Linux-Advocacy Digest #486, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (sfcybear)
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Larry Pyeatt)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Major shift (sfcybear)
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Is design really that overrated? ("the_blur")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:06:35 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vthhu$5kru8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [trimmed comp.sys.mac.advocacy]
> >
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking* it.
> > > For those of you who doesn't know what this is, whistler is an the new
> OS
> > > (the one that will inherit both win2k & win ME) from Microsoft,
destined
> to
> > > finally eliminated the 9x line.
> >
> > OK, fair enough. It sounds pretty nice, esp. the behavior you've
> > described when ctrl+alt+delete is pressed. IMO, UI only matters to end
> > users, but I guess that's what Microsoft's aim is: ease of use, etc.
> > You forgot to mention how well it runs your existing Win 95/NT 4.0/Win
> > 2000 apps. Also, how well does it run Win 3.1 apps? Can you format a
> > floppy and do anything else while the floppy is formatting? Just
> > kidding.
>
> My Whistler is a workstation version, so it would be optimised to the
user.
>
> I didn't mentioned it because I didn't have the time to test it.
> My dialer, which is a known trouble maker, is working, I'm now going
through
> the phase of testing the applicaiton support.
> I can format a floppy and work while it's formatting, (although I don't
deal
> with floppies this often)
Does print spooling bog the system down as noticably as in NT?
<snip>
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[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 00:07:15 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| > 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.
|
| What would you have used in 1996? Which major vendor could have
| sold you a PC without paying for a copy of Windows?
How does bringing the past into this really help your argument of
whether or not alternatives to Windows exist TODAY?
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:01:20 GMT
In article <8vgu6h$tha$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > Notice that the uptime is gained from network information, not by
an
> > > uptime program. If you want an accurate uptime program for NT (I
> know
> > > you won't, but for the sake of correcting you, bear with me),
> there's
> > > one available at the Microsoft download site
> >
> > That must be one of those "intuitive" built-in features that
> > Microsoft keeps yammering about...
>
> Did they mention it as being built-in?
>
> >
> > Strange definition of "built-in" if you ask me....
> >
>
> Especially if you define built-in as "any software you can download
> from Microsofts web site" as you've just done.
>
> Idiot.
No, I think you are missing a bit of sarcasim here! MS is supposed to be
so great and have all of this intuitive stuff built in, but to get
something as simple as an uptime clock the keeps track of uptime over a
reasonable period, you need to go and download it! Just how intuitive
and built in is that? The same can be said for something as simple as a
zip application Windows? download, install. Linux built in.
]
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 05:11:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
> >
> > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > What do you have to prove with that post? Look at Windows 2000 Pro,
650MB,
> > a
> > > base installation, compare that to, say, Redhat Linux, which maybe a
> > little
> > > bigger in size, but includes valuable third party tools such as tar,
gzip,
> > > and StarOffice.
> >
> > a single UDMA66 20Gb drive sells for about $180 or so, last i looked.
650Mg
> > (which, i'm guessing, includes your page file) is not much of a problem.
>
> Bloat-ware is bloatware, no matter how much it costs.
>
> Bloat is one of the reasons why LoseDOS performance SUCKS!
That'd change if CS students were forced, for at least one semester, to
write assembly code for a small 65xx based system with 8K. Learning how to
do things compactly and efficiently would be the result.
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
<snip>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 06:43:38 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vvcd7$5e9qk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Who proved it and how?
> >
>
> Very simple.
>
> Just use it like the other 10,000 people did in
> a business environment or with napster and
> just watch that peice of shit bluescreen.
Obscure statement, provide some proof.
> Or you can read it in the reviews.
Provide a proof.
None of the reviews I've seen on win2k (and I've seen many) "proved it to
NOT be stable"
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 05:14:41 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HotU5.25408$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking* it.
> >
> > I DON'T CARE!!!
> >
> > I will still continue to run my Linux System which has performed for me
better
> > than anything MS has ever done.
> >
> > <EOM>
>
> Head > Sand.
Only if he's a software developer or consultant looking to be employable.
Otherwise, what's the problem with his preference?
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions
GET A LIFE!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Pyeatt)
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: 28 Nov 2000 04:16:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:49:46 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> >1) Considering that vi only uses main-keyboard keys (regardless
>> > of QWERTY vs. Dvorak issues.....why, exactly?
hjkl are all on the home row under the Querty mapping, but on Dvorak,
they are not. The positions of j,c,v, and p on qwerty are not very
convenient for moving the cursor, and those are the keys that correspond
to h,j,k and l. (Can the keys in VI be re-mapped to htns or dhtn?)
