Linux-Advocacy Digest #182, Volume #32 Tue, 13 Feb 01 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows vs. Unix printer model (Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!) (David Steinberg)
Re: Interesting article (Bob Hauck)
Re: Interesting article (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bob Hauck)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (J Sloan)
NT 4.0 symbolic links? ("Bill Shine")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: 13 Feb 2001 21:27:10 -0600
OK:
He can't boot from the CD but the CD boots other OSes fine. Uhhuh, like that
happens.
Next, he claims he had linux on the machine first then tried to FDisk to
kill the partitions but they were reportedly containing driver letters.
First, if they have drive letters then he'd be able to see them. If he could
see them he can delete them. If it was originally a linux system, Fdisk
wouldn't report anything other than an unrecognized partition type and allow
you to delete it without much warning. Linux wouldn't present apparent drive
letters. In using Fdisk for, what, 10 years? I've never seen this behaviour
and can find nothing documenting such a condition occuring. Hmm... gee... Oh
but after he does an Fdisk the CD rom suddenly can boot? Um, yea right!
Anyone can tell you the ability of a CD rom to boot the system is 100%
independent of the hard drive. it'll boot with a hard drive, without a hard
drive, with a boot drive or without, it'll boot when the hard drive is
totally hosed (I know this). Right from the word go we know he's reporting
unheard of and unbelievable scenarios. Did his cd rom drive just suddenly
fix itself because he did something to the hard drive? yea... right... kinda
like in the beginning when he fried the bios trying to update it. That takes
an utter moron - and it's purpose in this article is to simply make the
reader think that w2k fried his bios trying to update it or something
equally silly.
So, he goes on to complain because he lost his CD key. This is HOW MS's
fault? Then he says, shoulda have it printed in the manual. What good would
that do if he loses the jewel case which you'd assume the cd is IN then what
are the chances a loosely unattached manual would survive this mess? And,
didn't he write down the key, I know I always do... just in case.
And, gee, here we have the OS that has MORE drivers for it than ANY other OS
in history and it manages to not have his video or scsi or sound cards ...
uhhuh, what's the chances eh? So, the good ol'16 color story. Even a every
day boring SVGA card will detected as SVGA and you'll have a nice 256 color
start. And if it's a SCSI CD room that he BOOTED from - guess what - we know
for SURE it detected the CD rom - he would't have anything more to write if
it didn't cause the setup would have died upon the first reboot. Another
obvious one...
Then he tries to foist upon us the claim that he couldn't find support for
W2K and drivers on-line? OH PUHLEASE! There are WAY WAY more sites providing
windows info and WAY WAY more sites with drivers for Window than any another
OS on the planet. MS has it's own newsgroups which are chock full of people
who volunteer and help out a LOT (and posts show up in seconds, not hours
like some newservers). Funny he didn't spend a second at the iomega site,
ya know, the ones that made his zip drive adapter, and just find the answer
to his scsi problem (which amazingly is letting his cd rom run just fine -
imagine that)
Then he finally admits that the zip zoom drivers were there but amazingly
only on his system did they not detect instantly like they do on others.
Given that the drivers are from iomega and ms certified and designed to
specifically find, by name, that adapter, I'm not buying his claims. What
did he do, turn off plug and play? doh! And then some cocamami crap about
unreported memory conflicts with his video WITH HIS SOUND CARD? Um... huh?
tell me the last time you saw a sound card using memory even remotely near
where video cards are or any at all! Most every sound card I can find to
check right now don't even use any memory whatsoever, just an IRQ and IO
port or three... BESIDES< even if there is a memory conflict, he claimed
this worked fine under linux - what, linux just blindly ignores memory
conflicts and hardware errors? So my video and sound "memory" can overlap
and corrupt each other and linux doesn't even try to protect the system?
hmmm...
OH, time for the blue screen report. How did we know that was coming. No bs
about NT is complete with some blue screen action. And he went with
something at least remotely believable, IRQ NOT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO. (but
he left off THAN, i'll let us conclude it was a typo). Hmm, lesse if look
this up we find out, oh, bad driver or hardware configuration. Again, this
guys complete incompetence in setting up a computer shines through and he's
going to blame W2K? If his hardware is in conflict, it won't matter which OS
he's using.
