Linux-Advocacy Digest #749, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 11:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Tim Kelley)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Juliusz Chroboczek)
Re: Debian Potato release? (mr_organic)
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Christopher Browne)
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Donn Miller)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("2 + 2")
Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: Thinking Born From Adversity (Kirby Cook)
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Codifex Maximus)
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Brian Langenberger)
Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Tom Steinberg")
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail (Codifex Maximus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 22 Mar 2000 14:44:27 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: [snip about `rm -rf /`]
: > > 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".
: And how would NT fare if the Administrator accedentally `del *` inside
: %SYSTEM_ROOT%? Either way, you're headed for the backup tapes or
: re-installing with downtime.
Not if Administrator doesn't own those files you don't. It makes perfect
sense for a superuser account to give complete access to a system, but it
makes zero sense for a superuser account to give absolute and total free
reign over every single file on the system that doesn't require actions to
take ownership of said files.
: > 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.
: How about this then:
: The NT "System" account is equivalent to the UNIX "root" account.
No, it is not. The System "account" *grin* is neither an account, nor is
it comparable to root. It simply cannot be used to gain entry to the
system. It's exclusively controlled by WindowsNT... Ph34r!
One might compare root and Administrator to a gun which sit in a dresser
drawer loaded, and one which sits in a dresser drawer next to a box of
ammunition, respectively.
However, the Administrator can designate which files fall under System
ownership, of course.
I think that assuming that root should be 100% infallible, and incapable
of making mistakes is a very foolish thing in OS design.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: Tim Kelley <[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 08:20:13 -0600
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> 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.
I'm glad M$ has solved these "problems". When one considers the
problems left in the wake of their solutions, it would probably
have been best for them not to try at all.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[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 08:36:47 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
> Well, sorta. Your example is correct (big apps do have a tendency to want
> to write to the system directory, amongst other things) but this springs
> from a long linage of *application developers* who don't know how to
> accomodate the sort of multi-userism you're talking about. Certainly, this
> is because they were used to developing for single-user oriented tasks, but
> it isn't really NT's fault (and there's not much it can do about it).
That is blatantly false and delusional. NT is that way very
conciously, because MS tried to make it as much like win9x as
possible, purely for profit. That is *exactly* the problem, and
yes it *is* "NT's" fault, and not the fault of any developer. By
making NT like 9x, they *encouraged* this sort of behaviour in
developers. This is like building a highway fulll of road
hazards, and blaming the drivers for not being able to avoid the
potholes.
Typical MS advocate: blame everyone but MS ... yeah, everyone
else is stupid. I find it amusing that with all the utter,
sheer, unbridled contempt MS advocates and shills have for end
users and developers, they have the nerve to call unix folks
elitist. Pah!
> NT was designed with a clear set of goals and requirements by a single
> development group. Unix, OTOH, has sort of "evolved" over time with
> requirements and goals added as they were found necessary by multitudes of
> different people. I'd imagine that's why Stephen calls it
> "cobbled-together".
amazing, then, that it is so much more logically put together
than NT is.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 22 Mar 2000 14:49:04 +0000
>> : 3) The rasterizers for Type1 [in XFree86] need help.
>> No argument there.
We're working on it. Thanks to the FreeType project, you may expect a
better Type 1 backend in a few months.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bilge):
B> However, type 1 is superior to tt fonts. tt fonts only "attribute" is
B> somewhat faster rendering.
This is not true. TrueType rendering depends only on the quality of
the font. Type 1 rendering depends mostly on the quality of the
rasteriser. Very carefully hinted TrueType fonts, especially italics
and decorative fonts, render somewhat better than Type 1, but most
TrueType fonts are not that good. You will find some screenshots on
http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/jec/programs/xfsft/renderers.html
B> Not really. For an outline font, you can speed up the process by
B> using the .pfb format rather than .pfa.
There is no speed difference between PFB and PFA. The only difference
is in file size.
The problem, again, is that the Type 1 rasteriser is not very good.
In particular, it uses floating point arithmetic (rather than fixed
point), which is not a very good idea on the Intel architecture.
B> The way to fix everything and to even acheive TRUE wysiwyg (if I spelled it
B> right) is to implement display postscript. Then, all screen display
B> is just rendered postscript. There is supposedly a project to do this, but
B> I dont know if anything is going on with it currently.
