Linux-Advocacy Digest #739, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 23:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Disproving the lies. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Why did we even need NT in the first place? (mr_rupert)
Re: Corel Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Debian Potato release? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Producing Quality Code (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: They're here! (was Re: New Sait) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Forrest Gehrke)
Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I WAS WRONG ("Gooba")
Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Personal question ("Gooba")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 02:57:29 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]...
> 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.
Very well put!
Why rebuild from scratch when you already have a huge base
of field tested industrial strength code that can safely be
combined to create very useful systems.
> > 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.
> > 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.
You are appearantly correct. I did some reasearch.
Here are some reasons for my confusion.
http://www.pcisig.com/membership/members.html
This url indicates that DEC is a meber of the PCI committee.
PCI was first considered a threat to VME - not ISA.
http://www.computer-design.com/Editorial/1995/09/Viewpoint/impact.html
I read computer-design quite often. I remember this article from
when it was first published.
> > 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.
NT 3.51 had severe handicaps, and the scheduling of NT 4.0 was
still not as effective at managing parallel concurrent requests
over a single SCSI bus.
SCSI is more expensive that EIDE because it never reached the
economies of scale. Many SCSI vendors and controller vendors
were expecting Microsoft to officially bless SCSI for NT 3.x and
Windows 95 - which would have made SCSI a major player.
For whatever reason, Microsoft didn't bless SCSI on Workstations,
and didn't start pushing SCSI on servers until NT 4.0. Even then,
Microsoft pushed RAID in Hardware - which eliminated the advantage
of controllers that were able to store 7 drives per cable and the
ability to install multiple cards in the box.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Linux users were frantic to get
Adaptec PCI drivers had threatened to reverse engineer the software.
Eventually, Adaptec signed a deal with Red Hat which gave Red Hat
the information required to support PnP PCI. Prior to this, Linux
supported PCI but still relied on IO/Int probes rather than PnP
queries.
To put it mildly - Microsoft wasn't particularly happy. They
agressively persued USB and added much stricter language to
the nondisclosure agreements - hoping to retain the right to
sue the pants of any defector who dared to speak to a Linux
distributor.
The specifications available prior to Microsoft's involvement
were available via the web and weren't covered by the NDAs. This
enabled Linus to support the hardware I/O and basic protocols to
pass messages back and forth, but this is a bit like having the IP
stack with no knowledge of TCP, HTTP, HTML, or even ICMP.
Some trivial devices like keyboards and mice have been reverse
engineered by putting a sniffer on the link and watching the
traffic. Something more complex like a scanner, Zip drive, or
CD burner is more challenging.
If you have a copy of the exact wording of the NDA I'd love to
see you publish it. Isn't it fun when even the NDA is covered by
the NDA. I remember having to sign such an agreement just to visit
the Microsoft campus.
> <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]
Subject: Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:04:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) wrote:
> >M$ is aboard the UNIX camp. A number of years they created a
> UNIX like OS
> >called XENIX. But it no doubt sucks just as bad as win.
>
> They didnt create it... they bought it off SCO.
>
> Cheers,
> Ciaran
El wrongo. The first version of Xenix, 2.3, was released in 1980 by
Microsoft. XENIX 3.0, released in 1983 by Microsoft, included features
from 4.1BSD and AT&T's System III. The last Microsoft version was 5.0.
Microsoft then sold it to SCO. SCO modified Xenix 5.0 which then became
SCO Server.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:06:17 GMT
Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
OS?
http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
"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. Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for
any UNIX operating system, not even the non-commercial BSDs or
Linux."
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Corel Linux
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:19:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, piddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:54:50 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Corel Linux comes in a perttier blue box than other brands of
>Linus(tm).
>
>Comments?
>
s/Corel Linux/Win2K/g
s/perttier blue box (sic)/transparent plastic case/g
s/Linus(tm) (sic)/Windows/g
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 'nuff "sed" :-)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Mar 2000 20:26:50 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner) writes:
> Open root shell, set hard limits to process memory size to some
> resonable values, say 32Mb, su to non-privileged account and run
> following command
>
> perl -e '$a = " "x 60*1024*1024; print length($a),"\n"'
>
> What do you expect to happen? I expect program to crash due to exceeding
> memory quota. But on glibc2 system it will succeed.
>
> It means that no matter how properly you use ulimit on Linux, one
> process running as nobody (say apache) is able to eat up all system memory,
> and cause some important processes i.e. sshd to crash. And if sshd
> crashes, you'll not be able to log in and fix things. So, one bug in
> user mod_perl script can break your system down.
