Linux-Advocacy Digest #628, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Tom Emerson")
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (Grega Bremec)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 06:20:11 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mLrF5.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:CgjF5.119$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Paul 'Z' Ewandeİ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8s44kg$ahk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Let me get that straight to see if I understood you correctly.
> > I have absolutly no idea if MS did any of that or not... but your logic
> > is faulty:
> > > - MS uses undocumented functions to trump competitors.
> > > - Smart competitors don't use those undocumented functions.
> > > - Not So Smart ones do.
> > - MS changes their code to not use the undocumented functions
> > or to cope with the changes to undocumented functions.
> > > - MS gets rid of said undocumented functions.
> > > - Not So Smart developers apps break.
> > > - MS apps magically _still_ work.
> > No... MS apps still work because they knew in advance to stop using the
> > function, or that the behaviour had changed, or whatever.
> > Now of course that would mean that older MS software couldn't run
> > on newer versions of the OS (assuming it used those changed/removed
> > undocumented functions). I have no idea id that is true.
> Not exactly. It means that MS apps would have to test what version (and
> sometimes what build) they're running on. Then they would have to test
for
> the existence (and/or the specific behavior) of the function in question.
> If nothing has changed, proceed as before. If the function is gone (or
> different), work around it. Pretty simple stuff, of course.
Well that would imply that MS had thought out using undocumented apis
with the mind towards changing them to screw people later... I don't
know what I think of that idea...
..darcy
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 06:21:35 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 10/12/00, 4:37:19 PM, "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote regarding Re: The Power of the Future!:
>
> > "joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > You are the fool and idiot. You cannot prove anything whatsoever.
> Prove
> > > > their attempt to migrate at any time. Prove their attempt to migrate
> and
> > > > failure at any time. W2K obviously can handle the load because the
> same
> > > > number of servers that ran hotmail under BSD are now running a larger
> > load
> > > > under W2K (same hardware, better results). And, look for Slowaris to
> be
> > > > replaced at hotmail before years end...
> > > >
> > > > I can prove that BSD was replaced by W2K successfully at Hotmail -
> what
> > can
> > > > you prove other than your often repeated .sig (and I quote):
> > >
> > > Oh Please. You could NOT prove what you claim. If you could you
> wouldn't
> > be
> > > doing it on USENET.
>
> > Yes I can and why wouldn't I. Everyone knows that hotmail.com is now
> running
> > all their front end web servers on W2K and IIS - check netcraft - go
> ahead,
> > hit it 1000 times in a row. you won't find anything but w2k - the
> proof is
> > right there for EVERYONE to see.
>
> Pardon me? Front end web servers is NOT hotmail.
> Netcraft isn't going to prove the migration.
>
> MS would not let a kook like you near any corporate site and give
> details on the usenet.
Drestin has been much better behaved in recent posts. Kook is an ad
hominem attack on his credibility. Perhaps you should note that
migrations are just that -- gradual moves. The fact that all the BSD
has been removed from the front end does indicate a vast architectural
change.
> > >
> > > And What about realiability? MS advocates always pretend Windows is
> as
> > > relaible as say an OS like BSD.
>
> > what about reliablity? we don't have to pretend it's being proven as
> we
> > write. There is all of hotmail.com, not a single interruption of
> service
> > (unlike before)
>
> That's not how professionals describe OS reliability. One can use
> redundancy to stop an interruption of service due to an PC class OS
> crashing. Reliability isn't redundancy.
To the execs, reliability metrics are derived from DoS and performance
metrics. When the service appears more reliable to the end user the
execs are happy. The fact that there have been fewer reports of Hotmail
outages since the initial BSD to 2000 migration is telling. I can't
think of one report since. Please post a rebuttal to this. Now,
whether or not there have been cluster node outages is another story.
Once you get past the DMZ it's anyone's guess but I doubt that a heavily
loaded service such as Hotmail could survive too many of them without
some reports of slow or no services.
> > whatsoever since it's migration. Now that I'm past the
> > problems I had with the first generation of NVIDIA beta drivers for
> W2K I
> > have never had a crash or reboot to deal with.
>
> What does one guys story about a video driver mean to an enterprise
> when they talk about stability? NOTHING.
I disagree. I think it's indicative of the iterative improvements in
driver maturity across the board. ISVs have had the time to see that
Windows 2000 is mandating driver support on the desktop and further up.
> > None. Period. No one using
> > W2K has to pretend - but unix types who can't or won't change and
> can't or
> > won't accept the fact that W2K is not NT3.5 just will never admit the
> > truth... sigh... it's sad...
>
> I'm not a UNIX type
Neither am I. Too much unpredictability with deployment of new systems.
