Linux-Advocacy Digest #948, Volume #31 Sat, 3 Feb 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: questions (windows & Mac)....? ("cool cool")
Re: Uptime crap on Windows 2000? Nope....LINsUX lies ("Adam Warner")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The 130MByte text file (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Craig Kelley)
Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 04:44:47 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 06:26:19 +0200,
> > > Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > brought forth the following words...:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Here is another one in IE.
> > > >> > Sometimes you want to build granular security for sites.
> > > >> > For example, I want to let microsoft.com to use javascript
because
> > the
> > > >site
> > > >> > is much harder to work with otherwise and I trust that they
wouldn't
> > > >abuse
> > > >> > javascript too much[1].
> > > >>
> > > >> I've seen the most consistent collection of Javascript errors from
> > > >> Microsoft sites.
> > > >
> > > >But you won't see alert messages in endless loop, you won't see new
> > window
> > > >bomb, etc.
> > > >That was my point.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Konqueror lets you set cookies, java and javascript policy on a site
by
> > site
> > > basis.
> >
> > So does IE, and it did it long before Konqueror, what is your point?
>
> His point was that there are Linux browsers with the above-mentioned
> feature of IE.
>
> Actually, I like IE better than Netscape (even ignoring Netscape's bugs,
> and of course ignoring that both of them have co-opted the HTML spec
> for their own use, and encourage bandwidth-clogging features in
> Web sites). But not enough to stop using Linux to access the
> Internet.
>
> The way I figger it, Linux will help keep Magogsoft slightly more
> honest.
I do hope so.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 04:53:53 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Nor could they make either OS truly multi-user. One would hope that,
if
> > > these were competitive products, they might take advantage of the fact
> > > that a microcomputer does not necessarily benefit from the multi-user
> > > methods of Unix-style OSes, instead of constantly failing to even
> > > recognize the distinction, let alone take advantage of it.
> >
> > Explain this statement, why do you think that NT isn't a multi user OS?
>
> How many people can log into an NT Server machine and control it
> using the GUI interface?
>
> Just asking.
Currently, I've one remote session, one console session, and one TS
connection from the console to this computer (I'm doing some admin work, and
don't feel like logging off, adn runas works only half the time in
Whistler).
The top that this computer has been through was 6 sessions + console, it's a
PIII 500 + 384MB, it didn't seem to cause major slowdown to any of the
connections.
I can't really answer this question, but I've heard numbers that range from
20 to 50 or more.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 05:01:40 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >> >
> > > The fact that the GUI is extraordinarily slow to respond when the
> > > computer is being intensively used again raises the question of just
how
> > > bad Windows multitasking is.
> >
> > I'd four instances of this, (CPU 100%) and didn't feel any slow down in
the
> > GUI.
>
> Man, on my NT box at work, Word 2000 repaginates, and the CPU hits 100%,
> and no Word window (they all are separate, giving the illusion that
> they are separate instances of Word) will respond.
>
> The rest of the GUI does respond, though with noticeable sloth.
>
> It is kind of interesting to note the different ways in which Linux
> and NT handle the interaction of processes.
I can't really tell you what is wrong, aside from that you might want to
check some of Word's registry's setting, there are several things there that
you may want to tweak.
On my computer, I've just truned prime.exe on, and opened word, loaded a
document, and opened a new instance of word.
It was noticeably slower, but not overly so. (Most noticable when browsing
for a file via COD & opening the document.
But then, I use Whistler advance server & Office 10, so it isn't really
comparable.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 05:04:16 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95igta$avc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Nor could they make either OS truly multi-user. One would hope
that,
> if
> > > > these were competitive products, they might take advantage of the
fact
> > > > that a microcomputer does not necessarily benefit from the
multi-user
> > > > methods of Unix-style OSes, instead of constantly failing to even
> > > > recognize the distinction, let alone take advantage of it.
> > >
> > > Explain this statement, why do you think that NT isn't a multi user
OS?
