Linux-Advocacy Digest #777, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 17:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Bsd and Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bsd and Linux (Andreas Rottmann)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Chris Beauchamp)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: New research question, this time about Apache (DJC)
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? (JoeX1029)
Re: W2K aquired by 1 million (yawn) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
joys of command-line image manipulation ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] ("SetMeUp")
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? ("SetMeUp")
Re: Weak points ("SetMeUp")
Re: Weak points ("SetMeUp")
Re: Weak points ("SetMeUp")
Re: Weak points ("SetMeUp")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:24:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am hardly likely to forget to configure a new shell, having gone to
> the trouble of adding it! But yes, it;s robust. The consequences of
> losing the config file are that restrictions are lifted. The
> consequence of losing libpam stuff is that nobody can log in. I.e.
> it does not fail safe. By design, I imagine, since the mentality
> of the desiger seems to be that making it difficult to log in to
> a system is good.
Ok, the consequences of losing your shell configuration are that noone
has a path, useful envrionment variables, or a ration of other
system-specific thinsg set, rendering the machine all but unusable
until the administrator fixes it.
The consequences of messing up pam are rendering the machine unusable
until the administrator fixes it. Hardly a huge difference.
This is only opinion here, but if you mistakenly blast files in /etc
on a regular basis, I suggest you either read some documentation or
hire someone more careful before you begin obsessing over "fail-safe"
software. In today's world, denying logins when your authentication
system is broken is what you want.
> : AKA "Network Intruder Service"
> And how would they be helped by NIS? They can't read it until they're
> in. Then they can read whatever they like directly from passwd. (if
> you think that shadow protects you on a local machine, try booting it
> in single user mode via init=/bin/sh).
Historically speaking, NIS has had its fair share of problems, such as
allowing any machine which knows the domain name to request maps. Some
of these have been fixed, others haven't. However, I'd recommend
against running the servers on any machines visable from outside the
private network.
On a tangent, shadow passwords were not meant to protect you from an
administrator with local access. They're to prevent normal users from
acquiring password entries, which they do accomplish. (Unless, of
course, you can get them from NIS :)
> Prove it. Not that I don't believe its possible, just that if so it
> would be a mistake along the lines of NIS+, which nobody can stand for
> the same reason: it's obscure, fragile, and adds a layer of
> dependencies you don't want. And it isn't that way on MY debian
> system. Consider the failure modes.
On the other hand, speaking as someone who's used both Sun flavors,
NIS+ is much more secure than plain NIS.
--
Matthew Gauthier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 21:00:53 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
> >Take pam away and you lose nothing and gain robustness against failures.
> >login should _never_ be dynamically linked.
>
> If your system is screwed such that you've broken dynamic linking, well,
> then your shell and 95% of your utilities are probably busted anyway so
> logging in is of little use.
>
ACK
> Or do you statically link your shell, cat, ls, vi, fdisk, and a whole pile
> of other binaries "just in case"? I thought that's what rescue disks were
> for, but hey, that's just me. You are certainly free to statically link
> your whole system if you want.
>
Don't want to see the memory requirements... *gg*
Andy
--
Andreas Rottmann (Dru@ICQ, 54523380@ICQ)
Pfeilgasse 4-6/725, A-1080 Wien, Austria, Europe
http://www.altern.org/arot/
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Beauchamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:32:34 GMT
Francis Van Aeken wrote:
>
> Richard Morrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You should examine our business model :)
>
> "Linuxcare provides a comprehensive solution for Linux technical support,
>consulting, education,
> and product certification for Global 1000 companies."
>
> Now, I find "support, consulting, education, and product certification " extremely
> boring.
Oh that we can always do what we want, and get paid for it! I've "done
my time" in software support, and it is one of the most demoralising
jobs out! But, in doing so, I learnt alot about bad software, and about
the Users who have to use the bad software. Most people here probably
know one end of a keyboard from another, and support helpdesk is about
as close as we'll get to understanding those who don't!
