Linux-Advocacy Digest #864, Volume #31 Wed, 31 Jan 01 07:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux headache (Glitch)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Nick Condon)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Bill knows what's best for you ("David Brown")
Re: Windows Stability ("Daza")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Nick Condon)
Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux! (Nick Condon)
Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: XFS 1.0 is getting close! (Nick Condon)
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Nick Condon)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: Adam Warner is a fucking idiot! (Shane Phelps)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Whistler predictions... (Peter Hayes)
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT (Peter Hayes)
Re: Whistler predictions... (Peter Hayes)
Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:33:32 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux headache
[snip]
> A classic example of this is RPM packages. How many times have you had a
> failure due to unresolved dependancies and how many times have you finally
> loaded it then have no idea how to actually run the bloody program ( let
> alone find out where its ended up being installed). I've yet to even find a
> program that asks you if you want an option on your tool bar or menu.
I hate RPM, for those very reasons. I use source tarballs whenever
possible.
> Then just to confuse issues you decide to install from source as there is no
> pre-compiled version available. Bad idea, all I ever seen to end up with is
> a load of obscure errors again.
I dont' have that problem too much but it still happens. As I don't
know which programs you are specifically talking about I can't give any
advice except to make sure your libraries are up to date, try not to use
an old distro, and make sure you read the README files carefully for the
particular program.
> A classic example occured today. I spent an hour trying to decompress Corel
> Paint from a CD-ROM and failing miserably until I realized it was because
> the file ended in .GZ instead of .gz . Now alright I know Linux is case
> sensitive but for God's sake does it need to be THAT case sensitive!
Case sensitive is case sensitive. You needed capital letters and u were
using lower case. Mistake.
[snip]
> Bye the way, has anyone who isn't a beardy geek (no insult intended)
> actually successfully re-compiled their kernel and got exactly the result
> they were looking for ???
yes, many times. I'm using kernel 2.4 on both this desktop and my laptop.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 31 Jan 2001 09:57:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron R. Kulkis) wrote:
>Johan Kullstam wrote:
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Nick Condon wrote:
>> > > Microsoft has a centrally planned, state granted, exclusive
>> > > monopoly. That's not very libertarian.
>> >
>> > No, it's not "state granted" If it was, they wouldn't have been
>> > CONVICTED of criminal conduct in Federal Court.
>>
>> sure it is. what do you think copyright is? copyright is a state
>> enforced monopoly. no state enforcement, no copyright -- look at
>> middle/far east.
>
>By that definition EVERYBODY is a monopolist, as you retain the
>copyright for whatever you create.
Copyright is a state-granted, state-enforced, exclusive monopoly just like
the monopoly on tea held by the East India Company that contributed to the
American Revolution.
The British government believed that granting monopolies was necessary to
encourage risky ventures (like setting up trading posts in India). Does
that remind you of anything?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:03:58 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That's because Windoz (even NT) doesn't handle high memory usage very
well.
> That's why I call the whole line of Windozzzzzzzz products (95, 98, ME,
NT, and
> 2K) "Disk Thrasher".
What do you mean, exactly, when you say high memory usage?
> Oh, don't forget to count the loaded DLL's against Word's total.
Just loaded Word (10, beta 2) and watch the memory figures.
The difference is 11MB (didn't bother to count dlls & word, just watched the
machine's RAM use)
One third of SO, on a Beta release, (0 problems so far, but I'm not a very
word user).
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.crash.crash.crash,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,microsoft.windows.crash.crash.crash
Subject: Re: Bill knows what's best for you
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:05:16 +0100
Try installing MS free Power Point viewer (I use that and the Word and Excel
viewers to avoid having to buy the full virus breeding ground package) -
this also requires a reboot. The Excel viewer is also an excellent example
of MS-style multi-tasking - apparently, viewing and Excel document requires
100% CPU utilisation!
Trebor wrote in message ...
>OK, you're right. I just re-installed the upgrade. The final screen does in
>fact read, "press finish to restart". I appologize.
>
>Though in my defense, I believe it works differently than older installs of
>other packages, which as I recall would use a pop up window to clearly
>indicate the computer will be restarted. For the WMP update, it doesn't
open
>a pop-up, it just buries the notification in the last of the install
>screens. Not quite as in-your-face a notification, but a notification
>nonetheless.
