Linux-Advocacy Digest #762, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 11:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Uptimes (sfcybear)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (mlw)
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: need to open 100 windows (Pan)
Re: I switched! No more Netscape! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Uptimes (Pan)
Something to ponder whilst thinking about uptimes and reliability. (mlw)
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:03:34 GMT
In article <x8mY5.10812$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90sog5$1h2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <VGjY5.10172$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:90sdg9$qb9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ah, the very old line, I don't know how they did it, so it can't
be
> > > > done. Sorry, Chad, Just because you or anyone outside of
Netcraft
> > does
> > > > not know how netcraft get's the numbers does NOT prove Nectraft
does
> > not
> > > > know how to do it.
> > > >
> > > > Are you claiming that Netcraft is making up the numbers?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Prove they aren't.....
> >
> >
> > Yeah, right! next you'll claim that the black Netcraft has launched
a
> > fleet of black helecopters to take over the Microsoft Headquarters!
> >
> > This one you need to prove, PROVE THAT NETCRAFT DOES NOT KNOW A WAY
TO
> > GET THE NUMBERS.
> >
>
> Don't need to, you already have.
Ha, you are pathetic, I clearly have not. If you think I have PROVE IT!
comeone Chad, I have never seen you prove one of your points! are you
that much of a wimp?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:05:10 GMT
In article <O9mY5.10818$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90soj5$1pt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <ZOhY5.5053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > > > Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are
> > rebooted
> > > > > regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain
stability.
> > In fact
> > > > > the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the
> > setup phase.
> > > > > Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail
when
> > hardware
> > > > > fails.
> > > >
> > > > Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
> > >
> > > Top 50 of whay? Netcraft's admittedly unscientific method of
> > > determining uptime?
> > >
> > > Please, explain to us how you can accurately determine the uptime
> > > of a Windows machine (or any, for that matter) remotely without
> > > any permissions on that box without constantly pinging it?
> > >
> > > Can't? Right, because there is no way. Netcraft must be magic,
then.
> >
> > Prove this last satement. Prove that there is no way to get the
numbers.
> > IF you clan not prove it, you can not make this claim.
> >
>
> LOL, you never prove anything Matt, yet you have the audacity to make
this
> statement, good drugs eh?
Yeap, you must be on them. Prove that I have made that claim you have
said I have. If you can not, you are nothing but a liar.
>
> >
> >
> >
> <trimmed>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:08:01 GMT
In article <1bmY5.10824$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90sopp$1qp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <1BiY5.9817$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > > > Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are
> > rebooted
> > > > > regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain
stability.
> > In
> > > fact
> > > > > the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the
> > setup
> > > phase.
> > > > > Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail
when
> > > hardware
> > > > > fails.
> > > >
> > > > Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process. Moot
> > indeed.
> > >
> >
> > Prove that they got unreliable information from the top 50!
> >
>
> The onus is on you to prove the reliability of the figures you present
as
> facts.
I have. I made the claim that NETCRAFT STATED... I then posted what
netcraft stated! What I have claimed is true, The top 50 according to
netcraft has NO MS OS's LISTED! YOU made the claim
In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process. Moot
> > indeed.
> > >
And you need to prove it or you are nothing but a troll!
>
> <trimmed>
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:25:13 GMT
"Bob Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:56:04 GMT,
> > > Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Linux was used on the Titanic but the render farm had to be augmented
by
> > > >utilizing NT boxes after they had finished doing the design work.
The
> > Linux
> > > >render farm, as designed wasn't up to the task. If you are looking
for
> > > >referrences to what I say, check out the TITANIC thread in this group
and
> > > >COLA from about 20 months ago.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just so the crowd doesn't think your full of shit,
> > > give us just one link to a web site which proves this.
> > >
> > > Just one.
> > >
> >
> > Try deja.com the whole thread is there in all it's glory. BTW, I cannot
> > remember the name of the article that was quoted in that thread by Matt
and
> > Stephen Edwards. I'm sure a search on deja will return the info you
need.
