Linux-Advocacy Digest #64, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
(R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 03:44:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8pcivr$nj1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > By the time Microsoft came out with Windows 95, there were already
> > > over 40 million Windows 3.1 users using trumpet winsock and Mosaic
> > > or Netscape.
> >
> > Rex. You should really... I mean *REALLY* look this stuff
> > up before posting it.
> > The internet did not exceed 10 million estimated
> > users until about 1996.
There were 10 millien AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve, and MSN subscribers
(total) in 1996. This represented less than 10% of the total market
because these services still used the X.25 network which yielded about
120 bytes/second due to delays in the SLIP to X3 pad connection. MOST
of the Internet pops were former FIDO boards that ran UNIX or Linux
based terminal servers (which provided PPP direct to X.25 or T1
connections without the usual delays).
> > There is no way that 40 mllion Windows 3.1 users
> > could have been using the internet in 1995.
Not all at once. The average user was online an average of about
1 hour per day. And even this was already clogging telephone lines in
the Northeast and Pacific Coast. The Telcos were already chopping the
latas to reduce the load (or at least collect revenue from the long
calls), but the ISPs would often daisy-chain intra-lata calls to relay
to the back-bone. New Jersey required over 600 POPs to cover a state
that was only 60-70 miles wide and about 200 miles long. Colorado
Supernet on the other hand only needed about 10 POPs (because US-WEST
was very Internet Friendly, providing T1 and Frame-Relay circuits
between Colorado Supernet and Corporate Internet customers).
> Depends on how you define internet. In the early 90s the 40,000,000
> number included "intranet" and BBS (such as early AOL and its
> competitors) users that were later folded into the internet.
> > > Keep in mind that by late 1994, Linux already had OpenLook,
> > > Mosaic,
> > > Viola, Arena, web server capability, and Plug-and-Play
> > > that worked on
> > > existing ISA, VLB, EISA, and MCA hardware.
> >
> > Uhh.. Linux did not implement Plug-n-Play until
> > the 2.0 kernel IIRC.
Actually, we're both right. Yddragasil "Plug-and-Play Linux" was
the trademark name for their system, which ran on the 1.2 kernel
and configured Linux compatible hardware by probing interrupts and
interrogating card registers.
Red Hat implemented Microsoft's "Plug-n-Play" technology, which was
based on PCI bus technology that allowed the OS to query each device for
a configuration string describing manufacturer, model number, and
supplementary information (needed by the manufacturer to complete the
configuration) about 6 months before the release of the 2.0 kernel.
This was still a proprietary binary-only version.
The "clean-room" version was implemented, in source, with the 2.0
kernel.
> > Even today, Linux still does not implement Plug-n-play
> > in the way it's intended
> > to be (plug in a USB or PCMCIA card and have
> > it prompt you for drivers,
> > rather than forcing a manual driver install and load).
Actually, Linux offers "better and worse". The "modules" kernel
can automatically reconfigure itself for known devices each time it
reboots. This means that you can often move a hard drive from one
chassis to another and boot into a properly configured system for either
machine (though Xfree usually requires setting a link).
The other half of this (the worse), is that because the PnP response
doesn't give meaningful information about the card (chipset, registers,
driver type...) but instead a string that is only meaningful when
correllated by the manufacturer, and because many Manufacturers are
still totally dependent on Microsoft's good will for their continued
survival (winmodems), they don't violate NDAs with Microsoft no matter
how many Linux Advocates send them nastygrams.
Many companies are starting to back Linux. The biggest, like LinkSys
are even putting the Pengine right on the box so that you KNOW that you
can run their hardware with Linux. Some companies are even including
the source code and driver module so that Linux users can
compile/link/install their own driver into the kernel, or run the
binary.
> Plug-n-play was crude, but it was there.
>
> > > Furthermore, it ran on very
> > > inexpensive hardware (80386, 4-8 meg RAM, 80 meg hard drive).
> > > NT 3.51
> > > needed a Pentium 90 (minimum), 32 meg RAM, and 1 gig hard drives).
> >
> > Interesting that NT 3.51 came out *BEFORE* the pentium
> > was even created.
