Linux-Advocacy Digest #955, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Marcus Turner")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why use Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:22:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Spud in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The fact that a fix is available clearly indicates that
>> this was a Windows failure (more bad design, no doubt, but the level of
>> kludge which constitutes a "fix" is not the issue here), not a
>> "platform" failure.
>
>It's called "a bug", and unless you're going to tell us that some
>other platform - say Linux - has _no_ bugs, then you're simply being
>stupid here.
They don't have bugs like that, no. Your inability to distinguish
grievously obvious bugs, like "all Win/DOS systems may hang after the
sysUpTime counter wraps because of a bug in a core component
(Vtdapi.vxd)", and whatever trivial glitches are being fixed by the
Linux community, is a testament to your rampant desire to
mischaracterize any discussion on this issue.
[...]
>Did I ever say Windows has no bugs? No.
Did I ever say you did? No.
>You, however, are implying
>that other OSen *have no bugs* - or that they, too, suffer "bad
>design" and are "crappy software", something I'm sure you don't want
>to agree to. At least try to *pretend* to have some integrity.
No, other common OSes have no *major* bugs, certainly not anything as
putrid as locking up because sysUpTime wrapped. (Or so I assume was the
problem, since that just "happens" to equate to precisely 49.7 days.)
Other common OSes do not suffer fundamentally bad design, and are not
what I would characterize as "crappy software". That dubious honor has
been solely merited by Microsoft and their products. Not because of any
abstract reasoning on my part, but by simple observation. You might be
able to, if you could mimic enough integrity to avoid failing the Turing
test, make an argument for whether it is appropriate to presume that
since all Microsoft software is crap, it is because of fundamentally bad
design rather than rampantly buggy code. But that's about as far as you
can go. Trying to deny that MS software is *far and away* more
bug-ridden than *any* alternative is just too big a stretch away from
reality to be acceptable by anyone with more than half a brain.
[...]
>You know of a single OS which is absolutely perfect in every detail of
> its design? I'd love to hear about it. Hint: Linux ain't it. Nor
>is Windows. Nor is BeOS. Nor is...
It never bothers you that your entire argument is based on insisting
that somebody has declared that any non-Windows OS is perfectly
bug-free? Since nobody ever declares that, I'm not sure why you think
it is a premise for your erroneous claim that Windows is not far more
buggy than any potential competitor's product. I know of no other piece
of software which is so widely used and so bug-ridden. Deal with it.
[...]
>Indeed, you haven't. What you've shown is what every programmer and
>user knows full well; there isn't a significant piece of software in
>existence, with the possible exception of some very carefully audited
>(and horrendously expensive) safety-critical code - that doesn't have
>bugs. This is hardly significant. Now, if you had something to say
>other than noise, please say it.
I did, but you are attempting to shout me down with noisy half-truths
and irrelevant bullshit. Windows is a pathetic pile of crap. That
there is no software which is bug-free has no bearing on that fact.
[...]
>I can't be bothered; you have made an implicit claim that Linux
>doesn't have bugs, otherwise it, too, would be "bad design" and
>"crappy software" and you would be just as angry at it as you are at
>Windows.
You take great liberties with logic, as well as my statements. My
implicit claim is not that Linux doesn't have bugs, but that it doesn't
have as many bugs (by orders of magnitude, but that's a guess) as
Windows. It isn't having bugs which is evidence of bad design and
crappy software. It is having bugs so prevalently that one has to set
up straw men of bug-free code to compare it with to make the number and
extent of its bugs seem insignificant. I'm not angry because Windows is
crappy software. I'm angry because Windows is crappy software which has
a monopoly. The harm to the consumer is immeasurable, if you consider
how outrageously bad the product is which they've been *forced* to use
for more than a decade.
> So, either Linux has no bugs - in which case, let's see your
>support of that claim - or you're angry at it, too.[...]
You're just plain pathetic. Its no fun pointing out how illogical your
claims are unless you make it less obvious, you know. Blatant lies and
misrepresentations are just going to get you ignored.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:19:51 GMT
"Not For Smoking!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 19:39:57 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"PWayner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gilbert W. Pilz Jr." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 19 Jul 2000 07:39:57 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >...in other words, Microsoft Windows did not get its market share by
> >> > >being the best OS, it got there by way of business deals.
> >> I've always thought that the experiences of BeOS explain just how MS
> >succeeded.
> >> Gasse'e and crowd wanted to practically _give_ away BeOS but they found
> >that
> >> the various contracts between MS and the retailers made it difficult,
if
> >not
> >> impossible, to ship it with new PCs. The manufacturers were pretty much
> >locked
> >> into doing it MS's way.
