Linux-Advocacy Digest #597, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: what defines a paradigm (Richard)
Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Blatant anti-MS trolling... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hotmail been down most of the day ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hotmail been down most of the day ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Sucks (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Zenin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Zenin)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (David M. Butler)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Chris Wenham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 11 Oct 2000 09:04:09 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > love the reply, I have used Windows 3.1/98/NT 4/2000, until I
obtained a
> > copy of
> > > UNIX (and then later, Linux) I naively, like you, believed Windows NT
was
> > the "bees
> > > knees". Yes and I do know what a PCI card is, the card I removed
was a
> > Soft-modem
> > > from an Intel BX motherboard. I have also installed a ISA card as
well
> > whilst the
> > > machine is on, and no adverse effects. However, I did lie a bit, I
was
> > using
> > > Solaris 8. Windows does have its uses, however, not as a server. If
you
> > look at
> > > the various technologies included with Windows NT/2000, many of these
have
> > been
> > > borrowed from UNIX and other OS's, here are some examples is Terminal
> > Server, a
> > > quick rehash of the of X-Server and X-Dumb-Client setup used back in
the
> > 1980's
> > > (surprised Microsoft went for the centralised processing model
considering
> > they were
> > > the first to jump up and say Sun Microsystems idea of the Sun Ray as a
> > stupid idea,
> > > trying to resurrect time sharing and centralised processing of the
1960s),
> > HTFS, a
> > > close replication of HPFS used by OS/2 Warp, TCP/IP how long has the
UNIX
> > world had
> > > this protocol in service for? a long time.
> > >
> >
> > How strange. You say that W2K has it's uses but not as a server - then
you
> > go on to list the server qualities that W2K has that, according to you,
it
> > borrowed from Unix - which we all know is definately a server OS. I
would
> > say that definately makes W2K server material. Thanks for proving that.
>
> Fuck off, liar.
OUCH - the truth hurts!!! Thanks for proving THAT too.
Again, let me leave you with a quote from your own .sig:
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
<snip>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:02:25 +0200
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Can Linux run pre 386 apps ?
>
> Yes.
>
> I have just played a game of `Alley Cat' (remember that?) from dosemu
> under linux. It's not perfect, but it's certainly an 8086 game IIRC.
>
> Also, since most Linux stuff is OSS, pre 386 apps could be recompiled.
Yes, but the thing is that 8086 DOS apps run under Win9x without
recompilation, since Jedi was criticizing the backwards bending Win9x pull
developers through.
> -Ed
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 11 Oct 2000 09:07:06 -0500
Wow! You managed to not answer a SINGLE question I posted. You didn't
document a SINGLE claim you tried to foist upon us. In short, you only
managed to spue more crap and prove that you are completely devoid of any
factual data.
Tell us again how Oracle doesn't run under NT (which it has done natively
for some time) unlike the ported (and not too well judging from the bug
reports and horrible performance) linux version?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
> > > >
> > > > Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux
> > creator
> > > > Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the
> > next
> > > > Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late
2000 or
> > > > early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original
due
> > to
> > > > ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
> > > >
> > > > ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued
> > that
> > > > the open source development model is superior to the closed,
monolithic
> > > > models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both
Linux
> > and
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > When you pulled that out of your ass, were you careful to lick
> > > it clean before spewing forth onto USENET?
> >
> > you are disgusting...
>
> You're the one posting your slimy shit to USENET.
>
> I'm merely commenting upon YOUR disgusting habits.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades
on
> > > > schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
> > > >
> > > > "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and
DNS
> > > > services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
> > database
> > > > servers or online transaction processing. The independent software
> > vendor
> > > > support [is not there]"
> > >
> > > I guess the people who did all of the digital renderings for "Titanic"
> > > were just reading E-mail on Linux.
> >
> > Actually, they use Outlook for that...
> >
> > >
> > > And why were they using Linux? Because fucking NT was ***FAILING****
> > > and NT was causing them to fall behind schedule.
> >
> > Oh really? Care to document that claim?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Converting over 75% of the rendering farm allowed them to catch up
> > > and meet the production deadline.
> >
> > Can you document where they WERE using NT and converted to Linux?
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Oh, by the way ORACLE has been ported to LINUX, but not NT.
> > >
> > > Why is that?
