Linux-Advocacy Digest #798, Volume #30 Sun, 10 Dec 00 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptimes (Pan)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (joseph)
Re: Uptimes ("Chad Myers")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Uptimes ("Chad Myers")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Microsoft using Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Uptimes ("Adam Ruth")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:09:38 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > You would if you had bought a Dell PC around 1997. Try and install
> > Netscape Navigator Gold 3.11 from the CD on the Dell with win95 oem
> > version. As for text editors... try and run ms works, which was
> > installed as part of the distro on the same pc out of the box.
>
> You're insane. No version of windows has ever prevented you from installing
> a browser. Ever.
I've still got the system as well as the netscape cd that cannot be
installed on that system. Again, it was purchased from Dell in around
1997. The Navigator Gold 3.11 cd cannot be installed on that system as
the installation program is hijacked. The first thing that happens when
you launch the installation cd shows some sort of script making a call
to $root in the location bar for a split second and then the normal
installation program is hijacked by another program.
> > contracted MS to support. You won't be able to find a significant
> > portion of them anywhere b/c MS did not release the drivers with the oem
> > version of the distro. MS did not make the drivers available on their
> > site b/c they were supposed to be released with the OS cd, which is not
> > the case for tens of thousands of their customers who have an oem
> > version of the product.
>
> The OEM version of the OS is *IDENTICAL* to the retail version except for
> the install check to see if an existing OS is on the computer.
...and, of course, except for the missing drivers. Again, I have the
cd. I'd be happy to hand off the readme.txt with the list of drivers
that came with it. feel free to compare it to the drivers contained on
your own cd. Having seen both versions, I know that the number on the
oem cd that I possess is less than half of those included on the retail
version.
> That's it.
> You can binary diff the files on the CD's. I've done it. They are the
> same.
You can say that until you are blue in the face. I own the cd. I know
what is on it. The drivers in question are not present.
> > Or, with the win98se oem version,create a dual partition system and then
> > install win from the cd. It automatically overwrites the entire HD and
> > does not allow the creation of multiple partitions.
>
> That's also not true.
Yes, it is true. Again, I have the cd to prove it.
I've done this many times. Win9x does *NOT*
> repartition your drives, it can only install to existing partitions.
Not true. You get a message that says something to the effect of "this
installation will reformat the partitions on your hd into a single
partition." No option exists to not reformat the partitions. Having
gone through that installation process multiple times with this cd, I
can assure you that you are simply wrong.
> > Or, install the DLL updates required to install an Epson Stylus color
> > 600 on a windows 95 machine. Now open wordperfect 7 and gaze in wonder
> > at the false font allocation error message you receive. program works
> > fine. prints fine, but the dll update flags it as an error.
>
> I don't know anything about this, but it *SOUNDS* like Wordperfect installed
> some DLL's with the same name to the system directory that were overwritten
> by the Epson install. Or Wordperfect was relying on some undocumented
> functionality that changed when the DLL's were updated.
Or, Microsoft simply broke their program at a time when Wordperfect
still had significant marketshare in order to gain market share.
> These kinds of conflicts happen in the Linux world as well. For instance,
> one program may require glibc to be built a certain way, while another will
> require it be built a different way. Or two shared libraries may link to
> different versions of other shared libraries and cause conflicts.
>
> > Those are just from my experience. How many hundreds of other cases are
> > there just like them?
>
> Most of them are in your mind and don't exist in the real world.
You can deny it all you want. With the exception of the word perfect on
win95 with epson stylus 600 problem, I can back up every claim I have
made here with both the physical machine, and the installation cd's in
question. The only reason i can't offer the physical machine in that
case is that I overworte the entire HD on the machine and am now running
mandrake on it ( Though I still have the drivers and copy of WP in
question )
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:09:10 -0800
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but it was the utilities that canceled every single Nuke plant after
>> Three Mile Island. The effect of the regulators was not the prime cause. The
>
>Court costs, idiot...The radical eco-communist strategy was to shut down
>all nuclear power plant projects by driving the legal costs sky high
>by tangling up each and every plant in a sea of legal costs.
The power industry blames price regulation. The cap on prices reduces the
incentive to invest in more plants of ANY kind.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:52:17 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:910ma5$1r0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But in response to your query:
>
> >> Which server can't you run?
> >> Oracle maybe, but SQL server and IIS are both available on workstation
> and
> >> can be used to prototype.
>
> We agree that the version of IIS on Worksation is not the same as that on
> Server. Usable, perhaps, but not the same.
Hmm, the only difference I can find is that you cannot create multiple
sites with personal web server. Other than that, everything else is the
same.
-Chad
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GtQY5.23244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available for
> > > Win9x.
> > >
> > > Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any non
> > > true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web
> Services.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable than
> the
> > poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services incarnation
> > of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS. The
> > only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more esoteric
> > network configuration options.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:08:48 GMT
<snip>
>
> Can't you LIE-Sux supporters read?
> I said "I" own all my software.
> I said who cares what "YOU" do.