> >
> > How many people can log into an NT Server machine and control it
> > using the GUI interface?
> >
> > Just asking.
>
> Currently, I've one remote session, one console session, and one TS
> connection from the console to this computer (I'm doing some admin work,
and
> don't feel like logging off, adn runas works only half the time in
> Whistler).
> The top that this computer has been through was 6 sessions + console, it's
a
> PIII 500 + 384MB, it didn't seem to cause major slowdown to any of the
> connections.
> I can't really answer this question, but I've heard numbers that range
from
> 20 to 50 or more.
Correction, just saw a post saying that quad xeon + 1GB RAM can handle 200
users.
------------------------------
From: "cool cool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: questions (windows & Mac)....?
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:10:43 -0800
so this is real????
Oxford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mailbox-AAA16E.07275802022001@[151.164.30.58]...
> In article <95cqc5$p3j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "cool cool"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ******important***********
> > oh, I've seen this from a science magazine that they have on one page,
> > perha
> > ps it's just a commercial or an article of something else, not sure,
have
> > th
> > is Mac OS but what's bizarre (sorry if I've misspelled) about it is
that,
> > everything on the screen is like bubbles, except the menu bar on top
> > how amazing is that when, like say, pull down a menu from the menu bar,
> > the
> > drop-down menu goes like a waterdrop.
> > and the "windows" (or how should I properly call it?) are like bubbles
on
> > th
> > e screen.
> > like, can you imagine how fantasic this thing could look like?
> > is this really true? like is this what they're releasing (the new
> > MacOS?)
> > I would run to to store to buy a Mac in the first day of its release if
> > it's
> > true.
> > but since that page didn't say anything about anything.
> > so I would hope that anyone could answer.......?
>
> Yes, it is cool!
>
> And the newest builds of OSX even allow the icons to be realtime!
>
> WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/theater/genie.html
>
> OSX is shapping up to be a massive event for the personal comptuer.
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/
>
> Oxford
>
> -
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptime crap on Windows 2000? Nope....LINsUX lies
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:30:43 GMT
Hi "--==<( Jeepster )>==--",
http://www2.marketwatch.com/
Wow that's an impressive web site. Now how doing an analysis on the actual
web site:
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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, 04 Feb 2001 00:24:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:37:33 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Kenn Guilstorf wrote:
>>
>> <<More of Aaron's MS bashing and Chad's Linux bashing respectfully deleted>>
>>
>> The reason that more security holes, viruses and etc. are found is because
>> most true hackers are going to target themselves at the largest audience.
>> The largest audience, in this case, is Microsoft Software. Take, for
>> example, the Macintosh platform. In a recently published article, it was
>> claimed that about 40 viruses were made for the Mac platform compared to the
>> thousands of viruses and variants that exist for the Windows platform.
>> Based on this fact, you would inherently come to the incorrect conclusion
>> that the Macintosh is a much more stable, secure platform than the Windows
>> environment. The fact is, the Macintosh -- as of yet -- has not come into
>> heavy prominence and is not as wide-spread as the Windows platform.
>> Therefore, most hackers aren't going to target the Macintosh because there
>> 'claim to fame' won't be as large. The same can be said of the Linux
>> platform (and other Unix platforms). Until they gain the same wide
>> acceptance as the Windows platform, there just won't be as many viruses,
>> hacks, security holes, etc. found/created for them.
>
>None of which explains the large number of viruses which could have
>been written ONLY with knowledge gained by looking at MS source code.
>
>Quite obviously, M$ has been getting hacked and having their source
>code stolen for YEARS.
You may be underestimating the ingenuity of the hackers,
the capabilities of disassembling tools, and/or the vulnerability
of M$ tools and DLLs. :-)
After all, the x86 platform has been out for more than a decade:
plenty of time to do analysis of the opcodes. One might even
be able to do a reconstruction of various Microsoft efforts,
based solely on an analysis of the opcodes, if one has VC++ and can
deduce what it does with, say, a switch() statement
or a for or while loop. It may not be a perfect reconstruction,
but it may not have to be. One might even throw neural networks
at the problem, as it appears to be something related to
pattern recognition.
