Linux-Advocacy Digest #838, Volume #31 Tue, 30 Jan 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: KDE Hell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Whistler predictions... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler predictions... ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Progeny Debian... ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Whistler predictions... (Ed Allen)
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux!
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:13:46 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Tech support did *NOT* start getting calls immediately. DNS caches
> take a
> > > > great deal of time to expire, usually 24 hours or more.
> > >
> > > That is only for someone who had loaded the record just before the
> > > link was broken. A site that hadn't accessed it for a while would
> > > fail immediately. If people weren't calling, it was only because
> > > they knew from experience that it wouldn't help... Note that the
> > > problem was well known on slashdot and similar sites in the morning,
> > > but it wasn't fixed until evening. And all it takes is a traceroute to
> > > diagnose a problem like that, and a few minutes to correct the router
> > > config.
>
> > I don't think anyone at MS noticed until /. posted the story. I'll admit
> > it takes up to 24 hours for the whole world to not be able to find MS
> > and during that time you could still ping many of the sites with the
> > dotted quad. That was what I was told to do when I tried to access a
> > site served by MS. I called in a report, was told to try to ping. I
> > pinged, got back a response (330 ms delay, 60% dropped) and was told,
> > "See we're up, its your Domain Name resoulution."
>
> Of course it was DNS, but it wasn't yours, and it shouldn't have been
> up to you to prove it. Slashdot had the story in the morning. How
> long did it take them to figure out how they had misspelled traceroute
> and try it?
You're assuming that MCSE's know how to work a command line.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:20:02 GMT
In article <955o62$i5g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Allen wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Will the GPL stop Microsoft from packaging a Linux distro, adding their own
>>bits and flogging it to the masses under the banner of Microsoft Linux?
>>
> No but then Linux from other vendors would be just as acceptable as
> the Microsoft one.
>
Microsoft would not be able to copyright Linux for their own,
further, they couldn't include as many shitty proprietary features.
> Any benchmark claims or TCO claims will be compared directly to
> RedHat, SuSE, and TurboLinux. Even the Microsoft advertising
> dollars would not be able to keep all the comparisons hidden.
>
> How do they recoup the money they sunk into NT5 (Win2000) when their
> own version of software designed and written elsewhere demonstrates
> several times the reliability on the same hardware ?
>
For now, Whistler is *THEIR* idea.
> No MSLinux would allow competition wherever they marketed it. They
> do not want competition.
>
I think they will port Microsoft OFFICE over to Linux as soon as
they realize Windows is a dead breed.
> Bill Gates has said that he can only see making money if he has what
> he calls a "singularity." Single anythings do not allow for
> comparison.
>
Yip.
>>With the Microsoft "seal of approval" the OEMs will fall over themselves to
>>offer this "New Microsoft OS" preload to the public who in turn will rush
>>out lemming like to buy it, thereby reviving the flagging PC market.
>>
> The contracts Microsoft has with "Windows only" hardware might be
> harder to renew.
>
All that *WIN* hardware. What a waste. What crap.
> Hardware makers would see themselves limited to Windows while the
> system vendor would have a larger market.
>
We can already see signs that hardware manufacturers refuse to
be TIED to Windows completely. It makes little sense to bottle
yourself up in a Windows only market with all those other OS's
out there including Linux.
>>And the only stuff M$ have to GPL is what they've lifted from other
>>distros, they don't have to GPL anything they wrote themselves (like SuSE's
>>Yast, or Id's games).
>>
> Nothing wrong with this but they must begin with a clean slate and
> then develop something better than SuSE without the years of polish
> that the other vendors have on their installs.
>
> Remember how many years it took ISVs to develop apps which were
> better than the bundled ones written by Microsoft programmers who
> had two years experience writing Windows software before they did.
>
> Gates is a strong believer in the concept of being first with
> software because followers need to have much better quality and
> features to dislodge the earlier system.
>
And here we go.
> Microsoft would be conceding that first adopter spot to others.
>
Yet Microsoft has been first in nothing.
They weren't the first one's with an OS for a computer.
They weren't the first one's with a gui?
They weren't the first one's with 32 bit code.
They weren't the first one's with Java.
They weren't the first one's with a multitasking system -
and I say that loosely as they still don't have
multitasking, they have multi-jerking.