--
Larry D. Pyeatt, PhD.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.ttu.edu/~pyeatt
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 05:20:44 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vthpu$5i9tb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > I don't remember, but it would have been the 'fix everything you can'
> > choice.
> > It is annoying enough that it dumps the recovered files with made-up
names
> > in the root directory instead of isolating them somewhere, but when it
> > mentions cross-linked files you still end up with a mess.
>
> No, I've seen it work on such occasions.
You don't know if it worked unless you can compare every remaining file with
a good copy. And if you have a known good copy, it is faster to just
reformat and copy it over than to do the compare so why bother?
> > > What do you lose when you run e2fsck manually?
> >
> > Just the time it takes to do it. There is some limit to the number of
> > things
> > that it will fix in automatic mode and a busy machine, especially one
with
> > a lot of RAM can easily have more unsync'd files than that.
>
> You mean that even if the FS is in flames, e2fck will restore it in manual
> mode, without losing any of the data?
It is theoretically possible to have enough unsync'd metadata changes that
e2fsck can't recover, but in practice the odds of this are probably way
lower than losing the disk to hardware failure and I've personally never
seen it (and I have lost several drives to old age and other hardware
problems). However, I have seen many cases where the manual run was
necessary and suspect that in most cases where people claim to have lost a
partition they just didn't bother to follow the directions shown when
the automatic run gives up. I doubt if there are many people these days
that can do a better job of fixing the filesystem with a low-level disk
editor than e2fsck can do, so I'd prefer that it just assumed a 'yes' to
everything regardless of the amount of damage.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 05:24:37 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rxiU5.10335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I couldn't get the video to come up with the correct drivers (Hercules
> Dynamite 128/Video or the tseng ET6000 driver). It just gave a very
cryptic
> message about my settings and said "try some different settings". When I
> tried the SVGA driver, it at least gave me video, but it was corrupted.
> This same system worked fine with Mandrake 7.1 (the difference being
XFree86
> 4.0.1 in 7.2 and 3.3.x in 7.1). I guess that means Linux and Xfree86 are
a
> piece of crap.
>
> (Note: I don't believe that, since I understand that bugs happen. Max,
> however, does not.)
My memory may be failing, but I thought that Mandrake 7.2 gave you the
option of loading the 4.x or 3.x version of XFree86. Maybe it was
an expert-mode-only choice.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:28:35 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:idiU5.10334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Who the hell cares? The "average users" opinion on what is or is not a
> > core process is rather entirely meaningless, in terms of what is a core
> > process.
>
> And thus, we define the whole reason that Linux will likely never displace
> Windows or even MacOS in the desktop marketplace.
You mean it is really just the glossy press release that matters instead
of the real performance or reliability?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 05:30:16 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vsa1k$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > > Maybe you forget that the only viable alternative to Windows exists
> only
> > > > because it escapes the normal market rules, being a free product,
and
> > > > therefore it is, for a certain amount, protected against monopoly.
> > >
> > > Mac, Os/2 are viable alternatives and they follow normal market rules.
> >
> > What major vendor could have sold you an Intel based PC in 1996
> > without paying for a copy of windows?
>
> What version of Mac could run on an Intel based PC?
What version of Mac could match prices with an Intel based PC in
1996?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[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 00:32:16 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) posted:
| >The barrier there isn't a technical one but an economic one and
| >unfortunately the Linux community is largely to blame as much as the MS
| >monopoly. The linux community is growing and provides a potential for
| >commercial application breakthroughs. However, Linux is OSS and the
| >community rides on the OSS mantra which is that people shouldn't have to
| >pay for software.
| >
|
| No your wrong. That's just a side benefit.
| The OVERALL drive is to make the source code FREE of encumbrances
| so that people are free to see how the software is written, to
| inspect the product and further to add to the collection if they
| wish. The free cost aspect is just a side benefit.
The people benefit, not the software developer who's sole reason for
developing the software is to make some money so that he can put food on
the table and buy his home.
| I really don't know why people get so damn hung up on free
| software cost anyway. When I worked for HBOC we would GIVE
| away software if they would sign the maintenance agreement
| with us. We'd even give them hardware to boot! It's all
| in the marketing. And that was copyrighted software also.
How much general purpose software out there carries a maintenance
requirement that users would be willing to pay significantly for. They'd
rather ask there neighbours or go to the nearest newsgroup rather than
pay for tech support.
| The GPL just takes that step and makes the software open
| source and FREE for use. But the market really hasn't
| changed from the day's when copyrighted material was
| the norm.
