Linux-Advocacy Digest #36, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Feb 01 15:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Sun vs. MS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Simon Palko")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Simon Palko")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Simon Palko")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Simon Palko")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun vs. MS
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:00:47 -0500
Patrick McAllister wrote:
>
> I just thought this was funny....I liked his responses to MS, although I
> personally can't vouch for their accuracy.....
>
> http://www.sun.com/dot-com/realitycheck/headsup010205.html
As someone with the necessary background (both theoritical and practical),
I find Sun's answer to be both factual AND highly amusing.
:-)
--
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: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:08:28 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> G3 wrote:
> >
> > in article 3a7f89df$0$26819$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Seebach at
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/6/01 12:21 AM:
> >
> > > Then you're forgetting one of the most common PC Unix problems; most
> > > Unix-like systems politely ignore incorrectly jumpered drives - say, a
> > > slave device on a channel with no master device.
> >
> > Actually now that you point that out I am very unhappy I hadn't thought
of
> > that. 0_0 I think, as I did switch the drives around in frustration,
that I
> > may have ended up accomplishing fixing that but I am positive thatıs how
the
> > cdrom was setup because I had just recently removed the second hard
drive
> > that was originally a slave to the one I was then installing linux on,
I'd
> > never moved the cdrom over.
> >
> > >> How exactly did you get the install-CD going if the CD-ROM wasn't
recognized?
> > >
> > > Uhm. The BIOS finds the CD, boots from the El Torito floppy image,
and then
> > > that image loads a kernel which doesn't probe the CD? This can't
happen
> > > to various users of various OS's more than a few thousand times a
week.
> >
> > > Linux may not be as bad as that guy thought it was, but you sure
aren't
> > > impressing anyone by "debunking" a story which is fairly common and
> > > well-understood.
> >
> > The install was treacherous, and for little benefit. Work already has
> > serveral linux servers I can telnet to, I have yet to find a good reason
to
> > waste on e of my own machines on it. I do mostly graphic intensive
stuff,
> > 90% mac based with Windows mostly around for compatibility testing.
> >
> > Still these linux idiots presume that just because all they do is write
perl
> > scripts all day to processes text files that no one else does anything
> > requiring REAL graphics capabilities, like multiple monitors, color
> > correction, video editing, image editing. Etc.
>
> That must be why EVERY automotibile manufacturer and supplier uses
> UNIX to do all of their VERY graphically-intensive 3D-CAD work...as
> well as illustration, etc...EVERYTHING to do with image production
> as well.
No we don't.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:13:15 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Josh McKee wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:58:16 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >in article 3a7f89df$0$26819$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Seebach
at
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/6/01 12:21 AM:
> > >
> > >> Then you're forgetting one of the most common PC Unix problems; most
> > >> Unix-like systems politely ignore incorrectly jumpered drives - say,
a
> > >> slave device on a channel with no master device.
> > >
> > >Actually now that you point that out I am very unhappy I hadn't thought
of
> > >that. 0_0 I think, as I did switch the drives around in frustration,
that I
> > >may have ended up accomplishing fixing that but I am positive thatıs
how the
> > >cdrom was setup because I had just recently removed the second hard
drive
> > >that was originally a slave to the one I was then installing linux on,
I'd
> > >never moved the cdrom over.
> >
> > In other words the problem was the result of something you did and not
> > a failing of Linux itself?
> >
> > >>> How exactly did you get the install-CD going if the CD-ROM wasn't
recognized?
> > >>
> > >> Uhm. The BIOS finds the CD, boots from the El Torito floppy image,
and then
> > >> that image loads a kernel which doesn't probe the CD? This can't
happen
> > >> to various users of various OS's more than a few thousand times a
week.
> > >
> > >> Linux may not be as bad as that guy thought it was, but you sure
aren't
> > >> impressing anyone by "debunking" a story which is fairly common and
> > >> well-understood.
> > >
> > >The install was treacherous, and for little benefit. Work already has
> > >serveral linux servers I can telnet to, I have yet to find a good
reason to
> > >waste on e of my own machines on it. I do mostly graphic intensive
stuff,
> > >90% mac based with Windows mostly around for compatibility testing.
