Linux-Advocacy Digest #516, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 02:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Java? (ben@z)
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")
linux on a 486 (Micah Higgs)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Ed Allen)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: Is design really that overrated? (mark)
Re: Is design really that overrated? (mark)
Re: Is design really that overrated? (mark)
Re: Is design really that overrated? (mark)
Re: C++ is very alive! (Pan)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Richard Snow")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Is design really that overrated? (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ben@z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Java?
Date: 28 Nov 2000 20:11:42 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn says...
>
>As I said before, the main strength of Java is the ability to code
>internet apps very easily w/ a C++ like language. Also, it's perfect
>for e-commerce apps, because Java apps run inside a web browser. VB
>doesn't do this.
>
Java has many advantages over Java. Many of the major companies are
adopting the Java platform and moving away from the windows platform.
When one write to the java platform, their applications are immediatly
portable to any platform where the java platform exists.
It is clear that Java is winning, and winning big. There are now more
Java programmers than C++ programmer, and the lead is growing each day.
Java is a pleasure to program with, it is more reliable, more robust,
and more OO than C++.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:04:04 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900bs5$61qq2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > I love how virtually all Linux lovers say they are forced to use
Windows
> > > at least sometimes. Usually end up that they just plain can't do
> > > something the need to in Linux and have to go back to Windows to do
it.
> >
> > Yes, the thing they almost universally have trouble doing under Linux
> > is interoperating with the proprietary file formats that Microsoft has
> > used to lock you in. It's your data, but you have to pay for a software
> > license to access it on another machine.
>
> Well, ther is a nice idea which Office support called *exporting*.
> Actually, they call it Save As, but that is what they mean.
> Save in a file format that you can read, and you are done.
> That the proprietry file formats are superior to the open ones is another
> matter (if they are not, why do you use the proprietry file formats when
you
> don't have to?)
As usual you are avoiding reality. Do you dictate to everyone else in your
office and your clients and customers how they are allowed to communicate
with you, or do you do what you are forced to do and accommodate them?
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:35:12 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900a39$5s4t8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > No, I asked which major vendor could have sold you one, and I notice
> > that you tried to avoid the issue instead of answering.
>
> What is the big deal about not being able to buy it from a major vendor?
> Buy enough from a small one and you'll make it a major vendor :)
That's the point - the ones people like became the major vendors. Why
should
you buy from someone who probably won't be around for the life of your
warrantee, can't give on-site service, and charges more besides? It is a big
deal.
> > > 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?
>
> Who do you trust, then?
Anyone who has near-equal competitors and a history of happy customers.
Even then I want the option of buying replacement parts from one
of those competitors.
> > > 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.
>
> Not anyone, but I'm sure a goverment is capable of gathering the people
who
> can do this.
Politicians? The people who can't count the votes in an election? I'm
talking
about hardware, not PR.
> > 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.
>
> What was the OEM price for win95/NT in 1996 in iceland? For that matter,
> were the major vendors in Icenland bound by per-proccessors contracts?
> In current days dollar, please.
Got me... Was there a blossoming OS being developed there that was
wiped out by this?
> If you think about it a little, you'll see that *even* if you pay for the
> win95 OEM, it doesn't add up much to the computer.
Please send me the same amount if you don't miss it.
> Of course, if you don't intend to use windows, this is an annoying issue,
> which has been thankfully eliminated, but it doesn't add much to the price
> of a computer.
What it did was eliminate the competition and generate massive sales
figures to drive apps developers away from other platforms.
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:47:00 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900bse$61qq2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> A> When I buy a computer, I don't go to major vendor. On general, I rather
> build my computers per my needs. Vednor system has much quircks that I
don't
> like. Therefor, I don't have a problem here.
What do you do when you need a hundred at once, delivered to some other
office? Or even a few dozen rack-mount systems?
> B> English isn't your first too? For future reference, the word "will", as
> used in the context of my words, indicate that I'm talking about something
> in the future. Unless you got the time table from Aaron, the future is not
> 1996.
And I'm talking about the time frame when Microsoft was found guilty
of anti-competitive practices. The same time frame, not coincidentally,
when market share determined the target platforms for development of
today's application programs.
> C> Who says I'll stay on PC? Plenty of choices around to pick from.
Yes, now MS can't get away with playing the same games. However,
you will still have to deal with the distortion of the application
programming targets caused by the earlier tricks.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Micah Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux on a 486
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:47:02 -0800
is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with only a floppy drive?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:59:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:24:59
>>
>>Really?
>>Put
>>mem = <some value greater than your RAM>kb
>>in lilo.conf
>>reboot.
>>kernel panic
>>There has been a discussion about this about a month ago.
>>Isn't is a case where the OS fail?
