Linux-Advocacy Digest #325, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Vann")
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Uptimes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Where can I get good info on setting up Linux+DVD (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: RPM Hell (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: RPM Hell (David Steinberg)
Re: Windows fails again (Michael Vester)
Re: Why Hatred? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Hatred? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Hatred? ("craig nellist")
Re: Would Linux be invented if? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000 ("craig nellist")
Re: Why NT? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 40% Surveyed Plan To Install Linux (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OEditors: Xedit vs. vi or emacs
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:50:37 -0500
In <3a56761f$4$fgrir53$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/06/2001
at 01:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>I'm pretty sure the original 3270's were all hardwired SSI logic. At
>least the one's we looked at appeared that way. However, that was
>IBM's choice. Our 3270 clones definitely were processor controlled.
>We looked at using one of the available microprocessors, but decided
>to design our own using discrete logic so that we could drive all 16
>terminals off a single processor. This was back in the early
>'70's.
The 3271, 3272 and 3275 were designed in the 1960s; microprocessors
weren't available and I'm pretty sure that the technology was SLT,
which used discrete components bonded to a common substrate. The 3274,
3276, 3278 and 3279 were designed in the 1970s, but used the same
basic architecture as the older family. Edgar had to support the 3277,
so it would have had problems with nulls even had IBM extended the
architecture appropriately.
In the 1970s there were definitely companies implementing 3270
functionality in software. The IBM 3274 cluster controller had an
embedded microprocessor, but that was designed late in the decade.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:32:32 -0500
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/05/2001
at 09:01 AM, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>No...it's merely pointing out my frustration with your idiotic
>nonsense.
You mean like your delusion that microprocessors were available in the
1950s? ;-)
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:30:08 -0500
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/05/2001
at 08:57 AM, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>You're so naive as to think that the 3270's operating characteristics
>aren't under the control of an embedded processor...
No, I just know how to avoid anachronisms.
>PHYSICAL COMPONENTS, not the programming of the embedded software.
>Learn the difference, you retard.
You feeble excuse for a hominid, THERE WAS NO EMBEDDED SOFTWARE. THERE
WAS NO EMBEDDED MICROPROCESSOR. The 3270 was designed and shipped well
before the first microsprocessor. If you weren't brain-dead you would
have done some basic research instead of showing everybody what a
totally clueless wad of camel dung you are. FOAD
*PLONK*
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:45:25 GMT
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:22:40 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alan Parker wrote:
>> yeah, it's only a fucki'n clone based on Minix, another UNIX(tm) clone.
>> it is just a comercial form the companies RedHat , Suse, they only
>> want to sell the fuckin package,
>Your point?
He got to say "fuckin" twice. In public.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:49:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip my post>
> Yes that is indeed possible, but my point is that kppp is the default
> dialer installed under Mandrake 7.2 and ICS is there as well so why
> can't the 2 work together like ICS does under Windows? Checking a box
> enables the connection to dial on demand.
<snip sig>
Well, probably because it wasn't programmed into kppp. There's no reason
it can't be added, or that you can't automatically add the argument to
pppd via kppp ( kppp has a section where you can add optional arguments
to pppd, all nice and pretty like ).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:51:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 23:37:29 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 23:08:02 +0000, David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Netscape isn't beta, nor is Konqueror
>
>You'd never know it.
He does have a point. While IE has its faults and Windows
its crashes, Netscape has major problems, and consistently hangs
itself on my Linux system, requiring a kill -9. Whether a
source-built Mozilla will fix them, I can't say. I'll have
to try that at some point -- but I'd also like SSL/TLS capability
and Java, and I'm not sure Mozilla has them yet.
It's one big flaw in Linux that I for one would like to see
fixed. I've heard good things about Konquerer, and kfm is
adequate (I run RedHat 6.0 and haven't gotten around to
upgrading) for non-SSL/TLS and non-Java needs.
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 12:06, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:53:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 23:32:32 -0500
<3a57f160$6$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/05/2001
> at 09:01 AM, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>No...it's merely pointing out my frustration with your idiotic
>>nonsense.
>
>You mean like your delusion that microprocessors were available in the
>1950s? ;-)
Wow, that would indeed be a trick, considering the first IC wasn't
available until 1965 or so. (Was it Texas Instruments?) :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random history here
up 96 days, 12:10, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: 8 Jan 2001 00:54:04 GMT
On 07 Jan 2001 16:36:30 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima) writes:
>There is a link on mozilla.org that will install the latest Java for
>you.
