Linux-Advocacy Digest #400, Volume #28 Mon, 14 Aug 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Robert Moir")
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Robert Moir")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Drestin Black")
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Thlayli)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Drestin Black")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft MCSE ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:08:06 -0500
Richard wrote:
>
> Perry Pip wrote:
> > How do you know that? Did he tell you?? Do you know him personally??
> > Or are you projecting this on him? Not that I would doubt he has but I
> > have no way of being certain. I only know him from Usenet.
>
> I'm just as certain that Nathan has found philosophically-minded friends as
> I am that your concern for his welfare is due to the greatness of your heart.
Now how did I get to be the subject of such a 'deep' discussion.
In all honesty, my original statement was meant as a funny observation.
People don't like philosophy at parties because people (in general)
don't want to think at parties. And somehow, someone took that to mean
that I don't know how to find like minded friends and that I was
'wasting my time' looking at parties for deep thinkers and blah, blah,
blah....
This to me a certain sign that usenet has no sense of humor. And the
people reading and posting have even less than no sense of humor.
Oh well, at least it's a nice distraction :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:17:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donal K. Fellows in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What can I say; I want something 'intuitive'. For me, that means BASIC.
>[...]
>> Hell, I don't want shell scripts. I want application macros.
>
>Understood. However, to a great many of us[*] BASIC is not at all
>intuitive, and we know for certain of better scripting languages
>(Perl, Python and Tcl to name a few.) Arguably the best technique is
>to allow the system to be scripted in any way the user chooses, and
>for the system to be capable of generating a (probably non-optimal)
>script by watching the actions of the user. But that's quite a large
>amount of work...
>
>Donal.
>[* Well, me for certain, and at least twenty other people by what I've
> read on this and other groups! :^) ]
Thank you. I do find it difficult to consider the perspective of
someone who didn't, like me, begin and essentially end their education
in programming with BASIC. I'm overjoyed to see that we can still find
common ground; the ability for software to generate scripts by
observation, non-optimal being a trivial problem (the system has already
gotten to the end user; if they screw up the performance, its there
problem, so long as they are not being duped), sounds to me like a
dream-come-true. I know the pitfalls of "smart software", so I'm not
too anxious to make a head-long dash for what ultimately becomes another
premise for ignorance rather than a point of empowerment, but I do
believe that making scripting/automation more trivially available to
*all* users, not just the ones who want to deal with arcane details for
optimization's sake, is an ideal worth working towards.
Large amount of work + large value = large profit opportunity.
--
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: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:18:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I guess you don't quite understand how the human mind works, huh?
>
> All I am saying is that, you don't HAVE to beat down Mr. A to elevate Mr. B.
> If Mr. B's achievement's are worth elevation they should stand on their own.
Do you also believe that racial discrimination is due to inferiority of
blacks and that the poor deserve their lot in this world? I don't think so.
So why do you give me this crap about there being justice in the world?
(A common insanity, the Belief in a Just World is directly responsible for
most of the world's atrocities. After all, if the oppressed are oppressed
then that's because they /deserve/ to be oppressed and there's no point in
helping them, is there?)
> But your prior position was that no Bible, dictionary, or encylopedia can
> qulaify as book. You are backtracking!
Hardly! I'm only /clarifying/ my position. Or do you mean to imply
that your every post is rigorous and might as well be written in
second-order logic?
A book is something with more than a certain minimum amount of
meaningful information printed on paper or an equivalent substitute
so as to be easily human-readable and constrained within a certain
overall volume. And if you want to be scale-independent then you
tie the amount of information to the volume of paper.
Or I could simply say that there is an important difference between
the book and the "cheap, portable, useful book" (which was an
important and independent innovation) but that because the latter
concept doesn't have a single word to describe it and is vastly
more useful than the "mere book", then I chose to reassign the
word 'book' to refer uniquely to the latter concept.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:18:44 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Robert Moir wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Robert Moir wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Whatever.
