Linux-Advocacy Digest #45, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Feb 01 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The Wintrolls (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is a fad? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Bob Hauck)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More Mandrake Fun :( ("Goober")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Wintrolls (Bob Hauck)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Aaron R Kulkis ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 02:43:48 GMT
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:13:39 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Perhaps you should look before you speak. MS's primary DNS servers run on
>Win2k. Theri backup DNS servers are hosted by Akamai who run Linux.
There is no priority order with DNS. Primary and secondary are equal as
far as the outside world is concerned. The primary and secondary
servers end up handling about equal shares of the load.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 02:43:43 GMT
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 21:14:28 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:59:44 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I can see using USB mice, this would free up IRQ 12 for a SCSI adapter or
>> >something.
>>
>> Since PCI allows for shared interrupts, this really shouldn't be much of
>> an issue any more.
> Obviously you haven't seen a SCSI adapter crap out when the mouse
> moves, or you haven't heard garbled sound, from the sound card, when
> the mouse moves due to lost interrupts.
I have never seen a problem with SCSI and mice. The only time I've had
IRQ troubles on PCI involved a Realtek ethernet card and a SCSI card. I
am not counting problems arising because if ISA-PCI conflicts of course.
Have had plenty of those.
>The PC platform just plain sucks. It is best not to share interrupts on very
>high interrupt rate, or real time sensitive peripherals.
Admittedly, there are sometimes troubles with IRQ sharing, even on PCI.
Mostly, this seems to be due to hardware or software that isn't quite up
to spec, rather than a deficiency in PCI itself. With PCI, the PC
platform has a chance to not suck so much, but the "make it as cheap as
possible" mentality tends to mess that up.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 02:43:47 GMT
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:43:06 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> However, microsoft doesn't dare use a single box like
>> ftp.cdrom.com or ftp.freesoftware.com, each of which
>> use a single BSD box.
>ftp.microsoft.com runs on one server as well.
And now that they've moved to http for the vast majority of downloads,
it is a lonely server too.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 02:46:58 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 01:00:23
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:19:38 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 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.
>> >
>>
>> In other words: he can't explain it either. There is no 'there'
>> there.
>
>He has discussed it intelligently on several occasions.
Well, he's discussed it. And as much as its hard to accuse Aaron or
Charlie of being icons of intellectualism, they've shown much more
intelligence in understanding .NET (hint: its a marketing ploy and a
'cool idea' hook, not a technology) than Erik has.
>He refuses to tell you guys because your ignorant AND arrogant at the same
>time.
No, he refuses to "tell us" because he cannot. Microsoft themselves
cannot explain what .NET is. They can say a lot of things about it, but
just what the hell "it" is is simply not possible given their
requirements. The first requirement, and the killer, is to avoid using
the phrase 'an attempt to extend the illegal monopoly'; since that's
about all .NET is, they're screwed coming out of the gate.
>Demanding someone to teach you something doesn't get you very far
>in life. There are thousands of web pages and articles dedicated to .NET,
>even the most basic search would turn up tons of information.
Indeed. So with all that information, you figure you'd sock puppets
have a more succinct and specific idea of what it is, wouldn't you? I
guess we can presume Microsoft's sock-puppet briefings have been as
vague on the idea as those thousands of web pages are.
--
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 02:47:27 GMT
Said Steve Mading in alt.destroy.microsoft on 7 Feb 2001 21:51:15 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: 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.
>
>[snip]
>Which issue of WSJ was this? I might be interested in finding
>a copy of that ad.
I think it was either Monday or Tuesday.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Goober" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mandrake Fun :(
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 18:37:54 -0000
Hmm, I installed mandrake almost by mistake while using its DRAK installer
to change a PC from NT to 98. It seems 98 cannot recognise an NTFS disk and
Fdisk cannot either, it kept saying 'This is a non DOS partition - Cannot
remove extended Partition, No extended partion cannot remove primary
Partition, Logical drives defined in extended partition - Cannot remove' etc
etc.
I used the DRAK to repair it, then thought- 'Why am I using windows on this
machine if even the mandrake installer is needed to format the disks?',
installed the whole thing and it looks good.
Configuring linux is still a complete mess tho. Must it be so complicated
and require so many Kernal recompiles to get anything working? Is there a
distribution that does not require you to re-compile to get it to recognise
hardware?
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:08:46 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "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).