Then we're treated to an expose on just how horribley out of date and
obviously damaged hardware he's been testing all this out on. His system
spontaneously dies during a routine bios update. And we're to listen to this
guy for a review on how w2k installs? This guys hardware sucks SO bad that,
OS independant, running a BIOS upgrade fries his system? hahaha
then he does a childs tempertantrum designed to get the anti-ms types
excited
And then he decides to replace the motherboard but the store he goes to has
NO W2K compatible motherboards? ahahahah - yea, we're to believe this? Where
did he go, k-mart? I don't know of any motherboard that ISN'T W2K
compatible - perhaps not ACPI compliant, I've seen that - but it'll run in
APM or even "Standard PC" mode on even a crappy old pentium shuttle board!
And he can't find one....
So, he then shells out $500 for a PIII-800 (available for $160)
Then he tells us that he AGAIN misplaced all the codes to install Office or
ME. Do we now not know we're talking about a complete mental midget? Does
anyone believe this horse pucky ??
This guy is a loser
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > because he describes an obvoiusly faked scenario. It's not hard to see
this.
>
> Could you desvribe the parts you think are faked
> and explain why?
>
> > If I began by describing my linux installation failure by saying that
after
> > I booted a MS-DOS disk in order to run the linux setup utility you'd
know
> > something was amiss. Same thing here...
>
> Yes, I would know something was amiss.
>
> However he says that he started by trying to
> boot from the windows cdrom. It wouldn't boot
> from the cdrom.
>
> After that, he used a microsoft boot floppy to run
> fdisk, and blow away the Linux partitions, which
> apparently caused windows some trouble.
>
> microsoft fdisk kept telling him that the extended
> partitions created drive letters, and wouldn't let
> him delete them. Finally, he ended up using Linux
> fdisk to repartiton the disk.
>
> (Now that is competely beleivable, as I have
> more than one windows using friend who has
> had to resort to Linux fdisk when microsoft fdisk
> couldn't repartition their drive.)
>
> After that, he was able to boot from the cdrom
> and begin the windows 2k setup.
>
> It all rings true as far as I can see.
>
> jjs
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:32:17 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >And a bizzare sampling it is - in my experience, 8 out of
> >10 people who tried Linux liked it enough to continue using
> >it on a permanent basis, with some going microsoft-free.
> >
> >jjs
> >
> >
>
> And it's been my experience also.
> You *HAVE* to be interested in computer operating
> systems to begin with to even find Linux.
Yes, but you *HAVE* to also have an interest in getting work done,
eventually, especially if your looking for what we professionals call a
"viable alternative".
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:33:06 GMT
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96779k$282$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just about every techie uses Linux in some way shape or form. I'm not a
> techie, struggled at first with a hosed distro, but I persisted. Windows
95 is
> getting to be a legacy item in my software collection.
Windows 95 is a legacy item in everyones collection.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Windows vs. Unix printer model (Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!)
Date: 14 Feb 2001 03:38:06 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > And it's a very ugly hack, since it requires you to bypass the spooler.
: > What if someone is trying to use your printer via the network?
: That's not true. If you print to a captured port rather than an
: uncaptured port if the printer is plugged in to your computer, then the
: print job will go through the spooler.
Oops. My bad. Thanks for the correction.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:44:04 GMT
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:24:24 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:16:40 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >DaVinci actually painted chapels, portraits and other works for
>> >a living. He was, by definition, a professional.
>>
>> But he didn't paint the Cistine Chapel.
>
>Shhhhh!
I'm in his killfile anyway, so the secret would have been safe had not
someone else also pointed this out <g>. I respond to him to make sure
the lurkers don't take him seriously and to entertain myself at his
expense.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:44:06 GMT
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:45:40 GMT, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The UNIX back shop has to constantly defend their knowledge base and
> keep NT out or have their bloated IT salaries look ridiculously out of
> proportion to the same talent on Windows.
The mantra that "Unix people" are a bunch of expensive fossils who are
afraid of losing their jobs to the "new and modern NT" is just as much
bullshit as the idea that NT is being pushed by a bunch of careerists
who want to take over the back room for their own power and prestige.
This projecting of personality traits onto the opposition works both
ways.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:44:11 GMT
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:39:05 +0100, Karel Jansens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>> Chad thinks that anything he's never seen and that doesn't run on
>> Windows is a joke.
>But Applix Office _does_ run on Windows (it doesn't like to, but
>nevertheless...)
My mistake then.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:44:14 GMT
On 11 Feb 2001 21:48:25 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
Does this mean I can run slower and still use the same calories?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:48:03 GMT
"Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95vqjb$2b8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >Thats not bad 33% decided to continue using it.
