Linux-Advocacy Digest #482, Volume #30 Mon, 27 Nov 00 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (sfcybear)
Major shift (sfcybear)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:43:53 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:48:06
> >MS being monopoly or not is not something that I care about.
>
> That seems apparent. My question isn't "why", so much as "how can you
> be so stupid?"
Because I know that I've alternatives.
I've within reach at least 5 or 6 dist of linux, three of BSD.
If MS gets too annoying, I will switch.
I always had this option, and I'll always will.
> >I don't choose
> >products based on morals, I choose what I like to use and what will be
> >useful to me.
>
> It isn't a question of morals or ethics, Ayene. What confuses you is
> that it is, indeed, a matter of "enlightened self-interest". I don't
> think Microsoft's products are crappy because I hate monopolies.
Your attidue doesn't show it.
> I hate
> monopolies because their products are crappy. They will always be
> crappy, and overpriced, because monopolization prevents free market
> competition from preventing them from being crappy and overpriced. That
> is what competition does, and why free markets are effective mechanisms
> for ensuring efficiency of production.
Let's take a non-dispute monopoly at its time.
Netscape.
Netscape was good only when it *didn't* have competition.
Once netscape got competition, its quality degraded seriously.
4.X is an example for this.
The versions lower then 4 were the best browsers at the time. (And I've
tried quite a few)
I'm not arguing with the statement in general, nor applying it to MS, I'm
simply showing that there are always exceptions.
> >You've a thing agaist MS, and you turn everything with MS in in to a
> >monopoly arguement.
>
> No, I have no "thing" against MS, other than the fact that they are,
> indeed, a monopoly. Can I help it if that turns every argument about
> their products, and how crappy they are, into a discussion about
> monopolies? No, but you can; by giving up and admitting that MS
> monopolizes, that this prevents their products from being competitive,
> and that this means that W2K actually sucks rocks, while still being the
> "best choice" for the preponderance of consumers locked in to the
> monopoly.
But Win2K doesn't "sucks rocks", so your entire arguement is invalid.
http://www.sun.com/software/white-papers/wp-dhbrown00/#1.1
For that matter, you logic is flawed.
You seem to get to this conclustion by making a false assumation, namely
"All monopolies make bad products"
Then you reach the conclusion that MS is a monopoly, my dictonary read this
as "absolute control of are in industry"
But I don't trust this very much, let's see what webster has to say about
it, okay?
Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to
sell
Date: 1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or
concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
MS fit neither one of those options, as it has not, nor ever had, an
exclusive ownership, possesion or control on computers, or even on the x86
platfrom alone.
Let's see some other examples of MS being crapware maker, shall we?
SQL 2k + Win2k, TPC winner and record braker.
But not only on perfomance alone, on price-performance too, how can this be
uncompetative?
MS offer something that perform *better* than its rival, it cost *less*.
And it's still being monopol, and by your logic, it uncompetative by its
nature.
What is competitive anyway?
webster define it as:
Main Entry: com·pet·i·tive
Pronunciation: k&m-'pe-t&-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: 1829
1 : relating to, characterized by, or based on competition <competitive
sports>
2 : inclined, desiring, or suited to compete <a competitive personality>
<salary benefits must be competitive -- M. S. Eisenhower>
3 : depending for effectiveness on the relative concentration of two or more
substances <competitive inhibition of an enzyme>
- com·pet·i·tive·ly adverb
- com·pet·i·tive·ness noun
I like my dictonary better, it define it as "involving competition"
Competition being:
Main Entry: com·pe·ti·tion
Pronunciation: "käm-p&-'ti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin competition-, competitio, from Latin competere
Date: 1605
1 : the act or process of competing : RIVALRY: as a : the effort of two or
more parties acting independently to secure the business of a third party by
offering the most favorable terms b : active demand by two or more organisms
or kinds of organisms for some environmental resource in short supply
2 : a contest between rivals; also : one's competitors <faced tough
competition>
I would say that offering something that perfom better and cost less is
being competative.
Your basic assumsion is wrong.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:56:37 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:40:18
> >Here is another one:
> >Create a shortcut to explorer.exe, check the "run as another user"
> >Double click it, explorer will open, you are now, within this windows and
> >within any windows or applications that you launch from this widnows, an
> >admin.
>
> Now that I would have bet hard money wasn't possible. Seems like MS had
> to work pretty hard to make W2K mimic Unix enough to be acceptable
> enough to extend the monopoly.
You've a very strange way of thinking.
If MS makes bad software, it's because they are monopoly and evil.
If MS makes good software, it's because they are monopoly and evil.
But why make the seperation?
If MS, bad & evil.