> >
> > oh, by the way, Oracle has been running *natively* on NT way way way
before
> > that lame linux *port*:
> >
> > Windows NT Platform
> > Oracle8i Enterprise Edition Release 2 (8.1.6)
> > Oracle8i Standard Edition Release 2 (8.1.6)
> > Oracle Internet File System 1.0
> > Oracle8i Personal Edition V8.1.6 (Win98)
> > Oracle WebDB V2.2
> > Oracle8i Lite V4.0.0.2
> > Oracle Application Server V4.0.8.2
> >
> > Always has always will (wonder how long linux support will linger...?)
In
> > fact, the latest versions are out for NT before Linux and Oracle
performance
> > on W2K smokes that on Linux according to Oracle themselves. When Oracles
> > bids their DB to some of our clients, you bet they are selling their NT,
> > Solaris or AIX solutions (sometimes HP-UX), not linux!
> >
> > Load brain before firing off mouth - remember that...
> >
> > [Image]
> >
> > [Image]
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: what defines a paradigm
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:08:58 GMT
FM wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Paradigms aren't delimited by features but by concerns.
>
> Not from a language's perspective. Your irrelevant
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As opposed to the language designers' perspective?
Or its users? This is quite revealing.
Apparently, the only thing that matters to you is the
implementor's perspective and the brain-dead user's you
like to defend for some unknown reason.
> ramblings aside, a "paradigm" without features is
> meaningless from the perspective of a language. A
> language can only supply mechanisms with a model to
> relate these mechanisms to its operative semantics.
> It can't control how the mechanisms are used.
> Therefore, it is only relevant to mark exactly
> which mechanisms are necessary to support which
> paradigm, though the basic conceptual model helps.
> But that's exactly what the OO as a paradigm lacks.
As a paradigm for WHOM? Language implementors? Maybe.
But *somehow* the vision is crystal clear to their
designers and their users.
> know. It's you who seems completely unable to define OO
> without nonsensical usage of other abstract terms you
> don't understand. I already offered my own explanations
> of what OO is, in several different ways. And you
All of which amounted to "runtime polymorphism", cretin.
I'm not even bothering reading the rest. I don't need
this shit. I'm going back to studiously ignoring you
for the miserable knee-jerk cretin totally devoid of
any semblance of imagination you are. I was a fool to
ever stray from this policy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles
Date: 11 Oct 2000 10:25:38 -0400
Cannon Fodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anyone tried out the new M$-bought Corel Linux OS and Do.
> You. Like. It.? Do you dare let this NG know? Are you afraid to
> try it out, because it may exceed your wildest expectations about
> Linux? How do do we advocate linux now that M$ is selling it?
Haven't tried it out yet, but nice to know it's there. I run Debian on
one desktop machine, but have to run NT4 on the other because my company
has standardized on MSFT products. I suppose now I can install Corel on
the other. Does it come with a sticker that says "Microsoft GNU/Linux"?
That in itself would be worth the price of a few CDs.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Blatant anti-MS trolling...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:27:06 GMT
I mentioned it the other day when it was down, at least for me, for
about 8 hours or so.
This is the only time I have ever had a problem with Hotmail though. I
only mentioned it because nothing is perfect, no operating system and
certainly no applications.
I call them like I see them and if Linux could do what I need to do I
would switch. But it doesn't even scratch the surface of what Windows
easily does for me.
I'm a Windows advocate BTW.
Claire
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:30:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You know what pisses me off?
>
>The hotmail server that has my email account is down. (Guess they're
>switching back to BSD or whatever.) Anyway, it hasn't been able to let
>me in for almost two hours now.
>
>I've gotten three different error messages because of it.
>
>I click on the "Problems signing in?" link.
>
>I get three possibilities, all of which are client-side symptoms which
>politely ask, "Are you sure you're not a moron who's never used the
>internet before?"
>
>Not once is there mentioned the fact that Hotmail just goes batshit
>every now and then. Even Netscape WebMail is better than this.
>
>Rant mode = off. Thank you for your patience.
>
>-ws
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hotmail been down most of the day
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:29:38 GMT
That is exactly whom I am addressing.
claire
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:47:57 -0400, David M. Butler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please tell me by "they" and "their" you only mean the loud, obnoxious
>folk that swear that Linux is God and MS is going to die in 2 days... the
>rest of us tend to be sensible, and usually don't bother getting into these
>little arguments. Which is why, I suppose, that it appears that "we" have
>a pile of twisted "facts", eh? :P
>
>D. Butler
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hotmail been down most of the day
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:30:15 GMT
See my response to David.
claire
On 11 Oct 2000 05:43:16 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>:> I just posted it because I knew they would fall over themselves trying
>:> to add it to their pile of twisted "facts".
