Linux-Advocacy Digest #691, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Does Code Decay
Re: Does Code Decay ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("nuxx")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Crappy CDROM? (Bones)
Re: Crappy CDROM? (Bones)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Bones)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Bones)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Bones)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("nuxx")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("nuxx")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Michel Catudal)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Michel Catudal)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Michel Catudal)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:19:34 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:04:00 GMT, Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm cross posting this to the linux and nt groups as it seems pertinant
>to both.
>
>Recently MS had a lowkey campaign to get customers to replace NT with
>W2k because Nt suffered from code decay. I came across an article "Does
>Code Decay? Assessing the Evidence from Change Management Data" by
No.
Code might 'decay' if vendorlock dataformats change.
Beyond this, code should continue being perfectly
viable for DECADES.
This is what all of the Y2K paranoia was about.
[deletia]
Problems arose from software begin immune to decay thus
allowing systems to operate well past their prime or
past their original expected lifespan.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:26:43 -0600
Yes and no. Code itself doesn't decay, but it's associations can.
For instance, an interface the code uses can be changed, and thus the code
breaks despite no actual decay in the program itself.
Over time, architectures become clouded and brittle when there are many
changes. We've all seen a house that's had addition after addition added on
to it, and after a while it looks like a frankenstein's monster. The same
is true of code that is hacked or patched but not rewritten.
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm cross posting this to the linux and nt groups as it seems pertinant
> to both.
>
> Recently MS had a lowkey campaign to get customers to replace NT with
> W2k because Nt suffered from code decay. I came across an article "Does
> Code Decay? Assessing the Evidence from Change Management Data" by
> Stephen G. Eick, on the IEEE site. You can get the article at
> <http://wwww.computer.org/tse/ts2001/e1toc.htm>.
>
> For those who don't have time or can't read the large PDF file, the
> authors looked at a system having 100,000,000 lines of C/C++ source and
> 100,000,000 lines of header and make files. They came to the conclusion
> that code does decay. Some symptoms they listed are :
> 1. Excessively complex(bloted) code - the system could be rewritten with
> many fewer LOC
> 2. A history of frequent changes
> 3. A history of faults
> 4. Widely dispersed changes - fixes hit lots of modules or have a large
> size
> 5. Numerous interfaces(entry points)
>
> I especiall like #2. Now everyone who complains about Linux 2.4 kernel
> taking so long, know why.
>
> Too late for NT, but Linus needs to keep this in mind. Keep the kernel
> simple and compact.
>
> --
> Russ
> <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:21:44 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:59:08 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
>"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > It took you a full minute?
>> > > >
>> > > > takes half that long with windows and no reboot is required for W2K
>(you
>> > > > xposted to a NT advocacy forum, not win9x)
>> > > >
>> > > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
>> > > > > order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and
>was
>> > up
>> > > > > and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink
>sends
>> > out
>> > > > > to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The
>last
>> > > > > line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Russ
>> > > > > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
>> > > > > Not powered by ActiveX
>> > >
>> > > Real kicker, that I forgot to mention, is that NT and W2K aren't even
>> > > supported. If you call them they have a help option for NT, but not
>W2k.
>> > > It gets lumped into "other Operating systems, estimated time of wait
>is
>> > > 63 minutes". I only had to hold for 21 minutes for NT.
>> >
>> > Identical to how you do it in 9x.
>> > What is your point?
>> The ISP considers NT more important to support than W2K. I ask why they
>> don't have more Linux support. The answer was "Linux users don't need
>> our support. They usually support us."
>> I know MS is trying to obsolete NT, but the market doesn't seem to be
>> going along.
>
>They don't need to have special support to 2000, they need to treat it like
>ME (actually, it's the other way around, but it doesn't matter at the
>moment.)
>It should go like this:
>A> Log on as administrator
>B> Go to Start>Settings>Network & Dial Up Connection
>C> double click Make New Connection
...wait for Win2K to dial the phone and waste quite a bit
of time fetching the local "approved" ISP list for your
area.
Then go to step D.
>D> Click Next
>E> Choose dial up to the internet and click next
>F> (not logged as admin at the moment, doing it from memory) enter user name
>& password, ISP phone number, enter DNS & IP.