> >
> > That's not what he wrote.
>
> If "2 out of every 3 people I have talked to that tried Linux, gave up
> on it without getting it to work successfully" is what he wrote, then "1
> out of 3 did not give up on it" or "1 out of 3 got it to work
> sucessfully" seem like valid conclusions. If the one-third that got it
> to work later gave up on it, he should have given us that info to
> prevent misunderstanding. Since he did not, it is not unreasonable to
> conclude that they continued using linux.
Mathematicly, a majority of the sample of users have decided to forgo the
platform. This sorta hoses the 1/3rd that "stuck with it", doesn't it?
> > > Considering the level of vendorlock currently, that is
> > > somewhat remarkable really. Also, 33% would certainly
> > > be a nice chunk of the overall marketshare as well.
> >
> > Linux isn't even close to 33% of the US market.
>
> This is frankly offensive. Are you really this stupid? Or do you just
> enjoy pointing out the bleeding obvious? He did not say that linux has a
> 33% share of the US market (where did you get the US part from?). He
> said that 33% WOULD BE nice. "Would be" (in this case) makes it clear
> that what is said is not necessarily true.
You're grasping at symantecs straws on this one.
> > I use both, I know many more people who use windows. Do I have one iota
of
> > disdain for them because of what OS they use? Of course not. I
> couldn't care
> > less, and it never even enters my mind.
>
> You just wrote about it, so obviously it did enter your mind. Be cafeful
> with words like 'never', they are very strong.
Well, I've herd the phrase "Never say never, again" thrown around a lot. It
doesn't really mean anything, since people are always using it. Like "Linux
will NEVER fork out and become incompatible with itself". Microsoft's only
good "close-source" defense in this reguard, no way for a thousand Windows
to pop up and cease working with each other.
> > Can your garden variety LinLemming say the same thing?
> > NO.
>
> define linlemming. define garden variety. Where do you get your data?
> Why NO, when no or No will work just as well?
Do you actually read the posts falling out of COLA? I could grow a damn
forest with the bull$hit falling out of some of the regular patrons. Have
you ever read a Linux.com "desktop puff peice?" Hard copy had better
integrety torward their stories.
> > They live to claim superiority by virtue of not being a captive of the
> > 'borg'.
>
> Again, your data comes from where? Interviews or questionaires filled
> out by how many of these linlemmings?
The logic that Linux is superior on a desktop platform is a common ideal
that is perpetuated routinely on this NG. I think that ideal can support
the above paragraph.
> > What complete nonsense.
>
> You seem to have a lot of pent-up anger or frustration here. We are
> talking about a computer os here, not a cure for cancer or the end of
> world hunger. If this sort of thing bothers you so much, why waste your
> time posting to groups like cola?
We're on ALS. Someone crossposted this thread to get the fires roaring....
Again.
> > They live to 'find' superiority by way of using a more difficult to
> use and
> > self-made underdog OS.
> > More nonsense.
> > A shallow victory to say the least.
>
> You are the shallow one here. Or perhaps a bit insecure. You are ranting
> and raving about things which you admit are nonsense. Why? What is the
> point, especially if no one is forcing you to confront this nonsense?
Insecurity is again, perpetuated by the ideals propagated by the common
statements made by COLA posters. The concept that Linux on the desktop is
possible, here and now because Linux has "reached maturity", because "KDE,
GNOME and RPM with Distro's like Mandrake can eliminate Windows." Supprise,
it can't. People need Windows for workstations. Linux can not serve as
anything most people would concider a quality workstation. Until office
suites like OpenOffice remove the bugs from StarOffice and speed up to the
level found in AbiWord, Linux can't possibly touch most companies, let alone
anyones home PC platform of choice.
> Has it occurred to you that some linux users may feel uncomfortable with
> the idea that their own friends and family are not even aware that they
> have a choice of which operating system to use? This is my own personal
> opinion. I feel no need to preach to or berate people who understand
> that they have a choice and choose to use windows. They generally have
> good reasons for doing so. Many people however do not understand the
> choices available to them, nor the ways in which proprietary "solutions"
> can be used not only to lock them in, but also - because of their
> ignorance - to lock others out. In these cases, I feel that a little bit
> of education might be in order. Note that education does not involve
> belittling people or ridiculing their operating system. It might however
> involve pointing out ways that their operating system is deficient or
> not optimized for their needs.