A decade of Windows, UNIX and Netware experience has lead me to cost in
the long term. UNIX is expensive initially and in the forecast. Since
we have moved to NT for the prototype and development environments our
ability to react to the market has changed dramatically. We can develop
close to systems without the need for UNIX admins to do things for us.
Our costs now center around deployment issues -- issues that would be
moot if our deploy platform were the same as our dev platform. Even
less if we were to start using superior Windows DNA or .Net in
development instead of Java servlets, Apache and WebSphere. The
business is starting to ask why the QA team is finding more defects late
in the process and we have to answer that it's due to "UNIX issues".
They that are running Windows 2000 on their laptops without a reboot for
months are beginning to question how the web boxes need to be bounced
for seemingly simple maintenance issues.
> - I wouldn't confuse criticism of Windows with
> being pro UNIX - some of MS's harshest critics rely on Windows -
> that's why they're critical.
Oh, boy are you right! But they wouldn't waste their time in here
unless they'd gotten tired of getting bashed by the UNIX advocates over
things that they knew were wrong.
> See the problem for MS is the advocates
> and little guys living in the MS-NT ecology so overstate windows that
> MS's customers are growing impatient.
How so?
> I bet most of the CIO's who
> like windows want the childish hype to stop as much as I do.
Especially the childish Linux hype.
> So. Yeah, W2K isn't NT 3.5. Not being NT 3,5 doesn't mean W2K is a
> reliable and proven OS. In fact, the comment shows me how little you
> care about reliability.
Windows 2000 has been measured to be 10 times more reliable on the
desktop and moreso on the server than NT. NT4 was shown to be better
than 3.x. Thus the market growth. NT is a reliable and proven OS and
since 2000 is measured to be 10x more reliable then the only thing left
to prove is that. This is similar to the upcoming 2.4 kernel in Linux
except that it's not been assessed by analysts because it's not final.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Emerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:43:54 -0700
David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GlgF5.2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> HMMM...
>
[...]
>
> I think you need to seperate out the fact that OS/2 was taken over by IBM
> and is still used by some people today (quite religiously too, although I
am
> not one that uses it.)
Don't be too sure of your self on this one -- many people use OS/2 without
even realizing it -- most, if not all, ATM's are running OS/2 In fact, I
remember reading a trade magazine almost 5 years ago where they pointed out
the latest ATM was running OS/2 2.1 "out of the box" ...
[ATM here means Automated Teller, not that fancy high-speed message transfer
system... ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 06:33:42 GMT
...and Mike used the keyboard:
>
>Okay, mawa(a), why don't you explain what gnome is doing to make
>administration on Unix less painful than a root canal?
Let me step in here and express a statement or two of MHO:
a) excellent and extensive documentation regarding all critical system
administration aspects (_installed_ _locally_ _by_ _default_)
b) textual configuration files that support comments (and are
heavily commented by default)
c) good text-mode editors that support syntax highlighting
d) extremely modular architecture, consisting of numerous INDEPENDENT
modules which don't crash the entire system if misconfigured
e) syslog error reporting by use of facilities
f) low-level, interoperable scripting tools, such as bash and perl,
with powerful support tools (sed, awk, grep, cut, ...)
I could go on here, but I think this makes the core of the answer to
your question. Windows doesn't have any of these, at least not without
considerable ammount of upgrades (which can hose the system by
themselves) and trouble involved in making your tools choice work with
the all-in-one integrated mess that Windows is.
>In that sense, I'm like your grandmother. I have better things to do than
>administer my system (in fact, anything is something better to do).
That's the entire difference - administering a UNIX machine can be a
rewarding and joyful thing to do in itself. In Windows, it's a PITA,
the necessary evil that need be done before one is able to do anything
reasonably productive.
And, yes, the system can administer itself after some ammount of work
had been invested in making it do so. Automation, however, is nothing
a Windows system would have even as much as a proper clue about.
Cheers,
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:56:00 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8s1qbu$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8s01oc$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> So, again: where is Compaq's machine that can do 160TPM?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > So, again: who cares?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Apparantly you only care about performance up to and including the
> very
> > > > > top
> > > > >> of compaq's product line.
> > > >
> > > > > No - I just don't care for the comparison. I don't see the value
> anymore
> > > of
> > > > > a large, expensive, monolithic uni-server solution any more in
> todays
> > > > > models.
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Do we say: "Ah, Google with Linux is so pathetic, they
> > > > >> > have to use clusters! ahahhaha." then add: "Show me the single
> linux
> > > box
> > > > >> > that can run Google"?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> An IBM S/390 64x64. Theyve even got cool light up blue stripes
> down
> > > the
> > > > > side.
> > > >
> > > > > Again... if the choice is SOOoooOooOoo obvious - Google must be
> pathetic
> > > > > idiots not to take the simple route then eh? I'm sure it's not
> easier to
> > > > > manage thousands of linux boxes intead of one pretty shiny IBM?
