Linux-Advocacy Digest #593, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the (Marty)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the (Marty)
Templetonbot field test 001 (was Re: Tholen digest-[SNIP]) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: a great job (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: a great job ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 19 May 2000 00:22:50 -0500
In article <O5%U4.17019$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I have provided a URL to the security support provider
>documentation. My research suggests that you also need
>to provide a 'creditial manager'. This is because
>the SSP module isn't informed of the users username and
>password; it is supposed to Just Know who you are and
>provide appropriate creditials based on that.
Yes, it does look like there have been a couple of
implimentations of this. I'd still prefer to have
a client that interoperates with no modifications.
>> OK - take two win2k boxes. Set up automatic directory
>> replication between them *without* an active directory
>> server in the picture. Let me know how you did it.
>> (I loaded rsync and used a unix box as the master...).
>
>Without active directory, I need some *other* directory
>services. Expect MS so somehow magically provide
>directory services without using MS's directory software
>is, well dubious.
I guess that was ambiguous. By 'directory replication'
I meant the files within a directory not a directory
service itself. Win2k offers to do file replication
and will let you do it manually without active directory
running. Why does it insist on having AD to let you
automate it?
>Alternately if I had *lots* of time on my hand, I could
>write my own directory services and a client module
>to use them.
You don't need to write a directory server. LDAP has
been around for ages.
>You are, in my view, mistaken. IBMs problem wasn't that they
>couldn't *do* it, it was that they couldn't do it anything like
>fast enough. IBM has notoriously slow development
>processes.
When you are up to your ears in lawyers, things do tend to
slow down, and you don't even consider anything controversial
that needs legal approval. I still contend that was the problem
rather than any lack of programming talent.
>They therefore decided to built a stopgap computer
>with, insofar as possible, already existing components.
>That's why they used ISA instead of something that
>doesn't suck. That's also why they tried to get CP/M.
Even Radio Shack managed to come up with several versions
of DOS as fast as they built machines. And that was
a company whose main business was little leather craft kits.
>I'm sure you know what happened next.
The greatest time drain known to man? Did you ever wonder
where computing would be today if the millions of
man-hours that went into tweaking high memory managers
for DOS so applications could actually load had been
used productively?
[Unix]
>> Maybe - as it worked out it mostly got the features
>> people needed instead of things that look good on
>> a marketing checklist.
>
>It got the features people needed at school.
>That's a fine thing, but it still has major deficiencies as
>a desktop OS.
It was well ahead of any other contenders in the 80's through
early 90's, just overpriced to a point that it did not have
the numbers of users to drive application development.
>> Is there some reason to think that IBM would not have
>> done their own DOS without the antitrust business?
>
>Yes. It would have taken to long, and IBM knew it.
But that is a symptom of the antitrust business.
>> Maybe - they weren't that great as a monopoly either, but
>> they did have some basic competence. I don't think they
>> would ever have designed something as fragile as DOS and
>> Win 3.1 or even Win95.
>
>Oh, I don't know. Early Unixes were very fragile, and for essentially
>the same reason: the hardware wasn't able to support better.
No really. A mid-80's 3B2 where I used to work is still running.
I had a year of uptime on one of them before I left. Some
of the later models had a bad reputation but the first ones
were nearly bulletproof.
>> Clients are disposable - the server has to keep working.
>
>I don't think that's a very good attitude. Leads to products
>like Windows 95 if you aren't careful. :D
Speaking of Win95, how the heck did MS get away with claiming
that it was exempt from IBM's license to use future windows
source code in OS/2 and making them pay over again? It
is pretty clear now that it still sits on top of DOS and
is basically win3.x with win32s stuck in and a slightly
different user interface. How can that be interpreted
as anything but another version of what they had licensed?
>In MSDN. Need I provide *another* URL? Are you, like,
>alerigic to Microsofts websites?
They do go out of their way to be sure the pages look
bad if you aren't using their fonts. Heh - and they
probably don't even know it - it is just a side effect
of using the tools that were designed to cause that.
>So are you complaining that MS didn't drop FoxPro?