The concept of "choice" is a sad one with Linux. Let's see, console or
X-Windows? Will I sacrafice efficency and prodcutivity for my ideals? Or
shell out the dough and get myself a platform that has workable programms
for it?
Will I hold my personal standards above those that keep me clothed, and fed?
Or tell the boss that if he can't get a copy of Koffice for his NT
Workstation, he can kiss my ass, because I'm with the "frree software
revoulition".
Wonderful, without a job, that free software will really do me, some kind of
good...
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:58:12 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >And a bizzare sampling it is - in my experience, 8 out of
> > >10 people who tried Linux liked it enough to continue using
> > >it on a permanent basis, with some going microsoft-free.
> > >
> > >jjs
> > >
> > >
> >
> > And it's been my experience also.
> > You *HAVE* to be interested in computer operating
> > systems to begin with to even find Linux.
>
> Yes, but you *HAVE* to also have an interest in getting work done,
> eventually, especially if your looking for what we professionals call a
> "viable alternative".
I get my work done very nicely using Linux - about 99%
of it anyway, but my employer was nice enough to also
provide a windows pc which I use maybe a few minutes
a week to work on the odd legacy word doc - I probably
ought to just upgrade the disk on my Linux box and use
win4lin instead of a separate windows pc, but I'm waiting
for win4lin to support 2.4 -
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Bill Shine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NT 4.0 symbolic links?
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:59:46 GMT
Would anybody happen to know if you can create symbolic links under NTFS
with NT 4.0? I unfortunately have to use this rather brain-dead system
at work, and the lack of mount points is driving me nuts! Our IT
department is planning on an eventual migration to w2k by early next
year...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:02:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:07:05 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:33:22 +0000, pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
>>>
>>> > It's kind of ironic. Every time we do a 'apt-get dist-upgrade' to get a
>>> > new version of debian, Wintrolls have to *pay* for a new version of
>>> > Windows. The higher sales figures they are bragging about are a direct
>>> > result of them being forced to make more purchases. What a laugh!!
>>>
>>> Yes, it's very ironic that Windows enthusiasts keep bringing up how much
>>> money MS has managed to extort from the market as a result of its
>>> monopoly.
>>
>>All true - but remember - M$ is a monopoly because they
>>sold what people wanted to buy at a time when the alternatives
>>were crap. You could arue that
>
> This is simply delusional.
>
> At no point in time has Microsoft bested it's competitors
> technically.
A business need not best its competitors technically. It can
outmarket them, for example.
That said -- some of Microsoft's tactics for establishing market
dominance are at best questionable; the notion of banning a browser
from an initially-installed desktop because "it damages the OS"
is laughable! (Or would be, if they weren't so damned serious about
it at the time.)
One thing they did do more or less legitimately -- although even
here there are some questionable tactics (cf the magical "DR-DOS"
beta error message, and the strange encryption done on some of
their code), is that they leveraged their DOS dominance into
Windows dominance. They then leveraged their Windows dominance
into Win95 dominance.
I'm not sure how they dominated in the DOS world, admittedly.
DOS wasn't all that hot. (Maybe IBM helped; I forget now.)
> Try and demonstrate otherwise, in actual
> detail rather than simply by empty rhetoric.
>
> Microsoft sold what people thought most other people used.
> The vendorlock you allude to existed as early as 1988, more
> than a decade ago, and prior to the existence of ANY useful
> version of Windows.
>
> Microsoft was subjecting people to DOS driver installs and
> manual memory management as late as the 2nd half of 1995.
Not to mention those HORRID protocol stacks. UGH!
Win95 was bad, but it improved on that. (Mind you, that's
not saying a heck of a lot.)
>
>>1. OS is a natural monopoly
Bullshit. The mere fact that there are/were a fair number of operating
systems disproves pip's statement; VMS, Apollo's Aegis, Solaris, HP/UX,
AIX, Daisy-DNIX (now there was an OS that made Microsoft look *good*) [*],
OSF/1, VM/CMS, RSX-11M, TOPS-20. Closer to home -- home PC, that is --
there was CP/M, Apple ][ OS, Apple /// OS (DOS?), the IBM PC's built
in BASIC (one has to squint a bit), AmigaOS, Atari's TOS, C64's
built-in BASIC (one has to squint even more), Tandy's TRS-80's Basic,
and last (well, not quite, but I don't know any more OSes) but most
certainly not least, MacOS.
