because of
>licensing of MS's OSes. Dummy.
And who did you have in mind that * only * develops Windows drivers?
>>Or did you miss the fact that the discussion was hardware
>>manufacturers in general?
>The discussion is Microsoft, specifically, and how they've fucked over the
>hardware manufacturers in general, I would suspect.
And you would be wrong. Our regular viewers are once again not
surprized.
Free hint: try reading the thread for comprehension before you jump
in next time...
------------------------------
From: Earl of URL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.self-improve,misc.creativity,alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Thinking Born From Adversity
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:32:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kirby Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Earl of URL wrote:
>
> > In article <8ath28$i9l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > In article <88q3j4$5na$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Earl of URL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > "If our lives and the lives of our animal ancestors had always
run
> > > > smoothly, if our every desire were immediately satisfied, if we
never
> > > > met an obstacle in anything we tried to do, thinking would never
have
> > > > appeared on this planet. But adversity forced us to it." Henry
> > > > Hazlitt, Thinking as a Science, Dutton, 1916, page 15.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Isn't this saying that adversity can be good in the long run;
short term
> > > hardship can lead to befits to the future.
> > Right.
> > > ...to pick part of the human experience
> > > and say that's what sets us appart from the animals may be just
> > > romancing the idea that we fought our way up the evolutionary
tree.
> >
> > It's self-evident: only man evolved volitional consciousness, i.e.,
> > conceptual thought. -- Earl of URL http://www.localgroup.net
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> Did you not see the octopus first watch Jaques Cousteau put the
bivalve in a
> jar and screw the lid on, then himself (herself?) unscrew the lid to
get the
> prize? Talk about conceptual thought, I understand that there is no
mere
> latch so complicated that a racoon can't master it. And do you think
dolphins
> carry shipwrecked sailors to land out of "instinct"? (Define
instinct.) And
> finally, no, not finally, there is too much... I recall a polar bear
cub
> rolling a snowball, carefully lining it up, and dumping it on his
sibling
> below, and bison playing on a frozen lake.
> Skyscrapers set us apart, I suppose. Wait, there are the termite
mounds.
> Books, but who knows what tales whales may tell to while away the
miles of
> their pole-to-pole migrations?
>
> Kirby Cook
Ever see a penguin write code? Well, okay, I guess the Linux penguin at
http://www.linux.org will do :)
--
Earl of URL
http://www.localgroup.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:46:25 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:22:30 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:58:58 GMT
>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:34 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin wrote:
>>>Oh, you're installing Win95 on a Gateway 2600 laptop.
>>No, he's not. A Gateway 2300XL Solo was the platform specified. Our
>>regular readers are not surprized that Max pretty much starts off in
>>demonstrable error...
>Oh, FOAD, roger. I've seen at least three different numbers thrown around;
>your 2300XL makes four, being one I haven't seen in the discussion yet. Since
>I had a 2600, I assumed that to be the correct model, and the '2400' and other
>numbers I saw (apparently from the same poster) I took to be typos. Kind of
>like when they put a third digit at the beginning of your IQ.
Our regular readers are perhaps surprized that Max ignores his error,
even tho there is only * one * number mentioned by Norman (a fact
easily verifiable via deja.com) and prefers his usual invective.
>>Says the master of truth by assertion. For example, MS does not have
>>a standard OS which will work on this laptop. Why? <Max> Because I
>>said so! </Max>
>No, because the word "standard" doesn't apply to proprietary software. Duh.
<Max> Because I said so! </Max>
Are you even going to attempt to support this definition of
"standard?" A complete citation from a reputable source which
specifically excludes commonality as a qualification.
>>IOW,
>IOW, exactly what I said, not your trollish misinterpretations. Don't have
>time right now, Rog. Maybe later I'll shame you till I'm bored, like usual.
Have you ever frequented alt.revisionism -- they tend ignore facts
they don't like over there, too...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:35:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and we are to believe this?
Not until you read it on Slashdot. Then it be gospel,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 18:54:57 -0800
Reply-To: "by" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<n@-> wrote in message news:8b77as$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8b6t9i$5q1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "by" says...
>
> Asking some very specific questions like these do not make sense.
