Linux-Advocacy Digest #184, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Jim Richardson)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (Jerry McBride)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues (John Meyer)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("mmnnoo")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:48:32 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:12:33 GMT,
Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Richardson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:44:10 GMT,
>> Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>
>> > And taxation is specified by law, meaning that, by definition, it is
>> >not theft.
>> When the law specified slavery, was it not slavery?
>
> So what?
>
> And all the property-rights absolutists would have defended slavery
>on the ground that ordering the slaves freed would have set a dangerous
>precedent in the form of the government overruling property claims.
>
>--
So you are comparing yourself to slave-owners and "property-rights
absolutists"?
I merely point out that the law has been wrong more than once in the past.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:09:38 -0500
Curtis wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote...
>
> > > When you have effectively disabled the ability of certain files being
> > > executable via the e-mail clients interface you have created a brick
> > > wall. It's you who are proposing erecting a brick wall. :-)
> >
> > No, I have no problem with letting the user choose to run anything
> > he wants, as long as it is really his choice.
>
> When you double click a file in Windows, you've chosen to execute it with
> the associated application.
No. If you double-click a text file, you have an editor (say Notepad) execute
with the text file as an object. The same would hold for jpeg and mpg123 files.
> Let's get one thing straight. If Outlook
> Express actually proceeds to execute the file by merely selecting it
> (single click) then that's very bad.
>
>
> > For example if you
> > want to type in the name of your program to run, or drag the
> > attachment to a program on the desktop, go ahead. What needs
> > to be disabled is the auto-executing something chosen by the
> > sender instead.
>
> Well, if a program is auto-executed that's bad. I'm not sure what you
> mean by auto-execution though. If you mean that once the message is open
> the attachment does it's thing then that's bad. If you mean that the user
> deliberately chooses to run the file and the associated application is
> started as determined by the extension, then I disagree.
>
Deliberately? Does the average Windows user know the difference between
viewing a video clip and running a shell script? Isn't Windows touted as
an OS that renders such knowledge unnecessary?
>
> > > .... if the user chooses to executes it or(white line) not execute it
> >
> > No - the lines should distinguish *what* you are going to execute.
> > Dragging the attachment to a program is going over the white line,
> > but that is your business if you crash.
>
> I see no difference. I set my file associations so that I don't need to
> be dragging and dropping.
>
But does the average user? What are the defaults?
>
> > > Concrete wall.
> >
> > There is a blind drop off a cliff here. It deserves a brick
> > wall.
>
> :-) At least you concede that you're the one erecting the wall and not
> me. Bad!! You'll make Windows unfriendly to those who are competent and
> the ignorant will remain ignorant forever.
>
> > > > First you think the people are too dumb to follow instructions. Now you
> > > > think someone can tell them a dozen steps to make a program run and
> > > > they will get them all right but not notice that this isn't the way they
> > > > usually read their mail.
> > >
> > > Actually I'm one of those advocating learning and that the problem with
> > > all of this lies between chair and keyboard. I've said that many times.
> >
> > Then you should learn that everything you suggest is very
> > system-specific and not generally useful knowlege. It has
> > nothing to do with computing in general and is just arbitrary
> > associations chosen by one vendor.
>
> How so. Are you speaking only about .vbs files? If so, then we're on the
> wrong track. I'm speaking about all file types that may be obtained
> through e-mail attachments. Windows associations default to certain apps
> depending on what's installed. However, the user pretty much has full
> control over file associations via folder options.
>
But shouldn't an association with a shell interpreter be off by default?
>
> I fail to see how my argument is system specific.
>
> > It is like advocating that
> > people learn to drive only one peculiar kind of car.
>
> You're misunderstanding me.
>
> > > Please show me where you think I said that people are dumb and I'll
> > > clarify for you. I'm not interested in being a part of the 'jumping
> > > hoops' team trying to find ways of protecting users who refuse to learn
> > > from themselves. I do admit that it's a necessary evil in a corporate
> > > environment where one has to give systems to these types of users to use.
> > > I however, don't advocate it as how it should be for me or other users
> > > willing to learn as they should.
> >
> > Why don't you advocate systems that don't impose this sort of problem
> > on you in the first place?
>
> Because running away from a harsh reality by masking it from users will
> not help one bit.
Really? It helped make Bill Gates the richest person in history (so far).
