Linux-Advocacy Digest #777, Volume #31 Sat, 27 Jan 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF xxxx ("Mike")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT (J Sloan)
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others ("Jan Johanson")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Gates Vaccine (Darin Johnson)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Jan Johanson")
Re: C2 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: C2 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF xxxx
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:21:18 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[incomprehensible Kulkis-ism and accompanying sig snipped]
Am I the only one who wishes we could put Kulkis and Ebert together?
In a rowboat.
In the middle of the Atlantic.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:23:22 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > T. Max Devlin once wrote:
> > > > >Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 25 Jan 2001
13:34:36
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >>It's interesting then, now that FAT has moved on, whereas ext2fs
> > > > >>has not. (NOTE: I realize FAT sucks, I'm not trying to claim it's
> > > > >>better than ext2fs, just more updated).
> > > > >
> > > > >Guffaw.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm..... what's ext3 and reiser then
> > >
> > > Where are ext2 and reiser?
> >
> > reiserfs is available from ftp.namesys.com.
> >
> > > Still not shipping or production.
> >
> > SuSE has been shipping reiserfs for some time now.
> >
> > furthermore, reiserfs is added to linux kernel since 2.4.1-pre7 so
> > expect to see it in more linux distributions.
> >
> > > They're not the default fs' on the major distros,
> >
> > most people consider SuSE a major distro. as for being the default,
> > maybe it's not, but you do have a choice.
> >
> > > they're
> > > only included (on some) as an at-your-on-risk kind of deal.
> > >
> > > When Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, et al ship with Resier
> > > or ext3 as the default, then I'll stop bashing Linux for
> > > this horrible weakness.
> >
> > one could make the case that NT ships with FAT16 as the default. i
> > think that it's easy enough to choose NTFS that it doesn't matter. NT
> > does *both* FAT16 and NTFS.
>
> But...NOT FAT32.
>
NT4 doesn't support FAT32, but W2K runs just fine on FAT32, NT3.x supports
HPFS, but NT4 doesn't support it with copying a file from NT3.x. So it
looks like MS is trying to kill useless File Systems.
Also NT4 defaults to NTFS and you have to move the highlight off to format
with FAT16.
I have had to install both within the last 6 months. NT4 was formatted with
NTFS and W2K was installed to available FAT32 partition.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:56:04 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> mlw wrote:
>
> > I am having a bit of difficulty relating this thread to anything having to
> > do with Linux advocacy.
>
> Oh its got nothing to do with Linux Advocacy. Just good ol' AK method of
> spreading more noise.
The noise in this group comes from Pete, Chad, flatfish, Conrad etc.
Otherwise it would be a fairly decent discussion forum.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 27 Jan 2001 19:00:09 -0600
"CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
> > > > >
> > > > > > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus
'Ramen'
> > is
> > > > now
> > > > > > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that
several
> > Web
> > > > > > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to up
its
> > > > status
> > > > > > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA, Texas
> > A&M,
> > > > and
> > > > > > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be affecting
> > Redhat
> > > > 6.2
> > > > > > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
> > > > > > Using three known breachable security exploits in the operating
> > system,
> > > > > > Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to
execute
> > its
> > > > > > payload.
> > > > >
> > > > > > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters "The
> > > > discovery
> > > > > > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment in
> > computer
> > > > > > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured
operating
> > > > system,
> > > > > > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It is
> > highly
> > > > > securable. Theres a difference.
> > > >
> > > > But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
> > > > securable" the NSA says...
> > >
> > >
> > > NT 3.51 on a Compaq box with no network connection or floppy drive was
C2.
> > > I don't believe NT 4 or 5 were ever C2 certified in *any*
configuration
> > > but I may be wrong.
> >
> > You are wrong. NT4 was C2 certified with both a floppy and network
> > connection.
> >
>
> Got a link? Last I used NT, it wouldn't qualify with a floppy or network
> card. I can get access to other users and copy their files. I don't
> think Linux by itself would qualify either. The user-group-other access
> mechanism isn't sufficient.
>
> >>SNIP<<
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 27 Jan 2001 19:00:15 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> CR Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:94q17o$13p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > http://betanews.efront.com/article.php3?sid=980449212
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kaspersky Lab's is now reporting that the Linux-based virus
'Ramen'
> > > is
> > > > > now
> > > > > > > "in the wild." The firm sent word around the net today that
several
> > > Web
> > > > > > > sites have now been defaced by the malicious code, enough to
up its
> > > > > status
> > > > > > > to "in the wild". Places affected by the bug include NASA,
Texas
> > > A&M,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > Supermicro. As of right now, the worm only seems to be
affecting
> > > Redhat
> > > > > 6.2
> > > > > > > and 7.0 versions of Linux.
