Linux-Advocacy Digest #926, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: philosophy is better than science ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Nobody)
Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Re: businesses are psychopaths ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Re: businesses are psychopaths ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy is better than science
Date: 5 Sep 2000 16:55:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Its an cliche that 99% of scientists who have ever lived are
>> >alive now, yet most of the really important advances that science
>> >produced happened a while back.
>>
>> Among whom is that a cliche? Please define "really important advances".
I asked for a definition, not examples.
As long as I am here, I would like a definition of "a while back" too.
>Sewers
are ancient (literally) and of more than minimal use only in and for large
cities, and even there they aren't all that useful. Sewage treatment plants
on the other hand are extremely useful. And believe it or not they are
not the same today as they were 100 years ago, or 50 years ago or ...
>and penicilin.
>> >We have no real evidence that the current importance that we place on
>> >science now is justified.
>> Do you have children? Have you ever had pneumonia? Do you like your
>> computer?
>Penicilin isn't exactly a new invention.
Yeah, I know, and you apparently also think we are going to be immune
to all diseases... look up the word evolution as it applies to microbes.
>As for computers,
>
>"It is very easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of them by
>the sense of achievement you get from getting them to work at all." -HG
It is very easy to be blinded to the usefulness of a new tool by one's
prejudices and/or by one's narrow experience with that tool.
Robert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nobody)
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: 5 Sep 2000 16:42:03 GMT
In article <8p1fti$e7k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.lang.java.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Exactly the point. Anyone who creats a FrontPage web at the root of their
>: filesystem isn't too bright to begin with.
>
>
>Front Page is touted as a "content" creation tool for ordinary people,
>not IT professionals. As such it ought to be geared to the experience
>level of these ordinary people.
>
>BTW, I've yet to find anyone familiar with Front Page who doesn't
>despise it. The concept is a good one, but the implementation is
>about as flawed as it possibly could be.
>
>
My one experience with trying out FrontPage resulted in it trashing the
accounting software I was running (Peachtree) for my small business. I
never ran the two simultaneously, but after using FP once, Peachtree never
worked again and I had to reinstall. Thank god for the backups on my
Zip drive. Piece of crap, IMHO. That's why I generally stick with a
nice generic text editor and not some tool that sticks proprietary crap
in my HTML (which almost always runs on a Unix-based server).
Anita
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:01:33 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >
> >mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> I've recently considered purchasing one of the 'guitar to
> midi' converters so that I can 'record' some of my guitar
> music. (I know to hard-core guitar players this sounds
> like blasphemy). But thus far I haven't found one that
> gets the guitar sound right. I have also considered
> purchasing a modern keyboard to hook up to my computer,
> but I have a piano, and probably wouldn't find much use
> for the electronic version beyond playing 'piano' sounds,
> so it seems kind of pointless. MIDI can be cool, I've
> heard some people do amazing things with it. But it just
> doesn't seem to fit with me and my playing style. I guess
> I'm more of a 'give me something I can beat the hell out
> of' kind of player. Hmm, that might explain why I'm on my
> thirteenth guitar in the past few years.:-)
Yikes! I am still on my first (midi) keyboard. It produces many very
realistic intruments and can handle 24 note polyphony divided amoung 10
voices out of a palete of 99 voices. What is great about it is that I can
still use it inspite on my hands not being up to playing a full performance
without causing some flub.
Maybe I should take up jazz, then if I flub it will just be my syncopathic
style. ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: 5 Sep 2000 17:04:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You're right, I have no interest in abrogating my opinions just to
>get agreement from other people. You say you would "like" to see a
>small-medium country go the anarcho-syndicalist route, well I'm
>*desperate* for the entire planet to go that route. I don't see any
>other reasonable options and the status quo is intolerable to me.
>Going that route is also one of the few sure ways to survive future
>prosperity without offing our species as a consequence.
Ah, I never claimed my memory was of lightning speed. Who you remind me
of finally came to me. The earnest young communists of the 1920s.
So certain that their world view was the right one, and the salvation
of the people.
