Linux-Advocacy Digest #116, Volume #28 Sun, 30 Jul 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: God damm Microsoft (rubrsoul)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Woofbert)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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, 30 Jul 2000 18:08:16 -0400
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m27au$29ra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <DkFg5.13440$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >I'm asking *who should* make the decisition. Congress? The
> >> >courts? An executive agency? Who?
> >> >
> >> >I understand the "not Microsoft" part already. :D
> >>
> >> Uh... the market?
> >
> >The market seems to have decided that it likes bundled
> >products and that it likes web browsers as part of the
> >software bundled with a computer.
> Huh? The market has shown that most people will accept
> just about anything shoved down there throat by being
> tied to another monopolistic product. Fortunately
> not quite everyone accepts it and perhaps we will
> eventually get to see what the market would do if
> people are given a choice.
We've already seen what the market will do, now we need to see what the
market will do with a judge making the choices for everyone.
> No it isn't. There are few companies with monopoly control.
> It apparently is commonplace for them to attempt this
> sort of bundling though, since there are specific laws
> to control it.
>
> >So, apparently we should get out the way and let
> >Microsoft put IE in Windows, just like all the other
> >OSes on or near the desktop.
>
Microsoft never dictated what other icons an OEM could place on a desktop by
default, they merely said that OEM's cannot remove any value added icons and
features that come with the OS.
As a matter of fact OEMs have room to place about more 40 icons on a 640x480
screen setting, MORE at higher resolutions. OEM's as well as Microsoft are
free to bundle whatever they like. It's lawfull for every OS manufacturer to
dictate terms of licensing and lawfull for OEM's to choose whatever OS(s)
they would like to distribute with their software. If an OEM decides to add
40 identical Netscape icons to the desktop they are free to do that also.
They just cannot remove any that the OS comes with.
> Other OSes are putting IE on the desktop? The ones I
> know about work perfectly fine if you remove the
> browser completely or let a system integrator make
> the choice. Microsoft is unlike anyone else in the
> business in this regard. And unlike the original
> Win95 that required the purchase of the plus pack
> to even have a browser.
No one ever had to purchase anything to obtain a browser. As soon as you
sign up for internet access they are more than happy to send you any browser
you choose, well... except maybe AOL or one of the other sad excuses for
direct access.
I had Win95a and it came with Netscape2.x I believe. It also had MSIE 1.x
or 2.x buried on the Master disk, but clicking the "Get on the Net" icon on
the desktop opened up Netscape.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:09:22 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Spud wrote:
>
> > > little more comparable, let's check back to the IDE drives. Yup,
> > > there's a 75Gb, 7200RPM ATA-100 drive, for $769. I could get two
> of
> > > those and have change left over for the price of a comparable SCSI
> > > drive.
> >
> > If SCSI drives were made in the same volume as IDE drives, and
> > IDE drives were made in the same volume as SCSI currently is,
> > the prices would be reversed as well.
> >
> > Besides, SCSI is superior technology. I can hook up 15 SCSI
> > 160MB/sec SCSI drives on one channel of an Adaptec 29160...
>
> Sure. At what, $1700 a drive? Nice if you've got the pocket change
> for it. Then again, I'm not running heavy-duty file servers, so I
> hardly need that sort of speed. Space, frequently, but not speed. As
> I noted, however, if you _do_ need it, then the expense isn't really
> the issue, and SCSI is, quite probably, the way to go.
I get 80 Mb/sec 9.1 Gig IBM drives for $200/each.
18.2 Gig of the same line for $300.
>
> > > SCSI makes perfect sense under _certain_ circumstances: if you
> _need_
> > > to run many separate devices. If you need the performance
> available
> > > by using drives which can fully operate in parallel. If I were
> > > running a database server feeding 10,000 people's data
> requirements, I
> > > would _definitely_ look at SCSI. For non-server computing
> purposes,
> > > however, it seems both pointless and expensive.
> >
> >
> > If SCSI was pushed as heavily as IDE, it would be even cheaper than
> > IDE.
>
> Perhaps... and perhaps if Lamborghinis were pushed as heavily as
> Volskwagons, you'd be able to pick one up for pocket change. Fact is,
> though, that they're _not_ as popular, and whether that's a cause or
> an effect, not comparably priced. As a result, a lot of people will
> _not_ prefer SCSI - despite your insistence that they in fact do.
Lamborghinis and Volkswagons are fundamentally different products.
SCSI drives and IDE drives are essentially the same product.
Same actuators, motors, etc. The only difference is which
controller/interface card is thrown on the back.
The only reason SCSI is more expensive is becuase the production
runs on the SCSI cards is lower than IDE cards.
The physical hardware of the drive itself is identical.
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:14:00 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >1. Everybody wants to come here.
