Linux-Advocacy Digest #552, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Steven Brangers")
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Aaron Ginn)
Re: I just can't help it! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (David Dorward)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" (Edward Rosten)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
MSG. to all about the loser kid trolls with nothing better to do... (J5)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bas van der Meer)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (.)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Raymond Mroz")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steven Brangers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:12:17 +0100
> >Most of the software which runs on Linux will run on Solaris as well.
> >
> >
> >The above probably applies to most commercial Unix versions, BTW
> >
> >
>
> I woldn't call Solaris especially reliable, right perl programmers?
Tell me more: under what circomstances is Solaris unstable ?
Steven Brangers -- dba/unix sysadmin.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:19:12 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:54:58 +0200, Leonardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9429n6$11rm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : You certainly mean "Linux replace Windows" - windows is already here,
>it's
>> : entrenched. The new kid on the block is Linux, [...snip]
>>
>> Not for servers. It was quite clear he was talking about servers.
>> For servers, Windows is more of a newcomer than Linux (although I
>> suppose Linux is actually younger, but it gains a lot of
>> "entrenchment" for free by being a UNIX clone.).
>
>Total bullshit.
>Windows is The nurmebr one in servers if you count all servers not just
...only if you count by single vendor.
However, if you count by OS family in aggregate Unix still
has a lead against windows. HELL, the IDC numbers only
credit Microsoft with one third of the market.
That's hardly a dominating lead by any metric.
>those that are www related.
>And it is growing it's market share all the time.
No, according to IDC the NT marketshare has been stagnant for
the last two years. It's Linux that is growing it's market
share all the time.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 18 Jan 2001 10:50:21 -0700
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > So, Erik, you've joined the denizens of Windows advocates that read
> > > COLA then?
> >
> > I've been reading COLA for a long time, because (until last week) a Linux
> > user as well. Now i'm back to using FreeBSD.
>
> Thanks for not responding to anything I wrote, it just re-affirms it
> all.
>
> I'm glad FreeBSD works for you, but I find it strange that you loathe
> Linux so much at the same time...
>
> (Most Linux users have no problem with BSDen)
FYI, I intentionally did not crosspost this to COMNA for two reasons.
A) it's not flamebait
b) to see which Winvocates are trolling COLA.
So far I count Todd, Erik, Pete, and the androgynous poster currently
known as flatfish.
It amazes me that these guys are so obsessed with Linux that they
spend their time here. Oh well, whatever floats your boat.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 18 Jan 2001 10:54:26 -0700
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And the real kicker is the score that NT4 recieved.
>
> We've been saying this for *years*, but the blind Widows advocates
> would beat the "anectodal evidence" drum and point to all the slavish
> PC (er, I mean *E*) Week articles that trumpetted the second coming of
> Windows, the Greatest Operating System Ever.
>
> We'd complain about scheduled reboots of NT4, and the response we got
> was "Get a better administrator" -- now, it turns out that we were
> correct. NT4 needs to be rebooted about every week in order to have
> it function reliably (ie, no UNPLANNED downtime). It fails every 38
> days, which means there is a good chance it will fail at shorter
> intervals; rebooting every week alleviates this problem.
Speaking of this, I wonder what Drestin thinks of these numbers.
Haven't seen him around these parts in a while. I suspect after this
little 'study', it will be a while before he shows his face around
here again.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:18:13 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16168.html
Oh look! The fixes have been available for months!
The best OS in the world can not protect against a poor SysOp
--
David Dorward
http://www.dorward.uklinux.net/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:23:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:54:09 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >> >On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:43 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are generalizing for a random large collection of
> >> >> >> individuals.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No I am saying ANYONE who hunts around a typical Linux system and
> >> >> >clicks on help will be more than likely be greeted with a message
> >> >> >along the lines of "Help not Written Yet".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> This is assinine and trivially absurd.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It sure is considering how long kde and Gnome have been in
> >> >> >development.
> >> >>
> >> >> ...compared to what? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
> >> >>
> >> >> Compared to what Windows was like 2 years after it's
> >> >> inception, GNOME is a bloody masterpiece.
> >> >
> >> >That comparison makes no sense.
> >> >
> >> >GNOME uses Linux or some other Unix, that have been around for years.
> >>
> >> However, the various GUI's haven't.
> >
> >Well, windows is its own OS, so this is a muddy area. If you just
> >intend to compare GUIs, then you must compare to only the GUI.