> >
>
> deja.com is a big place. Can you be specific, so we don't get
> the idea that you're waffling? And if you can't remember the name
> of the article, perhaps you could find out.
>
Curtis has posted it. BTW keyword Titanic in your search or Stephen Edward,
Matt (sfcybear) or my name would also probably yield results.
> -- Bob Day
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:30:03 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90thsf$ik4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <1bmY5.10824$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90sopp$1qp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <1BiY5.9817$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > > > > Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are
> > > rebooted
> > > > > > regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain
> stability.
> > > In
> > > > fact
> > > > > > the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the
> > > setup
> > > > phase.
> > > > > > Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail
> when
> > > > hardware
> > > > > > fails.
> > > > >
> > > > > Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process. Moot
> > > indeed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Prove that they got unreliable information from the top 50!
> > >
> >
> > The onus is on you to prove the reliability of the figures you present
> as
> > facts.
>
> I have. I made the claim that NETCRAFT STATED... I then posted what
> netcraft stated! What I have claimed is true, The top 50 according to
> netcraft has NO MS OS's LISTED! YOU made the claim
>
You are right you did repeat (plagerize) what Netcraft said. Truth,
unlikely. Show where I made any such claim.
>
> In the top 50 of a majorly flawed data gathering process. Moot
> > > indeed.
> > > >
>
>
> And you need to prove it or you are nothing but a troll!
>
Tell us what method they used. Others have posted statements by Netcraft
indicating that thier gathering process is imperfect, leading to imperfect
data. Blind faith, yours, isn't proof of their accuracy, you use their
statements, selectively, to support your outrageous claims yet ignore other
statements. Tell us what method or crawl back under your tiny little
bridge.
>
> >
> > <trimmed>
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:31:19 -0500
JoeX1029 wrote:
>
> >While working on a project ( which I thought to be quite small ) I have
> >received this message:
> >Segmentation fault (core dumped)
> >Everything compiled okay. This happened as a result of a.out
> >I was wondering if someone could point out to me what I should be looking
> >for that might cause such a message.
> >Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
>
> Post your code.. It could be anything.
No...not anything.....it's a pointer out of bounds
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
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.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:36:19 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90srpp$4na$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yeah, right, 2 sources show MS software unstable and all we get from the
> winwimps is Claims! NOTHING to back up the claims they make!
>
> Sources that back up the claim that W2K is unstable: 2
> Sources that back up the claim that W2K is stable: 0
>
> Oh yeah, We must not forget that the W2K side has Chad's word as proof,
> what ever that means.
>
> http://www.uptimes.net/
>
> Linux average uptime: 63 days
> windows average uptime: 17 days
>
> The windows averages include 2 NT boxes in the top 100 average uptime
> boxes (since there are more Linux boxes in the servey that NT boxes, it
> is not fair to make any claims based on the low numbers of NT boxes in
> the top 100). Seeing that number of W2K computers comes close to being
> 1/2 of the total that makes up the windows catagory and some of the
> longest uptimes in the windows catagory come from NT, It would be hard
> to get the numbers for W2K to be much above 35 days, not far off of the
> Netcraft numbers.
>
> But let's do the math.
>
OK lets do the math
> average uptime = A
> Number of computers = N
> total uptime = T
>
> A=T/N <- The formula for calculating average uptime. I hope you can
> understand this so for Chad
>
> From the page we can get the following figures:
>
A good formula except for the minor fact that T is a random figure generated
by some obscure process that no-one seems to be able to even hypothesize and
N has been shown to be inaccurate as it actually counts domain names not
actual systems.
> Total number of computers that make up the Windows catagory = 1327
> Average uptime for the computers that make up the windows catagory = 17
> days so we know:
>
> 17 days=T/1327 days
>
> We solve for T and we get:
>
> 22559 days = T (total uptime)
>
> Now, lets assume that all of the windows catagory EXCEPT W2K reported 0
> days uptime and all of the 22559 days of uptime for the windows catagory
> came from the 611 W2K boxes
>
Logic? NOT. Assumptions known to be false get bogus data.