Actually, NT 3.5 was in BETA before the Pentium was generally
available. I was at Dow Jones at the time. We installed one of
the early Beta NT releases on a Pentium, but we kept having problems
because the board kept overheating. We could run it on a Pentium 66,
which was replaced with a 3 Volt P-90 before the second release came
out. The Dow Jones software (a DowVision client news-for-exchange)
product had to be delivered in time for the Final Beta to be included
in the final distribution. Microsoft failed to deliver required
software and we couldn't tell anybody (NDA) and we missed the date.
Eventually, we went with a web implementation instead.
> > How could it require a Pentium 90?
> > Fact is, NT 3.51 ran on a 386.
Yes. With enough memory, dual disk drives, and absolutely no
applications, you could barely slog your way through the boot sequence
to start Notepad on an 80386-25. It was painfully slow, but you could
make it work.
A practical implementation required much more hardware and
software than Linux running under the 1.2 ELF enabled kernel.
Linux 2.4 with KDE 2.0 is going to take some memory and CPU, but still
much less than Windows 2000 and probably less than ME (I've only
seen ME on the BEON with 128 meg and 700 mhz Pentium - YAWNNNN).
> > NT4 was the first version of NT that required a 486 minimum
> > (it relied on certain 486+ instructions)
Minimum configuration was a 486 with 16 meg of RAM. Of course, if you
attempted to run any application software, your machine would BSOD
while doing nothing. SP1 broke the 486, and SP2 broke my Cyrix chip,
(a conditional call to the F00F bug, it was later discovered).
> The common phrase was start NT, go watch grass
> grow then come back and see if anything had happened.
> NT 3.51 did not run well at all on a 386 or 486.
With a Pentium 90, and about 32 meg of RAM, it was fast enough
to be practical, and reliable enough to replace some OS/2 2.0
machines (that ran on 80486 with 4 meg RAM).
> > > A working Linux machine could be obtained for under $200 for a
used
> > > machine or $700 for a new machine.
> > > The NT 3.51 machine cost nearly
> > > $5000 new, if you could get one that didn't overheat.
> > New machine prices did not drop below $1000 until about 1997/1998.
> > You simply could not buy a new machine for that cheap
> > because OEM vendors had $1500 price points for "low" end machines.
Actually, in New Jersey, we had Computer Shows, where you could buy
machines in the "Sweet Spot" for under $1000 in what was commonly
referred to as a "Bare Bones" configuration. You purchased the
Chassis, Motherboard, CD-ROM, Floppy, and low-end video card for
about $500 as a package. Then you purchased a 200 meg hard drive,
which was installed on-sight. Since the bare-bones machine was not
sold with a hard drive, you couldn't put Windows on it. Since the hard
drive wasn't installed in the machine by the manufacturer, you had no
way to install windows on the hard drive. You could get a copy of
Windows 3.1 for about $50, or NT for about $300, if you wanted to pay
for the extra. The RAM could hit you pretty hard. 8 meg of RAM would
just put you over $1000.
Most of the components were surplus that had been sold in quantity when
OEMs upgraded their board lines to accommodate faster chips, bigger
drives, or larger memory modules. When 72 pin SIMMs came out, it took
about 3 months for 38(?) pin simms to drop to nothing.
> I bought many machines for under $1000 in that time period. The only
> system I ever paid more than $1000 for was my very first IBM PC. Each
> time Intel introduced a new chip, the old machines in inventory were
> discounted deeply.
> When the 486 came out, 386 machine prices dropped to
> $200-500, for example. Only later did OEMs decide to trash the older
> systems rather than sell them.
Many customers, faced with spending as much as $10,000 per machine
(in Wall Street Area) to upgrade from Windows 3.1 to Windows NT 3.51
were trying to salvage as much as they could. This led to a
significant surplus of 80386 and 80486 machines that dropped down
the price of remaining machines.
Some retailers like National Computer Centers would actually specialize
in purchasing "sweet-spot" surplus machines and retail them in lower
income neighborhoods. This became a very nice way to get Linux
machines.
> > > Windows 95 was a death march for most of the Microsoft people,
many of
> > > whom had just survived the death march of Windows NT 3.5(1).
