Linux-Advocacy Digest #536, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution ("Todd")
Re: Here is the solution ("Todd")
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Hauck)
Re: Desktop use, office apps ("Raymond Swaim")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) (Craig Kelley)
Re: An honest attempt (George Russell)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Is the PC era over? (JTK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 00:47:25 +0800
Joseph wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
>Todd wrote:
>
>> Can you show me an undocumented call that you couldn't otherwise do with
>> something in the Win32 SDK freely available?? -- such that MS could use
to
>> their advantage in writing Office or something else.
>
>You can take a steamship to Europe and I'll fly in a airplane. Both will
do
>the job.
>Your question is bogus - it ignores the fact applications need to be
competitive
>against MS.
Again, most Win32 API functions have been around unchanged for years. Most
commercial applications such as Office use only a very small subset of these
calls. These very calls are in one of the most well put together SDK's
available today -- free.
It wouldn't be hard to write a competitor to Office with today's version of
the SDK. The question is, would you really want to compete with a
standard -- and a refined one at that.
>> Even if the above two APIs were undocumented (or secret), I don't see how
>> this prevents you from writing an *application* to market.
>
>No one argues ISV competitors cannot make apps - the argument is MS has an
>unfair advantage. Why argue an irrelevant point?
I don't see the advantage *unless* the app. in questions is a app. that
could *not* be developed without that particular API call. I don't see any
app. today that has been developed that could not have been developed with
the Win32 SDK from two years ago.
If you don't agree, what *new* API calls are required for the particular
app. in question? I'd really like to know.
>> MS whiners try to make one think that these APIs allow MS to develop
there
>> applications 'ahead of time' or before competitors... however, most of
the
>> core Win32 API has been around for *years*.
>
>Who cares about the core API? Pay attention.
Who cares? Every developer writing Win32 apps.?
>MS is whining to the courts that they needed and continue to need to add
new OS
>APIs *specifically* for their Applications - they call it innovation.
No, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that they should be
able to add new features to the OS. Entirely different. Now, maybe to
enable those features for developers, they would have to add an API to do
this.
That is what every other OS maker does.
> This
>case has cleared the air and made public the tactics MS uses to innovate.
What, developing features that customers asked for and then making an
interface for 3rd parties to extend?
Sounds the right way to go to me.
-Todd
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 00:49:41 +0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<391fe948$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In <8fnsje$9ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/15/00
> at 12:01 PM, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>
>Hey Todd, who are you today? The writing style has a different tone --
>sounds a tiny bit intelligent for a change -- which implies that you are
not
>the same idiot or shows that you have some capability to learn, after
all --
>OR, it means that you are a M$ PAID TROLL using the same e-mail address.
Sounds like a loaded question to me...
Yes, I'm the same guy. And no, I'm not paid by MS. Are you paid by IBM to
advocate for OS/2?
>This also begs the question, don't you trolls ever think of what it might
be
>like to have real work; to do something that is worthwhile, to have an
>accomplish of some kind for yourself if not for others?
Trolls are people too :) And yes, I do have a real job :(
>I didn't think so! Say how far is your office from Billy boys'?
Well, there is a MS sales office nearby... does that count? I'm at least a
few thousand miles away from Redmond, further than you, probably.
> Do you have
>a door on it or is it a cubical, and who takes out the trash or is it
>double-duty for you?
A simple HP style cubical, and yes, there is somebody to take out the trash.
-Todd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <8ffc7n$3g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In
>>article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Todd wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Challenge:
>>>> >
>>>> > Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done
>>>with
>>>> > their *free* downloadable SDK?
>>>> >
>>>> > Just *one* API call is all I'm asking.
>>>> >
>>>> > MS provides WIn32 developers with *everything* they need and more.
>>>> >
>>>> > If you want to try this challenge, again, just give me *one*
>>>undocumented
>>>> > API call or secret API (whatever) that meets this challenge.
>>>> >
>>>> > I bet that I can write *any* piece of Win32 software with the normal
>>>SDK
>>>> > that is downloadable for *free* from MS's web site.
>>>> >
>>>> > All you conspiracy theorists are welcome to take this challenge.
>>>> >
>>>> > Just *one* API call is all I'm asking for here...
>>>>
>>>> A quick search of "undocumented API" reveals not one, but two.
