Linux-Advocacy Digest #67, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Windows+Linux=True
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows+Linux=True ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:23:09 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u$1iqpFHAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09...
>
> Actually you can. Alternate shells for Windows do exist and are readily
> installable and usable. In fact, if you don't like the explorer shell and
> like the older program manager approach, you can enable that instead. In
> fact, there have even been shells for Windows that completely emulated the
> Mac such that a Mac user wouldn't even know that they were using a Windows
> PC (if you disguised the mouse and keyboard a little). I know this
because
> I had to set this up at a Fortune 50 company back in the late 80's - never
> ceased to amuse to watch a Mac fanatic sit down at the "beta" test "Mac"
and
> report how much faster and better it was than their old Mac they had on
> their desk. It really became a laugh when they later found out that it
had
> been a Windows PC they were praising.
>
> Using Explorer is an option setting in the Registry.
What is the Registry option setting?
Does this do more than just run the Program Manager while the start menu is
still there? Does this make say Windows 95 interface a dead ringer for the
Windows 3.0 interface and does the user get the came control over the
appearance including the size of the windows borders?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 22:57:24 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Moderator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pk249$hgt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The simplest, and most efficient way to interact with a computer is
through
> the command line. Instead of all that bullshit she would have to do in
> Windows
> 95, all she would have to do at a command line is 'copy a:\nongmao.txt
c:\'.
Which brings up the eternal question: who determines of a given interface
is easy to use or not? Why do people keep insisting that a graphical user
interface in the style of Windows or MacOS is easy to use and the command
line is not user friendly? There are so many things that are easy from the
command line but so difficult from the graphical user interface.
------------------------------
From: <[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: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:07:23 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> You are smoking crack man, give it up. There is no voodoo, there is
> no magic.
As we have all heard, any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as
magic to a primative. Perhaps that is the case here?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 03:14:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ermine Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Consistently you prove how absolutely blind you are whenever the topic
>relates to MS. I almost always buy systems without a pre-installed OS (and
>have for over 20 years now). The few times that I get a system with an OS
>installed, invariably as one of my first actions, I wipe the drives and
>(re)install what I consider appropriate in the mode that I consider
>appropriate.
Without even the benefit of threading, I sense your comments are
directed to me. Blind is something I certainly would not be.
I, also, made a habit of wiping the hard drive and re-installing the
bundled packages when I get a new PC. But over time, this became more
and more difficult; in no small part due to the fact that for the last
few years, I've only been using laptops, which have many peculiarities
under Windows. Under Unix, they're just another PC, though the drivers
are still harder to come by.
I gave up the practice as counter-productive. For the last couple
years, I've simply taken the system as provided and crossed my fingers
and hoped (and curse, and put up with assinine configurations and
bloated crap getting in my way), just like the majority of
victims^wconsumers.
>My comment below relates to the contentions that 1) you couldn't get a
>system w/o an OS, 2) that this was somehow "evil", 3) wasn't the result *OF*
>market forces.
>
>The fact of the matter remains that there is just no way that MS can
>legitimately be considered a monopoly or deny that they became the dominant
>OS on the Intel based desktop (how narrow do you want to get - why aren't
>Mac's, Sun workstations, Linux boxes, etc., considered part of the general
>personal computing market?) because EVERY vendor had the complete option to
>include or not the MS OS with their systems as they chose.[...]
If you don't mind, I'll just address the overall argument from this
point. I don't think you really add to it further on, and it gives me
the opportunity to deal with an issue I've been wanting to address.
"Even if Microsoft's rebuttal had attenuated the presumption created by
the prima facie showing of monopoly power, corroborative evidence of
monopoly power abounds in this record: Neither Microsoft nor its OEM
customers believe that the latter have - or will have anytime soon -
even a single, commercially viable alternative to licensing Windows for
pre-installation on their PCs."
The above quote is, of course, from the Conclusions of Law which
convicted Microsoft of what you insist they cannot be legitimately
considered. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
The point I'd like to address is one I've been actually hoping some
Microsoft-droid might stumble upon and question. The direct description
of the idea that not "even a single, commercially viable alternative to
licensing Windows..." seems like an obvious invitation to trolling.
Doesn't this statement clearly indicate that there is no 'superior
product' to Windows? OEM's themselves, according to this description,
believe Windows to be 'the best' commercial OS for pre-installation,
don't they?
