Linux-Advocacy Digest #187, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 06:14:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates ("John W. Stevens")
Re: How does WINE work? (Bob Lyday)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Mike Marion)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Mike Marion)
Re: Binary Thinking ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Mike Marion)
Re: LNUX below 30 ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Bob Lyday)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Bob Lyday)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Mike Marion)
Re: Mandrake is listening! It's "Da Bomb"! (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Mike Marion)
Re: Not sure I understand..Help.. (Hugo Gayosso)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("Otto")
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (abraxas)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: 18 Apr 2000 23:52:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[cola added]
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> #1 - The probability that there's a backdoor in any Microsoft OS or
>> application is about equal to the probability that there's a flight
>> simulator hidden in a spreadsheet program.
>
>lame
But quite factual, wouldn't you say?
>> #2 - There's no way you can proof the absence of a backdoor in FP98
>> short of examining the source, which can only be consisdered possible
>> if you have a source license.
>
>open source does not guarantee you ANYTHING. I was being too general above
>(I figured teh smart readers knew what I was talking about). I meant, it's a
>lie, false report, the string found in that DLL does NOT indicate a backdoor
>in that version of FP98 - specific enough for you?
ISTR that you can be *very* specific when it suits you well. Remember
the DeCSS threads?
>> #3 - Using open source software does guarantee you the absence of back
>> doors. It also guarantees that security algorithms are properly
>> implemented and does not rely on STO.
>
>no, open source guarantee's you NOTHING. It just means the source is
>available. That's it. Doesn't guaretee anyone will read it, will debug it,
>COULD debug it, WOULD find an error. Open Sores(tm) does NOT guarentee
>ANYTHING!
Yes, it does. It enables that the code can be verified by whomever
considers himself capable of that. Closed source software does not
enable you to do so. And when we talk about network aware applications
in common use, the code *is* verified. Many times over. So sometimes a
buffer overflow will slip through, or a race condition. But a deliberate
backdoor will stand out like fluorecent paint stands out in ultra-violet
light.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the
first not to crash.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:22:10 -0600
Paul 'Z' Ewandeİ wrote:
>
> Most ? It's a strong word. How do you know that 50+ % of Windows users
> suffer weird lock-ups.
>From help desk logs.
Taken across a random sampling of help desks, the rates hit nearly 100%.
> Continuously ? Windows9x [and MacOS IMO] is a light duty OS, as you probably
> know, not intended to be win uptime contests. Rather, boot-up, do your
> stuff, shut down.
"Light Duty" . . . an interesting statement. What is "light duty"?
> > up in the "Bermuda Windows Triangle" --- that place where, when you try
> > to use your Windows box, it immediately blows up.
>
> The app, or the system ?
The system.
> > That they haven't been using Windows for very long? That they have low
> > expectations?
>
> Or not the same as yours ? You define the height of expectations ?
Why, of *COURSE* I do! ;->
> > But, unfortunately, in this case his experience *DOES* match what many
> > other people experience.
>
> And mine don't, of course.
Nope. An expert can keep a system up and running much better than your
average end user.
> > You act as if these two are mutually exclusive . . . yet he did say that
>
> Not at all. My point is consumer are more in terested in doing their stuff
> than having a 'puter staying there with 50+ days uptime.
"Their stuff" maybe a self-limiting set of tasks . . . it may be that
"their stuff" doesn't include running for fifty days straight, 'cause
they don't have an OS that will STAY UP for 50 days straight.
For me, having an OS that *WILL* stay up vastly increases "the stuff" I
do with my box.
> I'm convinced that many people use their Windows boxen, do their
> stuff, and happily shut the box down.
The fact that people "don't do", doesn't prove that they don't want to
do. It may simply be that they cannot do with what they have.
> > They are very, very rare. For a variety of reasons, not the least of
> > which is the simple fact that an application can crash without munging
> > the OS, thereby making debugging that application much, much easier.
>
> You're not implying that each time an application tanks, it kills Windows
> with it, aren't you ?
I've developed under Windows. I've developed under Unix. Windows 9X
development will cost you an average of 2.2 hours out of every eight in
OS crashes, followed by OS reboots. With NT that number is reduced, but
still much higher than with Unix.
You did notice the bit about "debugging", right?
> > Combine that with the extremely powerful but simple concept of a core
> > dump, and you have a system that makes it possible to produce much
> > higher quality software.
