Linux-Advocacy Digest #927, Volume #29 Sun, 29 Oct 00 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (mlw)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (Paul)
Re: Linux in approximately 5 years: ("Vann")
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (mlw)
Funny Pics (computer related) ("javaduke")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? (Ayende Rahien)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:11:51 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > There has been much talk about hidden ports in
> > > the back end of all windows products in the last
> > > year.
> >
> > Anyone who runs Zonealarm -- which reports unauthorized TCP/IP traffic
IN
> > and OUT knows you are full of sh*t.
> >
> > We Zonalarm users know who has the hidden ports -- Real Audio , Adware
etc
> > etc.
> >
> > It ain't the Microsoft OS.
> >
> > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> >
> > If you think Microsft could sneak hidden TCP/IP traffic past all the
> > Microsoft haters masquerading as security experts you are dummer than a
bag
> > of hammers.
>
> Then why did Microsoft suffer 3+ months of unauthorized access from
Russia?
It was week. And the QAZ trojan infected an employees home machine. And it
had access to the LAN, probably via a VPN.
Any corporation allowing internal access via VPN's are vulnerable using the
exact same scenario.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:11:48 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > (1) There are more Linux web servers than there are NT web servers.
> > Numbers are logically higher.
>
> There is no evidence to support this. Netcraft does not count the number of
> servers, it only counts the number of hosts. A single server can have
> multiple, even 10's of thousands of hosts.
There are a few interesting statistics here:
(A) Multiple servers per IP in a load balanced environment.
(B) Multiple IPs/Host names per server.
There is no real evidence that the ratio of A to B varies across OS. So
one these are irrelevant.
>
> > Yes, but when 2.4 features are released, they will be reliable, unlike
> > 2K.
>
> You mean like 2.2? Which needed about 10 patches within the first few weeks
> of it's release?
Stable is not "perfect."
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:17:57 -0800
"Timothy Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8ti7n7$mv23f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> MS don't care if files created by their applications can be read by the
> >huge
> >> numbers of users who don't use their operating system as if Unix /
FreeBSD
> >/
> >> Linux / Apple don't exist in MS's world.
> >
> >Whan was the last time the Unix world did anything to make life easier
for
> >Microsoft?
> >
> >Get real.
> >
> >As for Apple, without Microsoft it would be dead, dead, dead. Without
Word
> >and Excel there would have benn zero reasons for anyone in the business
> >world to allow Apples in.
> >
> When the Gore DOJ gets through with Big Software, the Word and Excel
> Corporations, no longer having an O.S. monopoly to enforece, will port
> their product to linux/unix.
No. It's unlikely your fantasy world will come to place ... but if it does:
If they have to they will come out with Microsoft Linux and make sure Word
and Excel ports only work on that version of Linux. It will look a lot like
Corel Linux, the most user friendly Linux.
And it will run Microsft .NET real well.
And the stock value of the two companies will be much greater than the
current value of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:25:56 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No one could stop an OEM from selling a retail copy of Windows Me.
But
> > it
> > > > would be a lot more expensive.
> > >
> > > Look, when the OS license cost more than the profit margin of a PC,
> > > then DOUBLING the OS licence cost effectively forces the OEM to raise
> > > prices.
> >
> > Yes. Discounts do allow companies to sell their products for less.
> > Sometimes.
> >
> > Sometimes they just pocket the difference as profit.
> >
>
> Regardless--PUNISHING a company for offering a competitor's product
> is OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE and it is illegal.
You don't get it. "Punishing" would be if they told Dell they had to pay
more than retail for Windows Me and Office 2000 if they sold products
Microsoft didn't want them to.
"Rewarding" is where Dell gets Windows Me and Office 2000 real, real cheap
for doing what Microsoft wants.
Those are two very different scenarios. #1 doesn't happen. #2 does.
>
> Ask the Big 3 automakers in Detroit what happens if they try playing
> such games with a dealership that dares to sell from multiple
manufacturers.
What percentage of dealers sell both Ford and GM and Chrysler? 0.0001?
>
>
>
> > >
> > > FACE THE FUCKING FACTS: MS IS COMPLETELY FUCKING UNWILLING TO HAVE
> > > STRAIGHT, SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPETITION IN THE MARKET PLACE.
> >
> > Anyone who wants to can pay retail. No one has to take those deep, deep
> > discounts.
>
> That is not for the OEM to decide, as they are not the end-purchasers.
The OEM gets an amazingly good deal from Microsoft for playing along.