However:
The users benefit, not the software developer who's sole reason for
developing the software is to make some money so that he can put food on
the table and buy his home.
| >Unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort and time to make software and
| >there are only two motivators there. Either direct economic benefit in a
| >commercial, closed source setting, or the developer is using the
| >software to his economic benefit and knows that others will help to
| >enhance the software to his and their benefit.
| >
|
|
| Except with the GNU/GPL model, the enhancement is shared by
| all. It isn't just for the benefit of one entity.
The software developer, who's sole purpose for developing software is to
make a profit doesn't really care that much about the benefits of the
entire community.
Have you ever heard of the triangle of needs. We attend to our needs in
a triangular fashion starting from the wide base up to the tiny apex.
The desire to help others is at the apex. You cannot help others or
think of others until you first help yourself. The software developer
looking for a means of income to help himself through developing
software doesn't care about the noble cause of OSS. This is why
commercial software will !!!!!!DWARF!!!!! OSS software in terms of scope
and variety.
| >Most prefer the former arrangement since it has more promise in the
| >business setting where making money off sales of the software being
| >developed is concerned but the linux community doesn't welcome this
| >model. Of course, this is a general statement and I know that many who
| >use Linux are willing to buy commercial Linux apps but that's not
| >enough. There has to be an atmosphere there, a feeling of fertile soil.
| >OTOH, quite the contrary is happening because one is hard pressed to
| >find any company making a profit off marketing distributions and selling
| >support services for the most successful OSS to date, ie, Linux. There
| >are also other deterrents to the OSS model that many will not embrace.
| >
|
| NO. The money made today is in the maintenance of software products
| and NOT the sale of software products. Microsoft is actually
| the last bastion of software SALES stupidity. The money is
| in the market for maintenance.
Oh. Tell me now. Are any of these distributors for Linux distros and
technical services making a profit? Nooooo.
| We would sell a hospital a software package for $110,000.
| But we would get an annual maintenance fee after the first
| year of $90,000 a year for every year the product was licensed
| to be maintained by us. 80% of our companies revenues is
| in the maintenance contracts. Very little is in the sales
| of software. They have actually been GIVING the software
| away for FREE if they sign 5 year contracts.
A number of things here.
a) This is highly specialised software for which technical support is
not readily available.
Contrast this to Linux or any popular general purpose apps where the
help may be used or the user may take to a newsgroup, the internet or
discussion lists to get technical support. This is the problem with
support returns. The bulk of users are parasites. They don't help with
development and they don't help by contributing through purchasing tech
support.
b) When they give away the software, is the source also given away. Can
the hospital to which the source be given, give it to another developer
to be enhanced or further developed? This is another deterrent to OSS.
After 5 years of hard work and investing, I create my breakthrough
software that greatly improves my companies efficiency. If anyone else
is going to get their hands on this software, they'd have to pay dearly
for it.
| >An economic one exists. When you develop the software, people need to
| >buy it so that it can be worth your while to develop it. This is the
| >reason behind the collapse of the OS/2 software market. Not enough OS/2
| >users exist to maintain the market. Developers invest a lot into
| >creating apps, employing other developers in the process and then no-one
| >buys the application. This is a serious barrier.
| >
| >This is why MS markets Win2k only for the PC platform. It's not
| >economically viable for them to do otherwise because there's not enough
| >demand for it.
| >
| >Before you develop an application, you need to have a target population
| >to market it to.
| Well, again. Your talking about the days of when people will
| be selling OS's and those day's are comming to a close.
My arguments are not by any means confined to just OS's.
Even then, there's the very disturbing fact that in the midst of the
linux boom, none of the distributors can admit to be working with a
positive profit margin but in fact at a loss.
| You are living in the PEAK of commerical OS sales in human
| history. After Microsoft fades away you will probably never
| see computer OS's for sale again.
|
| With Linux and the BSD's around there is little incentive
| to buy Windows anymore. Even the Mac X croud is getting
| a free ride.
|
| Your talking about the market at the turn of the century
| and you should be thinking of the market of tommorrow.
As I said, my arguments do not apply only to OSS's as the OSS movements
mantra does not only apply to OS's.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 05:39:01 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vsjgv$5j4i5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > >
> > > > What major vendor could have sold you an Intel based PC in 1996
> > > > without paying for a copy of windows?
> > >
[...]
> No, he claimed that you can't buy a intel based PC in 1996 without paying
to
> MS.
No, I asked which major vendor could have sold you one, and I notice
that you tried to avoid the issue instead of answering.
> If the major vendor is such an important issue, then create a
> goverment-owned vendor to buy proccessors from intel and sell computers.
Yikes, if I don't trust a garage mechanic to build a computer, why do
you think I would trust the government?