> > >
> > > No...not fucking "WHATEVER"... what I described is an accurate
> > > representation of the Microsoft model.
> >
> > *in your opinion*
>
> No...in REALITY.
*sigh*
> > Like I said, "Whatever" - I wont change your mind anytime soon, and you
wont
> > change mine. So yes, "Whatever". There it is again "Whatever"... just
deal
> > with it... ok?
>
> "Whatever" is the refuge of the weak-minded.
Nope. Its me realising its not worth my time attempting to talk to you. I
notice you don't even bother answering the rest of my post. Can I assume,
then, that you are conceding the point about the value, or lack of it, in
your posts?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:09:34 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > What UNIX for the home market was this and what date was it available?
>
> I have here in my lap, a copy of Microcomputing, for April 1982. If that
date
> doesn't ring a bell,
Alas! Killobaud Microcomputing, I knew it well -- with appologies to the
bard.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:06:02 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:slrn8pgao5.u9c.TheCentralScrutinizer.201@C298344-
Our current day system would have been classified as supercomputers justa
few years ago, with unix/Linux they are speed deamons yet for Windows they
are barely serviceable. Remember when having a couple of floppies drives
and 64K of RAM running at 4.77Mhz was complete computing heaven?
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 19:24:43 +0100
"Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Robert Moir wrote:
> >
> > "Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Hey Aaron, have you ever noticed how people always start attacking
> > > others personally when they can't win an argument? They know it's
> > > true, so they just start bitching and whining about the one who wrote
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Looks like you really won the argument, Aaron.
> >
> > Have you noticed how Aaron starts the personal attacks and then hides
behind
> > people like you?
>
> I must have missed a post. Care to clarify this?
Yes. How about the one on this thread where he replied to a post of mine
using words like "fucking" and then called me an "ashole" (sic) - Now I
think thats personal. I don't even know what an "ashole" is, but assuming
its something like an asshole, then thats not really called for, is it? I
mean, am I not allowed to have my own opinion? Am I an "ashole" or even an
"asshole" for daring to disagree with others? I'm not suggesting you should
all agree with me (wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed all the time)
but I am sure that I should be allowed to hold my own opinion without being
insulted for it.
> And what is "people like you" supposed to mean anyway?
People who are interested in posting here for genuine advocacy. I'm sorry if
you thought I was implying otherwise.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:32:51 -0300
Quantum Leaper escribió:
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 19:49:20 GMT,
> > Quantum Leaper, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >
> > >"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8n60qb$v3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> > Sometimes the entertainment media show computer and other advanced
> > >> > technology in so very many inaccurate ways that it can make you smile
> > >> or
> > >> > laugh at a point in the flim that was not meant to be funny.
> > >>
> > >> It doesn't have to be advanced---me and a few other engineers went to
> > >> see `The Matrix'. We all laughed out loud when the black guy said how
> > >> many BTUs humans produced. BTUs?! they were kind of obsolete (although
> > >> widely used) when it was found that heat==energy. And they're still
> > >> using them in 100's of years from now :-)
> > >>
> > >
> > >Ever buy a air conditioner or a heater in the USA? They are still
> measured
> > >in BTUs. It was the year 1999 for them in the Matrix and a good guess
> would
> > >be the USA. Whats is so strange about using the common measurement for
> heat
> > >in the USA?
> > >
> >
> > Buy an industrial size air conditioner, and sometimes they are rated in
> > tons, that is, the equivelent cooling to x tons of ice...
> >
> True, but Tons is not Metric either,
<nitpick>
Well, it is, if you use metric tons ;-) 1 million grams. A megagram, so
to speak.
</nitpick>
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:27:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am serious about serious matters and I can be quite whimsical about
> frivilious matters. Your statement did not exhibit any of the signs of
> humor, so I did not interpret it as such. Perhaps if were we speaking in
> person, your tone of voice or your body language could have conveyed your
> intended meaning but it was lost going through usenet.
