Linux-Advocacy Digest #802, Volume #26 Thu, 1 Jun 00 07:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (tinman)
RE: news: Google Bets The Ranch On Linux. deployed 4,000 Linux servers, with plans
to increase to 6,000 ("Jorge Cueto")
Re: IBM finally admits Drestin Black may not have a clue... ("Dolly")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ("Dolly")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Dolly")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Tim Palmer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: vote on MS split-up (Tim Palmer)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Volker Dittmar)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Volker Dittmar)
Re: Window managers (aleander)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 05:05:55 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Thingfishhhh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> But where do you draw the line with putzes like this? this guy abviously
> has an agenda that is not based on the needs of the company, but based
> on HIS needs. It's called being selfish, and it's unfortunately not that
> uncommon in the world of salesmen.
Sure, but if you're working support it's not your job to fix all that--by
all means have your say, but be reasonable and remember what the job is.
The problems and clients don't go away, which means you _never_ finish,
and some clients are putzes.
Now if your management doesn't support you, or if you're just not happy,
by all mean run like the wind. Don't ever stay in a bad situation long
enough to become embittered (and I speak from experience).
> I really don;t care for salesmen. They tend to be arrogant, ignorant,
> selfish, more concerned with their hair and THEIR needs, and don;t give
> a rats ass about anthing else. I *know* this guy - I've worked with him
> plenty of times at many, many companies. Typical MBA mentality - learn
> one way, and that's the *only* way, no matter what. Typical prima-donna
> bullshit with a cheap haircut and suit.
(;
> I worked with someone like this - a company I worked for hired a VP of
> marketing/sales. The second day, he decided that I was *his* graphic
> designer, and proceeded to try an give me all kinds of stupid jobs to
> do, despite the fact that I was already working 60-80 hours a week, was
> stressed out, was doing the work of three people, and had told him flat
> out to his face I could not take on any more work, that he was NOT my
> superior, and that it was not going to happen.
>
> This guy made my life hell until I left a few months later - because we
> were Mac based in production, we were in charge of all of our machines.
> The rest of the company used Windows with proprietary software to access
> the sales database. Well, he decided to get a Mac. and proceeded to
> whine about getting the freelance programmers we used to write a client
> program for him, despite the fact that he had a perfectly good Windows
> machine on his desk already. And then i had to start supoorting his
> machine, and he was the same - he installed all kinds of garbage, did
> wierd things when trying to *fix* it himself, and I had to clean up
> after him. I almost decked him more than a few times - it would be about
> 8:30 at night, I'd be stressed out and punchy from drinking coffee all
> day, and this weasel would bob in after dinner and mention that I needed
> to look at his computer again.
So what did your boss say? Obviously, that wasn't part of your job.....
> I would say, if you can afford to, take a stand and hold to your
> principles. Don;t let an arrogant little pissant like that ruin your
> life - I guarantee you ther is *nothing* that you could do tomake him
> happy - even if you did switch to Windows, this guy would be hounding
> you day and night because he screwed something up. This guy sounds like
> a real prima donna, and the kind of asshole who will go in at night when
> you're not there and tinker. I'll bet he thinks he's qualified to play
> with servers, too. I'd bet on it. Do you really want to clean up after
> this guy?
>
> Life is just too damned short to let guys like this hold you back.
Hear hear!
> You're lucky in one respect - this is a GREAT time to look for work. I'd
> tell this guy to pound sand. What's more important, your stress levels
> and happiness, or his? Let him stay there, let him force them to switch
> to Windows, and let *him* be in charge of the transition. I know most
> accountants I know really, really *hate* having the software switched.
> Let's see what the bosses think when productivity plummets because this
> guy can'tdeal with anything but what *he* likes.
> >
> > Main thing to remember is it's just a job....
>
> Absolutely. That's why i started temping. I work less, make more (just
> got notified of a raise today - wahoo!), get treated a LOT better, have
> more fun, and feel more rewarded. And if I run into guys like this, i
> can tell them to go pound sand, or I call my agency, and I get a new
> position tomorrow. Luckily, where I am now doesnt hire idiots like that.
