Linux-Advocacy Digest #943, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Jim Richardson)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:24:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>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.
>
>Now I don't know what Active Directory is, I don't need it
>and I don't care. Most likely it is another of those
>amateurish MS concepts which bring compatibility problems,
>security problems, starts working only after 15th release
>and in order to have a decent level of security you must
>painfully disable it or install a security patch each other
>day.
Well, all that is probably true, but just so you know:
Active Directory is the hierarchical 'directory system' for W2K. A
'directory system' of this type is hard to describe, because its a
relatively new mechanism in common systems, and doesn't really have a
direct analogy that fully encompasses the idea, despite the obvious (and
deceptive, of course) utility of the term 'directory system'.
In the old days when Novell established the market for 'file and print
sharing', what we now call a 'workgroup server', you logged in to the
server (not via a shell, as in Unix, but a direct API method, a
protocol, if you will) in order to gain access to the authorized files
and print queues. NT also used this approach, because it was based on
LanManager, IBM's competitor to Novell.
As implementations grew larger and larger, it became obvious that you'd
want to log in to a group of servers, rather than each individual server
which you might have access to. This is a concept extremely similar in
concept, though slightly different in use and implementation, to NIS,
the distribution method Sun developed to synchronize logins across a
large and varied number of Unix boxes. This replication of user
configuration information (and much else) allowed the use of Unix remote
shell utilities, such as rsh and rcopy, as well as NFS, to provide very
similar solutions, in slightly different ways, to the same issues which
drove Novell to develop an analogous replication scheme in NetWare.
Both the original Netware method and NIS can 'retrofit' an older server
OS with these distributed configuration capabilities quite easily. But
management of the ever-growing scope of workgroup server systems made
even these inadiquate.
Sun developed NIS+, which never really caught on in a wide-scale, but
various bits of it are used in various ways in some places. Novell
developed NDS, NetWare Directory Services. This was a distributed,
object oriented, heirarchical database of resources, accounts, and
configuration information. While not perfect in its first iterations,
it was a giant step forward in its own right. (I happen to think that
the 'let them edit text files' thinking of Unix, and the GUI approach
that Novell used, was a decisive difference.) Microsoft, still
struggling with the demands of trying to build an operating system which
could approach the level of an acceptable server, made many noises about
their own heirarchical multi-server login mechanism (though they didn't
have any distributed system at all yet), but after a tremendous amount
of FUD and vapor, ended up building a nightmarish monstrosity known as
"NT Domains". Not having the technical wherewithal to handle a
hierarchical directory, Microsoft used 'overlapping trust relationships'
to try to mimic one, or rather to provide a mock-up of a system that
*could* do much of what a hierarchical directory could do, if it ever
worked worth a damn.
And, of course, it didn't. The agony and turmoil of dealing with
Primary Domain Controllers and Secondary Domain Controllers and trust
relationships and 'secret connections' and a wheelbarrow full of MCSE
'consultants' who recommend rebooting a lot is not unfamiliar to many
corporate 'LAN Administrators' and assorted IT people. To the user
population, the situation was merely "the network is down" when they
receive the all-too-common error messages which mention 'domains' being
unavailable or non-existent and such. That this NT Domains feature was
never even a competitor to Novell's first 'simple synchronization'
mechanism make all the more clear how long the wait was for that magical
'next version' which would make this all go away.
That magical 'next version', we're told, is now W2K, and Active
Directory. So in answer to the unstated question, Giuliano, Active
Directory is Microsoft's (long awaited) hierarchical multi-server login
facility.
What this has to do with DNS, I still don't know. Other than the fact
that, since the first 'NT Domain' solution, Microsoft has vehemently and
pointedly confounded the concept of a domain in DNS with a domain in
their rather crappy proprietary 'flat' multi-server login facility.
>So, assuming that I don't want it, can I use a W2K server
>without caring about it or not?
You can't use W2K without caring about the entirety of Microsoft
'predatory development'. That is, after all, the whole point of W2K.
>If I can then the simplest solution instead of fouling up
>all my network is not to use it. If I can't then my previous
>conclusion still holds. A system which includes a new
>network feature, however useful, which makes it incompatible
>with existing networks as they are is crap.
That's right. You go girl. (Just an expression, Giuliano.)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:41:02 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p3st1$bd8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : The numbers may or may not be accurate, but it is ridiculous to assume
that
> : ALL domain sqatters are using apache.
