Linux-Advocacy Digest #914, Volume #25 Sun, 2 Apr 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (Robert Morelli)
Re: Linux bugs!!! ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Nice link (John & Susie)
Let's just have a discussion about Global Domination (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Greg Patton")
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 10:09:46 -0400
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I do not know why you guys are making a big deal of this issue.
>
> If an ISP expects more than 51 connections to come in, they
> simply buy an additional copy of WIn2000 Server windows edition.
>
> The ISP needs to do their job, they need to montior
> how many IP's they use, and make sure they divide that
> number by 51. The resulting number is the number of win2000
> server windows edition they need to purshase from MS to meer
> their needs.
>
> I would say to also add 5% number of copies of win2000 server
> windows edition to be on the safe side.
>
> MS can also sell the ISP's a program that will dynamically
> detect the number of IP's used approaching 51, say at around
> 48 or 49, and this program will 'hot swap' the load of
> incomming connection to a copy of win2000 server windows
> edition whose number of IP's used is much less than 51.
>
> If all the copies of win2000 server windows edition running
> have each used the 51 IP's they can use, this program can
> automatically send an SNMP alert message for the operator to
> install an additional copy of win2000 server windows edition.
Gee, I never realized how much logic there was in this. I'd never
thought of that -- a program that dynamically detects when Windows is
going to run into a bug or "issue" and automatically alerts you to
start buying more Microsoft software and running around like a headless
chicken trying to head off a crash. Can we call it, "The leaning tower
of 2000"?
How about this: Microsoft should sell a "Mission Critical Administrator's
Tools" package. It should include not only your bug alert program, but also
1. Some books on numerology. After all, how are you going to know
the magic numbers like 51 without some kind of occult assistance.
2. A ouija board. Additional assistance, perhaps from the dead.
3. Inspirational FUD tapes. As you grapple with these problems, you're
going to find yourself asking, "Now why again do I need to use Windows when
other systems don't have these limitations?" At those times, just pop in
the tape and let your mind glaze over.
> Each OS has its limitations in one way or the other. The
> beauty with windows is that you could always buy more copies
> to spread the load around.
That is indeed a very beautiful thing. The ability to buy more copies is one of
the most beautiful and unique features of Windows.
It is a beatiful thing that with Window you can dump your load all over the place
and spread it around.
> I would have real issue with MS with this issue if they limited
> the number to say 15 or 12. But I think 51 is a large enough
> number, and we should thank, not condem MS for this. If MS
> wanted to really produce something less than an excellence,
> they would have put the limit at 5 IP's. Then I would be
> the first to have an issue with this issue.
No, you are correct. Excellence does not start until you get above 20 or so
IP addresses. And as you say, with a number as large as 51, we should thank
Microsoft. I would say that gratitude should start around 30 or so. At about
40 IP addresses, you have beauty. And at 51, excellence, gratitude, and
ineffible beauty.
> Having only 51 IP's per win2000 server windows edition, is not
> a big issue. Learn to live with it.
>
> bob
Hey, maybe I'll get myself another account and come out here clowning for
Bill, too ;)
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux bugs!!!
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 13:29:35 -0300
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:dhtF4.2636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Find a way, ANY way of crashing the entire Linux operating system while
> operating as a non-root user! Please post anything you can find in this
> thread. I'm sure many people will be interested!
A couple of years ago, when I was using Solaris, now and then an application
would freeze the console (X server failure). The only way to get the console
going again was to use another terminal to kill the process(es) that fucked
up. In a non-networked environment the only solution would have been a
reboot of the machine.
Has X gotten to the point that it never hangs? I believe that some messages on
the news claim the contrary. Does anybody have code that demonstrates the
"phenomenon" ?
Francis.
------------------------------
From: John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nice link
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 13:05:24 -0400
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> Francis Van Oaken wrote:
>
> > Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:N16F4.2477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > If you're using Windows, please click the link below for
> > > something nice:
> >
> > Here's an even nicer one: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Francis.
>
> Why? It's not like Chill maliciously created a web page to bring down Windows.
>It's
> simply points to a nonexistent file on you hard drive. Something anyone might do if
> they accidentally typed the wrong file name. You should be glad you found out this
>way
> rather than when you had other windows up with important work in progress. It was
> quite obvious that it was going to crash the system - it didn't take much reading
> between the lines to figure that out. Of course on Linux using Netscape I got what
>I
> would expect:
>
> Netscape is unable to find the file or directory named /c:/aux/aux. Check the name
>and
> try again.