There are two (independent) projects aiming to do this; the two
designs are very different. You will find one on
http://www.gnustep.org, search for ``dgs''. The other one is housed
on http://dps.sourceforge.net.
B> Display postscript,
B> as I understand it was given or (licensed with no real restrictions) to
B> the X consortium ages ago,
This is not true. The DPS client library has been donated to DEC, and
is now part of XFree86 4.0 (but not of any XC, TOG or X.ORG code, as
you seem to imply). On the other hand, Adobe have never donated the
server-side code, which needs therefore be reimplemented from scratch.
This is a big task, even with the priceless support of Peter Deutsch,
the author of GhostScript.
Followups restricted.
Juliusz Chroboczek
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic)
Subject: Re: Debian Potato release?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 13:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Mar 2000 03:28:58 GMT, mr_organic pronounced:
>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>
>
That was my question (WRT potato, not woody). I'm glad those guys
are being careful with the release, but AFAICT it's not the x86
port that's causing the problems; I've been running potato for a
long while now with few problems. I just think it would be good
for them to make some kind of statement; I know two or three people
who have moved to Slackware or RedHat because Debian hasn't been
"officially" updated in so long.
>--
>Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Do not think by infection, catching an opinion like a cold.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:57:30 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donn Miller would say:
>You've got to love how they want your resume in MS Word format. I
>hate Word and Windows, but yet some of these UNIX recruiters will
>bitch and moan unless you email your resume in Word format. Oh well,
>I guess I'm gonna have to download Corel WP and Applix demo. :-) From
>there, I can try to export my resume to Word format.
>
>This one recruiter was really whiney: "But I don't _LIKE_ resumes in
>text format". I guess saying "You'll take it and like it" isn't an
>option. Why do recruiters in the UNIX field always want resumes in
>Word format?
Because they aren't actually *UNIX* recruiters. They're merely
recruiters that happen to be looking for people with UNIX skills.
It seems fairly unusual for recruiters to have any technical skills
at all...
[Which was how one person I know got a technical position despite
having *zero* aptitude... The thing that I find frightening is that
they thought other candidates weren't as good; I wish I couldn't
believe that they're right...]
--
Would-be National Mottos:
Poland: "We probably would have had a happier history if we were
between Canada and Mexico, not Germany and Russia."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 10:04:16 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Because they aren't actually *UNIX* recruiters. They're merely
> recruiters that happen to be looking for people with UNIX skills.
>
> It seems fairly unusual for recruiters to have any technical skills
> at all...
Yeah, they sure are a pain sometimes. Of course, if they knew any
unix at all, they wouldn't be a recruiter. Then, I was asked if I
knew any Korn shell programming. I said no, but I have a fair amount
of experience with Bourne shell programming. Her response was "OK, so
you have 0 Korn shell experience?" Actually, I think sh and ksh are
very similar, except that ksh has some added features. I thought I
explained this to her, but I guess it didn't sink in... I think that
with some added training, I could make the difficult transition from
sh to ksh programming. (It may take a couple of years. =)
I've heard stories of the reverse: some managers in the UNIX field
were being sent resumes in Word format by applicants. So, I guess it
goes both ways. :-)
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[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 08:39:53 -0600
Boris wrote:
> > Am I wrong here? (I'm just waiting for somebody to say, "yes" :-)
> Yes, you are wrong. What do you call system root? I just removed Modify and Write
> permissions on my c:\Winnt\System32 directory.
that is not the systemroot. %systemroot% is usually \WINNT\
(unless you installed it somewhere else)
Everything works fine: Word, Excel, IE.
Lock down the systemroot and see what happens.
> better; W2K solved DLL hell problems.
No, it kludged over them. Their solution will probably cause
more problems down the road.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[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 10:14:17 -0500
In a word, competition.
Part, but not all, of the anti-Microsoft movement is based on avoiding
competition. Some of the anti-Microsoft movement is based on ENGENDERING
competition.
In short, on the desktop (or what's left of it as a distinct market), YES to
the anti-Microsoft-based competition.
On the server, NO: the anti-Microsoft movement is designed to defeat
competition by overpriced systems in the Unix (but not Linux) and mainframe
worlds.