>
>No, it is a case where you misconfigured it, and it dutifully did
>precisely what you told it, to the best of its ability. Its not like
>such a goofball thing to do is going to cause the OS to scribble all
>over every config file on the system, causing cascading errors even once
>the thing is changed back, unless you scrub the system and re-install
>everything.
>
Sorry to butt in here but this seems relevant:
Name: crashme
Summary: Test operating system environment robustness
Tests operating system environment robustness by invoking
random data as if it was a procedure.
==========< From the history of the SPARC port of Linux >====================
Stability
Testing the stability of an operating system is not an easy job. We
used the fine Crashme program to automate the process of finding
problematic areas on the kernel. The SparcLinux team did a hard work at
answering the question from users and responding as quick as "190ible
to the bug reports from the users that were either beta testing the
kernel or those users that had an installed Linux/SPARC system.
In short, Crashme is a program that tries to execute random garbage
code over and over. This program is known to bring down most commercial
Unix operating systems (including both of the Sun operating systems).
The routine use of Crashme on the Linux/SPARC port became part of the
developement cycle (up to the point of having the team leader starting
Crashme from his init scripts). The Crashme helped to find lots of
problems in the port that were fixed as soon as Crashme spotted them.
Thanks to having an international team of developers and support
people, when the first Linux/SPARC distribution on CD went out we had
a very strong port: a port that had taken only 22 months to engineer
and complete (starting from scratch up to releasing the operating
system on a bootable CD-ROM).
============================================================================
Somewhere, I lost the link, there is a website which used to keep a
record of how long each OS would run crashme before failing.
They quit updating the site when Linux times reached a week and all
the others failed within the first two days. NT times were in minutes.
So yes, a well designed OS will survive garbage being thrown at it.
--
"Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
-DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:00:30 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900bsc$61qq2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Ibm was legally constrained from bundling products before they even
> > developed the PC. There is no way they would have been allowed
> > to force customers to buy their OS and they knew better than to try.
>
> So if I buy an AIX from IBM, I won't get OS?
AIX is an OS. If you buy hardware from IBM that can run AIX, you
will have a choice of buying it too, but forcing you to take it would
be illegal bundling as determined by lengthy legal proceedings in
the 80's.
> Anyway, before win3 & 95, IBM could've make OS/2 a more attractive offer
> than windows.
They could not have bundled it with the hardware. I don't think IBM took
PC's seriously in those days anyway or they would have written an OS
without any help. The real problem was that even then, networked PC's
were capable of replacing a lot of the jobs currently being done by the
much more profitable mainframes and they were not interested
in encouraging this migration.
> On general, the average customer buy because of a balance of ease-of-use,
> price, application offering, and marketing.
> Which one of those were in favor of os/2 before windows widespread use?
The average customer doesn't use OS functions directly, they launch
applications that do all their work. Windows had an office suite ready
to roll from the start. IBM already had office equipment that they weren't
ready to quit selling. OS/2 was at least as usable and more stable, but
that turned out to be irrelevant. IBM was just the wrong company to
steal its own application business.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:57:49 +0000
In article <8vvt5j$bm4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> An X problem /can/ stop the machine. I've never seen it happen. I've
>> only lost my X server a few times (once?) in the last 2 years. I've
>> never crashed the computer. Strangely, the only people who suffer from
>> frequent X lockups and frequent computer lockups as a result are the
>Win
>> trolls. Odd.
>>
>Also odd that the Linux users seem to be the only people who have to
>reboot their NT machines daily to get them to work. How strange.
>
I've not seen that claimed. Weekly seems common, it's certainly
the advice my company gives, along with only one server process
per machine.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:59:24 +0000
In article <S8AU5.5386$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>mark wrote:
>
>> It always amuses me that the windows people seem to have stability
>> problems with linux, but the linux people don't, now why might
>> that be?
>
>Really?
>
>It always amuses me that non-windows people seem to have stability problems
>with Windows, but Windows people don'y, now why might that be?
All my work colleagues have the same problems I do. They vary from
secretaries to senior managers to programmers to higly experienced
telcoms engineers. Some even claim to be windows experts. Some
are even MCSE.
A typical win98se day will involve 2 reboots.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:03:04 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ketil Z Malde wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps people who've been exposed to other systems realize there are
>>> better things out there?
>
>> Better than Windows or Linux, do you mean?
>
>The topic was Windows, but it could equally well apply to Linux, of
>course.
>
>The main difference is that there is really no excuse for paying for
>a supported Linux distribution if you're dissatisfied with the support
>you get.
>
>> I accept Windows 95/98/ME is unstable but its desktop and hardware
>> support is currently better than Linux Mandrake + KDE 2.0.