>
> It's also ridiculous to assume that each domain squatter has a website up
> at all. You don't have to have use a name to reserve it. If I were
> in the name squatting biz, why would I bother paying to have a computer
> hooked up all the time to host the domain when it's much cheaper to
> just pay the squatters penalty? (It costs more to get a domain name
> when you don't actually use it, but not by enough to make it more than
> the cost of running your own website.)
Why? Apparently you've never happened across a domain squatter. Typically
they have a site that says "You can buy this domain" and proceeds to give
you information about how to do so. If you don't have a site there, most
people would just assume the name is taken and try a different one, not
knowing that it was for sale.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:44:07 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p3rp0$bd8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Which is exactly the same way it works under Windows.
>
> That may be, but it doesn't *report* it that way. Linux actually
> tells you about the buffers and cache instead of calling it "free"
> memory. Comparing "free" memory as reported by Windows and comparing
> "free" memory as reported by Linux is comparing apples and oranges.
Untrue. The NT task manager clearly states how much memory is used in
cache, and how much is used by the kernel and how much is allocated. It
further says how much physical memory there is, and how much "generic"
memory which is basically your virtual memory.
go to http://www.visi.com/~erikf/perf.jpg and look again. Further, if you
want much more detail you need only run the performance monitor and choose
any of the hundreds of performance counters that tell you things in complete
detail.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:46:52 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p3sbb$bd8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [much snipped]
>
> Look, People, it doesn't matter whether Erik is right about how
> Windows uses memory or not. The point was that he was wrong about
> how Linux reports memory usage with the "free" command, and from
> this he tried backing up some claims about how much memory the GUI
> takes up. I really don't care if Windows does it the same way or
> not. What matters here is that Windows and Linux don't *report*
> it the same way, and Erik was acting like they do.
No, I said that similarly configured systems use similar amounts of memory.
I didn't say what that memory was used for (caches or otherwise).
Please quote me alledgedly misinterpreting how Linux uses memory. I think
you'll find that if you go back and re-read the whole thread, I said no such
thing.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:34:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>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...
GUFFAW!
Tell me, how long has it been since you last used the 'ogre Unix admin'
line? Seriously, I'll bet that 'less tension' crap worked real good in
1994, didn't it? You wanna see tension, screw up the corporate DNS
system by trying to implement W2K, you'll see tension. The unemployment
office can be a mighty tense place, IIRC.
Here's a nickel, kid. Go buy yourself a real OS.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:45:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>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
a) Anything can 'work', that doesn't make it functional
b) You've just screwed up the corporate DNS
c) You're in control of WINS, if you're lucky
d) Joel Kline is happy (but not about AD)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 20:23:56 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:44:29 -0400,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>Are you saying that Matthias, in 1996, knew that in 1998 TT, which
>>in 1996 consisted of 3 guys in a tiny office in Norway, would hire
>>him, and that made him choose Qt for KDE?
>
>This would be the Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project, who's a
>TrollTech employee? The Matthias Ettrich, TrollTech employee, founder
>of the KDE project that you didn't mention when I asked you "what is the
>relationship between KDE and TT", and you said, I believe, "KDE uses QT,
>and that's all?"
>
>Are you saying that in 1996, Matthias Ettrich didn't know any of the
>three guys in Norway? Nobody suggested any quid pro quo except you, the
>fact remains that Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project, is a
>TrollTech employee.
I'd say that they probably hired him because he showed he was a good programmer
and knew the QT libs backwards. Your argument is of the "wet pavements cause
rain" type.
>
>>That is:
>>
>>a) Your guess, based on nothing.
>
>Based on the fact that Matthias Ettrich, founder of the KDE project, is
>a TrollTech employee. Which raises it slightly above suspicion, and
>generally puts it at least near the range of supposition.
no, you simply cast about for someone to slur, at least that's the way it
appears to me.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 20:58:37 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:30:01 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Slip Gun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> WOW! You must have one hell of a PC! (Maybe a bit like the Love Bug). I
>> haven't been able to run 'doze for more than about 8 hours without
>> massive slowdown and crashing. Please tell me how you manage to achive
>> this.
>
>It's not that difficult. Just maintain your system. Always keep your BIOS
>and drivers up to date, make sure you prune your registry tree to remove
>cruft, delete your cache files every so often, clean out your temp directory
>every so often, and don't install hundreds of crappy utilities written by
>some kid in his basement.
>
Sure, play with the registry, real easy to use...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 02:04:52 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8p012v$jjs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Now we fired up the FTP client, CuteFTP 2.6 in Windows and Igloo-FTP in
> Linux. We connected to a local FTP site where RH is mirrored and
> started a download.