Gates
> > > felt that if he didn't get every ISV, every OEM, and every IHV
tied
> > > into exclusive contracts for Windows 95, and didn't get a working
web
> > > extensible browser into the bundleware, that the company wouldn't
> > > meet revenue targets (again), that the stock would tumble, and
that
> > > Microsoft would be faced with two or three competitors at the same
> > > time (Linux, OS/2, and Mac), possibly more (Solaris, BSDi,
freeBSD,
> > > UnixWare,SCO,...).
> >
> > Microsoft did not start becoming concerned
> > about Linux until very recently.
Actually, Microsoft's primary concern was UNIX. NT 3.51 was supposed
to be a "better UNIX than UNIX". While the official line was that
Microsoft spokes-people should only referr to UNIX as "That ugly
text-oriented operating system" implying that UNIX had no GUI
interface, Microsoft was watching UNIX, and especially versions
that ran on PCs, very carefully. Microsoft already had some control
over SCO (enough to keep them from dropping prices and going after the
desktop), and had cut a worthless deal with Novell (enough to keep them
off the desktop long enough for Windows 95 to arrive), and Solaris for
Intel (which Microsoft thwarted by creating a Java deal with Sun).
But Linux was the most threatening of all. The best they could do was
hope that by getting Torvalds to join Transmeta, that they could at
least keep track of the progress and keep pace with major innovations.
Paul Allen has been dumping Microsoft stock at an astonishing rate
since he first met Linus and his friends.
The biggest problem was that even if they had tried to take Linus
out of the game completely, the GPL on the kernel meant that
anyone could take over support, and the new owner might be much
less friendly (like someone at Caldera).
Unfortunately, Microsoft knew that a freely available version of UNIX,
that could be installed on a small partition of a Windows system, would
eventually create a market for UNIX. At that point, Microsoft could no
longer referr to UNIX as anything ugly or text-only.
The Linux effect was most strongly demonstrated in Windows 95. The GUI
was enhanced using many of the best features of FVWM and TWM. It's
interesting to note that the Windows ME GUI has a number of features
and look-and-feel characteristics of KDE and Afterstep. They still
only offer one screen (probably due to limitations on the GDI).
Unfortunately, Microsoft snubbed both X11 and VNC. This means that
they will have to deal with competition based on VNC, which could
put Windows in the "back room" and put Linux on the desktop.
> > Fact is, Linux was simply not ready
> > until the 2.0 kernel came out,
Actually, Slackware 1.2 and Red Hat 2.0 were both quite effective,
and provided most of the features of the Sun Sparc 20 in a PC platform.
Installation wasn't trivial, but I was able to give a copy to a 15 year
old kid and he had his 80486-66 PC running Linux in about two weeks.
To this day, he still has that 80486 PC, and it still runs Linux, as a
server, sporting nearly 40 gig in SCSI hard drive storage. He also
runs Linux on his Thinkpad 1400i. He just joined the work force after
graduating from College about 3 months ago. He has also masterminded
several local ISPs in NY and NJ based primarily on Linux and FreeBSD.
> > and distributions started becoming something
> > you could install without a PhD.
Actually, SLS was something that you could install without a PhD,
but it was a pain in the arm loading all 80 of those floppies :-).
Today's releases would take over 700 floppies.
> Probably true. MS has always been slow off the bench, but tough once
> started.
Actually, MS is attractive to OEMs because OS upgrade FORCE hardware
upgrades. Unfortunately, just when profits should be huge, supplies
get tight, and by the time supplies are available, prices have dropped.
Unfortunately, the only company that makes REAL money on the deal is
Microsoft.
Microsoft advertized Windows NT 4.0 as needing only an 80486-33,
16 meg RAM, and a 250 meg disk drive. Today the commonly accepted
consensus is that the minimum configuration is a Pentium 100, 64 meg of
RAM, and a 1 gig hard drive, along with Service Pack 3 (minimum) and
preferably Service Pack 5 or 6.
Essentially, this would be Windows NT 4.6 (Thank goodness we don't
have to go through the trauma of the release reinstallations).