I'm complaining that they destroyed a company that was actually
doing innovation and turned the product into something bland. And
I'm complaining that they lied out of both of their faces in the
process. I doubt if any of the documents can still be found now,
but I was watching the Compuserve forum and FoxPro user group
closely enough to see what was happening. At first the FoxPro team
was enthusiatic about the deal, clearly thinking that they were
going to continue to develop the product. Soon after it became
obvious that MS wanted to dump it, and had all along to eliminate
competition for access. The whole scenario was pretty unpleasant,
and I think it was the user backlash that made them keep it lingering
on.
>They seem to have put FoxPro on ice, basically.
I think that was the plan from the beginning. They
were beating access in every test. Can't have that.
>I don't see this as one of their, um, more visionary
>moments.
I don't think it was unusual at all. Dozens, probably
hundreds of other companies have been removed from
the competition in much the same manner. I just didn't
follow the details as closely as this one - but we
all saw the rumors in the trade magazines.
>> Maybe - but the timing turns out to be precisely right for it
>> to have been the result of the business practices that Microsoft
>> is being investigated over with their demand to bundle windows
>> with every box.
>
>Speculative. I know, with you, if Microsoft could be guilty,
>they are guilty.
Do you happen to know when Dell signed that agreement?
>Or perhaps they are also desparately trying to twist
>everything MS does into some kind of weird plot. :P
It is surprisingly easy, and I don't have much of
an imagination.
>You are, I presume, one again seeing conspiracies. MS
>knew Win3 would succeed because MS is all-knowing
>and all-powerful and so if they backed OS/2 it *must* be
>some kind of plot.
Have there been any internal documents uncovered in the
investigations that pinpoint when MS knew it was not
going to complete OS/2?
>> Server 'features' shouldn't depend on brands.
>
>Nonsense. The software industry is *not* in the business
>of selling commodities. It's highly innovative; new features
>are the stuff of life!
New features do not have to require differences in client
server protocols, and even if they do, they can negotiate
version capabilities.
>It's extremely silly to say that no-one is allowed to produce
>a server produce with a feature its competitors (and its
>previous versison) do not have.
OK. It is also silly to say that no one else can make
a server that can interoperate with your clients. That's
like saying I can't use my telephone with a different
company's service.
>> I can replace
>> a networked printer with a different brand,
>
>But apparently it can't be a *color* printer, because
>they you could print in color on it, but not on any other
>printer.
If you send it postscript it will do something reasonable
regardless, but there are different brands of printers
that perform both equivalent and different operations.
I can plug them on the network and keep going. If I
couldn't - well I wouldn't use that kind.
>> I can replace
>> a unix box acting as an NFS server with a NetApp.
>
>What's a NetApp?
It is a highly tuned 'appliance' file server that has
some nifty features like timed snapshot backups that
are magically kept on line in hidden read-only directories.
When your email virus decides to delete some files you
can still retrieve a copy from an hour ago or last
night. They also serve CIFS to windows boxes, but
(unsurprisingly) don't act as a domain controller.
In other words, it is a server with extra features
that doesn't need changes to the protocol.
>> I can
>> replace my SMTP/POP/IMAP mail service with any other
>> without any client caring about the brand. Now why should
>> I ever introduce a new product onto the network that does
>> limit me to only using that vendor's product at the other end?
>
>Beats me; Microsoft's servers do not behave like that. You can
>put non-MS clients on the other end. Macs, Unix boxes, whatever.
The clients are fine, I'm talking about using a different server.
How do MS clients work with someone else's server? Outlook
does pop and imap, but its LDAP is really half-hearted (which
actually turned out to be a good thing for us, because the
ILOVEYOU bug only found the address entries that people had
copied locally, not the full one like it would if LDAP were
handled correctly).
>> Indeed, we disagree. How were the many years where DOS maintained
>> it's 640K/32M limits positive for anyone? How was DOS 4.0 good
>> for anyone? How did DOS 5.0's new features happen to show up
>> immediately after a competing product had them?
>
>It did take Microsoft quite a while to get Windows to the point
>where it was usable. But better late the never; Microsoft took
>on the hard problem of making commodity PC hardware
>civilized; nobody else managed it, and few even tried.
You are re-inventing history here. What really happened
was that hardware vendors tried to provide better versions
on several fronts, expecting the OS device abstractions
to make it work correctly. They died trying, because
the Microsoft supplied OS did not abstract well enough
to be usable. So, we ended up with standard (and horrible)
hardware for many years and are just now starting to
see a little innovation again. Remember how MS not only
did not participate in developing a way to add extra
usable memory to a PC, but they went out of their way
to break the scheme after someone else did it.