> I want to create and sell original software that is fundamentally different from
>everything that
I quite enjoy doing that also, however, it currently wouldn't pay the
bills, so I do it in my spare time. Which seems to be another part of
the open source culture. Most coders don't do open source full time.
They have day jobs which let them eat (often computer related, but
nethertheless not entirely relevant), and collaborate in the evening and
weekends, with people all across the world! Often huge numbers of
different people contributing code. Can you imagine, that, to take a big
example, Linux Kernel suddenly decided to go commercial. Every single
person who contributed code to the kernel would have credited with some
of the price of a license. And those already "in" would not want anyone
else "in" 'cos it would reduce their share. And so there would be no
incentive to contribute. And so the whole model will fall apart! What's
the point in contributing to a project where only one person or group
takes all the cash _and_ stops you from selling the software? This is
precisely why it all works! This is why Linux is such a good product,
why its so stable. Because _everyone_ who even runs it has an interest
in it! When you run Windows its because Microsoft have drawn up a
license which says that you can use their software in the ways
prescribed, but these are your only rights, all other rights are
reserved, we say how the software will develop. We know what's best. The
only thing that you can't do with Free (GPL, and otheres) software is to
restrict someone else's right to use it, and that which derives from it!
There is no one there saying that you're not allowed to have more than
10 people connected to the machine when you know full well that it will
support more than that.
We are seeing more and more the rift between the interests of large
corporations and the general public. Witness DeCSS and the MPAA. Witness
the way the corporations (eg. Coca-Cola vs coke.ch) think that they have
first shout over Domain Names, just because in one context its the same
as one of their products! Perhaps the National Coal Board should have a
word too! Is this the way round life should be? [OK, so now I'm really
ranting] Company's are there to serve us!
I am, of course, not saying that you don't have the right to take
software that you have written yourself and distribute as you see fit!
If you wrote it yourself, then its your property to do with what you
like. Just don't expect us to help unless we get to share.
> exists already. Quite the opposite of open source, actually.
>
You are implying that there is no original open source software? I
suggest that (if I have my history correct) you check your web browser
and server! Your UNIX operating system (yes, it was originally open
source, maybe not in the same way as things are now, but I still feel it
counts). Others can probably come up with other examples. Suffice it to
say, that there is no shortage of talent and originality out there! Of
course, though there will be those who will copy (the most blatant
recently was the Freemware (plex86) which was started immediately after
vmware released their (most excellent) piece of software.). But then
Excel was hardly an original concept - all groups are just as guilty.
</rant>
[Eek did I write _that_ much!]
Chris
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[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: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:35:10 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:19:09 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>> IBM could have decided to preload OS/2 on their machines
>> -- Better Windows than Windows, right?
>
>IBM did decide to preload OS/2 on their machines.
Yes, but not the to exclusion of Windows. Thus, they were promoting
Windows AND had to pay MS for the licenses.
>FIND of FACT:
>
>119. Representatives from IBM and Microsoft, including Bill Gates, met to
>discuss the relationship between their companies at an industry conference
>in November 1994. At that meeting, IBM informed Microsoft that, rather
>than enter into the Frontline Partnership with Microsoft, IBM was going to
>pursue an initiative it called "IBM First." Consistent with the title of
>the initiative, IBM would aggressively promote IBM's software products,
>would not promote any Microsoft products, and would pre-install OS/2 Warp
>on all of its PCs, including those on which it would also pre-install
>Windows. IBM thus rejected the terms that would have resulted in an $8
>reduction in the per-copy royalty price of Windows 95.
Yep, that's the IBM version of aggressively promoting your own product
and not promoting your competitors products -- install BOTH.
>125. IBM never agreed to renounce SmartSuite or to increase its support
>for Microsoft software, and in the end, Microsoft did not grant IBM a
>license to pre-install Windows 95 until fifteen minutes before the start
>of Microsoft's official launch event on August 24, 1995.