>
> So stop whining about what an evil government we have.
>
Being "less malevolent againt the people" is still being malevolent,
MORON.
> >3. They have no such illusions. They just know that living in America
> > beats living in any communist country.
>
> But I thought that the US is supposed to be Communist in
> everything but in name.
You tell us.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 30 Jul 2000 22:16:10 GMT
On 30 Jul 2000 21:48:53 GMT, Loren Petrich wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>That's the problem with American liberals (crypto-commies)....they
>>all live in the land of Charles Dickens, and fail to notice the
>>real opportunities which abound for EVERYBODY living in the United
>>States
>
> The last I saw, however, Mr. Kulkis does not have hundreds of
>millions of dollars of wealth, and he does not have tends of thousands of
>underlings who grovel in fear before him.
In this day and age, I don't believe anyone in the US does.
( a few have the wealth, none I know of have the underlings ) I don't know
if this is your intention, but you kind of helped him make his point. The
year is 2000 AD, FYI. Did you just step out of a time capsule or something ???
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough
Subject: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:15:53 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >That's the problem with American liberals (crypto-commies)....they
> >all live in the land of Charles Dickens, and fail to notice the
> >real opportunities which abound for EVERYBODY living in the United
> >States
>
> The last I saw, however, Mr. Kulkis does not have hundreds of
> millions of dollars of wealth, and he does not have tends of thousands of
> underlings who grovel in fear before him.
Behold: Loren Petrich's definition of success...
achieving the status of dictator.
By the way fat-boy, when you gonna go out and shape up?
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
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"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 30 Jul 2000 17:36:33 -0500
In article <IkFg5.13444$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8lkdn3$2bdd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <NLJe5.5134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> I told you exactly what happened to me with the Gandalf terminal
>> server I was using at the time. What kind of proof beyond
>> an eyewitness account were you expecting?
>
>An account that has MS breaking other people's dialers. :D
In several ways.
>> >I mean, he was the one who impugned MS for breaking other
>> >companies' dialers; he's yet to provide a shred of evidence
>> >or argument to uphold that. I'm betting that he doesn't believe
>> >it himself; I think it was a throw-away line, meant only to
>> >ensnare the gullible.
>>
>> Huh? Ask your ISP to dig up a a pre-1995 firmware image and
>> load it into your dial-up hardware, regardless of what it
>> was.
>
>Will something interesting if they do that?
Yes, your Windows box will no longer log in. The scenario
that happened to all ISPs at the time...
>> I didn't say it broke other companies dialers - of
>> course the dialers that followed standards continued to work.
>
>Ah, good. Then we can lay this to rest. Since I don't feel like
>digging into Deja to try to prove you said such a thing, permit
>me to retract my claim and apologize:
>
>I'm sorry I said you said MS had broken other people's dialers.
>
>> What I said was that putting a non-standard dialer on everyone's
>> desktop broke the equipment on the other end and forced
>> every ISP to either upgrade their hardware or switch to
>> NT-RAS servers which just happened to be broken in the same
>> way already.
>
>You do use "broke" in the most interesting ways.
Yes, Microsoft has been very creative about it. When
you upgraded your working Win3.1 box with a standards-conforming
ppp dialer, you would find it replaced by one that would
try to use the non-standard MSCHAP authentication instead.
I think that qualifies as 'broken' in any sense of the
word.
>It is, of course, not possible for changes to MS's clients
>to break servers on which that client not even installed-
>that is why I assumed you mean MS's new clients had
>defeated the *dialers* that were installed on those
>same clients- which is at least theoretically possible.
But people *did* install these clients - replacing the
existing working dialers.
>If this is not what you are saying- and apparently it is not-
>then it seems you are just looking for the strongest
>language you can find in which to say that MS did not,
>on that occasion follow the protocol you think they should
>have.
They replaced a client that followed cross-platform standards
with one that did not.
>> >The reason I think this is that he switched from arguing that
>> >MS *broke* other people's dialers to arguing that MS didn't
>> >*support* those dialers, which is an entirely different thing.
>>
>> No - I meant, and still mean, that embedding a non-standard
>> dialer in a product that comes pre-loaded on virtually every
>> PC is an evil practice intended to harm the competing ISPs
>> and dial-up hardware server manufactures and promote their
>> replacement with NT RAS servers.
>
>Okay. That's not the same thing as "breaking" their dialers
>or servers. It's competition, and you may well feel that it is
>a bad thing.
It was a bad thing, and not only because of the new cross-platform
problems. The TCP layer was not integrated correctly in
the dialer so that replacing it with a conforming version
would allow netbios-over-tcp to work, and the MSCHAP implementation
which they claimed was needed for security was in fact much
less secure that the standard CHAP.
>I think it's a good thing, but you knew that. :D
It wasn't good for any of the people using it.