> >
> > IMO, unix is not a general purpose OS. It is an excellent backend
> > server OS. And that's what we were discussing in the initial thread. I
> > don't recall Aaron ever claiming that unix was an excellent
> > workstation OS. It's a strawman that you created.
>
> Actually, it IS an excellant workstation OS...and in that respect, HP-UX
> and Solaris are primitive compared to what is available for a Linux
> workstation.
>
> Unix is the UNIVERSAL desktop at ***ALL*** automotive manufacturing design
> facilities...both at the automakers themselves, AND the *entire* supply
chain.
No it's not.
I've got an HP Visualize C240 sitting next to me, but I'm more the
exception. The CAE guys tend to have a couple SGI or HP stations, but they
ALL have a Windows desktop. That's the standard.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:34:39 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No..it's the utterly IDIOTIC concept of not merely allowing, but actually
> ENCOURAGING 3rd party apps to replace system DLL's willy-nilly.
>
> Any 3rd-year computer science or computer engineering student can
> tell you that this is a prescription for utter chaos and disaster.
*yawn*
And Aaron shows more of his utter ignorance of Windows. Win2k and WinME
specifically protect against just this.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:37:33 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jason Weingard wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 23:35:59 GMT, Wayne Fellows wrote:
> > > > >Easy: Michael Dell.
> > > >
> > > > Dell, while not a technical innovator was one of the pioneers of the
> > direct
> > > > sales approach, and took the fairly radical approach that he didn't
hand
> > Dells
> > > > over to retailers. Not a technical giant perhaps, but certainly a
shrewd
> > > > businessman.
> > >
> > > Unlike Gates, at least he's honest.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My Final Thought:
> >
> > You expect a businessman to be honest?
>
> YES....in fact, I ***DEMAND*** that anybody who does business with
> me do it in an honest fashion.
>
> Those who don't....suffer the consequences.
Those being... losing your business?
How droll.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:19:38 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET really is.
>
> I want *HIM* to explain it.
What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm not going
to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way too
comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:25:19 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET really is.
> >
> > I want *HIM* to explain it.
>
> What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm not going
> to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way too
> comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
Translation: Funkenbusch has absolutely NO fucking clue what .NET is
(of course, neither does anybody else, but that's another matter.)
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:42:13 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95rhf3$3cu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:95mgsg$hr5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux
> >> >
> >> > I don't hate Linux. I just don't agree that it's the best thing
since
> >> > sliced bread on the desktop, and I don't agree that it's the
crash-proof
> >> > masterpiece that most Linux zealots proclaim it to be.
> >>
> >> Stop putting words in peoples mouths - Linux users rightly
> >> claim that, as a Unix variant, Linux is more reliable than
> >> the microsoft family of products.
>
> > I don't have to put words in anyones mouths. Charlie Ebert and others
state
> > quite matter of factly that Linux NEVER crashes, and have said so
numerous
> > times.
>
> They havent actually, unless referring to their own experience with their
> own installs. Demonstrate that it is otherwise.
It appears that most of Charlie's more exuberant statements are not archived
on deja, probably due to him putting an X-Archive attribute in his message,
since he knew they would be used against him.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=715528378&fmt=text
"From practical EXPERIENCE I can safely say that Linux doesn't crash."
That's not even all, he claims that *NO OTHER OS* has higher uptimes than
Linux.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=705087775&fmt=text
"That and the fact it's totally free for download from the internet
and it has the most tremendous uptime of any OS on the market."
> >> There is no basis in fact for this statement - in fact, it's a lot
> >> more likely that it's optimized for xeon, or dec alpha.
>
> > Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386.
That
> > means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps
install
> > a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> > still be a generic one.
>
> Alright, thats it eric. I demand that you actually get some experience
from
> something other than books (thats right, real life) before you continue
this
> argument.
Note that you don't correct my supposed lack of experience. I know exactly
what i'm talking about.