> >> No, its just not as easy to know what you're doing. You mistake
running
> >> as admin with having admin privileges, as well. A much larger
> >> proportion of people than you think have admin privileges on their
> >> account because they need it to get certain software to work. Still
not
> >> as many, I'd bet, as people who run Linux as root, particularly outside
> >> a business setting.
> >
> >Adaptec Easy CD Creator require me to run as admin in order for it to
burn.
> >I run it using Runas, problem solved.
>
> Most people would just log in on an account with admin privileges,
> rather than set up each and every program that requires admin privileges
> as a special case.
Why? It's the only program that I need admin privileges that I kept.
And when I burn CDs, it take 5 seconds to do the runas dialog, and then I
can for infinity without any trouble.
Logging as admin is something I try to avoid, it's unneccecary for most
tasks, and it's certainly unneccecary for five hour burning spree in which I
wouldn't have access to my mail or news. (Those being individual to each
user, as you expect.)
Practically the only reason I log in as admin is to add and remove programs,
which I could do from normal user mode as well, but it's faster if I just
gather a list of what I want to add/remove and do it in one time.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:07:57 GMT
"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
>
> > Ok, so go away... why did you respond to this? Stupid linvocates..
whistler will
> > continue windows domination over the world.
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Soltysiak
> > Comp Sci/Soft Eng
> > ICQ: 3063118
>
> Stupid winvocate!
>
> If you don't want intelligent people responding to this propaganda, keep
it off the
> linux and mac newsgroups.
>
s/inte/uninte/
>
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:07:59 GMT
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:saCU5.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
> > You are thinking 9x line.
> > A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
>
> That's right, NT came off OS/2 LAN Manager, IIRC.
>
Actually the history was IBM contracted MS to write Lan Manager. Later MS
Sold LM as an OEM network product. When IBM contracted MS to write OS/2 Lan
Manager was incorporated. Then MS and IBM split. LM became NTLM (a
substantially improved LM) incorporated into NT, OS/2 died from lack of
support. The current incarnation of NTLM bears as much resemblence to Lan
Manager as a Mac does to an Apple IIe.
> --Chris
>
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:07:58 GMT
"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Leonardo wrote:
>
> > "Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >
> > > > how would you know?
> > >
> > > I've been there!
> > >
> > > > That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
> > >
> > > I run Linux because it kicks MSDOS3.x, MSDOS4.x, MSDOS5.x, MSDOS6.x,
> > > MSDOS7.x, Win9x, WinME, WinNT, and Win2K's ass (all of which I've
tried at
> > > one time or another....and having to use Win2k here at work -- which
you
> > > would have known if you had read one of my replies elsewhere in this
> > thread.
> > > But then again, asking a Winvocate Troll to Read before Posting is
futile.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Then why don't you tell your boss that You Will Never Use Windows Again.
>
> As a matter of fact, I did. That's why I'm now setting up computers that
we're
> going to use to completely replace Windows.
>
What company? Just wondering, thought I bid on unscrewing your mess after
they realize what a pig in a poke you sold them.
> > Looser, HAH
>
> Obviously, speaking for yourself. I've been winning on Linux here.
>
>
------------------------------
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: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:09:12 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:21:55
> [...]
> >No, corrupted registry is one thing, it *rarely* happens, as in once in a
> >blue moon.
> >Corrupted registry *entries* is another thing, and it can lead
> >application/the system as a whole to be unstable or unfunctioning.
> >If I put bad data in /etc, the result would be the same.
> >
> >GIGO
>
> I don't know what "GIGO" is supposed to mean, but my response to your
> statement is, "who cares?" If you want to try to rest your support of
> monopoly crapware on pedantic details like "it isn't the registry that
> causes frequent unreliability, it is registry *entries*", then I guess I
> can't stop you. But I'm sure as hell not going to take stuff like that
> seriously. There's only one "person" that cares about the difference,
> from my perspective, and that's Microsoft. Either Windows is a reliable
> platform, or its not. And its not.
GIGO is a computer abbrevation.
Garbage In, Garbage Out
AKA, Junk In, Junk Out
It's used to express the relationship between input and output.
Erroneos input cause erroneos output.
Webster:
Main Entry: GIGO
Function: abbreviation
garbage in, garbage out
You claim to know computers.
Yet you seem to be unable to make the connection with bad data to bad
results.
If I enter wrong data in the /etc, what would happen?
It's not being "pedantic", it's being correct.
If you give the OS bad data, in any way, shape, or form, it would fail.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:17:47 GMT
In article <8vun8a$ei3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sfcybear wrote:
>Why is an MS review in a Linux group???? Don't you know were this goes?
>
I will be more than happy to explain this!
It's because over the years the comp.os.microsoft.os
newsgroups have turned into a dumping ground for
windows users to bitch about broken windows features.