Too bad it doesn't work. BTW, it took me a while to work out how to install
the xpi if you download it. (apparently, the easiest way is just open it
with your browser.)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: 8 Jan 2001 00:57:02 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 00:51:12 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>It's one big flaw in Linux that I for one would like to see
>fixed. I've heard good things about Konquerer, and kfm is
>adequate (I run RedHat 6.0 and haven't gotten around to
>upgrading) for non-SSL/TLS and non-Java needs.
The KDE people are doing a great job with Konqueror and IMO it's
the most promising project. There's just one annoying CSS bug
that's causing me a lot of grief (it doesn't correctly format
cpp2html output). I'm tempted to grab the tarball and write some
"duct tape" code.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:03:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alan Boyd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 16:23:29 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > I know that this is strong medicine for someone like yourself,
>> > > > and you may choose to disbelive it. If I find the spare time I
>> > > > will see if I can locate an online reference.
>> > >
>> > > You made the claim. Back it up.
>> >
>> > my aren't we paranoid.
>>
>> You make a claim that nobody else seems to be able to corroborate, and then
>> refuse to back it up. That's not paranoia, that's plain common sense.
>
>OK, I'll back him up. I saw that article too.
>
>In fact...look here:
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/issue/0,4537,2387282,00.html
>
> Conventional wisdom says Linux is incredibly stable.
> Always skeptical, we decided to put that claim to the
> test over a 10-month period. In our test, we ran Caldera
> Systems OpenLinux, Red Hat Linux, and Windows NT
> Server 4.0 with Service Pack 3 on duplicate 100MHz
> Pentium systems with 64MB of memory. Ever since we
> first booted up our test systems in January, network
> requests have been sent to each server in parallel for
> standard Internet, file and print services. The results
> were quite revealing. Our NT server crashed an average
> of once every six weeks. Each failure took roughly 30
> minutes to fix. That's not so bad, until you consider that
> neither Linux server ever went down. This test, coupled
> with our technical staff's extensive Linux and NT
> experience, leads us to believe that Linux truly is more
> stable than NT on uniprocessor servers.
>
>--
>"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
>program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
>will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
Linux availability percentage = 100.0000% for the life of the test
NT availability percentage = 99.9504-%
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random simple calculation here
up 96 days, 12:18, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Where can I get good info on setting up Linux+DVD
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:04:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, ZHN
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 07 Jan 2001 03:31:17 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Where can I get good info on setting up Linux?
>Yep! Where? I have a 750 mhz athlon, nvidia 64 mother
>have a cd_rw and a DVD can I set up linux under these circumstances on this
>machine?
I'm not sure if DVD is available on Linux, for various ugly reasons.
Apart from DeCSS, of course -- which is a controversial program which
has been banned on several large download sites.
(Does anyone else know the current situation here?)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 12:21, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Richard Thrippleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:04:46 +0000
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> The one patch limit is neither "superior" nor friendly. THe debian system
> is great for end lusers but lousy for packagers.
>
Glad you told me. I killed off my dpkg and all associated managers a few
months back, and am doing okay at proving that it's perfectly viable to get and
use the latest (GNU) apps with a compiler, tar and gunzip. It takes longer, but
overall I find it a lot less frustrating than package management, and a little
more satisfying. Plus I'm running Linux on a Mac, so often compiling is the
only option as most precompiled binaries are x86 only.
> The dependencies are there for a good reason. Dependencies on binaries
> usually are deps on some sort of shellscript. FYI I track the latest vim
> releases (being involved with its development) and nothing depends on
> it.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the errors weren't dependency related, but
dpkg spending time making sure that _every_ package was there and crying when it
couldn't find it.
> I would have thought that open source software would be released in
> source form also.
Often it's src.rpm only. I just have this worrying feeling that competing
standards are going to cause problems in the Linux(and other unix variants),
like RPM vs Deb, Gnome vs KDE, Motif(well Lesstif actually) vs GTK, if you see
my idea.
> First, your entire discussion completely ignores the benefits of a good
> source packaging format. One of the nice things about RPM is that
> you can use src.rpms and you don't need to worry about minor binary
> incompatibilities. Another advantage of having a good source package
> format is that you can easily move software from an old distribution
> to a new distribution, and still enjoy the benefits that package managing
> offers.
I suppose packaging has it's advantages. I suppose it come a matter of
personal taste really; I like to be in control, hence my DIY methods.
> Debian has source package management, but the system is not as
> good as RPM. .tgz source packages just get sprayed haphazardly
> all over your system, and it's impossible to uninstall them.
Yes, the hands-on method does require organisation if you ever want a hope
in hell of uninstalling. By now I've learnt how to fiddle makefiles and
configure scripts to make sure as much as possible gets lumped into one discrete
directory. Like /usr/local/licq .
