Linux-Advocacy Digest #10, Volume #30 Thu, 2 Nov 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Weevil")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Goldhammer)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Bengt Larsson)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Goldhammer)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Goldhammer)
Re: advocates (was: A Microsoft exodus!) (Graham)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Weevil")
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (gm)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Osin)
Windows 2000 magazine admits Open Source software is more secure. (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (hack)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 23:17:34 -0000
>Yes, apparently, somebody has decided to take a stand. CDRWIN and Nero
>are both available from http://www.narduk.com/tcdc/new.html. I haven't
>tried them, but they didn't exist last year when I was looking for
>freeware/shareware CD-WR software.
>
I am not sure how old NERO is but I have had CDRWIN for nearly 3 years ( I
was unable to use it until they added IDE support about 2 years ago though).
The same company also previously wrote a DOS based shareware CD burning
package called DAO which is still available but only supports SCSI based
writers as there are no aspi drivers available for ide drives. This dos
based package was commonly used for making backup copies of sony playstation
CD's before windows CD software became popular so may also be found under
the name psxcopy or something similar.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[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 17:41:24 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qKiM5.5875$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:28:26 -0600,
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:3a00b5cf$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> >Look, NT was as much at fault in the yorktown as the OS that was
used
> in
> > >the
> > >> >Arianne 5 was responsible for it's crash.
> > >>
> > >> REALLY! I'm sure this is going to be good --- And the reason the
> database
> > >> kept the crew from restarting NT and get underway was?
> > >
> > >Can't use your brain can you? Once the tech entered the data into the
> > >database, applications all over the ship started crashing as they
> performed
> > >illegal calculations. When the applications were restarted, the first
> thing
> > >they do is read the data out of the database, causing it to crash
again.
> > >The only way to fix the problem is to fix the database, and without the
> > >application to enter the data into, it has to be done by hand.
> > >
> >
> > Get your facts straight. There were multiple incidents on the Yorktown
> >
> > http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/july13/cov2.htm
>
> Get yours straight. I have multiple sources which contradict this news
> article in many places.
On which points do your sources contradict this news article? Not one, I'll
bet. This article merely quoted a civilian engineer involved with the
project and the Deputy Technical Director of the Fleet Introduction Division
of the Aegis Program Executive Office. Are you saying you have sources that
claim these two guys did *not* say what they said? All they said were a few
things that were critical of NT. They're using NT 4.0, by the way.
The article also quoted a Vice Admiral who was supportive of the project.
It ended with a quote from the civilian engineer:
==================
"Everybody plays the obedience role where you cannot criticize the system,"
said DiGiorgio, a self-described whistle-blower. "I'm not that kind of guy."
==================
The orders to use NT came from pretty high up, so naturally you're going to
find a whole bunch of military guys who publically state that it's a great
idea. Most of the civilians will do the same thing, for the reason the
Deputy Director (Ron Redman) stated:
==================
Redman has a different perspective. "If it were me, I wouldn't say all the
things that Tony [DiGiorgio] has said out of discretion and consideration
for being a long-term employee," he said. "But I will say this about Tony,
he's a very bright engineer."
==================
I don't see anything in the article that could be disputed by other
articles, really. Unless you're claiming that the people were misquoted or
something. Is that what your other sources are saying?
> You have one source, which doesn't have any
> legitimacy.
>
What do you mean, exactly? Are you saying that whoever wrote this article
made up the quotes? Or that they invented the Deputy Director and the
civilian engineer and then invented quotes for them?
You will have to provide some kind of evidence for this claim, of course,
because it's a pretty shocking accusation.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 23:42:27 GMT
On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:42:24 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bxbM5.268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>You are confusing two things. Resources, under Win9x is not the amount of
>memory you have free. It's the amount of "16 bit Heap space" you have free.
>In Win9x and Win3.1 there are 3 16 bit (64k) heaps for things like window
>handles, device contexts, etc... This is not the general memory the system
>uses.
Maybe this explains why Windows 3.11 used to go bonkers whenever
"System Resources" dropped below 80%. Icons would vanish,
windows became "transparent", button clicks wouldn't respond...
you know... typical mode of operation.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bengt Larsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 22:58:38 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In comp.arch, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (hack) wrote:
>Last week I mentioned an approach that does support interleaving transmissions,
>and does so without having to guess other station's behaviour. Unfortunately I
>tried to be a good netizen and changed the subject line to "Ethernet saturation
>and throughput", and drew no replies. So I'll stick with begging for food.