> So far.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Jorge Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: news: Google Bets The Ranch On Linux. deployed 4,000 Linux servers, with
plans to increase to 6,000
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 09:09:32 GMT
> "Google said it turned to Red Hat (stock: RHAT) Linux primarily
> because of the cost. The OS itself costs nothing, compared
> with $500 to $900 per server for Windows servers.
$900 is too much for a company ? Let's be serious. I agree in that
GNU/Linux is cheap, but price does not seem to me important in
this case. If they use GNU/Linux, I encourage them to do, but, primary
because of the cost ?
> And the
> hardware is also cheap. Red Hat runs on commodity white-box
> PCs rather than more expensive RISC Unix servers."
The same that above. If you want, you can buy a good Solaris by a
good price. Again, okay to use Linux, but, how much money do Google
manage ? $10 a week ? Can't understand. Besides, white-box PCs
hardware is awful compared to a server destined hardware, isn't it ?
They would need to balance among several machines to achieve normal
PC's fail tolerance when happen.
> "Support was another factor in choosing Linux, Google said. The
> company has Linux expertise in-house, and values the ability to
> look at the source code to correct problems, rather than
> having to rely on a vendor. And where the in-house expertise fails,
> Google has found the Linux community responsive with fixes."
This is the primary reason I think they should have said :-)
------------------------------
From: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits Drestin Black may not have a clue...
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 04:24:23 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:12:37 -0400, Drestin Black wrote:
>I figured it was news to everyone - linux users hate OS/2 as well but don't
>bother chasing it cause even they knew it was dead already...
Ya know what's odd... I know a LOT of Linux users and NONE
of them feel that way... 2 of the guys I work with have Beowulf
clusters running in their basements doing RC5, they're that
much Linux nerds... neither them, my other Linux using friends,
nor any of their friends seem to have this alleged animosity
towards OS/2 you claim. Just as OS/2 users dont seem to
have any such animosity towards them.
So now you stoop so low as to try to create war between
Linux and OS/2 users that gets it's basis from your
twisted imagination?
Get a life... I think KMart has them on sale this week...
Dolly
>
>You aren't the first to say it, so you are neither first nor original. In
>fact, quite lacking in anything but personal attacks.
>
>"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8gp9f3$20h0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> *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: "Dolly" <[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
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 04:33:51 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 30 May 2000 15:10:35 GMT, Brad wrote:
>
>"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 16:37:14 "Brad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> =AFI am not sure <SNIP>
>>
>
>If you want to pretend that the OS/2 desktop market is somehow "Far fro=
m
>dead" hey, more power to you. However, OSWars 2000 is written for the
>mainstream user and outside of os2.advocacy, OS/2 is considered pretty =
dead.
>I received quite a number of email from users who enjoyed the article b=
ut
>felt that it was inappropriate for me to cover "a dead OS like OS/2" an=
d not
<SNIP>
>
>Brad
>
Ah - I see now... your rating of the CAPABILITY of an OS as a desktop
client is based on market shares.. not it's CAPABILITY. Got it. (The
discussion WAS about it's CAPABILITY as a desktop business OS
after all... not about it's market share).
------------------------------
From: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 04:42:42 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 30 May 2000 12:05:49 GMT, Shock Boy wrote:
>
>"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:43uY4.4218$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Fri, 26 May 2000 23:29:46 GMT, Chris Wenham wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > True Chris,
>> >
>> > It would be much better to say "To install FP 13, please install FP
>> > 1-12 in order, and then proceed"... or you could just use MS's
>> > invasive "Let's scan your hard drive" method and upload
>> > whatever info they want.
>>
>> MS's "Windows Update" feature works just like an ordinary
>> installer; it interogates your system to decide what files need
>> to be updated, then updates them. It just draws its new files from
>> a website, not a CD-ROM.
>>
>> The installer that does this is downloaded from the website, too;
>> it does not "upload whatever info they want"; that would be
>> prohibitively expensive. Potentially, Windows Update might
>> check every bloody file in C:\Windows; uploading all that to
>> Microsoft would take a long, long time.
