Linux-Advocacy Digest #549, Volume #27 Sun, 9 Jul 00 12:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux is just plain awful ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451735.7904^-.000000000000000000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451735 (tinman)
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (DeAnn Iwan)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.linux.sucks,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## HOT ## Microsoft software for Linux
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 16:05:20 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 08 Jul 2000 22:24:05 -0700...
...and Matthew Matchura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As far as I know, the only UNIX IE has been ported to is Solaris (Sparc).
> > You could try running it under wine, but the results will probably not be
> > that impressive.
> >
> > Colin Day
>
> Tried IE under WINE...results were not impressive!
Same for me... However, what flabbergasted me was that a fairly recent
Wine nearly managed to run Word 2000 -- everything was there, complete
with blinking cursor. I could even type and the letters show up
because I reacted fast enough before it crashed :)
mawa
--
Q: What has four legs, is big, green, fuzzy, and if it fell out of a
tree would kill you?
A: A pool table.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is just plain awful
Date: 9 Jul 2000 14:51:16 GMT
Susan and Willy Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I manage a national software chain and as far as Linux is concerned, it
: is numero uno on the return list. The next nearest competitor isn't even
: close. And for those curious ones it is a kids game that sucks real bad
: although it is advertised on a national basis. It blue screens even in
: the setup program on many computers, especially those with Win 98 SE
: installed.
This guy thinks Linux blue-screens. :)
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451735.7904^-.000000000000000000000000001
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2000 10:50:58 -0400
Tholen tholenates some more.
He's just trying to hide the fact that he's wrong. Bad, Tholen, bad! Note
how he tries to obfuscate the issue by referring to some alleged
"requirements", as if there had been none. I unilaterally ignore what
Tholen claims since 1992 (hey, maybe I should make that my trademark!)
without making any deals, without Tholen making or taking any offer. It is
unfortunate, however, that Tholen does not remember my offer and chooses to
lie about it. He's too embarassed to admit that tiny fact, however. What
can you expect of an astrologer? Typical Tholen.
Now, the Tholen digestification proper:
[Nope, nothing yet, nothing for 8 years!]
Bye.
--
"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] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451735
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:23:59 -0400
In article <1SS95.25535$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> What alleged "question"?
>
> T] Then why do you continue to reply to my posts?
>
> Having reading comprehension problems?
On the contrary.
>
> 1> You really don't know what pontification means.
>
> Incorrect, and rather ironic.
On the contrary.
>
> 1> On the contrary
>
> Even more pontification.
On the contrary.
> 1> What alleged "question"?
>
> DT] Are you agreeing with me about the irony of your remark?
>
> Having reading comprehension problems?
On the contrary.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:25:43 -0400
mlw wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > >These folks have been spoon fed the gui in all of it's ease of use and
> > >for the most part die when it is taken away from them.
> >
> > Prepare for bad times, then --- because when all the bit twiddlers have
> > decided they have had enough, and retire or move on to something with
> > less all-nighters, you'll find that the drivers for your new hardware
> > suddenly become very very flaky.
> >
> > Bernie
> >
> > P.S.: Of course, there is an increasingly convincing argument that this
> > has already happened ;-)
>
> Actually being a "bit twiddler" I agree. Just the other day, I was
> discussing server design with someone, and they wanted to use java
> because "if I never use another pointer....." I thought to myself,
> pointers are fundamental of computer software design. Without pointers
> you can't write graphics drivers, DMA or Bus mastering drivers etc.
>
> We have legions of people producing programs that don't know the
> fundamentals of computer science. I usually ask engineers what hash
> tables and trees are, and most of them are clueless.
ACK! You're kidding!
Even a straight Electrical Engineer with an emphasis on POWER SYSTEMS
can't skirt around this at Purdue.
>
> Much software today is slow because of poor algorithm design. Most of it
> is bloated because programmers lack the discipline to design as modules.