>
>But the point is that a lot of users - and in particular windows users
>- accept instability and idosyncracies and crashes as a fact of life,
>as inevitable as death or taxes.
>
>You may be making a conscious choice, Win98 instead of NT, a few hours
>lost work now and then instead of an unusable USB scanner. Most
>people don't realise there is any choice at all.
>
>>> For some reason, there's a lot of people out there who will accept
>>> paying for useless crap.
>
>> I assume you're talking about Windows here?
>
>Not particularly, no. While I think you can solve most problems
>better and cheaper with different software, I don't think it's
>useless, and only partly crap.
>
>> You know I could say the same about Linux
>
>Feel free to. I agree that it isn't as stable for a desktop as it
>should be - problems that I have stumbled upon have been stuff like
>unstable X servers and poorly supported sound cards. Mostly long ago,
>but still I can lock up the display by running my TV card in one
>console, X in another, and switching between them. There's a patch
>that might solve it for me, but that's not something you can tell the
>"average" user.
>
>It's getting there, and I think it is about as good as NT, and much
>more flexible.
>
I think this concept of 'desktop' needs expanding a little.
For my work, I do not have a TV card or a need for a sound
card at all.
I though NT was supposed to be a server OS, not a desktop one?
I also thought that NT5's hardware support was somewhat patchy.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:13:59 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pY%U5.19118$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Actually I started with JCL, and OS360 on IBM 360's. Remember punched
> cards?
Yes, I wrote a fortran program on them when I was in college to do
some statistics for a biology class, but it wasn't much fun so I stayed
away from computers for about 10 years - then Radio Shack started
selling Z80 boxes.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:04:33 +0000
In article <8vvri6$ap6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <_gIU5.25246$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Most Windows people buy their machines pre-loaded with the components
>> and matching drivers selected by a team of experts on the vendor's
>staff.
>> Do the same with Linux and you will get even better results.
>
>Perhaps.
>
>I'm not most people. I put together my own machines. Yet I have less
>trouble with Windows than I do with Linux. I'm hardly new to
>hardware/software or alternate OS's, so you tell me what's wrong?
>
You should be able to command a huge salary then. Everyone else
on the planet stuggles to keep Win98 going for a whole day.
Why don't you sell this super-skill?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:07:50 +0000
In article <XkQU5.7021$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the_blur wrote:
>> This is *too* weird. Are you proposing Calvin Klein Linux,
>> Armani Linux, Hugo Boss Linux, Gap Linux, etc. Look for the
>> Linux ads in Vogue magazine. :)
>
>It's sad, but the reason you quoted all those brands is because they are
>strong (snobby) brands and they made an impression onn you, probably because
>of the adverts (which I hate BTW, they annoy me). Apple built a brand
>appealing to same things as these companies. Think of Nike, they have an
>excellent creative team doing their ads, but for some reason (I guessing
They need to because they also have kids making their goods.
If you want to buy goods made by expoiting children in poor
countries, then go with what the advertising man tells you.
mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:12:31 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Raeder wrote:
>the_blur wrote:
>>
>> > This is *too* weird. Are you proposing Calvin Klein Linux,
>> > Armani Linux, Hugo Boss Linux, Gap Linux, etc. Look for the
>> > Linux ads in Vogue magazine. :)
>>
>> It's sad, but the reason you quoted all those brands is because they are
>> strong (snobby) brands and they made an impression onn you, probably because
>> of the adverts (which I hate BTW, they annoy me). Apple built a brand
>> appealing to same things as these companies. Think of Nike, they have an
>> excellent creative team doing their ads, but for some reason (I guessing
>> it's because there is no Linux, only TONS of marginally different
>> distributions) Linux as an OS has no brand image that I can think of, except
>> the goofy penguin. I think it's due for an image update.
>
>I'd hate to say it, but you are correct in the sense that
>this is what das publik wants. Granted, I personally like
>the cute penguins, but the publik wants The Sharper Image.
>I hope the best for your project.
Is it? This is only effective if you have a multi-million advertising
budget.
This whole thread assumes that the *only* way of gaining brand
recognition, image etc., is through advertising and pretty pictures
and logos. This is simply not true.
The _internet_ is amazingly well known, but has no brand image or
logo at all.
Linux is growing at an astonishing rate around the planet, the
highest adoption rate which has ever been seen for any OS.
If you want to work on branding, then you'd probably be better
off working with one of the distos than with a rather nebulous
'linux' culture on the web. Currently, the major distros do
have branding, marketing and even logos, so you'll need to pick
one of the ones which hasn't.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:18:40 +0000
In article <%aQU5.3420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the_blur wrote:
>> Demonstrating that the Whistler color scheme has exactly ZERO additional
>> value over Linux.
