Linux-Advocacy Digest #715, Volume #26 Sat, 27 May 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ? (Bob Tennent)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words ("Keith T Williams")
Re: democracy? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: democracy? (Full Name)
Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451692.614^-0000000000000000000008 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451692.351^-.00000000000007 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ? (billy ball)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ? (bill ball)
IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. ("Drestin Black")
linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails ("Drestin Black")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Arclight)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Drestin Black")
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. (cutechen)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Damien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:19:07 GMT
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Seán Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> > You're out of your mind. The price of operating systems has remained
> > roughly the same, while their power and functionality has skyrocketed.
> > What the hell is wrong with that?
>
> Windows 2000 is $300.
>
> The price of harware has dropped while the power has skyrocketed.
>
> As a fraction of the cost of a PC, the OS's slice is eating into the
> pie.
Hardware and software are not the same. Manufacturing technology has
improved; computer components are cheaper.
Programmers, well, aren't; they are quite scarce (and so expensive)
these days. Especially ones that can do the hard stuff, like OSes.
And the proliferation of new, better components has made the task of a
general purpose OS rather harder; there is now more stuff to support.
You can't just drop the old hardware the way computer manufacturers
sometimes can.
Programming technology *has* improved, but it hasn't improved very
much in this area. The main improvement that can be applied to
an OS is the emergence of C++.
There *are* advanced tools that can greatly simplify program development
in *some* sectors; but they don't apply to OSes.
(Really. Just *try* building an OS in Visual Basic. I dare you. :D )
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ?
Date: 27 May 2000 12:20:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 27 May 2000 09:51:22 GMT, Beeg Fat Eddie wrote:
>
>He also mentioned working
>on an operating system technology for some time now that will be
>(or is) going to be released sometime in the near future called
>Plan9.
>
>Was this all a bunch hogwash? It basically seemed like this
>guy was promising a big open system dogfight somewhere down
>the proverbial road (2002...?) between Plan9 O/S and Linux for the
>technical achievemnet crown or whatever.
>
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/index.html
http://www.ecf.toronto.edu/plan9/
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: "Keith T Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 09:21:00 -0400
its in 2000 as well.
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Christopher Browne from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 25 May 2000
> >>And if you poke around in NT, there is (used to be) a command called
> >>something like "setacls". With no options will show the access control
> >>lists for NT objects in a very *NIX-like way. I actually preferred it
> >>over the point-and-click approach because I could do mass changes with
> >>just a few lines in a script. No trivial matter when you have thousands
> >>of users. Hope MSFT haven't taken that away....
>
> I found a command "cacls". Thanks for the tip!
>
> -----------
> C:\>cacls
> Displays or modifies access control lists (ACLs) of files
>
> CACLS filename [/T] [/E] [/C] [/G user:perm] [/R user [...]]
> [/P user:perm [...]] [/D user [...]]
> filename Displays ACLs.
> /T Changes ACLs of specified files in
> the current directory and all subdirectories.
> /E Edit ACL instead of replacing it.
> /C Continue on access denied errors.
> /G user:perm Grant specified user access rights.
> Perm can be: R Read
> C Change (write)
> F Full control
> /R user Revoke specified user's access rights (only valid with
> /E).
> /P user:perm Replace specified user's access rights.
> Perm can be: N None
> R Read
> C Change (write)
> F Full control
> /D user Deny specified user access.
> Wildcards can be used to specify more that one file in a command.
> You can specify more than one user in a command.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 06:29:55 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> > The U.S. is a federal republic, which is why the preamble to the FEDERAL
> > constitution contains the phrase "... and to the REPUBLIC ...".
>
> That's not in the preamble to the US Constitution; it's in the Pledge of
> Allegiance.
...lol...
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 13:30:32 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:48:06 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The results of these MS breakup polls (consistently 2/3 against) raise some
>interesting questions about the implementation of democracy (in this case in
>the USA).
>
>Why is it that the opinion of the man in the street doesn't matter (because
>they're stupid, stupid! (?)) and why is it that one single person (the judge)
>is to make the decision? Shouldn't there be at least a panel or a jury?