> >
> >By mutual agreement.
>
> You have a funny definition of "mutual."
Ummm...
They both agreed to it because it made them more money than a non-exclusive
contract would have.
------------------------------
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, 25 Jul 2000 18:25:43 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:12:06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:45:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> The like of Circuit City can quite easily allow access to rather
>> obscure brands in other areas of electronics.
>
>Why? Where is the demand that would justify the shelf space?
What shelf space?
It really doesn't take up that much room. That's really
a rather lame excuse and really just bolsters my point
about natural monopolies.
>
>>What's the holdup
>> in terms of computing. Why don't they have at least one BeOS
>> machine on display?
>
>Why? Where is the demand that would justify the shelf space?
What? All 3 feet of it?
[deletia]
Have you ever seen the amount of space the like of CompUSA
squander on duplicate copies of marginal software? It makes
one wonder if they are so wasteful in places like Silicon
Valley or Manhattan...
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: 25 Jul 2000 13:26:29 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8le8v7$60q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >> Yikes! If I give you 0x00012345, you'd give me back 0x00452301,
which
> > is
> > > >> completely wrong. There is a huge difference between something
begin
> > zero
> > > >> and something being empty, or not existant.
> > >
> > > >Yes, you are right. That was a mistake and easily fixed.
> > >
> > > Well, it kinda shows that your whole idea of figuring out the size of
> > > the integer you are passed is doomed. I mean, you go "Convert it to
> > > hex, and then count digits" --- however, doing that, you cannot decide
> > > whether you were passed a 16 bit integer, or a 32 bit integer with the
top
> > > 16 bits happening to be zero.
> >
> > I made a stupid assumption that worked within the limited knowledge I
have
>
> No... you just made a stupid assumption.
whatever...
>
> the "limited knowledge" was derived from what you, yourself built
> into your pathetic attempt at writting code to solve the problem.
>
>
>
> > of endian math. Again, I do not perform these functions. Ever. So I have
no
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> translation: Drestin never strays off the Microsoft ranch.
not often, nope... it's the biggest and most profitable ranch...
>
>
>
> > knowledge of the problem other than a single reference I found on the
web in
> > a perl newsgroup plus mention of a function called "Swap" in delphi 5.
>
> Did you, or did you not claim that you have been programming for
> several decades???
18+ years...
>
> If that is the case, then you could not have avoided the 'big endian'
> vs. 'little endian' problem.
oh yea? well guess what - you are wrong. Flat out wrong. I have never ever
had need to perform an endian flip. The only applications I've written that
I care to speak about (with the very very small sampling of some very
limited C code under BSD and a spattering of Fortran and RPG ages ago under
some *nix variatant I can't even remember) were for either MS-DOS or
Windows - all on Intel hardware.
All the networking applications I've worked on ran on MS-DOS or Windows
between Intel machines on MS networks. I laugh in your face at the
suggestion that all programmers have performed endian flips. You are stupid.
>
>
> In other words, I am calling you the LIAR that you are.
And I say you are a wanker - carry on.
>
> What is the effective range of an M-16A1: 450 meters.
as if you'd have a clue ... or would remotely have the chance of hitting a
target at.
>
>
> What is the effective range of an excuse? ZERO meters.
you are very familiar with these things I'm sure.
------------------------------
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: 25 Jul 2000 18:26:45 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:09:43 -0600, John W. Stevens wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >Neither is the use of elite Federal swat teams against citizens.
>>
>> Depends on what the citizens are doing now doesn't it. If the
>> citizens are armed and dangerous, that's all the more reason to send
>> in an elite who can stay *calm* when confronted by someone who's
>> armed and dangerous.
>
>And if the British had done that, we'd still be a British colony . . .
>to bad, eh?
IIRC, the British fought fairly hard to hold on to the colony. I mean,
isn't that what that "war of independence" thingy was about ? If
Britain had demonstrated the level of restraint shown by this swat
team, and the same willingness to negotiate showed by the
administration, instead of just taking pot shots at the people,
perhaps there would not have been a civil war in the first place.
I don't really understand what your point is.
I don't see what ousting a
colonial power has to do with harbouring illegal immigrants, apart
from the fact that you can use guns to do either.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:24:55 -0500
Steve wrote:
>
> Thank you for supporting my findings with the
> technical knowledge that you have and I don't.
>
> I was merely pointing out, at a very basic level
> that a default Linux install leaves the end user
> wide open to attacks.
>
> To me, it seems quite simplistic. If a user is
> open to attack this is bad, and it is particularly
> bad if it is under the guise of a default "medium
> security" setting.
