Linux-Advocacy Digest #892, Volume #25 Fri, 31 Mar 00 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (George Marengo)
Re: Nice link (Robert Heininger)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Jeremy Allison)
Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp... (JoeX1029)
Re: Nice link (Gary Hallock)
Re: Nice link ("Dirk Gently")
For the WinTrolls - incredible (Tim Kelley)
Re: W2K: The "Mr. Creosote" of operating systems
Re: Advocacy??? (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? (Michael Martin)
Re: Giving up on NT (Chris Wenham)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Robert Heininger)
Re: Weak points ("Dirk Gently")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Daniel Tryba)
Re: xfs is out! (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Gary Hallock)
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:40:04 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:49:38 +1000,
>> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>Why would you port to a platform that your product wouldn't sell on ?
>>How could you _justify_ a port to a platform that isn't really interested ?
>
>If that were their logic, they'd have dropped the palmtop windows
>(what's it called this week?) and gone back to the desktop with their tail
>between their legs.
Actually, MS just came out with a /new/ version of the palmtop
Windows OS, codenamed Rapier -- they now call it the PocketPC.
While it looks like it's a nice change, I think the tide has long
turned and the PalmOS will eventually kill off MS on the palmtops,
irrespective of Rapier. While Byte says it's twice as fast as WinCE,
it's still slower than PalmOS. As they do on the desktop, MS is still
depending on hardware speed to make up for a sluggish OS in
the portable market.
http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20000315S0009
In any case, MS tends to slog away at a market until:
1) They succeed.
2) They have an alternative market
3) It's quite clear that they're not getting anywhere
If #1 is met, they continue on
If #2 is met, they drop the product in the failing market
If #3 is met, they attempt to /buy/ the competition.
Windows1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 9.x is an example of #1
OS/2 and NT on non-Intel is an example of #2
MS-Money and Quicken is an example of #3
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: Nice link
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:43:02 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:22:37 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Cihl' wrote:
>If you're using Windows, please click the link below for
>something nice:
>
>file:///c:/aux/aux
hehe. . Walked over to one of my _win_boxen_, keyed it into M$IE and got a
BSOD that only a 1 finger salute would fix.
COOL!
--
Robert Heininger __
# / / __ _ _ _ _ __ __ #
(o- # / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / #
//\ # /____/ /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ #
v_/_ # The Choice of the GNU Generation #
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:00:20 GMT
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>GCC produces less efficient code, yes, but . . . how do I get VC++ to
>cross compile my code for an Intel micro-controller?
And to add to that, the matter is far from black-and-white. In a different
newsgroup, the subject of ByteMarks came up recently, and someone went and
compiled them with the Intel Reference Compiler, under Win98SE, for a
PIII-450. And yet, a Celeron 400 linux system with egcs-compiled executable
gets higher scores in both sorting tests and the LU Decomposition test.
My linux/egcs P3/733EB gets more than *twice* the score of the
Win98/IntelRefComp P3/450 in those tests.
Bernie
--
Computers are useless.
They can only give you answers.
Pablo Picasso
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Allison)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: 31 Mar 2000 19:09:39 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>And which protocols might those be? There aren't many of them. Even many
>of the protocols Microsoft developed or co-developed exist as RFC's. PPTP
>for instance.
There are *hundereds* of them - maybe even thousands.
All the code generated from the IDL files that define
the protocols MS uses (running over DCE/RPC, which is a
published standard) to manage NT domains, NT users,
NT machines, Exchange servers... the list goes on.
All of these are used as hidden proprietary wedges
to drive the adoption of Microsoft servers due to
the fact that Microsoft clients only support these
protocols. *That's* the real monopolistic practice
that needs to be curbed by law.
In addition, the modifications to the DCE/RPC security
system that MS made (to use NTLMv1, NTLMv2) need to be
published. Yes I know Luke in the Samba Team has
reverse engineered many of these, but that's not the
point.
MS should publish the IDL for these protocols, and the
modifications made to DCE/RPC to support the Microsoft
proprietary security protocols.
That's what *I* mean by "full and open disclosure of
the Windows API's" :-).