>
>I can't really rip MS too much on that issue.Their guilt is in not
>adequately idiot-proofing their install, a minor offense at worst.
>
>My second gripe still holds .. that a restart is required, even though MS
>touts that W2K rquires fewer restarts for installations. The WMP update is
>the ONLY MS-produced package I have updated, upgraded, or installed on this
>W2K machine, and it required a restart. They may have built in some
>enhancement, but it is unfortunate the wmp engineers weren't able to take
>advantage of it. So far, on my machine, MS's batting average for using this
>feature is not too impressive (0.000), though admitedly it is a small
sample
>size.
>
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:YNGd6.463$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Trebor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:YkEd6.29287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Install the Windows Media Player version 7.00.00.1958 update on Windows
>> 2000
>> > and, when the install is finished, your machine will be rebooted by the
>> > installer program .. WITHOUT giving you an option to reboot now or
>reboot
>> > later. Isn't that wonderful?
>>
>> This isn't true. When it gets to the last screen, it says it's finished,
>> and tells you specifically that clicking next will reboot the computer.
>All
>> you have to do is click cancel at this point to abort it.
>>
>> > I'm also thankful that W2K - at least, according to MS marketing info -
>> has
>> > new enhanced installation features that reduce the need to reboot a
>> computer
>> > after installing software. It is so nice to see that the WMP
'engineers'
>> > teamed up with the W2K 'engineers' to integrate all the latest MS has
to
>> > offer in their latest OS and media application ;-)
>>
>> This is slightly annoying.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Daza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:01:34 -0000
Reply-To: "Daza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93st4p$pg6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <91laut$1t0s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Sorry in advance, but I have only included a few snippets from your original
messages...
<snip>
> Don't, even Microsoft didn't. The fact is that Windows NT was NOT
> as reliable as UNIX or Linux, and Microsoft knew it. They did
> everything to prevent disclosures of formal studies, and focused
> intense attention to preventing the race conditions and lock-outs
> that plagued NT to make sure that Windows 2000 is more reliable.
</snip>
A few years ago I had talks with Microsoft about using NT4 for a mission
critical application, but we pulled out because they openly agreed that they
would not be able to offer the levels of reliability we required
(refreshingly honest!). However, with W2k, Microsoft truly believe they can
offer very high reliability.
<snip>
> Microsoft, Linux, and Solaris are able to create the illusion of a failure
> free system by using redundant clusters, distributed processing, message
> queuing, and serialized objects. This creates the illusion of higher
> reliability, but the reality is that systems are being rebooted "behind
the
> scenes". In corporate sites and web sites with hundreds of servers, it's
> pretty easy to get a good sense of availability.
</snip>
And that's perfectly acceptable, no? It's the availability of the
application that's important, not systems. Although, I would say *some*
clustered systems are a bit hard to manage.
<snip>
> Go to most of Microsoft's "Fast Facts" pages. Microsoft puts up
> dazzling headlines claiming that "They provide NASDAQ Quotes",
> which is supposed to mean that they are relaiable - right?
>
> Upon closer inspection, you discover that the real databases and trading
> records are still stored on UNIX systems, and that Microsoft only does SQL
> Server "Select Into" local SQL Server tables. The benefit to NASDAQ is
that
> the UNIX systems are insulated from the quote hungry peons. Furthermore,
> these are the delayed quotes, so a delay of a few minutes is tolarable
(you
> can let your back-up engines serve stale quotes.
</snip>
Those "Fast Facts" really bug me. MS software is not used for critical
components of the NASDAQ systems. In fact, many of the NASDAQ critical
systems run on Compaq Nonstop Himalaya servers not UNIX. Speaking from
personal experience, uptime for Nonstop Himalaya servers typically is
measured in years, not days (I am not kidding). Once clustered,
availability is even higher. I know of a Himalaya application that has run
with zero downtime for 18 years! (anyway I digress)...
<snip>
>
> > This would be good for all of those junior
> > admins out there to know, as well
> > as some of the senior admins.
>
> If you are looking for reliability, there are no Junior
> admins. Senior admins are very protective of the tools
> required to manage and maintain farms of Win2K clusters.