Hell, I should be working on this sort of thing. Long ago, even
before my college daze, I wrote a "template matcher" that took a
transistor description of a chip (generated by a vendor program we
had at the time) and a series of known cells (I worked for a gatearray
foundry at the time), and reduced the transistors, so far as it was
able, to the known cells. These cells included such things as NAND
gates, NOR gates, inverters, flip flops, and switches -- the technology
back then was metal-gate CMOS, maybe a thousand gates at most per chip.
In principle, code tracing would be more complicated, but doable.
(Time? What time? I don't have time!)
I've also done some preliminary research on how to infect a VMS system.
(That was a long time back, too.) Conclusion: it is doable, but
would do some nasty things to the executable. (This was V3.x era,
of course -- V5.2 is the current version, as I understand it, and the
.EXE file probably changed format.)
(VMS? What VMS? I don't have VMS!) :-)
(Side note: my tool has since been retired/replaced by better schematic vs.
layout comparison tools. I don't know where the source code (it was C-based)
is, anymore -- and it was pretty ugly to begin with; one function
had over 1,000 lines in it alone. Not one of my better efforts. :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- anyone else remember Whitesmith's? :-)
EAC code #191 1d:11h:14m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:40:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:12:19 +0200
<95e4s4$id5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95e2ua$251$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:95bv3o$3ga$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Chad Myers wrote in message
>> <0Wde6.602$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> >No, quotas have been around for NT for years.
>> >> >Save the lies.
>> >>
>> >> I am curious about the disk quotas on NT - we have NT 4.0 Server at the
>> >> office, and I can find no mention of disk quotas anywhere in the help
>> files,
>> >> or in any of the administrative tools. In fact, the only mention I
>find
>> of
>> >> the word "quota" is that in order to use the SU program (a utility to
>let
>> >> you change to another user in a command box - it is very limited, but
>> >> nonetheless essential for administrating NT - why you have to buy it as
>> part
>> >> of the NT Resource kit is beyond me), a user has to have the "Increase
>> >> Quotas" account priviledge.
>> >
>> >There are very good 3rd party implementations of Quotas. He never said
>that
>> >they had to be built into the OS, he just said NT 4.0 doesn't have
>quotas,
>> >which is a lie. Win2K has them built in, that's the only difference.
>> >
>>
>>
>> So quota management is one of these few extra utilities that Linux has but
>> you have to buy third-party for NT? Or go for W2K, which is gradually
>> catching up with the unix world in regards to these minor, extra utilites.
>>
>> I am disappointed - I may have used quotas if they were available on NT 4
>> (hidden functionality is not available - saying NT doesn't have quotas is
>> factually wrong but effectively true).
>
> Get used to it.
>To count only unused features of NTFS alone:
>Hard links
Oh wow! Like Unix has had this for what, more than 2 decades now?
(Anyone know how long Unix has had the 'ln' command?)
Such technological sophistication; the Microsoft Engineers have
really outdone themselves this time. I'm impressed. Not.
Any word on when soft links will be implemented in the filesystem?
(Never mind that *.lnk crap in Internet Explorer.)
Even the Amiga OS had soft links at one point, as part of
its filesystem -- and that was back in the late 80's!
>Rephrase points
I have no idea what this is. Is this similar to the Mac's HFS
resource fork, or what?
>Streams
Wow! This is something Linux actually doesn't have.
(Not that it would be that hard to put in; it's just that
this is a System 5ism, and Linux is coming more from the BSD side
of the philosophical aisle, if that makes much sense at all, as
Linux doesn't have any BSD code, either, AFAIK, in its kernel.)