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > OEM's wanted to sell their computers as cheap as they could and
Microsft
> > > > made them a deal that was hard to refuse ... but they could have at
any
> > time
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong, wrong, wrong, asshole.
> > >
> > > When *EVERYBODY* gets the fucking discount...then that *IS* the normal
> > > price...so that any OEM that doesn't get the "discount" (i.e. NORMAL)
> > price,
> > > is actually being PENALIZED for merely giving their customers a wider
> > > selection of products.
> >
> > Not everyone gets the discount.
> >
> > > This is called OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE.
> >
> > No. It's called very tough business practices.
>
>
> Really. IBM was put under a consent decree for similar practices.
Yeah. But no one was making mainframes other than IBM.
Microsoft does have competitors.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:27:29 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Frankly, Microsoft products do quite poorly when there is
> > *ANY*
> > > > > > > > > competition in the marketplace. There were several
popular
> > > > > > > > > office suites before Microsoft started forcing contracts
on
> > the
> > > > > > > > > OEMS that essentially said, "You WILL pre-load MS-Office
to
> > the
> > > > > > > > > exclusion of ALL OTHER office suites--or we will DOUBLE
*YOUR*
> > > > > > > > > licensing fees". That's not business...that's blackmail.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > An alternative viewpoint is: "Load Office and we will give
it to
> > you
> > > > at
> > > > > > > > half-price. "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What a deal the OEM's got. And many, many users who never
had to
> > pay
> > > > > > retail
> > > > > > > > for it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regardless. Tell me the last time a user had any choice as to
> > which
> > > > > > > office suite they wanted to buy?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've NEVER bought a computer with DOS/Windows/WinNT/Win2k or
Office
> > on
> > > > it.
> > > > > > For many years I worked at a University and I could purchase
most of
> > the
> > > > > > software I needed at a substantial educational discount. I
fondly
> > > > remember
> > > > > > when Microsft was selling VB with a copy of NT in the box. Great
> > deal
> > > > for
> > > > > > $Can 118 -- about $US 75.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've always bought computers from smaller companies and then
loaded
> > up
> > > > the
> > > > > > software myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's very easy to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, if you have the proper knowledge. The typical first-time
> > computer
> > > > user
> > > > > has no experience loading operating systems.
> > > >
> > > > That wasn't the point. You said "Tell me the last time a user had
any
> > choice
> > > > as to which
> > > > office suite they wanted to buy?"
> > >
> > > Please show us ONE computer catalog that offers a competing Office
Suite
> > > for sale.
> >
> > Gateway. 99$ for Corel Wordperfect Suite 2000. You do get Microsoft
Works,
> > but you don't have to buy Office 2000.
>
> So, in other words...EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT MS-CRAPWARE YOU ARE FORCED TO
BUY IT.
Tsk tsk. What a poor loser. It took me 60 seconds to find a huge PC maker
selling the Corel Suite on PC's and you didn't have to buy Office 2000.
That was the challenge. I win.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:30:04 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Try to order a GM car with a Ford motor or ... (substitute any
combination
> > of parts and companies).
>
> Considering that this is a near impossibility (without thousands of
> dollars of work in the engine compartment to move engine mounts AND to
> get everything to fit....your argument is nothing but red herring.
>
> Hint fucking hint: Ford motors were never designed to be mounted in
> GM products (nor vice versa). Conversely, Linux and Solaris BOTH
> have version for computers with Intel and/or AMD CPUs.
But they don't have drivers for all the peripherals Dell/Compaq/Gatway sells
inside and outside the cases.
Windows does.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 17:33:19 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8t2458$15a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <WGgI5.32396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Linux does detect the memory correctly, although it uses only the
first 64
> > > > MB of it until you change some configuration files. Chad might've
meant
> > > > that. The only distro I've seen which detects and uses all of the
memory was
> > > > Caldera 2.4.
> > >
> > > This is not true. Sigh...
> > >
> > > The problem is that when Linux is being loaded, a check was made,
> > > basically a BIOS call for memory (can't remember which one), and it
> > > often returned 64M at the most. If you knew you had 128MB of RAM then
> > > you added a boot parameter to Linux to tell it how much RAM you had
> > > since your BIOS/motherboard combination couldn't get it right.
> > >
> > > This is a PC/BIOS bug, not a Linux bug.
> >
> > No, it's a linux bug. Windows detected it just fine.
>
> Can you even get Lose98 to INSTALL on 386 or 486 machine?