Netscape running under NT also says it cant find the page. Whats it
supposed to do?
>
> Gary
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <"Charlie Ebert" [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Let's just have a discussion about Global Domination
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 17:08:13 GMT
Microsoft has told us all along what was necessary for a commercial=20
software vendor to acquire global domination of the Operating System=20
Market.
What answers has Microsoft provided us.
In the beginning, there was Microsoft with DOS and UNIX's galore
with UNIX. =20
The Microsoft DOS system was easier for NEWBIES to use, so it took
off. =20
To make the NEWBIE even more happy Microsoft made Windows 3.X.
This also put them in competition with Apple.
What was the final analysis! They gave the customer what he wanted.
A CHEAPER OS for a CHEAPER PC, the IBM PC CLONES.
Microsoft quickly began to dominate the Workstation market.
OS2 evolved along the same light. OS2 had some problems.
IBM insisted on writing all the drivers themselves.
Microsoft started a policy of having VENDORS write the drivers for
them. =20
IBM had a bad reputation from the start from all the people who delt
with them during the mainframe wars. Those IBM only shops with
IBM only employee's in them. Anybody who said anything bad about IBM
and was overheard was suddenly fired with no chance to gain employment=20
again. These were the HARD OLD DAYS back when IBM attempted to gain=20
global domination of the mainframe markets.
IN those days, MICROSOFT corporation was everybody's hero. =20
Believe me, they were!
So they made it all the way to the top then began a policy of making
proprietary communications interfaces built into their WEB BROWSER.
They attacked and devestated Netscape.
It was at this point in time that Microsoft quit attacking other OS
companies. They had won the war for the PC and were beginning to
attack other companies applications which gave threat to continued
global domination of the desktop.
Netscape was the next logical target. HTML was the saloon.
The INTERNET was the street where the gunbattle took place.
Netscape got one shot off and in the process received 5 rounds to the
chest. =20
The county folks saw this and decided to bust up the Microsoft gang
before they lost control of the county.
Basically what we are saying here is what we said about IBM from 30=20
years ago. Once they achieve global domination a corporation has to
resort to quasi criminal actions to remain on top.
Let's look at what Linux does now. Let's examine the desktop,
the multi user OS that Linux is, let's look at the network,
let's see the netscape communicator now healed from his wounds.
Now let's tell the truth. Linux right now offeres more than NT does=20
for the desktop? Truth or False?
It's TRUE. There is JAVA support under LINUX. There's nothing NT
offeres which Linux doesn't already offer. Nothing.
Let's look at the price issue.=20
$45 for Suse 6.4, $65 for Redhat Deluxe. $45 for Mandrake 7.0.
$8 for Debian. $350 for Windows 2000. $190 for NT 4.0.
They are no longer the cheapest OS. If you have a large office=20
building full of people, say 450 pc's worth, I'm going to have to
buy 450 * 350 =3D $157,500 is the cost to upgrade my desktops.
That doesn't count servers.
You could do the same thing under LINUX for $0 if you had somebody
working for your firm who knew how to use FTP.
What's worse is everything advertized to work under the LINUX=20
distribution does work and everything under the Windows 2000 OS does
not work. They are saying 30% of 2000 is broken. 30%! That's just
freaken pathetic man!
What really sucks is I work for a company which is chained to=20
Microsoft currently. If their product doesn't work, then I could
loose my job. That's what I'm facing right now. I'm facing a sorry=20
product which was picked for us by people with high school educations.
I'm not joking here. I work for a couple of high school educated=20
folks who we're smart enough to start their own business but we're not=20
smart enough to be able to pick out an OS to base it on.
We live in troubled times.
I've got Mandrake 7.0 installed in my machine.
It's really a dream compared to the NT install.
A NEWBIE would love it, high school educated or not.
2 years from now, there won't be a NEWBIE on this planet who won't
love a LINUX install. LINUX system administration wizards and the
like.
So we've brought ourselves to the third reason Microsoft stays in=20
power. "IGNORANCE".
IT was a part of Bill's strategy from the beginning. =20
Global domination is nothing more than having control over the worlds=20
"IGNORANT PEOPLE".
Thank you.
Charlie
If Bill GATES were a drug dealer then the world would be a cemetary.
