Linux-Advocacy Digest #976, Volume #29 Wed, 1 Nov 00 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Weevil")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Greg Cox)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (Jim Broughton)
Re: Considering Linux for personal use (Terry Porter)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (javelina)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: Considering Linux for personal use ("Tiro Verus")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux (Jim Broughton)
Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good! (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Mark Lindner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:36:10 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tnfcm$mds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:iAbL5.5023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> :> Linux seems to run several "domain squatter" sites, where they register
> :> hundreds or thousands of domains and direct them to the same server.
>
> : How did you discover that? Why do you think it is a statistically
> : relevant number compared to other systems?
>
> He doesn't. He's just too blind to see that the premise he uses
> to discredit the Netcraft survey causes his own argument to discredit
> itself too. If you can't tell from the outside which hostnames go
> to which physical boxes, then he can't make his claim that Linux has
> lots of domain squatters that map names to one box - his very own
> premise (that you can't tell from the outside) makes it impossible
> to know if this is going on or not.
What are you talking about? My statement was that there is no evidence to
suggest that there are more Linux boxes on the internet than Win2k boxes.
And that is in fact true.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:35:52 -0600
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tmafu$pf7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> Interesting experiance that happened to me yesterday, my win2k machine
> locked up. No mouse response, keyboard is forzen, nothing works.
> I went to another machine and tried to logged on. It worked. I could log
in,
> manage file, change settings, HTTP, FTP, everything. All the while the
> machine was non responsive to any input from keyboard or mouse.
> I finally had to reboot it, (from the other computer, safe, nice, quiet
> reboot) so I could keep on working on the computer. Theoretically, I
> could've kept it alive, since as a server, it worked quite well.
> (The problem is in my display adapter, it's apperantly a defect, I'm going
> to replace it.)
> Just wanted to let you "X may crash but linux never does" people about
this.
> I was truely shocked.
You had to reboot?? Why didn't you just kill the GUI and restart it? That
way you wouldn't have to shut down everything else that was still running
and...
Oh wait, you weren't running Linux. You were running Windows 2000, Sorry.
Never mind. :)
jwb
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:39:06 +0200
"Jacques Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > I didn't ask about *good* software, I asked about *popular* software.
>
> Duke Nukem, Quake, Exterminator, Lara Croft, and, for the
> *really* brain-dead, the best: PowerPoint.
What are those, I don't think I see the relation to what I was talking
about.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Cox)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:55:07 -0800
In article <YZ0L5.116827$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:q9tgt8.n6k.ln@gd2zzx...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman) wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > > ..all sorts of rampant speculation...
> > >
> > > Wow Charlie. Take that medication quick smart! You're starting
> > > to make the Chads look good.
> > >
> > > What MS say is that they have no evidence that anything was
> > > stolen (see press release). But they only found out a Qaz
> > > trojan was running on a machine inside their network the other
> > > day. And reports of its age range from 1 to 3 months. Who
> > > really knows what went on in that time. They don't log
> > > everything and may not always be able to tell the difference
> > > between an intruder's actions and those of the legitimite
> > > user in any case.
> >
> > you tell Charlie to take medication and then go on to say that
> > nobody, including Microsoft, knows what actually has been done.
> > Well we know that their network was wide open for a long time
> > to whoever got the passwords. It is irrelevant whether they took
> > Microsoft s/w or modified it. You cannot trust their s/w from
> > now on. Even they don't know if it has been modified. How do you
> > audit 50 million lines of source code?
>
> I'd compare it backups from before the Qaz trojan infected the home computer
> of a Microsoft employee.
>
> Real easy to do.
>
> And then I would ban VPN access to the network.
>
> Home computers accessing the internal LAN are probably bad news at any
> company.
>
>
MS doesn't even have to go to the backups to check for changes in the
source code. All source code updates at MS are controlled by a source
code management system. All changes are logged as to what changed in
which file and who changed them.
Also, everyone around here seems to think that all MS employees have
access to the source code for all MS products. Nothing could be further
from the truth. If a hacker got access to an MS developer's machine and
all the passwords known by the developer, he would be limited to seeing
the project the developer is currently working on. That's it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 06:54:10 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> El lun, 30 oct 2000, . escribió:
> >Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>> "." wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Mandrake is not linux; they completely redid the kernel headers and
> >>> > broke massive amounts of legacy software as a result. Thats why
> >>> > there are "rpm-mdk"s, brainiac.
> >>> >
> >>> > Do you have problems with SuSe, Debian or Slackware?