> And besides that, even if it WERE true that the linux kernel was optimized
> for 386 chips (which is actually quite a meaningless statement if you know
> anything about the kernel or kernel architecture in general)
It's not a meaningless statement. There are numerous ways to optimize a
kernel for a particular processor.
1) Use compiler optimizations designed for that processor. These will
continue to work in most later processors, but you won't get many of the
speed improvements the processor is capable of.
2) Not using processor specific instructions to take advantage of speed
increases in later processors.
3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for each
processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others, you
increase the efficiency of the kernel.
> because theyre
> the lowest common demonimator; its a hell of alot better than optimizing
> the entire operating system for the lowest common demoninator of
intellect.
Hand waving. You'r not saying anything here.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:00:38 +0100
Nick Condon wrote:
>>
> >upgrade. Regardless, you can do an upgrade on a clean system, you just
> >need a prior version of windows' cd to show the installation program.
>
> Is that just Whistler, or the can the Win98 upgrade be made to do this
> too?
>
In my experience it's all of MS.
They can't even get THAT right (for them in this case).
If you've got an update version of office, it will ask for
the previous install (where to find it).
Well, tell it it's the cd-rom.
It will go there happily, find itself and thats it.
No more mucking around with old version media,
just give it itself. In my experience most of MS-installs
are that way.
--
Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
We are Borg. Resistance is futile (Borg Gates)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:43:53 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > None of which indicates if Funkenbusch knows what the fuck .NET really
is.
> > >
> > > I want *HIM* to explain it.
> >
> > What you want is irrelevant. I've said all i'm going to say. I'm not
going
> > to write a book just because *YOU* want me to. The subject is way too
> > comprehensive for a simple usenet post.
>
> Translation: Funkenbusch has absolutely NO fucking clue what .NET is
> (of course, neither does anybody else, but that's another matter.)
Translation: I'll demand something so outrageous that he won't answer, then
I can call him names and pretend that I am superior.
Grow up Aaron.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:28 GMT
Said Daza in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 6 Feb 2001 08:11:27 -0000;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> You don't seem to understand, Ayende: the phrase 'terminal services' has
>> no meaning in a Windows environment. Windows PCs aren't like Unix
>> hosts; they literally do not have, and cannot provide, terminal
>> services.
>
>Telnet anyone? Remote cmd.exe?
I didn't say it couldn't offer a CLI.
>> What Microsoft calls "terminal services" is a hack which allows a second
>> desktop UI across a TCP/IP connection. (TCP/IP being what it is, this
>> means it allows a third, a fourth, and a hundredth, should you find some
>> magical way to have sufficient resources and be silly enough to try it.)
>> Its 'partitioning' of the OS, as opposed to the time-sharing of Unix's
>> multiple shell access; a limited version of the Citrix/Winframe-style
>> system.
>
>It is not simple "partitioning". Citrix originally licensed the source code
>for NT3.51 so that they could specifically add a multi-user core to NT.
And what about that is not adequately explained by the description
"simple partitioning"?
>You
>know, time sharing between users.
What makes you think Citrix merits the description "time sharing"?
>Citrix also developed the clever ICA
>protocol and client that allowed remote GUI access to each user session,
>which required much less bandwidth than X.
Ooh, yea. Real clever. Kinda like PCAnywhere.
>Microsoft then bought the
>mult-user core from Citrix and created Nt Terminal Services.
No, that's not quite the way it happened. I'm not clear on all the
sordid details, but it had to do with Microsoft trying and failing
(miserably), but still having the market power to kill Citrix's market
if they didn't "play ball". They did, and Microsoft promptly stabbed
them in the back.
>An improved
>Terminal Services is included as standard in W2k. However, Citrix retained
>all rights to extend and market ICA based clients, whilst Microsoft
>developed their own protocol.
Guffaw.
>If you wanted to, you could set up W2k terminal service so that every remote
>user who logged in got their own cmd.exe shell running under their own user
>id.
And you think this would make it the equivalent of a host system?
C'mon, its *Windows*! Its barely good enough to run one desktop; you
think it improves when you try to run twenty?
>Or you could assign a full desktop, or maybe just a single GUI app. It
>is very configurable.
