Linux-Advocacy Digest #762, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (mlw)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (sandrews)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Drestin Black")
If Microsoft starts renting apps ("Tony Davis")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I just don't buy it (sandrews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 18:59:07 -0400
James wrote:
>
> Why are you bothering to discuss a mickey-mouse OS like win95 in this NG.
> If you need stability use Win2k, or Linux (if you don't need serious desktop
> apps).
What desktop application could you need that is not on Linux?
There are a few office packages, a few graphics packages, a couple cadd
packages, and boat loads of other utilites!
I can't see what is lacking in a normal desktop.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 18 Jul 2000 18:03:03 -0500
sorry for the blank one... see below for actual replies :)
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> Many people have already argued on the "universal availability" of VB.
> You are right to notice that it's available in "all countries of the
> world", but so is Perl and so is Java. The suggestion you are trying to
> wake here is incorrect, though.
> But I have objections to VB as a language when you need to do anything
> more than build pretty screens. E.g., implement me any recursive
> algorithm without the need to invent your own stack, and we'll talk
> again.
You are being entirely unfair to VB, it's NOT just for "pretty screens" -
which most people call a UI and is the reason computers have taken off in
popularity - a graphical UI is much easier to learn and use than a text mode
one and the proof is written in history.
Now - a recursive algorithm without inventing my own stack? In VB? Recursive
function calls have been around since DOS BASIC 5 - what's the big deal? No
need to deal with the stack at all.
Give me an example of something you cannot code in VB. A piece of logic that
you cannot perform in VB. I would love to be educated. Not some specific
call to some OS specific feature or something like that. Pure code logic -
show me a PERL-only trick or VB-can't-do-this trick and I'll bow to you sir.
> Then again, I know a couple of software companies that have written
> _very expensive_ applications for quite a few clients (hotels come to
> mind) using 3GL BASIC with the full spectrum of spagetti code,
> non-maintainable and non-reusable code, squeesing as many statements as
> you can in a single 255 character line etc. *YUCK*! I was orking for a
> company that sold the programming environment (Toroughbred BASIC) and
> they could not appreciate my critisism against the fact that a
> self-respecting software company does not program in 3GL BASIC....
Oh, come now. Are you saying you've NEVER seen non-maintainable and
non-resuable PERL code that is very hard to read? (as if any PERL was easy
to read).
There are bad programs written, poorly, in every langauage. BASIC itself it
not any more prone to being spagetti code than the person writing it. You
can write a GOTO free basic program if you like, or you can use them
(freedom of choice). Spagetti is the result of individual authors not the
fault of a language.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
> --
> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
> Anyway the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a
> strip of sticky tape across his mouth.
> -- R. Douglas
>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:04:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Linux? The OS that compsci graduates have trouble with?
> >
>
> What? You're kidding, right?
Somewhat tongue in cheek, of course. But just about anyone will need to
resort to large scary manuals during installation or configuration,
which is something that just isn't necessary with most OSes these days.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:00:33 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Drestin Black wrote:
>
>
> Oh so you suggest that a *Real* stable OS needs no service packs.
Yes that`s TRUE, don`t need service packs.
> No upgrades, no fixes no revisions.
The first one is TRUE, the middle one is not.
> So, why have there been several hundred revisions of the linux kernal?
To incorporate things the old one doesn`t have, silly boy.
> Wow, must be a VERY buggy kernel indeed.
No, limited bugs, more features and oa few fixes.
> I mean, if it's stable as you'd liek to suggest, it wouldn't need new kernel
> versions weekly now would it?
It doesn`t. Want to run RedHat 4.2 like I do????
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 18 Jul 2000 18:05:17 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> abraxas wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Drestin Black wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > news:8kefaj$3p2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > Rob:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I didn't read the code because I have a few questions before I
even
> > >> > begin to
> > >> > > > think about how to do this in windows.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You didnt read the code because you CANT read the code, dresden.
> > >> >
> > >> > and again, you provide nothing but an attempt at insult. go
mutilate
> > >> > yourself some more...
> > >>
> > >> It's only an insult because it's TRUE!