</snip>
Too true. Many outages can be attributed to human error. Even the most
reliable hardware/OS/application combination can be brought down by
incompetance.
Daza
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 31 Jan 2001 10:20:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Les Mikesell) wrote:
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> I read a Gartner quote about the recent conclusion of the
>> Sun-vs-Microsoft Java case. They said (something like) "Sun is upset
>> with Microsoft for making a better JVM than they do. The message from
>> Sun is: if want to do Java you have to do it on Unix".
>>
>> Wow, I thought. Has this "analyst" even heard of Java before today?
>> And then I spotted he was from Gartner. Still, kudos for putting a
>> pro- Microsoft spin on *that* story, I'd have thought it was
>> impossible.
>
>Yes, any unbiased source would have to conclude that Microsoft is so
>afraid of letting their captive users have a language that actually
>interoperates correctly across platforms that they were willing
>to pay $20 million and screw their customers out of any updates
>to keep it from happening.
I have a copy of "Just Java 1.0" written just after Microsoft got their
license, and the last article is titled "What will Microsoft do?". Peter
van der Linden writes that a multiplatform language strikes at the heart of
Microsoft's monopoly, and is just too big a threat for them to ignore. He
also points out that Microsoft have a habit of knifing their business
partners in the back, and concludes that they probably have a spoiler in
mind like trying to pollute it.
Exactly what happened.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux!
Date: 31 Jan 2001 10:25:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote in
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> This is shoddy, unprofessional workmanship; completely avoidable and
>> totally inexcusable.
>
>Strange that 37% of the fortune 1000 have an identical setup.
83.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot. (Vic Reeves)
>But regardless, that has nothing to do with the effort of finding the
>problem.
One measure of prevention is worth ten measures of cure.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft DEATH NECKLESS is COMPLETE!!!
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:49:40 +0200
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien once wrote:
> >
> >"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 04:02:20 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Posted from OE 5.6 using Whistler AD 2296, Uptime 17 hours 33
minutes
> >51
> >> > > seconds, 1 user @ console, 3 users via TS, 2 diconneted user
sessions.
> >> > > The low uptime is just because I'd to just install the system.
> >> > ^^^^^^
> >> >
> >> > Typo, should say, I'd just installed the system.
> >>
> >> As opposed to "just re-installed the system" as per the usual Microsoft
> >fix
> >> for anything that goes wrong???
> >>
> >> Only kidding...... or am I?
> >
> >No, I just got the CD, and installed it for the first (& only) time.
> >
> >
>
> Yeah.
>
> You know that for sure because its run for 17 hours.
3 days, 2 hours, 29 minutes, 40 seconds.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:53:49 +0200
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
> somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
Yes.
Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: XFS 1.0 is getting close!
Date: 31 Jan 2001 10:55:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:49:39 +1200, "Adam Warner"
>>By the way I have tried to email Microsoft about software bugs and never
>>received a reply by a developer. This is exciting territory. When you see
>>your own bug report actually fixed and signed off you'll realise how
>>responsive OSS can be to the user.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Adam
>
>Agreed.
>
>
>
>Flatfish
Hmm. Where's flatfish and what have done with him?
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:00:25 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> If MS wins the trial, no harm was done, if it loses, you could say the
> same, the OS-MS will keep developing Win2k line, App-MS will develop for
> .NET, which will happen to work best on Windows, if it will work on non-MS
> platforms. (App-MS can make the arguement that it just doesn't pay off to
> develop for *nix, because of the hate many in the *nix world feel for it,
> and the resentment many there feel when they have to pay for their
> software, will prevent the port from paying off).
>
No, not in my case.
I actually would pay for the office-suite, if it were available, provided
it had at least the (very shoddy) quality of the Win-version.
Then I had one reason less to run Vmware, which runs quite well on my
machine, but is (to date) the only program on my system which manages to
sometimes freeze X. No further harm done, appears also so seldom that is is
rare compared to win-crashes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: 31 Jan 2001 11:21:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
>Every time I've had X hang on me, that's it, I usually get stuck. I
>could try a telnet server, only last time I looked it refused to
>install.
Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly: you tried (and failed) to install a
telnet server on Linux?
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:28:35 -0000
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:53:49 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
>> somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
>
>Yes.
>Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
Linux had that.
What it lacked was the 'trick' of binding NICs to single
CPU's in sort of a primitive version of system partitioning.
Go beyond that and NT's SMP capabilities were nothing to
brag about. Linux was able to do considerable better in
practice, even with a poorly reentrant kernel.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adam Warner is a fucking idiot!
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:46:06 +1100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Salvador Peralta wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> >> And posting something from there is so unintelligent, it
> >> would be like you comming over to my house, pulling your
> >> pants down and shitting on the living room floor!
> >>
> >> An appology. Somebody should kick your fucking ass.
> >
> >I disagree. I was glad to know that the M$ spinsters are cranking up
> >their FUD in response to the challenge of linux. I would never go to
> >the site myself, so I am always thankful for links that deal with their
> >spin on linux.
> >
>
> You would *never* go to the site yourself...
>
> >The post was definitely on topic to this newsgroup. What's more, I
> >agree with Adam's opinion that the article was largely fantasy, devoid
> >of technical merit, and generally a piss-poor piece of advocacy.
> >
>
> Microsoft stuff always is.
>
> It enrages me that anybody would give anything put there merit.
>
That was his *point* Charlie!!!
The article is totally content-free spin (with a few threats thrown in)
It was posted for the amusement and edification of the linvocates.
Quite honestly, it struck me as a spoof of MS's approach to the world.
It may be that things got garbled in the translation
(like the apocryphal English -> Russian -> English translation of
"out of sight, out of mind" to "invisible idiot")
Chill out. Go sit back and have a couple of beers. It does wonders
for the attitude.
> >What remains to be seen is why you are so pissed at Adam for posting it.
> >
>
> I just explained that.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com is total bullshit.
>
> >I liked the article so much, I am using part of it in my .sig for the
> >moment.
> >
> >--
> >Salvador Peralta
> >
> >"Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
> >and is destined to fall by the wayside in time."
> >- microsoft.com
>
> Go ahead.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:48:07 GMT
Kenn Guilstorf wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I'm running an old P3 500 and I can get an MP3 to play, while
> I'm recording a CD, browsing the internet, downloading a file from an FTP
> server, and reading newsgroups (I was working to solve a programming
> problem I was having...damn caffeine-free pop). It didn't miss a beat --
> which surprised me, 'cause I think Win9x would have crapped all over itself.
I'll bet you have at least 128 Mb of RAM. 98 works better with large amounts
of RAM. By the way, I wish I could browse the internet and read newsgroups
at the same time, like you.
> I can't comment about this ability in Linux, though. Not because I haven't
> tried it, but because I can't get my sound card nor my DSL connection to
> work correctly in Linux (this is not, nor was it meant to be, a slam on
> Linux. Just because I can't do something doesn't mean it can't be
> done...just means I haven't finished writing the software for it... :)
It may not be Linux... check out this link and see if it will help you:
http://feenix.eyep.net/xstuff/linux_dsl.html
Have you tried "sndconfig" (w/RedHat)?
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:39:55 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:14:58 -0800, Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Nik Simpson quoth:
>
> > Yeah, but who is going to set it all for her? Her PC came with Windows &
> > Office installed on it and I was able to get everything else she needed
> > for Internet access setup and running in 10 minutes while I was home one
> > weekend,
>
> It would take the same person the same 10 minutes to do the exact same
> thing on a pre-installed linux system.
>
> > I couldn't do the same for LINUX and that is true for many people
> > whether you want to deal with it or not.
>
> FUD. You can get Mandrake, install all the packages that you want, many
> more, in fact than you can install on Windows, and be up and running in
> less than an hour if you handle the installation yourself. As the
> installer finds the hardware for you little or not configuration is
> necessary.
Mandrake's hardware detector is stunning in its efficiency. It works the
way Microsoft's so-called plug & play systen *should* have worked, but
doesn't.
> If you buy a pre-packaged system, it would take about 10 minutes to get
> connected and you wouldn't have to worry about Mom getting virii from email
> attachments.