>
> When you have your powerful core dumped and the tanked app, is the work in
> your tanked app still available. If yes, you ahave a point, if not, your
> work is gone. Same as in Windows.
No, not the same. AT ALL!
In Windows, your OS crashed, and if it didn't, you *STILL* don't know
what caused the crash, while in Unix, you load up your app, with your
core dump, and investigate what caused the crash. Followed shortly
thereafter by fixing the app so that it doesn't crash.
In short, your apps end up being much more stable, and much less
*LIKELY* to crash. There is no need to recover your data after a crash,
if the crash never occurs.
However, yes, high availability apps often do regular checkpoint dumps,
so that even in the very unlikely event of a crash, you don't loose any
data.
Vi is an example of this.
> Cool. Now, unleash the power of vi on Joe Consumer, see how happy he will
> be.
I did, on several customers . . . they loved it.
> > Yes, and they do that on Unix based machines.
>
> Or not. I have the impression that alternative OS are definitely better than
> Win9x at the breed smug user department.
"You're one of those smug Unix users, aren't you!?"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a real computer."
The author of "Snow Crash" used to be in your boat, not understanding
why Unix users were smug . . . then he figured it out, and wrote an
essay to explain it to the rest of the world. It's an essay well worth
reading.
> Apps and harware support. It comes donw to to this. You may cry Monopoly all
> you want. What was Sun doing in the '80's and '90's while Microsoft was
> building an empire ?
Building their own empire . . .
> > You are aware, are you not, that your personal experience does not scale
> > to every Mac user . . . That most Mac users use their machines and never
> > experience crashes, freezes and lockups?
>
> Most or many ? How do you know ?
Help desk logs.
> > Since Linux is much, *MUCH* better for computer illiterates, I'm sure
>
> It is ?
Yes. How do you restrict a Windows 9X user to user access (no "root"
access) level?
You can do that under Unix, which makes it safe to use even for the most
illiterate computer user: like my two year old (who cannot even read,
but is allowed by Daddy to play with the Linux box . . . though of
course, Daddy still has to log him in first).
> > that you now understand why we consider it a superior OS for the
> > desktop.
>
> Even if it may not provide the functionanility that some consumer may need?
Yes. Applications can be easily written. Basic design flaws are very
difficult, and in some cases, impossible to fix.
> > You, of course, are not the average Windows user, so your good
> > experiences do not translate to the rest of the Windows using world.
>
> Where did I stated that. My good experiences are against you bad ones.
Not *MY* experiences . . . statistical analysis of help desk logs.
> That's all. They are equally valid.
No, they're not . . . my statements come from the statistical analysis
of help desk logs.
Windows boxen have a very high TCO due to their fragility.
> > Something like 24% of the people who bought the first iMac's were
> > switching from Windows to MacOS . . . what does that tell you?
>
> That people went from Windows to MacOS, and ? Am I supposed to feel bad
> about it ?
Nope.
After all, *I* don't feel bad about it! ;-)
> > infinitely greater similarity between FreeBSD and Linux and Solaris and
> > <fill in the blank with your favorite version of Unix> than there is
> > between BeOS, Windows and MacOS.
>
> Yes. So ?
Freedom. Flexibility. Choice. Personal, local control over *YOUR*
data, environment, work habits, etc.
> > ISV's will be *BETTER* *OFF* targeting a set of open, public, standard
> > interfaces than trying to chase the ever-mutating, proprietary,
> > secret-information-based Windows API.
>
> Maybe they should pay a visit at http://msdn.microsoft.com/default.asp .
Really? And how does that help them replace Windows with some other
manufacturers OS?
> > The case, at it's core, is pretty simple. MS created vendor lockin
> > through the use of secret, proprietary interfaces which presented such
> > an incredibly high barrier to entry that it locked the competition out
>
> Would you care to explain, all this secrecy is confusing me.
Ok . . . how do I use the MS domain information supplied by the MS
Kerberos V5 KDC's?
Answer: I don't, 'cause that information and the format it is in is
secret.
How do I use a domain controller system, one written by, say, Sun, to
control my Windows 9x and Windows NT domains?
Answer: I don't, 'cause the NT domain controller protocol is highly
complex, and also secret.
How do I write an Exchange Client for my MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD or HPUX
box?
Answer: I don't, 'cause the Exchange Client/Server protocol and
information is secret.
Do you need more?