>:>
>:> And they operated true to form!
>
>: Please tell me by "they" and "their" you only mean the loud, obnoxious
>: folk that swear that Linux is God and MS is going to die in 2 days... the
>: rest of us tend to be sensible, and usually don't bother getting into these
>: little arguments. Which is why, I suppose, that it appears that "we" have
>: a pile of twisted "facts", eh? :P
>
>It's a common unconsious predjudice to mistakenly believe everyone in
>an "opposing" camp think and ack alike. This predjudice leads to
>such accusations of two-facedness when the fact that people aren't
>all the same starts to surface.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:53:44 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:57:55 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to matter to the folks that think they are going to make a
> fortune off Linux, Like Redhat, SuSE etc.
> Do you honestly believe they are not trying to take market share away
> from Windows?
They're already selling enough boxed sets and expanding fast enough
that they don't need to care where their market comes from right now.
mawa
--
If Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Accidentally Shoot Their
Children
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:51:01 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:39:12 -0000, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: In comp.lang.java.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> >snip<
:>: : What's to prevent Linux from one day having incompatible distributions?
:>:
:>: The GPL.
:>
:> LOL...it hasn't helped yet...
:
: Details please.
:
: The L/GPL makes things compatible across diverse Unixen, nevermind
: mere minor or major revisions of a particular Unix distribution.
Linux distributions have tons of incompatibilities from small to
show stoppers. a.out to ELF, libc vs glibc (and which version
thereof...?), drastically different package systems, directory
structures, utilities, which kernel rev, which patch(es)of said
kernel ref, etc, etc, etc. And we haven't even started on Linuxesms
in coding such as the pathetic mess that is Linux /proc...it's as if
Linux programmers quite often never, ever want their code ported to
any other Unix system... :-(
The GPL has keep all the above open instead of proprietary and
close, but it's still massively incompatible open code. :-(
The huge number (hundreds) of Linux distributions is both it's
greatest asset and worst at the same time. Personally, I just don't
have the time to play around with such an unreliable system for
business use. Once I switched to BSD from Linux my brain stopped
throbbing.
--
-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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:56:59 -0000
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
: Does not Unix also have a checkered past in these regards?
Yes, of course...but not recent past.
; Wasn't one of Unix's biggest downfalls (e.g. it's only on servers for the
: most part, not 9x% of the desktops) it's fragmentation and
: incompatibilities?
Unix never really pushed for the consumer desktop before Linux.
There was fragmentation in the past, mostly along AT&T vs BSD lines,
but these have been merged for the most part a long, long time ago.
: Yes, I read what you posted above (95% of the API is same, etc) but why do
: I here supposed Unix experts lamenting the fragmentation that prevented
: their rising to majority?
Because they are talking about ancient history.
: (sincere question, really, I'm not purposely trying to build a strawman or
: anything. I'm genuinely interested, if, for nothing else, computer
: history)
--
-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 M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:07:01 -0400
Todd wrote:
> Not that I don't believe in God. But religion does us more bad than good.
> Better to teach spirituality and not a religion. Oh well. Enough of this
> thread unless you want the last word :)
Nope, it's all yours.... oh wait... :P
D. Butler
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:05:01 GMT
>>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> Guess which database solution managed to get C2 security? MS SQL 2000
>> Guess what rating NT4 has ON a network: C2
>>
>> You were wrong 2 outta 2 times.
> http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no3/guide/1259-1.html
> Really? This clearly states that DB2 has it, that
> NT only has it if not networked and that SQL
> Server (MS) has applied for it but not gotten it.
> So - time to eat your words. :-)
No, he can leave his words on the plate for a little longer while you
pay more attention to publishing dates and learn how to read your own
favorite publications.
The article you cite is dated February 7, 2000 and names MS SQL 7.0
as a product still being evaluated. Drestin named MS SQL 2000 as the
product which has a C2 rating. As this October 2nd report from your
own favored source shows:
http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no29/news/3049-1.html
"SQL Server 2000 is the first Microsoft Corp. database management
system to be certified at the C2 security level through the
government's Trust Technology Assessment Program."
Clearly, while Drestin specifically named MS SQL 2000, you want to
hold him to the values of an earlier product.
And finally, the article you cite does /NOT/ say that NT only has C2
level security "if not networked." Your idea of "clearly states" is
wrong.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
