Linux-Advocacy Digest #743, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 03:13:09 EST
Contents:
Win2K sales top 1 million (YAWN) (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (When in LA)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: A little advocacy.. (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Loren Petrich)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Jim Richardson)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Win2K sales top 1 million (YAWN)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 06:05:20 GMT
As predicted, Microsoft has announced an outstanding success
and has announced that "1 million units of Windows 2000 Aquired
by Customers Worldwide".
As you recall last February, I predicted that we would see some
sort of estimate of this sort shortly after the end of the first
month. Actually, I expected to see it at the end of the first
week - so Microsoft isn't even meeting my optimistic expectations.
As I pointed out back in February, Microsoft had several sales
campaigns starting in early 1998 in which it offered free upgrades
to NT 5.0 (later converted to Windows 2000) if they purchased NT 4.0.
According to previous press releases from Microsoft, several million
people (nearly 10 million by one report) took advantage of the offer.
My big question is where are the other 9 million users? Did they
lose interest? Did they switch to Linux? Did they lose their
coupons (worth over $200).
And Corel reports sales of WordPerfect for Linux (including bundleware)
of over 1 million copies per month. Not to bad considering it's one
of 3 competitors in the Office Suite catagory, not including the KDE
word processor or Netscape Communicator editor.
Congratulations Microsoft. You still owe about $2 billion to
previous "free upgrade customers".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:21:39 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> I wouldn't call a SoundBlaster Live card and a Canon printer circa
> 1999 odd.
*opens eyes wide in suprise*
DAMN! While I don't know about that particular model printer, I
could've sworn that Creative Labs made a driver for SB live under Linux,
and that it even came with my distro (SuSE 6.3)! My mistake.
--Dan O'Nolan
------------------------------
From: When in LA
Reply-To: When in LA
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 22 Mar 2000 06:23:43 GMT
On Sun, 21 Mar 3900 15:53:43, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 05:16:17 -0500, Bob Germer
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|>On 03/21/2000 at 01:44 AM,
|> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|>
|>> No, I don't have my facts wrong. I was using OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 when this
|>> was occurring and I know the history of the two companies. The point is
|>> that IBM PSP on one hand was pushing OS/2 while another part of the
|>> same division was selling Windows.
|>
|>You most assuredly DO have your facts wrong. When OS2 2.0 and 2.1
|>were in development, they were a joint development of MS and IBM.
|
|Incorrect -- OS/2 1.3 was a joint development effort. MS worked on
|some parts of version 2.0 but by 2.1 it was an all IBM development.
Still incorrect. OS/2 1.2 was a joint development effort and so was
OS/2 2.0 up until the split. IBM revised 1.2 into a 1.3 upgrade on
their own. OS/2 2.0 was for the most part complete, except that IBM
had to make a great deal of changes to support Windows and perhaps
also for the new shell, WPS.
BobO
Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
act."
David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
Dejanews:
If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
*will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
*will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
admission to personal notification of employer]
Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
contacting employer]
Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:26:18 +1000
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b9m9l$162m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > - 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.
>
> And now we see exactly where Mr. Edwards's problem with UNIX is:
> Simple intellectual jealousy.
>
> While I understand that it can be quite frustrating to consider that
> pimple-faced potheads can understand something that you cannot, Mr.
> Edwards, it is hardly in anyone's best interest that you continue
> to highlight your own shortcomings.
What I find wonderfully amusing in threads like this is that Stephen used to
*be* one of those "pimply faced potheads" :).
------------------------------
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 06:39:25 GMT
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:24:25 -0500, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: >
: >mr_rupert wrote:
: >>
: >> Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
: >> OS?
: >
: >For the same reason we need yet another version of UNIX?
: At the time Linux came about there was no sensibly licenced
: or supported Unix for the x86 and the BSDs were entangled
: in a legal quagmire. I would have been more than happy to
: BUY Solaris or even NeXTstep when I was originally shopping
: around for a replacement to WinDOS.
So, why didn't you? I would guess price, no?
You were speaking of "sensibly licensed".
: SCO, Sun nor NeXT were really interested in my business.
Right. So, in effect, you answered Mr. Rupert's question...
Why? Because none of the other vendors were interested in the end
consumer. And now, they're paying for it.
: So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
: make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
: Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
I don't understand the statement in this .signature. Quicktime is not a
Windows technology (though it has been ported to Win32). How does
Quicktime make web-based video a "Windows only" club?
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 06:40:48 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 14:31:05 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>> >
>> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
><snip back and forth opinions (except where you got it wrong that netscape
>is even 1/3rd as popular as IE)> >
>> > anyone that puts linux in a desktop PC is just being cruel...
>>
>> I get a kick out of your "reasoning." Many of your points are true for
>> Windows 9x, not NT or Win2K. So, they have little point in being in a
>> response about Linux. "Will I have drivers for my every hardware
>> purchase included in the box? No" This is impossible to know, as well as
>> it is also false for NT or Win2k, so it does not matter.
>
>As far as I know, I can get drivers for any hardware that runs under Win9x
>for NT and very rapdily for W2K. I mean, it IS less than a month old and
>already supports more hardware than linux, give it time to ramp up.
>
Ditto paralell and floppy port drives, or for that matter, any par port
or floppy drives.
>>
>> The biggest kick I get, is that the winvocates will make bullet points
>> based on Windows 9x and/or NT/2K, even when the points are mutually
>> exclusive.
>
>If you say so.
sorta like asking if linux will run game foo, which NT doesn't and then
asking about a particular high end data base server, which is not
supported under Win9X.
>
>>
>> Windows 9x does not run a SQL database except for little crappy ones.
>> Linux can run Oracle. So we must be talking about NT, so almost none of
>> your, so called, reasons even apply.