------------------------------
From: "Greg Patton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 18:22:55 +0100
I hate Linux I use BeOS
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 03:11:16 GMT
> >On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:37:41 GMT, someone claiming to be R.E.Ballard
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:10:16
> >>GMT
> >
> >>> >On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:46:36 GMT, someone claiming to be me" wrote:
> >
> >>> > I certainly don't call that proof
> >>> > that MS pressures hardware
> >>> > manufacturers not to support any
> >>> > other OS, which is the claim in this
> >>> > thread.
> >
> >>Actually, the most dramatic examples of this behavior - as disclosed
> >>in Judge Jackson's "Findings of Fact" include Microsoft's specific
> >>targeting of IBM - the only OEM that did not have a license until
> >>15 minutes before the release of Windows 95.
> >>
> >>Microsoft demanded that IBM stop shipping machines with OS/2, and
> >>even insisted that unless IBM agreed, that Microsoft would insist
> >>on a license audit (extortion) which it threatened to disclose to
> >>the public (blackmail). Eventually, to get the license, IBM paid
> >>nearly $30 million - for nearly 4 million licenses - machines sold
> >>with OS/2 instead of Windows.
> >
> >Nice revision of history there. [...]
>
> According to you and Microsoft, maybe. Might we see your documentation?
>
> >And I find nothing to suggest that MS would make the results of such
> >an audit public.
>
> Well, I doubt a judge would consider you to represent the standards of the
> community in such a thing, because just about everyone here knows enough
to
> suggest that MS would threaten blackmail.
>
> [...]
>
> >>Microsoft also used it's pricing and discount structure to make it
> >>more cost-effective to purchase more licenses than you needed than
> >>to buy too few.
> >
> >Most volume discounts work this way.
>
> No, they don't, Roger. They aren't necessarily designed to, nor is that a
> common result. In MS cases, it is purposeful intent. Ask Rex, he'll tell
> you. If he's allowed by restrictive Microsoft licensing contracts.
>
> >>At the same time, this obligated the OEM to use
> >>the licenses that were purchased - especially if they wanted a rebate
> >>in the event of a sales short-fall.
> >
> >Nope -- MS had their money, they could care less if the software
> >actually shipped.
>
> Says you. MS might say that in public, but their record of deceit stands
on
> its own. MS is quite concerned that their "shovelware" get in front of a
user
> (or at least between them and anyone else's software.)
>
> >>According to Judge Jackson, and Microsoft's testimony in both the
> >>Java and the Novell case, Microsofts primary purpose for many of
> >>it's tactics was to protect it's market share from unnamed competitors.
> >
> >How dastardly! To try to succeed? How * dare * they?
> >
> >Free hint -- * any * commercial venture will try to protect its market
> >share.
>
> And they're allowed to, too. Unless, of course, they already have a 95%
> market share, and their actions show the intent, capability, and
reasonable
> chance of monopolization. Then, its illegal. Next silly thought escaping
> from your empty head?
>
> >>This was stated in the Sunsoft vs Microsoft Java case in so many words.
> >>Microsoft even stated that it had to protect it's market share from
> >>all sorts of competitors.
> >
> >The ones Jackson claims don't exist?
>
> The ones that don't exist. Only MS claims they exist.
>
> >>Microsoft's market share at the time
> >>this testimony was given was nearly 95% of the market. Microsoft
> >>specifically named OS/2 and Linux as competitors.
> >
> >But of course, Jackson knows better than MS what their market is, and
> >the possible competition.
>
> Why wouldn't he? MS gets to make it up themselves without any support
from
> market data? You need a new diaper, Roger. The baby shit is leaking from
> your mouth again.
>
> (I'm sorry, Rex. I KNOW this has already pissed you off. I am NOT
normally a
> flamethrower. But there's just something about the way he mindless
repeats
> the same transparently ludicrous rhetoric.... Anyway, that's enough for
me
> for now. I just can't take it anymore. I'll check back in later. But
take
> my word for it, you're wasting your time with Roger. He isn't the
> investigator, though I'd be more than willing to believe that there are
some
> within the DOJ which have read your posts with as much interest as I do
and
> much more ability to benefit from them.)
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 13:37:36 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Do you understand the issue? The issue is that you can't add more than
> 51
> > > IP's to the same network adapter. Having a network of a few thousand
> > > machines would not cause this problem.
> >
> > Yes, and if you divide your groups into logical IP subnets, which some
> > companies do, you may need more than 51. The issue is, if there does not
> > need to be a limit, why have one? Is Windows 2000 so poorly designed
> > that this resource must be limited? Once you decide to have a limit, one
> > should do research into what that limit should be.
