Linux-Advocacy Digest #862, Volume #27 Fri, 21 Jul 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: windows annoyances (again) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Web Browsers? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown - alittle light relief
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the USS
Yorktown) ("Otto")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Steve Mading)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown - a little light relief ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:01:25 -0400
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > But, if you have a group of females, don't expect to find too many
> > who will ever be able to develop into good programmers,
>
> Admiral Grace Hopper. A group of 1. 100% good
> programmers.
Do you have any concept of the concept of valid sample size?
Also, you did not RANDOMLY pick Admiral Hopper.
Further, as your sample size decreases, then you must conduct the
experiment REPEATEDLY to get valid results.
With a sample size of 1, then to your sample size to give you valid
results, then you must repeat the experiment several hundred times.
Are you going to get several hundred Adm. Hopper clones in a row?
Not very fucking likely.
This is all basic statistics.
Shuffle along boy, you're embarrasing yourself.
>
> > likewise,
> > if you have a group of males, don't expect to find too many who will
> > ever develop into good poets.
>
> William Shakespeare. Another group of 1. !00% good
> poets.
>
> > That's because you foolishly believe tht you can apply statistics
> > to individuals. You can't. You can only apply statistics to groups.
>
> Then statistics are rather useless unless
> you are hiring very large groups (at random
> no less).
>
> > For large enough sample sizes, yes.
>
> How large would you say?
a few dozen at least.
>
> > Example: the Marine corps insists that EVERY person can shoot
> > in the highest marksmanship category ("Expert"), which on the
> > 50m - 300m pop-up silhoutte course of fire is 36+ hits out of 40,
> > and demands that all Marine Corps recruits achieve this standard
> > at least once before getting out of basic training.
> >
> > The army is satisfied with mere "marksman" of 22/40.
> >
> > Now, when the annual All-Services marksmanship matches are held
> > each year, is it surprising that, despite being only 1/10th the
> > size of any of the other services, the winning team is usually
> > the Marine Corps team?
>
> And this means what? If I'm shot by a Marine I'll
> be more dead than if the shooter was in the Army?
>
> It makes no difference if there are in fact statiscal
> differences because:
>
> a. As you admit, they do not apply to specific
> individuals, which is what career choices,
> hiring decisions, college admissions apply to;
This does not invalidate the statistics.
When it comes to hiring, any female programmer who comes into your
office is NOT a randomly selected female, but, in fact, a self-selected
female who has passed through a CS or EE program. Thus, we have already
determined that THIS person has the peculiar mental abilities needed to
be a programmer.
Nevertheless, none of this invalidates the fact that, the TYPICAL
woman is much less able than the TYPICAL man to formulate *complex*
programming code for complex data manipulations.
>
> b. There is significant overlap between the
> distributions of attribute X for men and women.
> The overlap is sufficient to mean that you
> are discussing a distinction without a difference
> of any importance;
You would be surprised.
Ever visit any facility where a lot of Computer Aided Design/Drafting
is done? The men:female ratio is 50:1, which is corroborates the other
research that men are much better than women at spacial visualizations.
[In this case, interpreting a 2-D line-drawing as a 3-space object]
>
> c. There is a priori no way to assign group
> membership (eg person X is a good programmer)
> based on the attribute of sex.
Big deal. None of this invalidates the statistics nor research.
>
> d. There is no possible use (other than annoying
> people on Usenet) for the stats you're defending.
Absolutely there is. If you need a LARGE number of positions in
society filled quickly (say, the eruption of a WW2-size conflict),
then you would FIRST test men for those tasks which men tend to
excel, and FIRST test women for those tasks where women tend to excel.
For example, if you go into an automotive assembly plant, you will
see that overall, the men and women are interchangeable. But in
some departments, women dominate. The reason is that women tend to
have MUCH better *fine* hand-eye coordination. This is even true
for women who never sew.... in fact, it seems to indicate exactly
WHY sewing is not "men's work" in most societies...because women
are GENETICALLY PRESISPOSED to be better "equipped" for this task.
Go into a typical electronics assembly plant, and you will see
that throughout the plant, women are almost exclusively employed
in those tasks which required fine-positioning of components on
circuit-boards.
This has been standard for DECADES, as the electronics manufacturers
avidly conducted tests in the 1950s when they were opening up
TV assembly plants all over. By and large, the men could not
compete with the women. The research has been repeated, and
even within the last decade, researchers get the same results.