This singularity concept is one for truely stupid people.
It's the notion sheep and other brain dead crustations
follow every time the moon comes up over the eastern seaboard.
The walk of the zombies!
You'd truely have to have lived in a moon crater face down
for the last 35 years to have not seen this.
>>So you have Microsoft Linux for the SOHO user, Whistler for the Enterprise,
>>and Microsoft Office for Linux plus Microsoft Wine as the bridge between
>>the two.
>>
> What price would you expect MSLinux to sell for ?
>
Whistler is expected to fetch $550 per full install.
So they will charge $350 for a MS Linux distribution.
Why $350 you ask? Because this is the exact ratio he's
done with 95 and NT, ME and W2k, so on so forth.
> If, as you seem to imply, it would be around $189 what happens to ME ?
>
> Microsoft would still have the problem of having a Microsoft blessed
> solution which costs one fourth as much but has all the features of
> Enterprise and better reliability.
>
> Competition is the last thing a monopoly wants.
>
>--
>FYI. When you do type "make" on the Windows NT source tree, it takes almost
>38 hours for it to complete on a 4-way 400 Mhz PII System, as opposed to
>about 5 minutes on Linux. Linux is not Doomed!!!!!! -- Jeff Merkey
>http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/1999/1999week26/0787.html
They will port Office when they are certain Windows is dead.
But it will take them 5 years to accomplish this as Office has
so many secret API's nobody knows about, it will be 5 years
before they can untangle the mess or build up their own WINE
to emulate the MESS.
Next thing you know, Linux sucks in everybody's mind.
Well! Why did we do this blue screening Linux thing.
This Linux thing sucks...
This wasn't worth the money now was it...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:44:55 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:59:24 -0800, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:08:24 GMT,
> > T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> >>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 27 Jan 2001
> >>>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:30:10 GMT,
> >>> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>> brought forth the following words...:
> >>>
> >>>>>I wouldn't call capital hill an "upward" one for a Republican. Ashcroft is
> >>>>>going to be the next Attourney General. Oh well. I suppose he couldn't
> >>>>>possibly be worse than Janet was, I mean, come on. WACO. They wanted to
> >>>>>crusify Reno after THAT one, and she was a Democrat!
> >>>>
> >>>>I would MUCH rather have a militant Attorney General who fire-bombs
> >>>>fundamentalist extremists who think they're God and are stockpiling
> >>>>weapons than one who believes that the US is a Christian Nation and will
> >>>>be a puppet for the Pope and the New Right*. The threat to liberty is
> >>>>becoming rather frightening. America may be entering a very dark time.
> >>>
> >>>The BD's were not stockpiling weapons, they had fewer arms per person than the
> >>>average Texas home (2 I think.)
> >>
> >>Counting the children, no doubt. When someone has a crate of assault
>
> Children are quite capable of using firearms as well. My own
> weapons/hunting training started at ~ 8 years. That includes
> family hunting trips as well as Scouting.
>
> >>weapons, grenades, and maybe the odd rocket launcher, they're
> >>'stockpiling', as far as I am concerned, no matter what the per capita
> >>weapon count happens to be.
> >
> >Except that there were no grenades, no rocket launchers, and the only "assault
> >weapons" were the ones the feds brought to town.
>
> From what I've seen of the aftermath pictures, there were primarily
> AR-15's/M-16s. This is a rifile often paraded out by the media to
> impress the ignorant. It looks frightening but it's essentially a
> scary looking deer rifle with a magazine.
>
> Even the military version of this weapon is semi-automatic and
> intended to be used as a lowend sniping weapon being fired a
> round at a time, thoughtfully.
>
> It's not a Tommy Gun.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>>* It is VITALLY important to recognize that Reno did *NOT* firebomb the
> >>>>Davidians, but Ashcroft (and Bush, and the entire Republican party, in
> >>>>fact) *are* politically influenced heavily by the Christian Coalition.
> >>>
> >>>Reno (via the various fed three letter agencies at the time) fired incendiary
> >>>rounds into a wooden structure, used CS gas with a flammable propellant,
> >>>refused to allow fireengines access to the church, and in general, lied and
> >>>missrepresented the situation from day one.
> >>
> >>Yea, right.
>
> Actually, Dateline did a report on this right after the incident.