> Today, VisualStudio spits out a frame work and they just fill in the
> places where a comment says too. This is not engineering.
It's BASIC-language style programming in modern languages.
ARRRRRGH!
>
> I just know that people will respond with "why should I need to know
> these things, when they are done already?" Well the easy analogy is: Why
> does a medical specialist have to study general medicine? Because
> knowing how the whole body works allows them to understand their
> specific specialty better.
>
> Computer science is the same way. If you understand where a hash table
> is better than a tree or a sorted array, you can make better decisions
> and understand HOW your program works and whether or not it is slow
> because it needs to be or slow because you made the wrong decisions. I
> have yet to interview one engineer in the last year or two that could
> explain how to tell if a hash table was working efficiently, or tell me
> which requires fewer compares during a search, a good hash table, a
> sorted list, or a tree.
>
> So, when people like me retire and move on, everything will be written
> in Java, perl, whatever, and no one will be willing to do the drivers
> and core libraries, all the stuff that makes programs fast and really
> usable.
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:26:47 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm am talking about the home users, not the
> designers/engineers/programmers.
How much "programming" does the typical LoseDroid do now?
>
> Back then you more or less had to be a techie even as a home user.
>
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 04:46:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >>These folks have been spoon fed the gui in all of it's ease of use and
> >>for the most part die when it is taken away from them.
> >
> >Prepare for bad times, then --- because when all the bit twiddlers have
> >decided they have had enough, and retire or move on to something with
> >less all-nighters, you'll find that the drivers for your new hardware
> >suddenly become very very flaky.
> >
> >Bernie
> >
> >P.S.: Of course, there is an increasingly convincing argument that this
> > has already happened ;-)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DeAnn Iwan)
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:30:05 GMT
On 9 Jul 2000 09:07:02 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
>: endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
>: Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but I
>: find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
>: push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
>: Shame on you MS!!!
>
>What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean? How do
>you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?
I guess it means that instead of crashing several times a
day, it only crashes a few times a week. Or, perhaps it means instead
of crashing frequently when using Word, Netscape or Canvas, it only
crashes frequently when using Netscape or Canvas.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:50:57 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jqb6s$1nkn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Gr185.4267$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >> Bundling/unbundling. It is just a question of who has the choices.
> >
> >Why do you prefer giving the DoJ the choices, then?
>
> They have no choice but to enforce the law.
I think you are being a shade optimistic. But lets say you
are right.
Why do you prefer, then, giving the Congress the choices, they
being the people who wrote the law that says you can't have
a Internet browsing in a sufficiently popular desktop OS?
[snip]
> >> Who said anyone was going to have to pay extra?
> >
> >I do. But I think it so obvious that it hardly needs to be
> >said.
>
> But that will be Microsoft's decision. If don't like what
> they decide, deal with someone else. Weren't you trying to
> say they didn't have a monopoly earlier?
They do, of course, have a monopoly on Internet Explorer; such
is the nature of copyright law.
They have a monopoly on Windows, too.
[snip]
> >You're kidding yourself if you think the price of Windows will
> >go *down* because of all this. There isn't a reason in
> >the world for MS to do that.
>
> Why not?
Hmmm. If you really think MS is charitable like this, why don't
you support them?
I had thought you thought them greedy!
You think they won't take such an easy excuse to raise
prices?
I *like* Microsoft, and I think they will. I'm astonished you don't.
[snip]
> >There are a *lot* of people who like their computers pre-assembled;
> >it's really the rule, not the exception.
>
> But they don't have to be pre-assembled the way a single
> OS vendor dictates.
No, they don't.
There is, in fact, a wide variety of different computers you can buy;
they do not all contain the same software, either.
Nevertheless, pre-assembled computers (with software!) is
the rule, not the exception.
[snip]
> >Anyway, this factor is, in essence, why operating systems exist
> >in the first place.
>
> No, this is why systems integrators exist.