Windows NT 4.0 was unfit for duty. Windows NT 4.2 was filled with
trojan horses designed to hurt IBM's Cyrix chip (and others), Windows
4.3 was a very reliable workstation, and Windows 4.5 or 4.6 is very
nice, if you aren't running older 3rd party software.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's nasty habit of using service packs to break
older (competitor) 3rd party software has resulted in very slow
acceptance of new service packs. Many corporations are only now
willing to upgrade to SP 5. And Windows 2000 is being held up
more by it's nasty habit of breaking 3rd party software (that
doesn't seem to be in any hurry to open the platform for it's
biggest competitor), more than any fault of the O.S. itself. It
may be that Microsoft has literally killed it's own baby by trying
to kill the neighbors.
> > >SNIP<<
> > > The fact is that Microsoft's worst fears are being realized as we
> > > speak. Linux is growing and thriving and being joined by other
> > > UNIX
> > > flavors. Compaq's IPAQ can run Linux, AOL now offers most of it's
> > > features to Linux users, and many OEMs are now offering "TuxTops"
and
> > > "TuxStations" (Linux enabled laptops and workstations).
> >
> > Yet despite all this, Linux is somehow not "competition"
> > to Microsoft in the eyes of Judge Jackson.
Until October of this year, Microsoft still has Windows 98 contracts
that contracturally exclude Linux from the platform. This includes
overselling, cliff-tiered pricing, NDAs on USB, strict control over
the entire boot sequence, and control of advertizing revenue through
co-op agreements.
With the new 2000 contracts, Microsoft is now offering $400 rebates on
computers if users sign up for 4 years of MSN (assuring Microsoft
control of the machine, including the ability to sabatoge Linux
installations, and the ability to create contracts that extend beyond
the 12 months allowed under the previous consent decree.
Put simply, even with the Judge threatening to void all of
the contracts, threatening behavorial sanctions that include
placing federally mandated compliance officers in-house,
criminal prosecution of executives who engage in anticompetitive
practices, and even the possible divestature of the company -
Microsoft is STILL thwarting the spirit and intent of the law,
using even more anticompetitive measures to keep Linux (or any other
UNIX variant) off retailer shelves.
When Consumers can walk into retail establishments and have "hands-on
experience" with Microsoft competitors, such as Linux, and make informed
purchase decisions that include the ability to run Linux, Windows, or
both, Microsoft will still continue to hold monopoly power over the
Client Operating Environment market.
It appears that Microsoft has even stonewalled the Ipaq (Compaq's Linux
enabled "Appliance" computer) by pushing for exclusive display of the
Microsoft MSN Companion which is merely another attempt to protect and
extend the Microsoft monopoly over the Client Operating Environment.
Furthermore, Microsoft is attempting to use WinCE for this platform
as a way to evade definitions that would include Windows 9x and ME, but
not WinCE (which does face a competitive Hand-held market).
> Linux isn't competition. It isn't even a company or business. Linux
> might become competition and that is the problem with MS being a
> monopoly.
Linux IS competition. There are 7 companies that have been fighting
tooth and nail to get a beach-head in the Microsoft desktop market.
They have tried giving it away, selling it for cheap, providing
installation support over the phone, providing free applications
that would cost thousands of dollars under Microsoft Windows
platforms, they have introduced 5 different "killer apps", which
have been imitated by Microsoft, with the usual "Windows-only"
twist, and they've even gained direct support of the top 6 PC
vendors. Yet you STILL can't go into CompUSA and see a Linux
machine on a display that you can interact with.
This is not because there isn't even the possibility of a market. This
is because Microsoft's legally binding contracts have been used to
illegally prevent OEMs from providing alternatives to the consumer.
In spite of extraordinary efforts to create substantial support networks
to support corporate customers, most of the Fortune 500 corporations,
including several who have a announced a preference for Linux over
Windows 98 and Windows 2000, the bulk of the 30 million employees
still don't even have the CHOICE to run Linux (or any other
non-Microsoft alternative), again due to Microsoft illegal
contract practices.
> They can't use their monopoly to prevent competition from
> arising. MS saw/sees Netscape, OS2, and Linux as potential
> competitors and used its monopoly power to prevent them
> from becoming competitors.
The fundamental legal issue here is that Microsoft has created
a network of legally binding contracts which are being used to
exclude competitors to Windows 98, Windows NT, and Windows 2000
from the market place. Microsoft has done so not only to exclude
other operating systems, but also other Web Browsers, other Media
Players, other Office Automation Suites, other text editors, and
multiplatform utilities and programming languages - from the
marketplace.