>
>If stations throttle their transmission *rate* when the proportion of lost
>packets increases (instead of reducing the *window* size), the exponential
>backoff upon collision detection together with an exponential rate increase or
>decrease will adapt naturally to concurrent transmissions. Total effective
>throughput remains good (saturation effects are smooth, because the cable does
>not suddenly get flooded with retry packets), and individual throughput simply
>drops to its fair share of the shared medium.
But you seem (and seemed) to be talking about burstiness for
individual connections as the Ethernet saturates, not total throughput
as Ethernet saturates.
>Btw, I use "throughput" in the sense of "number of bytes successfully received
>per unit of time", so that frame overhead, acknowledgements and retry packets
>occupy cable bandwidth but do not contribute to the measured throughput.
Did the retry packets take a substantial part of the bandwidth and
affect real throughput (as you define it above) when you were using
ordinary window control and not transmission rate control? (I'm not
dismissing the importance of smooth transmission, but the talk was, in
the thread so far, about total throughput)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 23:54:26 GMT
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:09:32 +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Personally, I hate vi. =)
Oh come now. It pains me to hear you say that, even
in jest.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:07:05 GMT
On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:09:32 +1300, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Using the CLI to its full potential does not necessarily preclude using a
>nice friendly mail client or editor either.
It does, in the minds of idiots. If the cli exists, somewhere,
anywhere, on your system, then idiots will claim that your
system is stone age. It seems that the only way to appease them
is to remove all possible access to the cli, and remove
all references to shell usage and shell scripts from the
internet. It must be effaced from computer culture in its
entirety. Only then will said clueless GUI advocates bless
your system as being up to modern "spec", i.e, useless. Useless,
but conforming to the latest fashionable trends.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 11:12:05 +1000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Graham)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: advocates (was: A Microsoft exodus!)
In article <ajiM5.14148$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And it would be even *MORE* boring. At least there is the occasional bit
of light relief in here on occassions.
Not only that, if you are being paid to waste time (Like Tom) you can
actually learn alot if you have to do some fact checking.
Tom probably knows more about Mac's than PC's I'd say (Well the small
subset of facts that are problem related that is.)
If I was going to hire a Mac Fixit person I just know Tom would know all
the places to find answers.
And I wouldn't let him near a PC...
Mwahahahahahahah!
Graham
> Hear Hear.
>
> bob_more <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Peter Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > What a bunch of morons you Linux advocates are.
> > >
> > > You're just now realizing this? It's been proven many a time...
> > >
> > > You should check out the Mac and OS/2 advocates as well...
> >
> <trimmed sniveling by Peter Maas>
> >
> > No need to answer, I am unsubsribing.
> >
> > Peter.
>
> I'll reply anyway, and point out your words are not likely to change a
> th=ng,
> most people have become entrenched in what they like to use, windows, mac=
> linux whatever. Even OS/2 maintains a die hard user base. There is value =n
> badgering Microsoft or apple though. If they're takin' heat it means some=ne
> is
> watching and willing to hold them accountable if they're not doing the be=t
> they can. What's the alternative, a long and pointless parade of folks
> in=here
> going yeah mac, and having nothing better to do. THAT is a waste of time.
--
Sig...Insert your suggestions here...Go on I dare you .....
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:16:48 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:AziM5.5857$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:bxbM5.268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I don't think so. X + Gnome/KDE are much more resource hungry in my
> > > experiance than windows.
> >
> > That could be because you are trusting the numbers you see in Windows.
> > Windows lies to you about your resources. Microsoft changed the way it
> > counts "free memory" beginning with Win95, because Win95 itself consumed
> > such a shocking amount. Each successive version of Windows gets worse.
> > When you see:
> >
> > System Resources: 91% free
> >
> > or something like that, you are being lied to. What it's really telling
> you
> > is that 91% of whatever was left AFTER Windows was loaded, is still
free.
> > So if Windows consumed 60 of your 64 megs, you'll have 4 megs left for
> > actually running your software, even though Windows will say something
> like
> > "94% free".
