Linux-Advocacy Digest #63, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("David Sidlinger")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
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: 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: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 21:39:01 -0500
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> So, assuming that I don't want it, can I use a W2K server
> without caring about it or not?
Yes, you can use W2K server with nary a trace of AD. Matter of fact,
Microsoft makes it painfully obvious, through documentation and through
dialogs during AD install, that AD will cause interoperability problems in
some situations (I.e. NT 4.0 BDCs cannot communicate with an AD PDC.).
Sorry I am not able to provide information about Unix/W2K interop. My
colleague at work is evaluating AD/W2K in our workplace, and he seems to
think that the best solution is to create a zone that is a child of the
Linux managed zone, and not let W2K muck around with the Linux zone. He has
spent considerable time researching this with no bias one way or another.
This validates Mr. Fox's opinion in that regard. Therefore, all the AD
servers and clients in the AD zone become somemachine.win2k.ourdomain.com
and all the Linux managed machines are still somemachine.ourdomain.com
On a side note, does *nix provide any type of "dynamic DNS" solution?
- David
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:02:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said A transfinite number of monkeys in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 23:03:20 -0500,
> David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Let's say, hypothetically, that Red Hat sells 10,000 copies of the optimized
>: OS. I think this is a fair conjecture, as many companies would like to run
>: Oracle, and Oracle for Linux is free, so the relative cost of running Oracle
>: on a Linux server is small compared with running Oracle on NT or Unix.
>
>Oracle on Linux != Free. Oracle lets you do *development* on Linux for
>free. However, to deploy production systems on Linux is subject to the
>same licensing terms as other platforms.
Thank god. I was afraid that free software might screw up a perfectly
good business model. Now if only Oracle didn't monopolize....
>You also do NOT need to "optimized" version. I've got a couple of Oracle
>dev machines in my office that were installed on a copy of RedHat that was
>on a burnt CD (I dl'd the ISO of RH 6.2).
Just so. So let's clear out the FUD and bullshit; this is going on
comp.os.linux.advocacy. So let's get with the advocacy: Just how
optimized, and optimized how, is Red Hats Oracle-optimized kernel? Does
anybody know?
--
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.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:03:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Sidlinger in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max and "...monkeys",
>
> I understand that I do not need a specially configured kernel or
>anything else to run Oracle. However, companies interested in Oracle or any
>other high-end RDBMS usually want to squeeze every TPM they can from their
>systems. Red Hat implies that they have enhanced Linux performance enough
>to justify a $2500 price increase. I am curious though. Has anyone
>actually used this version of Linux, and, if so, do you think that the price
>is justified.
>
> Also, because I am not familiar with Linux or GNU licensing, I have
>another question. If an individual did purchase Red Hat's tweaked Linux,
>would they be able to install it on multiple servers with impunity?
Install? Yes. Use to make profit without a license? No. Oracle is not
GPL.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: 12 Sep 2000 02:54:24 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:07:30 +0100, John Hill wrote:
>
>There you are you see - and of course you bought all new software
>when you upgraded....didn't you ???
This sounds a little confused. You don't buy new software *because* you
upgrade, you upgrade because you want to be able to run new software.
It's not clear that MS software is the only software in existence with
steep system requirements. Games, Multimedia software and development
tools are usually more demanding than MS Office.
>>The truth is that people want the latest and greatest software, and they
>>want hardware that can use it. ( If that wasn't true, we'd all be happy
>>Commodore 64 users )
>
>So - you are lying - you say that people don't want to upgrade and
>you are wrong - thats the truth....
(a) I am not lying
(b) I am not saying people "don't want to upgrade". I am saying that
software requirements change and this results in a parallel change
in hardware requirements.
(c) What is "wrong" is your reading comprehension.
>There is one saving grace though........Donovan is plainly a fucking
>idiot...
Any "fucking idiot" can post an insult. But then, maybe it's best that
you stick to posting cheap shots and leave the serious debating to your
intellectual superiors.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:10:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said sandrews in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <8phk1h$it2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David Sidlinger"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Exactly my point. You would have to have access to kernel memory to
>> do it in NT, also. Personally, I don't like the everyone comparing
>> Windows 9x to any other OS. 9x was never meant to be a robust OS
>> (whoops, did I say something negative about MSFT? Maybe I'm not
>> blindly loyal to them after all). I think that you can really only
>> draw comparisons between Unix/Linux and NT (or 2000).