> >
> >Then you could say that Windows (the GUI) in its current incarnation
> >exists since about 1995. Windows 3.x was too different to consider it
> >the same thing. Or you'd have to say that the linux GUIs date back to
> >twm.
>
> The 'versions' may have changed, however the company
> remained the same. To be comparable, Miguel would have
> had to have been the driving force behind twm or CDE.
>
> Infact, someone else was.
Then you might consider thinking GNOME started in the early 80s. At that
time, some of the guys currently doing some important chunks of GNOME worked
at Apple on MacOS.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:30:27 +0000
Ian Pulsford wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
> >
> > Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
> >
> > Its a fairly poor atricle. Firstly its very confrontational, secondly it
> > uses the very old Linux-is-not-like-windows-so-its-too-hard mantra. This
> > guy expects to go from Windows to Linux with zero effort and zero
> > learning (how long did he spend learning windows in the first place?).
>
> About as long as he spent learning HTML.
Yeah, the guy claims he designs web pages and doesn't seem to know HTML.
Sounds more like a kiddie than a geek by trade.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:43:51 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of
cards.
>
> No, it's SIMPLE AND RELIABLE LAYER upon SIMPLE AND RELIABLE LAYER...
I hate to tell you this, but X is not a "simple" layer. Looked at the X
reference manuals lately? In fact, X's complexity is the main reason for
toolkits like QT, gtk+, etc..
> And it's rock-solid.
Which kind of rock might that be? Pumice?
------------------------------
From: J5 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MSG. to all about the loser kid trolls with nothing better to do...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:38:34 -0800
It seems there are an a bunch of kids either in high school or their
first year of collage with nothing better than to bash Linux.
These losers probably aren't even Comp. Sci. majors, they are too
stupid for that (so many holes in their pathetic arguments, etc), I
bet they are business majors, yes, that's it.
Lame Ducks, the two easiest degrees to get, world wide, are business
and communication, at least with communications you are in class with
some hot women. Business degrees are a joke, MBA from Yale, different
story, but your common business major is an idiot.
J5
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 18 Jan 2001 18:40:31 GMT
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:06:51 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>> Indeed. That's why I usually suggest Python. It's OO, but it's not
>> we-will-force-OOP-on-you-until-we-can-OOP-no-more OO.
>
>How about Perl's implementation of OOP? Yipe! Perl is great for a lot
>of things, but IMO its idea of OO is pretty scary. I've never tried
perl's OO is sort of a duct tape job. It's tacked on. Given that they
did tack it on, it's not that bad.
IMO, Ruby looks very promising, it strikjes me as already being in the
place that perl should be heading to.
>Nah, you can do OO in C. You'd just have to use a lot of ugly pointers
>to functions, typedef structs, and other such kludges. Why do people
>even bother with such things, when they can do the same thing in C++?
Resistence to change (IMO)
>I'm sure there's some horrendous way that you can implement private
>member functions in C using const pointers to functions. It would be a
>scary sight, to be sure. (Even scarier than using packages in Perl to
>implement OOP.)
You can do private functions in C using static functions.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Bas van der Meer <basm*removethis*@casema.net>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:30:21 +0100
LShaping wrote:
<snip>
> what was presented. Some of us human beings have that ability. BTW
> Bas van der Meer, do not reply to both groups and direct the followup
> to your own.
apologies, I didn't realize the message was X-posted. I didn't mean to post
on a group with a silly name like alt.destroy.microsoft.
--
--
Bas van der Meer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:49:51 -0600
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote in
> <3iw96.281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >No "issues" eh?
> >
> >Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone
> >else (outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use
> >Samba, and configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the
> >average user of today. God forbid they should want to change what they
> >share.
>
> That's a good thing. Systems Administrators don't want every idiot luser
> sharing his root disk with the world. Having some idea of what you're
doing
> is a minimum requirement here.
The Sysadmin should block those ports from reaching the world then.
Fact is, users share their data, especially in small workgroups.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:52:19 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >No "issues" eh?
> >
> >Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone
else
> >(outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use Samba,
and
> >configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the average user
of
> >today. God forbid they should want to change what they share.
>
> Since when is pointing and clicking on menus outside of the
> reach of today's users?
Have you actually tried to setup and configure nfs or samba through those
interfaces? They're not much better than configuring the files manually.
There is virtually no help and there are a number of parameters that most
users wouldn't even have a clue about.
> >No, it's not rocket science, but it's still too much for most users.
>
> No, you're just indulging in slander.
That's a rather slanderous accusation.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:46:29 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:58:58
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > When you're done with your adolescent ad homonim attacks, please
>> > post a URL for a c't article praising MS for something.