I'm not sure whether I find the possibility that you are sincere or
acting more disturbing.
bye,
Robert
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:11:54 +0100
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In article <8p0fb3$26d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > In many companies that would require a complete overhaul of DNS
> > and
> > > > > re-addressing of their workstations. Many places I have worked did
> > > > _not_
> > > > > all their MS stuff to one network, Unix and Mac to another. Poor
> > > > design,
> > > > > Maybe, but this is the REAL world and not everything is clean or
> > > well
> > > > > designed. The SysAdmin that forgets that is in for big problems
> > > > rolling
> > > > > out W2K's DNS.
> > > >
> > > > We do it with a couple of lines in the login script
> > > > if "%OS%=="Windows_NT" cscript ntdns.vbs
> > > > else cscript win9xdns.vbs
> > >
> > > ??? you miss understood... What if you have BOTH Unix and Windows
> > > _already_ on the same set of IP addresses with the SAME domain
> > > configured?
> >
> > What if? Big deal, you script the changes.
> >
> > >A LOT of time needs to be spent RECONFIUGRING MANY installed
> > > clients! DHCP might help IF and ONLY IF you were already setup with
> > > DHCP! You keep talking as if you do have a large installed base that
> > is
> > > perfectly setup. that is NOT the case in many sites! Many sites have
> > > WIndows AND Unix on the same IP segment, on the same Domain with ALL
> > > info HARD CODED (no DHCP). It would be a nightmare to reconfigure the
> > > network the way you discribe! Why should I have to worry about what
> > OS I
> > > am running to set up DNS??? Shouldn't DNS be STANDARD????
> >
> > Where did I mention DHCP? I mentioned changing the DNS settings for
> > all Windows based hosts globally & unattended by a few lines in a login
> > script, hardly a burden on a sysadmin.
>
> Where does that login script go? It certainly can't reside inside the
> domain login scripts, because at that point you've already setup your
> DNS. Installing a custom logon script on each and every client is
> very much a burden.
Yep, it can. The DNS entries are stored in the registry (obviously), so the
login script can make the registry change. The changes obviously won't take
effect until the workstation is rebooted. Windows 95 won't have a problem
with this, it will reboot at least once a day, whether intentional or not.
Windows NT workstation will require a manual reboot in most cases.
>
> DDNS is resolved during the DHCP "phase".
>
> > If you really want DNS to be standard, feel free to point your *nix
> > boxes at the Windows 2000 DNS. However, the resistance of *nix
> > admins to give up control of the DNS is why I suggested a Windows
> > based subdomain.
>
> That's exactly what Microsoft wants everyone to do. It's stupid and
> thoughtless. Microsoft is basically saying, "if you want to use
> Active Directory then you're going to have to restructure your domain
> to accomodate multiple NT DNS servers". They also have a monopoly on
> the desktop and only support directory services based on active
> directory. This all *obvously* leads to the simple conclusion that
> it is a ploy to take control of DNS.
Or run a recent version of BIND. I see it slightly differently. Everyone
slams MS for using WINS, so the minute they move to DNS, they get slammed as
well. I think they've made some reasonably OK decisions about using DNS as
a locator for the Active Directory - that's what DNS is. It *could* be a
ploy to take control of DNS, but you can avoid that by using BIND.
>
> Call me a conspiratist, but it's true. I use Windows and really enjoy
> many features it offers -- but DNS integration into AD is completely
> unwarranted; it offers *no* benefit to Microsoft other than the
> political.
They use it as a locator service, to locate the various AD components -
which makes some sense as it *is* standards based, and is commonly used in
an Internet environment.
>
> > I can't see the nightmare scenario you suggest. It is trivial to
> > rollout changes of this nature to all Windows based hosts with
> > minimal effort, and no client visit required. If all you need to do
> > is change Windows based machines, the technologies are all already
> > there, you just have to understand how to use them.
>
> Do elaborate.
WSH, Windows Resource Kits etc, the list goes on and on.
>
> > As for DNS being standard, it really doesn't matter what you point
> > at as long as it works... Windows 2000 based DNS is minimal admin -
> > set and forget and clients register themselves (or are registered by
> > the DHCP server) - as opposed to updating a text file.
>
> Sure, trust the entire structure of your company to an OS that's only
> been out for 4 months.
