Linux-Advocacy Digest #719, Volume #26 Sat, 27 May 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux (abraxas)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ? (abraxas)
Re: You need to reset your antennae; you're not getting the signals from MS clearly.
(was IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (WickedDyno)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
Linux Losers (The Truth)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Joseph)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. (abraxas)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. (abraxas)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails (abraxas)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Drestin Black, more proof of the success of OSS (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:50:12 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>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
You are quoting an article which is quoting an article which is
based on information provided by an unnamed IBM spokesperson
making official announcements through a relatively unknown
correspondant working for an equally relatively unknown on-line
publication. You want to show me this "official" announcement
from "IBM" instead of "wininformant" or "networks news" or
"zdnet?"
Karen
Where do I want to go today?
I want to go where *I* want to go,
Not where MS wants to send me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: 27 May 2000 18:50:33 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> don't expect to see much more of linux at dell soon... a little birdy thus
> spoketh...
More of your vaporous little 'hints' of the future that never come
true, eh drestin?
You really need to settle down about this whole linux thing. You actually
have nothing to fear about LINUX killing the windows server market. You
have Real Unix (TM) to fear instead. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:51:13 GMT
In <8gp0t8$mc5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Raymond Swaim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At least OS/2 *had* a life. Remember Cairo? It died in the
>abortion clinic.
But look where this "official" announcement is coming from!
>> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2745
Karen
Where do I want to go today?
I want to go where *I* want to go,
Not where MS wants to send me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ?
Date: 27 May 2000 18:54:45 GMT
Beeg Fat Eddie <[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?
Yes. Plan 9 was all but abandoned quite a number of years ago.
Lucent recently canned a related project; Inferno.
Plan 9 was an amazing operating system in its time, but even if
it could be resurrected today it would be no match for the
UNIXy competition. It would be kind of like suddenly coming up
with a working verion of the old Amiga Workbench system and
expecting it to be able to compete with windows.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You need to reset your antennae; you're not getting the signals from MS
clearly. (was IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 18:57:10 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton) writes:
>Interestingly enough, there are no supporting URLs to any announcement
>by IBM saying "warp is dead" in the "WinInfo Short Take" about this.
Of course not. The article is quoted from zdnet, which is quoted
from network news in the UK. It is all based on an article
claiming that an unnamed IBM spokesperson provided the
information. I just can't remember the last time IBM made any
"official" announcements by way of anonymous sources talking to
relatively unknown and less well respected correspondents for
equally unknown and less well respected on line publications.
Maybe it represents a new policy <g>?
Karen
Where do I want to go today?
I want to go where *I* want to go,
Not where MS wants to send me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 27 May 2000 13:53:58 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>And, of course, if you want it to do anything, you have to get
>>>>Advanced Server at $3,000 each, and pay for client licenses for
>>>>all the boxes that use it even for authentication.
>>>
>>>What's wrong with "normal" Server?
>>
>>I'm not sure how many extra features you get with Advanced. The
>>important one for me was the network load balancing option where
>>multiple machines can share a network address and magically fight
>>among themselves over who is going to accept a connection. This
>>lets you make it appear like your web server is never down even
>>when you have to reboot individual machines. The feature does
>>work, even though it is a little too much in the 'black magic'
>>category for my taste.
>
>And you need that to "do anything" with Win2k Server?
Yes, I don't consider it acceptable to shut down services to
do something like changing the name of a box. Which means
it costs a minimum of $6,000. This is an actual situation
too. I just replaced a single Linux box that had run for
close to a year with a pair of balanced win2k boxes. I have
to admit that they work almost as well after adding VNC
for remote access and rsync to keep the files updated.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: 27 May 2000 13:56:40 -0500
In article <8gp3mu$c1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>That's nice. Do you want everyone in the universe to be able to print,
>>or just you? Do you want to print to just that printer, or to others
>>too? Do you want to print postscript? Text? Graphics?
>
>Oh, that reminds me --- I have a postscript printer. I have a postscript
>file. How do I get one to print on the other *under Windows*?