>
>Gee, I was running the MSDE the other day on a Win98 box. It's SQL Server 7,
>just scaled back in some respects but it's the same base engine, exact same
>syntax and functions, just limits on size. And if you don't consider SQL
>Server 7 a serious database... well... I'm sure even you won't make that
>mistake.
>
nothing like a DB server up for 24/7, and that one is a perfect example
of not up for 24/7 :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
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 06:41:43 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > - 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.
: And now we see exactly where Mr. Edwards's problem with UNIX is:
: Simple intellectual jealousy.
LOL!@# Now that is funny.
: While I understand that it can be quite frustrating to consider that
: pimple-faced potheads can understand something that you cannot, Mr.
: Edwards, it is hardly in anyone's best interest that you continue
: to highlight your own shortcomings.
The reason why I dislike most UNIX variants, is because I understand them
all too well. It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has everything to
do with intolerance of cobbled-together antiquities, that cannot keep up
with innovation.
: > So, by your logic, Kirch's viewpoints are immediately correct, without
: > need for review? How "Dianetics" of you.
: It may be interesting to note that every last granule of the Church of
: Scientology's network in their headquarters in Los Angeles is rooted
: firmly in NT 4.0.
Space is warm.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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 06:46:55 GMT
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8b9m9l$162m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
: >
: > > - 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.
: >
: > And now we see exactly where Mr. Edwards's problem with UNIX is:
: > Simple intellectual jealousy.
: >
: > While I understand that it can be quite frustrating to consider that
: > pimple-faced potheads can understand something that you cannot, Mr.
: > Edwards, it is hardly in anyone's best interest that you continue
: > to highlight your own shortcomings.
: What I find wonderfully amusing in threads like this is that Stephen used to
: *be* one of those "pimply faced potheads" :).
I really wonder what expression their faces make when they find that I'm
an ex-UNIX Nazi. :-)
And yes, I was pimply faced... however, I never smoked pot much. The last
time I recall doing so was right before going to a Ska show (the band was
Skankin' Pickle), and loading up on Capn' Cokes (disgusting rum mixed in
Coca Cola). Needless to say, that experience soured my taste for
intoxication. Besides, mellow is boring... there is nothing more fun than
getting hopped up over a 12-pack of caffeinated bliss!
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 06:49:17 GMT
In article <8b9pv7$8ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The reason why I dislike most UNIX variants, is because I understand them
>all too well. It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has everything to
>do with intolerance of cobbled-together antiquities, that cannot keep up
>with innovation.
WHAT innovations?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
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 06:27:04 GMT
Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >- Microsoft saw a need for standardization, where none existed (outside
: > of POSIX).
: (read: Microsoft saw a new way to try to corner a market, and write
: half-ass code once they drive everyone else out of that market.)
The above is pure opinion, and is highly subjective.
: >- 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.
: *Looks at himself* Well, I have no beard, don't smoke pot, not fat on
: coffee and twinkies. Guess I don't fit your mold, huh? Or is it called
: the Microsoft Let's-bring-down-linvocates-to-make-us-look-better Mold 2000
: and selling at Best Buy for $89.95 for the upgrade and $310 for the full
: version? :)
*grin* Okay, let's face it, geeks are as diverse as X toolkits. My point
was, that people shouldn't have to become technically oriented users, just
to use an operating system. Especially if their aptitudes, and interests
diverge away from computers altogether.
: >- Because UNIX stinks for desktop applications.
: It's all relative. Windows might have more applications, but the actual
: production (in work hours) is roughly about the same, if you count in time
: lost to weird system crashes, BSOD's, etc...
But you must also consider the amount of time required to set up and
maintain typical UNIX operating system. Surely you'd agree that it's at
least a little more cumbersome, no? Then again, this could also be
considered relative, as knowledge does wonders for setup time.
My point was, that UNIX is ideal as a workhorse for managing heavy network
traffic, and very large databases. But it's akward to use on the desktop
(for the typical end user).
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:06:11 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 23:26:06 +0100,
Stefan Ohlsson, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>>>>Nice idea, but I think html is better :)
>>> More flexible, powerful, etc.. yes. Altough AmigaGuide is smaller and simpler.
>>> I think it's a bit of an overkill to fire up a www browser just to read
>>> some online help :)
>>
>>Yes, I like the gnome help for that. I think it uses html, but is lightweight
>>(compared to say Netscape)
>>
>Ah, that reminds me, I must remember to install gnome for a try-out at work.
>Is Windowmaker and gnome a good combo? I've seen that there's a special
>gnome-version of WM.
>
>/Stefan
./configure --enable-gnome IIRC :)
I use WindowMaker 0.61 and Gnome (October) they work well together,
although I don't use the panel much, I find that windowmaker's doc and clip
does a far better job IMHO.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:41:49 GMT
On 25 Feb 2000 16:23:39 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On 25 Feb 2000 14:18:02 GMT, Kari Pahula wrote:
>
>>It is then distribution makers' responsibility to compile newest
>>versions compatible with distribution-specific libraries, if they
>>choose to do so. Either way, the user is always able to compile the
>>programs herself.
>
>This assumes that there exist no third party binary only apps. This in
>the long term is a dangerous assumption.
>
>BTW, it would be kind of cool if the build system were more failsafe
>( like the BSD ports ). BSD ports basically automatically download all
>the compile time dependencies, and install them ( trying multiple ftp
>sites in case one is down ) , and the software is verified using checksums
>that come with the distribution. This way, unattended builds are much simpler.
>
>--
>Donovan
Duplicating this functionality for linux would be Way Cool (TM).
so would the ability to add groups to groups, rather than just UID's.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