>
No, you donot own the software, you have only purchased a license to use it, hence, you
donot own the software. It is like saying that you have a driving
license to drive your car on the road, it doesn't mean you own the road.
Also, I raised the question on whether you buy your software as (if you
look in the whistler review thread) that the majority of the posters who
like/advocate Microsoft products, never actually buy any of them, hence,
double standards.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:55:37 GMT
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:910mgi$1r48$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This does beg the question, though. What exactly is the difference between
> Server and Workstation? If, for all intents and purposes, they're the same
> when developing software what is the difference when running software? I've
> never gotten a satisfactory response on this other than then price and some
> registry entries are different.
>
> Perhaps you can shed some light?
The main difference is performance and software limitations. You pay less
for Workstation, and therefore you can do less. However, it's tuned more
for doing desktop type work. The quanta are different. priorities for
applications are shifted to benefit user applications. Server-type services
in Workstation/Professional are geared back a little to cache less (which
would be more appropriate on a server). You can tweak most of the network
settings to make Workstation/Professional perform like Server if you wish.
With server, you pay more, but you can run more. It's also geared towards
doing the kinds of things that servers would do.
If you need more specifics, the Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 Resource
Kits have many more details.
-Chad
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GtQY5.23244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available for
> > > Win9x.
> > >
> > > Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any non
> > > true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web
> Services.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable than
> the
> > poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services incarnation
> > of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS. The
> > only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more esoteric
> > network configuration options.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:07:19 -0700
Actually, I was referring to W2K itself. What exactly are the differences.
It's off topic, but what thread in any advocacy group has ever remained on
topic.
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RGUY5.13765$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:910ma5$1r0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But in response to your query:
> >
> > >> Which server can't you run?
> > >> Oracle maybe, but SQL server and IIS are both available on
workstation
> > and
> > >> can be used to prototype.
> >
> > We agree that the version of IIS on Worksation is not the same as that
on
> > Server. Usable, perhaps, but not the same.
>
> Hmm, the only difference I can find is that you cannot create multiple
> sites with personal web server. Other than that, everything else is the
> same.
>
> -Chad
>
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:GtQY5.23244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available
for
> > > > Win9x.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any
non
> > > > true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web
> > Services.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable
than
> > the
> > > poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services
incarnation
> > > of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS.
The
> > > only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more
esoteric
> > > network configuration options.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:08:51 -0700
Oops, I too hastily responded to your last post. Usenet does cause a
certain level of sloppiness doesn't it. I thought you were responding to my
other post... sorry.
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RGUY5.13765$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:910ma5$1r0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But in response to your query:
> >
> > >> Which server can't you run?
> > >> Oracle maybe, but SQL server and IIS are both available on
workstation
> > and
> > >> can be used to prototype.
> >
> > We agree that the version of IIS on Worksation is not the same as that
on
> > Server. Usable, perhaps, but not the same.
>
> Hmm, the only difference I can find is that you cannot create multiple
> sites with personal web server. Other than that, everything else is the
> same.
>
> -Chad
>
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:GtQY5.23244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available
for
> > > > Win9x.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any
non
> > > > true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web
> > Services.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable
than
> > the
> > > poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services
incarnation
> > > of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS.
The
> > > only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more
esoteric
> > > network configuration options.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Microsoft using Linux
Date: 11 Dec 2000 00:15:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 19:43:29 -0500,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:55:34 +1200,
>> Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Hi Charlie,
>> >
>> >The article has an interesting slant but it appears to be misguided.
>> >
>> >For example:
>> >
>> >"The irony here is that Microsoft can wait until the money-losing Linux
>> >companies finally perfect their upstart open-source operating system.
>> >That would let Microsoft leverage -- some would say hijack --
>> >every bit of the costly research and development done to date by the
>> >open-source software movement. Most Linux developers would
>> >probably be aghast at the notion that Microsoft will eventually be
>> >selling what they created. But the company has left more than a few
>> >would-be competitors aghast in the past."
>> >
>> >If Microsoft wants to pour funds into developing GNU/Linux then fantastic.
>> >The open source community can build upon all the GPLed software they create
>> >and leverage it for their own use as well.
>> >
>> >And statements like: "Most Linux developers would probably be aghast at the
>> >notion that Microsoft will eventually be selling what they created" are just
>> >misinformed. I'm sure MOST Linux developers are actually aware of what an
>> >open source license means. It would be very hard to hijack GPLed software.
>> >Sure you can hijack software licensed under the BSD license (because you
>> >can't force the person making "improvements" to freely release the source
>> >code) but thankfully the Linux kernel and a lot of the core software is
>> >GPLed.
>> >
>>
>> I hate to sound pessimistic but Microsoft has 1000 times the money to
>> spend on lawers than O.J. Simpson had, or what the prez candidates
>> have. And considering the way some Judges have ruled recently it's
>> obvious they can easily be bought. So MS can unfortunately do
>> whatever they want with GPL'd code.
>
>DOJ has the manpower....and the time.
>
>GPL is a legal copyright, with specific terms attached.
>
>Violation of copyrights can be put into criminal court.