Ha! Yes, you're blindly loyal to them, after all.
(This troll brought to you courtesy of the "If you post to adm"
Committee...)
>> Also, the level of expertise
>> required to run any Unix variant is far greater than the guy who just
>> wants to play Tiberian Sun. (Or whatever the latest craze is, I've
>> been out of that loop for a while).
So perhaps you're not quite aware of what level of expertise people
have, lately? Most fourteen-year-olds I know could handle Linux, if
they care to. Those that don't will soon have pre-loads, so they won't
have to worry about it. Unless they care to.
>> By the way, did anyone know that
>> Compaq is *guaranteeing* 99.99% uptime for its Win2000 Datacenter
>> servers?
Yea, if it crashes, they'll reinstall it for you.
>Big deal 99.99 is nothing, is that all the better it can do?
For what they're charging for a 'datacenter server' (W2K Datacenter
server?!? HA!), I'll bet they can hire fourteen year olds with MSDN CDs
to say "I don't know. Did you reboot it?" until the next version comes
out.
--
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.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:17:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Sidlinger in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>sandrews,
>
> Do tell, do you have *any* experience administering *any* OS in a real
>enterprise environment at all? No OS that I have ever seen being used on a
>large scale has offered anything close to that.
You've apparently been using Microsoft OSes, then.
>When evaluating performance
>from the previous year, our production NT machines bested Unix by 1.9
>percent (99.8 vs. 97.9). I don't remember what the figures were for the
>AS/400.
Perhaps you are counting 'planned outages'; maybe you're just playing
games, calling something else 'Unix downtime'. Regardless, you're
numbers certainly don't correlate to typical figures.
>Right now, we have a production Unix server that has been down for
>a week.
Sounds like you've got a Unix-based application that has been down for a
week. With real computers, we are able to differentiate between a
'server being down' and an application being unavailable.
> That puts it at 98.1% max for this year. Sure, Unix can achieve
>greater than four nines, until you actually run something other that DNS on
>it.
HA! "Unix" *never* goes down, in comparison to Microsoft crap. You're
just ignorant on the matter, and selling press release FUD, because
you're not thinking hard enough. There's probably better than
fifty-fifty odds that the 'Unix server down' is just the
Microsoft-crapware that connects to it failing; that's more typical. If
you have Unix *servers* that are down, then you really *don't* have
professionals working for you. Maybe all your Unix admins are just
MSCEs.
--
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:25:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Sidlinger in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> So, assuming that I don't want it, can I use a W2K server
>> without caring about it or not?
>
>Yes, you can use W2K server with nary a trace of AD. Matter of fact,
>Microsoft makes it painfully obvious, through documentation and through
>dialogs during AD install, that AD will cause interoperability problems in
>some situations (I.e. NT 4.0 BDCs cannot communicate with an AD PDC.).
>Sorry I am not able to provide information about Unix/W2K interop. My
>colleague at work is evaluating AD/W2K in our workplace, and he seems to
>think that the best solution is to create a zone that is a child of the
>Linux managed zone, and not let W2K muck around with the Linux zone. He has
>spent considerable time researching this with no bias one way or another.
>This validates Mr. Fox's opinion in that regard. Therefore, all the AD
>servers and clients in the AD zone become somemachine.win2k.ourdomain.com
>and all the Linux managed machines are still somemachine.ourdomain.com
>
>On a side note, does *nix provide any type of "dynamic DNS" solution?
Unix provides *the* dynamic DNS solution. There were a couple
proprietary schemes (one for NetID, software out of Canada, I think,
which was bought by Bay Networks and became Nortel, and their chief
rival [I'd say 'competitor', but they both were strong in Windows, so
you can't really judge] QIP used another, and one or the other, I think,
had another implementation or two) before the RFC for DDNS was
completed. I'm not crediting all RFC work to Unix; merely observing
that Unix is interoperable, and Microsoft is not, so you can't really
judge.
