Linux-Advocacy Digest #949, Volume #30 Sun, 17 Dec 00 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows review (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Conclusion ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Uptimes ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: I concede (Windows back on my machine) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful ("PistolGrip")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (mlw)
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:45:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Curtis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:33:44 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>|
>| "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>| > JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>| >
>| > | Having to use keys whilsts using a GUI sort of defeats one of the main
>| > | object of having a GUI, especially in Windows, is so that it is easy
>| > | for people to use without having to memorise shortcut keys.
>| >
>| > If you put the word 'exclusively' before 'use' in your first sentence,
>| > I'd agree with you completely on that. :=)
>|
>| Had to use a mousless computer recently, I've to admit that I simply
>| switching to CLI made it all so much comfortable.
>
>Exactly. This is why I can't understand the arguments in favour of using
>a GUI without the mouse. Yes, it can be done, but it would be tedious to
>say the least.
Just to be slightly bizarre -- Amiga had that capability. It was
tedious, though, but it worked. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random observation here
up 84 days, 6:59, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:36:51 +0200
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91jkjb$l5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Good point, I must acquiesce to your statement. Let's then add the 4th to
> my list:
>
> 4) Companies that use Windows (not windows itself) attracts poor quality
> sys admins, because they can't afford anything else. Companies that use
> Unix attract higher quality sys admins because they can afford them.
5) Companies that use Windows don't bother to hire full-time sys admins.
Which leads to users playing at being administrators without the knowledge
they need to. You *can't* play with linux as root without having the proper
knowledge, the system is too complex to let you do this. And if you aquire
some small knowledge you'll kill the system totally so fast that it wouldn't
have time to be unstable. On general, I would say that Windows systems can
be more stable under ignorant users than a *nix, and as stable as a *nix
under compotent administrators.
Anyone else encountered users doing this rm /tmp ?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:39:38 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:08:01 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:15:05 -0700,
> >Adam Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>I just came up with a potential solution:
> >>
> >>I rebooted my web server (running Linux and Apache) on Monday. I just
went
> >>and checked it with Netcraft. Lo and behold! They recorded my reboot
> >>correctly!
> >>(http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=&site=www.intercation.com) I
> >>propose a more thorough test.
> >>
> >>Everyone who reads this, go to Netcraft and query my server
> >>www.intercation.com. This will keep them checking my uptime. I will
reboot
> >>the machine at 5 pm Mountain Time this Tuesday 12/12/00. We'll see if
they
> >>figure it out.
> >>
> >>Then, after that, we need to do a test with IIS on Windows. I don't
> >>currently have access to a machine that I can test and reboot, does
anyone
> >>else? I'll see if I can round one up. If anyone has access to one post
it
> >>on here and we can perform the same test.
> >>
> >>Adam Ruth
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The Netcraft number are valid. Windows has the lowest uptime of
> >them all.
> >
> >Linux is the highest of them all.
>
> [1] As another poster already pointed out, Irix beats Linux.
> [2] Because of a bug in NT which precludes them reporting an uptime
> of more than 49.7 days, as opposed to Linux's limitation of
> 497 days, it's far from clear that NT has bad uptimes. Of course,
> that doesn't mean NT has good uptimes, either.
It's not a bug, it's simply different way to count uptime.
NT count it 1/100 second, *nix count in 10/100 second
> [3] There are other metrics to measure the "height" of an operating
> system; uptime is but one of them. Others include:
>
> - interrupt latency
> - context switching time
> - total cost of ownership
> - network, I/O, or serial throughput
> - number of outstanding bugs, defects, or issues (Linux may have some
> minor problems with measurement here; how does one report a bug? :-))
He informs the distributions makers.
There are plenty of ways to do it.
bugs@<distribuion> should probably work.
> - number of users (Windows beats Linux handily here; BFD)
> - kernel footprint size
> - kernel+loaded module footprint size
> - total distribution storage size
> - number of hardware devices supported, and not supported
>
> and, most importantly,
>
> - general satisfaction of user number X, who happens to own machine
> Y, running distribution Z. :-)
>
> >
> >Charlie
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> up 84 days, 5:14, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:51:32 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Curtis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:33:44 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >
> >|
> >| "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >| > JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >| >
> >| > | Having to use keys whilsts using a GUI sort of defeats one of the
main
> >| > | object of having a GUI, especially in Windows, is so that it is
easy
> >| > | for people to use without having to memorise shortcut keys.
> >| >
> >| > If you put the word 'exclusively' before 'use' in your first
sentence,
> >| > I'd agree with you completely on that. :=)
> >|
> >| Had to use a mousless computer recently, I've to admit that I simply
> >| switching to CLI made it all so much comfortable.