>
>Francis.
>
If they had a poll asking if Red Hat should be broken up no one would
respond.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 13:47:15 GMT
I, like many other Linux users want to see REAL competition in the
Desktop OS market. I welcome any OS that might help this along. This
being said, any new OS will face the same problems Linux has experienced
in gaining acceptance.
In article <uUMX4.96377$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well maybe not that new, but this interview I read back around
> January with Ritchie (or was it Kernigan) -- one of those UNIX / C
> grandaddies... was all bent out of shape about how Linux has
> developed over time. It seems he mentioned "lack of focus" and
> "anarchy" a well as a few other dispariging remarks towards Linux,
> like "old technology all over again". He also mentioned working
> on an operating system technology for some time now that will be
> (or is) going to be released sometime in the near future called
> Plan9.
>
> Was this all a bunch hogwash? It basically seemed like this
> guy was promising a big open system dogfight somewhere down
> the proverbial road (2002...?) between Plan9 O/S and Linux for the
> technical achievemnet crown or whatever.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 14:07:17 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:52:29 +0200, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Arclight wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
>>
>> I've used 4.3, 95 & 97 and they have never crashed on me.
>
>Happy to hear that. Please tell my secretary.
(snip)
It is a rare occasion indeed when I find myself agreeing with the
usually disagreeable Arclight, but I must support his stand.
In my case, I have stayed at WFWG and Office Pro 4.3 because IMHO it
is as close to bulletproof as I have found any MicroShit product since
DOS5
> Asked me "please could we install again old Word Star,
>which was less fancy, but worked?"
I think it's time you reviewed your complete installation. There is
something else amiss apart from MSOffice.
>She had spent the whole
>day trying to send a letter to our suppliers. Just same
>letter, change address and save (to keep record). Only if
>you "save as", then four characters come printed one above
>the other and make a nice black square in a line. If you
>just "save", it prints correctly, but you overwrite previous
>one and you can't keep track.
There is a small feature in Word6/95/97 called Mail Merge. You've
paid for it (I presume) so use it.
Takes some time to figure it
>The only Windows application she uses is Office, being a secretary.
Time to reinstall the whole shebang. Gets rid of a closet full of
ghosts.
>>They also issued a
>> >patch for Word 6 which allowed it to read Word 97 files.
So you expect FORWARD compatibility. Let's see - my Word6.0C has a
copyright 1993-94 on it. Were they expected to know the Word97 format
changes in 1993/94? Get real.
I'm no MicroShaft apologist, but these products are IMHO better than
WordPerfect and a zillion years ahead of WordStar.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451692.614^-0000000000000000000008
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:04:34 -0400
Today's Tholen digest, in which three words bring about the Tholen's ire:
[not worth repeating]
Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451692.351^-.00000000000007
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:04:38 -0400
Tholen tries a digest of me, but we all know what that's worth!
> Malloy let it slip
Let it "slip"? Ha! More like *you* slipped.
> recently
How recent is recent, Tholen?
> that the way to end the thread is for me to stop responding.
Well of course a thread in which you're the only opponent will cease to
exist if you stop responding, Tholen. Why is that a surprise? What's not
surprising is that you never take the opportunity.
> However, we have over a year's worth of
> experimental evidence that demonstrates rather convincingly that if
> I ignore Malloy, he does not reciprocate.
Liar. He does so reciprocate - none of those threads from which you ran are
still running with him as a participant.
> Clearly, he simply wants to continue posting his invective
> with impunity.
Not with impunity, Tholen, but with my computer.
> Obviously, he finds
> some use in posting, yet he continues to refer to this as "uselessnet".
Irrelevant. Where's the contradiction in that? Can one not post regardless
of what he considers uselessnet to be? Don't be a doofus, Tholen!
> Let's keep a new running tally on the number of instances of his
> hypocrisy.
How ironic! If we were to keep a running tally on the number of instances
of your hypocrisy, as evidenced solely by you uselessnet postings to this
group, cooa, the figure would be be astrological (as befits the you,
Tholen!).