--
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:27:03 -0400
Reply-To: [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;
>> [...]
>> >Either you're using static IP's & (obviously) static DNS, or DHCP with
>> >either static or dynamically allocated DNS. If DNS entries are static,
>no
>> >problem. If they're dynamic, change the DNS setting...
>>
>> We may be using something else; your attempt to restrict the nature of
>> the network in order to implement your solution speaks volumes
>> concerning your technical capabilities.
>>
>So what would be the alternative of either a) dynamically assigned DNS
>settings, or b) fixed DNS settings? For Windows based hosts, that is the
>entirety of your options for setting DNS. I'm not restricting anything
>here, this is How It Is.
Dynamic of fixed DNS settings using some other mechanism that gets
screwed up by Microsoft crapware. There is no "How It Is"; this is the
real world. Standards are defined by consensus, not monopolization.
--
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:29:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said sfcybear in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >In article <8p4t5a$c8u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> > b) You've just screwed up the corporate DNS
>> >>
>> >> Funny - Internet browsing works just fine. If DNS was screwed, it
>> >wouldn't.
>>
>> Every failure causes all failures, right? Typical Microsoft-inspired
>> 'idiot troubleshooting 101'. I didn't say you'd screwed it up in a way
>> that you are currently aware of. Others may be aware of it, or may
>> become aware of it, or incidental failures which it caused. There is no
>> 'statute of limitations' on this kind of stupidity. You aren't at all
>> aware of how you might screw it up, so you figure you couldn't have
>> screwed it up, right?
>>
>Wrong. It works. Full stop. Internet browsing works. Local name
>resolution works. For everyone. It works. Get it yet?
All this proves, Stuart, is that you haven't figured out where the
problems are yet. It is virtually *guaranteed* that *someone* will have
interoperability problems; that is the whole point. Microsoft isn't
designing networking systems; they're locking in market share. If there
stuff wasn't crap, it would have competition!
--
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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:30:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Free markets, by the way, are about *minimizing* costs, or rather,
>> maximizing efficiency. Pisses the capitalists off, I know, but that's
>> why they're 'capitalists' and not 'kings'.
>
>There is no such thing as the "free market" (except in theory). America
>claims it to be so, while still operating one of the most protected markets
>around....
So you've been reduced to mindless rhetoric, eh? Why don't you just
give up? Every market with active competition is a 'free market'. Just
how silly are you prepared to be to trumpet the wonders of monopolist
'technology'?
--
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: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:26:46 GMT
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Christopher Smith wrote:
:> >
:> > > You and I aren't suppose to be able to do so, but, with sufficient
:> > > effort, we can.
:> >
:> > Provide a shred of evidence to support your claims.
:> Ok I have an app that will crash DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and
:> Windows 98. But no one will let me try it on their NT machine. I am
:> writing a new one based on a utility program provided by an OEM to be
:> used to upgrade their Flash BIOS. It looks all a cracker would have to do
:> is steal administrator privaliges in order to wipe the BIOS on an NT
:> based system. (He has to be root to do that on Linux. Same difference)
:
: No, it isn't the "same difference" at all. Administrator and root are
: very different things. Stuff like security and hardware abstraction
: actually apply to the Administrator account, whereas Unix security runs
: along the lines of "if UID=0, allow anything" - yet another reason NT is
: better.
Hmm...so what does one do on NT when one wants to "allow anything"?
Is it even possible then?
I'd also like to know the details of what you call "stuff like
security and hardware abstraction". Honestly, it sounds like you're
using big words to sound impressive, but have no idea what they
really mean.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:32:16 GMT
lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Nik Simpson wrote:
:> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> > So, as you ask, what painted the BSOD on the screen?
:>
:> The same thing that prints kernel PANIC messages in UNIX, it's the OS
:> kernel's last dying effort, not the BIOS.
:>
:> Nik Simpson
: Right. A small application that runs after the kernel blew up. If the
: kernel is in shape to do a proper shutdown, that is.
If the kernel panics, it's not in proper shape to do anything. It
stops running, period. An external handler handles cleanup such as
generating the kernel core file image, stack trace, firing up the
kernel debugger, etc.