Sounds like a ppp configuration applet I used in Linux in 1995.
[deletia]
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:24:58 +0800
> Then again, GUI's are no less problematic in this repect.
>
True.
> This is somewhat more involved than clicking any option
> in the installer and then just logging in through the telnet
> daemon available in even the 'client' version of NT5.
>
You can, of course, just enable it on install (under Terminal Services
section), like you mentioned. I should have said that as well. :-)
> This isn't entirely what I asked for.
>
Please elaborate.
nuxx.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:09:41 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:57:28 GMT
> <c5gb6.12889$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:22:28
> >> > [...]
> >> > >Now you've crossed the line. You've asked T. Max Devlin to produce
facts.
> >> > >Don't you know that that would break his streak of fact-less posts?
> >> >
> >> > That it would require intense research in order to point out your
> >> > baseless presumptions and trivial fabrications is a rather laughable
> >> > suggestion, Chad.
> >>
> >> I recommend against taking the time to research facts for refuting Chad.
> >
> >Well, no one has been doing that, so it shouldn't be a big loss.
> >
> >I present fact after fact after fact, and all you guys (Max, you, et al
> >except for Ghost in the Machine) do is critize, personally attack, and
> >spew forth baseless supposition.
>
> Pedant point: I criticize as well, when I can. :-) However, my
> criticism is based on my knowledge and I try to back it up
> with facts in that case. Sometimes I succeed...
>
> >
> >> I wasted a couple of hours over the weekend looking up Hot 100 uptimes, and
> >> Chad won't even bother to respond to the post. He much perfers to make up
> >> his own statistics.
> >
> >Start a new thread, I told you. This thread is talking about Fortune 500.
> >Why do you insist on ignoring this? Fortune 500 is, IMHO, as important, or
> >more important than the Hot 100. I think it's more reasonable to see what
> >Dell, Compaq, Merril Lynch, Fidelity, and many other huge corporations are
> >using for their critical web eCommerce infrastructure than what eGroups
> >uses for their message boards, wouldn't you? In 2 years, who's more likely
> >to a.) still be in business b.) have the web still be in their primary
> >business category? Hint: It isn't likely to be eGroups.
>
> It's also noteworthy who's making the money, as well. I'm not sure
> when Hot100 will equal the Fortune500; in an ideal world, perhaps,
> they would be equal -- but this world isn't ideal.
Despite what Bobby would have you believe, I never considered the
Hot100 irrelevant in general, just not for this thread. I was
talking about businesses who have a significant investment in
the web and who have large capital and profits.
The Hot 100 tells a slightly different story, granted, but that's
subject to a different thread.
He wants to debate the Hot 100 and keeps trying to ignore the
Fortune 500.
> >These guys are in it for the long haul, not the quick buck, and they've
> >overwhelmingly chosen IIS and iPlanet and ditched Apache.
>
> This I wonder about. Granted, there are many factors here -- one
> obvious one is that Microsoft, buggy as their software is, has a
> contact point, where they can be yelled at, prodded, and if
> necessary, legally forced to fix bugs. How does one do that with
> Linux? It may make many CEOs rather uncomfortable, although one
> could go to an intermediary such as Cygnus, now part of RedHat.
I think you're wrong about the buggy, I honestly do. Especially
with Win2K, MS have really done good. Certainly not perfect, but
it's the best web platform available. Stability, scalability,
as well as full application support and rapid application develop-
ment. It may not have the uptime numbers of Sun, but then no one
has just one web server these days anyhow. Companies are willing
to suffer small downtimes every now in their clusters if it
means they can reap all the benefits that Windows offers. It's
a no-brainer, really.
> Mind you, this is pure supposition on my part
But logical, that's the key, I guess.
> but it appears to be a moderate to major impediment to Linux's
> acceptance.
Red Hat has addressed this to some extent. But they fight a
constant battle: appeasing stuffy suits, while trying to keep
the ferocious penguinistas from branding them sellouts.
