Linux-Advocacy Digest #8, Volume #30 Thu, 2 Nov 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Steve Mentzer)
Re: Microsoft == Firestone (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Mig)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (.)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Michael Marion)
Re: Linux in approximately 5 years: (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Michael Marion)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Mig)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Bruce Schuck")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:14:10 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> gm wrote:
> >
> > Not really. Nor is it surprising, but I think it has little to do with
> > Windows and much more to do with individuals. It could have
> > happened anywhere, as long as you have users who are willing
> > to run untested executables that (unknowingly) contain trojan code.
>
> But when the e-mail comes from one's supervisor, the tendancy is
> to trust it.
>
> besides, it really doesn't matter if you open up the virus-laden
> excel macro inside your e-mail or if you save it first and then
> load it up...you're STILL fucking screwed, because Losedows STILL
> doesn't have proper filesystem protection via permission bits or
> any other similar scheme.
>
It does.
Check NTFS.
And you need to *manually* agrees to run macros in order for it to run.
And you also need to shorten your sig.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Mentzer)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 21:16:55 GMT
>
>What a bug-ridden piece of shit.
What a nice way to start this thread... :)
>If I burn an audio CD, everything works fine,
>but don't try burning another after it! The CD Writer driver (or something in
>the subsystem) fucks itself up after the first burn...when you're burning the
>second CD, it gets all the way to the end, then when it is 75% through burning
>the last track, the whole application just disappears, and the CD Writer locks
>up and won't let you eject the CD. Then when you play it, it plays fine,
>except for the spot where it stopped writing on the last track. What absolute
>dogshit. So I have to burn a CD, reboot, burn another, reboot.
This is an application-specific problem. The same situation *could* occurr on
Linux if the burner application left the CD writer in a specific state...
>
>I'm using beta video drivers...
>
That is your first mistake...
>and due to the shitty design of the Win2000
>kernel, a problem in the driver will just spontaneously reboot the computer
>without any fanfare.
>
You can do the same thing under Linux. Does it mean the Linux kernel is shitty?
>Did I mention that you *still* can't reliably kill a hung process in Windoze?
If it is a user-level process, all you have to do is ctrl-alt-delete,
task-manager, select the process in the process list and click "end". Wait a
few seconds for it to signal an auto-close, and select "end process".
Server-level processes cannot be killed. The same holds true for linux, unless
you are su.
>I have to physically unplug the goddamn machine from the wall when a process
>gets hung...I can't even reboot...and I can't hit the reset button on the
>hardware because of the power-management crap. I thought one of the
>fundamental jobs of an operating system was to manage processes...how the FUCK
>did that requirement slip past the Winblows engineers?
>
Since you have no clue about what you are talking about, cursing must
strengthen your argument substantially...
>Try running an old DOS game under Win2K? Forget about it. Alt-TAB out of it
>and you're done. If you're lucky, it'll reboot automatically. Otherwise, yank
>that plug again.
>
Dos games aren't supposed to run under WinNT or Win2k for that matter. Neither
OS was advertised to be 100% fully dos compatible. BTW: Linux cannot run all
your dos games either. Does that make it shitty?
>Fucking Windows 2000. None of the myriad of serious design flaws in the
>previous versions of Windows have been addressed, but at least in this version
>I have animated menus, a fancier taskbar, a new recycle bin icon.
>
Actually, Windows 2k has been rock solid and stable. Then again, I sort of know
what I am doing. Lots of design and stability issues were addressed.
>You know, Linux was a bit buggy at first...
and still is. All OS's have bugs.
>so was Solaris...but over time they
>get more and more robust and stable and foolproof...
Win2k is light-years ahead of NT.
>but not Windows. It's the
>same piece of bug-infested dogshit that it was from day one.
>
Pure ignorance...
>My Solaris box has been up for 72 days. The last time I rebooted it, it was
>for maintenance reasons. This fucking Windoze 2000 box needs to be rebooted at
>least once a day.
My win2k exchange/domain server at home has been running for 4 months
continuous. It is a PII-300 w/160MB ram running Win2kServer, Exchange2000RC2,
ActiveDirectory,SQL7, MSMQ, etc etc. It is rock solid, fast and reliable.
>The only time it stays up for any length of time is if I
>don't use it to do any actual work.
>
LOL....
>But don't worry, Bill G., there will always be plenty of cretinous drooling
>assholes to buy your piece of shit wannabe "operating system".
>
Unlike you, I run both Win2k AND Linux. I love both OS's. To dismiss Win2k like
you have only serves to demonstrate your absolute ignorance of a solid and
reliable product.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft == Firestone (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:21:40 +0200
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:35:24 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Where Gates, Allen, and other notables answered each question by either
> >>
> >> a) lying
> >> b) dodging the question
> >> c) claiming ignorance.