> > > > > > > Using three known breachable security exploits in the
operating
> > > system,
> > > > > > > Ramen can penetrate the system and take over root access to
execute
> > > its
> > > > > > > payload.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > One executive at Russia-based Kaspersky Labs told reporters
"The
> > > > > discovery
> > > > > > > of the Ramen worm 'in-the-wild' is a very significant moment
in
> > > computer
> > > > > > > history. Previously considered as an absolutely secured
operating
> > > > > system,
> > > > > > > Linux now has become yet another victim to computer malware."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, it was never considered 'absolutely secure' by ANYONE. It
is
> > > highly
> > > > > > securable. Theres a difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it can't even reach C2 level of security... NT is more "highly
> > > > > securable" the NSA says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > NT 3.51 on a Compaq box with no network connection or floppy drive
was C2.
> > > > I don't believe NT 4 or 5 were ever C2 certified in *any*
configuration
> > > > but I may be wrong.
> > >
> > > You are wrong. NT4 was C2 certified with both a floppy and network
> > > connection.
> > >
> >
> > Got a link? Last I used NT, it wouldn't qualify with a floppy or network
> > card. I can get access to other users and copy their files. I don't
> > think Linux by itself would qualify either. The user-group-other access
> > mechanism isn't sufficient.
>
>
> Most commercial Unices qualify.
>
> As soon as Ext3 comes out (with ACL's), it will qualify also.
Qualify? Qualify is a BIG difference from actually evaluted successfully.
By your logic, W2K has long been qualified.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ramen worm/virus cracks NASA and others
Date: 27 Jan 2001 19:13:04 -0600
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94vb8g$ago$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3a71db77$0$73897$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On 25 Jan 2001 20:32:12 -0600,
> > > Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > But it can't even reach C2 level of security...
> > > >>
> > > >> Actually there is work going on right now in that regard,
> > > >> because government wants to make use of the power
> > > >> of Linux, rather than having to choose between expensive
> > > >> traditional RISC Unix solutions, or flaky pc server solutiuons.
> > > >
> > > >And W2K is being evaluted as we speak.
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> > NT is more "highly securable" the NSA says...
> > > >>
> > > >> What a joke - nt can be configured on certain hardware
> > > >> to get a nominal security rating, but if you install a network
> > > >> card, or even a floppy, your security rating goes right out
> > > >> the window. Not a very useful pc, huh?
> > > >
> > > >Wrong, completely and utterly wrong.
> > >
> > > No you are wrong.
> > >
> > > >NT4 sp6a certified WITH networking and floppy.
> > >
> >http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-99-001.html
> > >
> > > This page mere says that NT can be networked, and that it can be C2
> > > certified. It doesn't say you can do both simultaneously.
> > >
> >
> > Are you that stupid? Can I suggest a remedial english class.
> > here is a tip, you didn't get past the cover page did you?
> >
> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil./tpep/library/fers/TTAP-CSC-FER-99-001.pdf
> >
>
> Oh yes I did. And not one page of that document refers to simultaneous
> networking and C2 certification. In fact, if you read the last two
> chapters on C2 ceritfication you see C2 specifications deal entirely
> with protection from those with physical access to the machine. Thus,
> once you connect a C2 certified machine to a network the certification
> is meaningless.
>
> A half a dozen people have told you this but you are obviously two dense
> to get it.
>
Then both you and these half dozen people are wrong.
Turn to page 159 of the document last referened, page 171 of the PDF. It was
the first quicky reference to networked operation I could find - there are
more. You'll see here it discusses logging in via the network to a domain
with username and passwords. On page 145 of the document, network sockets
and shares are mentioned.
WINS is covered, as is DNS, NETLOGIN and RPC is covered - these are all
network functions. The operation of a PDC versus BDC versus standalone is
covered. Network printing is covered. Extensive coverage of network shares
is provided in many sections. Page 104 talks about the NTLM server component
and access accross a network The workstation service is covered, the network
browser service is cover. How much more networking would you like covered?
TCP and UDP in a networked environment is covered. Page 94 gives a lovely
diagram. Trust relationships between domains is covered starting on page
85 - gee, can you have multiple (netbios) domains on a single machine?
NO WHERE will you find ANYTHING in any document that says "Gee, although we
tested network configurations of this OS, we don't certified THAT part."