>
>Three *very* useful features, rendered useless because there are either no
>API to manipulate them (in the case of streams) or no userland level tools
>to use them. (Not that it's that hard to create one, it's the principle that
>matter.)
Erm, dumb question. How does NTFS implement something for an OS
that doesn't have manipulation tools (API) for it?
I could see ext2 implementing an entry for, say, /dev/audio
(major device #14), on systems which don't have a sound card -- but
that's because everyone knows the major device number.
One could also remove the 'ln' command and 'symlink()' and 'readlink()'
from the kernel (that would take a bit of doing), and ext2 would still
support soft links.
Color me slightly confused.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:09h:37m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 00:47:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 1 Feb 2001 20:28:56 GMT
<95cgu8$a6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mig wrote:
>
>>> To edit a 130 MB file?? Never heard of a text file that size that needs
>>> the work of an editor or any other file that size that could/should be
>>> edited that way. If the file is binary then forget it...or does ti work in
>>> Word after you edited and saved it again? If its binary then use the
>>> software that produced the file - no problem on any platform.
>>> If its plain text... and 130 MB???? I would like to see that one.. but a
>>> solution is to split the file in chunks that could be handled by your
>>> favorite editor.
>
>> It's actually my registry repeated 13 times. Someone claimed PFE would barf
>> long before 100MBytes. I decided to find out if it would. Imagine my
>> surprise when it worked fine, then similar GUI tools on Linux had problems.
>
>You realize of course that your registry is a BINARY FILE, not an ASCII FILE,
>you damnable moron.
I would think that he used REGEDT32.EXE to export the registry into
a flat ASCII file. I've done that in the past; it's easy enough.
Slightly amusing aside, but be careful: exporting the registry to a
BLAH.REG file then double-clicking on it is a, um, good way of
reloading the registry -- or trashing it. And there's *no* confirmation
dialog whatsoever.
Microsoft sure has some funny notions at times.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random funny notions here
EAC code #191 1d:12h:53m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:45:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 02:17:38 GMT
<6TJe6.3506$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95ehmi$pgs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
>> A> I don't want a user-level program to be able to do this. It has to be
>> Admin level access at the very least.
>> B> AFAIK, there isn't NT defrag APIs, at least not on NT4, which is why they
>> licensed some one else code for the 2K defrager.
>
>Executive Software (makers of DiskKeeper) requested MS put cluster mapping
>and remapping APIs in the kernel to aid in defragmenting the disk.
>
>http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/info/defrag.shtml
>
>FSCTL_GET_VOLUME_BITMAP
>FSCTL_GET_RETRIEVAL_POINTERS
>FSCTL_MOVE_FILE
>FSCTL_READ_MFT_RECORD
>
>These were added as part of the NtFsControlFile native function.
Proof once again that Microsoft listens to its customers, but
is completely clueless as to how to fix the problem properly. :-)
Has someone hacked together a DLL which could allow NT to read
and write and boot from an ext2 volume? I know of one that can
be run from Win95 for readonly access, and the code for writing
files on an ext2 volume is readily available (download any Linux
kernel :-) ).
I'm curious as to how well this will work. Bear in mind that there
may be some DACL problems, but hey, NT can run on a FAT volume,
so they can't be horrid..... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:10h:50m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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, 04 Feb 2001 00:32:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:44:43 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Champ Clark III wrote:
>>
>> In article <95bh0f$t75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien 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 has had smp support since version 1.1.31.
>> >
>> >And it was *bad*.
>> >
>> >> That was ~1995.
>> >
>> >NT had it since 3.1 (from the start, that is).
>>
>> You still dodged something here. That was quota's that
>> got this little thing going. I'll bet that quota'ing is in more
>> use then say, hrmm.. Mulit-CPU's? Hell, Novell has quota's!
>> VMS has had quotas for years! I can't even think of a *nix that
>> doesn't have a quota'ing system for it...... What took so long?