>
> (and you still haven't shown a *technological* benefit gained by
> spending all this money on Windows 2000 server and CAL for every
> machine that talks to it *and* buying at a minimum 2 new server boxes
> so the AD can replicate)
You haven't asked for one, and I don't intend to supply one (I too have
doubts, but I think the DNS issue is a) not a big deal as some would make it
out to be, and b) not an issue that can't be worked around easily)
>
> In short: Why? What's the motivation?
I'm not a MS salesman, so I can't answer that...
>
> > Like I say in another post, if you want to simplify the DNS, use BIND
> > 8.1 (?) or later on your *nix box to provide the DNS infrastructure for
> > Windows & *nix. There's more than one way to skin a cat, whichever
> > fits your infrastructure best is going to be different for each
> > instance. Where I work, we simply set up a subdomain nt.mydomain.com,
> > forward everything else to the *nix DNS & no problem. I have yet to
> > see a problem with this.
>
> But what benefit have you gained? What's the point of spending all
> this money and *splitting* your domain structure? (other than to
> further sales of Windows, that is not an acceptable motivation)
The benefit -
a) Windows 2000 AD works...
b) I don't have to fight Unix admins
c) I'm in control of my DNS structure
d) Unix boys are happy
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:23:35 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> > >
> > > Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> > > [...]
> > > >> You're confabulating, as Eirik did, the idea of TT suing on
> anti-trust
> > > >> grounds,
> > > >
> > > >Where do you get the idea of TT suing on antitrust grounds????
> > > >The only sue involved here is a copyright violation one.
> > >
> > > 'Embrace and extend' is an anti-trust issue, not a copyright issue.
> > > That is the point. It gets around copyright by treating it as a patent
> > > that can be made obsolete, essentially. Its monopolization, not
> > > infringement. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
> >
> > And how exactly would TT get sued about monopoly, for embrace and
> > extend done by MS? You are getting so convoluted you can't understand
> > yourself.
>
> I think you getting a little tangled, up untl this last message of yours the
> question has been about Trolltech suing, not being sued as you have
> transformed the discussion just now.
I know that in the original argument the "threat" was TT suing
harmony.
However, I am also aware that for such a suit it makes no sense
to talk about anti-trust, as Max is doing.
After all, who would TT sue, if the alleged monopolist is TT itself?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:15:28 +0100
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Just to save you the effort, 'sfcybear'.
> > > > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > I tried to follow the discussion, even if I'm not really
> > > expert on networking issues. What I got is that in order to
> > > have a standard network feature like DNS work with W2K you
> > > must figure out how to do it, then modify something, install
> > > something, write scripts etc. in other components of the
> > > network. In my textbook knowledge, the basics of networking
> > > are that you may interconnect different users and servers
> > > without anyone being aware of what are the insides of the
> > > other, in order to avoid countless problems. That's
> > > something having even a standard name: "interoperability".
> > > If Microsoft has achieved to foul that with W2K, the only
> > > conclusion is that W2K is crap, not a debate on how to make
> > > this crap work.
> >
> > The only thing you should have got from this is that there is no one
size
> > fits all DNS solution when using Active Directory. It will all depend
on
> > your existing infrastructure, and how you choose to use what you have.
The
> > discussion about scripting resulted from Matt throwing up red herrings.
>
> You appear not to grasp the point. Why there should be a
> "solution" to a DNS issue (I mean with something which is
> software and not crap)?
> If a solution is required then a problem exists. IOW Active
> Directory creates an interoperability problem, I can't say
> if out of incompetence or out of malice.
Indeed, but more often the problem is social rather than technological e.g.
unix admins who don't want to share. Sometimes you need to ignore the
technological and implement something that creates less tension. Sad but
true. As all Linvocates like to point out, if technical merit was all that
counted , MS wouldn't exist...
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:26:23 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > No. KDE has no "head", really. We are run by comittee,
> > and proud of it ;-)
>
> Who is the chair? Since when and for who long?
Chair? I don't think anyone has ever been named that.
We do have a "release dude" who is in charge of coordinating
a specific release, and whining to people when they don't
follow the schedule.
So you figure out how little power the release dude has, I can't
even recall who's the current one.