Not near as configurable as X. X has capabilities that have never even
been touched by mainstream systems. Not necessarily a good thing, of
course. As remote GUI mechanisms, for capabilities, I'd rate X an 8 and
WTS a 2 (Windows only). For stability, I'd rate X a 7 (out of 10) and
WTS, Citrix, et. al, maybe up to a 4. On a good day.
>I am sure that UNIX does multiple user terminal
>access much more efficiently as this is part of the original design of the
>core OS.
Which is to say it was never a brain-dead rip-off of a boot loader
pretending to be a toy operating system.
>> The only difference between this and PC Anywhere is that the 'Windows
>> terminal server' approach has a virtual session being transferred across
>> the network, instead of the "real" desktop.
>
>PCAnywhere takes control of whatever desktop is currently running. You
>cannot log in a start a separate session.
Like I said....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:30 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 6 Feb 2001
04:33:14 -0600;
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:63Pf6.560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Thanks but no thanks...Windows 2000 Professional is the end of the line for
>> me. Whistler is totally unnecessary and .NET will NEVER pollute one of my
>> machines. It's about as transparent a money vacuum as DIVX was. We will
>> neither utilize it nor develop for it - period. It is something to be
>> viewed with disdain, not anticipation. Only the severely short-sighted
>> would actually welcome such a system.
>
>Spoken just like someone without a clue about what .NET is.
>
>(HINT: The subscription based services are only a tiny part of it, and
>something that very few .NET programs will take advantage of. If this is
>the only argument you can come up with, you're going to be quite surprised).
Why do you presume that the problem is limited to the subscription based
services?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:32 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 06 Feb 2001
[...]
>As I understand it, .NET will be accessible to any OS, it's just that
>Windows tools will be the first down the pike. Of course, that
>common-language substrate will be lowest-common-denominator, and
>Microsoft will change it whenever they see fit, giving developers fits.
>It'll be as stable as OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM.....
What are you talking about? It *is* OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM...
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:34 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 6 Feb 2001
[...]
>The subscription based thing is there, much like Windows Terminal Services
>is there. You can use it, it works, but it's really only for a very small
>subset of the population.
Yea; whatever subset can't avoid getting ripped off by the illegal
predatory monopolist.
>The subscription services are for companies that regularly upgrade. The TCO
>is reduced because everyone is automatically updated at the same time,
>without the need (or very little need) of maintenance and license
>management.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha. Still think we're required to be as stupid and ignorant
as the people in the boardrooms, eh, Erik?
>This is really only for large companies. Small companies will continue to
>buy discrete versions of the products (non-subscription). MS simply can't
>get away with removing the non-subscription option. People simply won't
>upgrade if they're not interested in doing so.
Well, you're going to see an awful lot of that, obviously. Lots of
continued attempts by Microsoft to force the upgrades, as well, just
like before. But you'll notice they're working less and less these
days, particularly after the conviction. Come the breakup, its not
going to work at all, obviously.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:36 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:35:45
[...]
>> What for?
>
>If you have to ask, then you really have no clue about the .NET.
>
>You should really read up on it. All that stuff that Sun promised about
>Java, but never came through on? That's .NET, plus more.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA......HA-HA-HA....-HA-HA...-!!!!!!
What a sock puppet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 19:39:37 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 07 Feb 2001 04:25:08
[...]
>YEAH! Everything that bad old SUN company promised to do but
>never came thru on.
>
>Perhaps the $20 million Microsoft just agree'd to pay them for
>*STEALING JAVA* in the first place might have had something
>to do with that.
>
>You have a BOX OF ROCKS for a BRAIN CHAD!
>EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS AN IDEA, THEY WOULD FUCK IT UP!
>
>But don't worry gang. Sun will still whip their assholes!
>Easily.
>
>And so can Linux.
I really liked the full-page ad (part of a multi-page series; must have
cost a bundle) that Sun put in the Wall Street Journal this week. The
catch-phrase was "Code" (the graphic was a DNA helix and some
programming thing I don't recall) and the copy said "Its what's
separates humans from monkeys, fish from caterpillars, and us from
Microsoft."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