> So using our formula for averages we get
>
> A=22559 days/611
> A=36.9 days average uptime
>
> So, if we attribute ALL of the uptime from the Windows group to the W2K
> boxes alone, we get an average uptime for the W2K boxes of 37 days.
>
> Now, with the average uptime for W2K supplemented with ALL the uptime
> from the windows group, Lets compare the W2K Uptime average to Linux:
>
>
> W2K+ 37 days average uptime
> Linux 64 days average uptime
>
> Even cheating in favor of W2K, W2K's average uptime does not come close
> to that of Linux.
>
> Since I used averages, the relative numbers of Window to Linux is not
> important.
>
Huh? Well I agree with your last phrase.
BTW, continuing doing math can you count the number of Chad's in this
discussion?
Matt's answer = 1
Reality = 2
Matt's accuracy 500, well he's improving.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <IH5Y5.2821$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:90pm13$2pvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Where can I find some hard numbers about the best and mena uptimes
> of NT and
> > > Linux? I have my own experience, which I'm sure varies from
> others. I have
> > > Netcraft numbers which don't show NT 4 and W2K hasn't been around
> long
> > > enough fro some good numbers.
> > >
> > > I keep seeing this debate and they always end up with someone
> saying, "My
> > > machine has been up for x months!". Which someone promptly replies,
> > > "B.S.!". So has there been any research in this area?
> >
> > Not really. You can ask people to post their uptimes.
> >
> > I recall this one web site with this client you installed that
> reported
> > uptime to a web site, but it was rather slanted. It was run and used
> > primarily by Penguinistas and so they'd have a few token windows boxes
> > which they seemed to reboot daily for no reason just to kill the
> > Windows numbers and make Linux look better.
> >
> > Anywhere you go, YMMV and you'll have to take it with a grain of salt.
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:37:54 -0500
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> Geeze it gets annoying having to keep educating you drips....
These 10 words speak volumes of your arrogance and ignorance.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:37:38 GMT
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> > > Domino exists on many server platforms including linux. Domino is
> > > integrating sendmail into their next release to improve its
scalability
> > > and reliability. SMTP is the name of the protocol that all of these
> > > servers use. MS mail is not an enterprise mail server. Haven't tried
> > > groupwise. Guess that leaves exchange.
> > >
> >
> > Because an application exists on another platform doesn't eliminate it's
> > usefulness on WindowsNT/2000.
>
> True. But if you are holding up Domino on nt as a model of reliability,
> then my guess is that you haven't actually used it in a production
> environment. There are 2 advantages to domino. You can easily spy on
> all the mail sent by your employees. It is very easy to administer if
> you understand how to point and click. But if it were stable, they
> wouldn't need to integrate sendmail into the next release.
>
Nor would I, I was refuting a statement that implied that there was only one
mail package available on the Windows platform when in actual fact there
were at least four.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: need to open 100 windows
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:42:11 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan wrote:
>
> Hi, trying to open 90-100 internet explorer windows and still be able to
> copy and paste to them off notepad. I am using NT4, dell pIII 500 with 384
> megs of sdram with eccI even upgraded to a pIII 850 with 512 megs of sdram
> with ecc and didn't notice much difference if any.
> I can get about 50 windows open (internet explorer) and can still copy and
> paste from notepad in to them.After that, I can open a couple more windows,
> but can't copy off notepad let alone paste. Any idea's would be appreciated.
Here's a serious suggestion: Learn how to program. Write a client to
do programmatically what you are trying to do by hand. For that type of
job, I recommend Perl. I'll go out on a limb and say that with Perl
running on a linux box, one could accomplish the end result you are
looking for on any low end pentium system with only 16 or 32 mb ram.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: I switched! No more Netscape!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:43:39 GMT
On 9 Dec 2000 00:58:08 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Does anyone know what version of Mozilla was used as the base for
>Netscape 6?
There's a chart someplace on mozilla.org that shows where NS6 was
branched off from the main development trunk. IIRC it was around M18.
There have, of course, been lots of improvements in mozilla since then
that apparently didn't get into NS6.