Operating systems exist to reduce the need for expensive
systems integration, of course, by pre-assembling everything.
Certainly there *are* people who make a lot of money
integrating hardware and software, but when possible
almost everyone prefers to avoid using them- they cost
too much.
> >You can still have choices; the choice is which pre-filled basket to
> >go with, and what to add to it.
>
> Yes, but after the change you will actually have a choice.
That will not be changed; you will not have morechoices; you will
lose one choice (OS w/ browser built in) and get another one
(OS w/ Internet Explorer pre-installed by OEM).
It's a bum deal, though. The first choice is better.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:50:58 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jqbhb$1oci$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Hr185.4268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >> Who besides MS has broken it so it is no longer portable?
> >
> >Sun. :D
> >
> >Sun has specified the behavior of the types in very great
> >detail. This means it is portable to those computers which
> >can efficiently support the types Sun has specified.
> >
> >Not everybody has 32-bit words, you know.
>
> I wasn't aware that there was some requirement for CPU register
> sizes to match java data types. Where did you find that?
It is necessary to have *support* for those data types; it doesn't
need to be CPU registers, but in practice that is the usual
thing.
On a machine with an inappropriate word size, Java programs
must emulate elementary operations, which involves
a large performance penalty.
I would not call it "portable" to such machines; bear in mind
that if it is, then 80386 machine code *also* is- you can
emulate that, too, on any computer.
Bear in mind that on the popular computers, Java does not
have to do this; these machines support at least the integer
data types of Java adequately.
Suns decision about how to do types in Java is quite
defensible; predictability is very desirable after all.
It's just not as portable as things like C.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:50:59 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jqd4e$1rtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Jr185.4270$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >Predictions have to predict things that *haven't already
> >happened*; predictions after the fact aren't really
> >predictions.
>
> I've always predicted problems with MS software, even before
> the first windows releases.
It's not sufficient for *you* to predict it; your theory must do so;
your theory was that MS's mixing of authentication and
authorization leads to such problems. Did you have this
theory before Windows every came out?
Did you publish it anywhere?
> >I can make up lots of theories that "predict" stuff
> >that's already happened, but it isn't evidence that
> >those theories are true.
>
> So make one up that predicts why my unix/linux servers
> have always been reliable and the NT boxes set up by
> people with NT training and experience crash all the
> time...
You like to go around sabotaging NT machines? :D
Hey, you *asked* for a theory that could explain this odd
scenario. I think that explains it.. :D
[snip]
> You said I changed the subject from your postulation of security
> improvements by MS to:
>
> "NT's poor implementation record compared to some."
>
> Please explain what you meant by that if I misinterpreted it.
I was imputing that sentiment to you. You were changing
the subject from the inability of Unix to copy with security
arrangements other than its own to the defects of NT's security
arrangements.
If you did not mean to say that NT's security is poorly implemented,
then I apopolize for implying that you did say that.
It was an honest mistake, I assure you.
[snip]
> >I do observe that you have snipped, without comment, my claim
> >that this is all irrelevant: regardless of whether or not
> >NT's security is badly designed, it exists and if you want
> >to "interoperate" with it, you have to cope with it.
> >
> >Just saying "It should be more like Unix" won't do. It isn't.
>
> I don't 'cope with it', I firewall it and do not allow any
> NT boxes open access from the internet. I have a couple of
> Win2k boxes that can be accessed on port 80 only but they
> are isolated from everything else.
That's nice.
You are, of course, free to refuse to interoperate with NT on the
grounds that it, like Wayne and Garth, is not worthy. :D
However, you are in no position to crow about how poor Microsoft
is in the realm of interoperability if you do so.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:50:58 GMT
"Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You do keep saying that, but MS is smart enough to realise
> > that interoperability works to their *advantage*; they go
> > through great efforts to let you use their products with
> > other peoples.
>
> Have you actually followed *any* of the current legal problems Microsoft
> has been having?
