Linux-Advocacy Digest #551, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (joseph)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Here is the solution: Liquid Nitrogen (joseph)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 17 May 2000 00:02:28 -0500
In article <8ft55p$fkm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Because you didn't do any of the many things that force you to
>: reboot, or run any of the apps that make the OS crash.
>
>I must ask, Leslie... exactly how do you know that I have never done any
>of those things? Are you aware that I was an NT adminstrator for about
>3-4 years? To make the assumptions you have is not only arrogant, it is
>presumtuous, and plainly a completely fallible way to establish a point.
Arrogant? I don't think so. But we do apparantly have a different
concept of stability.
>I know that WindowsNT v4.0 needs to be rebooted for many changes. I never
>stated otherwise. Windows2000 does not have to be rebooted, so I'm told,
>for as many changes as WindowsNT v4.0 does.
Yes, it is an improvement. But there are still way to many things
that require a reboot. I think something as simple as changing
the machine name will do it.
>I have never run any applications that could crash WindowsNT.
Yes, that's what I tried to point out. You are running only
things that other large companies have put an enormous
amount of effort into testing before you even see them.
>I've seen
>many applications die under WindowsNT, including Internet Explorer,
>Netscape, Lightwave, Adobe Photoshop, Lotus Approach, QuarkXPress, Rhino
>3D, etc. In a few of those instances, the constant dying of applications
>was due to problems with local directories using older versions of dynamic
>libs in conjunction with newer dynamic libs in the C:\WINNT4\SYSTEM32
>directory.
We do software development and run stuff that we know has bugs. I
expect application crashes. But the programs do things that
nothing else does so we have to get some production work out
of it too and try to cover up the problems by having multiple
copies running. Up until sp6a, when the app crashed we would
often get a Dr. Watson or system error dialog box and the
other programs would appear to still be running -but- as soon
as you click on either the 'OK' or 'cancel' to clear the
dialog, the box would lock completely. This was especially
annoying because I normally controlled the boxes remotely with
VNC and at that point I'd have to go to the office and push
the reset button. The worst of the application bugs (this
round) were found and fixed soon after I applied sp6a so
even this hasn't had a real workout but it did recover from
a few Dr. Watsons.
>I have also ran into a number of BSODs in my time. In nearly every
>instance, the problem was fixed by replacing cheaper hardware with more
>reliable hardware (ie: replacing LinkSys network adapters with NetGear
>adapters, replacing SIIG SCSI controllers with Adaptec, etc.), and as a
>positive result, also using more proper drivers. In a few other
>instances, the problem seemed to be linked with certain motherboards (I
>don't recall the specific brand, unfortunately).
Sure, no OS can make up for hardware that doesn't work. That's
not the issue. But on the unix boxes an app crash never takes
the system down.
>Leslie, you seem like a relatively sharp fellow... please, don't argue
>in the same manner that Charlie does. :-)
I'm not. I am saying that NT works under very carefully controlled
conditions. And I don't see you arguing strenuously against
that viewpoint.
>: Try something simple, like loading the IP address via DHCP. Change
>: the netmask for the DHCP range on the server. DHCP should take care
>: if it on the client side, right? The D is for dynamic, as in
>: expecting changes...
>
>Hmmm... I've done this quite a few times, with no problems. Could you
>describe your problems in a little more detail? Are the machines you're
>referring to COMPAQ boxen, by any chance?
If you don't consider rebooting all your clients a problem it
isn't a problem. What happened was that I moved a set of
4 class C subnets onto a single switched subnet, changing the
subnet mask to 255.255.252.0. After changing the scope on
the DHCP server I did a release/renew by hand on a machine
and it seemed to work, so I thought the rest would work as
the lease ran out. It didn't - every box had to be rebooted,
losing whatever connections it had. Since we have machines
doing long-running software tests and data collection, this
was a problem.
>: If you have a pair of machines, try the DHCP setting business - a
>: perfectly normal thing to expect for a changing network. Try
>
>I have, as I stated, already done this several times. Could you perhaps
>elaborate on how you approached it? I'd be interested to see if your
>approach was different from mine (which is mostly by the book).