>
> After one hour the downloads were:
>
> Linux - 18MB
> Windows - 6.5MB
>
> After two hours, the accumalated total was (and we stopped here):
>
> Linux - 32MB
> Windows - 14MB
This should be a red blinking neon sign here that something is wrong with
your tests. If you could honestly benchmark times, then your two hour time
should be exactly twice the time of your one hour time on both systems.
But, since the Windows 2 hour time is more than twice, and the Linux 2 hour
time is less than twice, clearly these are not anywhere near "the same".
Secondly, you should really be using a CLI based ftp program, like the
built-in FTP of both systems. There is simply way too much going on with
CuteFTP to know if the issue is related to the FTP client or the stack.
I've actually heard that the authors of CuteFTP deliberately slow down
transfers in the non-registered versions. (don't know if that's true or
not).
Further, please post the MTU and Recieve window sizes of both systems and
ping results of both systems to common destinations.
> Next we connected to the local mirror of Norton and started to download
> virus definitions. Linux finished downloading a 2.5MB file in just
> under 7 minutes, while Windows took 22 Minutes and 15 seconds for the
> same file. We waited then for about 5 minutes and did it again, this
> time starting the Windows FTP 5 seconds earlier. The time was: Linux -
> 9 Minutes and 13 seconds and Windows - 18 Minutes and 35 seconds.
Another red blinking neon sign. The second time your Linux box took > 2
minutes longer, while the Windows box tool almost 4 minutes less. Seeing a
pattern here yet? Could it be that two systems connected next to each other
are not anywhere near comparible?
> It was now just after 14:00 when we started testing International
> sites. We started with CNN. We then tried Microsoft, Redhat and
> Netscape sites. Again the speeds were very similar, except Netscape
> really rocked with the CNN site, downloading everything a whole 17
> seconds faster then Windows. With the other sites, Netscape was on
> average 2.5 seconds faster then IE5.
2.5 seconds is not even in the realm of margin for error. Human reactions
are slower than that.
> It seems Web Browsing is afterall about the same speed, giving the same
> circumstances, but FTP was a huge difference.
Using two radically different clients.
> Then we disconnected and checked the system:
>
> Linux have not touched the swapfile yet, while the Windows swapfile was
> reported as 15MB (total size).
The windows swap file includes running applications. Data that is only used
once is paged out to disk, even if there is free memory in order to maximize
free available memory. For instance, also Windows treats executables as
demand paged swap files. Thus, a running application is considered swap
because Windows uses the same mechanism to demand page the executables into
memory as it does for a swapfile.
> Time to authenticate:
> --------------------
>
> Average times:
>
> Linux: 4 Seconds
> Windows: 9 Seconds
Did you turn off "Log onto network"? This is the default option, and should
be turned off when connecting to an ISP. Also make sure the IPX/SPX and
Netbeui checkboxes are cleared.
> That was that.
>
> I am now convinced. Linux IS faster on dial-up then Windows, especially
> on FTP. Any other person that want to add anything are welcome.
>
> PS. This test is still not 100% scientific. I KNOW THAT. Take it for
> what it is. I believe that this is typical times you should get from
> other machines in similar configurations.
Do what I suggest here and you'll see much more accurate results.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 07:50:55 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> >In article <8p0fst$2qb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > We do it with a couple of lines in the login script
> >> >> > if "%OS%=="Windows_NT" cscript ntdns.vbs
> >> >> > else cscript win9xdns.vbs
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Readdressing of workstations is a *minor* issue,
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah if you only have 2 workstations! but what if you have
> >> >THOUSANDS???
> >> >> it becomes a MAJOR issue! This sort of BS is why I would NOT want to
> >> >> turn DNS over to a MS admin!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Well a good Unix admin knows about things called
> >> ><drevil>"scripts"</drevil>. [...]
> >>
> >> A competent admin of anything knows that hand-waving something by
saying
> >> "oh, just use a script" is the height of idiocy.
> >>
> >To use a script to update the DNS entries is trivial. It's not a
> >hand-waving explaination at all, it's a perfectly valid and simple
solution
> >to the problem.
>
> To use *a* script to update *the* (pre-defined) DNS entry is trivial.
Which is what my suggestion was...
> To say that you can "'just' use scripts" to make up for the deficiencies
> of a product, particularly a newly designed product, is stupidity
> manifest.
Which I didn't suggest.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 6 Sep 2000 06:54:45 GMT
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000 01:32:02 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>anti-microsoft crowd around here. Given the fact that your posting to
>comp.os.linux.advocacy and comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy using Windows 98
>in your leisure time I believe your quite a fool to be bad mouthing the
>company that makes it possible for your little OEM monitor to create light.