You don't understand UNIX.
Put the ulimit in /etc/profile if you want it to be global.
Also, be sure to either disable chsh, or restrict the choice of shells
to ones that support ulimit. You can also put them in individual
user's .profiles; or even decide who should and shouldn't have limits
based on an arbitrary state (username, time of day, group membership,
moon phase, etc.) via /etc/profile.
It's actually quite nice.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian Potato release?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 03:28:58 GMT
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just wondering when Debian Potato is due for formal release.
> Actually it's "Woody" I think, and I've been following the debian
I guess the original poster still asked for potato, the version that's
currently in the `frozen' state and probably will be out somewhere in
April. Woody is the next version past potato; it's currently in
the `unstable' state and probably won't be released before mid-2001.
The reason the Debian website doesn't say anything exact about it is,
as I get it, they don't know it themselves for sure. The potato
release date has been pushed on since the last November two times
(I guess), both for `too many important bugs around'.
<topic newsgroup="cola">
This shows well that in the Linux development model, the quality
is more important than the release date, which can and will be
pushed where it won't interfere with buglessness.
</topic>
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Do not think by infection, catching an opinion like a cold.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Mar 2000 20:29:23 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner) writes:
> : Don't be too sure about claiming this. Remember RedHat will be including
> : tripwire with it's dist pretty soon and the other dists will follow, and
> : the RedHat 6.2 beta defaults with a lot of things turned off that used to be
> : turned on in the older RedHat 5.0-6.0 dists.
>
> RedHat will be doing something good for production system?
> Disbelieve! They even don't include sudo by default. And tripwire
> is in Debian for ages. If you are trying to compare Linux as
> production system with real Unices like BSD and Solaris, you should
> use Debian or Suse as comparation point. RedHat or Corel wouldn't
> withstand even NT.
Actually, I have been getting tripwire with RedHat since 4.2 and I
don't use sudo.
For someone who doesn't even understand bash and ulimit, you sure are
making some broad reccomendations...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:33:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:03:03 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/hotmail.html
>
>Microsoft can't handle it! What more can be said?
This article is over a year old, nearly going on two
(it was first published 4/22/98).
While I for one appreciate good anti-MS sentimental press,
this one's probably on its last legs. :-)
(Still, when is Hotmail gonna migrate to Win2K? You know
they want to... :-) )
>
>--
>Mr Rupert
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Win2K. The best operating system out there.
And if you believe that, I've got a few bridges
in my inventory that I'd be glad to give you --
for a price.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:34:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:32:14 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> One word: semaphores. :-)
>>
>> (Or maybe mutexes. I'll have to research it; on MS, at least,
>> there's a CSemaphore class. But in Linux, there's no such animal,
>> at least not on a stock RedHat system. Of course, IMO they're not
>> that hard to implement using mutexes, although I haven't tried
>> to do so yet...)
>>
>
>Linux has semaphores and mutexs. semop(), semctl(), semget(),
>pthread_mutex_*.
Oh. Do I feel stupid now. :-)
I'd totally forgotten about the semctl() et al calls.
>
>Gary
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- whoops!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: They're here! (was Re: New Sait)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:37:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 22 Mar 2000 01:49:42 GMT <8b98rm$1ee$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Shvager Roman Victorovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: Всем Всем Всем. Кто интересуется автомобилями ВАЗ и ГАЗ.
>: Созданы сайт посвященые зтим заводам и выпускаемым ими автомобилям.
>
>Hmmm... I think I saw this language on the side of a UFO that flew over me
>on my last camping trip, but I might be mistaken.
>
>My guess is, it's a message for Mark S. Bilk and Derek Currie, saying:
>
>"Enough of the BlackHelicopterTheories(tm)! Return to the homeworld... we
>have to discuss your lack of regard for protocol!"
>
>[XFiles theme...]
>
>Duh-nuh-nuh-nuh, nuh-nuh-nuh, nuh-nuh-nuh, nuh-nuh; DUNT! DUnt! Dunt! dunt.
It might be a decoded message for the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.
But somehow, the wires got crossed.... :-)
Hmm...apparently this one's also lost the decoder ring settings.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "...the blue bird of warbosity pees in the
antelope herd..." ?? Damned interesting
fragment, but usually there's a rubber
chicken and a glue gun involved. They
must have changed the procedure again...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:48:05 -0600
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b8j40$75f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You didn't answer the question. Hotmail runs on highly customized
Solaris.
> > You have no idea what they've implemented in user or kernel and what
they've
> > implemented in 64 bit.