Why did they even want to install Windows95? So much for a better
Windows than Windows. So much for aggressive promotion of your own
products and not promoting Windows.
>The pent-up demand caused an initial surge in the sales of PCs loaded
>with Windows 95. IBM's OEM competitors reaped the fruits of this surge,
>but because of the delay in obtaining a license, the IBM PC Company did
>not. The PC Company also missed the back-to-school market.
>These lost opportunities cost IBM substantial revenue.
The pent up demands for a new OS? Gee, it sounds like the consumer
really did prefer Windows95 over OS/2.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJC)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: New research question, this time about Apache
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:49:16 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:09:51 -0000, "Tom Steinberg"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2) I know the 12 million estimate figure for Linux usage around the world.
>3) Geographic/demographic info on the opensource community. I know it must
>be pretty scarce, but it'd be interesting. After all, not many world beating
>trends start in Finland.
http://counter.li.org/
--
djc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: 23 Mar 2000 20:54:36 GMT
of course it can be done. as for the distro i'd try RedHat 5.2 (i have it
running on 175mb hdd). Caldera is another good one and so is Slackware.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K aquired by 1 million (yawn)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:08:12 -0600
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bdhuv$4b5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As predicted, Microsoft has announced an outstanding success and has
> announced that "1 million units of Windows 2000 Aquired by Customers
> Worldwide".
Rex. You've already posted this. Twice IIRC. Are you simply upset that
it's not generating any responses? So you keep posting it again?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: joys of command-line image manipulation
Date: 23 Mar 2000 16:08:07 -0500
Besides being a programmer, I've been appointed the company Intranet
webmaster. This means I occasionally have to do menial tasks like put
employee photos into the on-line directory.
We have a digital camera, which makes color JPEGS that are much too
large, both in bytes and pixels. What we want is two sizes of grayscale
image, one a thumbnail for search results, the other a good-sized image
for an individual entry.
Also, the images are all sideways when I get them, as the camera knows
nothing about portrait vs landscape.
I've created a little shell script using pnm utilities that rotates,
scales, and converts to grayscale a mass of photos (just got a set of
15). It's running as I write this message.
Gee, I sure wish I were using a whizzy graphical interface so that I
could dance with the mouse on each of the 80 pictures I've put in this
week. NOT!
Sorry, gotta go; the script just finished. I need a slower machine than
this P100. :-)
--
Bruce R. Lewis <URL:http://web.mit.edu/brlewis/www/>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:13:52 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > ehmm, yes it does. linux 2.2 has capabilities and RH6.x ships with
2.2.
> >
> >
> > Strange, my Redhat 6 installation with "everything" installed shows no
> > reference to "capabilities". A search of the kernel mailing lists
mentions
> > patches to get this to work in 2.2.x kernels.
>
> have a look at /proc/sys/kernel/capabilities and
> linux/include/linux/capabilities.h.
Doesn't exist in 2.2.5.
> not sure if it's in the 2.2.5 kernel with RH6.0, but it's definitely in
> 2.2.12 with RH6.1.
I'll check it out, but I guess that means you were wrong that it's part of
any distribution with a 2.2 kernel.
> > You don't consider the ability to give files access by multiple groups
> > important? You don't consider the ability to give only multiple
selected
> > users access to a given file without creating a special group to put
them
> > in?
>
> yes it can be useful. and on unix you can do it by creating a group.
You don't see where I said "without creating a special group"?
> so the only functional difference is that the Unix user has to ring the
> sysadmins and ask for a group to be created.
Right. And in a 10,000 machine environment, asking the sysadmin to do that
can take days or weeks for them to get around to it.
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:11:22 GMT
> A few days from now, a 2.4 distro might be available with USB
> built in.
I guess there will be more than a few days, and much more till
USB support is reasonably wide spread and stable.
> Besides, for the price of an NT5 licence you can replace the
> mouse and the printer and still have money left over for self
> help guides or pizza.