>Netscape 6 seems to really suck for me,
That does seem to be the consensus opinion <g>. I haven't tried it,
sticking with the mozilla dailies that I grab every Monday.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:54:53 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> "Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > > > Domino exists on many server platforms including linux. Domino is
> > > > integrating sendmail into their next release to improve its
> scalability
> > > > and reliability. SMTP is the name of the protocol that all of these
> > > > servers use. MS mail is not an enterprise mail server. Haven't tried
> > > > groupwise. Guess that leaves exchange.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because an application exists on another platform doesn't eliminate it's
> > > usefulness on WindowsNT/2000.
> >
> > True. But if you are holding up Domino on nt as a model of reliability,
> > then my guess is that you haven't actually used it in a production
> > environment. There are 2 advantages to domino. You can easily spy on
> > all the mail sent by your employees. It is very easy to administer if
> > you understand how to point and click. But if it were stable, they
> > wouldn't need to integrate sendmail into the next release.
> >
>
> Nor would I, I was refuting a statement that implied that there was only one
> mail package available on the Windows platform when in actual fact there
> were at least four.
I'm pretty sure I said "1 mail package of note". Of course, there are
also more than 2 mail packages on Linux also, but only 2 that count,
imo. I'll concede to the overstatement, but it doesn't really change
the notion that when a winvocate says that linux lacks quality apps,
invariably they are ignoring servers and programming app's (
interpretors, compilers, editors, et al ). Nor does it change the fact
that most server app's running on linux are considerably more stable
than an app with the same type of functionality on win32.
And I'll add this: Linux has more quality end user applications off
most cd distro's than windows.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Something to ponder whilst thinking about uptimes and reliability.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 10:55:34 -0500
http://digitalmass.boston.com/news/daily/12/09/computers.html
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 08:53:27 -0700
> A good formula except for the minor fact that T is a random figure
generated
> by some obscure process that no-one seems to be able to even hypothesize
and
> N has been shown to be inaccurate as it actually counts domain names not
> actual systems.
What you say is true for Netcraft numbers. The numbers, however, are from
www.uptimes.net.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 09:00:03 -0700
> Need or want to? Can't prototype on Win2K pro. Which server can't you
run?
> Oracle maybe, but SQL server and IIS are both available on workstation and
> can be used to prototype.
SQL Server: The more advanced features, such as full text indexing are only
available on the server version.
IIS: The workstation version is actually PWS, quite different internally
from the server version. If I'm developing, I don't want to develop on a
dumbed down version, I'd prefer the whole thing.
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:03:46 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:41:11 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If you actually cared, you'd be sending your complaints to the makers of
>those devices, rather than airing them on c.o.l.a.
Nothing wrong with the hardware.
Works on Windows and Mac.
Linux is the weak link here.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:06:23 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:06:17 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>lies. Cut the fluff; only buy things that tangibly contribute to
>productivity.
Judging by your headers you are in school. Wait until you come out
into the real world and get told your services are no longer needed
before you speak like an English professor who has never written a
best seller yet lectures all day on how to write on.
Swango
>
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 09:04:51 -0700
> Nor would I, I was refuting a statement that implied that there was only
one
> mail package available on the Windows platform when in actual fact there
> were at least four.
He actually said, "1 win offering of note". It's a subjective claim to say
that there is only 1 of note, but many would agree that the others you
mentioned are not of note.
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:07:57 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:11:18 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also, you just tipped your hand, showing that you don't actually use the stuff
>you're so intently ragging on.
Of course he doesn't use it anymore. He tried Linux and quickly
discovered how much it sucked and dumped it. It's quite normal to do
that you know.
Swango
>
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:09:16 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:30:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>for Windows (known as Win (PCI) modems, Win printers etc.). Next time don't
>buy devices designed just for Ms windows if you want to run Linux. You could
>buy devices supported by Linux, Mac, DOS and Windows at the same time but,
>you didn't. It's clearly your fault. My HP DeskJet 842C USB connected works
>fine.
My USB devices work fine on Windows and Mac, Linux is the oddball out.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