> Masking this sort of thing from the user is a fix, not
> good prevention. Good prevention comes from lifting the veil of ignorance
> which I still maintain, is not that difficult a task. If my Dad and
> sisters can get it, so can everyone else.
>
> People will always be exchanging files. Having to name the file will
> always be necessary. Having to know what type of file it is will also
> always be necessary whether it be done through icons or extensions. I
> don't see how this can or should be hidden from a user that exchanges e-
> mail and attachments.
>
ILOVEYOU.TXT.VBS
>
> > It makes no sense to talk about consistency
> > in handling file object and email attachments. They are inherently
> > different things until you have examined them and blessed them with
> > the right to be in the filesystem.
>
> If you don't know what to look for when viewing these files 'unsafe'
> files, how are you going to bless them as being safe. Don't you have to
> !!learn!! what to look for when viewing them?? Why is that so easy to do
> in your books and yet learning a few danger file types is so difficult?
>
> --
> ACM.
> ________________________________________________________
> "A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:12:28 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:S7iP5.9095$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ah, but not all is sweetness and light...
>
> I've logged a few bugs against konqueror:
>
> smb:/pc166/kits
>
> does not work, whereas
>
> smb:/pc166/kits/
>
> does!
>
> ftp:/pc166/kits
>
> does work, but I can't access the files.
>
> Now, of course, Windows 98 SE does the equivalent of smb with no problems.
You do know that the trailing slash on a directory is required by
the http spec don't you? Send a request to a web server without
it and it will send back a redirect with it on - otherwise your
browser would not be able to construct relative links correctly.
Using smb: as a protocol seems like an afterthought, but if it
is done where http: would be accepted, shouldn't it act the
same way?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:17:57 -0500
Sam Morris wrote:
> > > > But when the e-mail comes from one's supervisor, the tendancy is
> > > > to trust it.
> > >
> > > And this is the fault of the OS how?
> >
> > The entire Microsoft paradigm is nothing more than a gilded-brick
> > road to hell
>
> Care to answer my point rather than doing your usual dodge job? How is it
> the OS' fault that the user trusts their supervisor?
It isn't the OS's fault that a user trust his/her supervisor. It the OS's fault
that it's easy for virus writers to violate that trust.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride)
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: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:21:28 GMT
In article <8ubd0s$2ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:vE3O5.14127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> You haven't been paying attention. Linux with the 2.4 kernel has
>> won the latest tests, even that particular one contrived to exploit
>> the earlier weakness so there would be *some* contest that
>> NT could win.
>
>Beta yet, right?
>Enough said.
>No enterprise bussiness would put a beta product on an enterprise product
>machine.
>
Odd you said that... they do it with WINDOWS... all the time...
Windows, the evolving API... a moving target... never cast in stone...
--
*******************************************************************************
> My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. <
*******************************************************************************
> 7:30pm up 0 days, 21:29:11, load: 27 processes, 91 threads. <
*******************************************************************************
* NetRexx - The onramp to the Internet - http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx *
*******************************************************************************
* ICQ# 76727806 *
*******************************************************************************
* Registered Linux User Number 185956 *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:21:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Les Mikesell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:21:45 GMT
<dX2P5.18372$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >So you can't use Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases without fancy
>> >techniques or special filesystems.
>> >
>> >Thank you for finally ending this thread of this topic.
>>
>> I'd put it even more strongly than that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use
>> Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases on *any* file system, on
>> *any* 32-bit machine, without a recompile using the above options
>> and/or explicit use of the xxx64() API and/or multiseeking techniques.
>
>Note that Postgres does it whether or not the OS supports 64 bit
>operations, so it is certainly not impossible. Oracle may not
>do without raw partition access but it would not be impossible.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
Yes, I've missed a clause or two in there somewhere. :-)
I should have mentioned something along the lines of using >2GB files,
as opposed to using >2 GB databases.
Ack.
Maybe I should change my username to "The Fool In The Machine".
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to wipe off my shoes... :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random footprint in something soft here
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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, 12 Nov 2000 02:21:57 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OdeP5.125412$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > Now that thats out of the way, when will Linux stop allowing root
> exploits
> > > so easily?
> >
> > Only if you memorize all the icons and logos for all the programs
> > you find at freshmeat.net.