>
> The solaris implementation of 64 bit addressing and suchness is very
useful
> in very specific cases. If you run a solaris-based email system, it is
> immediately obvious exactly what would be useful running as 64bit.
Immediately obvious? So, you know exactly what the issues of running a 30
million user email system is simply because you run one with a few hundred
or thousand users?
> > How do you know they're running on Intel?
>
> Because FreeBSD is x86 only.
Wrong. There is an Alpha version, and I believe they are working on a Sparc
version.
> > Even if they were,
>
> They are.
>
> You need to do some research.
Sure thing Mr. "FreeBSD is x86 only".
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:50:24 -0600
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b8jbc$75f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > rm -i is *NOT* a solution. It's a pain in the ass. I don't want to
> > manually say yes or no to file deletes, I want files that I, as root, do
not
> > own but others do to not be effected by anything I do unless I
specifically
> > tell it to.
>
> Then dont make a mistake.
Absolutely incredible. Rather than have tools to prevent mistakes, your
attitude is "Don't make one".
> > Who's talking about disaster? I'm talking about simple typing mistakes.
>
> I see. UNIX is stupid because it allows carelessness to damage the
system.
No, Root is stupid. Unix is not.
> >> At least UNIX comes with sane file permissions in a default
> >> installation....
>
> > Depends on the distribution really.
>
> There are no "distributions" of UNIX. And file permissions on the
important
> bits are all pretty much the same.
I'd call DG/UX a distribution of System V. I'd say the same thing of
Unixware.
> Demonstrate that they arent.
Doesn't OpenBSD claim to come with much more secure permissions than other
BSD's?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:45:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Leon Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:35:34 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:44:31 GMT, "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In fact, almost every person will need some Windows application, that's
>>because in an intranet one should have at least one Windows client (NT WK,
>>2K Pro or W98).
>
>Why?
Probably because Microsoft is a monopoly, and everyone's customers
will most likely have a Windows client, maybe?
(I'm not sure I like that logic...but...)
>
>>... but everything else could (dare I to
>>say should ?) run on Linux, I mean, other clients, Internet software, file
>>serving and of course firewalling.
>
>Well, those are server tasks. I the subject of this thread is "Linux
>on the desktop" which, in my mind, refers to Linux being used to run
>conventional desktop applications.
Like spreadsheets? Gnumeric.
Word processors? Lyx is pretty good, so I've heard; AbiSoft; StarOffice.
Emacs (sort of).
E-mail? Good old mutt and elm; Netscape (when it works); emacs.
News? slrn, tin, trn. All pretty basic, but they do the job nicely.
Netscape (when it works) if you absolutely, positively
need pictures (such as viewing
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape,
or something like that :-) ).
Also emacs.
Text editing? vi, emacs, jed, joe, ked.
Development? make, g++, emacs.
Web browsing? Netscape, kfm, Amaya, a few others such as Mnemonic
and Mozilla Real Soon Now(tm). Also, emacs.
Java? www.blackdown.org, kaffe/guavac.
LISP? Emacs. In fact, about the only thing emacs can't do is
display dirty pictures :-) ) (and it probably could if
someone codes up a LISP procedure that calls an external
image viewer! :-) ).
Games? Well, that's where Linux falls down, but there's a few
out there: Quake III (available at Fry's Electronics!),
Doom, and Quake I source code (which I for one haven't
tried to compile yet). Linux would make a great
gaming/server platform when Open/GL gets hot, though.
So...why is Linux not ready for the desktop?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:51:13 -0600
nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >You didn't answer the question. Hotmail runs on highly customized
Solaris.
> >You have no idea what they've implemented in user or kernel and what
they've
> >implemented in 64 bit.
>
> Can you detail this *high* customization? Do you have any idea what
> they've implemented in user or kernel? Do you have any idea what
> they've implemented in 64 bit?
No, and that's just the point. Neither can Paul, therefore his statements
regarding what Hotmail has and is doing are completely fictitious.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:54:44 -0600
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > rm -i is *NOT* a solution. It's a pain in the ass. I don't want to
> > manually say yes or no to file deletes, I want files that I, as
> > root, do not own but others do to not be effected by anything I do
> > unless I specifically tell it to.
>
> That's not what I want.
>
> When a user leaves the system, I'd rather just rm -rf their $HOME and
> be done with it...
Great. Same thing on NT, just click the "Take ownership" button and then
hit delete.
> > Who's talking about disaster? I'm talking about simple typing mistakes.