> >>>
> >>> So what do you advise? As you can see, I am running Mandrake,
> >>> just because I am a newcomer to Linux, because it got excellent
> >>> reviews in British mags, etc. A year ago, I had tried
> >>> Caldera, and it went pretty well. Debian, I gather, is
> >>> only for the knowledgeable crowd, to which I definitely
> >>> do not belong. Slackware also? SuSe, I have read good
> >>> reviews of, but I no longer know what to believe. Or
> >>> should I stick with Mandrake until I know my way around
> >>> better? (Better a lame horse than a legless horse)
> >
> >
> >> Mandrake is an excellent distro. It is very newbie friendly yet it
> >> includes lots of software that would benefit experienced users.
> >> Whether or not it is true Linux is semantics, IMO.
> >
> >Its not semantics actually, its legalities. They changed the kernel
> >without either Cox's or Torvald's approval; therefore it is not
> >linux.
>
> Dear ".", that's pretty much bullshit.
>
> No distribution, except for perhaps SOME of the mini-on-floppy ones ships a
> as-released-by-Alan-or-Linus kernel.
>
> You can check it out.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> So what if it isn't true Linux, or if the elitist users look down
> >> their nose at you for running it.
> >
> >Theres nothing wrong with running it; it simply shouldnt be included
> >in a conversation about LINUX, since it isnt. :)
>
> If Mandrake ain't Linux, Then no distro is Linux.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
Slackware uses an UNMODIFIED kernel directly from kernel.org
in distro 7.1.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Considering Linux for personal use
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Nov 2000 06:52:33 GMT
On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 03:00:18 GMT, C. Nolan McKinney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have always been a big fan of DOS. I used a 286 computer for ten years
>before i broke down and bought a 586 winbox, I expected a quantum leap, but
>the new computer is way slower. I am disappointed with Windows98, I think I
>just don't like graphical interfaces, I especially hate that the mouse
>(dirty rat!) has to be used all the time. I also have a 386 laptop that I
>use to type and email when I'm away from home. I'm thinking about switching
>both computers to linux just to get away from Microsoft, because as far as
>microsoft is concerned, my laptop doesn't even exist. I have heard that
>linux uses a lot less computing power than windows so I am very interested.
Linux uses almost 0% cpu when idle, wheras Win95 uses 100% when idle.
>
>I would like both computers to boot up to something like a DOS shell,
Linux CLI is like a dos shell, cept its multiuser and multitasking, has
tab filename completion and past command recall/search.
Is your mouth watering yet ?
> a
>simple menu where I can scroll to the program I want to use and hit enter
>and be there. Can I do this?
I've seen such things on www.freshmeat.net.
> Is there linux software that will do word
>processing and email lightning fast on my 386 laptop?
Depends, what size texts, how many emails in your folders ?
> Will it be harder to
>set up than a DOS shell?
I believe its easier, way easier, but its also more featurefull, and way more
usable.
Kinda like DOS with Desqview etc, but it doesnt crash like they did.
> unfortunately my knowledge of the inner workings of
>computers is limited.
Luckily Linux is a "learning OS", give it time, say a couple of years, and
youll be fine:)
>
>Thanks,
>Nolan
>
>
>
>--
>_____________________________________
>C. Nolan McKinney
>http://home.att.net/~c.nolan.mckinney/
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: javelina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 06:58:35 GMT
Simon Palko wrote:
> [snip utterly stupid argument]
Which part was stupid? The part where I said that there
should be manual backups in place for when computer
systems fail? I'm not talking about tape backups, if
that's where your confusion lies. I'm talking manually
starting and controlling the engines and steering when
the computers are down.
> "Military intelligence" is one of the most profound
> oxymorons I know of. ;)
I do see your "smile & wink", however, having spent
8 years during the 80's in Army Intelligence, and
spending quite a bit of time in liaison with Air Force
and Navy Intel, I can honestly say that there were a
lot of sharp guys around back then.
Most civilians have absolutely no concept of what the
military is like, forming the bulk of their opinions from
movies and television shows. In Intelligence, the
problem is compounded when you're restricted from
discussing all of the good things that you did and
will never be known for decades or perhaps never, whereas
your errors are known to the world instantly.
In such an environment, you learn to accept only the
opinions, good or bad, of your peers and ignore all
the rest.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 07:12:37 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Because you can get larger networks at very little configuration
>> cost (as opposed to using routers between network segments)?
> I'm not concerned at this point with the "switching or routing" false
> dichotomy.
Why do you call it a false dichotomy? I mean, it's basically the same
thing at different layers, but layer 3 switching is essentially
automatically configured, which surely must be great?
> The question was why, if shared media isn't limited by this
> supposedly false "30% ceiling", as the poster was indicating, people
> spent extra money going to switched, rather than simply increasing their
> bandwidth to 100 meg at *zero* configuration cost.
