Linux-Advocacy Digest #564, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 19:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Johan Kullstam)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: why open source software is better (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: [OT] .sig (Mark Gordon)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Peter Hayes)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: why open source software is better (John Hasler)
Re: Off topic but do u fancy a game of chess? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:50:08 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
[...]
>Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to NT
>all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible news
>site with "unnamed" sources.
There was only one occurrence, so it is not surprising that all
references are based on the same story of this occurrence. The fact is
that you would go to your grave swearing that it never happened, and
using as your only proof a series of arguments from ignorance, and the
fact that unless the attempt was successful, it can be disqualified by
your rules for not being 'complete' enough.
You're a sock puppet.
>Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
>attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
>weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
>familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task, let
>alone complete and fail within weeks.
How do you complete something that failed? You moron. As if we give a
rat's ass what Microsoft "themselves" claim.
>> As for getting the details from microsoft.com or hotmail.com, MS would be
>> only too happy to lie if it was in their best interests, so they are an
>> unreliable source of information. Just check out Billy testifying in the
>> court case!
>
>And the only other source is unnamed.
And unrefuted.
--
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,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:52:30 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Feb 2001
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail
>to NT
>> > all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible
>news
>> > site with "unnamed" sources.
>>
>> Cnet - Sun->NT
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-344896.html
>
>This (and it's related links) talk about MS having plans to convert, but not
>actually doing so.
In case you seriously never "got it", Erik, this is described, perfectly
accurately, entirely consistently, and completely practically, as
"trying and failing".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:56:22 GMT
. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > What makes you think there would be a problem? Let's assume for the
> > > moment that his hardware is up to the test.
> >
> > Dude... he's running a pentium pro 200 - it CANNOT generate that much data.
> > Hell, the bus he's on can't generate that much bandwidth.
>
> Give me some numbers, show me the proof. What bus are you talking about?
> The CPU bus? ISA bus for the network card? Were there any PPro
> motherboards supporting PCI?
yes. i've got two. a supermicro p6sne and some data general aviion
motherboard in an alr revolution quad6. both have pci slots. i'd say
most ppro boards had pci.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:01:01 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 22:07:13
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > Exactly - microsoft's "bet the farm", "benchmark buster"
>> > > > > configuration with the special web cache in front of iis
>> > > > > is badly outperformed by AIX, and can't even match the
>> > > > > performance of the free Red Hat Linux system.
>> > > >
>> > > > Special cache? You mean some software anyone can buy and run outta
>the
>> > box?
>> > >
>> > > If it's not part of the base OS, nor part of the web server, then yes,
>> > > it is a "special cache"....
>> >
>> > You mean like tux?
>>
>> Nope, wrong again - Tux is not a cache, it's a web server.
>>
>> Can you spot the difference?
>
>I sure can. but, so what. Tux is a custom benchmark busting web server. SWC
>is a web cache, a retail product available to anyone. It improves the
>performance of any IIS server it's put in front of. I hardly consider that
>"custom"
Well, it appeared from out of nowhere after MS got their nuts stomped in
the benchmark several months previously, was not available as a
commercial product at that time, and *still isn't*. So, yes, you should
consider that "custom".
--
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,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:04:06 GMT
Said Jon Johanson in alt.destroy.microsoft on 26 Feb 2001 07:50:02
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:35:46
>>
>> [...]
>> Amazing how much you can dominate an industry if you monopolize it for
>> more than ten years from the very start, eh?
>
>Amazing how you ignore the monopolies IBM help, and Sun held.
What gave you the impression that I ignored the monopolies IBM had, or
that Sun ever had any monopolies?
BTW, it isn't illegal to hold monopolies; it is illegal to monopolize.
>Until their
>monopolies were overrun the the form of monopoly MS has... and still you act
>as if MS is the only one doing anything like this???
IBM's monopolies were prevented by government action, years before MS
had anything to do with it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:11:17 +0100
In article <97joc1$t53$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"vrml3d.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Lo8n6.4637$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "vrml3d.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:97i0t4$4tb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > The subject line for this message should be "why open source software
>> > > is better for the *customer*".
>> >
>> > No, it should be "why open source software is better for the customer in
>> the
>> > short run". Anything that drives producers out of the market in the
> long
>> > run is bad for consumers in the long run, business cycles not
>> withstanding.
>>
>> The only producers that open source can drive out of the market are the
>> ones who do not have a better product or service or are charging more
>> than it is worth.
>
> Not true (see below)
>
> There is no evidence for any illegal anti-competitive
>> activity by any open source producer
>
> Ahem... government employees who produce software in the course of their
> daily work are *legally* obligated to place that work in the public domain.
> Any government employee who contributes to a GPL'd project is technicly
> violating the law. That's anticompetitive in my book. I don't think it
> will be too hard to find *somebody* to testify that this is happening.
