Linux-Advocacy Digest #460, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 17:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Mig)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
.NET and .COM ala Microsoft! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The real truth about NT (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 (Bones)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Bones)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (David Utidjian)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Mig)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Shane Phelps)
Re: Windows Stability (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:21:05 +0100
. wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >> >
> >> > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
> >> > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
> >> > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
> >> > mean dittly squat.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>
> > 1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
> > Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
> > hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
> > 2000 was the prime choice.
>
> http://heroines.sourceforge.net/bcast2000.php3
Hey.. didnt know that one... thanks for the link , i am downloading :-)
Will start to edit videos from my JVC DL100 IEEE1394 enabled DV on Linux.
Hoppefully there will we 2.1 GB of video available
> Looks like youre wrong again, chad.
>
> Idiot.
Chad deserves a chance.. lets be nice... if you keep telling people they
are idiots they start to believe it and will probably behave like ones.
Hmmmmm is there something wrong with the last sentence? ;-)
> -----.
>
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:26:53 GMT
In article <GWf86.35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Absolutely,
>>
>> OS-X on Linux.
>>
>> I'll try that.
>
>What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
>
Hey! They said if they made it available for Linux would I try it.
The answer remains, shure!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:26:43 -0000
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:22:37 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >You're crazy. All existing GUI apps would not work with Quartz because
>the
>> >existing apps use sockets to connect to the GUI.
>>
>> Do you work at being this stupid?
>>
>> Existing GUI apps would have a problem with the different ABI
>> and API standards. Once they hand requests off to the graphics
>> subsystem they don't give a damn how those requests are handled
>> so long as the outputs are within the margins they are expecting.
>
>How exactly do apps "hand requests off to the graphics subsystem"? In X,
A shared library interface.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 14 Jan 2001 21:27:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:3rns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
>> In article <usj86.2348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>> >> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
>>
>> Why do I feel this is just a downright lie?
>>
>> > Bottom Line:
>> >
>> > Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
>> > the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
>> > tasks.
>>
>> Strewth, are we living on the same planet? Linux has proven that it is
>> enterprise ready.
> Not really. Scalability is an issue, and still is.
Oh I see. Tivo to S/390 isnt good enough for you? Tell me, exactly how much
does windows scale?
> Performance is an issue
> especially with the brain-dead ext2 filesystem.
Chad is lying again; he has never been able to come up with any evidence to
support this.
> There is no enterprise-level
> journaling large-file-capable filesystem for Linux
There are three.
> (except for a few beta ones).
One of them is out of beta.
> Linux's security is laughable with the elementary permission-bits scheme.
You forgot about chattr, but you wouldnt know about that, having never, ever
used linux once in your life.
> It's
> not reliable, nor is it supportable in an enterprise fashion, even though
> upstarts attempt to provide the level of service enterprises demand.
I have no problem supporting it in an enterprise situation. Actually, a
situation that you will never, ever happen upon, since it is exclusively the
domain of people who know things about computers.
> Saying Linux is enterprise ready is like using Windows 3.0 for a web server.
Everything you say is a lie, chad. You have no actual experience with linux,
because your tiny brain is incapable of understanding it.
>> Microsoft has lost the server market.
> ? It's just now taking it by storm. Windows 2000 server sales are taking
> over the server market.
Make sure you tell Sun that.
> Win2K DC is now entering the mainframe market.
Then you dont know what a mainframe is, chad. Tell me, does it run on ASCII
Whites? Eh? Of course it doesnt chad, because it doesnt run on mainframes.
Again, you have displayed your utter lack of knowledge in public for all
to see.
> Where's Linux? Running tiny web servers for churches and non-profit
> organizations.
Its running on a mainframe in Houston right now, which is owned by NASA.
Theres also an enormous beowulf (thats a linux thing, chad) cluster running
in production at FermiLab.
You have no idea what youre talking about, as usual.
>> Whether it can hold onto the desktop is the big question now.
> Against Linux? ROFL
> -Chad
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:28:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pip wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Absolutely,
>> >
>> > OS-X on Linux.
>> >
>> > I'll try that.
>>
>> What kind of a moron are you? OS-X is BSD. How could you run BSD on Linux?
>
>..oh for posix compatibility... it all started so well
>:-)
I don't think they need to worry about posix anymore.
So long as it's compatible with Debian it will work.
They should just make Debian the standard as the LSB is doing.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:28:41 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:55:05 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>And a collection of applications which if all of the version numbers
>>were added together collectively, you wouldn't get 1.0 in total.
>
>[deletia]
>
> More empty rhetoric.
>
> It really doesn't matter what version numbers are on the product.
> Microsoft demonstrated this to be the case rather long ago. If you
> have specific grievances against specific Linux applications and
> can articulate how specific WinDOS applications do any better,
> please feel free to proceed.