> > >
> > > OK, Erik The-laughably-named...why don't you tell us *precisely* what
> > > .NET is.....
> >
> > That topic could fill volumes. Essentially, it's a set of services
backed
> > by a run-time compiled intermediate language similar to SmallTalk (not
the
> > syntax, but the way it works). Those services include a GUI framework
> > (WinForms), Web services (ASP.NET), etc...
> >
> > Note that there is a difference between "software as a service" and
> > "software as a subscription based service".
> >
> > Here's a FAQ for you to read
> >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/techart/faq111700
> > .htm
>
> That's what I got:
>
> "The page you're looking for has been moved or removed from the site."
>
> This, I believe is the best possible explanation of .NET, with "hands
> on" experience. Thank you.
Maybe putting the '.htm' on the end of the URL, would help.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:13:58 GMT
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:jdng6.784$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95s91o$2n6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >>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.
> > >>i
> >
> > Indeed. Its everything that sun promised, minus the cross platform
> > capabilities.
Again, yttrx exposes his glaring ignorance. Yet another reason why I have
him blocked.
He doesn't seem to realize that the CLR is or can be cross platform.
In fact, Corel announced they're developing the CLR for Linux.
> > Its a stupid idea, bad implementation, and utterly useless.
Just shows you what you know. Do you even know what it is? Of course not.
> > Just like everything else microsoft has done for the past 10 years.
>
> Component Object Model - FUD Edition.
>
> I'm awash with giddy anticipation...
So far, no one has yet to match the features, performance, and ease
of development of COM. CORBA is a sorry excuse for anything, EJB is
horribly bloated and has yet to really be proven anywhere.
Meanywhile, COM, the one you mock, is has the fastest transaction
processor around (www.tpc.org).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 7 Feb 2001 21:44:42 -0600
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Here's a FAQ for you to read
> >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/techart/faq111700
> > .htm
>
> That's what I got:
>
> "The page you're looking for has been moved or removed from the site."
>
> This, I believe is the best possible explanation of .NET, with "hands
> on" experience. Thank you.
Perhaps if you actually noticed that the link wrapped before posting, you
wouldn't make a fool of yourself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Reply-To: bobh -> haucks org
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:43:40 GMT
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:12:31 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Linux didn't enable DMA mode for the hard drives by default.
>> Quite right. I especially love the feature that's in FreeBSD 4.2 where
>> the highest level of DMA is automatically probed at boot time. But,
>> this can also be bad, since there have been drives/controllers that
>> don't work very well with their advertised level of DMA, and in fact
>> causes crashes.
>It's much easier for the few people having trouble to drop down than to
>force everyone to enable it.
This laptop doesn't like DMA at all. It seems to work, until you
suspend and resume. After a while, all of a sudden you can't start any
programs. You are forced to reboot, at which time you find out that the
whole filesystem is trashed.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 7 Feb 2001 21:51:37 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 1. Binary portability precludes use of platform specific features. Yet
> MS is claiming that a deficiency of Java is the lack of platform
> specific features. How is .NET going to support platform specific
> features and yet be platform neutral?
One way is with managed/unmanaed code. In VC++ 7, you can mix managed and
unmanaged code, delegating the unmanaged code to platform specific or
computationally intensive tasks. This means porting only the parts that are
native for a new platform.
> 2. By controlling the specification of .NET, MS puts itself in a
> position to squeeze out competing platforms that it doesn't like.
> Again, this is exactly what MS claims about Java, that by controlling
> the standard Sun is using it as a weapon against MS. That MS has got
> ECMA to rubber-stamp their spec means little, and I think you know it.
> What's really different here?
If it means so little, why did Sun refuse to let ECMA "rubber stamp" Java?
> 3. Given #1 and #2 above, why should anybody who isn't already an MS
> slave support .NET? All the FUD that MS has put out about Java applies
> equally to .NET even if you leave out all the licensing nonsense.
Not even close. MS is putting an orders of magnitude more effort, money,
and skill into .NET than Sun ever did for Java in the entire 5 years of it's
history.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:55:24 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95sg5o$158s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : I didn't say it wouldn't. The failure of WORA was not Java's failure,
but
> : rather Sun's refusal to relinquish control enough to allow
standardization
> : and to implement what needed to be implemented and their constant
promising
> : of things they couldn't deliver in a timely fasion.