The fact is, OEM's only have 'complete options' to do what will result
in profits. Choosing unprofitable strategies is not a very good idea,
in the end. The problem with monopoly is that it makes avoiding the
monopoly unfeasible, not for technical reasons, but for commercial
reasons. Note that this phrase provides the courts with an all-but 'de
facto' conviction. Since OEMs 'cannot afford' to replace Windows,
Microsoft has committed a crime. Seems a leap, doesn't it?
Luckily, Judge Jackson is aware of the reality of markets and
anti-trust, as you do not appear to be. He concludes the paragraph:
""we assume that economic actors usually have accurate perceptions of
economic realities"). Moreover, over the past several years, Microsoft
has comported itself in a way that could only be consistent with
rational behavior for a profit-maximizing firm if the firm knew that it
possessed monopoly power, and if it was motivated by a desire to
preserve the barrier to entry protecting that power."
So if "EVERY vendor had the complete option to include or not the MS OS
with their systems as they chose", as you say, why is it that none did
so, and when asked they reported that they could not afford to do so,
because of Microsoft's own predatory conduct, and why did *Microsoft*
act as if the OEM's did not have any choice but to concede to their
demands, whenever the OEMs wanted something that wasn't sufficiently
beneficial to Microsoft? (Such as removing the IE software or the IE
icon, having Add/Remove actually remove IE, supporting dual boots, or
any alternative OS, releasing software on schedule instead of delaying
to give them time to 'integrate' unasked-for features, etc., etc.,
etc.?)
Your point is moot, I'm afraid. You simply don't understand what can
'legitimately be considered a monopoly'. For your enlightenment, I'll
point out that it is not necessary to have 100% market share, or be the
only *possible* alternative, but merely to have substantial market
share, and 'the power to control prices or exclude competition', both of
which Microsoft has been proven in a court of law to not only have the
potential for, but to actively exercise, in both maintaining and
profiting from their 'legitimately considered monopoly'.
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[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 07:15:39 GMT
No its not possible...(as it shouldnt be in a modern security oriented OS)
And Windows 2000 goes even further by protecting the most critical system
files ...
That i call security, as opposed to *nix systems enormous potential security
breach as "root",
were you can do all sorts of harm to the system without being restricted...
/IL
> Hmm...so what does one do on NT when one wants to "allow anything"?
> Is it even possible then?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 03:24:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yes, 'can' being the operative word. Silly me, I would expect 'does' to
>> be rather more convincing, if you are trying to refute the idea that
>> 'componentized software' is a boondoggle.
>
>He just said that Microsoft Word, and Lotus *do* provide that service. And
>Eudora, Outlook Express, Outlook, Word and others (IIRC, Front Page and a
>number of oither apps use it, such as Page2Script) utilize that
>functionality. That's not a *CAN*. That's a *DOES*.
Perhaps all of these (predominantly Microsoft) products "*CAN*" provide
the _benefits_ of 'componentized software', as well. None of the
"*DOES*", at all.
[...]
>> You're showing your inexperience again. *MICROSOFT's* own software
>> doesn't use the common dialogs. And did I mention that I hesitated to
>> even provide examples, knowing that the trolls were going to go into
>> handwaving mode?
>
>I suspect it's more likely because you don't have any examples. Firm
>examples can't be handwaved away -- either they do or they don't use the
>Common Dialogs.
I suspect you have your head up your ass. Microsoft Office doesn't use
common dialogs.
>> >And of course you *CAN* use components of outlook. Look up the Outlook
>> >automation interface.
>>
>> No, that would be 'a developer can use components of outlook'. And
>> you'll notice that none do.
>
>Many many many developers do -- but not usually in shrink-wrap products that
>you can buy in stores (exceptions being PDA synch software for the palm).
>Outlook is useful to bind to for *INTRANET* work.
Outlook is complete an utter crap for each and every potential use. I
know; I have to use it. As an expert in the implementation of
operationally functional, I can tell you with no fear of contradiction
that Outlook is a monstrously useless piece of dogshit. Except, of
course, in comparison to 'nothing at all'.