>> >Unless you redefine "broke" creatively, of course. :D
>>
>> Not correctly interoperating is a normal definition of broken,
>> especially given that (a) there were pre-existing cross-platform
>> standards and
>
>"Not using PPP" is a very creative definition of broken,
>but that's beside the point: You claims MS had broken
>*someone else's software*- dialers, servers, whatever.
PPP is an inclusive standard that permits different authentication
methods and negotiation to choose among them. The existing
standard methods used by all platforms were PAP and CHAP.
>You are now saying "MSCHAP" was broken, which is
>a very different thing. I take it, then, that existing
>PPP dialers and servers worked exactly as before, and
>were in no way inconvinienced by the appearance
>of MSCHAP, except insofar as they had a new competitor.
Yes, had your conforming win3.x dialer not been destroyed
in the upgrade to win95 (even though it claimed to run
your old programs), you existing standard dial-up server
would have continued to log you in, and if you had it
configured to use CHAP, it would have done so securely
with challenge-based encryption.
>> (b) ms-chap was so bad that it has been replaced
>> by version 2 already.
>
>Just version 2? I'd thought it had gone through way more
>than that.
I've really tried to avoid learning any more details
about this disaster than I had to to make the connections
work. Version 2 at least fixes the most horrible of the
security problems.
>[snip]
>> >I'd hoped you'd at least consider me a troll, but I guess
>> >it is not to be.
>>
>> What kind of proof do you want? All you really have to do
>> is read the standards - or dig out some old equipment and
>> try it.
>
>Oh, it's not that I think that MSCHAP is really PPP under
>a different acronym. I just think that MS is in no way
>obliged to adhere to your favorite protocols if they
>don't want to.
No, MSCHAP is one authentication mechanism that can be used by PPP.
Just guessing, I assume it's reason for existing (beyond killing
off a few competitors and promoting their RAS as a replacement)
had to do with the MS delusion that their lanman-encrypted passwords
stored in the *pwl files were secure enough to exchange in the
clear without a challenge/response. That, of course was never
true. Then service pack 1 to win95 made some changes to the *pwl
files such that if you ever deleted any password, all of them were
subsequently broken. Fun, fun, fun...
>I do not think MSCHAP is "broken" for not being PPP
>any more than I think that StarOffice is broken for not
>being Microsoft Office.
It was broken from my perspective because it intentionally
did not interoperate with any existing equipment. But
it was broken for everyone simply because it was a bad
implementation and it has a bad security record compared
to the standard CHAP.
To view StarOffice in the same perspective, consider
how you would feel about it if suddenly it was very
difficult to buy a computer that did not include
it, and that it took a great deal of work to exchange
work between it and your existing programs. The latter
of course, is not true, and there is no public standard
involved anyway, so it doesn't quite make a good
analogy. Still, there is a very good possibility that
every computer *will* come with Openoffice preloaded
soon. It makes perfect sense from the system vendor
and consumer perspective. What do you think can
or should prevent it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: rubrsoul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:52:46 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Spud wrote:
>[snips]
>
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ls76f$2b3k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Untrue. You only need to shutdown and reboot (on Win9x machines)
>when a
>> >file is in use when you try to patch it or replace it. If the file
>is not
>> >in use, replacing it does not require a reboot.
>>
>> How do you know whether the patch includes a dll that is in
>> use by the system or not?
>
>Easy: if an install program or patch tool says you need a reboot, it's
>generally because it either updated one of the startup files or
>attempted to update a file which was locked. Having developed many
>installs under Windows platforms, I can assure you, there is
>absolutely no need to reboot in general - and most installers will
>actually not suggest you reboot unless a condition such as the above
>applies.
>
>MS patches, however, generally _do_ patch system files, which are
>frequently locked; it would be the exception, not the norm, for them
>to not expect a reboot.
Although I am currently migrating my floor to managed PCs, I still have a
number of VAR PCs with wildly different configs that have to be loaed manually
instead of with a Ghost image. All of the hand loaded boxes require way too
many reboots, and if I opt ot skip a reboot for several installs (including
several non-MS products) I am greeted with a message informing me that an
install has not completed and I must reboot before I can continue. On the other
hand, I can set any of those boxes up with Linux (we are currently using Red
Hat) and don't have to reboot once, after installing office suites, database
tools, etc... I have managed to stabilize the NT desktop a great deal compared
to my predecessor, but I still get random blue screens on a handful of
machines. What a joke, and attempting to use some of the tools that MS
provides for diagnosing blue screens are a bigger joke. Dumpcheck delivers
such useful information as "dump file to small to be read", thanks for another
useless tool. I have migrated a handful of users to a Linux desktop on our new
managed PCs and they are quite happy with the stability, and if we can port
over a few more inportant tools we will migrate the whole building (200 +
users). There is little to defend MS products with, good riddance. Reboot are
the rule with MS, and not acceptable for something as simple as installing most
apps, of course since MS only recently decided to build in some sort of
protection to critical system files it will take third party developer quite a
while to learn the new rules.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 30 Jul 2000 17:53:04 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Uh... the market?