>Now don't you?
I wish he'd stop masquerading as a Linux advocate. He's an embarrassment.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:56:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>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.
Microsoft's own SMS can't even get it to work reliably. You really do
sound like you're just practicing up on your astroturfing skills for
your big interview with Microsoft next week, or something, Stuart. Just
how much experience do you have in networking. More than a year, maybe?
[...]
>> 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.
Buddy, your cluelessness sure is showing. We have *all* read the
answers you've given. And we *all* recognize them as worthless
Microsoft astroturfing. You have literally learned your hand-waving
from a guidebook, there is no doubt about it.
[...]
>No, it really is trivial.
No, it really isn't *trivial*. Its trivial to *say*, it might even be
trivial to *do*. But making it work is about the least TRIVIAL thing
you could possibly think of in the entire goddamn WORLD!!!
>> : 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.
Yea. A few out there. Maybe more.
HA!
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 02:58:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> [...]
>> >No. You have to find the best architecture for your environment, which
>> >could involve all or none of those things. You can't just leap in and
>> >implement it without understanding the technology and the environment
>you're
>> >implementing it in.
>>
>> Which technology? DNS, or Active Directory? We already understand DNS
>> technology, and the environments in which it works, and don't understand
>> why we'd have to modify it for Microsoft's benefit.
>>
>> [...]
>> >Matt claimed documentation was not available as well (but convieniently
>> >failed to specify what documentation)
>>
>> That's because Matt was talking about the environment documentation
>> which would magically tell you what to write in the scripts which will
>> magically make it possible to update systems which magically will not
>> work with Microsoft's Active Directory unless they conform with One
>> Microsoft Way.
>>
>> >My "esoteric solution" was based on red herrings and objections thrown up
>by
>> >Matt.
>>
>> Your esoteric solution was a red herring objected to by Matt as soon as
>> you threw it out. We don't want the pretense of the availability of
>> work-arounds, we want to not have any need to make accommodations for
>> lack of interoperability. We want to avoid Microsoft software
>> altogether if at all possible.
>>
>> >I provided workarounds (simple, manageable) to the issues he raised.
>>
>> Simple and manageable to you, maybe, but that just means you're a clod
>> who doesn't understand what simple or manageable means to people who
>> haven't been convinced by the monopoly to do things the *wrong* way, but
>> actually use software that is reliable and robust, if arcane. The trick
>> to making technology work for you is: once you find a technology that
>> works for you, DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH IT. And even more important,
>> make sure nobody else can. Most important of all, then, is to not let
>> Microsoft anywhere near it.
>>
>> >Like I've stated in many posts, there is no one size fits all solution, a
>> >lot will depend on your current architecture.
>>
>> Yes, we know you've been back-pedalling all along. What you fail to
>> recognize, or at least admit, is that we're not attacking your solution,
>> so it fails to be very convincing when you say 'a lot will depend on
>> your architecture'. We're attacking Microsoft, and W2K, and all MS
>> software, and all the nimrod clods who promote their shamefully pathetic
>> pretense of kewl new technology with new wizz bang features that further
>> attempt to lock consumers in to monopoly crap.
>>
>> >Seriously guys, if I'm going to have to solve all your problems for you,
>> >I'll have to start charging you. I'll give you a discount cause you're
>COLA
>> >readers...
>>
>> That's OK. The federal courts are already working on solving our
>> problems as regards Microsoft (inability to avoid them), and courts
>> throughout the rest of the world, too, not to mention the market. I'd
>> say we don't need your help. I'll also point out that we don't want
>> your 'just write a script and...' pedantry in COLA, as well.
>>
>> [My apologies to the regular readers of COLA, who may no doubt wish to
>> chastise me for ragging on this clown after I am the one who babbled on
>> and on about civil discussion and avoiding ridicule as a method of
>> argument. I should hope this kind of 'hyperbolic insult' would be seen
>> for what it is; an attempt to entertain as well as educate.
>
>Max, I see it for what it is... gratuitous insults.
HA!
>Microsoft
>> has acted anti-competitively and inhibited technical development itself,
>> let alone civil discussion, for well over a decade through the most
>> blatant perversion of design and marketing, and it should be recognized
>> as an offensive insult to IT professionals everywhere. In short, I am
>> not ridiculing Stuart Fox, so much as I am pointing out that his
>> position, championing W2K, is ridiculous. Either way, it is still my
>> intent to post with sincerity and candor and integrity.]
>>
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
[...my sig snipped, since Keith's reader couldn't handle it...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