>>>>
>>>> RegisterServiceProcess, in KERNEL32.DLL, appears to "Register a
>>>process
>>>> as a service, which means it doesn't show up in the Control+Alt+Delete
>>>> program list," and there is also WNetEnumCachedPasswords in MPR.DLL
>>>> which "Retrieves all of the current user's cached passwords, and calls
>>>> the specified callback procedure with a pointer to each one."
>>>>
>>>> The WINE project also seems to have a great deal of information on
>>>> undocumented Windows APIs.
>>>>
>>>> -Peter
>>>
>>>Todd are you there? I've searched everywhere for you're reply on this,
>>>can't find it, can you repost? Thanks.
>
>>Sorry, was off traveling for a couple days.
>
>>As you can see from the replies already here, these APIs are either
>>documented and being discontinued, or they are kernel level calls that are
>>only present in either 95 or NT (not both).
>
>>Either way, this is irrelevent.
>
>>My original point is this:
>
>>Can you show me an undocumented call that you couldn't otherwise do with
>>something in the Win32 SDK freely available?? -- such that MS could use
to
>>their advantage in writing Office or something else.
>
>>Even if the above two APIs were undocumented (or secret), I don't see how
>>this prevents you from writing an *application* to market.
>
>>MS whiners try to make one think that these APIs allow MS to develop there
>>applications 'ahead of time' or before competitors... however, most of the
>>core Win32 API has been around for *years*.
>
>>There just isn't an excuse... one or two undocumented calls -- even if
they
>>did exist -- isn't going to convince me that you couldn't bring software
to
>>market ahead of MS - they have to use their own APIs as well. Otherwise,
the
>>software breaks.
>
>>---
>
>>So, my original challenge is really this -- show me an undocumented API
call
>>that would allow MS to bring an application (specify application type)
ahead
>>of their competition.
>
>>I personally subscribe to MSDN... and that package gives a developer more
>>than they need to develop very high level applications.
>
>>Ok, another challenge:
>
>>Find me a developers package that has a more put together software
>>development kit than MSDN. (Better documentation, more samples, etc.)
>
>>Yes, you have to pay for MSDN, but most of the docs. for MSDN are freely
>>available as a download.
>
>>Anyway, if you've read this far, hopefully you see my point -- anybody
should
>>be able to compete with MS head to head -- with or without these alleged
>>undocumented APIs.
>
>>-Todd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 09:46:21 -0700
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Todd wrote:
> >Your test is irrelevant - it doesn't include efficiency. The existance
> >and use of undocumented APIs is proof enough MS cheated.
>
> Undocumented APIs do not necessarily give MS an advantage... if they exist
> and are not documented, don't you think that MS didn't want developers using
> these because those same APIs may not be present in an upgraded version of
> the OS??
>
> Why is everything a conspiracy to you?
There isn't a conspiracy - MS openly admits they engineer undocumented
APIs in Windows which is how they innovate on MS Windows. MS admits that
many of these APIs originate with the Apps division who invent them, use
them and are assured these APIs are added to the OS. Competiors get to
use them *after* MS. MS says this innovation benefits consumers.
MS says that splitting the company would ruin the very innovation you're
arguing doesn't happen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:41:07 GMT
On 16 May 2000 05:56:31 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: news:8fp33a$joh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>: <various snippage>
>
>: > I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time, and in every single
>: > instance,
Here you had said "every single instance".
>: > I was able to track them back to one of two
>: > things:
>: >
>: > 1.) Faulty, or chintzy hardware.
>: > 2.) Improperly written drivers.
>: >
>: > The above factors are merely a result of clueless
>: > administrators, who have spent too much time under
>: > UNIX, and who have tried to deploy WindowsNT in the
>: > same manner, which you cannot.
>
>: uhmm... MS doesn't aggree with you stephen. In a survey _they published_, 40
>: percent of BSODs were attributed to "internal NT components". Hardware,
>: apps, etc. got the rest.
Someone does a post saying MS says it should be about 60% of the time.
>My point was, it's up to the system administrator to know and understand
>the OS, and that most of the problems that I've encountered, and witnessed
And now your story has changed to "most" Seems to me you knew you were
lying all along and are trying to gracefully get out of getting
caught.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 16 May 2000 11:47:06 -0500
In article <8fr15r$jbk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Apparently www.microsoft.com , www.dell.com , www.compaq.com ,
>> >www.bigcharts.com , www.nasdaq.com, www.ebay.com among others disagree.
>> >
>>
>> These sites prove nothing about the stability of a single machine
>> under heavy load, they are farms.