>
> So let me see if I understand your "logic" here: You think write-once-run-
> anywhere would have worked better if Sun had let Microsoft make its
> proprietary Windows-only extensions?
No, I said nothing about the viability of WORA. I simply said that Java has
failed (no, it's not dead, but it's failed to take over the market it tried
to) because of Sun, not because of WORA. WORA isn't as big of an issue as
one might think. Yeah, it's annoying to have to work around bugs in
different VM's, but it's not the end of the world.
------------------------------
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 21:58:14 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95slo2$d6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Tshg6.6910$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "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.
>
> What is so outrageous about asking what .NET is thay you wont answer?
I did answer. The answer wasn't good enough for Aaron, and he refuses to
acknowledge it. He wants a book rather than a paragraph and I'm not going
to do that. I've already written a paragraph description.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
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: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:53:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
>Well, MS jumped upon Java, made is as crappy as they only can do, and
>what's the result?
>Any reason why .NET should be better? From a company which is forced to
>outsource to a Linux company its DNS's because they're not able to set
>them up them properly? Please, try to be serious!
Thank You! This is exactly my point!
They HAD a working model from Sun.
All they had to do was copy it like they copied Windows
from the MAC.
It took them years to get started and when they finished they developed
a mess which cratered under it's own weight!
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:01:31 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
>
> #ifdef i386
> 386-variant code
> #else
> #ifdef i486
> 486-variant code
> #else
> #ifdef i586
> Pentium-varian code
> #else
> #ifdef i686
> Pentium-II variant code
> #else
> #ifdef i786
> Pentium-III variant code
> #endif i786
> #endif i686
> #endif i586
> #endif i486
> #endif i386
Moron, do you understand that these are *COMPILE* time definitions, not
run-time ones? Follow the thread, this started because I commented that the
kernel of most distro's is optimized for a 386 and requires you to recompile
or find a more optimized one in an RPM somewhere.
> > 3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
>
> That's an idiotic Microsoft trick.
>
> YOu can't guarantee exactly WHAT is in the cache in a multi-processing
> system, you fool.
Who cares what's IN the cache? The comment was about the architecture of
the cache.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:04:08 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> So how is that in any way different from the Linux kernel?
Here's how you configure and compile a FreeBSD kernel:
cd to /sys/i386/conf, copy GENERIC to whatever name you choose. Edit the
new file and comment out or add options that are fully documented in the
LINT file, cd to /usr/src and type make buildkernel.
Configuring your linux kernel is MUCH more involved.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:57:17 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > Here's a FAQ for you to read
> > >
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?URL=/library/techart/faq111700
> > > .htm
> >
> > That's what I got:
> >
> > "The page you're looking for has been moved or removed from the site."
> >
> > This, I believe is the best possible explanation of .NET, with "hands
> > on" experience. Thank you.
>
> Perhaps if you actually noticed that the link wrapped before posting, you
> wouldn't make a fool of yourself.
You jerk. I tried that page, got a message about needing to enable scripting,
changed the settings as recommended, tried again, and got this message with
the MSDN Online logo and Microsoft logo:
The page you're looking for has been moved or removed from the site.
If you're looking for a particular document, please try one of the following areas:
The Search page
The MSDN Online home page
The MSDN Online site map
The MSDN Online Library
The MSDN Online Web Workshop
Please note: The links in the blue toolbar above will lead you to a variety of
areas on the MSDN
Online site.
© 2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of use.
Think a little bit first, fool.
Chris
--
This Windows OS is ghak! I need dual Pentium
processors to do battle with this code!!!
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R Kulkis
Date: 8 Feb 2001 03:57:39 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Funkenbusch knows the M$ world as well as anyone can without ever
:>having been outside of it. But he is absolutely clueless, as far as I
:>can tell, about anything else.
:>
:>
:>Joe
: Well, he obviously doesn't know what .net is.
No one does. That's a big part of the problem.
Joe
------------------------------
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: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:59:10 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 02:16:29
[...]
>Its the kind of behavior you'd expect from a company that slaps new names on
>existing technologies, cripples them either out of commercial considerations
>or shear ineptitude, makes grandiose statements about their potential
>impact, releases them, then spends the rest of the product's lifespan either
>denying the faults or fixing those that can't be ignored. If a product is
>too badly broken, it is simply renamed and the cycle starts anew.
I dare say you have them pegged, Tom.
--
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
******************************