When I run Windows 2k I don't have applications trapping and dying all
over the place like I do when running Gnome.
I have Gnome "timebomb icons" all over the place. What kind of garbage
is that?
How about help systems that aren't there?
Come on already, kde and Gnome have been out worked on for years.
Can't they come up with a decent help system?
No, the Penguinista's hide behind V1.0 minus X versions so that they
have something to blame when the application sucks, and most of them
do.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:30:10 GMT
In article <Woj86.2323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Um, hmm. I never seem to have trouble finding work as a windows
>> > sa or developer
>>
>> You will. I guarantee it.
>
>Ok, I will mark your words.
>
>Windows developers are in more demand now than ever. With .NET approaching,
>there are already training courses sprouting up to get developers up
>to speed so they can hit the ground running.
>
>> > in fact, there are tons of jobs. .NET will make
>> > that even more.
>>
>> .net is going to be a flop.
>
>Oh right. This from a man that says a beta FS is "production".
>
>You probably don't even know what .NET is.
>
>-Chad
>
>
I know what .NET is! It replaces the .COM marketing strategy!
If at first you don't .COM they use the .NET!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:36:17 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific and perhaps even
> >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
>
> So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so incompetent
> and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals that he
> was completely unaware of any of that?
It's not like Bill Gates was personally writing the software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: .NET and .COM ala Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:31:11 GMT
If you do not .COM you will be .NET'ed....
It's their new marketing strategy.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:33:16 GMT
In article <xtf86.27$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >The key word here is SCSI. Most people burn IDE CD-R's (and those are
>the
>> >ones they burn coasters on when heavy disk activity causes them to get a
>> >buffer underrun)
>>
>> ATAPI interfaces are SCSI EF.
>
>A wise man once said, it's best to remain silent and thought a fool, than to
>open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
>
>ATAPI is *NOT* SCSI. Not even close.
>
>> Geezus you are stupid son.
>
>That's nice. Now go away and play with the other morons.
>
Why yes it is.
ATAPI is scsi protocal. Exactly.
Anybody else want to confirm this for EF.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:34:36 GMT
In article <iHf86.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <Pp886.389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> >That's an interesting point. Many times, the Windows drivers will enable
>> >accelerated or other functionality that the basic Linux drivers don't,
>> >causing them to use more power than they would otherwise and stressing
>the
>> >power supply more.
>>
>> ALERT! ALERT ALL GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS WORLD WIDE!
>>
>> LINUX STRAINS POWER SUPPLIES. LINUX WILL SHORTEN THE WORLDS
>> OIL SUPPLY AND CRAP OUT ALL POWER SUPPLIES!
>
>More examples of Charlie failing to read.
>
>> I hope this finally clears up the FACT that Erik Fukenbush is
>> a total loonatic.
>
>That would be lunatic, not loonatic. Moron.
>
I say loonatic as you live face down in a moon crater.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:34:44 GMT
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
> BBTW, I recommend anyone to re-read some of those prehistoric
> publications; it really does put things into perspective.
I concur. I always like to go back and leaf through this old hardware manual
where they theorized that it would be completely and utterly impossible to
move past 28.8kbps on analog modems, (28000bps was just fantasy when this
thing was published.) I should gather all those old quotes up and post them
on a website sometime.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:34:45 GMT
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
>> Chad Myers wrote: (apparent by the quoting)
>> What about the people who now have the closed source version, and haven't
>> upgraded to the open source version who's exploit has now been made public
>> knowledge.
> If they are stupid enough to continue using something that has a proven
> and documented security risk, they deserve anything that's coming to
> them.
I believe the Borland engineers argue that the backdoor was not in the code
until there was a split in development and after the code became open
source. I guess its their contention that the problem *was not* present in
previous versions of the closed-source product, (they do have access to all
the code for comparison.) Go on community.borland.com and poke around for
some of their comments.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: David Utidjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 16:34:13 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Oopsie!
>
> I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
> controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
> rebooted. Oh dear, we have a hung system. It won't boot, it won't continue,
> it's totally stuck. All I could do was drop out of what looked like X and
> nothing worked.
Well all other abuse aside (personal and otherwise)...
If I have this correctly you were trying to install MDK to a new HDD...
then building the kernel to support ReiserFS, yes? Then running the new
kernel with ReiserFS, yes?
Did you make or convert the ext2fs partitions to any ReiserFS
partitions? It is not as simple as it looks. It is a different
filesystem than ext2fs ya know.
I don't use MDK on servers.... and I certainly don't run X on any of my
servers... no point. Does MDK-7.2 have support for ReiserFS built in? I
don't think it does. So what you are trying to do is a bit more complex
than just plug-n-chug. You will have to read a bit of documentation on
ReiserFS and how to go about converting your ext2fs partitions to
ReiserFS partitions and other config issues... edit /etc/fstab and so
on.