One day, they'll realize they have to make a profit and the
former will be their direction and Linux, in the end, will
become more and more widely accepted. There are still, IMHO,
many technical hurdles they must overcome. The Linux 2.4
kernel has only brought Linux into the present, to compete
on today's terms. They must be thinking continually ahead,
but the problem with Open Source is that there's no
"research budget". There's no one out there writing for
3 years ahead, they're writing for now. This will come to a
head in 2-3 years when MS, Sun, and others have moved on
to the next big thing and Linus finds himself once again
under the hot seat to come up with the next 2.4-level kernel.
> (I will note that IBM is supporting Linux; while
> that may risk Linux being taken over by IBM -- it's a small risk because
> of the GPL -- it also means that Linux will gain respectability; IBM
> isn't exactly small change in the software market. :-) Besides, Windows
> can't run on S/390s yet. :-) )
>
> (Is IBM in the Fortune 500?)
Oh Yes, they're in the top 50 or 20, IIRC.
Question: Do you forsee companies like IBM, Oracle, Sun(?), et al
diluting Linux? Coming up with their own sneaky versions of Linux
that aren't technically linux somehow and sneak past the GPL? IBM
and Oracle have armies of lawyers. My concern is that you'll see
these guys cash in on the hype and screw the LC in the process.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:26:15 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:03:10 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
>"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:14:00 +0500, "Gary Hallock"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>More difficult? Hah!
>Exactly *how*?
>
>What do you mean by ftp? client? server?
>PWS is a free http & ftp server for windows 9x, it is somewhere in the CD.
>IIS is for NT.
>Both OS has a builtin text-based ftp client, as well as IE capable of
>functioning as FTP client.
Then please outline the procedure for initiating an
upload with IE5...
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:12:18 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94koo1$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Start a new thread, I told you. This thread is talking about Fortune 500.
> : Why do you insist on ignoring this? Fortune 500 is, IMHO, as important, or
> : more important than the Hot 100. I think it's more reasonable to see what
> : Dell, Compaq, Merril Lynch, Fidelity, and many other huge corporations are
> : using for their critical web eCommerce infrastructure than what eGroups
> : uses for their message boards, wouldn't you?
>
> (Grabbing the clue stick) *whack* *whack* For those companies, the
> web stuff is NOT CRITICAL. NOT AT ALL.)
So, "web stuff" is not critical to, say, Dell? Compaq? Merril Lynch?
I disagree. Those companies depend heavily on the web to stay
competitive. Financial companies are becoming increasingly dependent
on the web as their customers have come to expect it as much as a
free check book with a new account.
> It is certainly a benefit to keep it running, and it certainly
> brings in more business, but it is not the only conduit of sales
> they have.
Of course not, but for many, it's their largest, or counts for a
huge number of sales that otherwise wouldn't have been there.
> Compare this with something that actually is 100%
> web based like Amazon or Google).
And who make USD$0 every year (or USD$-20m or so for Amazon)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Crappy CDROM?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:28:20 GMT
> mlw wrote:
> Here's one for you:
[snipped: cd-r drive and corrupted images]
> Does this behavior worry anyone? I have always been worried about IDE,
> it seems ill designed for the speeds at which it is transferring data.
> Am I being paranoid and this is just a bad CDROM drive?
It would worry me. I have noticed that some CD-R drives, namely Takaya
drives, have a tendency to corrupt files while transferring them. I have a
CD game that I can't play because the drive corrupts files during
installation. If (in Windows) I specify VERIFY=ON in autoexec.bat, I get
better results... but far from perfect.
To the best of my knowledge, this drive, and all other models of this drive
that I've tested, have the same problem.
Anyway, I would ditch the drive. Is it under a warranty?
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Crappy CDROM?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:28:21 GMT
[snip]
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Yes, IDE is a very poor technology. The only reason it sells so much is
>> that it's cheap. SCSI requires onboard processors for the drive, and makes
>> them more expensive.
> mlw wrote:
> IDE drives and SCSI drives are almost identical. Both require processors
> embedded in the drive. In fact, IDE stands for "Integrated Drive
> Electronics."
I'm going to have to kind of take Erik's side on this one, except I have a
different take on the onboard logic. I feel that the quality of SCSI hard
disks overall is much better, and I feel it justifies the higher cost. GMR
heads, glass substrate material, high RPM motors and very large transfer
rates all appeared in SCSI first.
