Linux-Advocacy Digest #61, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Feb 01 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (mlw)
Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Wintrolls (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Wintrolls (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Wintrolls (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Edward Rosten")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
Re: Linux Uptime (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust... (mlw)
Re: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison (The Ghost In The
Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:14:35 +0000
And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
And what do I find on my printer...
Several sheets of ASCII!!!
Such a simple thing, print a picture.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:19:13 GMT
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:58:36 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 2/7/01 7:22 PM:
>
>>> Um if windows 95,98,and 2k all find hardware that red hat and derivatives
>>> don't it is the OS fault if I have to reconfigure perfectly working hardware
>>> configs to get linux to see them.
>>
>> Doesn't matter. If the current configuration of the device prevents an
>> OS from recognizing it, and the device would be recognized if it were
>> configured differently, then all it says is that the device is
>> incorrectly configured for the OS that doesn't recognize it. It
>> doesn't matter if other OS's recognize it or not. The device is still
>> incorrectly configured for that OS. Thus it is not the fault of the
>> OS.
>>
>> Josh
>
>Bringing this back to the consumer, who should have to touch hardware what
>it in fact says is:
>"Windows 2000 works. Redhat 6 doesn't."
If something is incorrectly configured, then that isn't the problem of
the OS. If the OS requires something to be configured in a certain
way, and it is not, then it is the misconfiguration that is the
problem. It doesn't matter if that incorrect configuration works with
another OS.
Josh
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:22:16 +0000
In article <5JFg6.2266$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
>
> I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
>
> And what do I find on my printer...
>
> Several sheets of ASCII!!!
>
> Such a simple thing, print a picture.
>
Don't be such a bloody twit. If you use the wrong driver unser windoze,
you get pages of ASCII as well.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[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: 8 Feb 2001 23:22:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:95u0gf$4kq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : Well, since C# and the CLR are now ECMA standards, this is a possibilty.
:>
:> I find no evidence of this on ECMA's Web site.
:>
:> Have these products even been *submitted* to ECMA yet?
: I made a mistake in my post, it's the CLI, not CLR, but Yes.
: http://www.ecma.ch/ecma1/memento/tc39.htm
: This is the only current public page that refers to C#, however they had
: some comments on their news page about 3 months ago stating that they had
: been submitted and that work had begun.
C# and the CLI have been *submitted,* not completed and approved.
They therefore aren't standards yet. They presumably will be, but it
remains to be seen whether what M$ builds looks anything remotely like
the standard, or whether the standard will be sufficiently complete
and well-documented to allow interoperable non-M$ implementations.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 00:14:31 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > There are only 3 positions to take on a proposition
>>
>> On a 1st order logical proposition, you mean. What you say next is not
>> so.
>>
>> > 1) Belief that the proposition is true.
>> > 2) "I don't know"
>> > 3) Belief that the proposition is not true.
>>
>> Uh, you can believe that you don't know, or you can believe that you
>> believe that you believe that if you knew, then you would know, and so
>> on.
> Which is consistent with Aaron's statement of the three options.
No it isn't. "Believing that if you believed it then you would know it"
is not covered by any of the above (to randomly mix up some operators
and serve them to you).
> Were you trying to argue that there's only room for a certain
> number of theorems?
No. To be exact, I was pointing out that the free algebra of terms
involving belief and knowledge and propositional symbols has
considerably more schemas than three within it. If you want to
cut down the number you have to propose some semantics.
By the looks of it, Bp \/ ~Kp \/ B~p is one of his axioms,
but I don't see that forcing a whole lot of things on its own,
so there are a whole pile of non-equal terms still hanging around.
Convince me that "Believing that if you believed it then you would
know it" has one of the three values suggested for a start!
>> One can claim anything at all.
> That's not quite true. You cannot claim what you cannot express.
I just did :-). (but to be exact, I meant that I can claim anything that I
can express).
>> That you "believe" something to be false ("believes not") is
>> not the same thing as not believing it to be true ("not believes").