> >
> >Exactly. This is why I can't understand the arguments in favour of using
> >a GUI without the mouse. Yes, it can be done, but it would be tedious to
> >say the least.
>
> Just to be slightly bizarre -- Amiga had that capability. It was
> tedious, though, but it worked. :-)
Windows too, I imagine it is just as tedious as the Amiga.
Can I do the same on *nix? I'm asking, not insulting.
>From what I've seen, shortcuts are totally random in Linux.
Currently I'm using Gnome, will be switching to KDE2 in a few days.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I concede (Windows back on my machine)
Date: 18 Dec 2000 00:59:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The reality is that it's easier to find a job if you do both Win and
: Nix programming. They love it when you're Mr. Flexible.
: I don't know what to do. Deep down inside, I hate Windows and Gates.
: I tried my best to be Mr. Unix Advocate. But, I keep telling myself
: it's only software. I have no choice. It's either install Windows or
: stack lumber. I hated the decision, but it's better to be flexible
: anyways. It's great to be passionate about your fave OS, but it's only
: software.
In the larger and better companies M$ "technologies" never got much of
a foothold to begin with, and most of them are turning to Java to
avoid ever falling into the trap of excessive dependence upon a single
vendor.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:11:12 -0600
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> Windows 9x is in fact a true operating system, by virtue of VMM,
> and has been since about Windows 3.11. So says Andrew Schullman in
> _Unauthorized Windows95_ (about page 43 or so, in this particular
> edition: "Who's Afraid of MS-DOS?"). This is a dry, highly
> technical work; he is not afraid to back up his assertions with
> code snippets and debug runs.
Interesting that you say this. It's quite true.
> Windows 9x also uses DOS to accomplish certain goals; DOS in this
> case is run in a "box" of its own (actually, a V86 task).
Again true.
> All this doesn't mean of course that Windows is good, merely that there
> is much confusion as to the "state of the code", and as to what
> an OS is -- how does one "integrate" a web browser into an OS, for
> example? Mr. Schullman would probably lambaste Redmond for that one
> (he already flays the term "integrate" practically in the ground in
> his work as it is -- and this was written back in 1994, when it was
> still called "Chicago"). And besides, it has been claimed here that the
> true OS is in fact the kernel -- the package running in the highest
> privileged structure of a modern processor (as opposed to user-level
> stuff). Integrating a browser into that would be a non-sequitor of
> the finest order. :-)
No more a non-sequitor than integrating, say, an HTTP server into the kernel
(which has been done in Linux).
> Windows certainly is a very confused package of code, in many respects;
> I'm not even sure what scheduling algorithm is used in order to
> arbitrate task switching, for example. And we certainly can't
> see it, as it's not open source.
I believe the Schulman discusses scheduling in his book.
> This confusion may extend all the way to Redmond's marketing department.
>
> Does anyone else remember TSR's? Windows does. Oh, they've been
> renamed VxD's, and have some new capabilities, but they still inherit
> many of the problems of the old TSR's -- one of them being "load
> me last". (WinE -- http://www.winehq.com -- will never support
> any but a few token VxD's, and for good reason.) I think they
> don't need to be loaded into conventional memory anymore -- but
> I still can't play Delta-V. [*]
Now, you should have read more of Schulman's book. He talks about them in
great detail. VxD's are *NOT* TSR's. In fact, VMM is itself just a
collection of VxD's. VxD's are 32 bit (and have been since the invention of
386 enhanced mode) and are ring 0 protected mode drivers. TSR's may only be
unloaded if they're unloaded in the reverse order they are loaded (because
they have to patch the interrupt chain with previously stored pointers),
VxD's can be loaded or unloaded in any order. The only way that TSR's and
VxD's are even remotely related is that they must be loaded after the kernel
is loaded, but then the same applies to Linux kernel modules.
[snip]
> And Linux doesn't have TSR's. :-)
Kernel modules are equivelant to VxD's.
------------------------------
From: "PistolGrip" <ace@[nospamyoubastards].com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:14:03 -0600
"Adam Schuetze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 15:38:34 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > There is one nice thing about the RedHat graphical installation.
> > If you customize it, then you can go through each package and read
> > a blurb about it, which helps you decide if you want it loaded.
>
> You know, the one thing I think is missing from this
> installation procedure (and probably others, I haven't used many
> others), is the capability to save a record of the list of
> packages you selected. There is SO much stuff no that cd.
> Would be nice to be able to keep a record on floppy or
> something. That way, if you want to install again later (or on
> multiple machines) you can use this record from floppy to
> simplify the installation across multiple machines.