Well, may be the telephone cost of browsing to be able to
get, configure and test Linux software let you buy Windows 2000
and several software packages.
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:11:23 GMT
> I have to disagree. Linux advocates say it can be done because it can be
done
> - without a hassle - and without a performance "loss". I have installed
> Windows95 on a machine with 4 megs of ram before also, and let me tell
you, it
> took 5 hours to run the install program and 30 minutes to boot the first
time,
> not to mention all the subsequent reboots to get all the devices and
drivers
> working properly. And that was on a 486 machine!
I agree, but it could be done.
> I am trying Linux on a 386
> sx 20 with 4 megs of ram and an 85 meg hard drive.
> Anyhow, I have been (at least partially) successful. I put a copy of
Xdemu
> on it which worked right off the bat, and I downloaded a copy of Pygmy
Linux to
> try on it tonight. I suspect this will also work, and work better than
Xdemu -
> it is a more robust installation. If Pygmy works, it has everything
necessary
> to run a small Linux system including X, all the standard utilities, PPP,
> telnet, ftp, networking, etc... Try that with Windows95,98,NT,2000,etc on
a
Targeted to that machine, Windows 3.11 should be enough and should give
more desktop usability than under Linux. If you talk about serving, I have
nothing
to say. Anyway, I suppose that compiling the kernel targeted to your
concrete
machine is part of the configuration, I guess it will be more than Windows
installation
time.
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:11:18 GMT
Typing error, when I said sendmail I wanted to say sendfax (and don't
tell me about hylafax, it is even worse).
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:11:20 GMT
> : 1) Serious and easy modem/fax and printer support.
> : (sendmail makes me laugh, postscript printers suck)
Sorry, I wanted to say sendfax.
> You can't possibly
> be serious about the "suck"ness of Postscript printers.
> The price is higher in some cases, but so is the quality
Exactly, higher enough that home users prefer other
printers just like Canon, HP, Epson, ... no postscript,
now tell me that printers as are easy to configure at
Linux that at Windows ... and I'll tell you lier.
> not
> to mention the interoperability. If I want to swap Postscript
> printers, all I need to do is give it the IP of the old one and
> my apps don't know the difference.
If I change my printer under Windows I just change the
hardware and insert cd drivers CD, it autoplays, and
installs perfectly ... that's end user usability.
> Most modern window managers use GUI-based configuration.
> You shouldn't need to mess with the files unless you want to.
What about similar behaviour ? You do not tell anything about
it : compare KDE, GNOME, icewm, Windowmaker, amiwm,
mlwm, fvwm, fvwm95, afterstep, ... I thought that copy and
paste was a big thing, and please, don't send me to gpm.
> I've never used graphical distribution installers. As for
> application installers, programs like gnorpm makes the process
> virtually trivial.
I do not like either, but it seems that the last distros tend to
force you to do it. Corel, Redhat and SuSE to me know. Why
to imitate Windows like installation ? Wasn't it so bad ? I think
the real bad are the imitations. Let's mantain Linux as server
and try to reach FreeBSD.
> I don't use "office"-type software. Non-frontended LaTeX handles
> my typesetting needs and I don't do spreadsheet work. Staroffice
> didn't look terribly impressive last time I checked, but perhaps
> Corel's WordPerfect suite is better. I just haven't had the
> inclination to check. All the software I use runs best on
> UNIX-like systems so IMHO Windows is the platform that needs to
> catch up.
Well, I use Office 2000, Photoshop 5.0 (yeah yeah, GIMP is as good
as it uh!), Outlook Express and IE 5, I think those programs can today
hardly run better (or even at all) on a Unix like system. As I said and you
could not negate, StarOffice is as bloated as you use to say Office is.
> If you count xmame, add about 1900 games to that - most perfectly
> emulated and some quite recent. I prefer classics like Nethack, Tempest
> or SF2Turbo, myself. Linux isn't a great gaming platform, but if
> games are what you want, a PC is a pretty poor economical choice
> anyway.