Since most of the world reads comp.os.linux.advocacy
these days, it's the only way to get a review out
to INTERESTED PC users. That's why the Windows
reviews are done here.
Now this doesn't mean that Linux users will be
switching to Whistler just for sake of stability
as Linux has had system stability for a decade
now. Stability is OLD GROUND for the Linux user.
There is no reason to reward a multi billion dollar
company for claiming to have achieved what they
haven't been able to achieve for 18 years now -
stability!
They said W2k was stable and it proved to NOT
be stable. They claim Whistler is stable but
they have done this before with W2k and NT
before it.
If they did indeed manage to achieve stability
in their new OS version Whistler, then I'm
still not that damn impressed.
Aside from already achieving stability, Linux
is capable of being installed as either a
workstation with a desktop or a server with
a desktop or a combination of both.
Linux is capable of serving web pages, acting
as a Windows server, being used for a development
station hosting a dozen or more languages with
free compilers, a CVS archive, a ftp server,
a SSH portlet, a firewall, an excellent HTML
development system, a mail server, a cad station,
an excellent office system.... and it goes on
for 6,000 more packages which are free for
the using from Debian.
In-fact, by the final release of Woody they will
probably be pushing 7,000 free packages of
very useful - no bullshit - packages of productive
software.
All you get with Windows is a stinking, overpriced
operating system with a SINGLE desktop which is
NON-changable.
And until the people use Whistler and confirm it's
stability, your not even guaranteed it will be
stable.
Another wonderful thing about Linux which differes
from Microsoft products is you ARE NOT stuck with
Intel PC's if you don't want to be. You can
run Linux on a POWER MAC, an ULTRA SPARC, an
amiga, and a dozen other different cpu based systems.
Your not just stuck with an Intel bound PC if you
don't want to be.
So they advertise the Whistler reviews here as
most people who are interested in a better OS
for their use are currently interested in Linux.
They are NOT interested in stinking lousy Windows.
Otherwise they would have SOME discussion about
Whistler over on Comp.os.Microsoft.advocacy or
some windows related newsgroup. But that's not
where the PEOPLE are.
And there you have it.
Charlie
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:18:41 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XU2U5.24992$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:xQbT5.5239$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
<trimmed>
>
> No, it was Novell that was providing most people the functionality
> that MS couldn't. I used AT&T unix myself back then, with something
> very similar to samba that they called the 'Starlan DOS Server' and
Used that one my self.
> through an assortment of upgrades this evolved to 'StarGroup' and
> was a WFG/Win95 compatible netbios-over-tcp server - but it
> never had to deal with the 32Meg partition limits. Everything
> migrated transparently to Linux/samba eventually. I recall one of
That's because it's the same thing a LanMan Server Unix port.
> my friends trying to install the MS LanMan server back then and
> it couldn't deal with a 9 gig SCSI drive that he had been using under
> Netware. Great server design...
>
What 9gig SCSI was available then? Hell up to Ver 9 HPUX couldn't handle
more than 2 GB an that was in '95.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:14:40 GMT
Doesn't stop it from being a bug. And what is so great about having a 49
day uptime clock? Name one advantage to having it so short! (other than
the fact that is hides the fact that NT is not stable)
In article <8vgr69$ret$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8vfkcr$tlh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <wTBS5.9755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And that is why it is considered a bug. Because it was done WITHOUT
> > thought.
> >
>
> Lets see:
> It doesn't affect operation on the network
> It doesn't affect local operation
> You can't guarantee the statistic gained from any host (with the
> exception of some BSD variants) is accurate anyway
> You can get the accurate information from other sources
> It is a very very infrequently used piece of information for the
> network stack to provide
> The only affected user would seem to be Netcraft
>
> It can't be high on their list to fix I have to say.
>
> When will Linux be providing an infinite uptime measurement from the
> network stack? When will this bug be fixed?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Major shift
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:11:19 GMT
"...a major shift continued toward non-Microsoft servers. "
While the winvocates try to tell us what's so great about a 49 day
uptime clock, the European server market is moving to Unix/Linux...
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU20001123S0008
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:21:40 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > Not exactly, They do try to meet marketing requests. Little things like
the
> > Terminal Server addition to Win2K Server for remote adminstration
originated
> > from an e-mail sent to tech support at MS by myself.
> >
>
> Question: Is Terminal Server the rich man's X-Windows server?
>
No it's a smart man's remote adminstration tool.
> Chris
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:26:15 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > BZZZZZZT Wrong answer, While Win2K does perform nicely with 128MB RAM
it
> > performs rather well with a mere 32-48MB RAM as well.
>
> Having experience Win2K on that amount of memory, I wonder just how
> low your expectations have sunk. What did you do with it, run
> NotePad?