Yes. KPPP is a whole lot easier and quicker to set up than DUN, and it
won't leave you with NETBEUI and/or IPX/SPX security holes enabled by
default because it only deals with PPP - it's just a wrapper for pppd
rather than an invitation for "hackers".
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:39:58 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:17:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> > THOLEN, just SHUT THE FUCK UP,
>
> Practice what you preach, foul mouth.
>
> > you SHIT-HEADED DONKEY RAPER.
>
> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
They're probably drinking buddies,
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler predictions...
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:39:56 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:03:17 GMT, "Christopher L. Estep"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:952j11$pml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > No, reducing retraining costs is what 9x is all about.
> >
> And, to an extent, it was the reason for why NT 4 was designed the way it
> was. The fact that NT 4 (and Windows 2000) use the Windows 9x UI was to
> ELIMINATE (to a large extent) OS retraining costs. Which they have, in
> spades. Case in point: Comcast Cable Communications is the third largest
> cable company in North America, and is practically a floor-to-ceiling
> NT/2000 shop. Almost the entirety of the user base normally uses Windows 9x
> away from the office. How much OS retraining has Comcast had to do? Answer:
> NONE. The Customer Account Executives have "roaming profiles" that can
> follow them all over the company, all over the country. When do they know
> that they are NOT running 9x? When an application crashes, and they need
> merely restart the offending application, rather than the whole OS. Two of
> the more crash-prone applications run against a rather persnickety Oracle
> database. When it crashes, the user merely restarts the app, rather than
> reboot the whole OS, as they would have to under 9x. My own NT desktop has
> rebooted a grand total of TWICE in three months (and one of those was due to
> an application upgrade).
You mean you *still* have to reboot when you upgrade an application? Just
the job for a "floor-to-ceiling NT/2000 shop" - change a printer driver on
a server and the whole place grinds to a halt.
Don't you think it's about time Microsoft rebuilt their OSs to eliminate
these endless reboots? But maybe that's not possible since it's built into
the philosophy of their OSs. Besides, the endless reboots disguise the
limited uptime.
Peter
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: THOLEN IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:59:34 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> Edward Rosten writes:
>>>>>>>>> It was origionally a tholen.vs.malloy thread.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect, given that I haven't responded to Malloy.
>>>>>>> Granted. It was a malloy vs tholen thread---he had responded to you.
>>>>>> Rather one-sided to be using "vs".
>>>>> Mabey, but he is still arguing with you (even though you don't
>>>>> respond).
>>>> Illogical, given that it takes two to argue.
>>> Read his posts. It looks like he's arguing,
>> With whom?
>>> in fact he is arguing,
>> With whom?
>>> but he's getting no response.
>> Not much of an argument, is it?
>>> He's certainly attempting to argue.
>> Do make up your mind.
>>>>> I think vs. is justified.
>>>> What you think is irrelevant; the fact is that it takes two to argue.
>>>>>>>>> It's moved on since, hence the new suggestion for the name.
>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that it was origionally [sic] a
>>>>>>>> "tholen.vs.malloy" thread.
>>>>>>> I have now restated a more accurate version.
>>>>>> Not accurate enough.
>>>>> I believe it is, but that's just an opinion.
>>>> What you believe is irrelevant; the fact is that it takes two to argue.
>>> See above.
>> I see an inconsistency above. First you said he is arguing, but then
>> you said he's attempting to argue.
>>>>>>> It has now moved on from that.
>>>>>> Actually, the situation hasn't changed. I'm still ignoring Malloy
>>>>>> like I was at the beginning of the thread, and Malloy is still posting
>>>>>> his ridiculous responses like he was at the beginning of the thread.
>>>>>> He hasn't moved on.
>>>>> That part of the situation has changed, but Marty has since joined in,
>>>>> which means that some parts of the situation have changed.
>>>> Not the parts relevant to you calling it "malloy vs tholen".
>>> How about
>>>
>>> malloy vs (tholen)
>>>
>>> to indicate the subject, but also to indicate that you are not taking
>>> part.
>> How about "malloy vs ", to indicate that nobody else is taking part.
>> Why specify me?
> You're such a victim in all this.
You're the one spewing the invective, Kulkis.
>>> But, I don't think usenat likes (s in names.
>> What you think is irrelevant.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