[trim]
> Over the last 10 years, IDE became EIDE, ATA, etc. The specification has
> become quite elaborate, with DMA, PIO, caching, etc.
One major difference which I can't stand is that there can only be one
master on each IDE channel. The master controls the slave device, and data
cannot be transferred to/from both at the same time. This is not the case
with SCSI, so things go smoothly with multiple devices transferring data on
the same chain.
[snip]
> The reason why SCSI sells for more is that most SCSI applications are at
> a higher end. SCSI drives typically have a higher spindle RPM, better
> seek times, and longer MTBF.
Oops, I just repeated what you said.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:28:22 GMT
[snip snip]
>> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It took you a full minute? takes half that long with windows and no
>> reboot is required for W2K (you xposted to a NT advocacy forum, not win9x)
Yes, and Win9x, which most of the ISP's customers use, installs IPX/SPX,
NetBEUI and enabled IP-encapsulated NB when dial-up networking is installed,
leaving a nice gaping security hole in the form of the open netbios session
port and a service listening on it.
Also, installing wonderful IE 5.5 probably opens up your machine to a whole
host of new security problems. Every version since 1.0 has had security
patches for similar problems, and the next version is always the one that
will fix the problem. IE 5.x is on its third security patch right now. Don't
forget to install that last security patch for 5.5!
Does IE/Windows still allow you to type in a recursive path to a DOS device
driver and cause your Windows machine to Blue Screen and not recover?
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> There ISN'T 9x advocary group.
> & I'm thankful for that.
Judging from this thread, I though this *was* a Win9x advocacy group.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:28:22 GMT
> Perry Pip wrote:
[snip]
> With regards to Nvidia, I purchased a TNT2 card two years ago becuase they
> advertised on their web site a commitment to open source. Well they never
> released usaable open source drivers, nor hardware specs. Instead they
> realeased their closed source drivers long after the TNT2 card had become
> obselete, meaning my money was wasted. AFAIC they decieved me.
Do you make a copy of the ad? If Nvidia specifically stated that they would
release open source drivers, and that was one of your primary reasons for
purchasing the card, they are basically using fraud as a sales technique.
I give Nvidia the "Fictional Computer Lemon Law Defendant of the Year"
award. If the product was just about anything else other than computer
hardware, they would be defendants in court right now. Unfortunately this is
not the case. So, looking back on the past two decades, we finally realize
that the ONLY *innovation* of the "new" corporate computer visionaries is
The Automated Consumer Backside Penetration Device.
> Currently, Nvidia is publishing closed source drivers under the excuse
> that publishing source code and hardware specs would violate their contracts
> with other technology providers.
Gee Nvidia, I guess it was probably bad to bait consumers with false
information. I'm sure while the senior management were nervously wringing
their hands over the potential threat of the open source community, a
cracker was swiping data from their intranet, and someone was stuffing the
trunk of his car with the contents of the corporate dumpster.
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bones)
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:28:23 GMT
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> kill -f lsass.exe has interesting results when running as admin, btw.
> Don't try it at home.
Oh, okay then, I'll try it at work.
>:D
----
Bones
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:29:06 +0800
> > serious weakness (finally) and are working towards fixing it. I believe
> > that you will be able to unload the GUI in Whistler(?) so they are
> hopefully
> > improving the CLI.
>
> How?
> Now this is something that I would like to know how it can be done.
> I've Whistler beta 1, pro. How do I unload the GUI?
> How much overhead does this remove? (Now this is interesting question.)
>
>
I haven't tried it but read they were working on it somewhere. Can't back
it up so it remains a rumor. As far as the overhead - very little RAM and
virtually no CPU so it's almost a moot point anyway. My main point was that
I hope they are improving the CLI to Unix levels.
nuxx
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:32:05 +0800
> I haven't tried it but read they were working on it somewhere. Can't back
> it up so it remains a rumor. As far as the overhead - very little RAM and
> virtually no CPU so it's almost a moot point anyway. My main point was
that
> I hope they are improving the CLI to Unix levels.
>
(very little RAM and virtually no CPU on a server busy serving, that is).