Very well. Then, hyperbole is not necessarily humour but this doesn't
mean that it should be taken literally and thus attacked. Maybe USENET
does inure one to the subtleties.
I've been on the net a long time but I've only now tried to convey any
subtle meanings; which means that my disappointment can't be waved off
as the reaction of a newbie.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:28:02 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > OK, now your turn. Where did you get that bit of information? AFAIK,
and
> > > I am still in touch with the guys at FAST, there is NO anticipated
> > > change in the relationship. Be very careful now, because statements
like
> > > this can affect the stock market and if they can be proven to be
false,
> > > you can be sued for damages.
> >
> > My source says to expect to see less and less use of FAST by Lycos due
to
> > "recent contractual obligations" but not an end to the relationship (I
> > misread her first e-mail about it) due to, again, "contractual
obligations"
> > but this time on the FAST end. Lycos can't dump FAST because of the
> > agreement between them. I'm not privy to those terms but they are not
> > forever. I would not expect a renewal.
>
> This is very convenient for you isn't it? You get to say anything you
> want about a company and offer no proof. Again I say, you should prove
> it or be quiet because you don't know what you are talking about.
Just as I was able to predict the exact time when MS would start moving
hotmail to W2K almost a year ago ... time will prove me right on this one...
that's about all I can say/do at this point...
>
> Perhaps, Lycos and FAST's agreement may dissolve in the future, but
> currently neither you nor anyone else can know for sure.
you have little faith...
>
> >
> > >
> > > Admit it. You are making it up.
> >
> > of course I'm not. why would I? i have no investment in FAST nor an
reason
> > to dislike or disparage them. I responded to your original post because
the
> > word on the vine I had made it sound like the deal was bust - but
> > researching before making my second reply gave me some more depth ...
>
> The reason you would/are making this up is because you have vested
> interest in NT offer Linux or FreeBSD and would probably say anything to
> promote it.
I like *BSD, I never liked Linux mostly because of the people associated
with it and their attitudes and behaviour. I have stock in MS, if that is
what you mean by "vested interest" and, yes, my company is very very
"vested" in NT's future. But I would drop NT in a second and start flying
the flag of OS (insert name here) as soon as someone could show me an OS
that can do what NT can do for the price, at the performance and reliability
and east of use and sheer funtionality outta the box and has even remotely
the same level of support and developer dedication... it ain't there today.
>
------------------------------
From: Thlayli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:28:52 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe for them that *was* advanced technology. After all, those who make
>the Television programs of Hercules and Xenia can't keep the program
>accurate or even cllose to the history or mythology to the period they are
>supposed to be covering.
The great mystery for me is how Xena managed to meet up with the only person
in ancient Greece with a French name....
--
Thlayli
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geocities.com/~thlayli23x/home.html
What Would Scooby Do?
*** Replace "hotmail.com" with "usa.net" to email me ***
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:30:08 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mg4e0$sml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> Lycos has tried Windows NT three times.
lie.
>The first time, they tried
> to run an array of NT 3.51 servers against Sun servers. The were
> allowed to announce that they were using NT, and users were given
> the options and counts for each server. You could pick either.
> NT failed so badly that Lycos pulled the plug on it. They issued
> a carefully worded announcement (designed to slip past the Microsoft
> NDA censors) which - if you read between the lines - said "We had
> so many problems we just decided that we couldn't afford the hassle,
> no matter how much free stuff Microsft was willing to give us".
More lies.
>
> When NT 4.0 came out, Lycos waited until after Service pak 3, and
> again tried using NT 4.0 strictly as a front-end server. Again,
> they found that the overhead was too expensive. The trial was
> unplugged before they even got out.
even more lies.
>
> This time, Microsoft is pulling out all the stops. They are planning
> to support 1000 Windows 2000 servers as "front-ends". Lycos could
> still pull the plug and switch to Linux or FreeBSD, but this way
> they get free hardware, software, installation, and support.
one way of putting it...