> Listen, as we don't figures on this, lets' just drop it. Application crash
> on all platforms, wand when they crash, you are really likely to loose
> whatever you were working on.
No, applications don't crash on every platform at the same rate.
Fifty crashes a year is a lot more than one per decade.
> > Ok, having said that, let me assure you that I haven't had an
> > application crash Linux in many, many years (after I stopped using
> > SVGA).
>
> You're plain text or VGA ? Even if IMO, the masses are enjoying SVGA, and
> would be very reluctant to go down.
Err. . . no. It's obvious that you don't know that much about Linux.
SVGA, in the Linux world, was/is a graphical hack that worked by
punching a hole through the OS, thereby allowing SVGA based programs
direct access to the graphics hardware.
There were very few programs that required/used this capability, so
not-using it was of no loss what so ever.
Or, in short, my Linux box has a Voodoo 3 AGP card that has 16 MBytes of
memory on it, running in 1280x1024, true color mode.
I'm far, far, far above SVGA (the hardware standard).
> > It happens very, very rarely . . . and, no, a crashing WM will not crash
>
> Very, very ralely... I see.
Oh . . . good! The difference between 100's of times, vs. once is,
after all, very important.
>
> > your apps, so you don't loose your work . . . unless you've tied your
> > system together such that a crashing WM will shut down your X server, of
> > course.
>
> Cool. My point is still that if your app crashes, your work is likely to go
> down the drain.
And my point is that your point is meaningless . . . basic FUD, in fact,
because the relative number of crashes is what counts.
One crash in a decade, vs fifty a year, is meaningful.
> > Hmmm. . . let me check my logs . . . no, I've never had an extension
> > conflict on Linux. Nor have I ever had a library conflict on Linux.
>
> Hey, it's your experience.
Nope. That's why I said: "let me check my logs" . . . that ain't
personal experience, that's the statistical analysis of a whole lot of
help desk logs.
> Just out of curiosity, Does Win9x have any redeemable feature whatsoever ?
Yep. It's the perfect excuse not to help somebody: "Sorry, I don't do
Windows. There's an MSCE in the next cube over who will only charge you
50$ per hour to work on your machine, though . . . let me transfer you
to him."
All kidding aside: I haven't used a MS product at home since the DOS 3.x
days. All the times I've had to use Windows 9x at work: No, I've never
seen any redeeming qualities in it.
Windows NT, on the other hand, wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so
much MS secret, proprietary junk sitting on top of it. A good paint
scraper, and a few years in the standards committee, and NT could be an
OK kernel.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:52:54 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: How does WINE work?
Rich C wrote:
>
> "Ulrich Weigand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > - On top of DOS, a 32-bit 'DOS-extender', the Virtual Machine Manager
> > (VMM) is running. This allows to run several virtual DOS sessions
> > at the same time. Furthermore, it enhances the facilities provided
> > within each of the VMs considerably, e.g. it supports multiple
> > threads runing in each VM, and it allows 32-bit device drivers (VxDs)
> > to be installed, which partially -or completely- replace the device
> > handling by the original DOS kernel itself. (In fact, typically
> > hardly any of the original DOS code is used after the VMM / VxDs
> > initalization is over.)
> >
> > The VMM and a whole bunch of standard VxDs are packaged together
> > in a compressed archive file called VMM32.VXD. In a sense, this is
> > the real 'core' of Win95. In addition, there can be some other .VXD
> > files involved.
> >
>
> The "Virtual Machine Mangler!!!" That's what's been crashing in my system!!!
> Thanks for the info, I always thought VMM32.VXD was just a memory manager
> (it probably does that, among other things.) Of course this knowledge won't
> help me to fix it, but it's interesting to know anyway. Thanks!
>
> Yes, that's where I get my blue screens! Love that file! Cool!
Repeat after me: Windows 9x is based on DOS. Repeat until you
believe it. Cuz it's true! All of the 32-bit stuff has
extenders down into the DOS system. Please leave the DOS base
in Windows, though. It's so cool, man!
--
Bob
"None of us makes it through life without being shown, politely,
what an ass he is," Kurt Vonnegut, "Mother Night".
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:54:29 GMT
Mayor wrote:
> You are not seriously arguing that marketshare determines
> usefulness are you?