>
> A) yes, you can keep old hardware in production
> B) NO, YOU MUST THROW AWAY YOUR OLD MACHINES.
I've run Windows NT Server a 486 with no problem. I admit it wasn't as fast
as I liked but it ran just fine.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:37:20 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >For Linus to impose artificial delays at this point is a glaring
> >failure.
>
> There have been problems with the VM system. I don't think that is
> "arbitrary".
Of course it is 'arbitrary'. If you expect it to reach a 100% bug-free
state you don't understand software development. At some point
someone has to say it is 'good enough'. I don't recall any
apologies for 2.2.0 being blessed with an absolutely broken NFS.
> There have been debates on whether to include a JFS or
> not. That's not "arbitrary" either.
Of course this is arbitrary too. Reiserfs (and I think e3fs) work
better than 2.2.0's NFS. If it weren't arbitrary they would be
in and released by now.
> As a user, I appreciate the idea
> of shipping it when it is done. If corporate involvement means that
> Linus has to ship something that isn't done, well, then I guess I'll
> need to start looking at FreeBSD a little harder.
I don't think you understand how much the quality of free
software has improved as a direct result of the exposure
it has gotten from being released instead of waiting for
perfection.
> The whole goddamn point of the Open Source development process is that
> it is *user* and *developer* driven, not corporate marketing weenie
> driven. That crap is what brought us Microsoft and the "good enough"
> attitude of many software developers.
You are way, way, off base here, and if you want to argue this
direction please give some specific examples of open source
software that has changed the world by holding off release
until it was perfect (well, let's leave TeX out of the picture...).
Then compare that to what has happened because RedHat
pushed out bleeding-edge x.0 releases. Yes, they have
picked up something of a reputation for bugginess, but
bugs have been fixed as a result of this that would never
have been fixed at all without the exposure. There is no
mechanism for open source testing other than actual
real-world use, and that won't happen without a release.
As it turns out, the same is true for commercial releases
even when they have a QA department that tries to simulate
real world.
> If Linux turns into another one
> of those exercises in stupidity, it is doomed because the core group of
> people who got it where it is today will walk.
The stupidity is believing you can find all the bugs by
reading the code. The 'release early and often'
mechanism is what took Linux where it is now by
getting the bugs fixed quickly, not by some pretense
of initial perfection.
> Them's the facts Rex,
> and if Compaq and "mutual fund managers" don't get it then good
> riddance to them because they will not win the war with Microsoft by
> doing exactly what lost them the war last time.
Those aren't even close to the facts. The facts are that none
of the other 'stable' x.x.0 releases were particularly stable
and this one almost certainly won't be either. The point
is that it is an arbitrary cut and the sooner it is made the
sooner the large-scale testing that shakes out the remaining
bugs will happen.
> >Actually, it's Linus who "Changed the rules". It's Linus who has
> >delivered 9 "beta revisions" for the first time in 5 years.
>
> Bullshit. There was a long drawn-out process leading up to 2.2 as
> well. They got up to 2.1.100-something IIRC. It is done when Linus
> thinks it is done.
Sure, Linus doesn't 'owe' the world a new release. He can hold
off forever if he wants a different hobby. That doesn't change
what people need.
> If _you_ or Compaq or anyone else think it is done
> sooner, they are always free to ship it. Nobody is stopping them. If
> it is stable enough, then it is stable enough. If not, not. If Linus
> were to stamp "2.4.1" on the current pre-release, that doesn't change a
> damn thing except the label.
It will change the number of copies in actual use by several
orders of magnitude. You can pretend that isn't important,
but it is.
> >Arguing for total chaos, for absolutely no established "ground rules"
> >creates just the sort of contriversy Microsoft can take to the press
> >and to corporate IT managers.
>
> Is that what I am arguing for? No. I am arguing for taking
> responsibility for what you ship.
Regardless, that will be the result.
> Again, Microsoft has far more to answer for regarding delays than Linus
> does.
But they weren't anyone's 2nd choice with an obvious alternative. Linux
has no locks on any market share.
> >This is true for hackers and experienced Linux users, but Compaq
> >was designing a product directed at the consumer line, novice Linux
> >users who may have known nothing other than Windows 98 and possibly
> >a little NT.
>
> These people DON'T NEED 2.4! These people need KDE2 or Helix plus
> something like Webmin. These things have nothing to do with the 2.4
> kernel, except for USB, which has been backported.