> Here's the latest digest of not-previously-responded-to
> postings of his from the last several weeks:
Balderdash, Tholen. You've been waiting for a chance to respond and now you
see an apparition, by which you invent you chance, Tholen.
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 14:17:52 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 13:47:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I, like many other Linux users want to see REAL competition in the
>Desktop OS market. I welcome any OS that might help this along. This
>being said, any new OS will face the same problems Linux has experienced
>in gaining acceptance.
Atheos? it looks promising!
>
>
>In article <uUMX4.96377$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Well maybe not that new, but this interview I read back around
>> January with Ritchie (or was it Kernigan) -- one of those UNIX / C
>> grandaddies... was all bent out of shape about how Linux has
>> developed over time. It seems he mentioned "lack of focus" and
>> "anarchy" a well as a few other dispariging remarks towards Linux,
>> like "old technology all over again". He also mentioned working
>> on an operating system technology for some time now that will be
>> (or is) going to be released sometime in the near future called
>> Plan9.
>>
>> Was this all a bunch hogwash? It basically seemed like this
>> guy was promising a big open system dogfight somewhere down
>> the proverbial road (2002...?) between Plan9 O/S and Linux for the
>> technical achievemnet crown or whatever.
>>
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 14:30:46 GMT
One benefit is that you can strip out all the crap you don't need,
so that the system is much smaller and faster. Of course, this
is useful only for special projects.
There is a product out there that will let you strip stuff out of
Win98 and Win ME (making a mini-ME, ha ha), written by
the same guy who showed how easy it was to separate Windows
and Internet Explorer, contrary to Microsoft's expostulations.
One thing I like about Linux is that you do not have to reboot when
you reconfigure the network settings. Just stop the service(s) and
start 'm up again.
Chris
Sam wrote:
> One allocates
> >sufficient disk space, sets up a system, builds, then provides the
> >binary packages to other, presumably identically-configured, systems.
> >
> >Try *that* with Windows! :-)
>
> Why ?
>
>
------------------------------
From: bill ball <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 14:33:44 GMT
billy ball wrote:
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 13:47:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I, like many other Linux users want to see REAL competition in the
> >Desktop OS market. I welcome any OS that might help this along. This
> >being said, any new OS will face the same problems Linux has experienced
> >in gaining acceptance.
>
> Atheos? it looks promising!
>
> >
> >
> >In article <uUMX4.96377$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Well maybe not that new, but this interview I read back around
> >> January with Ritchie (or was it Kernigan) -- one of those UNIX / C
> >> grandaddies... was all bent out of shape about how Linux has
> >> developed over time. It seems he mentioned "lack of focus" and
> >> "anarchy" a well as a few other dispariging remarks towards Linux,
> >> like "old technology all over again". He also mentioned working
> >> on an operating system technology for some time now that will be
> >> (or is) going to be released sometime in the near future called
> >> Plan9.
> >>
> >> Was this all a bunch hogwash? It basically seemed like this
> >> guy was promising a big open system dogfight somewhere down
> >> the proverbial road (2002...?) between Plan9 O/S and Linux for the
> >> technical achievemnet crown or whatever.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
ummm.... that should be:
http://atheos.funcom.com
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:47:45 -0400
WELL, IT'S FINALLY official: OS/2 is dead. IBM announced recently that the
product once dubbed the "better Windows than Windows" has reached the end of
the line and will be phased out within a year, beginning with the client
version, which will see its last update, or "fixpack" in IBM-speak, in
January 2001. Then the server and Workspace on Demand versions will be
updated for the last time in May 2001. After that, support for selected OS/2
products will be offered only on a special-bid, fee-based system. Like the
Mac OS, OS/2 suffered dramatic and irreversible marketshare losses when
Microsoft released Windows 95 in 1995
http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2745
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 11:16:11 -0400
"concedes the IT unit shied away from using some open-source apps, because
they weren't convinced that the [OSS] software was capable of running a
world-class services organization. "When we got here, [the tech
infrastructure] was a total mess. All this spaghetti code patching
everything together ... It's all we saw," says the source"
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2573035-1,00.html
Read the whole thing...