>> >
>>
>> Do you honestly believe that MS can be praised for something, except for
>> an unattained ability to violate all the ethics of commerce?
>
>Hmm...
>
>- Windows 2000 has many advances that exceed many other OS (including
> everything in Linux)
It has many features. None are advanced, and all are potentially
capable, if not currently available, on Linux. "Churn" isn't
automatically 'evolution', Chad.
>- MS has one of the best security response time to discovered exploits.
> Even better than Red Hat in most cases. And MS even tests their patches
> and then does a full regression test each Service Pack, something
> Red Hat doesn't do.
MS has without any doubt whatsoever the least secure OSes ever widely
implemented. Red Hat doesn't *need* to do "full regression testing" for
patches; that would only be necessary were Red Hat to be entirely
incompetent in developing an OS and in developing patches for that OS.
>- Active Directory Services is the most advanced directory service
> architecture out there. It harnesses many open standards including
> X.500, LDAPv3, SMTP, Kerbers v5, X.509 certificates, etc.
Pity it doesn't work very well. Also, you're obviously not trying to
make points by so accurately describing Microsoft's approach to
standards as 'harnessing'.
I swear, Chad, you'd apologize for the devil, if you can talk about
Microsoft trying to destroy Kerberos interoperability so innocently.
Every standard you want to list is well known to everyone but morons
like you and the poor dupes you manage to lie to before they learn the
truth, and so temporarily believe this bullshit.
Please, don't use Microsoft's attempts to decommoditize standard
protocols as a 'benefit' of their software. Its offensive to anyone
with more than half a brain.
>Just to name a few off the top of my head.
Or the half of your brain, as it were.
>Oh yeah, not to mention the best all-around OS Windows 2000.
>We had some Oracle reps visit our company yesterday, and even they,
>who profess hatred of Microsoft, had laptops running Win2K using
>PowerPoint for presentations. Why?
Because nobody has access to anything but PowerPoint anymore, since
Microsoft bundled away the product market more than two years ago,
numbskull.
>Because there's nothing out
>there that's as close to Win2K at stability, ease of use, and
>functionality.
No, there's just nothing out there, despite how unstable, unreliable,
and overpriced Win2K is. Not because there aren't technical
alternatives; Linux could replace W2K in a heart-beat, and *always* with
better performance, lower cost, and higher reliability. But that's not
the same as undoing the OEM lock-in contracts and other acts of
monopolization (mostly killing all developments they can't manage to
falsely take credit for, leaving consumers with the purposeful
impression, should they be stupid enough to believe Microsoft or you,
its sock puppets, that there is no way to get any development except to
support the monopoly.) That will take a government-imposed remedy for
Microsoft's illegal actions.
And you don't at all consider yourself an immoral sack of shit, I'll
bet, do you, Chad? Defending a criminal doesn't dampen your false
passive-aggressive cheeriness, at all, does it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 18 Jan 2001 18:46:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2001 04:48:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>The first computer I laid hands on was around that time actually,
>>and was a commodore PET. (I cant remember which model). We wrote
>>BASIC programs that made little ascii rockets fly up the screen.
> Did you key in the Balloon Program from the Commodore System Guide
> (the fat spiral bound book I forget it's name) ?
No, they made us figure out everything by hand.
> Everyone did that one with all the sprites and things.
> That was for the 64 though.
Yes, the PETs did not have sprites.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:49:06 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:55:05
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> There are windows shareware tools that do that sort of
>> thing. It's hardly rocket science. Your illustrious
>> employer is being shown up by DVD pirates.
>
>Why are you so thick?
>
>Have you ever edited a video yourself?
Have you ever produced video editing equipment yourself? If you did,
would *you* make such a brain-dead decision? I think that's the point
Jedi is trying to make.
(Well, that an yanking your chain. Its amazing how easily
Microsoftheads are trolled, actually.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:50:15 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on 18 Jan 2001
14:27:16 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:46:17 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers
>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers
>>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >> >> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers
>>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >> >> >> >> >wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
>>> >> >15:19:13
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> in
>>> >> >message
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>>> >> >> [deletia]
>>> >> >> >> >> So? What's the real problem with that.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> ><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
>>> >> >> >> >we're talking about.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >We don't have all the time in the world.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
>>> >> >> >> the details of the 'problem'.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >Splitting all the movies into 15 minute segments just to
>>> >> >> >accomodate our poor choice of a poorly designed OS wouldn't
>>> >> >> >not be high on the list of things the Video department
>>> >> >> >would've wanted to do. Especially since they were strapping
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Odd then that consumer digital is distributed
>>> >> >> in JUST THAT FORMAT.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >huh?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >1.) I don't think you know what you're talking about
>>> >> >2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
>>> >>
>>> >> Even so.