>
>Microsoft--relearning mid-20th centuryt technology...in the 21st.
Not only that, but making it "usable" for the masses by slapping
on silly icons, pulldown menus that slowly vanish beautifully
and/or animate from the pointer as the user selects a scascade item,
windows with scrollbars, gadgets, rollover labels that change
color as the mouse rolls over them (wow, psycho, man), and built-in
richly-formatted help text files that tell one the bit that he
knew already ("yes, I KNOW that's a toggle button with a label,
you moronic program!").
Except that the RTF files are not standard HTML, TeX, or PDF,
the vanishing pulldown menus and rollovers are useless gewgawery
(although a well-designed pulldown can help in documenting),
and the silly icons are just silly -- what *does* that floppy
mean in Word, for example? How does one deduce that it means
"save to disk"? How stupid is that??
I'm still holding out for soft links. Has Microsoft scheduled them yet?
[.signsip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random stupidity here
EAC code #191 1d:11h:34m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: 03 Feb 2001 20:37:38 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 03 Feb 2001 08:44:21 -0700
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> >
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <95aeu4$h7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >> >Is anybody here going to Linuxworld? Anybody have any idea if the MS
> >> >execs are going to try to pull any sort of this FUD nonsense over there?
> >> >
> >> >http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2680345,00.html
> >>
> >> "While we are threatened by the Linux business model, where companies give
> >> away free software, we are not at all worried about that operating system
> >> from a technological standpoint," Miller told eWEEK before heading off to
> >> the conference. "There are no earth-shattering technological innovations in
> >> Linux -- actually, there's a lot less than can be found in the Windows and
> >> Unix platforms."
> >>
> >> Interesting.
> >
> >Laughable.
>
> Indeed. I'm not at all sure what he's talking about regarding
> technological superiority. What *is* he getting at?
It's kind of hard to have that discussion since he doesn't actually
get into specifics. I suppose we could ask what the recent
"innovations" are that have gone into Windows 2000 and not Linux.
I can't think of any off the top of my head, other than mass-market
monopoly lock on 3rd-party hardware and software (which isn't a
"technological innovation").
I'd love to know what he's talking about. Considering his other
comments recently, it's probably just written in his job contract that
he has to spew random ziggy-ish comments about Linux while at the same
time endearing the Geek-audience and Commercial-vendor-audience to his
cause. Did you notice the concillatory comments towards the big-iron
UNIX guys? Microsoft has been trashing them for years, and now we are
supposed to believe that they are forming some sort of feudal
coallition to counteract the inferior, innovationless free software
movement?
I don't think so.
Microsoft is scared, and these are the symptoms. They *shouldn't* be
scared because they have the "Right To Innovate", don't they?
Microsoft is the most innovative company in the world, and that's how
they took the desktop, right? If all that is true, then Linux
shouldn't present a threat at all.
And yet it seems that we do; which calls into suspect the claims we've
been hearing about their top-quality software.
[snippage]
I hope the X-Box gets here and gives them an out before they do
something more drastic than hire a PR guy to FUD open source.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is Going Down" says Microsoft
Date: 03 Feb 2001 20:40:09 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Shumway, Gordon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:24:04 -0600
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Adam Warner wrote:
> >>
> >> "MS Exec: Linux is Going Down"
> >>
> >> http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41527,00.html
> >> Adam
> >
> >Quotes from article:
> >
> >--------------
> >There really isn't much value in free," said Miller, who also contends
> >that the latest release of the Linux kernel, 2.4, doesn't have the
> >features required for widespread business use.
> >-------------
>
> Which would be....what?
>
> Miller has a strange notion here; the only feature that might be
> missing is a journaling file system -- and the kernel can easily
> be patched therefor. (I don't run 2.4 so can't say if reiserfs
> got in there or not, but if an IT group really wants it, they
> can get it.)
It's in 2.4.1
I wonder if Chad will finally shut up.
[snippage]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