Are you offering to explain to them why their files are limited to
a tiny (these days) 2 gigs? Or help them recompile/replace/reinstall
all executables when 2.4 is released so things won't break when
they try to manipulate large files?
> >It's a very good way to push OEMs, VARs, and corporate executives
> >right back into the Microsft camp. At least with Microsoft, if
> >Microsoft doesn't make it's numbers, it suffers as badly, even worse,
> >than everybody else.
>
> Since when? NT5 was how many years late? I don't see MS suffering
> from this. I don't see them being held accountable in any way at all
> for lateness or bugs or anything else.
But even then, they still require service packs to fix the bugs that
show up in real use, and everyone expects them.
> If the suits want to control Linux, they are free to fork it at any
> time. They can have exactly what they want. But that would cost money
> and entail risk. Can't have that.
I suspect that will have to happen eventually, but there is no reason
to encourage it.
> It is much easier to stick with the
> main kernel and whine about Linus, just like they whine about Microsoft
> (not too much...don't wanna get sued). Well, at least with Linus they
> have options, even if they refuse to take them.
More to the point, Linus's judgment has a proven history (if we ignore the
bit about letting the 32-bit file and VM limits linger long after being
solved
in the *bsd counterparts...) and it will be hard to duplicate.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:44:15 -0700
==============68CBFFC0C0208B946C534B70
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I suppose if I were going to write something this stupid I wouldn't want my
name to appear either...
Paul
"." wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Red Hat Linux is one of the distributions (perhaps the only distribution)
> > referred to in the following e-mail message:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2000/msg00003.html
>
> > Red Hat Managers, being aware of their responsibility to RHAT
> > shareholders and the need to pull in some money for them, decided
> > not to wait for GCC 3.0, and shipped Red Hat 7 NOW with a DEVELOPMENT
> > version of GCC 3.0 as the default compiler (a CVS snapshot for crying
> > out loud!). The reason for doing this instead of using an older,
> > stable version of GCC, such as egcs-2.91.66 (the version of GCC
> > installed on the computer I'm posting from), was that the new version
> > of GCC generates faster code, and Red Hat Managers thought they could
> > be "competitive" against a little-known commercial Linux-i386 C/C++
> > compiler. A stable version of the C/C++ compiler is also included,
> > and is used to compile the kernel. Its name is "kgcc". Red Hat does
> > not tell you that you're getting a development compiler (they call it
> > a "new" compiler instead). They might have used the beta compiler to
> > compile the applications that come with the system. Several Red
> > Hat employees that happen to be non-Managers were opposed to
> > the idea of releasing with a CVS snapshot for a C/C++ compiler. But
> > since they are not Managers, they're not allowed to make any of
> > the decisions.
>
> Absolutely correct. Redhat linux is, next to Mandrake (which isnt
> actually linux at all) the biggest piece of shit unix-look-alike that
> there is.
>
> This is the SECOND time they did this with gcc...Remember 5.0?
>
> Really, there are three Linuxes worth mentioning at all:
>
> SuSe (so much like FreeBSD now its frightening)
> Debian
> Slackware
>
> -----.
--
Outside of a dog a book is your best friend...Inside of a dog
it's too dark to read.
==============68CBFFC0C0208B946C534B70
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I suppose if I were going to write something this stupid I wouldn't want
my name to appear either...
<p>Paul
<p>"." wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<br>> Red Hat Linux is one of the distributions (perhaps the only distribution)
<br>> referred to in the following e-mail message:
<p>> <a
href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2000/msg00003.html">http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2000/msg00003.html</a>
<p>> Red Hat Managers, being aware of their responsibility to RHAT
<br>> shareholders and the need to pull in some money for them, decided
<br>> not to wait for GCC 3.0, and shipped Red Hat 7 NOW with a DEVELOPMENT
<br>> version of GCC 3.0 as the default compiler (a CVS snapshot for crying
<br>> out loud!). The reason for doing this instead of using an older,
<br>> stable version of GCC, such as egcs-2.91.66 (the version of GCC
<br>> installed on the computer I'm posting from), was that the new version
<br>> of GCC generates faster code, and Red Hat Managers thought they could
<br>> be "competitive" against a little-known commercial Linux-i386 C/C++
<br>> compiler. A stable version of the C/C++ compiler is also included,
<br>> and is used to compile the kernel. Its name is "kgcc". Red Hat does
<br>> not tell you that you're getting a development compiler (they call
it
<br>> a "new" compiler instead). They might have used the beta compiler
to
<br>> compile the applications that come with the system. Several Red
<br>> Hat employees that happen to be non-Managers were opposed to
<br>> the idea of releasing with a CVS snapshot for a C/C++ compiler. But
<br>> since they are not Managers, they're not allowed to make any of
<br>> the decisions.