>
>Bernie "Putting PS versions of papers up for download is common in CS" Meyer
Not to mention that is was the standard format to deliver to
printing services even before windows had a working driver.
And it still can't accept such a file, even after they figured
out how to generate them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:05:06 -0400
In article <8go49c$13k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande©"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message
>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Spelling Camp. ;)
>> >>
>> >> How ironic, coming from the person who recently wrote: "Now it's
>> >> time for Microsoft to puck blood."
>> >
>> >"puck blood" is a comp.sys.mac.advocacy inside joke.
>>
>> Posting for entertainment purposes again, Eric? I wonder what Cornell
>> would think of this use of their network resources?
>>
>> > He spelled it correctly.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>Don't you know ?
Of course not, as it has yet to be proven.
> Now, puck blood !
Illogical.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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 15:18:57 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
2.4.0 is up. Check www.kernel.org.
<snip>
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 19:26:45 GMT
Is there a Real Unix, dude? Or do we still have the AT&T and Berkely
offshoots? Or are you talking about SCO UNIX, HPUX, AIX, or what?
Really, who cares if there are tons of variants, as long as their users
keep making sure there's software adapters between them. Even Microsoft
has to take some steps to communicate with other systems.
Anyway, it seems so much less hassle to a Real System Administrator
to administer Linux (or a Unix) than to administer an NT system.
Especially if they also use Novell.
WinDos rulz. (Although NT is really more a VAXie OS.)
Chris
abraxas wrote:
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > don't expect to see much more of linux at dell soon... a little birdy thus
> > spoketh...
>
> More of your vaporous little 'hints' of the future that never come
> true, eh drestin?
>
> You really need to settle down about this whole linux thing. You actually
> have nothing to fear about LINUX killing the windows server market. You
> have Real Unix (TM) to fear instead. :)
>
> -----yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:27:11 -0400
"Marada C. Shradrakaii" wrote:
> >Tell me about it. The HP 612 inkjet on my desk at work takes several
> >minutes to print a single black-and-white page of TeX.
> >
>
> I have one of those... works fine under Linux, although I'll be the first to
> admit it isn't the zippiest thing (especially if you're doing colour) the
> Windows drivers (ironically) are true garbage. There is NO reason I shouldn't
> be able to both type and print and get smooth performance.
Are you saying that it's faster under Linux?
I have Windows 98 at work. I don't know if it's polite to just up and
change the OS, although I was toying with the idea of installing Linux
on the backup hard drive.
>
> --
> Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
> Colony name not needed in address.
> DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
> R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 19:29:06 GMT
Hey, a floppy disk might save your ass some day!!!!
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
> >On Sat, 27 May 2000 03:16:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Floppies are dead, in case you haven't noticed. Although Linux seems
> >>to embrace antique technology quite well.
>
> > They seem to be hanging on quite well enough. They still remain
> > THE widest used standard external storage medium. Linux can still
> > get good use out of them.
>
> And even if you can think of no other use, they are quite nice for holding
> the kernel on a "diskless" x86 linux machine. PCs are a bit silly with regard
> to booting from the network....
>
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:30:37 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I consider the inkjet a technological dead end. I owned an HP DeskJet
> >> 660C for years and I now run an HP LaserJet IIIp. The inkjet is a 1995
> >> or 1996 model; the laser was built in 1991 if I recall correctly.
> >> However, the inkjet is more clumsy in almost all respects, has got
> >> many more failure modes, vibrates like hell, is much slower...
> >>
> >
> >Tell me about it. The HP 612 inkjet on my desk at work takes several
> >minutes to print a single black-and-white page of TeX.
>
> This is probably more the transfer time for the bitmap than the
> actual printer speed. Be sure you have EPP enabled
> in your bios if you have it. If speed matters you really
> want a laser printer with a direct network connection instead
> of using parallel or serial ports at all.
What is EPP?
It's not my printer, and I find a parallel connection fast enough
for my laserjet at home.
>
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:32:09 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Drestin Black wrote:
> Ask Darren about his 2.4 version number...