> The showed a close up of the cannister and you could read the
> flammability warning clear as day. Of course the report itself did
> not bring this up.
>
> A couple years prior to the Branch Davidian incident, Israel was
> getting reamed by the US press for doing the exact same sort of
> thing to Palestinian civilians. Apparently, this sort of practice
> is against some sort of civilized warfare covention.
The Geneva Convention prohibits the use of chemical warfare against
foreign personnel (both troops and indigenous civilians)...in contrast,
there is NO prohibition against anything against your own citizens.
>
> >
> >Truth is truth, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not is irrelevent. The
> >feds lied about a drug lab (they later admitted it was a lie) about child abuse
> >(which is not even in the federal jurisdiction in the first place.) and about
> >the actions they took. There wasn't a single day of the siege that went by,
> >without the feds lieing about something.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
> interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
> Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
> refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
> |||
> / | \
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:41:20 +1200
Thanks for the support David and Jim,
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:50:25 GMT
In article <M7ud6.53248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher L. Estep wrote:
>
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:94vf20$v8i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <_9Dc6.4711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >But simply doesn't do what most people want to do with a PC. Go on
>kidding
>> >yourself about the suitability of LINUX for the consumer market, but
>> >regardless of your delusions it simply isn't there yet. If and when it is
>> >there as a viable alternative for people like my Mother then Microsoft
>may
>> >have to take a look at its pricing, but right now Microsoft has no viable
>> >competition in the consumer space and hence no incentive to reduce
>pricing,
>> >that's the way the market works. Perhaps if you spent less time bitching
>> >about MS and more time turning LINUX into a viable alternative for the
>> >consumer desktop then MS might have to cut its prices.
>> >
>> >
>> Having "choked off the air supply" of potential competitors is why
>> they were convicted of monopolization.
>
>In what way? In what way has MS choked off Linux? Linux (most distros) is
>freely (and/or rather easily) available and has been for years. What's
>more, it is cheaper than consumer Windows 9x, let alone Windows 2000 or NT
>(the only versions that compete with Linux on the stability front). Yet 9x,
>even retail, sells far more copies than Linux (and is pirated FAR more than
>even the smallest for-profit distro of Linux). Why? It's simple:
>APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS (quite a few of which are NOT
>manufactured by Microsoft).
>
>
How do you *PIRATE* Linux?
Further, you must have not used Linux much or you would
have seen that there is little - if anything - you can
do with Windows today that you can't do with Linux....
>
>
>>
>> When your mother and her friends are faced with the choice of paying
>> $25 for preinstalled Linux or $150 for preinstalled Windows then
>> Microsoft will either lose most of the new computer users or lower
>> prices.
>
>Try letting a newbie configure either of the last two versions of XFree86.
>Or install ANY version of Linux with the 2.2x kernel and then upgrade to
>2.4. It will hose faster than a Pentium running Windows 2000 on 32 MB of
>RAM. Hate to REMIND you, but Linux ALREADY costs less than Windows does
>today (and has for years). Yet Windows flies off of store shelves.
>
>
Considering 2.4 was released Jan 4th of this year, I'm sure
if your patient a distribution will be out in a month or so.
As far as configuring XFree86 goes, it's exactly the same
for 3.3 series as it is for 4.0. Install the RPM or .DEB,
run XF86Setup, then enjoy. There is nothing to it.
It takes all of 1 minute to do.
>
>
>
>>
>> You think they will figure your mother is not worth their bother ?
>>
>> What choice will you make on your next new computer ?
>
>Linux has a LONG way to go to impress ME (let alone my mother, who uses
>AOHell), and I DO run Linux (in a triple, soon to be quad-boot
>configuration). Windows 2000 is the EASIEST Windows to configure for
>broadband (particularly @Home), flat-out EMBARRASSING WinME (let alone 98 SE
>or 95, for that matter). I run ONE Microsoft application: Office 2000
>Premium. The rest of my usual application suspects come from other
>companies large to small, from America Online (Netscape) to Qualcomm
>(Eudora) to Opera Software A.S. (Opera 5) to Executive Software (Diskeeper).
>Linux, however, is a problematical kludge (I need the 2.4 kernel's AGP
>support to get my ATI Radeon-powered AIW to run; I also need XFree86 4.0.2.