Hardware is documented, as in the various machines used are cataloged but
that's it. C2 for NT4 is for the OS - it has nothing to do with the
hardware. Hundreds have told you that but you are too stubborn to
understand.
I'm referring to official documents for proof - what do you have? Get over
it, NT4 is C2 certified including networking. Please do not reply that C2
goes out the door when connected to a network or that it's tied to
hardware - it will only document your ignorance of the rating and what it
means.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 27 Jan 2001 19:14:06 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance rankings?
>
> Just the fact that chad asks the question tells us that
> there are some windows pcs there -
>
> My prediction is that these windows records will
> be broken by Unix systems - maybe solaris, maybe
> aix, maybe Linux, maybe all of the above, but they
> will not stand.
Those records broke every unix record ever held. There has never been a
single linux appearence in the TPC benchmarks because linux lack enterprise
scalability and performance and lacks an appropriate database.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Gates Vaccine
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:13:04 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is a common tactic for the robber barons in society shroud themselves in
> "good" deeds made possible only by the crimes they have committed.
I did find it amusing the Gates was very stingy about giving to
charity until the DOJ started poking around, then he got very
charitable suddenly. Probably some PR person whispered in his ear.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 27 Jan 2001 19:16:07 -0600
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:94vkmi$s6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who holds the #1 - #4 spots on the TPC.org TPC-C performance
rankings?
> > >
> > > Just the fact that chad asks the question tells us that
> > > there are some windows pcs there -
> > >
> > > My prediction is that these windows records will
> > > be broken by Unix systems - maybe solaris, maybe
> > > aix, maybe Linux, maybe all of the above, but they
> > > will not stand.
> >
> > So far they have not been able to break them, and MS is holding the top
> > records for a *long* time now.
>
> Dont you find it weird that those numbers increased so much over just one
> year? MS software came from nowhere to be number one suddenly.... i dont
> believe it - if this is correct then the test is completely obsolute.
>
Ahh, I see. So, while Unix ruled the roost TPC was the ultimate benchmark.
The top benchmark papers STILL hang in the halls at Oracle in the lobby...
But when W2K SMOKES the competition, suddenly it's an obsolete (i'm sure you
meant that but you're german so we'll forgive your english) test? double
standards are the only standards linux abides by it would seem...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: 27 Jan 2001 19:18:12 -0600
Thank you Shane for being a better person than the rest...
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've skimmed the document Conrad referred to.
> I accept his assertion that C2 applies to the OS only
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2
Date: 27 Jan 2001 19:18:15 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >I believe NT is certified on several different hardware platforms,
> >all of which are available to the average joe (mainly through
> >Compaq). One could buy similar hardware to the boxes tested and,
> >while not technically C2, you could obtain the level of security
> >tested in the C2 certification because, as I stated before,
> >the OS is the main focus of the certification.
> >
> >-Chad
> >
> >
> >
>
> And as WE stated before. It's software and hardware.
>
> And now you finally admit it.
>
> That's a good boy.
>
Charlie - C2 applies to the OS - only. Period.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:25:55 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <GPrc6.1008$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> Microsoft W2k was their attempt at creating a mono-os to replace
> >> the dual product lines of NT and 98/95. They needed to make
> >> this effort work as it IS too costly to compete with Linux
> >> when you HAVE to support dual os's and PAY your EMPLOYEE'S.
> >
> >MS has been trying to get rid of Win9x since the day it was released.
Each
> >successive release of WIndows brought the convergence of the NT and 9x
> >platforms closer. This was years before Linux was any kind of worry to
MS.
> >
>
> This paragraph is typical EF. They have been trying to get rid of
> 9X since it was released! How many people on the internet would
> make a statement like this? If they were trying to get rid
> of it since the time it was released, then why did they
> release it in the first place!
Because the buying public would not buy NT when they released it. It took a
long time for the two OS's to converge. The biggest problem was application
compatibility. Windows 95 was all about migrating users to 32 bit apps,
which required 16 bit compatibility in the interim.
> Linux came to being before 95 did.
And wasn't compatible with Windows.
> >> And with 64 bit systems on the way, Microsoft will now have
> >> 4 OS's to support instead of 2.
> >
> >It's the same OS whether it's 64 bit or 32 bit. 64 bit simply has wider
> >parameters. There are no new functions and no unsupported functions that
> >are different between 32 bit and 64 bit NT.
>
> Boy! You really ARE a foolish child aren't you.