>
> I still don't understand your point. Creating subnets doesn't mean the
> domain controller has to be a part of each subnet.
The point is, this should not be a limit is a "real" OS.
>
> > > LIM does not work for executable code. Data only.
> >
> > Ahh, so you've never used real mode Windows with LIM have you? Look up
> > how real mode thunking worked. Also, I forget the name, but (was it
> > borland?) that came out with a segmented overlay loader that used LIM
> > memory for moving around code segments in strictly DOS programs.
>
> None of this is relevant, sice LIM did not exist when DOS was created, and
> no external memory subsystems existed either.
Lim was created for the 8086. Yes, there was no LIM in DOS version 1.0,
nor was there CGA. What's your point? The 8086/88 could use LIM. And LIM
was the primary methodology for Windows 2.0, in fact, Windows 2.1/386
used its own "LIMulator" for managing Windows programs. MS just did not
use it very well.
>
> The tools you're talking about were worse than hacks, they were kludges.
OK, So Windows has always been a kludge. Good.
>
> > > DOS extenders only work on 32 bit machines. Which did not exist when
> Dos
> > > was created.
> >
> > This is not true either. There were a couple products that were able to
> > use the "extended" memory in DOS. There were two strategies, one was to
> > use the DMA capabilities of the motherboard move chunks of data around,
> > ala segmented overlay, and the other was to flip the machine into
> > protected mode.
>
> Tell me, how do you "flip" an 8086 into protected mode? 8086's don't have
> protected mode, and the 286 did not exist when DOS was written.
yes one needed to use an AT class machine, which BTW was the recommended
processor for Windows 2.x.
>
> > > > This is great marketing fodder but is largely untrue. Perhaps the real
> > > > mode version of 3.0 had some limitations, but standard and enhanced
> mode
> > > > Windows already functioned differently from real mode and had
> different
> > > > modules and had virtual memory.
> > >
> > > But they shared common code.
> >
> > Not entirely. There had different modules ending with 286 or 386 when
> > the code needed to be different.
>
> the kernel did, not GDI or USER.
I will have to dig out an OLD CD, but I am positive that there was a 286
version of gdi and user, but I will double check. Regardless, they had
did have many components that were specific to each (real,286,386). The
fact that Microsoft may not have chosen to do this is a clear indication
that I am right. If they did to the specific versions of these files,
and didn't correct these problems, I am still right.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: 2 Apr 2000 17:44:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Tell me, which ISP do you know that would need more than 5,100 IP's
>> > to be in use at the same time?
>>
>> Verio, RCN, Virgin, xs4all, Mindspring, Telocity, Erols, etc, etc,
>> etc.
>>
>> In short, any ISP that sells cable/DSL.
>>
>> And lots and lots of others too.
> hmmm ... we use verio at work for one of our isdn lines. We've had
> unbelieveable problems with them lately, disconnecting us all the time. Come to
> think about it, it started about the time W63K came out. I'll have to look into
> that.
:)
Actually, as far as I know, verio does not use W2K in a production capacity...
YET.
Your ISDN problems are very likely caused by insanely inferior terminal servers
used on Verios side; mostly the discontinued Lucent Portmaster 4. Theyre
absolutely (tied with the 3com/USR Total Control rack) the worst terminal server
ever made.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: 2 Apr 2000 17:47:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Do you understand the issue? The issue is that you can't add more than
> 51
>> > IP's to the same network adapter. Having a network of a few thousand
>> > machines would not cause this problem.
>>
>> Yes, and if you divide your groups into logical IP subnets, which some
>> companies do, you may need more than 51. The issue is, if there does not
>> need to be a limit, why have one? Is Windows 2000 so poorly designed
>> that this resource must be limited? Once you decide to have a limit, one
>> should do research into what that limit should be.
> I still don't understand your point. Creating subnets doesn't mean the
> domain controller has to be a part of each subnet.
It means it does, or that you have a separate domain controller for each
subnet if youd like to have domain controller functionality there.
More money for microsoft.
Not that youd really know, not having a job in the field and all.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: 2 Apr 2000 17:50:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Yes, and if you divide your groups into logical IP subnets, which some
>>companies do, you may need more than 51. The issue is, if there does not
>>need to be a limit, why have one? Is Windows 2000 so poorly designed
>>that this resource must be limited? Once you decide to have a limit, one
>>should do research into what that limit should be.