Sure.
The most relevent is the trouble MS has got into by trying to make
Java work as well with Windows as C++ does; but bear in mind
this isn't making MS's products with with Suns, but in a sense
the reverse: Altering Suns product (Java) work with MS's.
To which Sun took considerable exception, as we all know.
Perhaps MS will learn the lesson from this, and stick to making
*one way* interoperability- make their products work with
other peoples, but not the reverse.
> Your comment above passed false, and went into "MS PR" territory...
:D
Do I get to collect $200 or not?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:51:00 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 3 Jul 2000 11:50:27 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <Kr185.4271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>I've already given you the links. It's called a "security support
> >>provider".
>
> >>It's because of these things that you can use a NetWare directory
> >>server as a domain controler; but you can also write your own.
>
> >Novell says it is impossible with the win2k scheme. If they can't
> >do it I doubt if I could either.
>
> What Daniel means by this, I think, is that you can invent your own
> domain controller protocol that runs on your favorite OS, or use an
> existing one like NIS or Kerberos or NDS. You can then write a DLL for
> W2K that uses your protocol to authenticate users. At least in theory.
> I know it has been done for NIS under NT4, whether that still works on
> W2K I don't know. Presumably this is what Novell did for NDS as well.
Bingo!
> IOW, he doesn't think they need to document wire protocols because they
> allow you to invent your own protocol instead of using theirs.
My God, someone was listening!
> The
> various shenanigans they use to make this frustrating to do in practice
> are just "legitimate capitalism" if they really even exist at all,
Well, nobody has actually *mentioned* any such "shenanigans" until
just now.
What "shenanigans" have you in mind, then, Bob?
> according to Daniel, since they can do whatever they want with their
> "intellectual property" and have no obligations to yada, yada, yada.
I don't recall saying this bit about intellectual property.
Have you confused me with another WinTroll?
Sometimes I think we really should wear nametags. :D
> Of course, if we all had real choices we could just ignore MS and their
> silliness. That seems to be pretty hard to do in practice.
Honestly, your idea of "real choices" seems to be "everyone else
has to do what I say".
The reason you have to pay attention to MS and their silliness (tm)
is that other people are using MS products.
To alleviate your problem, what you must do is somehow prevent
anyone else from using MS products.
This seems a little harsh.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 15:51:01 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jqg8j$22k4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Kr185.4271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >I don't know enough of the details of SMTP, POP and IMAP to
> >know how this works; it does nto seem like an example
> >of using a standard protocol to interoperate. It seems like
> >three protocols.
>
> If you don't understand the issues, why continue the discussion?
Hey, you brought up these protocols. If you meant to end
the discussion by doing so, then I must offer a different
strategy:
Just ask to end the discussion.
> SMTP is the transport protocol that handles delivery to
> the destination host where it is stored for access by the
> user.
"the"? You mean its the one Unix uses, right?
I would not be very surprised to learn that Exchange
has another one.
You mean SMTP the *most popular* one, and thus
everyone ought to use it, right? Sort of like Windows? :D
> POP and IMAP are network user access protocols that
> allow reading the stored messages on demand. POP simply copies
> the messages over to the user's program, usually all at once.
> IMAP allows the messages to remain stored on the server and
> accessed from different remote locations. You can also
> use other protocols simultaneously, and all of these have
> had protocol revisions which can co-exist. Where is the
> 'very limiting' part of this?
I suspect the devil is in the details, really.
> >Proprietary protocols are not necessarily *better*; but they exist
> >and pretending they don't doesn't make them go away.
>
> It is irrelevant that they exist if they don't interoperate except
> that they reduce the value of the ones that do. It is like a building
> with a private phone network that doesn't interconnect with the
> public lines. If enough places used such things that you couldn't
> contact the people you want, your own phone would become useless.
It's true that these protocols don't miraculously solve the
problem of interoperability; no protocol can do so unless
it is forced down the throats of everyone.