Incidentally, does the RPM system automatically try to compile and install
.src.rpms, or just extract them?
Richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: 8 Jan 2001 01:06:54 GMT
Richard Thrippleton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I must admit that I haven't had that much experience with the RPM
: system, but plenty with the Debian package manager. I was reliably
: informed(even by RPM users) that the Debian system was superior and more
: friendly. Hence, my grotesque experiences with that led me to believe that
: RPM must be just as bad, maybe worse.
My experience has been better with deb. The package formats don't seem to
make much difference; both work equally well. It the higher-level tools
(apt and dselect) that make debian packages a joy to work with. You save
the valuable minutes that it otherwise takes to track down the correct
version of the correct rpm for the correct distribution.
I think thhis saving is also as a result of the excellent efforts of the
debian package maintainers. I don't think that the rpm-based
distributions do as good a job.
: Now, a little more detail about the deb system problems. There were
: some binaries lying around that I didn't particularly want ('vi' and
: 'emacs', much preferring 'ae'), so I killed them. After that, every time
: I tried to install a package, the process failed about half the time,
: complaining about missing packages, even though there was no way on
: earth they could depend on the missing binaries.
What does, "I killed them" mean? Did you just delete the binaries or did
you remove the packages they belonged to? If the former, yes you deserve
it. You can't change the state of managed packages without telling the
tools that manage those packages. That's just madness.
If the latter, what procedure did you use, and what, if any, warning or
error messages were produced?
--
David Steinberg -o) In a world without walls
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ and fences, who needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v Windows and Gates?
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:07:55 -0700
My cable company ISP does not officially support anything but
Windows and Mac. No problem to get Linux to work. In fact, it
was a no brainer install.
Michael Vester
A Credible Linux Advocate
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> Bullshit! I have never had that problem, even with the free ISPs in New
> Zealand. This so-called "un-friendly" Linux clap-trap that gets spread is
> bullshit. Yes, it is true that some ISPs dont support (in terms of
> techsupport) Linux users, however, they still can use the service provided
> by the ISP.
>
> And if he were using the same ISP as you (att net), then all he would simply
> have to do is select PAP/CHAP from the kppp selection (in the config
> dialogue box).
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:31:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >What version, Windows 286?
> > >
> > >
> > >JM wrote:
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!
> >
> > Actually about 6 months ago there was a post in the Linux setup groups
> > that described this one chap's 6 month "love affair" with Linux trying
> > to connect to the internet. Seemed his ISP was not Linux friendly (and
> > which one is?) and he wouldn't give up. Imagine paying for 6 months of
> > access and not being able to use it?
> >
> > Damm these LinoScrews are a stupid lot....
> >
> >
> > Flatfish
> > Why do they call it a flatfish?
> > Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:11:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nick Condon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 09:27:07 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> WIN32 isn't always changing. It's being extended.
>
>He also wrote:
>> In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API is always changing
>
>So which is it?
>
>An API is an Applications Programming Interface, if you stop to think for one
>second before posting you will realise that an interface that is always
>changing defeats the entire purpose of defining an interface.
It also defeats the guys out there who are trying to crack it :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- besides, computers and operating systems are *meant*
to be upgraded, to keep Microsoft in business :-)
up 96 days, 12:28, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:16:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Form@C
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:47:39 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
><snip>
>>
>>The reason for asking question 1 (which I didn't ask, BTW) seems to me
>>to be to point out that Win32 is such a crappy specification to begin
>>with, that even if MS opened its source and published all of its
>>documentation, it still would not become a "standard", by which I
>>assumed me meant a *de facto standard*, which is a non-standardized
>>specification that is widely implemented across the industry. Win32,
>>"Windows", if you will, cannot possibly rate, until there is someone
>>besides Microsoft producing it.
>>
>
>I realise that it wasn't your question originally! I've been enjoying this
>thread...
>
>In this case Linux also, by your own argument, cannot become a "de facto
>standard" as there is, effectively, a sole producer of the kernel (Linus
>has a "benign monopoly"). The fact that the source is open is irrelevent.
>Linux is not produced to any standard specification AFAIK. If it is, it
>can't be to the same standard as unix, Minix etc. There appear to be too
>many differences.
I'm not sure if POSIX counts, admittedly. :-) Of course, NT hews
to POSIX as well. I'm not sure how well.
>
>Also, Win32 is not actually a "specification" anyway! It is, however,
>"widely implemented across the industry" even if it is technically inferior
>to Linux, which is far less commonly implemented at present.
Pedant point: apples and oranges; you should probably be comparing
Win32 to X.
Of course, X doesn't seem to have MulDiv().... :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random API call here
up 96 days, 12:32, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "craig nellist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:21:37 +1100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So far, I've managed to steer clear of Neutered Technology machines.