Had Unix not been splintered and had used commodity low cost hardware,
instead of overpriced systems, then things would have been different.
Had Linux occurred some years earlier, then things might have been
different.
However, Win2000 leads in componentized software. This a critical advantage.
MTS and related technologies, now called COM+, was the first componentized
Transaction Processing monitor, sometimes called an OTM. EJB has been late
to market, being only around a first generation product while COM+ is a
third generation product.
As a Linux proponent, it seems to me there is going to have to be an open
source component system to replace/improve CORBA. This would very
interesting to see.
CORBA is really a committee think product of the old line enterprise
vendors, not really open source.
2 + 2
mr_rupert wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>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: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:09:40 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> 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.
I see... the article is old so that excuses MS from migrating Hotmail to
NT/W2K??? Great logic!
The fact that the article is old and MS has still not migrated Hotmail to
NT/W2K I find to be quite embarrassing for MS.
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: Kirby Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.self-improve,misc.creativity,alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Thinking Born From Adversity
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:14:02 GMT
Earl of URL wrote:
>
> 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.
Thanks for the smile. I needed it. I confess to a bee in my bonnet
about animals. Its buzzing says, to me, that the bear and the squid
exhibited the devising of new means to ends based on observation,
experience, and imagination. That differs from writing code, IMO, in
degree, not kind, though I acknowledge that the degree is usually great
enough that most people mistake it for kind, and would disbelieve the
story of bison playing on a frozen lake (by standing off from it,
charging, and then skidding when they hit the ice until they slid and
spun slowly to a stop, at which point each would give a loud grunt
(presumably of satisfaction?), rise, move off the ice, and do it
again!).
Actually, I only dropped into the corner of the discussion that
provoked a response. I have no business in the main stream, inasmuch as
I'm a believer in Adam and Eve as my antecedants, and don't accept the
premise of the evolution of man's intelligence. (By the way, what a
stupendously successful thread! Congratulations.)
Kirby
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:27:49 -0600
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> You've got to love how they want your resume in MS Word format. I
> hate Word and Windows, but yet some of these UNIX recruiters will
> bitch and moan unless you email your resume in Word format. Oh well,
> I guess I'm gonna have to download Corel WP and Applix demo. :-) From
> there, I can try to export my resume to Word format.
>
> This one recruiter was really whiney: "But I don't _LIKE_ resumes in
> text format". I guess saying "You'll take it and like it" isn't an
> option. Why do recruiters in the UNIX field always want resumes in
> Word format?
>
>
> - Donn
Solve your problem... use RTF - many UNIX/Linux tools understand this
format.
They wont know the difference.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Date: 22 Mar 2000 15:44:36 GMT
Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Donn Miller wrote:
<snip>
:> This one recruiter was really whiney: "But I don't _LIKE_ resumes in
:> text format". I guess saying "You'll take it and like it" isn't an
:> option. Why do recruiters in the UNIX field always want resumes in
:> Word format?
:>
:>
:> - Donn
: Solve your problem... use RTF - many UNIX/Linux tools understand this
: format.
: They wont know the difference.
Perhaps pdf would be even better. dvipdfm works great in converting
my nice dvi files into equally nice pdf ones that should work
just about anywhere. It's not like these guys need to *edit* my
resume. But give me a good open standard over Word any day...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:51:15 -0000
A couple of weeks ago, I sent out a set of questions about the history and
role of Linux, as background research for an article I am planning to write.
I had many responses, which I am hugely grateful for. I have just finished
the introduction, and I thought I'd place it here, in true Open Source
style, to see what people had to say about it.
thanks
Tom Steinberg
The Meaning of Linux
======================
We live in prosperous economic times. It only takes a casual look at a
newspaper or magazine to see that a primary contributor to the current
economic climate has been the rise of information technology. Looking more
closely it can be seen that the internet share frenzy has actually been
concealing much more pedestrian progress in other sectors. Entire stock
markets have been driven up by growth in tech stocks, even as most other
shares stagnate or fall. The S&P 500 rose 21% last year. 31 mainly
technology shares of the 500 counted for almost the entire rise. Whitbread,
with a 3 Billion pound yearly turnover, risks being dropped from the FTSE in
favour of a tech company with an annual turnover of only 23 million pounds.