This has continued since 1987, in direct violation of numerous
negotiated agreements, multiple court orders, two court cases
in which Microsoft lost the verdict on facts but won the appeal
on technicalities (which were imposed by Microsoft).
They're doing it again. They've taken higher prices from the OEMs
(for fewer restrictions), and used that money to thwart any attempt
by the OEMs to release any non-microsoft product.
With Microsoft offering $400 rebates on MSN (which only runs on Windows
98, NT 4.0, and Windows 2000), consumers will be confronted with
advertized prices for Linux systems that appear to be $400 higher than
the "After rebate" prices offered on Microsoft-only products.
Perhaps AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy will offer similar advantages to
Linux customers, creating a competitive market. But we also don't know
what contracts Microsoft may have forced them to sign.
Not only is Microsoft trying to protect it's monopoly of the Desktop,
they are also fighting to drive AOL/Time-Warner out of the Internet.
Six months ago, we would have laughed at the prospect of
Time-Warner/AOL being driven out of the market by Microsoft. But now
Microsoft is fighting dirty with it's own "Microsoft ISP exclusively for
Microsoft customers" which will eventually only be available to
"Microsoft only content providers", that use "Microsoft-only" trojan
horses, that allow Microsoft to see through their "Microsoft-only"
browsers via their "Microsotft-only" operating system.
Sure, Microsoft will tolerate 3rd party software for worthless niches
such as video-games, but they may eventually retaliate against
Linux-friendly game makers by planting a few trojan horses that limit
game usage to "Microsoft-only" video games.
The thing that is so amazing is that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are
doing this right under the noses of the Supreme Court, and then
demanding that this court give them the ability to play the "Dope
Pusher" gambit of beating the rap on a technicality. Microsoft hopes
to file dozens of motions asking for dismissal on the basis of
technicalities, which will then limit the debate before the supreme
court to the merits of the technicality, rather than the merits of the
entire case.
Essentially, it's like the drug pusher, who has been selling hot-shots
that have killed 25 teen-agers, and has killed 10 more while out on
bail awaiting trial, who has publicly announced that he will kill the
children of the prosecuters, the judge, and several others, even if he
is aquitted, but then wants the courts to throw out his conviction
because the officer appears to have said "You have da right to remain
silent" during the Maranda warning.
>From 1987 to 1999, Microsoft has engaged in numerous illegal acts, often
caught red-handed, often with the threat of charges of criminal
misconduct including fraud (1987, 1989, 1990, 1991,1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, 1997, 1998), extortion (1984, 1987,1989,1990,...), blackmail
(1998, 1999), sabatoge and illegal damage to a computer (1987, 1990,
1991, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998), negligence in handling numerous
computer viruses (1998, 1999, 2000), and illegal espionage (1992,
1993,1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998).
In many cases, Microsoft executives evaded criminal prosecution
by negotiating settlements which included denial of all wrong-doing,
sealing of court records, strict nondisclosure agreements, and
cash settlements. In other words, "I shot your whole family,
but if you'll let me walk outta here saying I didn't do nothin'
wrong, I'll give you $1 million in cash. Some people will sell
their own mothers for $1 million in tax-free cash.
And the goofy thing is, that for 20 years, through Reagan, Bush,
and Clinton, not only has he gotten away with it, he's even been
given more and bigger government contracts.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 23:55:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>How things are: a network administrator who doesn't know his network
>intimately is an idiot. Period.
OK, so all network admins are idiots. NOW what are you going to do?
>There is simply no excuse, waving your
>hands (one of your favourite expressions) and saying "it got too complicated
>too fast" or whatever is bullshit. What do you think happens - people sneak
>extensions onto your network when you're not looking?
LOL! GU-FUCKING-FAW!
Well, Stuart, if I'm not mistaken, this whole mess started out with a
testimonial by a clueless idiot who 'sneaked extensions onto the
network' while cleverly avoiding confrontation (and/or interoperability)
with the ogre-like nasty old Unix admins with their wondrous new
technology (which does absolutely *nothing* as far as we've been able to
see, so far).