>Microsoft does *good* things as well as bad, but a lot of
>people- like, say, you :D - insists on turning everything
>MS does into some kind of villainy.
By pointing out that good things were being done by others
and might have been much better, given a chance.
>> I'm concerned with bad as in keeping other people from
>> doing better things. Bad as in keeping hardware companies
>> from offering better choices.
>
>The thing that keeps hardware companies form offering better
>choices is that there *aren't* any right now; Windows is
>far and away the best in its market niche.
Windows has a couple of nice points in font handling and in
integrating the screen and printer graphics abstractions.
Other than that, it is all application level stuff and
that exists only because of the raw numbers driving the
development. It can and will all show up for Linux soon.
>Microsofts occasional misdeeds are academic next
>to that.
I just don't see how anyone can trust them. Maybe for the
disposable client side, but do you want them to control
your passwords knowing their penchant for putting other
companies out of business?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 05:37:32 GMT
Garban Bargmen wrote:
>
> Myrat Amodeo writes:
Still using made-up attributions, Garban? Perhaps this is all just part of
your infantile game.
> | Gerban Bergmen wrote:
>
> Still having attribution problems, eh Myrat?
Not at all, Garban.
> | > The ones you're suffering from, Eric.
> |
> | Having specificity problems, Gerban?
>
> Not at all, Myrat.
Whom are you addressing?
> Why do you ask?
That depends upon whom you are addressing.
> | > Balderdash, Eric.
> |
> | Typically unnecessary hyperbole.
>
> What alleged "hyperbole", Myrat?
Why not ask this "Myrat" yourself, Garban
> | > He's done nothing of the sort.
> |
> | More evidence of your evidence comprehension problems.
>
> I cannot comprehend what isn't there, Myrat.
So what's your excuse for not comprehending the evidence?
> | > You're erroneously presupposing that he has provided the evidence, Eric.
> |
> | Not at all,
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
On the basis that the presupposition was not erroneous.
> | Pascal.
>
> Who's that, Myrat?
Don't you know?
> | Still taking evidence denial lessons from Dave "Java 1.2" Tholen?
>
> Ask your mentor, grasshopper.
Unnecessary, as the answer is quite obvious, given your continued denial of
the presence of the evidence.
> Gerben Bergman
Who?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How ironic.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 05:41:56 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gerben Bergman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That message never appeared on his news server, Eric.
> > Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> >
> > | > The ones you're suffering from, Eric.
> > |
> > | Illogical,
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim, Gerben?
See what he means?
> > | as Eric
> >
> > Referring to yourself in the third person again, eh Eric?
>
> Illogical, as only two people are participating in this discussion.
Incorrect. Witness my participation in this discussion.
> What alleged "third person"?
Open your eyes, Eric.
> > Typical pontification.
>
> Where?
Yet another example of your pontification.
> > | If you had decent reading comprehension skills,
> >
> > How decent is "decent", Eric?
>
> See what I mean?
What you mean is irrelevant. What he sees is also irrelevant. What is this,
Irrelevancy Theater?
> > | you would have recognized this fact.
> >
> > What alleged "fact", Eric?
>
> See what I mean?
What you mean is irrelevant. What he sees is also irrelevant. What is this,
Irrelevancy Theater?
> > | > Balderdash, Eric. He's done nothing of the sort.
> > |
> > | Liar.
> >
> > Incorrect, given that you're the one who's lying, Eric.
>
> See what I mean?
What you mean is irrelevant. What he sees is also irrelevant. What is this,
Irrelevancy Theater?
> > | > You're erroneously presupposing that he has provided the evidence,
> > | > Eric.
> > |
> > | On the contrary.
> >
> > Evidence, please.
>
> See above.
What he sees (above or otherwise) is irrelevant. What is this, Irrelevancy
Theater?
> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
Open your eyes, Eric.
> Why, nowhere to be seen!
More evidence of your dirty glasses.
> On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
Still denying the evidence I see. No suprise there.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Templetonbot field test 001 (was Re: Tholen digest-[SNIP])
Date: 19 May 2000 05:43:12 GMT
[Stephen interjects into the conversation with the Templetonbot for
the purposes of testing...]