Please, be serious, I meant native games, remember that Windows has
MAME23 too, and it in fact runs better than XMAME (at lease the versions
I tested), so, which is the game ratio between Windows 95/98 (or even
Windows 2000) and Linux ? 10 to 1 ? I know that buying a computer to
play games is not the best idea, but what's wrong to use it for that too ?
It
has the capabilities, in fact, some of the PC graphics cards are excellent
at gaming.
> Moore's Law has made X11 speedy, if a bit overdesigned.
Overdesigned, thanks, that was the word.
> X11 was fast for me 7 years ago on Sparc5s running fvwm.
> X isn't slow, it's the desktop environments.
But these environments are exactly what evolution and home
users has become to need, though I admit, sometimes, they are
not fully neccessary.
> XFree86 comes with no desktops. That's not its job.
I know.
> No. I don't run KDE. Or GNOME. And X runs very fast for me.
I suppose that you have not desktop funcionality, have you ?
> You'd rather have viruses than a tool you don't care for? You can't
> be serious.
Sure I was not, you got me :), but protecting a computer against
Outlook virus is pretty simple, don't you think so ? Honestly I think
Microsoft internet tools are the easiest and most powerful around.
> consider IE (or Netscape) a "serious internet tool". If I want to
> get serious, I'll use tools like wget to extract data from the internet.
> If you want pretty applications, just say so.
IE 5 at W2K gets data from URLS very well, and it resumes all
of them transparently to the user. I know wget is a wonderful piece
of code, but it compiles too for Windows. Anyway, browsing is
today important to get information, and even commerce, and it will
become more and more important; Unix lacks a good browsing tool
in my opinion (I tested Hotjava under Solaris, Netscape, Lynx, KDE
integrated browser, Arena and Mosaic), and that you do not consider
browsing serious does not mean you have given to me an answer
negating my argumentation.
> Home users can't be lumped into a group because they all need
> different things. Linux offers plenty to some, and little to others.
Sure, then why in this group, does Windows always suck and Linux is
always the thing to use ?
> You'll have to actually give some real arguments before any real
Read above.
> If you don't care for Linux, don't run it.
I care, and I run, but that does not get me blind on seeing its
own faults. I like to see Linux as a server product evolving
towards desktop computing, not as the all purpose OS as this
group uses to say. It is very easy to take a Win9x user, show him
or her Linux, and convince that it is much more better that Win9x,
even when after at about 85% backs to Win9x; but those Win9x
users would the same be impressed with Windows NT/2000 and
in this case backing won't reach 15%.
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:11:20 GMT
> Sitting on my shelf NOW is CivCTP, MythII, Heretic II,
> Quake I-III, Unreal Tournament, Bfris, Hopkins FBI,
> Heroes of Might and Magic III, RailRoad Tycoon II and
> Erics Ultimate Software.
12 games, just about two times that number are given as
demos every month in Windows magazines.
> Heavy Gear II just went gold and includes enviromental audio.
> SMAC and SimCity 3000 are close to going beta.
Sure, and can you use every sound card in the market under
Linux ?
> Plus there are other commercial ports coming, plus commercial
> quality multiplatform releases and some rather good shareware/
> gnuware releases.
Please, let's not talk about the future. Today and now please ! Other
thing would be fictionware.
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 21:11:22 GMT
> Sendmail for the most part should be transparent to most users.
I wanted to say sendfax.
> PS printers actually tend to be the better ones. Furthermore,
> you're spreading the implicit LIE that Unix only supports PS
> printers.
I admit the implicit lie, but the non PS printers support arrives
slowly and hardly. I mean, do you want to print under Linux (or
Unix) ? Then choose your printer with much care. Under Windows 9x ?
Then just buy whatever you want. Under NT/2000 ? Just take a littke
care.
> You're really full of shit here. For quite some time there have
> been one button installs that make as many stupid assumptions as
> an MS installer would. There's even eye candy to be had if you
> really want it.