> Aaron claimed the same thing, so why are you beating the same dead
> horse?
Aaron? Which quote was Aaron's? If you mean that set of three
proposed truth values, it isn't the same at all.
Look .. my statement above is that ~Bp is not always the same as B~p.
I.e. either ~Bp and B~p or Bp and ~B~p can hold sometimes. His
statement is that either Bp or B~p or ~Kp always holds. I think he also
meant that those are exclusive (though they aren't) I.e. that Bp and
~B~p at the same time are impossible. By swapping p for ~p, you see
that he also thinks that B~p and ~Bp at the same time is impossible. So
he thinks that what I think can sometimes hold, never can hold.
> --
> Best wishes!
Peter
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:38:14 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
>
> I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
>
> And what do I find on my printer...
>
> Several sheets of ASCII!!!
>
> Such a simple thing, print a picture.
Such a simple thing to setup the correct printer.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows?
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:37:15 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donn Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Mading wrote:
>
>> Try/Catch exception handling doesn't exist, and so that's an area where
>> gotos still have a very valid place in C.
>
> I thought that was usually implemented as setjmp/longjmp in C.
Setjmp/longjmp pairs are needed if you need to jump out of one or more
functions. Otherwise, gotos are fine.,
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 08 Feb 2001 16:39:08 -0700
chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
> >cd /usr/src/linux
> >make menuconfig
> > --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
> >make bzImage
> >---- End ----
>
> Too bad that doesn't work.
Yes it does. Would you care to elaborate?
> >MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
>
> Yes.
Uh-huh...
--
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: The Wintrolls
Date: 08 Feb 2001 16:41:14 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "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.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > ---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
> > cd /usr/src/linux
> > make menuconfig
> > --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
> > make bzImage
> > ---- End ----
> >
> > MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
>
> I doubt this process gives you even a fraction of the configurability of the
> FreeBSD model. FreeBSD also offers menu driven options for a generic
> kernel.
Your anti-Linux soul is shining through here.
You can doubt all you want, but I know for a *fact* that you're
wrong. FreeBSD is great, but claiming that building a kernel for it
is easier than Linux is simply inane.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:43:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:06:48 GMT
<95un7e$40a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>
>Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
And remember, folks, this means that everyone should be using
Win2k.
(Spot The Flaw.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- hint: there's more than one distribution
EAC code #191 3d:19h:15m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 08 Feb 2001 16:43:40 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> > >
> > > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video
> card
> > > problem.
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> > So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
> > earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
>
> Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
> their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
rpm --target=i686 --rebuild XFree86-4.0.2-1.src.rpm
rpm -Uvh /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i686/*
> > > > All rpm packages contain tarballs, so that's nonsense.
> > >
> > > No, all RPM packages do not contain tarballs. Where do you get this
> form?
> > > SRPM's include source, not RPM's.
> >
> > Yes, of course I meant all SRPMS, good catch.
>
> SRPMS are not that common.
Name one open-source RPM package that doesn't have an SRPM available
for download.
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:44:43 +0000
>> Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The 2.4
>> kernel.
If 2.4 wasn't in the works at the time, 2.2 would have supported it, but
everyone was working on 2.4.
>>
> 2.4 kernel has lots more than Itanium support.
>
>> > Well, it did take Mad Dog about 6 months to get the first Alpha
>> > running. Linux doesn't need x86 support for existing binaries. Just
>> > rebuild the application for the target. Sell the new binaries to your
>> > existing customers who finally get decent computers.
>>
>> So where are those Itanium versions of Netscape 4.x?
>>
> Netscape version 6 runs on Itanium *and* 133 mhz pentiums under Linux.
LOL! Have you ever used NS6 (or Mozzie 0.7) on a P133. I gave up, and
still use 4.75. NS6 is far too slow.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 00:25:09 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>> You seem to be unaware of the logic of modalities like belief, proof,
>> necessity, obligation, and so on.
> I for one am well aware of the existence, intent, and defects of modal
> logics.