>Getting both installed in the same distribution is nothing short of a
>NIGHTMARE in Linux; and most newbies don't want to be BOTHERED! They just
>want to "install and run".).
>
I don't really think anybody cares if your impressed with Linux.
The question isn't whether *YOU* like Linux or not.
The question is whether you can *AFFORD* to run Windows in the
future. When Whistler get's out the price will be $550 a copy.
Now, I'm sure you'll shell that out. But a great many people
won't and that includes a great many corporate people also.
They will think twice before they shell out $550 per machine
when they have 650 machines to upgrade or WORSE buy replacement
machines for as Whistler won't run well on this years machine.
>The ONLY operating systems that are relatively easy to configure, support my
>hardware either out of the box, or via easily-obtainable drivers, are from a
>single company based in Redmond, Washington.
>
>Their name is Microsoft.
>
Configuring an OS is something you should only have to do one time.
Since Windows trashes out hard drives frequently at most house
holds, I think it's a good deal it's easy to reconfigure. But it's
still a rebooting bitch to install.
Tell us all, why can't Redmond produce an install which requires
one reboot or NONE, like Linux? Further, why do they still have
that stinking old control panel for configuration. Why don't
they have a web java applet like WEBMIN for their OS setup like
Linux does? Nicely tab'ed and with ton's of help files. And
no rebooting involved in changing network settings either.
>Until Linux can approach the ease of use (and sheer weight of support) that
>even Windows 2000 enjoys today, it WILL NOT come close to eclipsing Windows
>on ANY desktop (corporate or otherwise).
>
>Christopher L. Estep
>
It already has and infact it has surpassed it fool.
Instead of using that box of Linux you bought for a book
end, you might actually try installing it on the machine
your using currently and learning something about it.
Windows sucks dog dicks. Those are the facts.
It's Monopoly crapware for the idiotic.
And it's obsolete.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:34:04 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94vf20$v8i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <_9Dc6.4711$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >But simply doesn't do what most people want to do with a PC. Go on
kidding
> >yourself about the suitability of LINUX for the consumer market, but
> >regardless of your delusions it simply isn't there yet. If and when it is
> >there as a viable alternative for people like my Mother then Microsoft
may
> >have to take a look at its pricing, but right now Microsoft has no viable
> >competition in the consumer space and hence no incentive to reduce
pricing,
> >that's the way the market works. Perhaps if you spent less time bitching
> >about MS and more time turning LINUX into a viable alternative for the
> >consumer desktop then MS might have to cut its prices.
> >
> >
> Having "choked off the air supply" of potential competitors is why
> they were convicted of monopolization.
In what way? In what way has MS choked off Linux? Linux (most distros) is
freely (and/or rather easily) available and has been for years. What's
more, it is cheaper than consumer Windows 9x, let alone Windows 2000 or NT
(the only versions that compete with Linux on the stability front). Yet 9x,
even retail, sells far more copies than Linux (and is pirated FAR more than
even the smallest for-profit distro of Linux). Why? It's simple:
APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS (quite a few of which are NOT
manufactured by Microsoft).
>
> When your mother and her friends are faced with the choice of paying
> $25 for preinstalled Linux or $150 for preinstalled Windows then
> Microsoft will either lose most of the new computer users or lower
> prices.
Try letting a newbie configure either of the last two versions of XFree86.
Or install ANY version of Linux with the 2.2x kernel and then upgrade to
2.4. It will hose faster than a Pentium running Windows 2000 on 32 MB of
RAM. Hate to REMIND you, but Linux ALREADY costs less than Windows does
today (and has for years). Yet Windows flies off of store shelves.
>
> You think they will figure your mother is not worth their bother ?
>
> What choice will you make on your next new computer ?
Linux has a LONG way to go to impress ME (let alone my mother, who uses
AOHell), and I DO run Linux (in a triple, soon to be quad-boot
configuration). Windows 2000 is the EASIEST Windows to configure for
broadband (particularly @Home), flat-out EMBARRASSING WinME (let alone 98 SE
or 95, for that matter). I run ONE Microsoft application: Office 2000
Premium. The rest of my usual application suspects come from other
companies large to small, from America Online (Netscape) to Qualcomm
(Eudora) to Opera Software A.S. (Opera 5) to Executive Software (Diskeeper).