Linuxcare itself was using Lotus Notes and other properitary software,
completely avoiding any open source software. I mean, if they couldn't trust
OSS for themselves, how could they be the #1 support source for Linux? Can't
find the right software, can't find the people to write it right.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arclight)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:16:35 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:52:29 +0200, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Arclight wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
>>
>> I've used 4.3, 95 & 97 and they have never crashed on me.
>
>Happy to hear that. Please tell my secretary. Today she has
>taken out an old typewriter. Says that's faster than damn
>Word. Asked me "please could we install again old Word Star,
>which was less fancy, but worked?" She had spent the whole
>day trying to send a letter to our suppliers. Just same
>letter, change address and save (to keep record). Only if
>you "save as", then four characters come printed one above
>the other and make a nice black square in a line. If you
>just "save", it prints correctly, but you overwrite previous
>one and you can't keep track. Takes some time to figure it
>out.
>
>She can quote you by memory, word by word the error box
>which tells you that the application will be terminated
>because of an error. The only Windows application she uses
>is Office, being a secretary.
That sounds like a faulty installation of windows & office, if it were
bugs in office, I'd have experienced them.
>> >2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
>> >issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
>>
>> What bugs would they be then?
>
>Too long a list, please read previous postings, or the lines
>above for a little sample.
All the bugs that I have heard about have been most likely caused by a
faulty installation.
>> >3. Microsoft office 97 did not originally write Word 6/95 files, it wrote
>> >RTF files which it labeled as DOC files
>>
>> It does write word 95 files if you install the correct export filter.
>
>Then originally didn't. Please check dates of O97 delivery,
>and export filter availability.
I got Office 97 the month after it was released as a prize for a
competition, and it has the filters on the cd.
>> >4. After much yelling and screaming Microsoft issued a patch for word 97
>> >which allowed it to write real Word 6/95 "DOC" files. They also issued a
>> >patch for Word 6 which allowed it to read Word 97 files.
>>
>> There was a filter on the office 97 pro CD which allowed you to write
>> real word 95 DOC files.
>
>Now I understand. It was a professional feature. Great! How
>could you tell if a file was RTF or DOC? There was another
>professional tool? Or you had to hire a sensitive? Doesn't
>sound so professional after all.
I know they were DOC because they wouldn't load in a program I had
which used RTF files.
>Documents either you print them, or you send them. They're
>not intended just to be watched on the screen. If printing
>is crappy, and sending doesn't work, because you don't know
>if the other party will be able to read it, then something
>is seriously wrong.
The printing problems are most likely due to faulty printer drivers,
not bugs in office 97.
TTFN
Arclight
Web Site:
http://www.daniel-davies.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 11:23:33 -0400
all i wrote is that I've not seen a kernel stamped 2.4 - what is incorrecct
about that?
I started by saying Datacenter exists - and it does.
try to maintain civility.
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I maintain that I've not seen a kernel stamped Linux 2.4. 2.3.xxx maybe
but
> > not 2.4. That is true.
> >
>
> You are just showing yourself to be a total idiot. As has been explained
to
> you many times before, the odd numbered kernels are aplha and beta copies
of
> the even numbered kernels. 2.3.99-pre9 IS the beta version of 2.4.
There
> will never be a beta copy labeled 2.3.xxx simply because of the naming
> convention used. When 2.3 is ready for release, the version number will
be
> changed to 2.4 with NO changes to code. Do you understand now, or do I
have to
> repeat it again and again. What an idiot you are!
>
> >
> > Linux SMP is not as good as NT SMP - that remains a fact. I am not aware
> > that 2.4 has been not only made available but actually tested to
demonstrate
> > it has better smp support. Sure, somewhere linus said: "Hey 2.4 will
have
> > better SMP support" but where is that *proven*?