No kidding. We probably get more productive output from our Suns then the PCs
(which number about 10x the Suns). 'course I'm a Unix admin/weenie.. so I'm
biased. :)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Favorite error message: "Out of paper on drive D:" This was produced by a
timeout error on a slow WORM drive and a defective AT/IO card.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:56:39 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
> >Try using a SoundBlaster Live...
>
> Can't say, I don't have one.
I can... works just fine. Newer distributions even detected and configured it
on the fly. ;)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Like the man said "Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious"
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Binary Thinking
Date: 19 Apr 2000 00:59:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Pedro Ballester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: All right, even more, when we talk about OS, let's talk about it,
: not about how many applications there are around. Then it comes
: clear that Linux is better for everything :-))
There are far more insects than humans, so insects must be better,
huh? :)
Joe
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:00:20 GMT
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Lr9K4.6454$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Roger <roger@.> wrote:
> : Because they are going to come and forcibly take away your current
> : version?
> They will have to in fact use violence. I bought my copy of QBASIC, after
> all. Tough shit if I route my code into a QB >> C converter and compile
> away on UNIX. Fuck the monopoly. Bill Gates can suck my dick. And I won't
> allow it to do so.
Then in what way are they forcing you to upgrade, which * was * your
original contention, after all...
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:00:32 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
> > Isn't that a bit overkill? And it usually requires you to get a peering
> > relationship with your ISP. Is that something you expect an average person
> > to be able to do?
>
> Let the average person run PAN then.
IIRC there's software for news that acts kinda like a proxy. It will only
download news articles for groups that you subscribe to, and it does it at
intervals (and odd hours) to minimize it's impact on the user(s). I used to use
it when I had a Linux gateway using diald to dialup my old ISP. It allowed me
to read/reply to news in a timely manner instead of having to download each
article across the phone line while I read it.
Now that I have a cable modem I don't bother with this anymore.. but it was a
great program for the time. Need some spare disk space though. :)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Like the man said "Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious"
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LNUX below 30
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:03:29 -0300
david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8di9il$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sorry you bought VA Research at 40. But it will probably be up at
> 40 again soon, unless the market takes another torpedo.
I didn't buy LNUX, but I agree with you that the stock should go up again.
It's already at 38...
Francis.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:17:44 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
News-Only wrote:
>
> In article <8didpj$knm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote...
>
> > I'm sure every line of NT has been audited, by Microsoft that is.
Hmmmm. Lot of good it's done NT.
>
> Don't you mean VMS?
Stop. Let's just nix this whole "NT is VMS" line, ok?
>
> Incidentally, years ago when MS had to hand over the source code to
> Windows 3.x to IBM for inclusion in OS/2, some IBM employees took great
> delight in sifting out ome of the worst and most obvious programming
> howlers. Spaghetti GOTOs and illegible variable names did abound, as did
> some muddle-headed attempts to defeat the smooth operation of other
> operating systems running cloned DOS sessions. There were also some API
> calls that were different from each other only by the number of
> milliseconds delay placed between (say) screen writes.
--
Bob
"None of us makes it through life without being shown, politely,
what an ass he is," Kurt Vonnegut, "Mother Night".
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:18:41 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Mike Marion wrote:
>
> Mayor wrote:
>
> > You are not seriously arguing that marketshare determines
> > usefulness are you?
>
> No kidding. We probably get more productive output from our Suns then the PCs
> (which number about 10x the Suns). 'course I'm a Unix admin/weenie.. so I'm
> biased. :)
What do you run on your PC's?
> > --
Bob
"None of us makes it through life without being shown, politely,
what an ass he is," Kurt Vonnegut, "Mother Night".
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:20:06 GMT
abraxas wrote:
> I use both, but for very different reasons. I use solaris at work
> mainly because I deal with almost exclusively Sun machines, and as
> well as being easier on the brain to deal with one flavor of UNIX
> backwards and fowards in my environment, it is *extremely* stable
> and consistent in every way that I find useful.
>
> I use linux at home because its easy and pretty and supports my weird
> sound and video cards. And because its free.
Man, you and I are pretty much alike.. Solaris at work, and some Linux at home.
:)
I use Solaris at home on a Sparc too, but my firewall/gateway box is linux. One
Linux bonus: Raidtools built into the kernel.. i.e. no need for something like
Solstice just to do a software Raid. I've got a Raid-5 and two Raid-1 arrays at
home on my linux box... didn't cost me an extra dime.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"One World. One Web. One Program." -- Microsoft hype
"Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer" -- Nazi hype
(One people, one country, one leader)
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake is listening! It's "Da Bomb"!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:19:37 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Cat) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:=20
>=20
> >>I've never heard of Lothar but I'll take a look it later.