Linux, however, is a problematical kludge (I need the 2.4 kernel's AGP
support to get my ATI Radeon-powered AIW to run; I also need XFree86 4.0.2.
Getting both installed in the same distribution is nothing short of a
NIGHTMARE in Linux; and most newbies don't want to be BOTHERED! They just
want to "install and run".).
The ONLY operating systems that are relatively easy to configure, support my
hardware either out of the box, or via easily-obtainable drivers, are from a
single company based in Redmond, Washington.
Their name is Microsoft.
Until Linux can approach the ease of use (and sheer weight of support) that
even Windows 2000 enjoys today, it WILL NOT come close to eclipsing Windows
on ANY desktop (corporate or otherwise).
Christopher L. Estep
>
> --
> FYI. When you do type "make" on the Windows NT source tree, it takes
almost
> 38 hours for it to complete on a 4-way 400 Mhz PII System, as opposed to
> about 5 minutes on Linux. Linux is not Doomed!!!!!! -- Jeff Merkey
> http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/1999/1999week26/0787.html
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Progeny Debian...
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:51:32 GMT
"John Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >It's going to be Debian, with logical enhancements!
>
> Well, the beta2 images were released on the 18th if that is what you are
> referring to (I am a member of the test group). As for Debian with
> "logical enhancements" Storm was one of the (if not the) best commercial
> distros I have ever used. It's too bad about Stormix. They came into a
> saturated market and never got enough of a foothold. Sometimes timing is
> more important than quality I suppose... Hopefully Progeny will fill
> their shoes and meet a kinder fate.
Well, Corel hit, ah, and then Stormix tried. Stormix is so outdated and
there are stability incompatibilities with offical Debian packages (which
are also somewhat outdated, unless the 'unstable' sources are used...)
Being on the beta team, where are all the "administration" tools, all I saw
was a GUI interface for dpkg and the debian task-based package system. Are
they also "coming soon"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:00:09 GMT
In article <HFhd6.5317$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> Ignore this IBM link:
>> http://www-4.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/
>
>This deals with LINUX support options for small business, my mother hardly
>qualifies and is certainly not going to pay for somebody to do this.
>
>>
>> I could list other smaller companies but I don't have time or
>> inclination to become your shopping robot.
>>
My point was to refute your "nobody sells Linux preinstalled"
FUD.
The others I mentioned but declined to locate for you target home
users as well as businesses.
>> The contracts which prevent hardware makers, which I expect you will
>> deny existing, will be swept away as part of the remedies when the
>> monopoly is dismantled.
>
>Of course Dear, don't worry, the big bad Microsoft monster will be tamed.
>The reason companies don't support a particular hardware device on a
>particular OS are far more related to market size than anything else. If MS
>had such a lock on the hardware vendors how come they couldn't persuade them
>to support NT 4.0 better?
>
NT development systems cost several times what their desktop
equivalents do and that cost would need to recouped on far fewer
sales.
Many small vendors probably opted to keep one more hardware engineer
rather than buy a system which would never generate enough sales to
pay for itself.
How does not being unable to force vendors to act irrationally
invalidate their "Windows Only" contracts ?
Changing the subject does not overturn the antitrust conviction
either.
--
FYI. When you do type "make" on the Windows NT source tree, it takes almost
38 hours for it to complete on a 4-way 400 Mhz PII System, as opposed to
about 5 minutes on Linux. Linux is not Doomed!!!!!! -- Jeff Merkey
http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/1999/1999week26/0787.html
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:02:02 +1200
Hi Erik,
> Those aren't Cray supercomputers. They're clusters of above average, but
> basically normal systems.
> ...
Well they are basically normal Alpha computers clustered together to achieve
teraflops of computing power (and in comparison Windows 2000 doesn't even
run on one of these "basically normal systems"). The point is that Cray will
be selling and supporting Linux SuperClusters (Cray's term) :
"We will combine Cray's innovative production-oriented architecture, proven
UNICOS serverized operating environment and advanced system software with
Linux, the latest Alpha server technology from API NetWorks, and the highly
scalable Myrinet cluster-interconnect network from Myricom."
And:
"Cray SuperCluster that will deliver tens of teraflops of sustained
computing power,''
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