>
> rm /* is the specific disaster I was commenting on. If you'd care to
> name another situation... Backups are the only way you can protect
> against these "typing errors" (lest I call them disasters).
rm * .whatever (with an accidental space) is the most common one. And this
can be done anywhere.
> > > At least UNIX comes with sane file permissions in a default
> > > installation....
> >
> > Depends on the distribution really.
>
> Name *one* that comes with bad permissions.
Depends on what you call "bad". If you consider anything less than optimal
security, then most distributions come with "bad" permissions. Isn't that
one of the reasons OpenBSD exists?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:58:52 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >No. What I mean is, I want to force the administrator to go out of his
way
> >to delete files he doesn't own, not just issue a callous command line.
Much
> >like having a keylock on the self-destruct switch of you bomb.
>
> I see what you're talking about now. However, I don't see any examples
where
> it offers a tangible advantage. It's almost impossible to delete a user's
> files by accident. What business does root have typing "rm -rf" from a
user's
> home directory ?
The classic example being that they are not in the directory they think they
are.
> In practice, rm -rf / will start deleting other files ( besides home
> directories ) first -- you can stop it before it gets to /home -- believe
> me, I've done it before.
Assuming you realize right away what you've done. Most people I know that
multitask a lot will issue a command then immediately switch to another
virtual terminal to do something else.
> In any case, all the users home directories should be backed up
periodically.
Doesn't help when you have to tell a user "Sorry about all the files that
you modified today.. better luck next time".
> The chance of a *user* accidently deleting there files is much greater
than
> that of root accidently deleting their users files.
Probably. But that's not the issue.
> This sounds to me like you're trying to spin-doctor a non-issue and make
an
> issue of it. In the 4 or so years that I've used UNIX, I haven't run into
> a single situation where I'd want user accounts "protected" against the
> administrator.
No.. this has degenerated into an argument about one specific function, but
that wasn't the original point. The original point was simply that Root !=
Administrator. Yes, they have similar functionality in many ways and you
can essentially do the same things, but there are differences, and big ones
at that.
------------------------------
From: Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:58:13 GMT
George Marengo wrote:
>
> We'll see... I think they'll just become a mult-headed monster
> instead of the monolith that they are now.
Yes, just like all the pieces of AT&T are today. I am sure
you recall when the phone in your home did not belong to
you--you leased it, and every time you picked up that phone
and dialed anyone anywhere, you paid Ma Bell at rates
you used to recoil at just to make a Mother's Day long
distance call.
But aren't you assuming what Judge Jackson will do? Seems
to me one action might make Windows free and open.
//
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:02:52 -0600
mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/hotmail.html
>
> Microsoft can't handle it! What more can be said?
Why do you insist on posting the same article that's been posted hundreds if
not thousands of times on this newsgroup? It's already 2 years old, and was
never all that accurate to begin with, not to mention of dubious credibility
considering the citations.
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I WAS WRONG
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:00:26 GMT
I'm fairly certain I heard something about an MS venture called Xenix.
Though I could be wrong..
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail
Date: 22 Mar 2000 04:01:35 GMT
mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/hotmail.html
: Microsoft can't handle it! What more can be said?
1.) Again, that URL is from a heavily biased site. It's bollocks,
as far as anyone in COMNA is concerned.
2.) The article you're referencing is almost 2 years old.
"First appeared in , 22-April -1998"
And even then, the story was older than dirt. In fact,
that story was around when WindowsNT v3.51 was the latest
release.
3.) There is no evidence (other than rumor-mongering and
speculation from anti-Microsoft kiddie sites (if that
can come close to being called "evidence")) of Microsoft's
attempt to migrate hotmail.com to NT. It's likely just
more UNIX-advocate anti-NT sentiment.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 04:07:46 GMT
mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
: OS?
Why of course:
- People were tired of having to acquire 90E10 different toolkits and
C libs to compile and run the applications they needed for their
businesses.
- Microsoft saw a need for standardization, where none existed (outside
of POSIX).
- People wanted an operating system that their employees could
work with, without having to smoke pot, grow a beard, and get
fat on coffee and twinkies.
- Because UNIX stinks for desktop applications.
: http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
: "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. Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for
: any UNIX operating system, not even the non-commercial BSDs or
: Linux."
So, by your logic, Kirch's viewpoints are immediately correct, without
need for review? How "Dianetics" of you. You and Matt Templeton should
seriously consider becoming bowling partners.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Personal question
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:08:30 GMT
If he does, MS is probably smart enough to keep him on a short leash,
IE. make him sign an NDA such that he can't tell us who he works for, for
fear of making them look bad (or maybe just making them look worse.).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