------------------------------
From: Michel Catudal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: 23 Jan 2001 21:32:08 -0600
Chad Myers a écrit :
>
> all I did in Windows
> 95/98/NT/2000 was add a new dial-up connection, type in my user name
> and password and everything worked. I didn't have to fill in any
> IPs, DNS addresses, ppp scripts, anything. It all used MS-CHAP or
> CHAP for authentication automatically. No rebooting required on
> any of the aforementioned OSes. This is easier than Linux. Yes,
> Linux is more difficult than Windows.
>
Even on winblows I enter the DNS numbers because it connects faster
that way. With the SuSE default install you don't need you to enter any DNS.
I enter them anyway but the one who wants the easy install just has
to type in the isp address, his login and password and he's on the net.
As for setting up a firewall, it took me a few entries with yast and
my son's computer was connecting to the net a few minutes later.
With winblows it can often be a nightmare if winblows decides that
a certain ethernet card is unknown or that it refuses to recognize
it's IRQ as valid and assign the only available IRQ that the ethernet
card has left to some useless and unused IDE port on a sound card.
Same card works great with Linux.
You want to burn CDs, oopps! the software that comes with the CD burner
crashes if you dare do anything else during a burning session. To get
some good software, open your wallet real wide.
With Linux, there are several packages ready to use and most of them
work great if setup correctly. Cost = 0.
--
Tired of Microsoft's rebootive multitasking?
then it's time to upgrade to Linux.
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat
We have all kinds of links
and many SuSE 7.0 Linux RPM packages
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:36:47 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:24:58 +0800, nuxx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Then again, GUI's are no less problematic in this repect.
>>
>True.
>
>> This is somewhat more involved than clicking any option
>> in the installer and then just logging in through the telnet
>> daemon available in even the 'client' version of NT5.
>>
>You can, of course, just enable it on install (under Terminal Services
>section), like you mentioned. I should have said that as well. :-)
>
>> This isn't entirely what I asked for.
>>
>Please elaborate.
A checkbutton in the installer that would yield a fully
functional version of the service. (unobsfuscations
excepted of course)
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Michel Catudal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: 23 Jan 2001 21:42:11 -0600
Edward Rosten a écrit :
>
>
> That would be good, except IE is a piece of trash.
>
Indeed, to prove your point, load this page with both the exploder
and Netscape and see which pingouin dances faster.
http://users.netonecom.net/~bbcat/cadiens.html
and for more information on what to do with winblows
http://users.netonecom.net/~bbcat/Microsoft.html
--
Tired of Microsoft's rebootive multitasking?
then it's time to upgrade to Linux.
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat
We have all kinds of links
and many SuSE 7.0 Linux RPM packages
------------------------------
From: Michel Catudal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: 23 Jan 2001 21:47:09 -0600
Kevin Ford a écrit :
>
>
> Another one of my favourites is 'application not responding, press wait or
> close it' isn't that what I just did??
>
The application kernel32.dll is not responding, press on any key to close.
--
Tired of Microsoft's rebootive multitasking?
then it's time to upgrade to Linux.
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat
We have all kinds of links
and many SuSE 7.0 Linux RPM packages
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:56:37 GMT
nuxx wrote:
> >
> > Ehhh, actually that's not quite true when you say that Terminal Services
> > are slow, the protocol (RDP (I know nothing about ICA)) actually uses less
> > bandwidth then X, especially trafic from the client to the
> > TerminalServer is kept to the minimum. The result is that TS is faster
> > than X on slow connections, on a 10+ Mbps network X feels much faster
> > than TS. Ofcource telnet/ssh requires even less overhead if it was
> > possible to do anything on NT in a CLI.
> >
> You can do most admin tasks in a Telnet session to a W2k server.
This sort of nonsense would not be tolerated in most Unix shops.
Telnet is deprecated, ssh is the preferred method. But I realize that
windows lags somewhat, and telnet could be useful in a pinch....
> I'm not trying to argue that W2k is as good as Unix for remote admin from
> the CLI, because it isn't by a fair distance. MS have recognised this as a
> serious weakness (finally) and are working towards fixing it. I believe
> that you will be able to unload the GUI in Whistler(?) so they are hopefully
> improving the CLI.
(shrug) and Unix is improving the GUI.
I see no reason to switch from Unix to pc OSes...
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