>Besides... how do you think that the ILoveYou virus worked? :)
I'm well aware of how ILOVEYOU worked (it was WSH, as much as the
theoretically 'componentized' address book mandated by the crapware
monopoly); thanks for making my point.
--
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:
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 03:28:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Is that a benefit of programming that way? I can see the promotional
>slogan
>> now, "Program using these Microsoft scantioned methods and help Mellisa
>say
>> I love you to your customers too.
>
>Technology can be used for good or evil.
So provide us with a single convincing example of this 'technology'
being used *in practice* to achieve any benefit. REAL LIFE, please, not
hearsay or thought experiments. I mean, we all know that Melissa and
ILOVEYOU were not merely theoretical. I would hope we could point to
some truly remarkable benefits of this wonderful design. So where's the
"good or" part which crapware monopoly technology is put to, in the real
world?
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:29:59 GMT
aaa...c'mon! command line interfaces is much harder to learn than a GUI
based one...
(altough i have to admit...i really like the Bash shell in Linux, specially
the tab-completion)
/IL
> Which brings up the eternal question: who determines of a given interface
> is easy to use or not? Why do people keep insisting that a graphical user
> interface in the style of Windows or MacOS is easy to use and the command
> line is not user friendly? There are so many things that are easy from
the
> command line but so difficult from the graphical user interface.
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 03:32:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Unfortunately, IE 5.5 broke several COM behavior contracts. Bugs have been
>filed in their databases on them after long talks with QA people there...
>but it would appear unlikely that they'll be fixed *sigh*.
[...]
>Ummm... how do you bind to this? (cough) might be useful. Any links to any
>docs? I've not found any yet myself.
Don't tell me we're making a disbeliever of you, Simon. Won't Erik get
lonely?
--
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:
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 03:35:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ph3mm$n3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> For software like the newer versions of Quicken the "programmers" have
>> surrendered the control of the appearence, quality, performance, and
>> behavior of their software to the whims of those who developed the
>rendering
>> software AKA browser. This is not the action of rational, experienced,
>> competent, professional programmers. HTML is useful and valid for its
>> intended purpose but this is not it.
>
>Not even if:
>
>(1) it provides an interface that users are comfortable with (the web)
The browser interface has little or nothing to do with HTML, save the
fact that it is likewise minimal. Which is to say "no, not even if..."
>(2) it allows for the inclusion of lots of text on the screen to explain the
>UI
BWAHAHA. You can put text in a real interface. Then again, you can
design an interface that makes sense, so you don't need it.
>(3) the interface was originally forms based, and as such could be easily
>turned into a single page with hyperlinks?
Most especially not then. Form and hyperlinks are about as related as
shit and shinola. They might perhaps have a passing resemblance, but
the distinction becomes immediately obvious to the unfortunate user
forced to use one in place of the other.
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 07:39:01 GMT
no...Steve Jobs where to busy smoking up all the marijuana he could find on
the west coast, so he kind of missed the MS takeover...
/IL
not to be a negative nelly (Sorry, I hate flanders to) but,
coulda-shoulda-woulda: You can argue the same thing towards Mac, if jobs had
aggressively pushed the mac when he had his window of oppurtunity, we'd all
be
using macs now, but Mac never did get pushed, OS/2, same thing, technically
the
superior product of it's time, but IBM is a hardware company and lacked the
ability to push it's poduct. Amiga is before my time.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 03:52:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ermine Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> So? Can you make the same claim for Windows? Can those who liked the
>> Windows 3.0 "look and feel" or even that of WIndows 2.x and spent time
>> tweaking it their way still use the same appearing environment in the
>latest
>> Windows? OR, do they have to settle for recreate the closest possible
>> imitation that the latest Windows can permit?
>>
>Actually you can. Alternate shells for Windows do exist and are readily
>installable and usable.
Readily installable, maybe; usable, possibly. Readily usable? No such
luck; you ignore the flexibility of the Unix system. Windows can't even
come close:
>In fact, if you don't like the explorer shell and
>like the older program manager approach, you can enable that instead.
And disable the explorer shell, thus losing all its (putative) benefits.
Either or; can't use both (simultaneously). Score one for Unix
flexibility.
>In
>fact, there have even been shells for Windows that completely emulated the
>Mac such that a Mac user wouldn't even know that they were using a Windows
>PC (if you disguised the mouse and keyboard a little).