> > > >
> > > > Its alot harder actually, but they had already bought into that
> > > architecture
> > > > in an extreme way; there would have been an enormous non-hardware
> related
> > > > cost to switch.
> > >
> > > Gee, you mean like moving from BSD and Solaris to W2K ala Hotmail -
> now...
> >
> > More like moving from BSD to Solaris to W2k (aborted) back to Solaris
> >
> >
> >
> > ala HOTMAIL
>
> patethic idiot... no matter how many times you people spue that crap no one
> believes it yet you continue to spue it like some broken record... of course
> now it's Solaris to W2K and back, at least you updated it from NT4... hehehe
> even your DUE doesn't coordinate anymore
The fact is, MS never successfully migrated Hotmail off of Solaris, and you know it.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:56:39 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "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:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:8rfm9h$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:8rd6gr$26rc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > I'm sorry dude, but sometimes you hear something so silly
> you
> > > > > can't
> > > > > > > stop
> > > > > > > > >> > from laughing...
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> > I'm sure he'll post the tux results ... it's all they've
> > > got...
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Dont you have something better to do?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yup - it's what I do the rest of the time... right now I'm
> > > laughing
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > sun rep who tried to sell some 10000s to one of my
> clients...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh I remember you, youre the one that thinks (incorrectly)
> that
> > > > > microsoft
> > > > > > > > can compete in the heavy-server market. We've all been
> laughing
> > > at
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > for some time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One name: "w2k data center"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, now show us one that actually works.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > start here butthead
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
> > > >
> > > > Big fucking deal.
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft's definition of "working" is "doesn't catch fire and roast
> the
> > > > adjacent equipment when you plug it in"
> >
> >
> > Notice how Drestin Lack-of-facts leaves this undisputed, and IMMEDIATELY
> > dives into a hand-waving misdirection routine.
> >
>
> Notice how it's unimportant to document the fact that the sun rises every
> morning. Somethings are obvious facts. That Data Center is released and
> working and nto catching fire and roasting the adjacent equipment when you
> plug it in is an obvious fact. Only someone (a retard perhaps?) who could
> debate whether or not the sun comes up in the morning would argue such a
> fact..
The homepage server is on a LoseDoze box. The real work is STILL done
on Solaris.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:57:10 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the
> > > application
> > > > > itself
> > > > > > > has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year
> is
> > > out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2610894,00.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that link just verifies what I already said. Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's a far older message that MS keeps changing the
> > > > > > date on and revamping...
> > > > > > www.microsoft.com/ntserver/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm... the date is STILL May 1, 1998 - just like it was when they
> first
> > > > > posted it on... May 1, 1998. The text is the same as it was then
> too. In
> > > > > fact, it needs to be updated to reflect the change to W2K.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No - see you missed the whole point. In
> > > > May 1998, they were pretending the
> > > > migration was near done. It was later
> > > > announced that such had not worked and
> > > > that HotMail was running Solaris and BSD
> > > > with forays into re-attempting usage of
> > > > NT (specifically the new W2K). And
> > > > that was from announcements 2 years later.
> > >
> > > No, you are simply wrong. They NEVER pretended anything in May 1998. it
> was
> > > NEVER announced that it never worked because they never tried in the
> first
> > > place! You fail to document ANY of your lies.
> >
> > So, you admit that Microsoft never did Migrate hotmail to MS LoseDows.
>
> That is correct. Microsoft never migrated to whatever "LoseDows" is.
> In case you meant Windows, as in Windows 2000, MS has already completed 100%
> of the conversion from BSD and Apache for the front end servers to W2K/IIS.
> That's done and easily verified. The hotmail application itself continues to
> run on a single Slowaris box. Expect this to change soon.
Sophistry is not victory, pathalogical liar.
>
> Those are facts. Argue at your own risk.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:59:54 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > You are the fool and idiot. You cannot prove anything whatsoever. Prove
> > > their attempt to migrate at any time. Prove their attempt to migrate and
> > > failure at any time. W2K obviously can handle the load because the same
> > > number of servers that ran hotmail under BSD are now running a larger
> load
> > > under W2K (same hardware, better results). And, look for Slowaris to be
> > > replaced at hotmail before years end...
> > >
> > > I can prove that BSD was replaced by W2K successfully at Hotmail - what
> can
> > > you prove other than your often repeated .sig (and I quote):
> >
> > Oh Please. You could NOT prove what you claim. If you could you wouldn't
> be
> > doing it on USENET.
>
> Yes I can and why wouldn't I. Everyone knows that hotmail.com is now running
> all their front end web servers on W2K and IIS - check netcraft - go ahead,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah..the easy part...throwing up a home page.
The REAL WORK is done on Solaris...putz.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