>
>
> As I suspected. Linux root exploits forever!
Just like that Other OS... except you don't have to wait 6 months for a
service pack that will break something else you run.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:24:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Goldhammer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:47:13 GMT
<8uij0g$a2s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>
>> I'd put it even more strongly than that. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use
>> Oracle on Linux for >2GB databases on *any* file system, on
>> *any* 32-bit machine, without a recompile using the above options
>
>
>Pardon me - and I mean this in the gentlest manner - but aren't
>you being just a bit dense, in this instance? Properly concieved
>dbm systems support constructs analogous to Oracle's dbspaces
>and tablespaces, effectively rendering database & table sizes
>independent of machine architecture or OS constraints.
Just a bit dense, yes. Should have realized the multiple
file access issue.
>
>
>> Note that two relative seeks should accomplish what one absolute seek
>> cannot, but extending this for files that could be as huge as
>> 20 gigabytes -- or 200 gigabytes -- or 200 terabytes! -- becomes
>> a royal pain.
>
>
>Why are so many of you hung up about filesizes when the
>comment being discussed had to do with database sizes? A database
>is not a file.
True.
>
>
>--
>Don't think you are. Know you are.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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, 12 Nov 2000 02:24:43 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uj0sr$2ib$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > > > > Those who can't...
> > > > > Well, Les suggest a hex editor for exe files.
> > > > > I don't know what users Les has to deal with, but I want them.
> > > >
> > > > Many are c++ developers for a windows product. But the CVS
> > > > repository for the source code isn't on a windows box...
> > >
> > > IOW, about 10x more knowledgable than the average end user of a
windows
> > box.
> > > When you have *that* kind of a userbase, it's easy to forget that
*not*
> > > everybody can read exe files in hex editors.
> > > Also, you probably don't hear complaints about "my taskbar is on the
top
> > > side of the screen, and I can't work like this" (Only I'm translating
it
> > to
> > > technical terms)
> >
> > Oh - the other part of the building is full of accountants.... The
sales
> > people are mostly off in branch offices though, and we have several
> > other people who spend all their time keeping the windows boxes
> > running.
>
> Do you handle those machines/users in person?
>
Generally no. I only get involved when the windows guys can't make
things work and start blaming the servers or network.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:25:05 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >How could they know?
> > > > >Let me ask it again: How could Outlook know, for crying out loud?!
> >
> > Well, if it can't know, then it should not have associations to shell
> > interpreters by default.
>
> Then what? You save it to disk and open it from there, right?
> That is what outlook wants you to do anyway.
But Explorer should not have that association either (at least by Default)
If users need to run shell scripts, either let them explicitly associate
them
with an interpreter, or have them open a DOS box and run the script from
the command line.
Do you know of any UIX/Linux file managers that by default send *.sh
files to sh?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:26:47 -0500
Curtis wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > But how can that happen? Outlook opens the file using the default
> > > associated application as defined by the user of the system. The file
> > > cannot determine what opens it. That's ridiculous.
> >
> > Are you trying to claim that all the people who opened
> > ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs really were well advised about
> > how this was different from other email, knew exactly
> > what would happen next, and blew up their networks
> > on purpose? What is ridiculous is that they had no
> > idea, and no way of telling what it was about to do.
>
> If the ignorant user is gungho to make things happen automagically
> through file associations, then he should face his own waterloo with that
> attitude.
Hey, answer my question. Did these users explicitly associate shell
scripts with an interpreter, or was it the default setting?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:34:39 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > No, you think that because you are using the concept of programs acting
> on
> > > data files.
> >
> > Yes. And the blurring of that distinction by Microsoft is part of the
> problem.
>
> No, it's Xeorix's fault.
There is a difference between having a GUI and blurring the distinction
between programs and data.
>
>
> > > In the Windows, Mac, OS/2 etc GUIs you manipulate and execute
> > > icons, whose behaviour is determined globally and identifiable by the
> icon
> > > and/or extension.
> > >
> >
> > And the average user knows what the icon for Visual Basic is?
>
> Probably, but it's a buzzword for him.
> OTOH, he *does* know what a text file should look like, and VBS files aren't
> even similar to TXT files.
>
If he sees the *.vbs file before clicking it.