> >
>
> 2.3.99-pre9 IS the beta copy of 2.4. You can download it today from
> www.kernel.org. The changes I meantioned are in this beta copy and have
been
> for some time.
>
> >
> > Today, linux can run on 32 processors while only a beta version of Data
> > center can do the same. True. Wait until July/august, then Datacenter
will
> > be released and both will have 32 processor support. Then we can test
and
> > see which scales better. Based on tests with Unisys servers we've seen
and
> > run I'm putting the easy money on the safe bet. Near linear scaling, I
never
> > thought I'd see the day... and then I did... got the windows media file
> > too...
>
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 11:24:51 -0400
better tell Gary about this - he took great pains to call me an idiot for
suggesting there would be a version labled "2.4" as a beta test...
So, can you two synch up and produce the real truth?
"Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 19:25:42 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > > I maintain that I've not seen a kernel stamped Linux 2.4. 2.3.xxx
maybe but
> > > not 2.4. That is true.
>
> darren@stargazer:~ >uname -r
> 2.4.0-test1
>
> Hmm...
>
> --
> Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
> Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
> DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
> This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 11:25:08 -0400
Ask Darren about his 2.4 version number...
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > I don't agree. Linux 2.3.99999 may exist but I've never seen Linux
> > 2.4.00000 - have you?
> >
> > Meanwhile, I'm holding DataCenter Beta 2 in my hands and Beta 1 is
running
> > right this second. It says W2K Datacenter, it doesn't say "W2K Adv.
Server
> > Soon-to-be-enhanced-to-DataCenter-Abilities"
>
> You are just showing you're ignorance. The 2.3.99-pre9 kernel IS the beta
> version of 2.4. It is simply a convenient convention for labeling
> releases. The 2.3 kernel becomes 2.4 when it is released for production
> use.
>
> Gary
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 11:25:37 -0400
It's the highest end version of Windows 2000. Supports bigger clusters, more
memory, more processors and other improvements for large scale
installations.
"WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >
> > Meanwhile, I'm holding DataCenter Beta 2 in my hands and Beta 1 is
running
> > right this second. It says W2K Datacenter, it doesn't say "W2K Adv.
Server
> > Soon-to-be-enhanced-to-DataCenter-Abilities"
>
>
> Let me jump in here and ask what in tarnation is "DataCenter"?
>
> Thank you!
>
> -wt
------------------------------
From: cutechen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 23:33:02 +0800
Drestin Black ¼g¹D¡G
> WELL, IT'S FINALLY official: OS/2 is dead. IBM announced recently that the
> product once dubbed the "better Windows than Windows" has reached the end of
> the line and will be phased out within a year, beginning with the client
> version, which will see its last update, or "fixpack" in IBM-speak, in
> January 2001. Then the server and Workspace on Demand versions will be
> updated for the last time in May 2001. After that, support for selected OS/2
> products will be offered only on a special-bid, fee-based system. Like the
> Mac OS, OS/2 suffered dramatic and irreversible marketshare losses when
> Microsoft released Windows 95 in 1995
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2745
Why this guy post such a boring and stupid speach???
Is there anyone knows that why this guy post it on
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy and
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy ??
What is his conspiracy???
Make all the people who is reading this post think
that OS/2 is dead???
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 May 2000 15:35:24 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 14:07:17 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:52:29 +0200, Giuliano Colla
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >Arclight wrote:
| >The only Windows application she uses is Office, being a secretary.
|
| Time to reinstall the whole shebang. Gets rid of a closet full of
| ghosts.
Do you consider that an acceptable solution?
| >>They also issued a
| >> >patch for Word 6 which allowed it to read Word 97 files.
|
| So you expect FORWARD compatibility. Let's see - my Word6.0C has a
| copyright 1993-94 on it. Were they expected to know the Word97 format
| changes in 1993/94? Get real.
A well designed file format would allow that. Word 6 should be able
to read file from Word 97, and vice versa. I wouldn't expect Word 6
to be able to view and edit all the new whiz-bang features, but I do
expect it to be able to still be able to read and edit the basic
parts.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