Well, going to switched is zero configuration cost, too, and 100Mbit
shared might, as Peter da Silva has pointed out, be costly in terms of
equipment. I'm unclear why the height under the ceiling matters at
all.
My point was that as network segments grow, switched networks lets
them, to hundreds of nodes if you want, and it's certainly cheaper
than going to 1000Mbit shared, were it an alternative.
Low latency and price of a hub makes it a nice solution for small
segments of a handful of computers, but I wouldn't use it in a larger
scale.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Nov 2000 07:23:05 GMT
On 01 Nov 2000 01:36:46 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 27 Oct 2000 23:27:37 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>i tend to agree. GNU/Linux was not and is not for the desktop.
>>
>>I tend to disagree, GNU/Linux is most certainly for the desktop :)
>>
>>I should know, its been on my desktop exclusively since August97.
>>
>>
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
>>--
>
>What i meant was Linux is not ready for the mass desktop (ie average windoze
>user).
Sorry but I have to disagree, the average Windows user doesnt know a lot
about anything, its all point n click.
> Moreover, I dont think it should be. Im decently certain theres no way
>to make it completely idiot friendly (refer to mass desktop) and still reatin
>the security/scalibilty/roubustness it currently enjoys.
This just doesnt make sense to me ...
Windows has NO security and no remote admin, Linux has these.
If Linux was pre installed, then it would be far more secure than Windows, at
least it has ths *capability*.
None of these "average windows users" install Windows themselves, so why should
they install Linux themselves ?
A properly installed Linux box, would reduce the worldwide pain of having a
desktop by a huge margin!
No IloveYOU virii, no overwritten dlls, no lost security etc.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Tiro Verus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Considering Linux for personal use
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 07:35:05 GMT
C. Nolan McKinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have always been a big fan of DOS. I used a 286 computer for ten years
> before i broke down and bought a 586 winbox, I expected a quantum leap, but
> but the new computer is way slower.
Gooey gluey GUI phooey, I say. Sailing ships also sail better
when they are not flying hundreds of colorful extra little
flags, isn't that right?
> I think I just don't like graphical interfaces
You are in good company. Look for Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning
Was the Command Line" and Gentner and Nielsen's "The Anti-Mac Inter-
face." Both should be easy to find. I'd add Dan Strychalski, the
great historian of the keyboard, but I can't find some of his best
articles on-line any more.
> I especially hate that the mouse (dirty rat!) has to
> be used all the time.
Sit mus, sit rattus, itidem odiosus et molestus mihi.
I wish I could assure you that all Linux apps are well-designed
enough to obviate this, but I can't, alas. But there are
certainly editors and mailers than never require a mouse.
> I also have a 386 laptop that I use to type and email when I'm away
> from home. I'm thinking about switching both computers to linux just
> to get away from Microsoft, because as far as
> microsoft is concerned, my laptop doesn't even exist.
> I would like both computers to boot up to something like a DOS shell, a
> simple menu where I can scroll to the program I want to use and hit enter
> and be there. Can I do this?
Don't recall having seen this.
> Is there linux software that will do word
> processing and email lightning fast on my 386 laptop?
I used a (non-laptop) 386 as a dumb terminal to my shell account,
it seemed just as fast both in e-mail (Pine) and editing as the
old DOS apps (yes, they were faster than Windows)
>Will it be harder to set up than a DOS shell? unfortunately my
> knowledge of the inner workings of computers is limited.
You probably will need some assistance. In any case, no one, repeat
no one should try attempt the first install solo. Look for
a local Linux Users Group:
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html C Browne
http://lugww.nllgg.nl/ Linux User Groups WorldWide
http://www.cbourne.com/lug.html Linux Users' Groups
http://www.nlug.org/webring/ Linux User's Groups Webring
http://salug.dev.amadeus.net/lugww/index.html Linux User Groups WorldWide
http://www.linux.org/users/index.html User Groups Around the Globe
Sapere aude, et vale - T.
--
The sponsors of this site will make a donation of freefood in
return for your click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 07:35:46 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fkLL5.26973$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> How 'bout a real workgroup database development environment for making
> small business or workgroup database applications that an average user
> can learn and master in days or weeks. I don't believe there is ANYTHING
> on Linux that competes even remotely with Access and all its
functionality.
Do you have any idea how much damage an average user can cause
when they try to build a database app in days or weeks without
understanding database concepts? I don't think anyone wants to
encourage that.
> How 'bout a good, solid RAD development environment for making entire
> applications including internationalization, project management,
> integrated source control, workgroup collaboration, etc. VB and VC++
provide
> this nicely. There are no competitors on Linux.