It's already there in Mandrake 7.2 if you do an expert install. The last
question it asks you before rebooting. I think SuSE also has this feature.
--
PistolGrip
==========================
http://wasteland-bbs.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:16:59 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't consider Mr. Schullman an OS expert. I consider him a DOS,
> Windows, x86 expert. His opinions outside the pure realm of Windows are
> not substancially athoritative.
>
> The running DOS in a virtual machine does not an OS make. QEMM, Pharlap,
> and all the other DOS extenders did that. They all have to do that
> because interrupts and DMA have to be virtualized. What makes Windows
> any different than DesqView?
>
> DesqView, a DOS extender, provided APIs for applications, multitasking
> virtual DOS sessions, and the original DOS which was booted is run in
> its own VM.
DesqView doesn't provide a file system, it's own driver models, GUI, device
independant graphics subsystems, printing subsystems, memory mapped files,
virtual memory, or any other thousands of other API's (such as Telephony,
3D, etc..).
If you're looking at an OS as a kernel only, then what do you consider
mkLinux? Which runs linux in a subsystem?
> BTW Windows is still based on DPMI, "DOS Protected Mode Interface."
Windows provides DPMI to DOS apps, but then so did OS/2. Are you going to
suggest that OS/2 is also DOS based (Strangely enough, OS/2 used a slight
variation of the DOS driver model, which was 16 bit. It was designed to
allow DOS drivers to be recompiled with minimal effort).
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 01:25:27 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> I have yet to meet a (post-1970's American) "liberal" who wasn't also
> a closet-commie.
Hey, c'mon over to my house and see the commie flags I got tacked up
in my closet. Now you know why I wear only plain jeans and plain
shirts. Now you know why everyone in the neighborhood drives my car,
eats in my kitchen, and meets in the garage every week. Do you want
to look at my manifesto? Here, have a wodka!
<cha-ching>
You better watch it, or I name names! You no can order from Hop
Sing anymore.
<cha-ching>
Actually, you know that Santa's a commie... he wears red, he uses
a traditionally Russian mode of transportation ("On Dasher on Dancer!"),
and he practices the equal distribution of goods. C'mon.... Rudolph????
<cha-ching>
I was watching the Christmas parade the other day. I watched the
garish floats, the boats being towed, people parading down the
street under the electric lights and wires, wearing strange garb,
and I thought, man, if Jesus ever saw this he'd crap in his toga.
Then I saw the Shriners speeding all over the place in their
go-carts. I asked a bystander, "How are those go-carts powered?",
and he answered "By alcohol." A scene right out of Norman
Rockwell.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:36:41 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I don't consider Mr. Schullman an OS expert. I consider him a DOS,
> > Windows, x86 expert. His opinions outside the pure realm of Windows are
> > not substancially athoritative.
> >
> > The running DOS in a virtual machine does not an OS make. QEMM, Pharlap,
> > and all the other DOS extenders did that. They all have to do that
> > because interrupts and DMA have to be virtualized. What makes Windows
> > any different than DesqView?
> >
> > DesqView, a DOS extender, provided APIs for applications, multitasking
> > virtual DOS sessions, and the original DOS which was booted is run in
> > its own VM.
>
> DesqView doesn't provide a file system, it's own driver models, GUI, device
> independant graphics subsystems, printing subsystems, memory mapped files,
> virtual memory, or any other thousands of other API's (such as Telephony,
> 3D, etc..).
These are simply APIs that have been developed over years. Arguments
about magnitude do not negate the basic assumptions.
Any and all of these APIs could have been implemented in DesqView.
Windows requires DOS, pure and simple, thus it is not an operating
system.
>
> If you're looking at an OS as a kernel only, then what do you consider
> mkLinux? Which runs linux in a subsystem?
Yes, mklinux is not the OS in this case.
>
> > BTW Windows is still based on DPMI, "DOS Protected Mode Interface."
>
> Windows provides DPMI to DOS apps, but then so did OS/2. Are you going to
> suggest that OS/2 is also DOS based (Strangely enough, OS/2 used a slight
> variation of the DOS driver model, which was 16 bit. It was designed to
> allow DOS drivers to be recompiled with minimal effort).
I did driver development in OS/2 1.x and some app work in 2.x. The
reason, in 1.x, why drivers were so horrible was because of the DOS box
and the 286. It was very inefficient to go from protected mode to real
mode, so interrupts could occur in either mode. A driver writer's
nightmare.
As for 2.x, I never did driver work on that, so I am only guessing that
they wanted to keep some backward compatibility, but I don't know that
for sure.
Under Windows, DPMI is the methodology on which the shell is based. On
OS/2 DPMI is an API provided by the OS for DOS applications. Do you
understand the difference?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:38:02 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91iqt8$2o4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Netcraft does no filtering though. They simply provide the numbers, no
> > matter how random they might be.