> I don't think that Intel, at any point, would refuse to sell its
processors
> to anyone.
That doesn't mean just anyone can build a quality box and provide
timely service.
> I pointed out that even if this is true, then you could still go with Mac.
> The wording was wrong, though.
> However, even if you exclude x86, you still get Linux on alpha, Mac on
PPC,
> Sun on Sparc, and so on.
> Plenty of choices.
Now you can - and should, but we were talking about 1996. The Mac
and Sun had some apps back then but neither were in the same price
range as Intel boxes.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:40:00 GMT
In article <z5GU5.10636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vv7oi$rri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "...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
>
> If you read the article, it's not that they're moving away from
Windows,
> it's that they're moving to higher end RISC systems, which currently
only
> run Unix or Linux. With (until very recnetly) Intel based servers
maxing
> out at 8 CPU's, the 64 CPU systems that Sun and others offer are much
more
> attractive. That's changing though. Win2k Datacenter can support CPU
> configurations up to 32 processors.
>
> One datapoint doth not a trend make.
Yeah, 43% growth rate for the Linux/Unix and risc vs 1% growth rate for
windows and intell Sure looks like W2K is kicking ass! Get real Funk...
and that is an ongowing trend - "a major shift continued toward
non-Microsoft servers." Do you understand what "Major shift
continued..." means? Do you know what a 43% growth rate vs a 1% growth
rate does for market share? Remeber that Unix was still the major
platform meaning that the intel market share is droping like a rock!
Go back and play with your 49 day uptime clock!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 05:51:56 GMT
In article <8vvetd$5mvor$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vvcd7$5e9qk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Who proved it and how?
>> >
>>
>> Very simple.
>>
>> Just use it like the other 10,000 people did in
>> a business environment or with napster and
>> just watch that peice of shit bluescreen.
>
>Obscure statement, provide some proof.
>
>> Or you can read it in the reviews.
>
>Provide a proof.
>None of the reviews I've seen on win2k (and I've seen many) "proved it to
>NOT be stable"
>
>
This is hillarious! WHAAAAH provide a proof!
WHAAAH provide a proof!
WHAAAAH provide a proof!
Of course I could provide him a few
references. Then he would start to
whine and argue and point out to me
that these circumstances were UNFAIR,
or that he had never experienced this
kind of problem and that we were
all full of shit anyway.
I'll counter!
Pull your head out of your ass!
Pull your head out of your ass!
Pull your head out of your ass!
Where have you been the last year?
Have you been living in a cave sir!
Why do we need to go over the PROVING W2K
bluescreens issue with you AGAIN anyway
nitwit! We already did it for you
when the god damn product came out and
you still have your head mounted up your
ass!
Wintrolls! Will they never cease the stupidity.
They just can't accept reality that Windows
is simply not worth it's weight in shit.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:35:27 -0500
> Oh god, it was one continous blather about the COLOR SCHEME.
>
> Hint...ANY FUCKING USER INTERFACE CAN HAVE ANY FUCKING COLOR SCHEME.
>
> If you like the "whistler colors", I'll bet I can get the same colors
> in a few minutes on any other GUI in the world (provided it uses a
> 24-bit color pallette).
>
>
> Microshaft writes unstable code. Who the fuck cares what colors the
> system is *supposed* to display when the damned thing is crashing?
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
Hey, fucknut, I'm redesigning the Linux look on my own time. I'm going to
release all the graphics/sketches and logos I come up with for this pet
project as GPL "software". When was the last time you gave _ANYTHING_ to the
linux/unix community (other than dumbass ranting)?
Just because you have no style, no life and no talent, doesn't mean that
those who do can't put it to good use.
I think I can speak for the entire linux community when I say we don't need
the likes of you. Shithead.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 05:57:28 GMT
"Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:luFU5.446$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 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.
It was interesting because the original version used an AT&T proprietary
transport protocol and actually included a DOS version of the server
as well as clients. Then it was updated to use an OSI transport (back
when phone companies still believed that OSI was going to replace
TCP 'real soon now'). The OSI version was the only one available
on the '486 when SysVr4 was released, and it was never done for
the 3B1 so we had to go through a weekend of destruction where we
tossed the 3B1's and upgraded all the 3B2's and clients in order to
be able to use a 486 server at all. Then there was an OSI stack
for Windows-for-WorkGroups to match, but this was never done
for Win95.
> > 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.
And by that time TCP was added besides OSI and everything but
email could use either. This allowed a fairly smooth switch to
TCP on the client side.
> > 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.
It could have been even smaller, but whatever it was it had worked
without problems on Netware.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