SOME men have larger body-fat percentages than SOME women, but,
by and large, women have more body fat than men.
Big deal, *exceptions* do not invalidate a rule-of-thumb
> It is a mere curiousity (if it's even true) and
> may be due more to bias, methodology, or
> environment then any real inherent difference.
No, it is VERY important, especially politically when people are
demanding that in every job classification, there be equal numbers
of men and women. The only way to accomplish this across society
is to force many men and women into jobs for which they are ill-suited.
What's really dumb is that the end result is a woman being taken out
of a job which she does well, to go into a job in which she will never
perform well....displacing a man who does this job well...putting in
the job vacated by her....at which he will not perform well.
>
> But please continue - it's rare to see articulate
> bigots these days. Makes me nostalgic.
Reality is not bigotry.
Bigotry is the irrational insistance that men and women are
exactly interchangeable, when even a 6-month old child is quite
aware of the difference.
>
> Arthur
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:18:17 -0500
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The whole thing is indeed a "fuck up". This experience is
> typical for installing windows. I've installed windows thousands
> of times and I can't count how many times I've had to do
> ridiculous things like swap hardware, remove hardware, add
> hardware ad infinitum just to get the install to run. I've never
> had any such experience with any distribution of linux. I have
> NEVER been just stopped cold at an install like that.
Really? Try doing a network install of RedHat on a machine with two
ethernet cards installed (it's intended to be a firewall).
The RedHat installation program will only find one network card, and you've
got a 50/50 chance of it being the one that's attached to your network.
That means you have to swap your cables, if you're using a compatible
network card (In my case I had a 100bT hub, and a 10/100 card and a 10 card,
the 10 card was the one found so I couldn't just swap the cables, but rather
had to rip out the network card in order to get RedHat to install).
Never say never.
> Yet, you could continue the install without loading the driver
> and continue. THAT is the difference. Windows works only one
> way, and goddamnit, if not the way it was intended then not at
> all. Seems to be the guiding philosophy at M$.
No, you could have told NT to skip the network installation, then installed
the network card later.
Don't be so absolute. There is never only ONE way to do something, even
with Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:03:01 -0400
Slava Pestov wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > KLH wrote:
> >> My feeling is that the trend of women not taking up occupations in
> >> computers is because of enviroment rather than any sort of inherent
> >> capacity.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Keep believing the politically correct line, and you'll never learn the
> > truth.
>
> Are you afraid of women?
> Do you feel intimidated in their precence?
> Are you afraid of losing your job to a woman?
> Your ignorant remarks certainly suggest one of the above,
> The truth is that you are wrong, Aaron.
I love women, and I love them most for those things which they
are more adept at than myself.
The TRUTH is that I have studied the research, and you haven't.
--
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]
Subject: Re: Web Browsers?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:11:51 +0100
Luke Th. Bullock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher S. Arndt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm a linux newbie, and am looking for a good browser for my linux
>> laptop. I have tried mozilla, but it really take a lot of memory, and is
>> always crashing, as does netscape 4.x and 6.x. I would really
>> appreciate it if someone could give me some suggestions to try. Chris
>>
>
> There are now several interesting browsers, both for X11 and console.
> My all time favourite is Lynx, the console browser, because it's fast,
If you like lynx, you may wish to try out links. (yes, I know its likely to
cause confusion in spoken conversation...)
Text based, the obsolete version 0.84 is in with Mandrake 7.1.
The current 0.92 (http://links.browser.org), and does the following:
* Lynx-like naviation
* Ncurses-based drop-down menus
* Follows colours. (Leastways on console)
* Renders frames an tables rather well
* Begins parsing and rendering html files before fully downloaded. (cf.w3m)
* Background downloads possible (cf lynx)
* gpm support on console
* "open in new window" in xterm
* Context menu when right-clicking on link.
* Bookmarks
* http & ftp proxies
What it *doesn't do* is:
* Java/javascript
* Cookies, terribly well
* SSL
I've found it works suprisingly well on some problem pages/servers, that
netscape has trouble with.
You can find the latest at http://links.browser.org.
Pre-compiled binaries are available up to v0.91, to compile your own you'll
want standard c libraries, and the development libs for ncurses & gpm.
Sam.
(Yes, I do like it. How did you guess?)
--
____________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | It is not 'who' you are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | But who you are becoming.