>
> Medium security under ZoneAlarm blocks so many
> incoming and outgoing traffic it actually gets
> annoying. Medium security under Mandrake 7.1
> leaves ports wide open for exploitation.
>
> Big difference to a basic end user like me.
>
See, I would think you (or someone) would have caught this by now, but
oh well.
You are saying Windows is more secure by default, then bringing up
ZoneAlarm as the reason. Is ZoneAlarm installed by default on a Windows
install? Isn't it actually a seperate product?
And BTW, your instance that Mandrake = Linux isn't appreciated too much
either. I have installed SuSE with the automatic firewall set-up (and
yes, it is very quick and easy, pick the package, enter your IP in a
shiny-happy interface if you so desire and you're set) and it is locked
down damn secure. In fact, if you really want to log into the system
over the network, or use POP, or any other service, you have to "punch
the hole" in the firewalling software yourself. BTW, SuSE's firewall
package is selected by default during Internet Server installs and
default Workstation installs (they have like 12 different selections to
choose from for a 'default' install).
The nice thing with SuSE's firewalling package is that it is actually
based on the standard ipchains software and if you want to you can edit
everything by hand. I realize that you saw how Mandrake does it and
insist that Mandrake = Linux (kind of funny because most Wintrolls
insist Red Hat = Linux). Anyway, technically, it is up to the company
making the distrobution to make it secure. Security isn't Mandrake's
main goal, I believe that would be desktop useability. But I do think
they should change some of those policies. I think most (if not all)
Linux distros should install with all services turned off and you have
to "know" that you turn it on in order to "open" any port. Look at how
OpenBSD does this for a good idea of how to go about it. Everything off
and secure by default. If you turn it on yourself, you had better know
what possible exploits you are opening up. That's the way it should
be. If only....
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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, 25 Jul 2000 18:30:08 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:17:05 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> Given the only reason people are "forced" (and I use the term very loosely)
>> to buy MS software is because everyone else also uses it. Please explain
>> how anything the DOJ does is going to change that.
>
>And that is the problem with the proposed DOJ solutions: they won't
>really change anything except the number of MS's that there are: 2,
>instead of just 1 (sorta a hydra solution, yes?)
>
>The only proposed solution that *would* have really changed anything was
>suggested by a rather brilliant computer scientist who pointed out that
>the basis for MS's monopoly was their use of the "Vendor Lock-in"
>anti-pattern, in combination with exclusive and punitive business deals.
>
>A simple set of governmental regulations, and one Federal law, would
>have solved the whole thing.
The US Government spends quite a lot of money on software.
They are one of the few entities large enough to demand
compliance to open standards.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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, 25 Jul 2000 12:22:37 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What brand my VCR was, what brand my TV was, even having a betamax
> player wouldn't have effected what my NEXT choice of video component
> could be.
Which pretty much proves the point made by a brilliant computer
scientist: MS has a monopoly, and that monopoly is based on secret,
proprietary interfaces, combined with regular, incompatible
modifications to those interfaces, a highly coupled system (the Browser
*IS* a part of the OS) and some punitive and exclusive business
contracts.
I suggest a simple set of governmental regulations and one new Federal
law that require all interfaces to be open, public standards.
If the only worth to your new product is in the fact that its interface
is secret . . . then go away and don't come back until you have
something truly innovative and useful to offer.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:27:00 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >ASCII (0) is also known as "NULL"
>
> >Are you alleging that Visual Basic uses some other ascii value as
> >a string terminator?????????
> [...]
> >I can program in any of 15 different languages, whereas you are
> >restricted to...gag...visual basic.
>
> You'd think that someone who knows how to program in 15 programming
> languages would be familiar with the way Pascal (and many others)
> handle strings...
Oh yeah, I forgot. Pascal is fixed-length.
Thanks for the reminder of why I *REFUSE* to use Pascal. :-)
>
> Bernie
> --
> Tyranny is always better organized than freedom
> Charles Peguy
> French poet and essayist
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:46:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I realize some of this could be taken personally, but that's not my
>intention. In reality I agree with the person above that said you seem
>to be a reasonable person that has some legitimate information. Just
>don't let people push you into making "tactical" mistakes and you should
>be OK.
>
>I'm just trying to help out. Hopefully I do.
Impressively done, Mr. Lee.
If I might use this as an opportunity to try to re-cast Peter Goodwin's
original point: "Why are anti-Windows advocates so cavalier about using
the term 'Windows' in a way which does not immediately differentiate
between Win98 and W2K?"
My suggestion is that if one were speaking of both the old Win/DOS 9x
software new Win2000 product, you would use the term "Windows and NT".