Someone once said that "if Microsoft had invented the
Internet, we wouldn't have protocols, we'd have API's".
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp...
Date: 31 Mar 2000 19:30:10 GMT
I'm unsure if they still run UNIX largely but a close friend that worked at M$
as a programmer (he hated it but it paid well). During one of our talks over
OS and a little on NT he told me they use(d) UNIX for servers. I'm not sure I
want to know how he knows this but like I said i'm unsure if they still run
UNIX but, they did.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:47:02 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nice link
Cihl wrote:
> If you're using Windows, please click the link below for
> something nice:
>
> file:///c:/aux/aux
I think I owe tech/steve/heather an apology. Some of these drivers
for Windows really do have more features than the equivalents for Linux
:-)
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nice link
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:47:12 GMT
BEGIN SARCASM & ANGER
Thanks! Ir goofed up my harddisk. Last time Outlook Express was open, it
would never ever ever run again. Luckily, I can still run Outlook Express.
END SARCASM & ANGER
That's a neat trick! Thanks.
--
Jeff Lacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:N16F4.2477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you're using Windows, please click the link below for
> something nice:
>
> file:///c:/aux/aux
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:59:21 -0600
Why am I not surprised?
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000331S0002
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: W2K: The "Mr. Creosote" of operating systems
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:02:04 GMT
On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:41:18 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> http://www.montypython.net/showimage.php3?PIC=/pix/meaning/creo.jpg
>> http://www.montypython.net/showimage.php3?PIC=/pix/meaning/vomitcln.jpg
>>
>> Have another DLL. They're wafer thin!
>>
>> http://www.montypython.net/showimage.php3?PIC=/pix/meaning/explode.jpg
>
>
>Truly .. would .. you like another ... mint?
>
><duck>
it's wafer thin!
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy???
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:26:41 +0200
Richard Wilson wrote:
>
> I'd like to start off by saying that I don't care much which OS is
> best. I like using Windows and Linux. I like Linux for the challenge
> and learning stuff.
>
> I'd like to share with you something that happened to me on IRC Undernet
> #linuhelp channel. I was having some trouble recognizing all my memory
> and it was something to do with my lilo.conf. Someone asked me to send
> my lilo.conf so I pasted it into the linuxhelp channel. I was
> immediately and unceremoniously kicked out of the channel with "ask
> before you do this". I got back on and stated that I was actually asked
> to do this by someone on the channel.
>
> Then someone who's nick was SpamS..... or something like (who was quite
> active in the channel) asked me to send it to him. Again I was
> chucked out with "I told you" by the exact same person who asked me to
> send my lilo.conf. I was not allowed back onto the channel.
>
> Now my point is, someone going here for the first or second time is not
> to know of all the taboo rules of the channel and I believe I behaved in
> a way anyone would naturally do so. I am a relative newbie to Linux and
> am doing my very best to learn all I can by whatever means,
> (newsgroups, books, IRC, documentation) If Linux is supposed to be a
> great OS (which I believe it is) and it's being advocated for new users
> to take up, this kind of unfriendliness is going to do little to attract
> newbies. this is not the first time I've been treated arrogantly by
> those "in the know" who think I should already know. We all have to
> start somewhere and it's a shame that some will be intimidated away from
> Linux (not me though)
>
> Comments welcome
>
> --
> Rich W. (Remove *** from email address if replying by email)
Try the yahoo! unix chatroom. People there help others out whenever
they can, and I've even helped people out on occasion when I could.
-Dan O'Nolan
------------------------------
From: Michael Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:25:38 -0600
LFessen106 wrote:
>
> I have heard that Linux can be run on a 386 wityh 4 megs of ram several
> times... WELL, I'd like to test that theory, and I happen to have an old
> working 386 12mhz with 4 megs of ram and a 200 meg hdd. Can it be done? You
> tell me (please!). What distro should I use? What in the world can I do with
> a 386 12 running Linux? What would it be good for (if anything)? This is just
> a fun project and I just *hate* throwing good hardware away. The pc is runnnig
> win3.11 happily right now, but I am SURE that we could make better use of it
> that that right?
> -Linc.