> > >
> > >
> > > oh really? prove it. How do I know you are a "unix systems engineer" -
cause
> > > your overlong sig says so? I mean, it's obvious abracadabra is a lying
sak
> > > without computer skills beyond peck and pray - but you are even more
> > > undocumented...
> > >
> >
> > I bet he knows what 'su' means.
>
> opinions vary:
>
> "substitute user" or "super user"
>
> either way, the true meaning is the same.
>
> heheh hhehehehhe
>
OUCH! You are wrong, well, right and wrong. Lets see if the unix zealots
will jump on you as they did me when I tried this variation of the
explaination. Remember, to them the linux way is the only way and it's
inconceivable that anyone else ever did it differently BL (Before Linus)
p.s., how do you mean "substitute user" means the same as "super user"? And
what happened to "switch user"
------------------------------
From: "Tony Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:06:39 GMT
Hello,
Does anyone here think that Linux will become more popular if Windows and
every other Microsoft app goes to a rent basis?
Tony
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 18 Jul 2000 18:08:13 -0500
"David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l10nk$au9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : OK David, who's experiences are limited to 2 of 3 classroom taught
> : langauges....
>
> Should I repeat my entire previous message, or will you just ignore it all
> again?
>
<snip - i'll just ignore it thank you >
>
> : I mean, if I can crank out a handy dandy tool to do what I want from
> : VBScript in a few minutes and you have labor away longer in
"languagex" -
> : and both produce exactly the same results - how are you going to justify
> : your extra efforts without extra meaningful reward?
>
> Here's a question for you: can you describe a simple program that can be
> written in C or C++, but not is VB? If so, you've proven the flaw in your
> own statement. If not, it should be very easy for others to judge your
> knowledge of non-VB programming languages.
OK - I'll take the bait. I can't. So, why don't you show us some C logic
that can't be done in VB. Show me something I can't do in VB...
>
> I suspect you'll dodge and/or ignore this challenge, just as you did the
> previous one.
your suspecions are wrong
>
> : I would never claim VB as the ultimate language - but, to laugh it off
or
> : simply ignore it ONLY because it's easy to use is, in my opinion, a huge
> : huge mistake.
>
> You said it's your favourite language. I wondered why you would
> name it as such; I never said it should be laughed off or ignored.
you implied as much and your continued putting it down herein surely
continues the implication.
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:00:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> Letting the market create winners and losers isn't "perfect" but it's
> the best thing man has come up with so far.
"Best" in what way? Do you really think that unregulated, unbridled
capitalism is "the best thing man has come up with so far?"
What makes you think that 100% pure capitalism would work any better
than 100% pure communism, or 100% pure Anything Else? Show us a
*working example* of a 100% pure capitalism (or any other -ism) success
story in the world.
> Insert the government into the equation, who's sole misguided solution
> is to strip the OS of any extra applications and give the consumer
> "less" for the same or more money isn't a logical answer.
So, when MS-Office and Media Player and MS-Photoshop and MS-Web-Access
and MS-Point-Of-Sale and MS-Televsion-Access and
MS-All-Information-Access and
MS-Anything-Else-You-Can-Do-With-A-Computer become "part of the OS" that
represents successful capitalism? One Company That Supplies All Needs?
No choice?
Didn't the late Soviet Union have a similar system (e.g., One Choice)?
And how well did *that* system fare in the Space Race and the Arms Race?
> Microsoft won't lose anything in the deal, as a matter of fact they
> will probably increase their revenue because of it.
So then, why are you complaining?
> Where in history has the government been successful at running a
> business?
Since when does "Upholding Law" == "Running a Business" ??!?!?
> Now they want to help the poor stupid ignorant consumer get the most
> for his buck in computer software. People just weren't making the
> correct choices on their own.
Correction: They weren't making *ANY* OS decision on their own. "One
Choice," remember? Just like Facism.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:10:10 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 23:04:03 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Linux? The OS that compsci graduates have trouble with?
>> >
>>
>> What? You're kidding, right?
>
>Somewhat tongue in cheek, of course. But just about anyone will need to
>resort to large scary manuals during installation or configuration,
>which is something that just isn't necessary with most OSes these days.
Are you kidding?
The ultimate failure of WinDOS to hide the guts of the Kludge Klone
and it's arcana is what prepared me for installing Linux.