Well, how do you like that, Drestin. I'm glad you admit you were wrong. 2.4
does exist
ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/
Now, you can no longer claim you never saw a kernel labeled 2.4. Of course,
as long as we are playing games with semantics. this is called a "test" kernel,
not a "beta".
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Truth)
Subject: Linux Losers
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 19:34:15 GMT
You people are a bunch of losers.
Each day millions of people use Microsoft product and are glad to do
so. They send e-mails to their friends and lovers with happy messages
and delightful attachments.
You Linux losers preach that all this should be stopped because one of
your low life counterparts writes a stupid virus. I'm sure these
individuals do this from within the solitude of their lives driven
only by spite. Much akin to the sad individuals who advocate Linux.
Only pathetic computer geeks use Linux. Ugly stupid people who are
shunned by society use Linux.
Trendy happy people who laugh with their friends at popular
restaurants use Microsoft products.
Sad, poxy-faced perpetually virgin males use Linux.
These are the facts. And you sad embittered individuals know this.
The only way you pathetic people can gain any self-esteem is to force
yourselves to use a system that most people who have better ways to
spend their time regard as an esoteric oddity.
Crawl back into you isolated holes and stop bothering those of us who
are happy to have lives that don't revolve around building kernels and
waiting for patches.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:39:07 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Brad wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In your list-of-os-that-should-be-included you didn't include any of the
> > UNIX os (such as FreeBSD, which some people swear by).
>
> I didn't include the Amiga either. But more to the point, the number of
> people using FreeBSD as a *desktop* OS is probably very very small. Do you
> have any figures on how many people are using it for their daily desktop OS?
It's worth including. I log into a FreeBSD System and use
staroffice/communicator and display to my desktop only becasue I keep
the FreeBSD system is kept in a cooled room so the large disks I have
attached to it don't over heat. It is connected to my desktop with a
switch and 100MB ethernet.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:42:11 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
<snip>
> >
> >You also have good taste in typesetting. At the risk of starting
> >a flamewar, can you latex a file inside of vi? You can do it in
> >emacs.
>
> If you just mean run latex, then saving the file and then
>
> :!(latex file.tex; xdvi file.dvi)
>
But do you do that within or outside of vi. In emacs, you can click
on Command and Latex or TeX the file. You can also view or print
the file from the command menu in emacs. Viewing will invoke
xdvi.
>
> >> (I will grant that Visual Basic, in the hands of an expert, can do
> >> nice things, for small projects. Now whether it scales up is
> >> a matter of some debate.)
> >>
> >
> >What about python?
>
> What about it? I'm not familiar with it, other than that RedHat uses it.
> I haven't heard anything horribly bad about it, though. :-)
>
> Part of the reason I say this is that I was slightly embarrassed by a
> co-worker who had a completely working (and debugged!) project while
> I was still setting up for a C++ build and coding. Granted, this was
> a weird special case (we were trying to interface to an IIS/ASP server
> and encode and decode a VBasic array; turns out VBasic could write
> objects to and, more importantly, read objects from a binary file.
> Oh well!). Of course, this doesn't mean VBasic is better at everything,
> any more than a Mack Truck is bested by a tricycle simply because the
> tricycle user can make it to the neighbor's house faster than the Mack
> Truck can be entered, fired up, back out, back in, shut down, and
> exited. :-)
You probably could have coded it faster in python than C/C++. Also,
python is cross-platform (Linux/Windows/Mac).
>
>
> But it does depend a bit on the job required. Tricycles don't do well
> on interstate highways; Mack Trucks don't do sidewalks. :-)
>
> >
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- MS Word. Jack of all, master of none.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:48:14 -0400
From: Joseph <[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?
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"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.
>
> And, of course, if you want it to do anything, you have to get
> Advanced Server at $3,000 each, and pay for client licenses for
> all the boxes that use it even for authentication.
$3,000 - PCMag reviewed servers and for some reason PCMag STOPPED
ranking software on PRICE. So a $3000 OS is not ranked lower than
Solaris or LINUX despite costing thousands of dollars more. For years
ZD would rank MS software higher for being less expensive - oh well.