>
>You can also download all updates from a set date to file.. which makes it
>very handy if you are servicing a large number of computers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Which is a capability I find nice in both... Using Warp, I just run the
automated
install, and then copy the files to a centralized location... then on the
other
machines, I just specify that directory as where to store the files, it
checks,
finds them all there, and installs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 1 Jun 2000 09:36:48 GMT
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 01:06:31 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On Wed, 31 May 2000 22:32:50 GMT, Daniel Johnson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The 'lots of little functions' approach is widely considered the Right Way
>
>This is not "the right way":
[ snip: accessor methods ]
>Any encapsulation here is purely an illusion. Yet I see this kind of
>thing all the time. Various C++ books have rules like "don't make data
>public" and lots of programmers take that far too literally.
I'm not sure why the above example is "bad". The nice thing about accessor
methods is that you can avoid inadvertently stomping on your data. Of course
in the trivial example you gave this won't happen, but if your accessor
methods return pointers, or classes, it seems pretty dangerous not to
use accessors.
You can use friends to get at data in a controlled manner.
Of course, if what you really want is direct access to data,
in a more or less trivial class with no ( or very few ) methods,
one might wonder why use classes as opposed to structs.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 1 Jun 2000 06:05:21 -0500
Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 May 2000 03:32:53 +0000, "Colin R. Day"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Oh, so what version of Windows is now shipping with TeX/LATeX,
>> >emacs, gcc,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> And who in their right mind needs such stuff?
>Er, scientists such as myself who want to do work.
>I'm the only Linux user in my group
One thing that Linux users all have in common...
>- the others use NT and Solaris.
At least some of them have some sense.
>One thing we all have in common is that we use Latex, emacs, and
>C-compilers.
You must not do anything useful, then.
>> >> Try Linux and see for yourself....
>
>I came, I saw, I was conquered.
..by the enormous amounts of effort required to do everything in s DOS box, because
Linux's "X" Windows (an attempt to get around MS's trademark on Windows?) is such a
piece of crap.
------------------------------
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?
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 22:18:51 -0400
In <NJiZ4.8860$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/01/00
at 01:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>In <39358fd7$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>>> > MS offers no choices with browsers and MS has a monopoly. Harm and a
>>>> > foul.
>>>>
>>>> No. Microsoft been decreed to have Monopoly power, they do not hold a
>>>> Monopoly. Holding a monopoly means that you have 100% government enforced
>>>> market share. Those are two very different concepts.
>>
>>If you really think that a monopoly can only exist if it has a 100% government
>>enforced market share --
>I think the actual legal definition of "monopoly" sets a specific
>percentage, and it certainly isn't 100%. Something on the order
>of 90% I think, but it might be even less than that.
He is mixing apples and cement blocks -- and he is either doing it intentionally or he
doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about.
There are legal monopolies, such as electric and gas utilities, who do have 100% of
the market in a given service area, but they are regulated and must perform according
to industry standards. -- M$ is not such a monopoly and could never be, because
their corporate culture does not permit the quality of work that is required in return
for a 100% market with guaranteed earnings.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 1 Jun 2000 06:24:59 -0500
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gerald Willmann wrote:
>> CNN is conducting a poll whether MS should be split up and if yes into how
>> many parts. Please take a minute to vote for a good cause.
>>
>> -> http://cnnfn.com/poll/microsoft_breakup.html
>>
>> thanks, Gerald
>>
>> --
>
>Justice is not the product of opinion polls. Besides, I want
>Microsoft destroyed by Linux, not the DOJ.
your hoping for to much. Linux will never destroy Microsoft. Niether will the DJO
unless thay
force Windows too do evything like DOS and Linxu and tell MS they can only sell
Generally Not
Useful (GNU) (cr)apps and they half to make all there help files into MAN pages.
HA-HA!
------------------------------
From: Volker Dittmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 19:47:42 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > As of today, W2K is as much C2 as Linux. Untested.
>
> However, since Win2K is built primarily on NT, which is C2 certified,
> it's a lot more likely Win2K will be able to be ceritified without
> much modification.
WRONG. 70% of the code (according to M$) has been re-written. It consists
of more than 34 million lines of code (NT: 17 million lines). Experience
tells us: the more complex an OS is, the harder is it to make it secure.