[deletia]
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:13:11 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Otto wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > : This is all well and good, however, you are missing some very
> important
> > > : facts when dealing with Microsoft.
> > > :
> > > : The "support" you get as a fortune 500 company is hell and away far
> > > : better than anything one could hope for in a mere regular sized
> company,
> > > : and using Windows NT as a solution, you WILL need that tech support.
> > >
> > > Versus Linux, which doesn't need tech support? Get real....
> >
> > Linux does need tech support, all complex systems will, however, the
> > APIs are all public, the knowledge is freely available. With Microsoft
> > one has to pay for everything and sign a whole bunch of non-disclosure
> > forms.
>
> Untrue and if you'd actually worked with MS you'd know this. Sure, you pay
> for their products. MS is one of those _rare_ companies that actually
> charges for their product and sometimes even returns a profit for it's
> shareholders. non-disclosure is only if you need to get in deeper/closer
> than a typical end-user/developer/integrator needs to. I've never seen a NDA
> used on a end-user site (except in beta or benchmarking). The MS support
> system is far better than the insults and spotty linux user support that
> depends on if the moon is full and who you know and how you phrased a
> question less you be labled a troll or told to RTFM in four langagues...
>
> >
> > >
> > > :
> > > : Fortune 500 companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology,
> i.e.
> > > : they do not pay full price Microsoft for technology and support, and
> > > : Microsoft gets to claim the fortune 500 company as a "customer." There
> > > : is usually a stock exchange involved as well.
> > >
> > > Care to substanciate this claim with actual data?
> >
> > I can, just do a web search on a good engine you'll find lots of
> > "Strategic Marketing" agreements between MS and whom ever.
>
> Why don't you do just what and give us the results. Perhaps you'll do better
> than I did. Of COURSE F500 companies do not pay full price. Hell, who pays
> full price? CDW.COM hello? same product, cheaper. And are you telling me
> that you are not aware that the bigger you are the better prices you'll get?
> Why does this suprise you. What makes you think that MS would NEED to
> exchange stock with a F500 company to get it to "lie" that it's a MS
> customer, when all the Fortune 500 companies are already using MS products
> (somewhere, some more some less). When one company lets MS use them in
> greater detail for advertising, I'm sure there is SOME compensation, but,
> sure, why not. Doesn't change the facts of what was done and how.
>
> >
> > >
> > > :
> > > : There is a HUGE and important gray area between someplace like
> dell.com
> > > : where MS and Dell have strategic business dealings, and someplace like
> > > : valinux which does not. It is also arguable that between "joes web
> site"
> > > : and the fortune 500, exists a vast area of the economy which employs
> 99
> > > : percent of the working people in the USA.
> > >
> > > I just disagree with the 99% share....
> >
> > OK, maybe 98% The number is not completely important, it is an estimate,
> > the bulk of the economy is outside of the fortune 500. Small companies
> > are the largest segment of employers and the fastest growing segment as
> > well.
> >
>
> so if you are guessing maybe the number is 1%?
>
> > >
> > > :
> > > : To simply say that the fortune 500 use NT, so it's good, is false. The
> > > : fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses that an NT
> > > : environment will incur in exchange for the "strategic" business
> > > : opportunities which the monopoly Microsoft provides. For the merely
> > > : normal sized companies that do not have the clout to grab Microsoft's
> > > : attention and good graces, NT is a disaster of unreliability and poor
> > > : cost/performance.
> > >
> > > You are contradicting yourself. In one hand you claim that "Fortune 500
> > > companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology, i.e. they do not
> pay
> > > full price Microsoft for technology and support", in another you claim
> that
> > > "The fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses". Make up your
> > > mind....
> >
> > Actually, I am not contradicting myself at all. Windows NT (W2k) is a
> > buggy, unstable OS.
>
> Let me say this very clearly: Bullshit. W2K is NOT buggy nor unstable -
> quite the opposite. And all your bluster and whinning cannot change this
> fact. The OS has proven itself already (and did even in beta) to millions.
>
> > Fortune five hundred company have to pay for
> > support, people to run the computers, and lots of consultants. NT is
> > expensive, and fortune 500 companies can afford it BECAUSE MS will make
> > deals with them for support, referrals, stock swaps, and other such
> > stuff that non-fortune 500 companies could only wish for.