> This from the system is supposed to be GREAT!
Well I have RedHat-7.0 on an experimental box with ReiserFS and it works
fine. I got an iso image of RedHat-7.0 that had ReiserFS support built
in. Was brain dead simple to install. I also "upgraded" this box to
kernel 2.4.0 AND included ReiserFS support by using the patch. Works
like a champ so far. I wouldn't use any ".0" release (distro or kernel)
for a "production" machine like a server... but this one seems to be
very neat. Will see how it turns out when distros start to bundle it.
The thing especially like about 2.4.0 is that it has MUCH better memory
management. Where X would typically consume up to 50+% of available RAM
it now never seems to get above 10% (on the same hardware).
Your networking problems are another issue.... what does the the command
"/sbin/route -n" give you?
Anyhow.... most installs and configs of machines are usually quite
simple and if you stray from the default path it is still usually pretty
simple but it may take quite a bit more reading and understanding than
you currently have (done). Not your fault, but it will require a bit
more effort to get it right.
-DU-...etc...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:35:49 GMT
In article <KCf86.30$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <MrK76.1164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
>> >> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
>> >interchangeable.
>> >>
>> >> What about Word98?
>> >
>> >Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
>formats.
>>
>> Funny but just 3 days ago you said that Word 2000 and Word 98 were
>compatible
>> formats. You said there were NO incompatible Word formats in this series.
>
>No, I said Word 2000 and Word 97 were compatible. Wake up and pay
>attention.
>
Oh okay. So Word 97 and Word 2000 are compatible and Word 98 isn't.
Very good.
>> Now this.
>>
>> Again! How much proof from the MANS OWN WORDS do we need before we
>> just stamp "DUMBSHIT" across his forehead and cut this man loose.
>
>You're the dumbshit that can't even keep an argument straight.
>
>> Does anybody listen to this idiot?
>
>Clearly you don't listen to anyone.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:33:11 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Mig wrote:
>
> > Its amazing but wintrolls are the only ones that brag about how bad they
> > are with computers.. Unbeliavable that some of them even consider
> > themselves to be computer craftsmen and in the same post cant have
> > anything work.
>
> Who's bragging about how bad they are with computers? Not me!
Yes you are Pete. Like the rest of the Wintroll crowd, you claim that this
was so easy to do with Windows... and that youre such experienced users and
amazingly you never have things work when you try Linux. Thats fantastic
because you people know so much more about drivers, the kernel etc and
youre just so much lousier than this than me... i usually get things
working in the first try.. and if dont i search deja or the relevant
websites for info. I do well.. and can't claim that i am a super-duper
expert.
- Why cant you that claim the expertise?
Why are you people proud of not being capable of using simple stuff that
even the softest Linuxer uses with his eyes closed?
> I'm merely pointing out the weaknesses of this so called GREAT product
> Linux.
Well.. i gave you two weeks after your succesfull installation of Mandrake
(and i have seen Windoze "lowfat" users install redhat 5.1 and have
networking on the first try) before you started complaining about it. I
must give you credit.. you have lasted about 5 to 6 weeks or maybe even
more. Congrats Pete.
Why just not waste your time and go for W2K.. or maybe even try FreeBSD
(have fun partioning your disks) ?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:43:43 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Cool! Where do I get DOS or Lan-Manager, and where do I get drivers
> > > for my 3c59x?
> >
> > NT server ships with DOS copies of LAN Manager, and the DOS drivers for
th
> > 3c59x are on the drivers disk (along with OS/2, Netware, etc..)
>
> Ours doesn't (not that I can tell, anyway). I have 3 NT Server
> licenses (with many CALs attached) -- they all cam in white boxes with
> one CD and 3 floppy disks.
Check out the "Install Clients" section, I don't recall offhand where since
I don't have an NT4 server running here.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:38:20 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93qqpo$aqc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I'm jsut going to pick a few nits here ....
[ snip ]
> > > > > > It meant applications had to
> > > > > > yield to achieve multitasking.
> > > >
> > > > Yup It's called "busy/wait" multitasking.
> > > > It was obsolete back in the early
> > > > 1980s, but Microsoft revived it for Windows.
> > >
> > > Actually, Apple started it.
> >
> > Actually, Busy/Wait was first used in FORTH. Even today,
> > many FORTH systems are used for robotics and engine control
> > on automobiles, as well as thermostats, microwaves, and VCRs.
>
> Which doesn't change the fact that the previous year, Apple introduce MacOS
> with cooperative multitasking. If it was obsolete, why did Apple do this?
> And better yet, why is it only MS's fault?