After release, we revert to anarchy until a consensus is
reached about a release being needed/near.
Then a new dude is named, so far it has happened because
someone volunteers, and everyone else makes sighs of
relief.
We have a president of KDE e.V. but that position has
absolutely no power on anything regarding software,
he is just there to do paperwork.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:28:28 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> > > We now also know that Matthias is both the founder of the KDE project
> and an
> > > employee of Trolltech.
> > >
> > > In addition to that are there or have there been any other connections
> or
> > > relationships between the KDE project and Trolltech, either directly or
> > > indirectly? If so, what are they?
> >
> > They give us some network services (DNS, and maybe they host something).
> > We have signed a few legal documents between KDE e.V. and TT, which
> > are related to the KDE Free Qt foundation.
> > TT hired a few KDE guys, starting a couple of years ago.
> > Many of us consider some guy at TT a friend, and (I assume)
> > viceversa.
>
> Thank you, for your belated honesty in this matter, that does concur with my
> findings.
I know I am not lying. You know I have not lied. So please abstain from
emitting opinion on my honesty.
> These details do cast a new light on your earlier statements, not favorably
> for you position though. It is now clear that there were multiple
> interactions above and beyond Trolltech being the provider of Qt and KDE
> being its consumer. This means that the KDE project had all the more to
> lose than was previously admitted had it alienated Trolltech by switching to
> using an alternate of Qt.
Oh, yeah. We would not have DNS. The humanity!
> As the saying goes, an appearance of a conflict of interest IS a conflict of
> interest.
I believe such a position to be ridiculous. Besides, what specifically
is the appearance of conflict of interest you see?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:29:08 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> > > It might have crossed somebody's mind, at least, when I was
> > > being ridiculed for, well, several weeks, it seems, for asking questions
> > > about KDE, and at many times it seemed solely with the purpose to
> > > illustrate how reticent certain posters were being in appearing less
> > > than forthright about any possible relationships between the two that
> > > might raise a question about TrollTech, based on KDE, and for saying
> > > "KDE is a commercial project", and being accused of slander, and
> > > spending more time than any human should ever spend in the particular
> > > pursuit defending having called a company by the name of the product it
> > > sells, that it would perhaps be somewhat appropriate, in fact, to inform
> > > me that 'Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project, is a TrollTech
> > > employee.'
> >
> > Why? That's someting between him and them. And it's no secret.
>
> As, I stated elsewhere in this thread:
>
> As the saying goes, an appearance of a conflict of interest IS a conflict of
> interest
If we gonna follow sayings, we descent into an even lower form
of debate.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: 5 Sep 2000 17:23:45 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> On the final point, you say writing scripts is trivial even without
:> documentation. You mean Joe six-pack of the street could figure
:> out DNS for W2K using scripts, without any documentation whatsoever?
:> Thats RUBBISH. Any scripting language requires some learning. Its not
:> something you are born with.
:
: Matt claimed documentation was not available as well (but convieniently
: failed to specify what documentation)
: Documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting
: http://www.perl.org/
: http://www.activestate.com
:
: Depends on what scripting technology to use
Note, you do not address the fact that using these scripts is NOT "trivial".
Instead, you choose to deflect attention to an error you claim Matt made,
to cover your own error.
This is why people claim you a merely SHILLING for MS because your
responses are not intelligent answers to the problem given to you,
but text-book, knee-jerk reactions.
:>
:> The BASIC issue you are failing to grasps is that DNS should be trivial,
:> seamless, and cause little disruption as possible. But you maintain
:> your ESOTERIC solution is "trivial", which is why Max said you are
:> just spouting a press release.
:
: My "esoteric solution" was based on red herrings and objections thrown up by
: Matt. I provided workarounds (simple, manageable) to the issues he raised.
: Like I've stated in many posts, there is no one size fits all solution, a
: lot will depend on your current architecture.
:
How is what Matt stead a Red herring? Matt described a situation which is
COMMON and you are describing EXCEPTIONAL solutions to a COMMON situation
and calling down playing it as "trivial".