>
> and no illegal bundling of
>> products.
>>
>> > Anecdotal evidence suggests a serious decline in shareware applications,
>> > with open source an obvious culprit. Fewer apps, fewer choices. Sorry
> I
>> > don't have numbers to back it up. That's why it's only anecdotal.
>>
>> If anything, that is evidence that these products had no particular value
>> compared to the alternatives.
>
> There are at least two ways for producers to be driven out of the market.
> 1. their product is inferior, or had no value as you imply. 2. those who
> would enter the market look at the conditions and decide it is not worth
> enterring.
>
> If you go back to Win3.x days, with OSS generally unknown to just about
> everybody, there were strong incentives to enter the market, and many did.
And those with a valuable commodity (remember Stack, Quarterdeck, etc?)
got the short chop from the people's friend MS, who thought it'd be a
good idea to incorporate an inferior version of their program in the
next release of DOS. Yeah, I remember those days.
> If you look at the market now, I can't think of many compelling reasons to
> enter and OSS is a primary factor. Even established vendors like Oracle are
> struggling now, and I don't think you can blame this on Oracle being an
> inferior product. The pressure is partly from the economy, but PostGre and
> MySQL are certainly playing a part.
MySQL, funny you'd mention that. Mind you, what happened was that
many people discovered that writing an RDBMS was not beyond their
reach, and they wrote one. MySQL tried to sell licenses for a while,
as did Solid, but they found no takers, because those with money
would buy Oracle, or (maybe) Sybase and its twin brother SQL Server.
So, instead of throwing their code in the bin, the MySQL guys tried
to make money licensing it as OSS, and now those without lots of
money can use it, find it's OK, and it hurts Oracle (but not much;
those who use MySQL would never have used Oracle anyway).
> From an economic standpoint, give me one good reason why I would want to
> write a DB server (as a pure software sales play, none of this "we sell
> support" BS) under these market conditions.
MySQL discovered that it wasn't a lucrative idea because of the
market dominance of Oracle.
>
> As the Clinton administration demonstrated, socialists can coast for quite
> some time on the works done in previous years, but it eventually catches up
> to them.
Interesting you'd call Bill a socialist.
> Raiding the rich is always an attractive prospect in the short
> run, but then eventually there are no more rich left to raid and people get
> disgusted. It took Russia about 70 years to get to that point, VietNam 25
> years, and North Korea still hasn't figured it out.
>
> I give the OSS fad about 20 years to get to the point where the lack of
> fresh new applications becomes such a burden to consumers that they begin to
> thumb their noses at free software. You'll see articles in the tech mags
> saying things like "the shrink-wrapped box is back".
Wierd. I don't do games, and notice the educational market on Windows
is doing OK, but with Corel dying, Lotus no longer keen on spending
money on their office suite, there seems to be a dearth of
"fresh new applications" in the MS-dominated Windows world. Would _you_
write a new word processor today? Or a new desktop OS (remember Be)?
These days, people start a software business with the hope of
being bought out by MS. That's innovative, I admit.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 28 Feb 2001 22:59:16 GMT
In <97jq3l$ice$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Dan Pop wrote:
>:>
>:> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Richard Heathfield
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>:>
>:> >Michael Rubenstein wrote:
>:> >>
>:> >> Actually, you are not required to include <stdio.h> to use
>:> >> printf; you may also just code a prototype for the function
>:> >> yourself.
>:> >
>:> >Yes, my apologies. I had forgotten that possibility. Of course, it must
>:> >match the stdio.h prototype byte-for-byte.
>:>
>:> It doesn't! The following prototype is OK, although it doesn't match
>:> the <stdio.h> one byte-for-byte:
>:>
>:> int printf(const char format[], ...);
>:>
>:> Furthermore, I believe even this prototype is OK:
>:>
>:> int printf(char *format, ...);
>
>If you never used any % formatters, you might even be able
>to get away with:
>
> int printf( char *str ); /*with no '...'*/
Nope, that's straight undefined behaviour.
>Of course, ALL functions could have parameters prototyped as follows:
> int foo( ... );
Nope, that's a syntax error that requires a diagnostic. If the function
has a fixed number of arguments, you can declare it without specifying
anything about them:
int foo();
If the function has a variable argument list, a proper prototype is
*required*. In its absence, the attempt to call the function results
in undefined behaviour.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: Mark Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:07:35 +0000
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 05:35:38 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:01:38 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >When I'm overseas, I blend in very well with the locals. I observe
>> >the local customs for behavior, and observe local laws.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Why, then, can you not apply this principle to your participation in
>> Usenet?
>
>At the moment, I am not in Norway, Great Britain, nor Saudi Arabia.
>I'm in the United States of America, and abiding by the laws that
>govern the jurisdictions which I currently occupy.
However you are not observing the local customs of Usenet.