> >>
> >
> >And this surprise you because?
> >It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that they would do so.
> >Or did you thought that Gates would come and say: "Of course we used
illegal
> >means to become the monopol. Now please breakup my company and ruin my
> >lifework as well as my money cow."
> >
> >
>
> So then why do you say we should trust his closed source software,
> hypocrite.
Because of the simplest of all reasons, selfishness.
Think about it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:26:41 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> broken root and is running the box nice and smooth so it will be up and
> >> running for the DDOS atack on Yahoo.
> >
> >As opposed to NT, where all one has to do is get on the machine,
> >and there is not need to 'break root'...because you already have it!
>
> Depends on the laxness of the sysadmin types; however, because of
> various issues, I suspect many NT boxes do have admininstrator
> capabilities for one user; one merely has to find that user.
> (Is a graphical 'su' available for Win2k? I don't recall.)
Yes, it has. Very good one, I might add.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:57:44 +0100
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> Of course he's lying. He has no arguement.
>
> But what is most ironic is that he claims Linux is "scary" because the
> source code is available for people to see, and then he uses OpenBSD as
> and example of what is secure. Total hypocracy.
It starts to get sad reading the posts by Bruce. At first they were amusing
but now i start to feel sorry for him.
Obviously the poor guy is not even aware of the fact that lots of code
compiles on both *BSD, Linux and other Unices without modifications.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: 2 Nov 2000 22:09:16 GMT
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> El mi=E9, 01 nov 2000, . escribi=F3:
>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Since I had not mentioned headers, and I was replying to something tha=
t
> didn't >> say headers, how the fuck is one supposed to guess you actuall=
y mean
> HEADERS, >> when saying KERNEL? If you are too stupid to write coherentl=
y,
> spare the world >> your idiocy.
>>
>>Because I said "headers" in my first post in this thread on the subject.=
I=20
>>suspected that context would last, but I guess I underestimated you.
> Perhaps you should recheck the thread. The first mention to "mandrake is=
not
> linux" came from you and contained zero instances of the word "headers".
> Read it, see what a stupid fuck you are, then come back.
Alright, read it you stupid shit; and heres what I said:
"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."
No wonder you cant understand anything. You cant READ.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 22:09:57 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Or OpenVMS or RISC-OS. Funny, they have similar commands to Windows.
> Strange how UNIX is out on a limb with its obscure command set.
Unless I'm mistaken, Unix existed (so the commands did too) long before the
other OSes did, so they named the commands in a way they thought was best at
the time.
> > Type "man ls" and find out .... Wintroll
>
> Of course I know what 'ls' means, idiot! I'm trying to get across the
> point that 'ls' is obscure whereas 'dir' is less so.
Both are equally obscure to computer newbies. Most users that never used DOS
(and even many that do) don't even know a directory is, so dir isn't going to
be any more intuitive to them then ls.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to properly use a
given tool without training or understanding is even more wrong for
computing than it is for other tools (eg automobiles, airplanes, guns or
power saws).
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux in approximately 5 years:
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Nov 2000 15:13:43 -0700
"javaduke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have now got Lotus Smart Suite ME running under Linux using WINE, it is
> really cool. I now have a replacement for StarOffice.
I've been using StarOffice 5.2 for about a month now, and while it is
slow, it is very stable and feature-full. I can't imagine that Lotus
Smart Suite is very fast under WINE.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 22:15:40 GMT
2:1 wrote:
> No its not. Type is what you do at the keyboard. Besides, cat stands fot
> catenate, which is what it does. What's wrong with the word catenate?
<anal mode>
Actually it's concatenate not catenate.
</anal>
> > I didn't say they were less cryptic, I said you knew what they meant.
>
> You said they were less cryptic.
He also forgets that new users aren't going to know what any of this stuff
stands for anyway...
> Because I've used them. But you know ehat grep, ls, cat etc do because
> you have used them. So what is your point?
You've hit the nail on the head.
> > Because they appear on a more popular system. Everyone has heard of them.
>
> that has little to do with crypticness.
Actually it has zero to do with it.. he just contradicted his own argument.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
Beer recipe: free! ~= Source
Cold pints: $2 ~= Product
Safe rides home, any hour: $25 ~= Technical Support
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:17:21 +0100
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:mJPL5.12536$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:fkLL5.26973$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > How 'bout a real workgroup database development environment for making
> > > small business or workgroup database applications that an average user
> > > can learn and master in days or weeks. I don't believe there is
> > > ANYTHING on Linux that competes even remotely with Access and all its
> > functionality.
> >
> > Do you have any idea how much damage an average user can cause
> > when they try to build a database app in days or weeks without
> > understanding database concepts?
>
> Well ... I understand how much damage they do to open source when they CAN
> create a database app in a few days with a little bit of effort.