And replaced the floppy drive with one that supports auto-eject. And
provided LocalTalk. And replaced the file system.
>I know this because
>I had to set this up at a Fortune 50 company back in the late 80's - never
>ceased to amuse to watch a Mac fanatic sit down at the "beta" test "Mac" and
>report how much faster and better it was than their old Mac they had on
>their desk. It really became a laugh when they later found out that it had
>been a Windows PC they were praising.
Did you say "the late 80s?" So you replaced MacSEs with a whopping 128K
of Ram with PCs with twice the memory and CPU power (monitor, network
hardware, and reliability not included). I'll bet you were laughing all
the way to the bank, weren't you? Ahahaha. Stupid shmucks.
>Using Explorer is an option setting in the Registry.
I think you mean 'not using Explorer is a theoretical possibility'.
--
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:
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 04:02:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yes, we all know its better to tie your HTML code to using only
>> Microsoft's browser. Idiot. I'm getting bored.
>
>Hmmm...
>
>Quicken is a Windows app; so they may as well tie it to Microsoft's browser,
>as it's the only one out there that provides programmable interfaces (other
>than Gecko, which is still a work-in-progress).
Well, the Quicken that made Intuit successful was a DOS app, as a matter
of fact.
>Note: It's only using the browser as a display surface. All the code on the
>back is written by them. This means that they don't have to worry about
>displaying graphics (and all the nasty glue code needed to do so). They
>don't have to worry about fonts. They don't even have to worry about
>printing -- except for check printing -- which makes their lives even
>easier. They can also integrate their website with the product, which makes
>their and the user's overall experience better (because they can get live
>information, and not be limited by what's ready to ship on the CD at the
>time).
Yes, we know that this kind of stupid idea encourages developer's to be
lazy and not ensure that their products would be acceptable in a
competitive market; that isn't the point.
This means they don't have any ability to make their interface any more
efficient than a web page. That's all there is to it. They are
*supposed* to worry about displaying graphics, and fonts, and printing.
What the fuck do you think we're paying them for? Maintaining financial
data in a database ain't quite rocket science. And I'd prefer to use an
application, rather than an 'integrated web site'. I don't pay people
to provide them a marketing channel. They provide the channel for free,
or they pay me; no other option exists.
If I wanted live information, I'd pay a service to provide it reliably.
And in a format that is operationally functional. People use Quicken to
balance their checkbooks; all that other fluff is simply justification
for badly designed. "No, you can't do that, but, hey, look at our cool
web page!"
>IE lets you bind code directly to every element on a page. [...]
IE lets you tie yourself to an illegal monopoly which attempts to
further monopolize other markets, and restrain trade, as well.
--
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:
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 04:02:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You honestly haven't a clue, Erik, just how far and wide my knowledge
>> and information are on this or any other technical subject.
>
>Do you know the difference between interpolation, extrapolation, and factual
>analysis, Max?
Yes, why?
--
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: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:05:59 +0100
"David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pk562$68r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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.).
NT 4.0 BDC's can communicate with an AD PDC (emulator actually) when you
initially install Active Directory. The default is to install in "mixed"
mode, where NT 4.0 BDC's and Win2K DC's coexist. When you switch to
"native" mode, NT 4.0 BDC's can no longer communicate with the PDC, as the
DC to DC communication is now kerberos based. NT 4.0 member servers can
still participate in the Windows 2000 AD at this point however.
> 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?
>
Yes, the more recent versions of BIND support dynamic updates.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 04:07:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Why?
>>
>> Mostly because the control mechanisms are pre-constructed, rather
>> limited, and not great in number. A web page is a paradigm created for
>> *browsing* information, not manipulating it.
>
>All of which are overridable. You don't have to keep the default behavior.
>You just bind to the element, and override it.
So build me a menu system, and a context menu, and then let's watch the
overhead make the thing slow as dogshit. You can't build a real
interface in a web page; its a *browser* paradigm, not a friggen control
mechanism.
>Think of it as a super-Javascript, that can control the behavior *in detail*
>of every element on the page, more than even the DOM will currently let you
>do.
Think of it as dogshit, because that's what it is. How about you
control every element by programming it, like normal? Just why is the
developer's convenience suddenly more important than the efficiency and
convenience of the end user?
--
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
******************************