> After all, 99% of programmers these days use re-usable library
> components where all of these algorithms are allready written.
I think the point is that, by the way the interviewee answer them, you can
tell if the interviewee can think in clear, logical ways, and if the
interviewee has good analytical skills.
> ...
> That does not mean you do not know what a hash table is, or what
> a binary tree is, etc.. but the detailes of coding one, once you
Yes, I think one sign of a good programmer is knowing the basic algorithms
well.
> have done it once, are not interesting any more, it is more
> interesting to ask design issues, general software issue to measure
> the maturity of the employee on the technology of interest.
>From my interview experience, I think discussion on high-level things like
design issues tend to degenerate into what I call 'management bullshit',
good coders got filtered out, and smooth talkers win.
> A good programmer knows where to go find the library they need
> when it comes time to do it, or knows where to go look it up.
True.
> A good programmer does not have to know all the detailes, as long
> as they have the brains to find out about it as needed.
True, but they should understand basic algorithms (qsort, btree, etc) well.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:50:25 GMT
On 22 Mar 2000 00:22:42 GMT, someone claiming to be Daniel Tryba
wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>> They sat on their asses from 1985 to 1995 not bothering
>>>>> to fully exploit the IA32 instruction set and not
>>>>> bothering to fully deploy gui based systems.
>>>>Hmmn. I must have imagined Windows 3.1 and NT.
>>> Windows 3.1 came out in the 90's and was still primitive
>>> when compared to earlier rivals.
>> And the 90's were not in your timeline of '85 to '95? Interesting.
>> And "primitive" was not your claim. You said "failed to deploy." You
>> were wrong.
>According to MS Windows95 should have been the first "32-bit" OS.
Nope. NT predates Win9x.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How can use linux? debates
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:45:11 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:56:22 -0800, Osugi Sakae
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
[deletia]
>>To Linux supporters easy=bloat. They have no conception of
>easy, nor
>>pleasing to the eye nor state of the art. They find exception
Hardly. 'Easy' can be had with a 200K OS that can run
on an 8Mhz CPU. 'Easy' doesn't need even a 486 or 4M
nevermind the 12M minimum that any real version of
Windows needs and the Pentium that current versions do.
>with all
>>of the above because it boils down to sour grapes. Mac has it.
>Windows
>>has it. Sun and IBM have it and Linux is still trying.
>
>Please don't tell me that Win98 is state of the art. That is a
>bad joke. Easy is a subjective term. For me, MS's version of
>easy does equal bloat. Checkout Bruce Schneier's recent
>Cryptogram newsletter (www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-
>0003.html) -
[deletia]
>>To a normal non geek user CLI is a non issue. Nobody in this
>group
>>could care less about a command line. Applications. Think
>applications
>>and you will look to Windows or Mac.
Noone that doesn't want the power of a command shell really
has to bother with it for much these days or has had to
for some time. Some things will be difficult merely due to
concepts and wont be any easier just because a widget is
prettier under NT or MacOS 10.
[deletia]
Since we're trotting out end user fluff examples here.
How do I under MacOS or Windows associate a named directory,
not a full pathname, with a particular icon and how much
work is it?
Divsion Bell.xpm -> Division Bell/
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:03:03 GMT
http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/hotmail.html
Microsoft can't handle it! What more can be said?
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stewart Honsberger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:09:46 GMT
On 22 Mar 2000 00:44:11 GMT, James T. Dennis wrote:
> However, those are just base salaries. I know one SA
> that just retired from Netscape with a couple of million
> in diversified investments.
Strikes me that most people in the computer industry are making their money
that way. They get stock options, and wait for them to mature. Of course,
the salary is often enough to live on (if you work hard for it), and the
stock options give you a little cash for your future.
I talked to one CISCO engineer who said that by 40 years of age, he'd retire,
as would his wife, and he'd be "comfortable" for the rest of his life.
> Who knows. I might make that yet.
We all might, it's just a matter of time and energy for a lot of us :>
I'm just at the pre-entry-level yet, but soon...
--
Stewart Honsberger (AKA Blackdeath) @ http://sprk.com/blackdeath/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Remove 'thirteen' to reply privately)
Humming along under SuSE Linux 6.0 / OS/2 Warp 4
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