> >
> > Win 3.x, and versions before it, were at least honest about this number,
> in
> > that the algorithm they used to calculate free space was closer to what
> > people think they're seeing when they see this number.
>
> You are confusing two things. Resources, under Win9x is not the amount of
> memory you have free. It's the amount of "16 bit Heap space" you have
free.
> In Win9x and Win3.1 there are 3 16 bit (64k) heaps for things like window
> handles, device contexts, etc... This is not the general memory the
system
> uses.
Yeah, yeah, I know the hand-waving routine MS used to dismiss it. The
truth, of course, is that Win95 (and everything after it) was such a
shocking hog of resources that using the Win 3.x calculation would have made
users go:
"What??? Whaddya mean '29% free resources'??? I haven't even LOADED
anything yet for Chrissakes!!!"
Or something to that effect.
> Windows 9x did in fact change the reported percentage of system resources,
> since what's more important is how much you have left after windows starts
> than how much there is in total.
Really? Then why does Windows report it in percentages? If what's
important is how much is left (and not how much you started with), then why
not report absolute numbers?
> Windows 9x did *NOT* falsely report how much general memory or other
> resources were available.
>
Sure they did. The intent was to deceive, and that's what they did. They
redefined a few things, changed a formula or three, and presto -- Win95
looked even more efficient that Win 3.x.
They were busted for this one a long time ago.
jwb
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:27:51 -0500
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/02/00
at 06:42 PM, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/01/00
>> at 02:17 PM, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>>Jason you asshole
>>
>>>Everyone can see who the a-hole here is, and it's you, letarded.
>>
>>I'm sure all the wintrolls think that. It takes their little brains off the
>>hook for not thinking -- or being able to.
>I'm not talking about an OS. I'm talking about you being a psycho a-hole,
>letarded.
Why. The asshole Jason has been making the same whining noise for a year now.
I pointed it out. If you can't add 2 + 2 and figure that one out, then you are
an asshole too.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: gm <[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: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:37:17 GMT
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:58:29 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
That's a social engineering issue, not a shortcoming of the OS.
>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.
Sure it does --- it's called NTFS. I'm sure you've heard of it.
------------------------------
From: Osin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:26:17 GMT
Thanks "Drestin!"
In article <39eca181$0$4821$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Thomas Lee [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <39eb733a$0$75251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drestin Black
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > >
> > >"Thomas Lee [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <39ea184b$0$14033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drestin
Black
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> > >> >After reading this:
> > >> >
> > >> >http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan/microsoft/stripper.html
> > >> >
> > >> >I have decided I really DO want to work there!
> > >>
> > >> Sadly - I sure never saw any of it...
> > >>
> > >
> > >neither did I but I'd go back to find the woman in the FM pumps :)
> >
> > I've seen women dressed like this in every big company I ever
worked for
> > (and some smaller ones too!). It's nothing new.
>
> Oh, agreed - but I liked her attitude ;)
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Windows 2000 magazine admits Open Source software is more secure.
Date: 02 Nov 2000 11:26:26 -0700
I don't make any judgements on this; I only provide it for
discussion...
Check out this article in Windows 2000 magazine discussing the
ramifications of the recent Microsoft crack:
http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=16025
In particular, I found this paragraph amusing...
At the heart of this problem is the debate about open-source software
and the proprietary, closed model older software companies such as
Microsoft use. Microsoft jealously guards the source code to its
products because that code is the company's biggest asset. But
products such as Linux are developed in the open, by a committee of
sorts, and the source code is available to one and all. When someone
finds a security problem in Linux, for example, many people discover
what the problem is and work to fix it immediately. When someone
discovers a security problem in a Microsoft product-and let's face it,
security problems surface every week-customers must wait for Microsoft
to even acknowledge the problem's existence. Then, customers wait for
the company to provide a workaround, and, hopefully, release code that
actually fixes the problem. And in many cases-take most Windows NT 4.0
service packs, for example-the fixes cause more problems than the
original issue. It's an untenable situation, regardless of your
position in the open-source debate.