Unix *has* been able to do a certain amount of htis, because
it has dominated the Internet and it *refuses* to interoperate
with anything. So everyone else has learned to use some of
Unix's protocols.
But I don't think this makes Unix's weak interoperability
a virtue.
> >You're
> >little SMTP/POP/IMAP network won't be able to interoperate
> >with a client that knows none of these protocols, unless you
> >have some way to add a protocol to it.
>
> Little? SMTP spans the world and I believe into space. And yes,
> every non-standard, non-interoperable client reduces its value.
I must say this kind of phrasing makes me a little nervous. You
seem to be saying that everyone in the world should be made the
use your technologies because their doing so is convinient for
you: it "increases the value" of your technology.
> >You know, some sort of plug-in architecture.
>
> No, I don't know. You haven't said anything to show how it
> is better than using standard protocols.
Of course not; you've thrashed about until you found a subject
I don't know very much about; this allows you some security
in demanding details.
It's a useful rhetorical trick, I guess.
[snip]
> >I think it does have something to do with it; you said the *reason*
> >for using standard protocols everywhere was to enable one
> >endpoint at a time changes. In fact, I point out, a plug in
> >archecture *does* allow this, and even permits you to change
> >the protocol itself one endpoint at a time, which standardizing
> >on a single protocol does not.
>
> No, it doesn't have anything to do with it because no one ever
> said anything about using only a single protocol.
Surely that was exactly the thing you proposed as a solution
to all our interoperability woes?
> And even
> if you do, protocols normally have version negotition which
> allows changes within the protocol to provide backwards
> compatibility without having to touch existing configurations.
That's nice, and with some kind of plug-in approach it's quite
useful.
[snip]
> >You can't do *anything* if the network protocol is unknown;
> >but in that case you clearly aren't dealing with a "standard"
> >protocol, either, and your "make em all use 'standard'
> >protocols" runs up against the gritty reality that they don't
> >all use 'standard' protocols.
>
> So, just say no.
By all means, just say no. But don't pretend your interoperating
if you do.
> Standard protocols exist for most necessary
> services and can always be created for new ones. You don't
> have to be trapped by any single vendor.
Being trapped by a single protocol is hardly an improvement.
[snip]
> >> So, where is this mythical driver-like thing that will
> >> allow a non-MS product to be a domain controller?
> >
> >I've already given you the links. It's called a "security support
> >provider".
>
> But it requires replacement of the client. That's not interoperability.
Sure it is. You say it isn't because it isn't what Unix does, and for
you, "interoperable" is synonymous with Unix.
> >It's because of these things that you can use a NetWare directory
> >server as a domain controler; but you can also write your own.
>
> Novell says it is impossible with the win2k scheme. If they can't
> do it I doubt if I could either.
Where do they say this?
I betcha they are saying something *else* is impossible, not this:
Something like using Windows 2000 Actice Directory servers
with NetWare clients, perhaps.
[snip]
> >:D Well, i think it's more precise to say that I'm using a different
> >definition of "interoperability" than you are; I'm insisting on
> >communications between *different* systems.
>
> Yet you keep talking about the MS system that doesn't.
Sure it does. :D
[snip]
> >I don't know. Why can't I be annoying and stubborn
> >about defining "interoperability"?
>
> I suppose I would eventually be goaded into making crude
> sexual references to the effect of 'viva la difference'.
LOL :D
I think we've reached an impasse; neither of us will
back down on what "interoperability" is, and our
definitions are clearly fundamentally in conflict.
[snip]
> No, it is still the same when you have to change the client
> to make it work. It doesn't matter whether a third party
> provides the usable client or not, or whether the piece it
> replaces was designed to be replaced it is still just as
> much trouble.
Not at all; having an infrastructure for doing this makes it
easier. It is possible to kludge this kind of thing, but is it
not better to have some sort of design?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