The smallest configuration I ever ran on was an old Toshiba laptop.
386SX, 4mb ram,
20mb hard drive (yes, twenty, not two hundred!) I used this
configuration for a week
or so just to debug some dialup problems we were having (slip problems -
this was
pre-PPP days!) It worked fine. No X of course - not near enough room on
the drive!
--
================================
Michael Martin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(713) 918-2631
================================
------------------------------
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:30:49 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3/31/00, 12:30:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang=20
Weisselberg) wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
> That would of course force shortcuts and hack-arounds. Under
> Windows these are known as Active-X, an endless source of
> frustration to gamers and users alike. One shoe does not fit
> every application. If you want them to be 'themed', you may wish
> to look at KDE & friends.
I'd leave the user with the responsibility of deciding how badly to=20
compromise the overall interface by running such programs. And in=20
later generations the toolkits could elegantly deal with the needs of=20
arcade games.
However, I sympathise a lot more with the camp who'd have you buy a=20
console if you wanted to play games. The best computer I own today is=20
a Handspring Visor (Palm clone) and I don't care if I can't write=20
pages of text with it like I could with the full keyboard of a laptop.=20
I could buy an external keyboard just like I could install progarms=20
with non-standard controls, but I'm not interested in that. The Visor=20
is valuable because it's -small- and I value a user interface that's=20
-consistent-.=20
What you're now suggesting is that the differences still left over=20
after installing a new window manager are insignificant, whereas I=20
think they add up.
Regards,
Chris Wenham.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 31 Mar 2000 20:42:13 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:29:38 -0500, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Alright, let's tackle the rest--or, at least more--of this monster:
|
| "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|
| > >The issue is reinstalling Windows. Rescue disks are one way to do that.
| > >Hence, it's valid in terms of relevance to the issue. I would also say
| it
| > >is important to the issue, since we're discussing what is necessary to
| > >install Windows and the possible ways that one can do that.
|
| > Rescue disks, even if they were relevant, are not "a way to reinstall
| > Windows", regardless. They are an entirely different process, method, AND
| > RESULT from "reinstalling Windows". Very similar, I'll agree.
| Substituted
| > for reinstalling Windows on a large number of systems because it is easier
| for
| > unknowlegable end-users, PC manufacturers, and Microsoft. But that
| doesn't
| > mean they are the same thing, and I think the difference is crucial in
| this
| > discussion.
|
| The conversation was ease, or lack of the same, of installing Windows.
| Rescue Disks _do_ reinstall Windows by just popping the disk in and being
| prompted to stick the Windows disk in at the right time. Maybe your point
| was that they might install some extra stuff too?
>From my experience, rescue disks are nothing more then the contents of
your hard drive as it came from the factory, compressed and put on a
CD with a little bit of software that will put it back onto the hard
drive. And while yes that does result in having Windows installed,
it debatable that doing that is "installing Windows," at least in the
context of this discussion.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:44:24 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:59:21 -0600,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Tim Kelley' wrote:
>http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000331S0002
What's the big deal? It's only just an "issue", according to Microsoft.
Didn't you read the whole article? What's wrong with you? All the facts
that _you_need_to_know_ are right there in the last sentence. What's your
point? ;-)
--
Robert Heininger __
# / / __ _ _ _ _ __ __ #
(o- # / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / #
//\ # /____/ /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ #
v_/_ # The Choice of the GNU Generation #
------------------------------
From: "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:00:42 GMT
Shut Up. Linux is better than Windows. That should be a fact, but losers
like you are overwelmed by the choises Linux has. I think your messahe
should have been posted in
alt.flame.linuxfortheidiot.iamanactiveidiot.isupportmicrospuke
--
Linux Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:s3rC4.2355$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 1) Serious and easy modem/fax and printer support.
> (sendmail makes me laugh, postscript printers suck)
>
> 2) Coherent window manager configuration files and behaviour.
>
> 3) If easy installation methods are to be so, better go back text mode
> installations or else improve the so called "easy" installations, because
> really suck.