>
Actually, Apple have made *lots* of technically bad decisions, along
with bad
business decisions. They have also made enough good decisions in both
areas to
be plugging along with approx 7% (I think) of the desktop market.
It will be interesting to see how well the Mac faithful take to MacOS X
[ snip ]
> > > You do realize that Tcl/Tk exists for windows, right?
> >
> > Absolutely. Which is exactly my point. Why code software
> > in "Windows Exclusive" languages like Visual Basic or C# when
> > you can just as easily use PERL, TCL, PYTHON, and JAVA? All
> > of which let you kill two birds with one stone.
>
> Mostly because those scripting languages suck for real apps. I was involved
> in the creation of a front-end to a CLI based configuration management
> toolset written in Tcl/Tk and there were constant problems.
>
THey work fine for me.
The big VB push comes from the use of VB in the applications as
Application Basic.
Actually, AB's not quite the same as VB, but there's enough similarity there
for MS to push it pretty hard. This may have changed in the last couple
of years.
[ snip ]
>
> > Windows 2000 has a number of technological "anti-linux" measures. It took
> a
> > bit of time for the Linux community to figure out work-arounds. I
> personally
> > love that Windows 2000 supports both FAT 32 and NTFS.
>
> How is that "anti-linux"?
>
I'm not sure what Rex means here, either. The changes to SMB (Windows networking)
and RDP (Windows terminal server) certainly don't help interopability much.
Citrix Metaframe still seems to work nicely, though.
To be fair, MS are helping the Samba project to some extent.
[ another snip ]
> > This is why the Linux and UNIX community doesn't trust any of Microsoft's
> > tools and protocols. The fact is that Microsoft has made a number of
> > contributions to the Linux and UNIX community, but primarily to protect
> their
> > markets. For example, when the Open Systems community threatened to
> enhance
> > RARP to provide automatic address configuration, Microsoft published DHCP
> > assured that Microsoft clients would be compatible with UNIX servers
> (which
> > were replacing outgrown Windows NT 3.51 servers).
>
> I don't think MS created DHCP. I could be wrong though.
>
The MS Press Windows Networking book implies heavily that DHCP is a MS protocol,
but I don't think this is the case.
Windows 3.1 had a bootp client which allowed the IP address and a few other
pieces of network information (router, DNS server, etc) to be given out from
a server (as is the way with bootp). The dhcp RFCs (can't remember the numbers)
don't make any mention of MS. I think DHCP was initiated by the Internet
Software Consortium, but wouldn't swear to it. FOr those who don't know, DHCP
(Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol) is an enhanced version of bootp. The
enhancements are in the areas of allowing dynamic leases and also an increased
number of standard information fields and vendor-specific data fields.
It is interesting to note that MS's DHCP client cannot correctly handle
multiple DHCP servers handing out permanent leases where each DHCP
server
only allocates a subset of the addresses.
> > SMB and WNS were published when GPL file systems such as NFS and AFS
> > were about to be offered for Windows.
>
> NFS has been on Windows since 1990. I was using a sun NFS client way back
> then.
>
I think Sun offered PC-NFS even earlier than that. It was very
expensive,
though.
Rex may have been talking about an NFS server for Windows. I think these are
comparatively recent. They also seem rather flakey :-(
I also remember using TotalNet (SMB compatible) in 1990 or 1991 to allow PCs
to use an AIX box as a file/print server. HP had LAN Manager / X out even
before that.
> > Microsoft tried to lock Linux out of the internet using MS-CHAP,
> > but leaked the information when Linux servers threatened to lock
> > out Microsoft MSN customers.
>
> MS-CHAP is merely an authorization protocol for dialups. Clients don't NEED
> to use CHAP.
Not sure about that. I saw a lot of emails complaining about MS-CHAP
where it
seemd the ISP was forcing CHAP. Never tried it myself, so it's
anectdotal evidence.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:38:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> Then you don't know how to set up Windows NT properly.
>
>Oh dear, have we finally discovered the person who can
>"set up windows nt properly"? where have you been?
>
I thought the WHOLE BULLSHIT about why you used Windows
was it's automatic setup.
This is why you are constantly against Linux as you
can't seem to set it up properly.
>> Linux has
>> been far less stable in my experience and in the experience of several
>> of my colleagues (who come from Unix backgrounds and prefer to stick
>> with their Solaris and HP-UX boxes).
>
>I've administered Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, Irix, FreeBSD,
>NetBSD, and SCO - Linux is just as stable as any of them,
>and more usable than most. As for the stability of windows,
>that shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as
>Unix, windows isn't even close.
>
>jjs
>
>
Chad Myers and Erik Fukenbush are like two peas in a pod.
So long as it's PRO Windows, FUCK LOGIC, FUCK THE FACTS,
THROW REALITY AWAY, BE AN ASSHOLE.
I think this about summs it up.
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
******************************