>
> Access as a tool is a great product. As a back-end to many VB Apps and
> data driven web sites, the JET database is amazing.
Access is a great lightweight product for a single user app and nothing
else. I once tryed to build a major administrative app with Access
programmed in Access Basic.. well we ended up with a functioning prototype
and nothing else. Should have used Delphi in the first place :-)
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:24:46 -0800
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:1n1M5.11388$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:35:55 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >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.
>
>
> MySQL.
>
>
> >I don't believe there is ANYTHING
> >on Linux that competes even remotely
> >with Access and all its functionality.
>
>
> Surely you can't be serious. Access
> vs. MySQL or Postgres? Do you realize how
> ridiculous you sound?
You win in ridiculousness. MySQL is a RDBMS.
Access is a database tool that can store it's own data or it can be just a
front end to an RDBMS and it includes query builders, forms/forms designers,
report writers, VBA etc etc.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:35:45 -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]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8tobps$cq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <iAbL5.5023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > How many multi-server load balanced Linux sites can you come up
> > with?
> > > > > > Google is a good one, but it's a rarity.
> > > > >
> > > > > The main reason you don't see as many clustered UNIX sites is that
a
> > > > > single machine can do the work of many NT machines.
> > > >
> > > > No, it's that web sites are not just serving up static pages
anymore.
> > > >
> > > > > Microsoft's own site is a virtual masterpiece example of throwing
> > > > > resources at a problem instead of using your head. A single IBM
> > > > > mainframe could handle that load, and be cheaper. It would, of
> > > > > course, be running UNIX. Or Linux even.
> > > >
> > > > microsoft.com alone transfers 6 Terrabytes of data day. Executes
> > millions
> > > > of queries, and creates dynamic content by the 100's of millions.
I'm
> > > > sorry, but a mainframe can't deal with that kind of data throughput
on a
> > > > single machine.
> > > >
> > > > Even if it could, you're putting all your eggs in one basket. What
> > happens
> > > > if you have a power outage,
> > >
> > > The same way financial businesses do: a HUGE lead-acid battery (often
> > > consisting of dozens of car batteries) as battery backup AND a big old
> > > diesel-engine-powered generator activated by the battery backup.
> > >
> > >
> > > > a failed router,
> > >
> > > simple redundancy.
> > >
> > > > or any number of other failures
> > > > that can cause a localized failure.
> > >
> > > simple redundancy
> > >
> > > > Even if you have redundancy in the
> > > > mainframe, it might not be enough. If you need 24x7, you need
> > distributed
> > > > servers with load balancing run across multiple data centers.
> > >
> > > simple redundancy
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On top of that, Mainframes don't run as a single fast server. An
IBM
> > > > mainframe typically runs as something like 500 seperate servers
> > virtually.
> > > > That means no single subsystem can gain anywhere near the kind of
> > > > performance the full machine is capable of.
> > >
> > > But much of the load is off-loaded onto smart disk-cabinets like EMC.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Microsoft has probably the largest. I'm amazed by it really.
> > > > >
> > > > > In all fairness to Microsoft, this is a less a problem with them
than
> > > > > it is our current idea of lot's of little machines to do
computation.
> > > > > It is not always a win. Sometimes big iron works better, and
cheaper.
> > > >
> > > > A single IBM mainframe costs millions of dollars. That's not
counting
> > the
> > > > proprietary maintenance agreements you need to sign, and the cost of
the
> > > > periphials. You have to add disk arrays, network arrays, etc.. And
> > they
> > > > cost a pretty penny. Microsofts tpc cost is much much lower than a
> > typical
> > > > IBM mainframe, which tells me that mainframes aren't as cheap as you
> > claim.
> > >
> > > You're fucking on drugs, you know?
> > >
> > > It takes a couple THOUSAND NT-machines to imitate an IBM mainframe.
> >
> > The amazingly ignorant unix geek spews bullsh*t again.
> >
> > False. Absolutely false.
>
> Prove it.
>
> NT is incredibly slow.
Win2K is fast.
Thats why the top 4 TPC-C positions are held by Win2K + (SQL Server or DB2)
And it's cheap.
Win2K + SQL Server holds the top 45 TPC-C price/performances spots.
And IIS 5 on Win2K serves up dynamic content much faster than other
platforms.
http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/reviews/0,6755,2551188,00.html
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:36:10 +0200
"Steve Mentzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bRkM5.71$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Did I mention that you *still* can't reliably kill a hung process in
Windoze?
>
> If it is a user-level process, all you have to do is ctrl-alt-delete,
> task-manager, select the process in the process list and click "end". Wait
a
> few seconds for it to signal an auto-close, and select "end process".
>
> Server-level processes cannot be killed. The same holds true for linux,
unless
> you are su.
One of the problems with win2k is that even administrator can't kill some
processes. Or can it, and I'm simply not aware of it?