>> >
>> >The market seems to have decided that it likes bundled
>> >products and that it likes web browsers as part of the
>> >software bundled with a computer.
>
>> Huh? The market has shown that most people will accept
>> just about anything shoved down there throat by being
>> tied to another monopolistic product. Fortunately
>> not quite everyone accepts it and perhaps we will
>> eventually get to see what the market would do if
>> people are given a choice.
>
>We've already seen what the market will do, now we need to see what the
>market will do with a judge making the choices for everyone.
Yes, we have. The last time the users really had a
choice, a majority chose to use Netscape even though
it was still harder to get. The finding of facts
explains how MS took away that choice - thus killing
the company that could be giving us a better alternative
today.
>No one ever had to purchase anything to obtain a browser. As soon as you
>sign up for internet access they are more than happy to send you any browser
>you choose, well... except maybe AOL or one of the other sad excuses for
>direct access.
Many, perhaps most, machines are on a corporate network with
routing to the internet. There is no 'signup' for internet
access.
>I had Win95a and it came with Netscape2.x I believe.
I take it you mean that your hardware vendor added it, since
it was certainly never part of win95. Is that vendor one
of the ones that supplied depositions during the MS trial,
and if so, did you read it to find out why they stopped?
>It also had MSIE 1.x
>or 2.x buried on the Master disk, but clicking the "Get on the Net" icon on
>the desktop opened up Netscape.
It sounds like the system vendor made a good default for you. Running
IE before version 4.0 was a bad idea in general. Again, you should
question why they stopped.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:03:58 GMT
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> John Hughes wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
>
>
> Doesn't it strike you as odd that a single node of the IBM
> machine runs over four times faster than a single node of
> the Windows/COMPAQ machine, yet when they're combined into
> a "cluster" for benchmarking purposes the COMPAQ machine
> suddenly seems to go much faster(!)
>
> http://x56.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=599052721
>
>
> A more suspicious, less Bill-blinkered person than yourself
> might smell a large, stinking, long-dead rat somewhere....
Bill-blinkered? Maybe that would be better than blindfolding one's self to
the truth. Windows is faster. It hasn't always been that way. But now it
is. Now it's time for Oracle to go away! :-) Yeah! You want to talk about
crazies? That Ellison is certifiable. Makes Gates look like a choirboy.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:06:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:11:49 -0400,
> Colin R. Day, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > But from what I have read, the Sherman was more rugged, which is
> >> > important when you're fighting on another continent.
> >>
> >> Cost to build is important; the German Tiger tank was a very good
> >> tank, but was so expensive to make that it couldn't be made in
> >> sufficient quantity. "Better is the enemy of Good, and Best is the
> >> enemy of them both." A *very* instructive phrase that! Thanks ACC!
> >
> >The Tiger was also a gas-guzzler, but perhaps not as bad as
> >the Elefant. Of course, immobile tanks are vulnerable, and the
> >Germans didn't always have enough fuel.
> >
> It was also too heavy to pass over most bridges in France, making it a
> poor
> choice for fighting there after D-Day. Helluva nice main gun though.
Who has the most and most recent experience in tank combat? And whose
design did they base their own R&D on? Inquiring minds want to know.
I once saw video of an Israeli battle tank galoomphing along the desert
at 65 MPH or something. The main shell was bouncing along on what must
have been a hella rough ride for the driver ... but the cupola and
cannon seemed to be just floating along, completely oblivious. Scary.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>, Datadroid
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"Consider God's handiwork: for who can make straight
that which He hath made crooked?" Ecclesiastes 7:13
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:21:59 -0500
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> It's been what, a whole week since the last thread about Microsoft
> not using Windows for any of their stuff? Have you forgotton already
> or are you doing this deliberately?
Any of their stuff? From netcraft:
www.msn.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
www.microsoft.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
msdn.microsoft.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
mlo.one.microsoft.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
Oddly enough, the first time I searched hotmail, I got:
www.hotmail.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000
But other hits got:
www.hotmail.com is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.8 SSLeay/0.9.0b
on FreeBSD
So it seems that MS is running at least a few of their hotmail servers on
Win2k.
The msn homepages are hosted by a third party, so are not really relevant.
Every one of MS's web servers runs Win2k/IIS5 except for hotmail. And I'd
definately say that www.msn.com get's as many, if not more hits per day as
hotmail does. www.msn.com is the default home page for IE, and few users
ever change it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