I hate those graphical installations, most of all because are buggy;
nothing to say if worked at least as good as console ones. I mean
Linux is trying to imitate Windows, stop it now, just follow your
own way, it will result in a better OS. And target it to server.
> Either put up or shut up. If you can't say anything useful, that
> those of us that actually use these classes of software can relate
> to (on or off Windows), then you're just blowing a whole lot of hot
> air...
What I meant is that neither Microsoft Office is as bad or bloated,
nor StarOffice (your office flag) as good or light. And that developing
desktop applications will carry no matter what platform to a big
software and towards bugs. If you need .DOC compatibility you
need Microsoft Office, though I admit I would prefer documents
to be exchanged under an open standar like HTML.
> I've had no problems changning icons on a 100Mhz, 32M machine.
Lie. While KDE shows the available icons under /opt/kde/share/icons
to change a desktop item you can take your dinner. I wanted everyone
to test it to see if I am telling the truth.
> Why is Windows so
> weak that you have to actively LIE to prop it up?
Every OS has its faults. I do not advocate Windows, just verify
that is the today's most useful desktop home computer. I am not
a normal user, so I have installed Windows 98, Windows 2000,
two Linux, one FreeBSD and Solaris 7, but if I have to recommend
a desktop OS : home = Win98, office = W2KPro. Servers are
another thing, but even at that battle, I'd rather prefer Solaris or
FreeBSD than Linux. My lies were tested under the 3 mindcraft
tests (until Linux had to shut up), which carried Linus to even
include kernel optimization http daemon just to beat Windows NT
Server, that is not FUD, Redhat was there. The only thing Linux
has better today is price and open source, if you do not need these ...
> Netscape under Linux doesn't even break more than IE5 under NT4.
Sure it does, I wanted everyone tested it. Besides, IE5 under Windows
2000 has crashed only two times for me. I have been using IE5 for 12 hours
non-stop heavily without problems. Netscape won't be able to do that.
> This is just more recycled third party clueless fud. The same
> goes for claiming that there aren't any other GUI mail clients and
> your inability to address real user relevant points.
Note that I have neither nothing against you, nor against Linux; just
telling my opinions based on mine and several people; and do not
think that I talk about third party, every software I talked about is
running
on my machine and has been used by me. FUD is telling a 32MB machine
changes icons under KDE as under Windows, or that Netscape crashes
as much as IE, that's the real FUD.
> So? Microsoft is specifically discouraging home users from
> using or installing NT5. So claiming it as a trump for
> home users is rather disengenuous.
Well, you can do a thing, test it (if you have not done yet) and
then you could talk by yourself. Microsoft is covering its own
backs, but many home users would like to have a little partition
to play games under Win98 and working with W2KPro, just
because it is a pleasure. Some may even want to install Linux
if they like playing with OS's and computers. And some may
even want to use Linux tools although normally that will be
harder to configurate, to use and beta.
> The only one spreading FUD here is you. All one has to do to refute
> you is point out the lack of any real detail in your post.
Yeah yeah ... 32MB under KDE perfectly ... uh ! You are a valerous man !
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:18:06 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Who said anything about "big enough"? In order to process data for 30
> > million user accounts, you need hefty systems with hefty I/O
requirements.
> > A 64 bit architecture for this is almost mandatory.
>
> ERIK,
>
> repeat after me:
>
> "Solaris/UltraSPARC is not a 64bit architecture."
Sun seems to disagree with you. They specifically call UltraSPARC a 64 bit
architecture.
And again, we're talking about *I/O* which is a kernel function, thus 64
bit, along with the 64 bit PCI system.
Other factors to choose UltraSPARC over (current) NT is that it's scalable
to 64 (soon 128) processors and has a pretty impressive routed backplane to
prevent I/O contention. NT is currently limited to 8 processors, though
DataCenter will expand that.
> keep saying this until it gets through your thick skull.
You honestly believe that Solaris's 64 bit kernel has no effect whatsoever
on the user processes?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