STATUS: Voice recognition seems to be fully fuctional. At this level,
all functions of Mattoid number 3 appears to be normal.
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
: >
: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > wrote:
: >
: > > Today's Tholen digest is full of nothing:
: >
: > Are you suggesting that your post does not contain any material?
: Jumping to erroneous conclusions again, Eric? Taking jumping to erroneous
: conclusion lessons from Bob Osborn?
If you would have BOTHERED to READ the ARTICAL, you would have KNOWN that
he ISN'T jumping ANYWHERE.
/* "artical" intentionally mispelled for the purposes of realism. */
Here, _READ_ it again!
http://www.someuselessblitheringsite.com/wankermaterial/baloney.html
: > Illogical,
: Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
It's only unsubstantiated, because you REFUSE to READ! All you do is
INSULT. I guess you're incapable of having a logical argument.
: > but that is to be expected,
: According to who, Eric? You?
Ah, now we're being POMPOUS. Hello Mr. Pompous!
: > coming from you.
: How ironic, considering that comment came from you.
I never said that! It said that in the ARTICAL! READ THE ARTICAL!
: > On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
: I see you've taken to ignoring evidence and responses again. How convenient.
I'm not ignoring ANYTHING! You just refuse to READ! All you can do is
INSULT. I guess you can't argue LOGICALLY.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: 19 May 2000 00:47:53 -0500
In article <0e3V4.1796$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8g1u9h$8cn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >They, together with Intel, brought computing to the masses.
>>
>> No, that was Apple, and Tandy/Radio Shack who put them in
>> stores on every corner. Then IBM who later gave them a respectable
>> name.
>
>Neither Apple or Tandy could be considered suppliers to "the masses".
>Apples market share has always been very low, as has Tandy's.
Think earlier. Before the IBM PC and for a short while after,
Apple and Tandy had almost all of the market. Tandy never released
sales numbers but they where huge. And I think this was
Microsoft's original windfall, because they had not expected
to sell many and had licensed MS ROM BASIC on a per-piece
basis instead of the usual flat rate (at least based on
the rumors of the day...).
>In the early
>days, only hobbyists owned tandy computers.
Isn't that pretty much what you call 'masses' who own computers?
Businesses had big iron before that, and expensive dedicated
word processors from Wang, CPT and the like.
>One could say that Apple and Tandy brought computers to the layman, but not
>"the masses". Since that would indicate a ubiquitiousness that neither
>Apple or Tandy was able to pull off.
The numbers kept increasing, of course, as the the utility as
better programming became available, but Apple and Tandy are
the ones that set the wheels in motion with a ready-to-run
box at a price ordinary people could afford.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:07:47 -0500
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g2ki9$1m7n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Neither Apple or Tandy could be considered suppliers to "the masses".
> >Apples market share has always been very low, as has Tandy's.
>
> Think earlier. Before the IBM PC and for a short while after,
> Apple and Tandy had almost all of the market.
The market was tiny compared to today. Today, one in two homes has a
computer. Back then, one in 1000 or worse had had computers.
> Tandy never released
> sales numbers but they where huge.
I would doubt that Tandy ever sold more than 1 million non-PC computers
total. Commodore and Atari certainly sold far more.
> And I think this was
> Microsoft's original windfall, because they had not expected
> to sell many and had licensed MS ROM BASIC on a per-piece
> basis instead of the usual flat rate (at least based on
> the rumors of the day...).
Actually, if you don't expect to sell many, a flat rate is far better than a
per piece rate.
> >In the early
> >days, only hobbyists owned tandy computers.
>
> Isn't that pretty much what you call 'masses' who own computers?
Not "masses who own computers" but the masses in general.
hobyists were laymen, but not "masses".
> >One could say that Apple and Tandy brought computers to the layman, but
not
> >"the masses". Since that would indicate a ubiquitiousness that neither
> >Apple or Tandy was able to pull off.
>
> The numbers kept increasing, of course, as the the utility as
> better programming became available, but Apple and Tandy are
> the ones that set the wheels in motion with a ready-to-run
> box at a price ordinary people could afford.
Few people could afford the $2000 price tag of an Apple II in the late 70's.
Tandy's were a lot cheaper, but then they were black and white (even later
models the TRS-80-model 3.)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