ICQ#: 47780394 | -- Goethe
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:31:46 -0500
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l91r5$qba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This I think is the most telling, and raises a few questions.
> 1. How does an app failure cause all LAN consoles to crash?
In many terminologies, a "console" is an application. For instance, a
remote console is usually a terminal application which allows you to control
a remote computer. In this case, the coupling with the term "LAN console"
would indicate a similar useage.
> 2. Why not have the field set to NOT NULL so the administrators can't make
> the mistake?
> 3. Why not have some error checking in the database - if the app is
mission
> critical, surely this is the least they can do?
These were clearely errors on the part of the developers.
> > 1. We really can't tell whether the underlying NT OS did in fact crash,
> but
> > on the balance of probabilities I'd guess it eventually did and had to
be
> at
> > least rebooted given the length of time it took to get the vessel
> > operational again.
>
> But given that there was bad data in the database, rebooting would make no
> difference - yes? I wouldn't read that into it, especially since the
reboot
> would only take a few minutes max. Unless they rebooted it a lot of
> times... :)
Yes, most likely as soon as they restarted the applications, they re-read
the data in the database and crashed again. They most likely had to figure
out a way to edit the database by hand to remove the offending data, without
the benefit of the normal data entry program.
> I wouldn't have used NT to start with, and I like NT. I wouldn't have
used
> Linux either, but probably one of the commercial unices.
The proper solution would probably be a real-time fault tolerant OS, such as
QNX or VxWorks. However, That's just be pessimistic.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown - alittle light relief
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:45:08 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In general, we're pretty stupid. And just look how far we've come.
>
> Believe me, if the aliens are out there, the only reason they haven't
> contacted us is because they think, "Why bother? Look how stupid they
> are. Even if they get here they won't be a threat."
Something I saved from a usenet posting a few years ago. Enjoy. :-)
It was kinda scratchy, but this is what I heard, more or less:
"They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"Meat. They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"There's no doubt about it. We picked several from different parts of
the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, probed them all the way
through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the
stars."
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them.
The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made
the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to
believe in sentient meat."
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only
sentient race in the sector and they're made out of meat."
"Maybe they're like the Orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence
that goes through a meat stage."
"Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several
of their life spans, which didn't take too long. Do you have any idea the
life span of meat?"
"Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the Weddilei.
A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
"Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads like the Weddilei.
But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through."
"No brain?"
"Oh, there is a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of
meat!"
"So... what does the thinking?"
"You're not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The
meat."
"Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
"Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The
meat is the whole deal! Are you getting the picture?"
"Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."
"Finally, Yes. They are indeed made out meat. And they've been trying to
get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."
"So what does the meat have in mind?"
"First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the
universe, contact other sentients, swap ideas and information. The usual."
"We're supposed to talk to meat?"
"That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello.
Anyone out there? Anyone home?' That sort of thing."
"They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
"Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."
"I thought you just told me they used radio."
"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know
how when you slap or flap meat it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their
meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."
"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"
"Officially or unofficially?"
"Both."
"Officially, we are required to contact, welcome, and log in any and all
sentient races or multibeings in the quadrant, without prejudice, fear, or
favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the
whole thing."
"I was hoping you would say that."
"It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact
with meat?"
"I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say?" `Hello, meat. How's
it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"
"Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers,
but they can't live on them. And being meat, they only travel through C
space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility
of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."
"So we just pretend there's no one home in the universe."
"That's it."
"Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones
who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you have probed? You're sure
they won't remember?"
"They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and
smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."
"A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's
dream."
"And we can mark this sector unoccupied."
"Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others?
Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"
"Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class
nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants
to be friendly again."
"They always come around."
"And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the universe
would be if one were all alone."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 01:50:30 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <Ct1e5.124187$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Until this thread, I never thought the military used conventional PCs,
> especially at sea. I wonder, with nuclear powered ships, how the effect of
> radiation would have on a computer's processor.
Me thinks less than the effect it has on humanoids. Grief!
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 20:31:59 -0400
Tim Kelley wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Tim Kelley wrote:
>
> > > Well I don't particularly like the government or the military so
> > > I don't care. Actually it's pretty funny.
> >
> > Get back to us the next time there's a national emergency in your
> > area, and you want people who are willing to ignore the danger to
> > rescue your sorry ass.
>
> Think about when the last time there was a national emergency "in
> your area".
Tornadoes. Floods. Hurricanes. Earthquakes.