Good for you.
> Are you saying that Excel works differently on Neutered Technology as
> opposed to Lose95 and Lose98?
No, it doesn't. I would say that it is infinitely more stable on NT than on
95/98 though. Give it a try if you're dealing with large amounts of data.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:25:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:59:20 GMT
<cIY46.2331$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Correct, what would you rather have, a Mercedes Benz or a Ford Falcon? I
>> would rather have the Mercedes Benz!
>>
>
>Hell, put me down for an Aston Martin Lagonda...
I'll take that old whatever-it-was that Mad Max drove. :-)
It looked like crap but had a hell of a blower...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 96 days, 12:43, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "craig nellist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:28:29 +1100
Hi Aaron,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Apart from making yourself look like an idiot?
>
> Strike 1.
>
> Try again.
Making yourself look like a moron?
*waits for strike 2*
> > I've seen you reply to 100+
> > line posts, where your only contribution (if it can be called that) was
to
> > write LOSE (or some variant) where the original poster had written
> > Win[32|NT|dows]. Is there some point to you doing this?
>
> Annoys the fuck out of you, doesn't it.
It annoys me in the sense that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
The fact that you even take the time to do it is rather amusing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:29:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Todd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:07:01 +0800
<933rik$1q3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
>> why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
>>
>> I can't think of a single reason why any responsible IT department would
>> deploy NT.
>
>Neither can I. We are deploying Windows 2000.
>
>Linux shouldn't be trying to compete with NT. Linux needs to be able to
>compete with 2000 - which I don't believe it can do yet, if ever.
It will be interesting to see if SAMBA can work as effectively
with Win2k, which apparently changed the SMB protocol slightly,
as with Win9x/NT.
(Hell, it will be interesting to see if *NT* can work as
effectively as Win2k in reading Win2k shares.)
>
>-Todd
>
>> --
>> http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Microsoft. When all you really want to do is upgrade.
up 96 days, 12:45, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: 40% Surveyed Plan To Install Linux
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:39:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Larry R wrote:
>I don't know who they surveyed, but I don't believe them. Excerpt from
>Information Week email subscription:
>
>
>** Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000
>
>More than half of InformationWeek readers are either running Windows
>2000, installing the Microsoft operating system, or plan to deploy
>the software by the middle of this year, according to a survey of
>232 IT managers. Enterprise Management Associates Inc., a market
>research firm, conducted the November 2000 telephone survey of
>InformationWeek subscribers who have technology or budget
>responsibility for Windows 2000 in their companies.
>
>According to the survey, due to be released in March, 13.8% of IT
>departments are running Windows 2000 in production environments, and
>another 9% are rolling out the operating system in production.
>Microsoft shipped Windows 2000 Professional, Server, and Advanced
>Server editions last February; the high-end DataCenter Server
>edition shipped in August. Microsoft has said adoption of its new
>server systems, among the most complex software the company has ever
>delivered, will increase this year as companies complete lengthy
>planning and testing cycles.
>
>The EMA study shows that 57.3% of respondents plan to install
>Windows 2000 eventually?about half of them (28.9%) within six
>months. Another 19.4% say they have no plans to upgrade to the
>system. Sponsors of the survey include BindView, Cognet, Computer
>Associates, EDS, FastLane Technologies, Hewlett-Packard, Intel,
>NetIQ, Unisys, and Veritas.
>
>Among a narrower sample of 100 IT managers at companies with 1,000
>or more employees that are either running or deploying Windows 2000,
>or plan to deploy within six months, 23% of respondents say their
>Windows 2000 rollouts are part of regular upgrade cycles, and 21%
>say they're upgrading to achieve better system reliability. Sixteen
>percent of respondents say their decision was driven by application
>software that requires the new software. Other reasons cited include
>staying current with industry standards and the competition (18%)
>and better security (11%).
>
>But installing Windows 2000 is expensive, IT managers say. According
>to the 100 respondents with complete, current, or near-term upgrade
>projects, 51% cite cost as a barrier or challenge to migration?the
>No. 1 reason cited. Hardware costs are the most frequent complaint,
>cited by 22% of respondents, followed by software (17%). In
>addition, 39% of IT managers name difficult migration of servers as
>a challenge. The most common difficulty in that case: limited
>expertise on staff, cited by 15% of respondents. - Aaron Ricadela
>
>System & Network Administrator
>lrosen at att dot com
If you lost 40% of your business to a competing software firm which
had NO payroll costs, would you be worried about now?
When playing the video game Lemmings, I noticed that one wrong move
and nearly 100% of your Lemmings are dead.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