No, ran a rather piggish SQL application, IE, multiple downloads and OE for
email. Runs OK. Far better than Win98 did on the same hardware.
>
> So, I think your statement is bullshit. Yank my chain again,
> Winboy.
>
Perchance you need some learnin' on system configuration. BTW Linux 2.3
with KDE really stunk on that system. And Linux wouldn't run the SQL
application.
> Chris
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:27:53 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > Most likely the same, MS saw this as a PR/Marketing problem and did what
> > they do best, give the customer's what they want.
>
> Man, a decade of rants and raves from magazine writers about the
> bugs and catastrophes published by the 600-pound Microsoft
> gorilla make what you say utter crap.
>
Well I guess those guys made their agenda, they sold you a stack of
worthless magazines.
> Then again, in spite of all the agonistes, Microsoft did
> get 90% of the desktop market. Sounds like they write
> better office suites than OS's.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:29:10 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <aCZT5.10127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8qST5.5564$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> >> >> >mark wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Netmeeting phones home as well. It's kind of unsurprising
that
> >> >Windows is
> >> >> >> >> so insecure - it needs to be in order to enable all these bits
of
> >> >soft-
> >> >> >> >> ware to phone back to Microsoft Headquarters so they can see
what
> >> >you're
> >> >> >> >> doing, or where you are, or who you are, or, well, what,
exactly?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Incidentally, last time I mentioned this someone responded
very
> >fast
> >> >to
> >> >> >> >> say that you could disable this behaviour, but I've not been
able
> >to
> >> >> >> >> see how. Maybe I need that MCSE :)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >And in today's MCSE lesson... how to make the fucking thing
work
> >the
> >> >way
> >> >> >> >you want.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Tomorrow: How to stop your computers reporting your hard drive
> >> >> >> >contents and bank details to Microsoft.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> :-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What I think would be really amusing is to prove where the
operating
> >> >system sends
> >> >> >banking information to Microsoft. Netmeeting sends your
conversation
> >> >through
> >> >> >Microsoft servers only if you configure it to. Just like AIM and
ICQ
> >et.
> >> >al. If
> >> >> >you use your own server then, of course, it does not. The where an
> >who
> >> >you are
> >> >>
> >> >> Er, no - that's wrong. The copy of netmeeting I'm looking at sets
up
> >> >> tcp links to microsoft even though the server is within our
intranet.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >During setup it asks you if you want to use ils.microsoft.com as a
> >directory
> >> >(read name) server. Say no and no connection to MS exists. This is
also
> >a
> >> >setting change IIRC.
> >>
> >> Indeed, and it's not set up that way, and it _still_ creates TCP links
> >> to microsoft.com.
> >>
> >
> >No it doesn't. I've checked that everywhich way you can and those links
> >are a figment of your imagination.
>
> Okay, I'll have another go next week.
>
> It's just possible that I'm going complete insane (what, again...)
>
Snicker
> Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:31:04 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <qyZT5.10122$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
<trimmed>
> >
> >Not exactly, They do try to meet marketing requests. Little things like
the
> >Terminal Server addition to Win2K Server for remote adminstration
originated
> >from an e-mail sent to tech support at MS by myself.
>
> Does that mean that if I want something fixing in windows,
> you can ask for it on my behalf and it'll get done?
>
What is it you're looking for? Chances are it's already available. But, if
not I'll do my best. ;^D
> This just seems kind of doubtful.
>
> But I won't look a gifthorse in the mouth. Can you
> get my Win98SE to shut down properly - an email to
> tech support?
>
Is your power management properly setup and the correct driver installed?
> Ta,
>
> Mark
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:34:17 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vsjnl$5ffj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > A common anti-ms arguement is that it change the API without bothering
to
> > tell anybody and thus breaking competitor's applications.
>
> I think you mean "a common anti-ms observation"
>
> Even if they don't do it intentionally, they keep breaking things. I
> think it was SP6 that broke Notes server wasn't it? Required all clients
> have admin access or something...
>
Notes wasn't written to the Win API properly nor did it comply with NTLM
User or Security model, that's why it broke.
> You could also have a look at the Logitech mouse stories...
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:36:26 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:19:18
> [...]
> >> Chuckle. I'm still waiting for any of the things I want. Still,
> >> I'll assume you were joking here.
> >
> >Not exactly, They do try to meet marketing requests. Little things like
the
> >Terminal Server addition to Win2K Server for remote adminstration
originated
> >from an e-mail sent to tech support at MS by myself.
>
> Funny, I would have thought it originated from the fact that this has
> been a standard feature of server OSes for decades.
>
I'm not talking about Telnet, though that's been available on NT for years
as well.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> 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! =-----
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