>
>Of course, but do you know of sites that big that run on one x86 machine ?
Ftp.cdrom.com has at various times been measured as the biggest single
source of data on the internet. It has had at least 3000
connections every time I've used it. It is a single x86 machine
running freebsd and is rarely if ever down.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 10:50:38 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > The problem is not with undocumented internal APIs that different
> parts
> > > > of the OS itself can access. The problem is with "external" APIs that
> > > > are documented only for other product groups within Microsoft.
> > >
> > > Something that nobody has yet been able to provide any proof of in any
> > > software MS has written in the last 5 years.
> >
> > Look at the timeline. It's not a simple matter of documenting the
> > API, it's that Microsoft's application developers know about the new
> > OS hooks *before* anyone else. An example I keep thowing out: they
> > bundle IIS with NT, bump up the version number and add in hooks for
> > other Microsoft applications.
>
> And what IIS hooks are there in the OS for applications to use, other than
> the documented ISAPI?
What part of the word *before* don't you understand?
> For that matter, which MS applications make use of IIS at all?
Most of them. It's a touted feature of Office 2000. Read the
Halloween documents to see why.
> > Then, if they feel like it, they
> > document those hooks for other application developers *after* their
> > own solutions are done.
>
> MS had the Win2k SDK documentation available for almost 2 years before the
> release of Win2k. Similar with Win95 and NT4. Where do you get this stuff?
Evidence, please.
> > Bill has said many times that they couldn't
> > have built their OS without the application teams' feedback; this
> > implies that the Microsoft application developers have a huge
> > advantage whenever Microsoft wishes to compete in a specific area.
>
> No, it means the OS has a great advantage (and thus 3rd party application
> developers). It allows 3rd party developers to do the same things MS's
> applications do without having to code it. MS rolls application developed
> code (such as the common controls) into the OS, not the other way around.
That's one way to look at it. I suppose Microsoft is just "raising
the bar" on the competition then, but bettering Windows and their
applications.
How come the competition can't do the same thing with Windows then?
> > This wouldn't be a problem if Microsoft actually had to compete at the
> > desktop level. This has been documented several times. Look at the
> > infamous "halloween documents" to see a Microsoft VP explaining these
> > tactics.
>
> No, if you break up the application and OS division, it means that 3rd party
> developers will no longer be able to take advantage of the Application
> division written code that MS rolls into the OS. This will put 3rd party
> developers at even more of a disadvantage.
I suppose we simply disagree.
> > Splitting up Microsoft would solve this problem (and probably make
> > Windows and Office even *better*).
>
> The Office developers seem to have much more leeway in writing new features
> than the OS division does.
Writing new OS features, that is.
> > Ballmer and Gates should just
> > split the company up now before the DOJ gets a chance to do something
> > really stupid (like taking the Network code out of the Windows
> > developers hands or something similiar...). Nobody wants to go back
> > to the days of buying Trumpet Winsock, but you never know what Reno
> > will do...
>
> For starters, it's not a decision that Gates and Balmer can do. MS is a
> publicly traded company, and those decisions would have to be approved by
> the stock holders.
Read "Barbarians led by Bill Gates" and come back.
> > They're now using the DMCA to halt
> > any 3rd-party production of MS Kerberos. Again, we like Windows on
> > our desktops, but Microsoft wants to lock us into NT Server as well.
> > They use secret interfaces (both network and system) to lock people
> > into the continued use of Windows.
>
> The interface is not secret. MS's Kerebos implementation is fully standard
> conforming. The standard allows for OS extension through the vendor
> reserved parts of the ticket. The standard does not require MS to document
> it in order to be standard conforming.
Do you realize how stupid that statement is?
The *standard* doesn't require documentation in order to be standard
conforming?! How can I respond to this? It's insane. The interface
is a secrete for all intents and purposes of someone wishing to
implement it.
> > If we want to go with Apple products, we'd have to double our hardware
> > budget and pay a hefty entrance fee. If we went with BeOS or Linux
> > (and even the Mac), we'd have to re-educate everyone and give up all
> > our specialty apps (the dearth of Facts and Comparisons would nail
> > that coffin right up). WE HAVE NO CHOICE. Microsoft knows that and
> > perpetuates the situation, not with innovation or superb customer
> > service, but with secrets.
>
> Name a single non-consumable product that you can jump to a competor without
> a significant cost.
Pretty much anything written for UNIX. It took Apple a couple days to
get XFree86 running on Darwin.