>
> Don't expect to find either of the above tests on the Microsoft
> site. Microsoft burns the dead bodies.
ahhhh... so convienient... and I supposed MS also killed EVERYONE involved
in the project, present and ex-employees and burned their dead bodies too?
And MS is able to keep secrets better than ANY organzation in the world?
What next, MS tried to port Project Majestic 3 times to CP/M, DOS then
Windows 3.1 before all the data was lost and that's why no one can prove the
Roswell incident?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:45:38 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8n98og$h71$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8n8388
>
> > However, WindowsNT was designed with a GUI in mind.
>
> But NOT intergrated. The original design had the NT kernel as a sepperate
> and independent unit. Above the kernel would be different programming
> environments including the core of the GUIs. Then above the environment
and
> the GUIs would have been the user interfaces. In effect it was a
> reimplementation of the unix kenel running X and window managers running
on
> X.
USER and GDI are still independant units. They simply live in kernel
address space. This is similar to kernel modules in Linux, and, if NT were
not designed to stop if the GUI stops (when the GUI process ends, it goes to
a system check screen) you could probably unload the GUI.
> NT was also supposed to have command line environments that would not
> require a GUI to even be installed. It was also supposed to support
> multiple logins like unix does.
NT does support both of these, just not as it's configured out of the box.
Tools such as VenturCom's embedded development toolset allow you to prune
different parts of the OS, including the GUI (although it does this by
providing a headless video driver that is simply a no-op).
> Rememer, NT was going to be the better unix than unix.
You remember? I don't recall anyone saying that, since it wasn't originally
going to compete with Unix, but Netware.
> Just because Microsoft went back on their promises and mixed together the
> elements from the different layers that it was designed with doing that in
> mind.
Is this sentance supposed to make sense? Just because they did this...
what? The integration was designed to reduce context switches between
kernel and user. The same reason TUX is in the kernel.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:35:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> What can I say; I want something 'intuitive'. For me, that means BASIC.
>
>BASIC is anything but intuitive. In fact, there is no programming
>language that is intuitive (although some are even less intuitive
>than others....see: LISP)
Perhaps you've never seen my definition of intuitive: familiar. And
BASIC is, quite pointedly, more intuitive to people who don't already
know programming, but use natural language. It is simple, even
simplistic, even horribly over-simplistic, in not addressing the "real
problems of real programming". But in illustrating and giving the
ability to communicate simple, even rudimentary, programmatic
mechanisms, the intuitiveness of BASIC's "if...then, for...next, goto"
structures are ideal for those who agree with Barbie that "math is
hard". COBOL would be a similar "derangement" of what you might
consider a 'naturally intuitive' programming language, as it, too,
attempts to focus more directly on using the author's familiarity with
natural language.
For "real programming", obviously (I think) either is hopelessly
sub-optimal. But we're not talking OS or application development. At
least I'm not. I'm talking about end-user automation, and for that,
something less terse and capable that C or C++ or FORTRAN or even
'Visual Basic' is more than appropriate.
>> You want structured programming? Fine; give me a BASIC without a GOTO.
>> The real issue isn't how *easy* it is, in my opinion, to write "useful"
>> programs. The real issue for me is whether it is trivial to write
>> "useful" programs to begin with. I'm afraid I've already lost my
>> interest in simple shell automation. I've been literally waiting for
>
>Bourne Shell and Korn Shell are far superior.
I agree, for the most part. But I want *system* scripts, not *shell*
scripts, if you know what I mean. Something with fewer arcane
capabilities, and a more optimal interface for non-technical end users.
>> years for a *PC* automation system, similar to Windows/Win32, in fact,
>> but not broken, fundamentally flawed, and grossly inadequate for
>> anything but maintaining a monopoly.
>
>Well, it's kinda like math. There's no way to do calculus without
>first learning algebra.
I sucked at algebra, but I still want to automate my PC. You're telling
me I need calculus to get any ability to tell my computer what to do?