: Seriously guys, if I'm going to have to solve all your problems for you,
^^^^^^^^
Thank you for admitting that W2K DNS is a PROBLEM. It is a big problem
which companies should NOT expect to deal with considering the money they
are dealing out for this "New Technology".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: 5 Sep 2000 17:24:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>>>>"Good" corporations have a long view.
>>
>>>The only good corporations are cooperatives
>>
>>And your proof of this is? Oh yes, by your definition of what
>>a "good" corporation is combined with anecdotal evidence.
>
>Proof, shmoof. Make your case or save your breath.
Richard made an absolute claim of extraordinary bredth above.
Its up to him to provide the systematic evidence. As has
been shown many times, the plural of anecdote is not "properly sampled
data".
[]
>>I suggest that you consider that many people who are happy with their
>>lot in life are not brainwashed but rather don't care enough about
>>what you percieve as grave injustices to let it get in the way
>>of being generally happy.
>
>Well, there's a damn fine point. But then, we are all here discussing
>it, aren't we?
>
>>Are they still being exploited? No doubt, but if the exploitee doesn't
>>care much and is living a decent life ...
>
>My very soul shudders at the grave harm to the concept of ethics which
>such off-handed comments encourage.
Sorry, replace the "No doubt" with "perhaps".
Now then, assuming that you don't think that makes a difference I will
proceed.
Do you claim there is an absolute and objective measure by which actions
can be defined as being ethical or unethical?
Let us consider a particular case or two.
Do you believe that allowing somebody,whom you could probably save, to die
to be unethical? What if there is a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order? If
the family claims there is a DNR but that they don't have it on them do you
spend a precious minute to contact the attending physician to check on its
existance or do you heroicly attempt to save the person's life?
(no sarcasm intended)
Do you think that sticking pins in somebody to cause them pain to be
unethical? Suppose you have a free-will S&M relationship with them?
Is informed (an ideal that is usually impossible to obtain) consent
all that much different from informed apathy?
Robert
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:31:24 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p3a71$9ub$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> On the final point, you say writing scripts is trivial even without
> :> documentation. You mean Joe six-pack of the street could figure
> :> out DNS for W2K using scripts, without any documentation whatsoever?
> :> Thats RUBBISH. Any scripting language requires some learning. Its not
> :> something you are born with.
> :
> : Matt claimed documentation was not available as well (but convieniently
> : failed to specify what documentation)
> : Documentation: http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting
> : http://www.perl.org/
> : http://www.activestate.com
> :
> : Depends on what scripting technology to use
>
> Note, you do not address the fact that using these scripts is NOT
"trivial".
> Instead, you choose to deflect attention to an error you claim Matt made,
> to cover your own error.
It is trivial - I learned to write basic VBscripts in about an hour. Doing
the registry changes I suggested is a pretty basic feature of WSH, and is
trivial.
>
> This is why people claim you a merely SHILLING for MS because your
> responses are not intelligent answers to the problem given to you,
> but text-book, knee-jerk reactions.
Have you read or thought about any of the answers I've given. I've merely
answered questions posed, offered valid *real-world* solutions. If you
don't like it, take a hike.
>
> :>
> :> The BASIC issue you are failing to grasps is that DNS should be
trivial,
> :> seamless, and cause little disruption as possible. But you maintain
> :> your ESOTERIC solution is "trivial", which is why Max said you are
> :> just spouting a press release.
> :
> : My "esoteric solution" was based on red herrings and objections thrown
up by
> : Matt. I provided workarounds (simple, manageable) to the issues he
raised.
> : Like I've stated in many posts, there is no one size fits all solution,
a
> : lot will depend on your current architecture.
> :
>
> How is what Matt stead a Red herring? Matt described a situation which is
> COMMON and you are describing EXCEPTIONAL solutions to a COMMON situation
> and calling down playing it as "trivial".
No, it really is trivial.
>
> : Seriously guys, if I'm going to have to solve all your problems for you,
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> Thank you for admitting that W2K DNS is a PROBLEM. It is a big problem
> which companies should NOT expect to deal with considering the money they
> are dealing out for this "New Technology".
>
Well there's a few out there who obviously can't deal with it - and this
from people who advocate Linux which is no less complicated...
Note I said *your problems*, not mine.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