>
> Again: crap. ANY OS installed on hundreds of PCs will have a huge support
> staff. NT is not more expensive to support than another OS. Every study I've
Typical support staff for TENS OF THOUSANDS of Unix workstations at GM
consists of
2-3 techs on site (for hardware problems, like swapping keyboards, etc.)
20-man central help-desk team (10 first level, 10 2nd level)
5-man desktop organization team
10-man server team.
+ management overhead.
That's it... a total of 40 people plus 2-3/site (each site having
several
hundred workstations..let's say 1%)
For 40,000 workstations, that comes to approximately 400 to 600 onsite
techs, plus 40 O/S support people.
In other words, the O/S support people are outnumbered by the hardware
techs by a ratio somewhere between 10:1 and 15:1.
You could never achieve such numbers with Windows even if all 40,000
units were on the same site.
> ever seen done, including real world ones by myself and people like my
> clients have proven over and over than, in fact, it's cheaper to support
> Windows than any other OS. NT is even less expensive than W9x cause it
> crashes far less and and W2K simply blows all previous records away. Our
> support calls on W2K are shy of non-existant - almost every single issue is
> to do with getting new drivers, we're talking 99.9% And the drivers are
> forthcoming.
>
> I say you simply making up BS regarding these stock swaps. Such things would
> have to be, by law, recorded and do you not think Sun would have a field day
> parading the fact that MS had to give stocks to a F500 company in order to
> claim it used MS products? I mean, Sun is not below dumpster diving and they
> wouldn't expose the easier to verify and much more harmful tactics you claim
> MS uses? HA! mlw, I doubt you've ever worked in the industy above the
> personal consultant level - otherwise you'd not make such obviously false
> claims... simply silly... you have no concept of how it goes negotiationg at
> these levels!
> >
> >
> > > Disregarding unsubstantiated claims about NT.
> >
> > Unsubstantiated? Perhaps in this particular post, but through the last
> > couple of years, I have made quite a few substantiated statements about
> > NT and instability.
>
> and FAR more unsubstantiated statements. And I dont' consider
> "substantiated" to mean, "cause it happened to a guy I know"
--
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"
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Otto wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > : This is all well and good, however, you are missing some very
> important
> > > : facts when dealing with Microsoft.
> > > :
> > > : The "support" you get as a fortune 500 company is hell and away far
> > > : better than anything one could hope for in a mere regular sized
> company,
> > > : and using Windows NT as a solution, you WILL need that tech support.
> > >
> > > Versus Linux, which doesn't need tech support? Get real....
> >
> > Linux does need tech support, all complex systems will, however, the
> > APIs are all public, the knowledge is freely available. With Microsoft
> > one has to pay for everything and sign a whole bunch of non-disclosure
> > forms.
>
> Untrue and if you'd actually worked with MS you'd know this. Sure, you pay
> for their products. MS is one of those _rare_ companies that actually
> charges for their product and sometimes even returns a profit for it's
> shareholders. non-disclosure is only if you need to get in deeper/closer
> than a typical end-user/developer/integrator needs to. I've never seen a NDA
> used on a end-user site (except in beta or benchmarking). The MS support
> system is far better than the insults and spotty linux user support that
> depends on if the moon is full and who you know and how you phrased a
> question less you be labled a troll or told to RTFM in four langagues...
>
> >
> > >
> > > :
> > > : Fortune 500 companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology,
> i.e.
> > > : they do not pay full price Microsoft for technology and support, and
> > > : Microsoft gets to claim the fortune 500 company as a "customer." There
> > > : is usually a stock exchange involved as well.
> > >
> > > Care to substanciate this claim with actual data?
> >
> > I can, just do a web search on a good engine you'll find lots of
> > "Strategic Marketing" agreements between MS and whom ever.
>
> Why don't you do just what and give us the results. Perhaps you'll do better
> than I did. Of COURSE F500 companies do not pay full price. Hell, who pays
> full price? CDW.COM hello? same product, cheaper. And are you telling me
> that you are not aware that the bigger you are the better prices you'll get?