> > The sad thing is, Microsoft makes good products which could compete on
> > merit alone, if they'd only let them.
>
> Finally, something we can agree on.
So why don't you push this agenda forward? Let Microsoft products
compete on merit, and not through Windows' monopoly status.
Splitting the company up would be one method.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:49:49 GMT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 18:46:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Untrue. Microsoft admits that they take application group code and make it
>roll it into the OS.
MS needs to get their lies straight. A few years ago, when it suited MS
in their negotiations with the DOJ over "bundling", there was a "chinese
wall" between the groups. Now, when it suits them, there is no such wall
and the existence of one would be detrimental to the company.
I think the second is in fact closer to the truth, but I can't prove it.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Raymond Swaim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 11:55:29 -0500
Actually, when you stop and think about it, MS Office doesn't load that much
more
quickly than Staroffice or WordPerfect Office. MS Office keeps a portion of
itself
in your Startup folder so that it's already in RAM when you launch it.
Remove the
"Microsoft Office" file from your Startup folder and you'll see it take
considerably
longer to load.
You didn't say what your needs, but I personally have using AbiWord for most
of my word processing needs. It loads pretty swiftly and will import Word97
files, but I don't know if it has all the features that you need. Gnumeric
has
filled my Spreadsheet needs. I know you said you're not using KDE, but you
still might want to take a look at KOffice. I just downloaded and installed
it
this week, so I haven't really had a chance to play around with it yet.
RSS
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 10:58:39 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In article <8fqgc8$17nn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
> > I like linux because of the resolution of control, and I like macs
> > because of the beautifully innovative hardware design. Heres another
> > fact:
> >
> > I despise MacOS quite passionately. I like mac hardware, which is why
> > only one of the Macs in my house is not running linux or netbsd.
>
> Obviously this changes everything. I thought by favoring the Mac, and
> with your history of Microsoft-bashing, that you liked the MacOS.
>
> Of course, I do find the idea of a Unix advocate liking Mac hardware
> over PC hardware reasonably unusual (though not suspicious). Certainly,
> the PC paradigm of having a motherboard with each add-on component
> serving a unique and specific function is somewhat analagous to the
> Unix philosophy (compared to the iMac or classic Mac's, which are
> cathedrals). But I won't quibble. I like Mac hardware and software, but
> I prefer cathedrals to bazaars. I think my position of VMS > Mac >
> Windows >> Unix > Linux is extremely consistent.
Albeit non-technical; yours is a political agenda.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:03:39 GMT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:31:24 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmmm. Mandrake is the absolutely easyiest install i ever had.. maybe Corels
>is even easyer. What prompt?
Linuxconfs netcfg
Its started by a GUI button in DrakeConf, and appears in an xterm.
Mandrake could also do with GUI install using VGA16, not the framebuffer X.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:06:24 +0200
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >Of course, but do you know of sites that big that run on one x86 machine
?
>
> No one said any did. But Charlie was saying that NT machines crater
> when put under heavly load. These farms you gave as an example do not
> prove it doesn't.
Ok, fair enough. What about Charlie's _documented_ evidence ?
> >> And why is it that these NT success stories I hear are always
> >> companies that have some ties to Microsoft?? Some sell MS products,
> >
> >Does that change the fact that NT is running those large availability
sites
> >?
>
> Did I say it doesn't?? Why are you changing the context?? But these
> cases do not even begin to prove that NT would be *practical* choice
> for those who do not have such close ties to Microsoft.
Maybe, but that wasn't the point, since you want to stick to the point. Didi
I speak of practicability ? You did. It's okay for you to introduce new
context but not for me ?
I expect Charlie's document evidence of WinNT/2K puling under load
_everytime_ since it's a "well known" fact that NT/2K pukes under load. Not
that it happens sometimes, it just plain puke under load and it's a blue
screening mess.
> >> others want to trade MS stock, and one is Microsoft. How do you know
> >> how much additional support these companies recieve from MS
> >> (i.e. debugging crashes) that a company without a finacial tie to MS
> >> wouldn't receive. Any additional support at all sways the TCO curve.
> >
> >Charlie more or less argues that you can't do things on a large scale
with
> >NT.
>
> No, I believe Charlie was saying NT machines crater when under heavy
> load. That doesn't mean you can have a large farm of moderately loaded
> machines.