But the truth is, the W2K product hasn't even made as much of a ripple
in the real world as Win98 originally did, and that was a slow and
embarrassing roll-out in its own right (considering the leverage of a
pre-load monopoly). People generally *don't* mean W2K when they
unguardedly say "Windows". OTOH, they sometimes do. When such is the
case, the term "Windows" might be "MS desktop OSes", which include both
W9* and W2K, but not NT, or they may be referring to "MS OSes", which
would be all products using the Windows GUI. It then includes NT, W2K,
and Win9x, as well as the older Win3.1 system, quite possibly. There
are design flaws which cause problems across all platforms, even when
the characteristic indications of those problems may vary.
I provide as an example the "Icon desktop jumble" problem. Ever since
Win95 provided the ability to place launch icons on the desktop, Windows
has routinely forgotten this information, resetting their position
frequently enough to make arranging them a futile exercise. I don't
know why, and I can't even say how, but it happens. Occasionally, it
will happen (on NT at least) that the sort order for desktop icons gets
inverted. This one really has me perplexed, as it seems to occur and
then abate without much reason or cause. (I haven't had any luck with
controlled experiments, since this is a "random failure", but the simple
loss of layout info seems related to crash/reboots.) Suddenly, the "My
Computer" icon is always at the *end* of the list, regardless of the
selected sort order. Then a few days later, it will simply re-invert.
Has anybody else characterized this at all?
Back on Peter's point, I think the reason people aren't concerned that
they're "painting W2K with 98's brush" is because they're both
unacceptable to those more familiar with robust and dependable
solutions. If it were a matter of a software holy war, your point might
be pretty important. But as the Microsoft issue is a debate of legality
and ethics, not simply personal preference or suitability, it doesn't
have much impact, in the end. In most cases, you can tell what
"Windows" refers to by context. In some, it doesn't matter. In all,
you could always ask if you aren't sure which "Windows" is being used,
if you believe it makes a difference.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
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, 25 Jul 2000 14:29:52 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> Oh, great --- you *do* know what this *is*, don't you? It's a *summary*
> >> of a *report* by D.H. Brown Associates, Inc.
>
> >Gee then, I guess we an believe NOTHING written on the web ... We can print
> >summaries of reports but that's meaningless cause, well, cause it's just
> >some letters on a screen... means nothing according to bernie.
>
> Drestin, you were saying that Stratus is selling NT solutions with 99.999%
> availability. To support such a statement, you need to point to where
> *Stratus* is actually mentioning anything like that --- not some uninvolved
> third party that provides "summaries" for pointy haired bosses.
>
> >I can only tell you that Stratus tells me that they sell server with
> >99.999% uptime guarentees, including the OS.
>
> Oh, of course they do. And the OS in question is HP/UX.
>
> >That's what they claim and I repeated it.
>
> On their web pages, they only "claim" it for HP/UX. They seem to be very
> carefully avoiding making any quantitive statements about NT/W2k stability.
>
> >what's the point of this - is it this hard for you to admit that Windows
> >2000, something you obviously have very little exprience with, can be as
> >stable and reliable as another OS.
>
> Oh, I have zero experience with W2k, and I have no problem admitting that,
> for all I know, it could be the most stable OS under the sun.
>
> However, if you want me to believe that it *is* (or that it at least plays
> in the same league as the established high availability OSs) --- which
> clearly you do, as you wrote the part about W2k solutions with 99.999%
> availability being offered now --- you'll have to provide more than
> "I tell you so!" to convince me. And when asked to come up with supporting
> evidence for your claim, you pointed at Stratus --- who, as far as I can
> tell, are very careful to say nothing of any substance about W2k stability.
>
> >So, unless you can prove that Stratus is lying - why should we not believe
> >they and their customer testimonials are telling the truth?
>
> Stratus is not saying what you think they are saying about W2k. Simple as
> that.
>
As of this time, it is absolutly IMPOSSIBLE to make a 99.999% uptime
claim for W2K. Even if a machine has perfect uptime to date...the
fact that Windows machines are NOTORIOUS for suffering crashes which
force the reinstallation of the entire O/S on a several times/year
basis, if this happens on even 10% of machines within a year, then
99.999% uptime has not been achieved.
> And what testimonials?
>
> Bernie
>
> --
> If I am a great man, then all great men are frauds
> Andrew Bonar Law
> British Prime Minister 1922-23
--
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 R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:30:42 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On 23 Jul 2000 21:07:18 GMT, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Please, give us a fscking break already.
>
> As I said in another thread...
>
> If in 3 years NET is a big deal and users find it very useful GNU NET
> will suddenly pop up in Linux distributions.
Why should I even desire to depend on network communications to run
a word processor?
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