>
> 4) Apart from saying that there's decent software lack, just point that
> the tries to make it (aka Staroffice) produce such a bloated software as
you
> claim Microsoft Office and the kind are. I disagree, Microsoft Office is
far
> ahead from Staroffice, not to mention Applixware, LyX (huuhuhu), ...
>
> 5) Games ... yeah yeah, not every one like the 10 decent games. And
> besides, X11 was awful and slow, perhaps XFree86 4.0 get it closer to
> Windows desktop, though I don't think so. KDE ? Don't make me laugh, have
> you ever tried to change an icon on a 350MHz and 256MB SDRAM machine,
hehe,
> pitiful.By the way, I do not like Quake, any more ? Huhu
>
> 6) Serious internet tools : pine sucks, Netscape breaks more than
Windows
> 3.11 and is awful and slow. Nothing like IE 5 (the browser) and Outlook
> Express (yeah yeah, virus are a problem ... but prefer them than slrn,
tin,
> krn and such sucky tools).
>
> 7) Yeah yeah, Apache runs very well under Linux ... but do not forget
> that under Solaris, FreeBSD, and even NT/2K too, and besides, home users
> don't really need a web server. Is Linux offering anything to home users ?
> And be serious, do not tell me about BSOD's evey 5 minutes because Windows
> 2000 (and NT almost) has never frozen.
>
> 8) I am going to stop in here, and wait for your answers, I hope you to
> do it without FUD and with real arguments (if any).
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:00:34 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:14:38 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Proof please. Provide URL's to resellers for NT4 on MIPS. MIPS is
> > currently 64 bit BTW.
> > NT4 on MIPS was never 64 bit.
>
> Nor was it on Alpha. Neither is Linux on Alpha.
Incorrect. Linux on Alpha is indeed 64 bit.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 31 Mar 2000 21:38:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NT4 on MIPS was never 64 bit.
> Nor was it on Alpha. Neither is Linux on Alpha.
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/96/09/064/
or
>From the Alphalinux FAQ on http://www.alphalinux.org:
----
1.3 Porting to Alpha: the long and short of it
Here is a somewhat random collection of popular ways of shooting
yourself in the foot on Unix when programming in C. This has practically
nothing to do
with Linux or Alpha, but since Linux/Alpha is among the pioneers in
64-bit land, these errors are more likely to show on such systems.
sizeof(long)!=32
Many programs assume a long is 32 bits wide. This is non-sense. The
ANSI C standard does not specify anything like that. For example, on an
Alpha
running a grown up operating system such as DEC Unix or Linux, the
fundamental C types have the following sizes and alignment restrictions:
+ char: 8 bits as usual, byte alignment is fine.
+ short: 16 bits as usual, 2 byte alignment required.
+ int: 32 bits as usual, 4 byte alignment required.
+ float: 32 bits as usual, 4 byte alignment required.
+ long: 64 bits, 8 byte alignment required.
+ void*: 64 bits, 8 byte alignment required.
+ double: 64 bits as usual, 4 byte alignment required.
----
That's all I can find on the moment. But somewehere there can be found
an entire history of the Alpha port. It began as an 32-bit port (Blade)
but soon after there appeared an 64-bit port. Can anyone tell me where
to find this?
It support more than 4Gb memory, and >2Gb filesize (with the same code
as the ports). So atleast I/O is 64bit.
And since NetBSD seems to discribe NetBSD/Alpha as an 64bit OS as
follows.
>From the NetBSD/Alpha page:
----
NetBSD/alpha
NetBSD/alpha is the port of NetBSD to Digital's Alpha AXP systems. It is
a true 64-bit port, and uses 64-bit pointers and 64-bit long integers.
----
My conclusion is that Alpha/Linux is a 64-bit OS.
But please explain what's wrong with the above according to you (please
include references so I can study them...)
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xfs is out!
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:22:06 +0200
horst wrote:
>
> Hey, sgi's xfs is finally out there.
> That makes three journaling file systems in the works, jfs, xfs and
> reiserfs.
>
> That's good news!
Raiser is already stable. SuSE is planning on putting it in their next
release (due out on April 4th).
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:53:04 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > Proof please. Provide URL's to resellers for NT4 on MIPS. MIPS is
> > currently 64 bit BTW.