Anyone deciding a server OSs based on what PC Mag concludes is fool.
It's the same crew only now they're pundits and experts on the very
things they poo-pooed: server based computing and networking.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 12:52:53 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And you need that to "do anything" with Win2k Server?
>
> Yes, I don't consider it acceptable to shut down services to
> do something like changing the name of a box. Which means
> it costs a minimum of $6,000. This is an actual situation
> too. I just replaced a single Linux box that had run for
> close to a year with a pair of balanced win2k boxes. I have
> to admit that they work almost as well after adding VNC
> for remote access and rsync to keep the files updated.
I'd wait a year and then see...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: 27 May 2000 19:58:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Except that MacOS is alive and well, and OS/2 isnt. You are comparing apples
and oranges for a very large number of reasons. You probably have never
used MacOS either.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: 27 May 2000 19:59:31 GMT
*snip stuff about os/2*
And BTW, why are you posting this to comp.os.linux.advocacy?
You are most assuredly doing what you always swore you never did:
Trying to start a fight.
May I be the first to say: Fuck off drestin.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Date: 27 May 2000 20:03:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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.
Ah, so now you are actively waging a smear campaign of your own against
linux. Something you swore you never did.
Looks like you lied AGAIN dresden.
You know, I gave you the benefit of the doubt a half a dozen times over
the past few months, arguing with you (as per our mutual understanding)
according to topic at hand. I think im done. You've continually shown
yourself to be a manipulative liar, dresden. Now fuck off.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 20:05:04 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >"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.
>>
>> And, of course, if you want it to do anything, you have to get
>> Advanced Server at $3,000 each, and pay for client licenses for
>> all the boxes that use it even for authentication.
>
>$3,000 - PCMag reviewed servers and for some reason PCMag STOPPED
>ranking software on PRICE.
Not just software, although their history with doing this with
hardware is longer. I've often noticed that PCMag and other
computer publications seem to neglect cost and maintainence
issues when evaluating products. The entire emphasis seems to
have been on "performance" issues rather than cost and
convenience issues. It seems to me that cost and convenience is
at least as important in selecting software and hardware as
performance. No matter how "fast" something is, if it
malfunctions all of the time, and needs constant tweaking and
fixing and reconfiguring, surely that *ought* to be seriously
considered. The same applies to initial cost. What something
costs the consumer, corporate or individual, is at least as
important as a performance benchmark.
Karen
Where do I want to go today?
I want to go where *I* want to go,
Not where MS wants to send me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Drestin Black, more proof of the success of OSS
Date: 27 May 2000 20:06:24 GMT
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our favorite M$ troll uses OSS every time that he posts to Usenet.
> Trying 207.126.101.30...
> Connected to www.supernews.com.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> HEAD / HTTP/1.0
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 01:35:14 GMT
> Server: Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.5.0 OpenSSL/0.9.4
> Last-Modified: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:38:40 GMT
> ETag: "5a08c-d56-38e439e0"
> Accept-Ranges: bytes
> Content-Length: 3414
> Connection: close
> Content-Type: text/html
> SuperNews, aka Remarq is an open source shop and has been since its
> inception in 1995. NT simply can't handle the type of volume they deal
> with.
YES IT CAN YES IT CAN!!!
Ok, maybe it cant, but AS SOON AS SUPERNEWS CONVERTS TO W2K SUPER-SERVER-
EDITION IT WILL BE ABLE TO! I HAVE A BETA COPY OF IT IN MY HAND RIGHT NOW!
IT EXISTS! ITS GOING TO WHIP UNIX COMPLETELY! WHO NEEDS APACHE WHEN YOU
HAVE IIS! IIS IS SUPERIOR! IT LOADS BETTER! ITS THE BEST! YOU DONT
KNOW WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT! HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF UN-NAMED ONLINE
BOOKSTORES HAVE BEEN USING DATACENTER FOR 15 YEARS AND NEVER HAD A PROBLEM
WITH IT!
=====YTTRX
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