: If it is not in proper shape the results are unpredictable.
They are not unpredictable at all.
: You can never tell what the kernel was doing at the instant of failure
: (except for known built in bugs), so ...
So nothing. If you want to know exactly, and I mean *exactly* what
the kernel was doing "at the instant of failure", all you need to do
is look at the core file (or in the kernel debugger, if you
configured it to startup in the event of a panic).
You are smoking crack man, give it up. There is no voodoo, there is
no magic.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:37:34 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> You've apparently been using Microsoft OSes, then.
>
Not just MSFT. My entire career has been spent in mixed environments. It
could be that all of the AS/400 and Unix administrators I've had the
pleasure of working with don't know diddly-squat, but I don't think that the
chances of that are too great, seeing as I've worked with quite a few. Were
some of them better than others? Definately. Could all of them been idiots
compared to you? I seriously doubt it. I am not saying that Windows is the
end-all in computing (I'm not nearly that stupid). I'm just saying that
*all* OSs have problems from time to time.
>
> Perhaps you are counting 'planned outages'; maybe you're just playing
> games, calling something else 'Unix downtime'. Regardless, you're
> numbers certainly don't correlate to typical figures.
>
Planned outages were not included in these numbers. And when I say Unix
downtime, I mean *Unix* downtime. For instance, a properly configured Unix
machine cannot connect to the affected machine in any way (telnet, http and
ftp servers, etc.)
>
> Sounds like you've got a Unix-based application that has been down for a
> week. With real computers, we are able to differentiate between a
> 'server being down' and an application being unavailable.
>
See above. Also, we idiotic (well, at least some of us) NT/2000 users do
understand the difference between a server and a service provided by that
server being unavailable.
>
> HA! "Unix" *never* goes down, in comparison to Microsoft crap. You're
> just ignorant on the matter, and selling press release FUD, because
> you're not thinking hard enough. There's probably better than
> fifty-fifty odds that the 'Unix server down' is just the
> Microsoft-crapware that connects to it failing; that's more typical. If
> you have Unix *servers* that are down, then you really *don't* have
> professionals working for you. Maybe all your Unix admins are just
> MSCEs.
>
No, our Unix admins despise MSFT just as much as you. I think that a lot of
the problem is that there are quite a few NT/2000 admins who have no
real-world knowledge of anything, much less other OSs. I understand your
frustration with MSFT, and I probably get more pissed off at it on a daily
basis than you do. (When I develop for Windows, I usually end up smack-dab
in the middle of the API. Now that's a party!)
Geez. I don't know why I even get into these discussions anymore. I'm
purely doing development now (for *nix and Windows). I've been out of the
"admin" role for quite some time.
- David
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:43:03 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pk47d$c6u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I sincerely doubt that. The menues in windows would have been a dead
> giveaway for anyone who had used a Mac before.
While I've not seen the app that Ermine's talking about, it's possible to
move the menus to the top by doing some hackery.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:40:44 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> David Sidlinger wrote:
> >
> > sandrews,
> >
> > Do tell, do you have *any* experience administering *any* OS in a
real
> > enterprise environment at all? No OS that I have ever seen being used
on a
> > large scale has offered anything close to that. When evaluating
performance
> > from the previous year, our production NT machines bested Unix by 1.9
> > percent (99.8 vs. 97.9). I don't remember what the figures were for the
> > AS/400. Right now, we have a production Unix server that has been down
for
> > a week. That puts it at 98.1% max for this year. Sure, Unix can
achieve
> > greater than four nines, until you actually run something other that DNS
on
> > it.
>
> I think I'm giving up argument by anecdotes. David doesn't even
> say what UNIX is at issue. Nor what company's hardware.
> And, though it's to be expected, the qualifications of the people
> administering the system.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> [X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
> [ ] Check here to accept charges from Microsoft
In this respect, I'll have to grant you your point, Chris. I don't know
what version of Unix the currently affected system is running. I do know
that it's a Compaq Alpha machine. Our company does run AIX and Tru64(sp?)
among other "flavors".
- David
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