To be fair, most of these are hardware-specific -- AmigaOS, for example,
couldn't run on IBM PC hardware, although one might be able to
recompile parts of it; I believe such a project is out there and
ongoing, but have forgotten its name.
The only exceptions (AFAIK!) are Unix, MacOS, and Windows -- although
a number of people have written CP/M emulators, and there might be
one for the Amiga, too, but emulators don't really count, for various
reasons.
MacOS only made it to two platforms: Macintosh 680x0, and Mac PPC,
and all other Windows ports are now more or less dead.
>> API's, file formats and device drivers are all serious "lock-in"
Depends on the API. One can, for example, write X code in Windows,
with the help of a development library and an X server, such as Mi/X,
eXceed, or XWin32 -- X runs on a large number of platforms.
Or one might try compiling XFree86 on NT (my understanding is that it
can be done, but I don't know if anyone's tried it or backpatched the
source upon failure -- note that certain clients such as xterm might
have troubles because NT doesn't have pseudo-ttys, but this isn't a
serious impediment to the server itself AFAIK).
And of course the whole point of POSIX compiliance is to be able
to build POSIX-compliant code -- which isn't much, as there's no
graphics; it's not even clear to me whether it supports what
might be called "one-key-at-a-time" mode (as opposed to buffering
an entire line).
>>2. Monopolies exist because they are the best at the time
>> M$ provided a platform with better software than Apple did at the time
>>
>>They are now of course a deeply evil company in their tactics dept.
>
>
>--
>
> Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
> you won't produce a VMS.
>
> You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
> |||
> / | \
[*] Daisy originally had a 286-based machine, vaguely reminiscent of
a hopped-up PC with some specialized display hardware. Their original
OS, "MAESTRO", was a single-tasking affair with some peculiar, but
workable, internal structures -- it didn't have a seek(), for example;
one had to maintain a structure and could manipulate a long value
within it to indicate which bytes to operate on within a file.
Shades of old DOS FCBs!
MAESTRO's commands were all UPPER CASE. For some reason, someone over
there had a sense of humor in naming their commands:
DANCE (DAisy Network Connectivity Editor), DRINK (Daisy Resolving lINKer),
SING (a simulator; I forget what it stands for), SIFT, SOM (not to
be confused with HP-UX's SOM headers), and the usual MOVE, COPY, etc.
Enter DNIX, which was Daisy's answer to Aegis, most likely (don't ask
me where they got the Unix-like kernel), which not only had a peculiar
mix of commands in upper and lower case, but also apparently had some
minor synchronization problems internally, leading to unexpected
hangs and such on occasion.
Ultimately, they ported their stuff over to Solaris and then got
bought out by Intergraph. It was bizarre.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 9d:17h:01m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:02:11 GMT
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:07:53 -0500, jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I just saw a news piece on Windows XP!
>>Microsoft claims that it can run for days
>>without crashing! Anyone have any real
>>world experience with Windows XP?
>>Is it really reliable?
>
>Just days? Hardwired russian apple II clones were more reliable.
>
>Bill gates deserves a house that burns to the ground every few days.
What's totally hillarious about XP being announced is that
Windows 2000 professional was a total flop in the sales
department.
There are thousands of companies who are setting on NT for
two reasons. #1, it would simply cost them too much to
buy new PC's and upgrade. #2. They don't want to buy
32 bit CPU's when they know 64 bit is on the way.
I think #2 is poetic justice for Microsoft and Intel
as they both decided to delay the release of this
technology even though Linux has a 64 bit OS already
tested and ready for use.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:07:07 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
> OK:
>
> He can't boot from the CD but the CD boots other OSes fine. Uhhuh, like that
> happens.
There are a great many things that happen like that -
When I built my wife's new computer, win98 would not
install, it kept complaining about "corrupt cab files".
I installed Linux on a 1 gig partition at the end, just
to check the hardware - Linux installed smoothly
and ran perfectly - OK, the hardware is OK.
Back to windows - the saga continued for some time,
I called my windows expert friend, who struggled
with it for hours using his best tricks, but no joy.
He finally threw in the towel and installed win 2k.
Guess what? Every time win 2k starts up, it hangs
for 5 minutes or so, then complains about the
"unformatted drive e:" (my Linux swap partition) and
the "unformatted drive g:", (my linux partition) and asks
if I want to format them.
LOL!
I could go on and on about the quirks of win 2k, but after
some weeks of seeing it in action, I have to say it's more
stable than win 98, however it's certainly no Linux killer!
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