> They are unnecessary. It suffices to introduce modal terms as regular
> items
> of nonmodal mathematics, for example as elements or functions (as
> convenient)
> in set theory.
Eh? Are you talking about nonstandard models? I.e where one
views truth values as functions, and modal operators as functionals?
Probably.
Yes one can model nonstandard logics within classical set theory, just
as one can model classical set theory within topoi or category
theory. That's good to know. It shows there's nothing wrong with
either.
>> Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
> On that we agree.
> The fact remains that atheists believe in the nonexistence of God.
I'm not sure. I presume I'm either atheist or agnostic but I don't know
which. I don't think anyone can describe god in any way that I can be
clear enough about to formulate an opinion on. Yes, I am sure there is
no old man with a snowy beard looking after the universe, but
presumably nobody would describe that as God nowadays. And every
definition that I might propose (and could believe to be impossible)
would be dismissed by a believer.
Yes, I have argued with the bendictines ... and very very wise
and scholarly are they.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 00:28:24 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please give me one example of a subject that I deny a statement,
> but don't have any belief associated with it.
I deny that believing implies knowing.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:45:39 GMT
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:02:41 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 2/7/01 6:40 PM:
>
>>>
>>> Um because windows 9.x and win2k had NO trouble recognizing it?
>>
>> Doesn't matter. If it didn't work before you re-seated the video card,
>> and did work after re-seating it, I would claim that the seating of
>> the card was the problem, not the OS. After all, the OS didn't
>> magically change after you re-seated the video card did it?
>
>I didn't reseat it I changed the order the cards were in.
In other words it was a configuration problem.
>>> Also back before all the UNIX geeks started flaming me for letting reality
>>> cloud their bullshit advocacy, this whole debate began with my pointing out
>>> UNIX is not in any of its forms a CONSUMER OS, then I pointed out how my
>>> experiences had run with TWO commercial packages. Caldera didn't have
>>> nearly as many problems but didn't install with any of the sort of things I
>>> wanted Linux for so I nixed it and tried red hat.
>>
>> If your hardware is incorrectly configured, improperly seated, or
>> unsupported, then it wouldn't matter how many versions you tried. I
>> wouldn't expect any of them to work.
>
>Yes because linux doesn't have good plug in play, nor does it have a wide
>enough array of hardware support.
That doesn't change the fact that the hardware wasn't configured
correctly. The difference is, with PNP the hardware/OS work together
to correctly configure the system. With non-PNP you have to correctly
configure the system. While PNP is preferable in most instances, the
problem wasn't ease of configuration. It was incorrect configuration.
>>>>>> As one who has been using Linux for a few years,
>>>>>> I can say that an install of say Red Hat on a recent
>>>>>> machine takes all of 45 minutes from booting the
>>>>>> install disk to a functional X desktop and full-on
>>>>>> network connectivity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow thatıs the same amount of time it took me to get win 2k to upgrade my
>>>>> 98
>>>>> drive, convert my programs (and weed out ones suspected to not work) and to
>>>>> reformat the drive to NTFS. No problems since either.
>>>>
>>>> Try installing Solaris on a Sparc system. You'll find out how very
>>>> easy Solaris is to install.
>>>
>>> How the fuck is that a consumer set up?
>>
>> Where did Aaron or myself claim that it was?
>
>YOU haven't Aaron did multiple times.
Where? I checked back through this thread and didn't see him make such
a claim. So I asked you to point it out.
>If I could magic usenet messages back into existence then linux not recognizing
>my stuff wouldn't have been a problem.
Your news reader doesn't allow you to retrieve prior messages? Time to
get a new news reading program.
Josh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:47:39 GMT
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:00:38 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 2/7/01 6:41 PM:
>
>>> You mean the part where he backs up linux's being a consumer OS (which he
>>> stated repeatedly) by pointing out versions specifically targeted at
>>> servers, are easy to use?
>>
>> Where?
>>
>>> Yeah I caught that one all right.