There was a certain week-long riot in Seattle about a year ago.
The state military are ALWAYS called up to handle these emergencies.
>
> What is the US military really used for Aaron?
All sorts of shit. We not only fight wars, we also lend service in
any state or national emergency.
>
> "National emergencies" of US propped up dictatorships.
Tell me what dictatorship was propped up when the military was
mobilized to Florida in the wake of Hurricane Andrew?
> "Economic emergencies" of multi-national corporations.
And the military is utilized in exactly what way?
> "Moral emergencies" against it's own population (the drug war in
> case you were too dull to figure that out).
Blame your congressman for that, dude.
The Constitution SPECIFICALLY designates that it is the responsibility
to fund AND REGULATE the armed forces.
>
> > You are a pitiful excuse for a man.
>
> Now what would you know about being a man?
I've saved lives. Have you?
--
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: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The real faux paus of the U.S. military... (was Re: The Failure of the
USS Yorktown)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 00:36:57 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l9lpp$k9e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Again, I agree. I like WindowsNT, but it doesn't belong in situations
: where people's lives depend upon it. If this country insists on using PC
: technology to power its military, then I think we can all say howdy to
: communism in the coming years.
I second that. There are short comings in any OS, be that NT, Unix, etc...
The popularity isn't related to the quality of OS, people tend to like a
system where they do certain operations without actually thinking about how
to. It was inevideble that NT found its way into the military. Right or
wrong it happened and hopefully it will be corrected.
:
: BTW, does anyone know exactly what "Smart Ship" connotates? I'd hope that
: if the military is intending on implementing AI technology, that they'd
: have the insight to use a better suited CPU. CPUs are a vastly inferior
: solution for AI anyway, but _Intel_ for complex AI? Sorry, but I just
: can't buy that.
Here's my take on the definition of the "Smart Ship":
It is vessel, which despite all of the technological advances it can still
find its way to the harbor. Even if the OS, regardless of the origin, has
crashed.
Otto
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 22 Jul 2000 00:36:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The problem with GOTOs is that it makes it too easy to write spagetti code,
: where it is very difficult to follow the structure. But it is perfectly
: possible to write logical, clear code using GOTOs - it is just not enforced
: the same was as it is with more block-structured constructs.
The problem is that with ifs and gotos you can make *any* sort of
flow structure you want, even if the language doesn't provide it for
you. Therefore eliminating gotos should only be done if the language
has *every* important flow construct in it. For example, if your
language doesn't have a try/catch exception handling technique, then
people shouldn't anti-goto bigots and turn their noses up at all gotos.
Jumping out of a block to handle weird exceptions is a hell of a lot
easier to read than putting in several obtuse checks to "percolate up"
through two or three nesting levels to get out of something.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:53:35 -0500
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Unix Microsoft products
>
> First Multi-processing kernal 1970 1995
NT was released in 93, not 95.
> tape backup utilities 1970 1998
NT had tape back up when it was released in 93.
> First GUI 1984 1990
Windows 1.0 was in 1985.
> Cut and Past support in GUI 1984 1993
MS had cut and past in at least Windows 3.0, which was 1990.
> Full networking support 1984 1995
Windows for Workgroups was released in 93.
> No differentiation between remote 1984 never implemented
> users and console users
There was no such thing as a console user in Unix until the 80's. Even the
"console" was a serial terminal in the old days.
Likewise, we could add:
When did Unix start getting direct video support for local users instead of
forcing all UI data to go through sockets?
> First Multi-user kernal 1970 never implemented
For what it's worth, Windows 2000 has full multi-user capabilities, and NT
had basic multi-user support since it's creation.
> Configuration changes w/o rebooting 1970 never implemented
Really? Modify your kernel and see changes get updated without rebooting.
> First non-fragmenting filesystem 1983 never implemented
There's no such thing as a non-fragmented filesystem. All filesystems
fragment, some more so than others.
> RAID support (Redundant Array 1991 never implemented
> of Inexpensive Disks)
NT has had raid support since 93.
> full remote administration possible, 1970 never implemented
> including O/S install
NT has always had remote administration.
> GUI's available 10 1
X is the GUI, that severely limits the number of non-X interfaces. A window
manager is not a GUI.
> Notice a pattern yet, spell-check boy?
Yes, I noticed how you didn't get a single thing right.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown - a little light relief
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 12:41:56 +1200
It's great :-)
Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