The internet revolution seems set to sweep away old business practices in a
tide of cost savings and efficiency improvements, converting old business
profit margins into new economy share value.
Below decks, a different kind of revolution is quietly but quickly gaining
ground. These revolutionaries are short on capital, but are dangerously
armed with a real understanding of the nature of the on-line world. They
have been around online longer than most e-investors and they have, by and
large, a much greater level of technical knowledge. Now they think that they
have discovered something that could destroy the software industry as we
know it. Their claim is that the best software costs nothing to produce, is
free to distribute and free to modify. Moreover, they claim that the profit
motive theoretically cannot, and empirically has not produced software of
the same quality as can be had for free, all over the internet. They are the
many individuals who constitute the Open source software community, and
their standard bearer is Linux.
If their claim is true, it could mean a huge number of the most highly
valued tech firms, those that produce software professionally, are about to
be faced with competition that they can neither beat in terms of quality or
price, nor destroy through merger or acquisition. For major economies
increasingly built on technology, this is a serious threat.
This paper aims to assess whether the threat of Linux to professional
software is real, and if so, how this might affect the economies of
developed countries.
===========================================
Tom Steinberg,
Institute of Economic Affairs,
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[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 09:51:17 -0600
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> 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.
So now, instead of a wide selection of toolkits, we have DLL Hell.
Anyway, users use programs... they don't write them; that is the job of
properly trained programmers. Users should not have to worry about libs
and toolkits. If you say users write programs in the real world, I'd
have to agree! I'm a paid consultant that makes his living going around
fixing the "programs" that these users write. The users are well
meaning but are not specifically trained to do the job so... it usually
costs alot more to fix it than to do it right in the first place. But,
hey! I'm not complaining really... It's reality.
>
> - Microsoft saw a need for standardization, where none existed (outside
> of POSIX).
Yeah, standardization. It's standard for them to want your money in
thier pockets. I doubt you could deny when Microsoft sees a profitable
market, it uses it's capital from Windows to finance thier entry and
takeover of a market.
>
> - 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.
You mean people wanted more control over thier desktop? They got it for
a while with Win9x but now all that is about to change with WinNT and
Win2000. Bill giveth and Bill taketh away.
I think I know what you are about here though... there are some UNIX
people who think they are Theos Epiphanes on Terra Firma. Evidently,
they haven't learned how to work with the users in a way that increases
the user's confidence in them. I know such attitudes exist and they are
counterproductive to the UNIX cause. If you percieve your users as too
low on the evolutionary scale to even speak to them, then they will go
elsewhere for thier answers AND seek to replace you with someone who
will listen to them - no matter how good your solution to thier problem
is.
>
> - Because UNIX stinks for desktop applications.
No. UNIX does not stink for desktop applications; rather, desktop
applications are not being written for UNIX the way they are for
Windows. That, my dubious friend, is the reason.
Windows is popular merely BECAUSE it's popular. ISV's write
applications for the userbase because there is a sizable userbase; the
users use Windows because there are alot of ISV's writing apps for
Windows. If ISV's were to drop support for Windows, Microsoft would
jump right in and fill the void and become even more powerful - sadly,
this is already happening.
The growth curve for Linux is a steadily expanding thing. As more ISV's
release software for LINUX/UNIX, more users begin to use it which in
turn spurs more ISV's to release programs which in turn causes more
users... ad infinitum. It is a tangential growth curve it appears to me
- critical mass is not far away. I hope we are ready by the time it
happens; that is why some are reluctant to have things proceed too fast.
>
> : 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.
I take no one at face value... thier assertions must be backed up by
hard irrefutable facts and logical theories that stand up to scrutiny.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| 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
I see you as a disgruntled user who needs to be listened to.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:55:17 -0600
mr_rupert wrote:
>
> http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/hotmail.html
>
> Microsoft can't handle it! What more can be said?
>
> --
> Mr Rupert
Mr Rupert,
You are merely stirring up controversy on a subject that has been hashed
till it's exausted. The fact remains that Hotmail appears to still be
on an OS other than Microsoft's but it is hardly news.
Let's have something new and thought provoking rather than yesterdays
news.
:)
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