<p>Absolutely correct. Redhat linux is, next to Mandrake (which isnt
<br>actually linux at all) the biggest piece of shit unix-look-alike that
<br>there is.
<p>This is the SECOND time they did this with gcc...Remember 5.0?
<p>Really, there are three Linuxes worth mentioning at all:
<p>SuSe (so much like FreeBSD now its frightening)
<br>Debian
<br>Slackware
<p>-----.</blockquote>
<pre>--
Outside of a dog a book is your best friend...Inside of a dog
it's too dark to read.</pre>
</html>
==============68CBFFC0C0208B946C534B70==
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux in approximately 5 years:
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:44:34 GMT
In article <o13L5.15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bennetts family"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here is my vision of where linux will be in around 5 years:
>>
>> 1. Kernel v. 2.6 released
>
> My guess is that there won't be a 2.6, instead a jump to 3.0.
>
You're right. I remember Linus saying that, after the 2.4 kernel, there
will be a jump right to kernel 3.0.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:45:53 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4I1L5.116843$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > RedHat PGP sign the disrtibutions.
>
> And your average user checks when they do an install?
Do you think there is some challenge in tricking an
average user?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:46:16 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:YFEK5.12083$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > I seem to recal you are people like you continually bashing Microsoft
> > > > for the lateness of Win2K. But Win2K was much better than anyone
> > > > expected and included more features than anyone expected. It advanced
> > > > the state of OS technology. Linux is trying to play catch-up. When you
> > > > look the feature list for Win2k and the feature list for Linux 2.4,
> > > > Win2K still has more features.
> > >
> > > What new technology is there in win2k?
> > >
> > > -Ed
> >
> > The main innovation is a perversion of kerberos that allows them to
> > use the name of a standard while still preventing usable interoperability
> > with any other vendor.
>
> Ah yes, more of the Slashdot mentality and falseness.
>
> Please, Les, since you know so much about it, explain to use why
> it's not able to interoperate with any other vendor?
>
> This should be interesting, considering your wrong.
Actualy, I have read Microsoft has made changes to their implementation
of kerberos what will not allow non-windows system validate against a
windows system, and these changes are kept under NDA.
>
> -Chad
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Funny Pics (computer related)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:59:07 GMT
http://www.shybe.com/Funny/hardware/hardware.html
Javaduke
------------------------------
From: Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 01:45:05 GMT
> > *EVERY* product is released with known problems. Red Hat does it.
> Caldera
> > does it. Debian does it. FreeBSD does it.
>
> Again, MS does it with more than any other company I have seen.
Redhat has roughly 12,500+ bugs listed.
Other linux dist has about the same number.
> > If the problems able to be worked around, or are cosmetic, then it's
> not
> > worth delaying the product.
>
> Not when they can release 95 with so many bugs they can turn around
and
> SELL the big fixes as 98 and make more money!
You've never tried to convinced 95 to read USB, didn't you?
It's much more than just a bug fix.
BESIDE, there has been some newpapers (NYT, wasn't it?) that listed
patched that would make 95 inoto 98, for FREE.
So please check your info.
> And it's been stated, over and over again, that
> > the number was significantly less than 64,000,
>
> Stated yes but never proven.
Do you know what MS consider a bug? What "BugBug" (or is it "BadBug"?)
mean for MS? (I think that the equal linux term is "XXX", but I'm not
sure)
It means that this particular part of the code is not up to the
programmer standards, it can be improved, but it works.
Every good programmer distribue those marks very freely.
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/02/11/1840225.shtml
An article on slashdot.org, (linux fans, mainly) about this.
I suggest that you would read the comments, they are very interesting.
> At least with opensource I can go an look at the bug list and decide
for
> my self what issues are bugs and what are not. Lets see MS's What does
> MS have to hide but 64000 bugs in the closet.
You want windows code? No problem.
A> For Windows CE code, subscribe to MSDN, (cost money) you'll get it.
B> For other Windows code, ask MS, they are willing to give it, for a
price.
But I forgot, OSS thinks that software should be free, and programmers
should starve.
What is the redhat finance model? They are making money by giving
support, right?
What is their interest in making Linux better & simpler?
--
All we have of freedom, all we use or know--
This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.
Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw--
Leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the Law.
__________
Ayende Rahien
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