Were you able to keep connections up while changing a netmask? None
of the unix/linux boxes even blinked, although I don't think any
were dhcp assigned.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:12:46 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > No, I didn't. I have looked this up now, but even so. It's just a
> client
> > > application, it's not an OS extension.
> > >
> > > Office is extending IIS, not IIS offering API's for Office.
> >
> > Mea culpa, then. IIS is part of NT Server (at least the last time I
> > installed it).
>
> Yes, it is part of NT Server. But OSE is a daemon run on the NT Server to
> expose IIS features to Office. There is no evidence which suggests that
> it's using undocumented API's to do this.
You cannot prove it doesn't use hidden APIs and MS insists they have a
right to build and use them exclusively.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 17 May 2000 05:21:26 GMT
Stephen, You have already shown yourself to be a liar:
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
You have also shown yourself to be somewhat unreasonably prejudicial:
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624188730
You didn't reply to either of those posts.
On 16 May 2000 23:32:51 GMT,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snipped]
I never said Charlie proved anything. I don't know where you got that
idea. All I said was that Paul hasn't proved anything either.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 05:20:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > 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.
While cathedral vs. bazaar is not the most technical argument I can
make, most of my arguments in favor of VMS and Mac as opposed to Unix
and Linux can be boiled down to the basic assertion that the former
were planned as great pieces of architecture and that the latter were
merely pinned together ad hoc. I find that it sums up my position,
though you are correct in stating that it is not technical per se
(though the philosophy of the design of systems seems inherently
technical).
I am, however, most curiously interested in your perception of
my "political agenda". Clearly I have absolutely no financial interest
in Compaq or Apple. Unless you mean politics for real -- hmm, I'll
probably vote for Bush this year, I didn't realize he was a VMS user? I
have absolutely no understanding why you believe that my "agenda" is
anything but technical in nature, and I am eagerly awaiting your
rationale.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: joseph <[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
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 05:24:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak) wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Are NFS and DNS now part of an operating system?
>
> Well according to Microsoft, a browser is part of
the OS, so why not ?
Sure why not? It would be interesting to force MS to
be consistent and keep their OS whole. IE is part of
windows so MS cannot make IE for any non-windows OS
like the MAC or UNIX or LINUX. Same for any other
widget including speech recognition and even SQL and
MS Office. If they add it to the OS then it's stuck
there and has to be loaded on all PCs runing windows.
Consumers have to buy hardware to support the entire
pig pile of their OS/apps/kitchensink.
--
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 05:28:28 GMT
In article <8fta5m$2sr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > 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.
>
> While cathedral vs. bazaar is not the most technical argument I can
> make, most of my arguments in favor of VMS and Mac as opposed to Unix
> and Linux can be boiled down to the basic assertion that the former
> were planned as great pieces of architecture and that the latter were
> merely pinned together ad hoc. I find that it sums up my position,
> though you are correct in stating that it is not technical per se
> (though the philosophy of the design of systems seems inherently
> technical).
Niether of your arguments make any differance. The only thing that
truley matters is the end result. I don't see a lot of people claiming
that Mac's make the best servers. Never mind that with a Mac, you're
stuck with a single source and single hardware platform. Linux is NOT
limmited to a single source or hardware platform. IBM just released the
OFFICAL 390 linux version, MacOS on a 390???
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 05:31:31 GMT
In article <8fers8$334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> "Sierra Tigris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message
news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Paul 'Z' Ewande© posted May 11 re: Re: How to properly process e-mail
>
> >|And more over, in OE [I suppose its no different in Outlook] , the
*.gif
> and
> >|the *.jpg are decoded, you can see them at the end of the message.
>
> >Actually, that's only if you either open the eMail, or look at it in
> >the preview plane, which means that it can "run" it's something like
> >javascript, which is, IMO, extremely bad.
>
> Don't you need enabled ActiveX enabled for that ? Just asking, I don't
> really know.
>
> However, I received the ILOVEYOU .vbs, with the preview pane enabled,
and
> when I clicked on the paper clip, I was asked if wanted to save the
> attachment, If I click on the .vbs icon, I'm asked with warning that
some
> files blah, blah, blah what I wanted to do with them, with the default
on
> "save".