So it is safe to assume that W2K's security is untested. Yor're just
making some assumptions.
> Also, Win2K meets all the base criteria for even being CONSIDERED
> to be tested, whereas Linux does not.
Wrong again. There is an ungoing project (by SGI) to get Linux a B1
certification.
>
> -Chad
--
Volker Dittmar
Diplom-Psychologe, Systemanalytiker
Web: http://www.devtopics.de/
The Psychology of Software-Development
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Volker Dittmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 20:27:01 +0200
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:05:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >> Just imagine for a second ...
> >> ... W2K is the safest Windows out there, as it stands. Now
> >> where does that leave NT? Not to speak of Win XX ?
> >
> >For each Linux kernel with a security patch released, that version is
> >(theoretically) more secure than the last and thus more secure than any
> >other version of Linux (as long as no new security holes were introduced).
>
> The security difference is only minor -- one has one less hole than the
> other. The underlying architecture is unchanged, and the only thing that
> makes the one hole significant is the fact that it's documented. Without
> public knowledge of the bug in question, there is not a significant
> difference.
One thing you forgot: Windows uses security by obscurity, whereas Linux
does not. So don't be amazed if you find more security holes in an open
source OS - you have access to another level of finding bugs (this does
NOT mean that even in OSS security holes can live unnoticed for quite a
while).
So are there more security-holes found in Linux? According to Bugtraq, the
answer is: NO.
Just read on:
http://www.securityfocus.com/frames/?content=/vdb/stats.html
But be sure to read (and understand) the text that is on that page. The
clear leader in found security holes is Windows NT and Windows 2000, though
these holes are harder to find.
The number of bugs found clearly says something about popularity, too. There
are not much bugs for Mac OS, because it is seldom used as an internet server.
You'll find more internet servers running Linux than NT, so this clearly makes
Linux a winner in comparison to NT.
Still I think that OpenBSD is more secure than Linux.
> >So what does that say about the previous version?
>
> That it has one more bug.
YES. This is the only true statement that can be made.
It is hard to say that "the more bugs are fixed, the more secure is a system",
because, by definition, you don't know about unknown bugs.
But notice, too, the time it takes until fixes are available. Here, Linux
still is the clear winner. Esp. when you live in other countries like me,
where it can take some time until hotfixes for NT are out. From experience
I can say that it takes 2-3 times longer to get a fix for the german version
(opposed to Linux, where a fix *always* is available for *any* language).
This is the reason why I'm telling management time and again that they should
use the us/english server version... now if they only would listen...
> It's hardly worth touting something as the "safest" version of the OS
> on the grounds that one bug has been fixed. When you make a claim as bold
> as this, it seems implicit that the security changes are groundbreaking
> as opposed to incremental. I'd say in the case of NT4->Win2k, the change
> is more thn incremental. Win2k has some non trivial extras ( such
> as kerberos )
Here, you're right again.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
Volker Dittmar
Diplom-Psychologe, Systemanalytiker
Web: http://www.devtopics.de/
The Psychology of Software-Development
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (aleander)
Subject: Re: Window managers
Date: 1 Jun 2000 10:56:45 GMT
Dnia Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:13:01 GMT niejaki
Jorge Cueto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wypstrykal:
> With all of my respect to another users, choices, developers and
>lovers, I have to say this : long life iceWM (with no GNOME and
OH NO!!!! Only WindowMaker (ok... fvwm2 can work)... no iceWM,
WindowMaker 4ever!!!!
--
-*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*-
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aleksander K. Modzelewski |
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GCS/MU d- s++:--- a--- C++++ UL++++ P--- L+++ |
| N++ w--- PGP+ PS+++ PE++ Y+ 5++ tv-- b++ DI+ G++ e* h+ r- !y |
-*-Linux ID: #142003-------Finger for public PGP key------PHONE-0-48-3607754-*-
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 1 Jun 2000 07:04:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote:
>On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:31:18 -0500,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> W2K took something like 1.5 to 2 years
>>> over-run to get out the door.
>>Yes, similar to Linux Kernel 2.4's being a year overdue.
>Could you provide me some documention that 2.4 is a year overdue. That
>would mean is was due last May.