>
> 1) You can still get good values from a site that uses load balancing,
over
> time. You just can't get a good instantaneous measurement. It would need
> to be really random to be worthless.
That's assuming that it only uses load balancing. Load balancing in
conjunction with firewalls and other networking products can make it nearly
impossible to know for sure what's giving what response.
> 2) Show me a site that has worthlessly random values.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.amazon.com
Notice how one day you have an uptime in the teens, the next day it's over
100, the next day it's in the 30's. One could guess that this a clustered
system, but if it were, you'd see visible trends. As it is, it's simply
random. Hell, Netcraft can't even figure out what OS it is. Sometimes it
reports Linux, sometimes Solaris even on the exact same IP.
> > Exactly, which means that neither the Unix *OR* Win2k numbers are
> accurate.
> > You don't KNOW if those sites are behind firewalls or load balancers or
> > anything else unless you know what hardware that site is running
> > specifically. That means grabbing any random site and running it
through
> > Netcraft is as good as pulling numbers out of a hat. Without detailed
> > knowledge of the sites infrastructure, you're just guessing if the
numbers
> > are right or not.
>
> Netcraft will read a proxy box as being Unix, and will report the uptime
of
> the Unix box as a Unix box. You seem to think that Netcraft will read the
> uptime of the Unix box and report the OS as NT or vice versa. The fact of
> the matter is that that just isn't true. They only report on the front
end
> box. So all of those numbers will be correct. It's just not the web
server
> box itself, but that doesn't matter in an OS based query.
Not true. For instance, look at my web site:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.funkenbusch.com&display=uptime
I'm running this on a DSL line behind a netopia router doing NAT. Netcraft
correctly identifies the OS and the web server, but cannot determine uptime
values because NAT is screwing things up.
A proxy box is not necessarily Unix, NT can proxy, so can non-unix based
routers.
> > By asking for a Win2k system that's been up since it was released,
you're
> > asking for the equivelant of a Linux system running 2.2.0 with an uptime
> > since it's release. It aint gonna happen.
>
> That doesn't mean I can't start identifiying trends off of the data.
> Remember, and this is the big point, trends are NOT definitive answers.
No, they're not, especially when you don't know the circumstances
surrounding where the data came from.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:41:24 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91irk1$381$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So what? It means that the numbers are not accurate at best. Besides, if
> > Netcraft reports Unix instead of NT wouldn't it mean that all of the
> uptime
> > for Unix is actually NT :)?
>
> Netcraft will see a frontline Unix box, pull the uptime of that frontline
> Unix box and report the value of the uptime as Unix. You quote their FAQ
to
> me but clearly you didn't read it. Sure the web server may be NT, but
they
> never measure it. If the firewall is running Unix, then the site is
> reported as a Unix site and the uptime is for that Unix box. That's how
it
> works. The same would be true if the OS's were reversed. That's why I
said
> "so what?".
That's not true. If it were, you'd see a Unix based OS running IIS (since
Netcraft get's the web server string from the HTTP HEAD request). While I
have seen that a few times, it's nowhere near prevelant which tells me that
the mechanism Netcraft uses to determine OS passes through a firewall but
the uptimes do not.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 19:45:48 -0600
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91jm3l$ju3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Win2K uses the same uptime scheme that NT uses, 100s of ms.
> Therefor, it resets itself every 49.7 days
> How did Netcraft listed starbucks' uptime, then?
No, MS completely overhauled their TCP/IP stack for Win2k, and it appears to
not cycle at 49.7 days anymore.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:03:56 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> >
> > Nearly two years ago I downloaded the same version that is STILL the
only
> > version available at Sun. That is two years of inactivity in my book.
BTW
> > that version sucks.
> >
>
> So. You have just given an example of how closed source is bad. The
5.x
> version was closed source and is still closed source. On the other hand,
> after only 2 months of the 6.x version being open source, there have been
3 new
> updates which you can download. How, in your convoluted mind, does this
> demonstrate the end of open source?
>
Where is the open source product? (HINT: Product != Alpha, Beta or Release
Candidate build)
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:05:19 GMT
"David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91je7d$al6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad C. Mulligan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Still waiting to hear why all the marbles for OSS are a year or more
behind
> : schedule. Can't run a business that way, maybe that's why RH is failing.
>
> How many years late was Windows 2000?
>
Two, but then it went through some major redesign.
> Maybe that's why Microsoft is failing. :)
>
One division alone just reported profits in excess of $1,000,000,000 that
hardly seems like a failing company to me.
> --
> David Steinberg -o)
> Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