Okay. Let's stick to context. I have yet to see his _documented_ evidence
that WinNT/2K is a blue screening mess that pukes under load. After all,
it's Charlie's claim, I'll let him back it up.
My claim is that some corporation disagree with him, and use NT/2K for their
big/high availability sites.
> >Others [corporations which are in it for the money] seem to diasgree.
>
> But these companies that are "in it for the money" as have ties to
> Microsoft. I am still waiting for an independant success story for NT.
Did I promise to providse you with one ? I clearly don't remember.
> >> How about an independant success story for NT.
>
> Here is my question from my last post. I am still waiting for an
> independant success story for NT.
Okay. But you'll have to find a post from me claiming the existence [or
non-existance for that matter] of such happenings.
> >> >Have a look at this http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc , it
seems
> >that
> >> >WinNT/Win2K is up there with the bad boys.
> >>
> >> TPC != TCO. Benchmarks don't say a thing about stability, and thus
> >> don't say much about TCO.
>
> >Unless I'm mistaken, the TPC benchmarks stress the platforms [heavy
load],
> >and that you wouldn't have high marks if you platform crashed thru the
test.
>
> And how long do these benchmarks run. Weeks?? Months?? Memory leaks
> are cumulative.
I don't know. It's heavy load, and WinNT/2K apparently manages that load
just fine to at least finish the test [spanking a few UNIXes along the way].
Let's just that it postpone the under heavyload croaking.
> >> >Who am I going to believe, some evidence that stuff can be done on
> >WinNT/2K
> >> >platfoms or some random usenet persons blanket statements. Hmmmm.
> >> Anyone with half a brain wouldn't believe either. I am waiting for
> >
> >His blanket statement is much more difficult to believe in light of
evidence
> >of corporation apparently using WinNT/2K successfully.
>
> I never said you should believe his blanket statement. But why do you
> believe corporations that have ties to Microsoft?? You don't get it do
> you?? When www.dell.com gets BSOD's in their server farm their
I get it all right thank you. What's wrong with that ? Don't you believe
that major big/high availability sites don't have ties with their favorite
commercial UNIX vendor ? That's how business is done, AFAICT.
> engineers call Microsoft Engineers that they know personally and get a
> level of support other companies don't get. Why?? Dell is selling W2k
> servers.
I don't believe Dell. I see that they use WinNT/2K successfully on a
big/high availability site. Period.
> >> some independant evidence to say that W2K can keep it's head above
> >> water under heavy load. NT4 certainly can't.
> >
> >I don't know [since I'm not a server person], all I can say is that there
> >are large sites that use Windows NT/2K,
> >which IMO, ruin his blanket
> >statement.
>
> Charlie's statement was that NT/2K machines BSOD under heavy load. Web
> sites that are large farms do not disprove that.
Apparently, its bearable enough for some corporation to successfully do
business on their big/high availability sites.
Still expecting Charlie's documented evidence.
> Perry
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 12:08:34 -0500
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Intel's x86 architecture may also be approaching the end of its lifespan.
> > Even Intel seem to think it's in need of replacement.
>
> I suspect that Intel would have liked to replace the x86 ten or
> fifteen years ago. That they've gone on as long as they have done is
> nothing short of amazing...
>
Well supposedly this 'Itanium' (puke) finally does replace it with
something of a post-Devonian-Era design, although it still has
x86-compatibility mode.
> > With no crappy x86 instruction set, the rest of the hardware might
> > have some chance to overcome the traditional drawbacks of the
> > ancient IBM-clone.
>
> The bus architecture still leaves a lot to be desired; though PCI is
> much better than ISA, that isn't saying a right lot! For everything
> else, there are either reasonable solutions about now (UW-SCSI,
Ugh. SCSI has been, and always shall be, a friggin' nightmare in all
respects. It's a crying shame that...
> Firewire,
...sadly, Firewire seems to be DOA due to Apple's stupidness. Ah well,
guess we'll be stuck with IDE for the next fifty years.
> USB,)
Rocking the casbah baby YEAH! Best new PC technology to come along
since cut-n-paste.
> or nobody cares too much. (The PC floppy connector is
> perfectly adequate for such a low-bandwith and low-use device. :^)
>
Which brings up a good point: The floppy has got to go. That sucker
does next to nothing, and has for years. 1.44 Meg? In like five
minutes? Yeah, I care.
The one good thing I can say about the iMac: no floppy drive.
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
> realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
> -- Jeffrey Hobbs <[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
******************************