> The god damn instruction sets aren't the same and
> neither is the compiler. The entire structure
> of the kernel and a good deal of the OS will
> change with this chip.
Yet for some reason, you think that Linux is immune to this. Any change
Windows had to go through for Itanium, Linux also had to go through.
> I suggest you examine the work for the 64 bit
> version of Linux.
Actually, I have. I've diffed the ia64 and i386 kernel files, and there are
huge differences. You seem to think it was a simple recompile.
> If they are merely re-compiling with a 64 bit
> compiler, then Whistler will be the lamest peice
> of shit ever released from Microsoft.
That's not what I said. I said that the API's are the same, except for
wider parameters. It's the same OS from an applications point of view,
except for parameters.
> Further! If all it took was recompiling the same
> code with a 64 bit compiler, how come it's taken
> these fuckwads 2 years to come out with a beta
> of Whistler?
I never said any such thing. This is more of your halucinagenic haze which
makes you think i've said things which I haven't.
> Can you manage to answer any of these questions
> truthfully and without the capt. kangaroo.
You only asked one question, moron.
And the answer is that the chip is not yet finished. Duh! MS had betas for
quite some time, and both MS and the Linux camp announced versions of
windows running on simulators at the same time.
> >> Funny but, in Linux land there is only ONE OS which is
> >> supported and that's Linux. No-matter what machine
> >> you may be running on, Linux is consistent on all of
> >> them. You could be running a mac or an S390, the
> >> OS base is the same to the user.
> >
> >Spoken like someone that's never run Linux under multiple platforms.
That
> >one OS is significantly different depending on which hardware you're
running
> >under.
>
> Well, actually I am and no it's not.
Apparently *YOU* have not diffed the kernel sources then. Otherwise you
wouldn't say this.
> >> Truely Microsoft is insaine.
> >
> >Pot calling the kettle black.
>
> With followership such as you EF the conclusion
> is nearly an automatic one.
No, you're the one making insane statements that are easily countered with
facts, yet you continue to believe in your fantasy world where things don't
exist and people say things you want them to have said.
> >> They are insaine to even believe they can compete with an OS
> >> like Linux. There are just a FEW computers left which don't
> >> have a Linux port working for them. Just a few.
> >
> >spelling it the same way twice isn't a typo. Insane has no i in the last
> >half of the word.
> >
> >Just a few? How many is a few? Apple II, Commodore 64, PET, trs-80,
color
> >computer, Altair, TS-1000/ZX-81, Unisys A and B systems, CDC Cyber
systems,
> >Cray I, II, III, XMP and YMP, ETA 1, Connection Machines, RS-6000,
AS/400,
> >IBM System 36/38, Any number of VAX systems, IBM 43xx, Tandems, HP 9000,
> >Psion...
> >
> >I could go on for quite some time you know for systems that don't have
Linux
> >ports.
>
> Yeah, and you could easily double the list talking about Microsoft's
> lack of portage. That was the whole point of this.
MS has ported a version of Windows to every architecture that Linux has been
ported to, except 3. That's not "double".
> >> Microsoft is supporting Intel and Alpha and nothing else.
> >
> >Never looked at the number of processors supported by CE, have you?
>
> You've obviously never built a god damn computer boy.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is you think I said here. What
does building a computer have to do with knowing what architectures an OS
supports?
> When you go past 4 processors the scsi IO is exhausted in
> 100% of business concerns. What we need is a quantum leap
> in drive technology.
????????
Is anyone else able to decipher this? It makes no sense and is completely
irrelevant to the point.
> This is why Linux clustering is taking off as each box has
> some drive IO and every box is part of the master image.
You act as if Linux is the only os with Clustering. VMS was doing it
decades before Linux.
> But hey! If you wan't to use 64 processors then go ahead EF.
> I doubt seriously if Linus will every go for more processor
> support than he has. It's proven not to pay off.
Wake up from your haze. Nobody said anything about using 64 processors.
We're talking about architectures supported here.
> >> Don't you see the RAW power behind 250,000 Linux developers
> >> over a mere 2,000 Microsoft developers....
> >
> >250,000 mostly part time developers, often working on competing projects.
> >For instance, all the people working on KDE and GNOME are essentially
> >duplicating each others work in different ways. Eventually, one of them
> >will win out and the others work will mostly have been for nothing.
>
> This is true of any OS arena.
Except there are orders of magnatude more people developing Windows
applications than there are Linux developers.
> Microsoft has had a reduction in the work force in the last 3 years.