Let the discussion begin... :)
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (hack)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 3 Nov 2000 00:42:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bengt Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.arch, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (hack) wrote:
>
>>Last week I mentioned an approach that does support interleaving transmissions,
>>and does so without having to guess other station's behaviour. Unfortunately I
>>tried to be a good netizen and changed the subject line to "Ethernet saturation
>>and throughput", and drew no replies. So I'll stick with begging for food.
>>
>>If stations throttle their transmission *rate* when the proportion of lost
>>packets increases (instead of reducing the *window* size), the exponential
>>backoff upon collision detection together with an exponential rate increase or
>>decrease will adapt naturally to concurrent transmissions. Total effective
>>throughput remains good (saturation effects are smooth, because the cable does
>>not suddenly get flooded with retry packets), and individual throughput simply
>>drops to its fair share of the shared medium.
>
>But you seem (and seemed) to be talking about burstiness for
>individual connections as the Ethernet saturates, not total throughput
>as Ethernet saturates.
Well, the burstiness of an individual connection (now it flies, now it crawls)
is a consequence of the sudden drop in effective total throughput (and hence
of at least one individual throughput). I thought I was talking about total
throughput, but may have been misunderstood.
>>Btw, I use "throughput" in the sense of "number of bytes successfully received
>>per unit of time", so that frame overhead, acknowledgements and retry packets
>>occupy cable bandwidth but do not contribute to the measured throughput.
>
>Did the retry packets take a substantial part of the bandwidth and
>affect real throughput (as you define it above) when you were using
>ordinary window control and not transmission rate control? (I'm not
>dismissing the importance of smooth transmission, but the talk was, in
>the thread so far, about total throughput)
I wish we had taken those measurements back then! There was some TCP/IP
traffic on the LAN at the time (not ours; we never used a window mechanism),
and I suppose we could have started a friendly saturation contest with our
colleagues down the hall... but as I said, our network protocol was just a
side show, and I realised the implications only a couple of years later.
Michel.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 00:50:37 GMT
Steve Mentzer wrote:
>
> >
> >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...
Sorry, you're so used to shit that you're starting to believe it's
chocolate. No application can leave a device in an unknown state, unless
the driver is buggy, because Linux, like every other OS, except those
coming from Redmond, will take care to free the resources allocated by a
process when it terminates (either normally or crashing, doesn't
matter), leaving all devices in a well known and predictable 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?
You mean that a problem in a video driver will automatically reboot
Linux? Please do explain how, because I'm starting to think that either
you know really a lot about Linux, or you don't know what you're talking
about.
>
> >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".
You skipped the *reliably* portion. The rest is trivial.
>
> Server-level processes cannot be killed. The same holds true for linux, unless
> you are su.
In other words, what can be done with linux, by typing "su" and a
password, can't be done in Win2k, and you're forced to reboot.
>
> >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...
I have some feeling that he knows pretty well what he's talking about:
sloppy design.
>
> >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?
No, but it doesn't neither hang nor reboot, which is quite interesting,
because DOSEMU is still 0.9x release.
>
> >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.
I can't contradict you, of course, but up to now you didn't give many
reason to believe you know what you're talking about, so I'd classify
your opinion as "unskilled user impressions".
>
> >You know, Linux was a bit buggy at first...
>
> and still is. All OS's have bugs.
A lot of OS's have a good sound design, and maybe some bugs, which can
be described, reproduced, and a work-around can be found. Windows has an
amateurish design which make it intrinsically buggy, unreliable,
unpredictable, and unsafe.
>
> >so was Solaris...but over time they
> >get more and more robust and stable and foolproof...
>
> Win2k is light-years ahead of NT.
This isn't to say very much.
>
> >but not Windows. It's the
> >same piece of bug-infested dogshit that it was from day one.
> >
>
> Pure ignorance...
Or experience?
>
> >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.
I can imagine the very heavy burden a home server must carry on!
>
> >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.
I have some doubts about your running Linux, because you'd appreciate
the difference. I have been running any kind of OS's since the mid 60's
when I started dealing with computers (it was an IBM 1620), and the only
OS which I found of sloppier design than MS's was the Siemens OS for an
unsuccessful computer they made in the late 60's or early 70's.
The 80 Mbytes of the Win2k service pack (together with the list of the
bugs they address) give me some doubts also on the general value of the
solid rock reliability you experienced.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