>
> > > An icon representing a word document does the same thing no matter where
> it
> > > is double clicked. So does an executable file or a script. This is UI
> > > consistency and IMHO is a Good Thing. I don't want to have to remember
> a
> > > different way to do everything from every different program. That's why
> > > Unix sucks.
> > >
> >
> > Nope. This is why UNIX/Linux is good. Have different browsers for mail and
> > desktop, with the mail browser having no associations with shell scripts,
> > if one so desired.
>
> You choice, I like not having to learn new things to do the same task
> everytime I open a program.
>
At a command prompt, type command, options, and arguments. Hmm.. not
exactly learning new things each time I run a program.
>
> > > But the icon wouldn't have looked like a txt file. So, if a person is
> used
> > > to identifying a file by its icon, they would have seen something
> strange
> > > and if they were used to seeing extensions they also would have seen
> > > something strange (strange = different).
> > >
> >
> > But would the person have known that it was a shell script, or even
> > what a shell script is?
>
> He know that it's not what it's declaring it is.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:38:08 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > No, you think that because you are using the concept of programs acting
> on
> > > data files.
> >
> > Yes. And the blurring of that distinction by Microsoft is part of the
> problem.
>
> If you're going to try and blame it on someone, blame it on Apple. They did
> pioneer the whole GUI thing, after all.
And what the GUI have to with blurring the distinction between programs
and data?
>
>
> Of course many (myself included) would argue that blurring is a good thing,
> UI-wise.
>
> > > In the Windows, Mac, OS/2 etc GUIs you manipulate and execute
> > > icons, whose behaviour is determined globally and identifiable by the
> icon
> > > and/or extension.
> > >
> >
> > And the average user knows what the icon for Visual Basic is?
>
> About as well as they'd know what something slightly different was in any
> other OS.
>
> > > An icon representing a word document does the same thing no matter where
> it
> > > is double clicked. So does an executable file or a script. This is UI
> > > consistency and IMHO is a Good Thing. I don't want to have to remember
> a
> > > different way to do everything from every different program. That's why
> > > Unix sucks.
> > >
> >
> > Nope. This is why UNIX/Linux is good. Have different browsers for mail and
> > desktop, with the mail browser having no associations with shell scripts,
> > if one so desired.
>
> *shrug*. To each their own - I _like_ my UI consistency.
>
Windows users do prefer appearance to reality. I would not associate
shell scripts with an interpreter in any file manager, nor would some
users need to use more than one file manager, but options are good.
Unless, of course, they threaten the One True Browser.
>
> > > But the icon wouldn't have looked like a txt file. So, if a person is
> used
> > > to identifying a file by its icon, they would have seen something
> strange
> > > and if they were used to seeing extensions they also would have seen
> > > something strange (strange = different).
> > >
> >
> > But would the person have known that it was a shell script, or even
> > what a shell script is?
>
> They would have known it wasn't the usual text file.
>
> And if they didn't, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:39:57 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
> > Would you let your family or friends
> > that you trust not to damage anything intentionally use outlook on this
> > machine?
>
> "Rm" will do a far more effective job of accidentally damaging things that
> outlook will. Should we take out rm ?
>
Rather funny, in almost three years of running Linux, I have never accidentally
removed a file.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: John Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:45:39 GMT
John Meyer wrote:
> Jeff Jeffries wrote:
>
> > I need to choose either GNOME or KDE. I will be doing computationally
> > intensive C++, with very heavy disk I/O. Results will be displayed in 3D
> > preferrably with OpenGL.
> >
> Dumb question, but why do you need to choose? They're both free
In case you didn't know, I was the one asking the dumb question.
--
John Meyer
Programmer/Web Developer
http://iconoclast.hypermart.net
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:46:48 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aWkP5.7658$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ujtov$7en$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment? My impression is that
> > it is not. Comments?
>
> Your "impression"? What is that impression based on?
Probably because it's so uncommon for multiple users to be logged
into a Windows system doing their day-to-day work.
I don't know about 2000, but on NT4 the only way I've seen for
multiple concurrent users to log in and run gui applications is with an
add-on product that's so resource hungry PC-level hardware
can't usefully support more than a small number of users.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:50:13 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Is Windows NT/2000 a true multiuser environment?
No.
> My impression is that it is not. Comments?
Claims that any Microsoft product is multi-user are pure fictions
invented by M$'s marketing department.
>
> sjfromm
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