> Why does this suprise you. What makes you think that MS would NEED to
> exchange stock with a F500 company to get it to "lie" that it's a MS
> customer, when all the Fortune 500 companies are already using MS products
> (somewhere, some more some less). When one company lets MS use them in
> greater detail for advertising, I'm sure there is SOME compensation, but,
> sure, why not. Doesn't change the facts of what was done and how.
>
> >
> > >
> > > :
> > > : There is a HUGE and important gray area between someplace like
> dell.com
> > > : where MS and Dell have strategic business dealings, and someplace like
> > > : valinux which does not. It is also arguable that between "joes web
> site"
> > > : and the fortune 500, exists a vast area of the economy which employs
> 99
> > > : percent of the working people in the USA.
> > >
> > > I just disagree with the 99% share....
> >
> > OK, maybe 98% The number is not completely important, it is an estimate,
> > the bulk of the economy is outside of the fortune 500. Small companies
> > are the largest segment of employers and the fastest growing segment as
> > well.
> >
>
> so if you are guessing maybe the number is 1%?
>
> > >
> > > :
> > > : To simply say that the fortune 500 use NT, so it's good, is false. The
> > > : fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses that an NT
> > > : environment will incur in exchange for the "strategic" business
> > > : opportunities which the monopoly Microsoft provides. For the merely
> > > : normal sized companies that do not have the clout to grab Microsoft's
> > > : attention and good graces, NT is a disaster of unreliability and poor
> > > : cost/performance.
> > >
> > > You are contradicting yourself. In one hand you claim that "Fortune 500
> > > companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology, i.e. they do not
> pay
> > > full price Microsoft for technology and support", in another you claim
> that
> > > "The fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses". Make up your
> > > mind....
> >
> > Actually, I am not contradicting myself at all. Windows NT (W2k) is a
> > buggy, unstable OS.
>
> Let me say this very clearly: Bullshit. W2K is NOT buggy nor unstable -
> quite the opposite. And all your bluster and whinning cannot change this
> fact. The OS has proven itself already (and did even in beta) to millions.
>
> > Fortune five hundred company have to pay for
> > support, people to run the computers, and lots of consultants. NT is
> > expensive, and fortune 500 companies can afford it BECAUSE MS will make
> > deals with them for support, referrals, stock swaps, and other such
> > stuff that non-fortune 500 companies could only wish for.
>
> Again: crap. ANY OS installed on hundreds of PCs will have a huge support
> staff. NT is not more expensive to support than another OS. Every study I've
> ever seen done, including real world ones by myself and people like my
> clients have proven over and over than, in fact, it's cheaper to support
> Windows than any other OS. NT is even less expensive than W9x cause it
> crashes far less and and W2K simply blows all previous records away. Our
> support calls on W2K are shy of non-existant - almost every single issue is
> to do with getting new drivers, we're talking 99.9% And the drivers are
> forthcoming.
>
> I say you simply making up BS regarding these stock swaps. Such things would
> have to be, by law, recorded and do you not think Sun would have a field day
> parading the fact that MS had to give stocks to a F500 company in order to
> claim it used MS products? I mean, Sun is not below dumpster diving and they
> wouldn't expose the easier to verify and much more harmful tactics you claim
> MS uses? HA! mlw, I doubt you've ever worked in the industy above the
> personal consultant level - otherwise you'd not make such obviously false
> claims... simply silly... you have no concept of how it goes negotiationg at
> these levels!
> >
> >
> > > Disregarding unsubstantiated claims about NT.
> >
> > Unsubstantiated? Perhaps in this particular post, but through the last
> > couple of years, I have made quite a few substantiated statements about
> > NT and instability.
>
> and FAR more unsubstantiated statements. And I dont' consider
> "substantiated" to mean, "cause it happened to a guy I know"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:19:57 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l25o2$s3n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > great. then there is no problem in storing it on the server.
>
> Consider these situations
>
> You have been commisioned to write the script for the next installment in
> the Star Wars series. Besides developing the script you have to be sure
> that it does not leak out while in your hands. Would you feel save storing
> that on the server?
>
> What if you are a defense contractor?
>
> What if you you are an attorney who is working in a court action against
> Microsoft, whould you want to keep your documents on the server?
On microsnots server, they would never find it there and if they did
they would never read them.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