Then you programmer guys aren't trying hard enough, I'd say. Yes, users
need to learn it, and from your perspective their lack of desire to do
so makes such a direction seem fruitless. But its kind of like the
"Windows is popular" argument; its begging the question by relying on a
disfunctional environment as if it were a control. Every time such
capabilities have become accessible to a new level of users, they have
adopted it rather extensively, if not whole-heartedly. BASIC did indeed
provide a large part of the value which caused microcomputers to
flourish, a trend which Unix has benefited from, but from a different
perspective.
>> Hell, I don't want shell scripts. I want application macros.
>
>I don't want an automatic transmission. I want transportation.
>
>Well, you have two options:
>1. Learn to do it yourself
>2. Pay for someone else to do it.
>
>If you can afford a cheaufer, or want to put up with the "one size fits
>all" solution of mass transit, option 1 usually gives superior results.
I'm sorry, that's a hopelessly mixed metaphor. What the hell does "I
don't want an automatic transmission" mean? You don't want it
automated, but don't know what a manual transmission is? Why didn't you
say "I don't want a manual transmission?" I would suspect it may be
because the answer "pay someone to build you an automatic transmission
car" would make the issue too plain. You hate people who don't like
driving stick, and are trying to tell me they're just too lazy to learn
how to do it themselves. What if they already know how to use a manual
transmission, and would simply like to avoid double-clutching?
Is not the purpose of the PC platform to make computing power available
to end users? What's wrong with pointing out that in order to actually
use that computer power, they need to be empowered (by both knowledge
*and* software) to easily automate trivially repetitive tasks?
--
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: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:36:01 -0500
"Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NMPi5.193$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <WzFh5.1913$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > > it's "web search" is handled either by inktomi or Fast
> >> >
> >> > How do you know this?
> >> >
> >> > -Chad
> >>
> >> Because I worked at FAST and was a technical contact for Lycos.
> >
> > Do you work there now?
>
> Where do *you* work, Drestin? C'mon, tell us the truth.
I work for myself. Where do YOU work?
>
> > I'm certain the answer is no because you would
> > know that that relationship was dissolved over dissatisfaction with the
> > reliability and performance of that "solution."
>
> And how are you professional relationships doing, Drestin?
Much better than your English, thanks for asking.
> Been making
> new contacts in the porn industry lately?
Not for almost a year now.
>
> > Lycos switch to Wintel to improve performance and reliability. Think
> > what that says about what they were using before...
>
> Does your porn site run on Wintel, Drestin?
The only "porn" (your definition, not mine) site with "Drestin" in the title
is not. But then, I had no choice in the matter...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:51:17 -0500
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How convenient. Microsoft certified systems engineers don't need to
> know about development issues, and now, according to you, neither do
> microsoft certified developers. Just wait for the next fixpack to cure
> the memory leak or page fault in our application. Better go call our
> resident mcse so that they can tell you that rebooting will "fix" the
> problem.
No. For going on 40 years, there have always been two classes of software
developer. The "Systems programmer" and the "Application programmer". The
Systems developer needs to understand low-level stuff. The Applications
developer does not. Someone doing VB or SQL is not a systems developer.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 14 Aug 2000 13:37:03 -0500
"Sean LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I seriously doubt that, esp. considering the state of NT back in 1993,
> but I can't come up with any references at the moment.
>
> I am nearly positive that their ftp site(s) ran Solaris, however.
I stand by what I wrote and appear to be standing on firm ground (above
ground level).
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't think so. I read about the history of microsoft.com and I do not
> > believe they ever used anything but NT on their site.
> >
> > "Sean LeBlanc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Whoops, Drestin you just dug yourself a hole with the word EVER;
> > > Microsoft used to use Solaris on their website...of course, I
> > > don't have references, but that was a long time ago anyway...
> > > but they did use it at one time, of that you can be sure.
> > > And yes, it was for www.microsoft.com.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Sean
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