>>> >>
>>> >> How lame can your authoring system be if it can't seamlessly
>>> >> cut together disparate pieces of video. HELL, that's the whole
>>> >> point of a corporeal video editing system.
>>> >
>>> ><sigh> It's not that it CAN'T, it's that we don't have the time
>>> >to do it.
>>>
>>> What time? They would probably spend more time in manual
>>> administration than the engineering time it would take to
>>> add that kind of intellegence to a media editor..
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >It takes time to split it into pieces. It then takes more time
>>> >to put the pieces back together for final editing and post
>>> >production.
>>> >
>>> >It would essentially triple the time it took with a real OS that
>>> >could handle > 2GB files.
>>> >
>>> >It's really obvious, you're making an argument out of nothing.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>>
>>> There are windows shareware tools that do that sort of
>>> thing. It's hardly rocket science. Your illustrious
>>> employer is being shown up by DVD pirates.
>
>> Why are you so thick?
>
>> Have you ever edited a video yourself? All our equipment has
>> the capability to trim the videos, but it all takes time and
>> processing power that ordinarily isn't required.
>
>> - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
>> cards)
>> - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
>> - Save raw video file for posterity.
>> - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
>> - Save edits to video file
>> - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
>> - Save resized video
>> - Convert video into internet video (Quicktime, RealVideo, Windows Media,
>> yes all three)
>> - Save converted videos.
>
>Oh, INTERNET video. I thought you were talking about some kind of real
>video editing that means something. "Internet video" is something of
>a joke, chad. Anyone can do it, and you certianly dont need a hell of
>alot of processing power or an operating system that doesnt completely
>suck.
What 'Internet video' is going to need a file size of greater than 2
Gigabytes?!?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:02:46 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ke9649.u2d.ln@gd2zzx...
> From the January 17 SANS NewsBites:
>
> --11 January 2001 NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
> A survey posted on Attrition.org ranks Windows NT as the most vulnerable
> to crackers, garnering nearly 60% of December defacements. Microsoft
> may be targeted because it is so widely known, or because it has a
> reputation for hurrying the release of applications, which suggests that
> security might take a back seat.
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-4449902.html
Kind of ironic, consider the RameN crew worm that's loose on Red Hat Linux
6.2 and 7.0 machines throughout the internet.
In any event, all it takes is one vulnerability and you can make the top of
the list as well, as Red Hat is finding out.
------------------------------
From: "Raymond Mroz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:55:24 -0400
Linux servers do fail, as do MS servers. Server failure generally == people
failure, the difference being this: Linux servers (in most cases) fail due
to sysadmin oversight, mistake or outright incompetance...MS servers fail
because of people too.....MS staff. While local sysadmin failure can be
fixed, design engineering failure in MS products cannot be fixed. I'll take
the local failure anyday because it is something *I* can address.
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4xw96.282$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:944p4i$623$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Milton wrote:
> > >>
> > >> It is pathetic on so many levels:
> > >>
> > >> (1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server
competition.
> > >> (2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
> > >> (3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have
no
> > >> idea of what an operating system should be.
> >
> > > No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet
> it's
> > > MTTF is about the same as Win2k's,
> >
> > You "bet", do you? Well thats certianly something to base a belief on,
> isnt
> > it.
> >
> > Here is a linux machine thats been running DHCPD for 22,000 nodes and
> acting
> > as a DNS server for the same:
> >
> > 12:29pm up 334 day(s), 19 min(s), 1 user, load average: 1.30, 1.45,
> 1.53
> >
> > This is simply not something that W2K is capable of. Period.
>
> Do you not understand the meaning of the word *MEAN* in Mean Time To
> Failure?
>
> > > that is if you'd bother to be realistic.
> > > Claiming that it's mean (remember, that's average, not extreme) is
> > > indefinate is a flat out lie.
> >
> > Oh, it is, is it? Can you show some proof of this?
> >
> > Really erik, you are (I think) more intelligent than this. You
understand
> > that in many ways, linux is superior to windows of any kind, and you
> understand
> > that this is one of them. Why are you arguing?
>
> Yes, all you need is one Linux machine that's failed. Mine has failed
> dozens of times, and the linux newsgroups are full of them.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