> Linux has went from 100,000 counted developers to 250,000 in 3 years.
Microsoft has not reduced it's workforce, they've expanded it. Where do you
get your information?
> >And that's 250,000 developers working on all the applications as well, MS
> >has something like 20,000 developers on it's payroll including
contractors,
> >as full time workers versus the part time Linux developers.
>
> Probably true for Microsoft.
> Yet their OS isn't advancing as quickly.
30 million new lines of code in 4 years isn't advancing quickly? What is?
> >> 2001 is a year where the commercialization of Linux is getting
> >> very serious. Alot of my freinds are telling me they expect
> >> a Linux landslide between 2002 and 2003 whereby Linux will
> >> dominate the world computer market.
> >
> >Look how long it's taken for corporations to start embracing NT/2000. 8
> >years. Even if Linux wins out, it's not going to happen overnight in 1-2
> >years.
>
> I expect 2005 despite what others say.
> I think 2003 is too soon.
Even if Linux does displace Windows, it would take a minimum of 10 years for
it to happen.
> But if your an employer of Microsoft made products,
> this kind of information is extremely useful to plan
> for the future.
What information????
> >> The possibility of having the courts split Microsoft in 2
> >> peices.
> >
> >Largely irrelevant, either way it happens MS and it's customers win.
>
> No they won't. There will be NO more canned OS's for free
> on new pc's anymore. There's no way to pay for it.
What the hell are you talking about? Breaking up MS into an OS and
Applications division will do nothing to prevent preloads.
> >> This new .net marketing gimick whereby Microsoft
> >> will be informed 24 hours a day as to the software
> >> installed on your machine.
> >
> >You're paranoid.
>
> It's been stated by Microsoft. I'm not paranoid.
No, it hasn't. Please provide proof. Real proof. Specific cites. As
usual, you provide no proof whatsoever. In fact, I can't think of a single
thread where you've actually provided proof to back up your claims when
asked. EVER.
> They did the same thing during the W2k install
> where you phoned home to Microsoft and everybody's
> system information was beamed to Microsoft HQ for
> their review. That flamed alot of people on the
> upgrades they did to w2k.
What world do you live in? This didn't happen. Win2k never "called home".
Ever. Back this up with even *ONE* cite to a credible source. Just one.
Of coures, you won't, because you can't.
> >> Absolutely NO embedded product
> >> to compete with the Linux devices..... No plans on
> >> making an embedded product either....
> >
> >Are you blind, deaf *AND* dumb?
> >
> >http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/default.asp
> >
> >Microsoft has had NT Embedded for over 2 years, and CE for 4.
> >
> >MS just announched Whistler Embedded Beta 1 last month, and claims it
will
> >ship within 90 days of Whistler's release.
> >
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/dec00/WhistlerEmbeddedPR.asp
> >
> >> I predicted Microsoft would loose dominance to Linux by
> >> 2005. I wonder if they will make it that long?
> >
> >Dream on.
>
> Who's dreaming! Who's dreaming!
>
> Show me the God Damn product which is running it on the market today!
Here's a whole page of them:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/customer/default.asp
> It's VERY TUFF to product a cheap little $120 or $89 internet ready
> device which sit's on your T.V. when Microsoft want's $200 a pop
> for THEIR software! It's much cheaper and more practical to use
> Linux for Embedded!
Windows Embedded does not cost $200. Embedded licensing is based on the
services you provide, but even at it's most expensive, Embedded NT costs $70
a unit, and as little as $20.
> We have a NEW toy on the market for $250!
> It's a LINUX PC with a 10 gig ultra hard drive!
You were just talking about $89 products, suddenly the toy is $250 even with
a free OS.
> Hooks up to your TV. Has a nic and USB with IR keyboard with
> built in mouse.
What are you talking about specifically here?
> These embedded Linux boy's are quick with their guns!
> I think the PC industry may be at an end now if there are more
> of these!
Just like game consoles have put the PC game industry out of business. NOT.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 27 Jan 2001 19:22:07 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The Microsoft EULA specifically prohibits publishing ANY performance
> data which shows Microsoft coming behind the competition.
Lie.
>
> Ever wonder why the ONLY published competitions which Microsoft wins are
ones
> where the MS system has significantly more memory and/or CPU bandwidth
and/or
> disk drives and/or disk bandwidth.
Lie.
>
> Hint: Because on identical equipmnet, Microsoft loses, and the EULA
> specifically prohibits publishing the results.
Lie.
Yer battin' 1.000 there ol'boy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