>>
>> Where?
>>
>> Josh
>Well considering as I tested my filter for his messages and I don't save
>newsgroup messages I can't give you an example but it was definitely there.
Then go to dejanews.com and look it up. The fact that you didn't save
the message(s) doesn't make your statement true. My newsreader is
configured to save the last 30 days worth of messages that I've read.
I have back tracked through this thread and did not find any mention
of him making such a claim.
As I cannot find a statement from him making such a claim, and you
cannot provide one, I must conclude that your arguement is a strawman.
Josh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Uptime
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:50:45 GMT
In article <wDEg6.172$uY2.2665@news2-hme0>, Nigel wrote:
>Wow - how many other operating systems can have an uptime longer than the
>life of the hardware.
>
>On a linux server the hard-drive, keyboard, mouse, monitor and display card
>can all die long before the operating system dies - under windows even the
>most unreliable bit of hardware will outlast the uptime of the operating
>system ( which is under 1 day on win9x and under 3 weeks for NT/Win2k).
>
>
I have the exact same results with Linux here but I have a different
experience with Microsoft products.
NT is only usable as a workstation for 2 days without a reboot.
W2K can manage to go a whole week.
Now the server end of the business is completely different.
There is NO NT server in our organization which will last longer than
30 hours without a reboot.
W2k doubles this but it's still sad performance for a commerical OS.
Our secretary is using 98 and shuts her machine down
every night. She can go for a month or so before we have to put
in the compaq restore disk to rebuild the machine. This is a process
which takes an hour to do.
I average rebuilding a workstation under NT about every 3-4 months
as some bluescreens scramble the drive so badly it's not bootable
anymore.
W2k is much the same in this regard.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:56:58 -0500
spicerun wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Darren Winsper"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/02/07/2040225&cid=159
> >
> > Please get your facts straight before putting together a post.
>
> Even more interesting reading is listed on linuxtoday from IT:Fairfax:
>
> http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/20010208/A20552-2001Feb8.html
>
> I was going to try Suse until I read this....now I'm looking for some
> other Linux distribution.
Hey, this is only what the responsible Linux advocates have been saying all
along.
Nobody makes money on an operating systems except Microsoft. Microsoft, only
because they have an illegal monopoly.
The only way to make money with free software is to sell services.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:54:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Adam Warner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:15:38 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hi all,
>
>I just found this on Microsoft's site:
>http://www.microsoft.com/SBSERVER/productinfo/linux.htm
>
>No mention of the publication date, but it appears recent and it is
>copyright 2001.
Evidently Jan 14, 2001:
$ telnet www.microsoft.com www
Trying 207.46.230.218...
Connected to www.microsoft.akadns.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD /SBServer/productinfo/linux.htm HTTP/1.1
Host: www.microsoft.com
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:47:14 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Last-Modified: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:23:05 GMT
ETag: "067246b5f7ec01:87b"
Content-Length: 28746
(and then it hung, probably because I forgot to tell it to close
the connection; :-) my bad).
>
>Microsoft again says Linux is more risky. But this is a very impressive
>piece of spin:
>
>"The open-source nature of the product means that many Linux deployments are
>somewhat unique and custom built with various solution pieces pulled
>together. Thus a small-business customer becomes highly reliant on the
>technology provider who designs and implements the Linux-based network. If
>that technology provider is not available to continue to provide support,
>there is not likely to be another provider who can easily step in and have
>the knowledge to take over support of that custom-built network."
>
>In other words, Microsoft is now saying don't use Linux because you will
>then be tied to a single technology provider! (Newbie alert: this is false).
>
>It's very hard to find new material on Microsoft's site because its search
>engine does not allow you to sort by date.
And remember, the price of chocolate just dropped to 20 cents. :-)
[_1948_]
>
>Regards,
>Adam
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random doubleplusungoodthink here
EAC code #191 3d:19h:21m actually running Linux.
Yes, uptime & wall clock aren't in synch; I don't know why.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