>
The DOJ is having enough trouble with the anti-trust appeals, and
SCOTUS refused to see their case. With GW Bush in the Whitehouse, the
case will most likely be dropped. There's no reason to ever believe
that under Bush the DOJ would file a criminal case favoring the GPL
over a coorporation. Bush will instead take orders from Gates and
convince his followers that the code is better managed by a
coorporation than individuals. Trent Lott, Tom Delay and other
republicans, having recieved gracious contributions from Microsoft,
will stand behind Bush. Microsoft simply has alot more money to throw
at the republican party than the FSF has.
I would a agree that GPL is a legal copyright, with specific terms
concerning derived works attached, and that copyright law respects
those terms in regards to derived works. But Microsoft has 1000 times
as much to spend on lawers than the FSF will ever have. Microsoft
lawers will come up with a BS argument that by changing the appearance
of (dumbing down) a GUI and by modifying (bastardizing) some API's the
work is no longer a derived work but a new and revolutionary work
entitling them to full rights. After all the lawer talk the republican
appointed pro-corporate judges will be not be convinced that the fact
that 90% of the underlying code is GPL'd code has any relevence to the
case at all and will grant Microsoft those rights.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:09:47 -0700
Thanks for the answer.
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wcUY5.4210$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> They are the same, yes, but configured and licensed differently.
>
> Lots of software will check to see if it's running on a server or
> workstation. If it's a personal copy of the product, they often won't let
> you run it on a server version of the product. They want per user
licenses.
>
> Server tunes certain parameters differently (such as time-slice quantums
are
> larger in server) and MS claims there are literally thousands of minor
> configuration changes between them.
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:910mgi$1r48$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This does beg the question, though. What exactly is the difference
> between
> > Server and Workstation? If, for all intents and purposes, they're the
> same
> > when developing software what is the difference when running software?
> I've
> > never gotten a satisfactory response on this other than then price and
> some
> > registry entries are different.
> >
> > Perhaps you can shed some light?
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:GtQY5.23244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available
> for
> > > > Win9x.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any
> non
> > > > true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web
> > Services.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable
than
> > the
> > > poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services
> incarnation
> > > of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS.
> The
> > > only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more
> esoteric
> > > network configuration options.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:09:54 -0700
Thanks for the answer.
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZJUY5.13818$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:910mgi$1r48$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This does beg the question, though. What exactly is the difference
between
> > Server and Workstation? If, for all intents and purposes, they're the
same
> > when developing software what is the difference when running software?
I've
> > never gotten a satisfactory response on this other than then price and
some
> > registry entries are different.
> >
> > Perhaps you can shed some light?
>
> The main difference is performance and software limitations. You pay less
> for Workstation, and therefore you can do less. However, it's tuned more
> for doing desktop type work. The quanta are different. priorities for
> applications are shifted to benefit user applications. Server-type
services
> in Workstation/Professional are geared back a little to cache less (which
> would be more appropriate on a server). You can tweak most of the network
> settings to make Workstation/Professional perform like Server if you wish.
>
> With server, you pay more, but you can run more. It's also geared towards
> doing the kinds of things that servers would do.
>
> If you need more specifics, the Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 Resource
> Kits have many more details.
>
> -Chad
>
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:GtQY5.23244$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:910h4k$1na5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > PWS can also mean Personal Web Server, which is what is available
for
> > > > Win9x.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, I was merely clarifying what I meant. I say PWS meaning any
non
> > > > true IIS version which includes Personal Web Server and Peer Web
> > Services.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That would be inaccurate as Peer Web Services are far more capable
than
> > the
> > > poor httpd that is personal web server. The Peer Web Services
incarnation
> > > of IIS includes almost all of the functionality of IIS including MTS.
The
> > > only missing parts are Certificate Services and some of the more
esoteric
> > > network configuration options.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:27:03 -0700
> It's not an uptime timer per say. Netcraft is relying a side effect of
the
> packet assembly process. This is not a documented feature. Every ipv4
TCP
> packet (not UDP or ICMP) has a particular structure, in that structure is
a
server.
[ very thorough description snipped... ]
If I'm not mistaken, then uptimes reported through such a router would show
random values in Netcraft's data. Then, in that case, a mean taken of the
sample would filter out the random values, assuming of course that the
values are truly random.
In that case, if the numbers of sites with these routers were distributed
evenly over the entire sample, that is proportionally over every operating
system, then the Netcraft numbers would still be valid. Though they would
most likely be skewed upward as there is a greater space for random values
above the mean, than below. Nonetheless, the proportional uptime comparing
one operating system to another would be accurate.
I haven't fully thought it through, but it would seem to be accurate.
> Now, how does that effect microsoft? We know for a fact that Microsoft is
> using a filtering router. They filter ICMP and other types of packets in
> order to prevent DoS attacks. (go ahead, try and ping www.microsoft.com).
A filtering router and a proxy are not the same. A filter won't affect the
packet, only a proxy (or other proxy like protocol such as NAT) would mangle
the packet. Do we know for a fact they have a proxying router? If so, then
yes Netcraft is probably reading the uptimes of the router, and not the
server.
Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