> >K-menu (lower left corner of panel) -> System -> lothar.
> >
> >You might also try sndconfig.
>=20
> I tried Lothar and it showed no sound card or SCSI adapter. sndconfig=20
> simply hangs and consumes 98% of CPU.
>=20
> >>I think both are trying to use IRQ 11. The SB-16 is ISA but it is plu=
g
> >>and play. I might flip back to my old trusty SB Pro.
> >
> >Try it with either the 1510 OR the Sb-16 in the system and see what
> >happens. Then add the other one after the install is complete.
>=20
> I looked at removing the sound card and realised the CD drive was attac=
hed=20
> to it! I might try yanking the SCSI card out as I've only just added a =
disk=20
> drive which isn't setup anyway.
>=20
> >Or if you still have Windows running look at device manager and see
> >what IRQ's are assigned to the boards.
>=20
> Windows won't even install. It hangs after the final reboot. Windows ha=
s=20
> worked on this system, Linux is working (but missing sound).
I had the same problem with my SB 16. If it's a WAVeffects, their one of=
the
shoddier cards build by crative labs, and you have to work to get them wo=
rking
right. If you have the same model, try setting it up manually as a SB 8,=
and
work with the DMA settings from there (it's been a while sense I've used
sndconfig).
-Dan O'Nolan
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:22:56 GMT
abraxas wrote:
> By the same token, why change the default because *you* are unhappy with it?
> The nice thing about this issue is that you can make solaris do whatever you
> want. If you dont like the way it works, change the way it works.
Exactly! Thank you.
BTW, as a test I fired up linuxconf on the home box and started to create a new
user... default shell: /bin/bash!
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Out hme0, through the Cat5K, Across the ATM backbone, past the firewall, past
the provider, hit the router, down the fiber, off another router... Nothing
but net.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Not sure I understand..Help..
From: Hugo Gayosso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:32:07 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) writes:
> I was in the comp shop in the Linux section and I saw "Linux for
> Windows" I really don't understand the point of this as Linux is a
> seprate O/S. Why don't they just come up with "Solaris for OS/2" or
> something.
I am not sure, but I think the "Linux for Windows" is a GNU/Linux
Distribution that can be installed on a Windows partition. This one is
not the only one there others.
This can be attractive to people new in GNU/Linux, but certainly not
to people that use GNU/Linux 100% of the time.
Greetings,
- --
Hugo Gayosso
Support the Free Software
Support the GNU Project
http://www.gnu.org
http://hgayosso.linuxave.net
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE4/QzTMNObVRBZveYRAu5sAJ4yhNH1glAYXk8m4Kl4SRmwaHpOqQCfYn6a
gKAWTb/rRpxGk1aqcle/z/k=
=+kKl
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:50:10 GMT
"J@M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Indeed, on Tuesday, Microsoft said it had sold 1.5 million copies of
Windows
> 2000 in the two months since its launch, a pace four times that of its
> predecessor, Windows NT 4.0."
Any data on how many servers out of the 1.5 million copies?
>
> 0.5 million copies for the second month compared to 1 million in the first
> month...
And the projected sale for this month is.......
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: 19 Apr 2000 02:03:18 GMT
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use Solaris at home on a Sparc too, but my firewall/gateway box is linux. One
> Linux bonus: Raidtools built into the kernel.. i.e. no need for something like
> Solstice just to do a software Raid. I've got a Raid-5 and two Raid-1 arrays at
> home on my linux box... didn't cost me an extra dime.
Yep. Thats the thing about linux I like the most...that 'didnt cost an extra dime'
part...:)
Though I must admit that the part of the compensation plan that im working on
that includes a big fat sparc in my house would be pretty sweet...but theres that
'didnt cost an extra dime' part again...:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: 19 Apr 2000 02:04:57 GMT
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>> By the same token, why change the default because *you* are unhappy with it?
>> The nice thing about this issue is that you can make solaris do whatever you
>> want. If you dont like the way it works, change the way it works.
> Exactly! Thank you.
> BTW, as a test I fired up linuxconf on the home box and started to create a new
> user... default shell: /bin/bash!
I still wish that linuxconf included the simplicity and *stability* of admintool
though...:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