Why do you need an integrated package for that? Don't your standalone
tools work well enough? Why would you want your source control
tied to a single language, let alone a single vendor's platform?
> Shall I continue?
Sure - tell us about the things that work cross-platform that you like
better on windows. The things that don't lock you into a single
vendor system in development with a single and odd concept
of objects.
>
> If you need really handy text editors and command-line utilities, Windows
> has those and more. Linux is really irrelevant as there's nothing you can
> do on Linux that you can't do on Windows.
Except keep working for years without crashing or rebooting... And
build programs that will interoperate correctly with other platforms.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:42:20 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Not suprisingly after Win95 was on the scene and Internet Explorer and Netscape
>> provided decent browsing and an easy-to-configure PPP setup in Win95 which
>> enabled users to connect to the Internet with ease. Without support for
>> the Internet and TCP/IP in Windows, it would be a different state of affairs
>> today, that's for sure. Windows will still be dominant, but people couldn't
>> connect to the Internet easily and it would remain a "niche thing" most likely.
>
>Are you trying to make it sound like Microsoft invented any of that?
I think he's trying to make it sound like Win95 was responsible for the
Internet, not that Microsoft invented the Internet.
>It was
>all well developed and clearly on its way to being ubiquitous before
>MS would even touch it. By all reports up to the last minute they were
>still planning to deploy MSN as an incompatible alternative to the
>internet.
No, but they got to take credit for it, see. Because the first time
most people used the Internet was on Windows, and the only OS that was
in widespread use at the time was Windows. The only thing which would
be different had Win95 never happened would be that PC computing would
be cheaper and easier, I think. That's the crux of the issue. Chad's
particular spin on history isn't uncommon, unfortunately, no matter how
incorrect it is.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:47:03 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >The 10% number is a figment of your imagination.
>>
>> No, it is the results of my research and experience, which I'm going to
>> have to point out is not limited to only examining the ethernet itself,
>> but dealing with the "whole network".
>
>Then you worked with out-of-spec networks. If you stay in spec, you
>never lose or corrupt packets, so the high level protocol timeouts and
>error correction mechanisms never come into play. [...]
Les, please. I know you can do much better than that.
Presuming perfect behavior in a component is not an effective way to
ensure the reliability of a system.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 07:58:23 GMT
JoeX1029 wrote:
>
> i tend to agree. GNU/Linux was not and is not for the desktop.
It is ready for the desktop. It sits on mine and runs everyday.
It does everything I need an OS to do with a plus being added
stability and the avoidance of virus's and the like that plague
the OTHER OS.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good!
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:01:24 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Get real and get your head out of the clouds.
Oh?
> If MS ever perceived a threat they'd just [...]
...publish doctored benchmarks, and web pages full of FUD.
If you haven't seen that MS does indeed perceive a threat, it is
tempting to ask where you have *your* head.
> No more need for Linux (not that there ever was one).
Sure, we could use Free/Net/OpenBSD or Solaris instead, and it
wouldn't make all that big a difference. Takes more than an X server
on Windows, though.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Mark Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 08:06:20 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Well, if stability is the biggest issue here, I doubt it will take 30 years
> to reach unix stability.
> 2000 is by far more stable than NT/9x systems.
> One can only hope that whistler will be just as good from 2000 as 2000 is
> over NT.
> If this would be the case, I think that the version after whistler will
> likely to be on par with unix in its stability.
I beg to differ on that point...I ran NT 4.0 for a few years, and it got more
and more stable (though only marginally so) with each successive service pack
(I stopped at 5), but I've found that Win 2000 has sent me right back to the
level of the original NT 4.0...if not further...frequent crashes, constant
lockups, etc...it's almost as bad as I remember Win95 being. My only reason
for switching to 2k was better hardware support, but I'm very unimpressed with
this offering overall.
Successive versions of UNIX (namely Solaris and Linux) tend to be increasingly
stable...I believe that this signifies a slow (but sure) convergence on a
solid, robust design. Microslop, on the other hand, feels compelled to gut the
hell out of Windows in each iteration, adding millions of lines of new code,
shoving more crash-prone user-level crap into the kernel in the interests of
improving performance (when the real problem stems from a poor OS design in
the first place), releasing patches that typically weigh in at around 80
Mb...it's ridiculous.
When upgrade my Ultra to a new version of Solaris, I don't have to wonder
what's going to break this time...it just works, and typically works as well
as (or better) than the previous version. This is simply, provably, undeniably
untrue with Windows.
Mark
==============================================================================
Mark Lindner http://www.dystance.net/
==============================================================================
"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
-Horace Walpole
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