>
>Wow. Some contribution...I'll recommend a medal in writing. Do you realize
>the above statement is vague to the point of being a non-argument, or should
>I point out to you why?
>
>BTW, whistler does look good. And it doesn't crash nearly as much as you'd
>have people believe. In fact since I havent used it, I can't say how often,
How can those two sentences follow one another. The last one absolutely
contradicts the penultimate.
I am also really not interested in the colour scheme of winxxx. It
does not affect my computing experience in any positive way at all.
And, it'll probably clash with the office environment anyway, and if
not, with my clothes :)
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:15:47 +0000
In article <wJGU5.2962$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the_blur wrote:
>> GOD, you are SUCH An infantile person...What a splash screen looks
>> like has got to be about the most INSIGNIFICANT thing that anybody
>> could worry about...
>
>No, it's the first thing that I see when I boot the computer at the store.
>If I don't like what I see, I move on.
That is probably self-destructive behaviour. It is never wise to
make a purchasing decision on one single attribute of anything.
That said, most advertising serves to make me actively search
for an alternative product, especially corporate branding stuff,
which I particularly loath.
I detest watching corporates play with themselves in public, they
really should do it in their bedrooms!
Mark
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C++ is very alive!
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:25:25 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I can hardly wait for the day. Image that!
> You write one peice of software on your Linux box and
> it's already ported to run on anything.
>
> That's another really BIG prize of this deal.
I call that Perl.
mlw is right when he says that there is a difference between an engineer
and a programmer. A programmer is an end user relative to some
engineers.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:32:12 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nt%U5.18889$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I never went the 3Bx route, my first server was a 6386 with UNIX on it.
The
> proprietary AT&T protocol was a tweaked OEM version of LANManager just
like
> 3Com's network was at the time.
The earlier version had a whole different 'feeling', although you couldn't
tell much difference from the client side. I had the impression that it
was derived from the IBM PC-NET family that pre-dated LANMan and
I thought it was better than anything Microsoft was capable of at the
time (this was before windows-anything). I wonder who really did
the original netbios design work.
> > 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.
> >
>
> Yeah it was a great little system. My $10K, 20MHz 80386 Server with 4MB
RAM
> and a whopping 300MB ESDI disk happily supported 100+ users for about
three
> years, even loading software like Lotus, WordPerfect and dBase from the
> network.
I was doing that with the 3B2's several years before the 386 came out - and
modem communications with offices in every state. One of the boxes had
about 40 serial lines driving printers, modems, reading a couple of wire
services, and some other odd things. The processor was about the speed
of a '286 but it handled context switching pretty well and without the
overhead of windows or a GUI it all worked pretty well.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Richard Snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Richard Snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:33:36 GMT
Yes I remember punched cards. I started out programming on a 360 too.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pY%U5.19118$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:keIU5.25245$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:YTFU5.492$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > > Unix had this from the Very Start.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why did it take Microsoft over 15 years to come up with similar
> > > > > functionality?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Because in the bad old days, none of the systems were connected to
> > > others
> > > > > nor were they connected to the outside world, such functionality
was
> > not
> > > > > needed.
> > > >
> > > > I just love historical revisionism. Windows for WorkGroups didn't
> > > > really exist, nobody ever used DOS or Windows on top of Netware,
> > > > Windows95 didn't really offer to share files, Windows98 didn't
offer
> > > > to share files.
> > >
> > > Not in the beginning. I guess I've been doing this longer than you.
> IAC
> > my
> > > point was even in those limited environments any access was local only
> > > (Hint: LAN==LOCAL AREA NETWORK) outside connectivity was rare to
> > > non-existent.
> >
> > If you started with DOS, you haven't been doing it longer. And DOS
> > networking
> > was common long before Windows was even an idea. AT&T's Starlan
> > DOS server included a real DOS version of the server that you could use
> > along with or instead of the unix version. I've forgotten the dates but
> it
> > must have been around 1985 or 1986, and before wide area networking
> > was common you had modems which were exactly the same problem
> > security-wise.
> >
>
> Actually I started with JCL, and OS360 on IBM 360's. Remember punched
> cards?
>
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:34:11 GMT
"ELVIS2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> By this logic, then DOS is the superior OS!
>
> >> > vi editing is superior....hands don't leave the main keyboard area.
>
No, DOS doesn't do anything but load programs. Vi does everything
an editor needs to do, and with filtering it includes everything any
other program can do too.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:20:13 +0000
In article <8vun4s$4ed$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>the_blur <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip!>
>
>You've made a lot of great points about Linux, but I think there are
>a few things worth mentioning.
>
I think that there's going to have to be a facing up to a reality
that this guy is kind of trolling here.
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