If so, I would love to know how.
kill -f <pid> doesn't work for some applications.
is Net Stop the way to go?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 00:40:19 +0200
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8tspaa$rf4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:mJPL5.12536$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:fkLL5.26973$[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?
> >
> > Well ... I understand how much damage they do to open source when they
CAN
> > create a database app in a few days with a little bit of effort.
> >
> > Access as a tool is a great product. As a back-end to many VB Apps and
> > data driven web sites, the JET database is amazing.
>
> Access is a great lightweight product for a single user app and nothing
> else. I once tryed to build a major administrative app with Access
> programmed in Access Basic.. well we ended up with a functioning prototype
> and nothing else. Should have used Delphi in the first place :-)
Access (2000, not sure about 97-) can support up to roughly 20 concurrent
users, but I wouldn't go with access if I though I would have 20 concurrent
users (5 - 15 is more like it.). There is a cut down version of SQL Server
that MS offers for free (it's on the MSDN site, sorry I can't give you the
name, the abbrevestion remembering part of me stop functioning since it's
running access and it got too full :) )
It should be much better in handling light to meduim load.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:44:48 -0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Andy Newman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <8tk12f$614$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Which "fixes" are present in Win98 you can't download for free ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Similarly with NT, perhaps you've heard of service packs ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't get it did you. All versions of Win are fixes
> > > > > to the previous one. It's only recently with Win2K that
> > > > > they're getting the complete set of functions together in
> > > > > a package that's half-well implemented. It's taken long
> > > > > enough.
> > > >
> > > > Win2k isn't just a fix of NT4.
> > >
> > > True, this time they broke more than they fixed ;-)
> >
> > What are you talking about? What's broken? I've been using it since the
> > final betas and havent had a single system crash. What is broken in
> > Windows2000?
> >
> > >
> > > > Windows.Net (Whistler) due out in the spring isn't a fix for WinME
or
> > Win9x.
> > > > So you are wrong. All versions of Windows aren't fixes to the
previous
> > one,
> > >
> > > No, but often the only fix to a Windows problem is to purchase an
> > > upgrade to a new version.
> >
> > Give an example of a fix that was only available by purchasing an
upgrade,
> > c'mon back up you fud with a fact.
> >
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q175/6/29.ASP
>
> Note that the downloadable fixes are not regression tested, and are
> dated 1998, and the fixes do not apply to Windows 95, only SR2 and
> higher.
>
> The only "tested" fix is to purchase Windows 98
But in this case, the situation is only a performance hit. Not a serious
error.
I don't expect Microsoft to keep writing drivers for old operating systems.
Support stops for all OS's eventually.
When Linux starts supplying drivers for even 1/100th of the hardware windows
supports I'll be amazed.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:41:12 -0000
>Wholly shit! A mecha-troll sighted! Even retarded children know that
>Linux has GUIs in abundance.
This depends on your definition of GUI. If you say that the program which
runs graphical applications is the GUI then there is only one GUI - Xfree,
on the other hand if you say that the program which controls where each
window appears on the desktop then there are probably at least 15 of them.
Personally I think of Xfree as the GUI and the window manager as just a
theme running on the GUI but everyone is entitled to their own opinion of
what part is the actual GUI so your view is equally valid.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:48:52 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a014882$8$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:3a00b948$4$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> The Yorktown is a non-combat vessel. But it's irrelevant since the
> >fault
> >> >> was in the database software. The Database vendor even said that
the
> >> >> problem would have never happened if the navy had not been running a
> >beta
> >> >> version of their software.
> >>
> >> >I'm not familiar with the details of this case. Did NT crash or not?
If
> >so,
> >> >then surely you're not blaming an application for it. If the OS
crashes,
> >it
> >> >is the fault of the OS. A buggy application should have no effect on
the
> >OS,
> >> >beyond perhaps keeping it busier than it should.
> >>
> >>
> >> NT not only crashed, but Erik M$. Funkenbusch is such a complete
> >nincompoop
> >> that he thinks a guided missile cruiser is a "non-combat vessel."
>
> >No, the Yorktown was taken out of combat to be an experimental prototype.
> >While it's indeed a guided missle class (specifically Ticonderoga or
Aegis
> >class) cruiser, it's job is a non-combat one, since it is expected to
fail.
>
> Your really twisting what you don't know to prove your point. What you
really
> mean is that vessels in sea-trials are not combat ready. That is a given,
but
> you're asshole if you think that it will make me think you have any idea
of
> what you are talking about.
>
> Now tell us how the mighty M$ didn't design a system capable of recovering
> from this error? I mean I know that they have trained the world to recover
> from failure by rebooting, and all the dunces think its the way it suppose
to
> be, but do you guys really think, er, believe that is the best method
during
> combat?
NT played no role in the crash. It was outdated engineering control
software.
http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/december14/39.htm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