> > NT4 on MIPS was never 64 bit.
>
> Nor was it on Alpha. Neither is Linux on Alpha.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
You must be one hell of a masochist. You keep repeating this lie even though you
know Linux on Alpha is 64-bit and even though you know that everyone reading this
ng knows that Linux on Alpha is 64-bit.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:37:51 +0200
Erna Odelfsan wrote:
>
> > No. Not even close. Old-style commercial software.
>
> Then I can't understand why is everyone not only here
> (a know a lot of friends doing to) comparing it to Linux.
> It is not GPL, which are similarities ? Is it Unix based ?
In the terminal, it looks, and acts like a *NIX CLI (with such unix
programs as awk, etc,.) It's very cool to play around with. I just
wish it was multi-user.
-Dan O'Nolan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:01:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Myers wrote:
>> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > Proof please. Provide URL's to resellers for NT4 on MIPS. MIPS is
>> > currently 64 bit BTW.
>> > NT4 on MIPS was never 64 bit.
>>
>> Nor was it on Alpha. Neither is Linux on Alpha.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
> You must be one hell of a masochist. You keep repeating this lie even though you
> know Linux on Alpha is 64-bit and even though you know that everyone reading this
> ng knows that Linux on Alpha is 64-bit.
He does this because he is *incredibly* stupid.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:08:22 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> The problem is he's asking something that he knows is not the way
> NT does things.
Ok, so what's the NT way of solving the problem presented?
> In effect, he's creating a strawman.
Nope. What he posted does not fit the definition of a straw man. It
was a system independent problem.
If you disagree, then by all means, redefine the problem presented in
terms that *YOU* think are system independent, then present an NT
solution for it.
Me, I'd probably present the NT solution as a "stupid Excel spreadsheet
tricks" kind of thing . . . assuming that they data was ASCII, and had a
format that would allow for importation, then the sorting problem is
trivial, unless the total amount of data exceeded what Excel could
handle (true story: they tried to solve a similiar problem using Excel,
except since the total data set was nearly 20,000 times larger than
Excel could handle. They had to throw the problem back in my lap. Perl,
bash, and about twenty minutes worth of processing time on our big Unix
server, and the job was done).
If the data set was to big, then if I were your, I'd do the NT advocate
backstep: turn my NT system into a mini-Unix box by installing some Unix
tools (such as Perl, sed, awk, uniq, etc) and present my NT solution as
identical to the Unix solution. In short, the NT solution would *BE*
the Unxix solution.
Funny thing: a heck of a lot of Unix tools have been ported to NT,
'cause NT couldn't productively and efficiently solve certain kinds of
problems (yes, text processing problems Chad, but the fact of the matter
is, most real business problems can be represented as text processing
problems).
Like I say: NT is a great kernel. It has some nice components (NTFS is
kind of nice, if by now a bit dated). It's all the MS proprietary crap
on top that makes me avoid NT like the plague (proprietary and closed
being the real sticking points, not the MS thing. MS is never going to
win over the high end market until they learn the lessons that the high
end Unix vendors already know, and "closed, proprietary protocols,
formats and interfaces" are a no-no in the high end market).
> If you want to debate about the merits of the various OS, let's talk
> in terms of how each one accomplishes different tasks.
NT sucks. Not because of it's kernel, 'cause the kernel is actually
rather nice, but because the effort of scraping off all that MS
proprietary stuff on top is just to much work!
Hey, Chad, can NT 2000 interact properly with other systems in a
Kerberos Version 5 network domain (as defined by the MIT Kerberos
version 5 reference code, not as "embraced and extended" by MS)?
In short, can NT 2000 finally work and play well with other vendors in
regards to network security?
I heard that it would (it was promised, anyway), but have no information
as to whether or not it actually does. Knowing MS, it probably doesn't,
but you never know . . .
Oh, incidentally, I'm still waiting for a cogent explanation of why SMTP
and NNTP are not good a good basis for solving your "collaboration"
problems . . . care to take a shot at it? I mean, either you can define
"collaboration", or you can't, right?
If you can, it's a real issue, if not, it's just a straw man.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