Let me tell you a bit about myself, Mr. Fox. For the last eight years I
have been something of an itinerate instructor, being hired (through
several employers in a line of acquisition) by major enterprises and
carriers. All, it seems, have similar problems. These problems
include, but by no means are limited to, a lack of information,
knowledge, and comprehension of what, in general or specifics, their
"network" consists of.
Tens of thousands of individual devices on multiple 'levels of
connectivity', each being represented in different ways by different
systems, and comprising hundreds of software applications, dozens of
logical networks, and thousands and thousands of physical connections of
a vast and almost always indeterminate sort. *Unix admins* are near the
*bottom* of the ladder, in terms of breadth and depth of knowledge,
awareness, or data concerning the almost incomprehensible number of
things which are part of "the network".
My services are generally arranged by the Network Operations Center
managers, in conjunction with network management system software
implementations, these days. Both the carrier and the enterprise NOCs
are finding it impossible to represent, let alone deal with, the almost
non-deterministic behavior of modern network systems.
The advantage my company offers (whatever that company might be) is the
methods which have been developed to deal with this result of the
almost-unrecognized 'paradigm shift' involved in moving from the
simplistic networking technologies of yesteryear to the complex world of
internetworking.
I can tell you with absolute authority that no corporation possesses the
concise and comprehensive documentation which you fantasize would be
required to pass the test and avoid being 'an idiot', in your words.
Because the reason these mega-corporate IT monstrosities need and are
willing to pay for my help, and also the reason I'm not a
multi-millionaire (yet), is the same reason they don't have any 'end to
end' view, no comprehensive inventory, no 'intimate knowledge' of the
full extent of their network, and all the systems which depend on it.
They don't have to. That's the whole point of *internetworking*
technologies. That's why they work, that's why they're valuable, and
that's why YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THEM. You can put any damn thing you
please on them, and they still won't break, even if we don't know all
the various things that might break and avoid or change them, because
the one rule, the only rule, the ultimate rule, is INTEROPERABILITY.
Now I'm not going to bother, at this point, going into a long rant about
why Microsoft's 'vision' of networking is entirely *incompatible* with
interoperability. (You should bear in mind that I will, however, at the
drop of a hat, so if you have any intention of sparing yourself yet
another verbose tirade, I'd think twice before questioning the matter
unless you've thought REALLY HARD about it.) Suffice it to say that
your uninvited testimonial of the wonders of AD/DNS integration have
more than made the point, as evidenced by the multiple responses you've
received here, pointing out in various ways that you are incapable of
even comprehending the problems and difficulties that are caused by
Microsoft's continued extension of predatory monopolist crap.
We don't need to know all this stuff you wish to demand we must know,
we've spent thirty years (while you weren't looking, apparently)
designing and implementing network systems that *DON'T REQUIRE IT*. So
what in hell makes you think that we'd like to throw all that away, just
so we can pay Microsoft more money for crap software? Welcome to the
year 2000, Stu; its the age of the Internet. Autonomous authority,
triple levels of connectivity, frictionless glue TCP/IP, and no rules
other than "thou shalt interoperate". Don't go trying to tell us that
*we're* the ones who have to run things for *your* convenience. You
don't screw around with interoperability on a modern network, and have
it continue to function for very long or very well, or very profitably,
by implementing dumb ideas, under the pretense that you can attain
autonomous authority without taking autonomous responsibility (for being
interoperable), muck up DNS by turning into WINS (which was broken
before it was invented, for all practical purposes), or 'embrace and
extend' servers which conform to *concensus* standards, but form the
backbone of the Internet, and most corporate networks, as well.
You damn sure aren't going to impune the integrity of professionals to
mask the lack of interoperability and practical value and operationally
functionality in monopoly crapware. Not while I'm around to point out
that you don't know what you're talking about. Modern networks just
don't work the way you'd like them to, and they don't conform to
Microsoft fantasies of what those who have developed and implemented all
this *real* technology and made it work for thirty years 'should' be
doing.
[...]
>Unnecessary problems to SOME. Oracle causes unnecessary problems to SOME,
>as does <insert product name here>. The fact that SOME can't cope with it
>is another matter altogether.
Here's a nickel, kid. Go get 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