Its not hear yet and it never will be, that's all I know.
>>> Also reported goals were to eliminate the
>>> problem of blue screening as well as
>>> maintain performance levels in multitasking.
>>No. It's impossible to eliminate such things, just like it's impossible to
>>eliminate kernel panics from Linux. If you could eliminate them, they
>>wouldn't need to be there.
Linnux morons alwaise claim that Linux is a pefrectly stabile.
>>Things like faulty hardware and to some extent background radiation *WILL*
>>cause glitches on non-military spec systems.
>This is an evasion, Eric. Yes, faulty hardware and background
>radiation can crash an OS. However I don't live across the street from
>Three Mile Island and faulty hardware can always be replaced. There
>there are other ways an OS can crash.
W2K doesnt crash. It really is stabile. Not like Linux that crashes every time you
move the mouse,
so you half to use the Linux vursion of DOS to keep it from freezing.
>Here is an example where W2K can BSOD by allowing an application to
>misuse resources:
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&F
>Note in the above URL under resolution it says: "To resolve this
>problem, the application has to be modified to ..." So MS is clearly
>blaming the problem on the Application, not the OS . Here is another
>example:
Then its the applications falt. Get real applications.
>And then there is the whole issue of bad device drivers. For one
>thing, it is not necessary for most device drivers to have access to
>kernel address space. The proper way to avoid that is to use a
>microkerenel architecture, which neither Linux or NT does. There are
>some areas though, where Linux does a better job of keeping device
>drivers out of the kernel. For example, in the following case an HP
>printer driver BSOD's W2K when printing to a network printer:
>http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q199/1/18.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&F
>R=0
What does that have to do with Linux? It would crash Linux to. Liunx cant do anythign
withtout
crashing accept show that ugly DOS prompt.
>It is extremely unlikely this will ever happen to Linux, becuase the
>"printer drivers" are filters provided by ghostscript, a process
>called by lpd, neither of which has access to kernel address
>space.
Something has to have access to kernle space, or Linux wouldn't crash so much.
>The worst a bad printer filter can do is send garbage to the
>printer or tie up some resources untill the admin kill -9's it. It is
>utterly unecessary to give a printer driver, which is nothing more
>than a data filter, access to kernel address space.
Why can't the admin clik the "STOP PRINTING" button? Why does he half to entber arcane
DOS command?
Because its LINXU THATS WHY!
>Similarily, we all know that because W2K has GDI in the kernel,
>bad video drivers can also cause a BSOD. In contract, an X server on
>linux does not have access to kernel address space, and so X crashes
>only lock up the console. Of course, if you are running a desktop, you
>work is lost anyways so it doesn't matter. If you are running a server
>however, it makes all the difference.
How does it make a difference? You cant use the computer, so evne if the sevrer is
still working,
you still half to reboot.
>And in the case where device drivers have access to kernel address
>space, they are effectively part of the OS and should be treated as
>such. Nearly all open source Linux drivers are distributred with the
>kernel and developed under the same open source model as the kernel
>itself.
What open sores Linux drivers? There aernt any!
>I have never had a problem with a device driver distributed
>with the kernel. Will MS has started signing drivers. alot of stuff is
>not supported in that way.
>It is no wonder with these design issues, we are constantly hearing
>more BSOD stories than 'kernel panic' issues. And I have used Linux
>long enough to see a few unexplainable kernel panics, at least under
>1.0, 1.2, and 2.0, but none so far under 2.2 (fingers crossed).
HAHA! Every version youv used crashed! I've been running Windows for years and it NEVER
CRASHES! You can only *claim* that Lixnu is stabile, wile Windows really is.
>
>>> totally failed at goal #2.
>>
>>Only because you are listening to "reported goals" by people who don't know
>>what they're talking about.
>
>Microsft's goal is to make W2K as stable as UNIX. IMHO the jury is
>still out on that, but the initial evidence does not look good.
>
>>It's (W2K is) significantly faster than NT if it has it's minimum
>>requirements. 10% faster on average.
>
>Proof please!!
>
Get W2K and put it on a REAL computer. Then you'll have your proff.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