> I highly doubt any company is going to divide their LAN into 51 logical IP
> subnets. Hmm, you're going to have 13,000 machines all off one network
> segment? Seems odd to me, and would have horrible performance.
Some people actually do this, and can become less or more of an issue
depending on the sort of network protocols one uses. Routed networks would
have a huge problem of course...
> The only reasonable situation where this will occur is for virtual web
> serving.
This is indeed possible.
> And it's rather stupid to make your domain controller your web
> server. So I don't see this happening. You obviously don't either.
As I understand it, I cannot have a domain controller that can see more than
51 ips...
So I have a domain controller on a subnet and a webserver on the same subnet
serving up 30k ips. Theres something wrong.
> It seems to me that you are an intelligent person and understand the issue,
> why then are you blowing it out of proportion? You aren't a Linux troll
> trying to make every little issue into some big deal to satisfy your own
> personal agenda, are you?
The fact is, its enough of an issue to have been discovered mere WEEKS into
W2K's glorious release.
There are certianly more to come.
> --
> Steve Sheldon email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> BSCS/MCSE url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
> BEEF! - Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
Dont assume for one moment, btw, that you know anything about the way
real networks work, being an MCSE and all. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 03:56:12 +1000
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:55:48 +1000,
> Christopher Smith, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"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? If they claim it is portable, then porting it to other
platforms
> >> >> should be part of the business model.
> >> >
> >> >Why ? 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.
> >
> >Hardly. WinCE mightn't be as popular as PalmOS, but devices using it are
> >certainly selling well. WinCE hasn't been around for that long either,
> >whereas NT was around on several platforms for many years.
> >
>
> Selling so well, that IBM just stopped making Wince boxes.
An interesting choice in their part, considering the z50 was selling faster
than they could make them
> Still making their
> palm clone though.
And ? I never said WinCE was more popular than PalmOS.
> >> >> You mean to tell me that NT on a power PC wouldn't be an
interresting
> >> >> market?
> >> >
> >> >Interesting, sure. Successful ? Highly doubtful. The only volume
OEM
> >of
> >> >affordable PPC based hardware is Apple, and we all know how well they
> >react
> >> >to potential competitors.
> >> >
> >>
> >> PPC is everywhere, it's very popular for embedded, but if you meant
> >*desktop*
> >> then IBM's stuff is pretty popular.
> >
> >How about affordable ?
>
>
> For business? or for students barely scraping by? (IOW, "affordable" is a
> meaningless term without some qualifications. )
"Affordable" meaning your ROI is comparable to other platforms.
> >> Sun is a hardware company, why would they care (except for licensing
> >costs)
> >> what OS runs on their hardware. Unless of course they didn't want their
> >> fast, reliable hardware, to look bad because of the OS running on it.
> >> Second though, I guess you have a point there...
> >
> >Sun is a "solutions" company, like Apple.
>
> Which happens to sell hardware, like apple, your point? Do you think
> Sun would complain about increasing their hardware sales? (assuming
> of course that WNT could actually do a good job on a 64bit system,
> unlike the Alpha port, which was not 64 bit.)
Well Apple had a big problem with BeOS, which would have increased their
hardware sales. I can't imagine why Sun would be any different.
> >> >> As it is now, portability of NT is, at best, a joke.
> >> >
> >> >How would you know ? You know nothing of itsportability, merely of
its
> >> >ports. Not many commercial OSes run on more than one or two
platforms.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Linux, whether you wish to believe it or not, is a commercial OS.
> >
> >Uh huh. What company owns it ?
>
>
> Depends, Redhat owns Redhat, Suse owns Suse, and they sell millions of
copies.
But they don't develop the whole thing themselves. Neither Redhat, Suse nor
$LINUX_STARTUP_OF_THE_WEEK could solely support the development of Linux on
however many platforms. That's why the comparison is invalid.
> >> >That has what, precisely, to do with PPC ?
> >>
> >> There was an NT-Mips version in work at one point.
> >
> >I know, but that has nothing to do with PPC.
> >
>
>
> Shows that NTs platform base is shrinking, not growing. Linux on the other
> hand, runs on every thing from Palmtops, to IBM S/390 mainframes. (in real
mode
> as well as guestmode. )
And without the voluntary work of hundreds of thousands of people, you
seriously think the platform support would be as large ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