>
> I've since disabled activeX content, better safe than sorry. :)
Funny how every one must disable all the "inovations" from MS to get a
secure OS.
>
> --
> Da Katt
>
> Paul 'Z' Ewande
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:49:10 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 03:31:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >In article <8fqekl$294r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> >
> >> And the starting price for a VMS cluster would be???
> >
> >I doubt I've spent $1,000 on my home VMS cluster, which has about 5 or
> >6 VAX nodes, and 1 Alpha node.
> >
> >The real problem is power. My MicroVAX 3900's have 3 kilowatt power
> >supplies, and it is expensive to run them. Even a modern Alpha will eat
> >up a lot of power as well. But the cost of the machines is minimal (and
> >software of course is free), at least if you get something aside from
> >the newest generation. Unlike Winux and Lindows, VMS runs perfectly
> >well on hardware which is not the latest and greatest
>
> Define "perfectly well". Can it play Q3? Run Photoshop or The Gimp?
> Run at 1280x1024x24 bits without slowdown? Network at standard
> 100baseT? Easily dial via PPP with a normal modem? Include normal 16
> bit sound?
To me you're describing a game console. Go get a DreamCast or a PSX II
in the fall - they'll give you more bang for the buck with multimedia -
if you want to do multimedia authoring get a PPC G4. If you want to
compute then get a stable OS and quality hardware.
> A BookPC + Celeron 533 + 8G hard drive + 64M RAM does all this, and
> for about $400.
>
> So, who would bother with VMS? Why?
>
> It's bizarre what some people will put themselves through...
VMS is used as an OS for scientific simulation models on DEC/Compaq
ALPHA systems. You also have a system that is very stable which is why
a Celeron PC isn't interesting.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 05:48:58 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 05:20:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > 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.
>
>While cathedral vs. bazaar is not the most technical argument I can
>make, most of my arguments in favor of VMS and Mac as opposed to Unix
>and Linux can be boiled down to the basic assertion that the former
>were planned as great pieces of architecture and that the latter were
>merely pinned together ad hoc. I find that it sums up my position,
>though you are correct in stating that it is not technical per se
>(though the philosophy of the design of systems seems inherently
>technical).
It's great, whenever you can pull it off.
However, the fact remains that such are seldom accomplished.
In comparison to most companies, DEC is really more of a
"Boeng" rather than a Cathederal builder. Whereas the Mac
has it's own problems with respect to being 'thrown together'
and patched over time.
Infact, some of the Mac developers have had some interest in
going back 're-doing' their earlier work as engineering
constraints have been altered dramatically.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution: Liquid Nitrogen
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 05:35:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Whoo Boy, Todd's spinning a mile a minute here:
>
> Prove something that's being hidden exists.
> Prove that that something is being used.
> Prove that that something is advantageous to use.
> Prove that it matters.
The Windows ISV software market a wasteland so what
does it matter when someone argue over the definition
of "API"?
Splitting MS into two would be doing these guys a big
favor.
> Oh wait! We don't need to do that, David Boies
already has it covered!
>
> Now, on to the important part: how many pieces do
we break them into?
Dip MS in Liquid Nitrogen and bang it with a hammer.
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 17 May 2000 05:54:04 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Stephen, You have already shown yourself to be a liar:
: http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
Your reply was not worth responding to. I stated very clearly that the
majority of the problems I've ever witnessed, or experienced with
WindowsNT were fixed by changing out hardware. As for my own problems
that I encountered, yes, _all_ of them were attributed to hardware.
Your lack of English comprehension validates no reasons to call me a liar.
I find that you argue much like Charlie. You offer nothing but anecdotal
rambling, and you never seem to offer hard factual data to prove your
claims, or the claims of others which you seem to agree with.
: You have also shown yourself to be somewhat unreasonably prejudicial:
: http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624188730
Perhaps. I can easily say the exact same thing about you.
: You didn't reply to either of those posts.
As I said, your post wasn't worth replying to. The other post actually
made some good points, and I felt no reason to rebute.
: I never said Charlie proved anything. I don't know where you got that
: idea. All I said was that Paul hasn't proved anything either.
I got that idea from the fact that you've been supporting everything he's
been saying.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