BTW your ISP has the right to terminate your account, and if enough
people complain this might happen.
--
Mark Gordon
Dyslexic C Programmer,
At least the compiler ensures I spell variable names consistently wrong.
For a faster email response replace spamtrap with mark.gordon
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:17:39 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:33:03 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John Hasler"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Peter writes:
> >> OTOH, even in the cave, man was searching for a reason for his
> >> existence. That, and art, is what separates us from the beasts in the
> >> field.
> >
> > Show that "the beasts in the field" do not practice art
>
> They do practice art. See my other post.
The Bower birds. Fascinating. But isn't it just a very exaggerated mating
ritual carried on by instinct rather than conscious artistic input?
> > and ponder
> > existence. Show that man "in the cave" was.
I thought cave art showed spirituality in the only language they could
express themselves in, but maybe I'm wrong.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:19:45 +0100
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
In article <t5dn6.1205$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bryant Charleston,
MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you compose a text document in Star Office 5.2, will it be readable
> on a Windows platform (as a text or Word doc) ? I can't seem to find any
> FAQs that address this issue. Thanks for any help!
>
> --
>
>
> ...................................................
> Bryant C Charleston A+ Network + MCP MCSE (NT4)
>
>
I use it for work occasionally. The export function seems to work about
99-100% perfect, just remember to turn on automatic extensions and save
your document as Word97.
Importing works great for me as well, but I hear it breaks on outlandish
formatting and heavy use of OLE objects.
HTH,
Mart
--
The only way to amuse some people is to slip and fall on an icy pavement.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:30:52 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97j7r9$me7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I didn't say it wasn't improvement. I said it was more fixing a
> > deficiancy than improving. Both terms apply, but fixing the deficiancy
> > has a higher ranking in my estimation.
>
> Oh, yes. I remember, you're speaking EFed up English.
> How is fixing a deficiency not making an improvement?
I'm speaking perfectly legitimate english. You seem incapable of
understanding it, as can plainly be seen by the fact that you are still
asking me to clarify something I didn't say.
I'll say it again. *I DID NOT SAY THAT FIXING A DEFICIENCY WAS NOT AN
IMPROVEMENT*.
*I SAID, BOTH TERMS APPLY (THAT IS, FIXING THE DEFICIENCY AND BEING AN
IMPROVEMENT), BUT IN MY ESTIMATION, FIXING THE DEFICIENCY BEST DESCRIBES IT*
Are you going to ask me how fixing a deficiency isn't an improvement again?
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:17:46 GMT
vrml3d.com writes:
> Ahem... government employees who produce software in the course of their
> daily work are *legally* obligated to place that work in the public domain.
This is not true. The US government is forbidden by statute to enforce its
copyright on works produced by its employees in the course of their duties,
but nothing requires that the works be released under any particular terms:
they need not be released at all. It's just that if you do somehow get
ahold of them, you can do with them whatever you wish. Including
incorporating them into GPL'd works.
> Any government employee who contributes to a GPL'd project is technicly
> violating the law.
Wrong. Since those contributions are effectively in the public domain, it is
perfectly legal to incorporate them into GPL works. Or proprietary works.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Off topic but do u fancy a game of chess?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:27:11 +0000
Woof wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> I see in your sig that you are a member of a chessclub
> If you fancy a game sometime let me know and we can arrange to play on
> Icc or somewhere
> Ill warn you though ive never lost a game
> I shall look forward to eating all your pieces
>
<snip>
do you want black or white?
Best thing is just to mail me. I'm always ready to play!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:36:54 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Cnet - Sun->NT
> > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-344896.html
> >
> > This (and it's related links) talk about MS having plans to convert, but
not
> > actually doing so.
>
> Of course. If you'll recall, the claim was that MS tried and failed, so
> they couldn't have done so. However:
>
> "The use of Apache at an MSN-branded site is reminiscent of Microsoft's
> efforts to convert its problematic Hotmail site from Sun servers to
> Windows NT servers. With 40 million Hotmail users, the changeover is a
> huge undertaking and still is expected to take another two years, a
> Microsoft spokesperson said."
>
> This implies that they HAVE TRIED (note the use of 'reminiscent' - a
> quick trip to dictionary.com should sort you out if you still don't
> understand), so it doesn't really just talk about their plans, now does
> it?
The terms used here were written by the reporter, not quoted by someone at
microsoft. To the reporter, merely creating a plan to do so is an "effort
to convert". The author is simply trying to describe a complex process in
simple terms, which in this case are not fully accurate.
> > > ZDNet - BSD->NT
> > > http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/30/ns-17071.html
> >
> > This is the story about their only conversion in July of last year,
where
> > they converted to Win2k.
>
> So, the BSD->NT is the real conversion, while the CNet story of MS's
> plans of shifting from Sun machines to NT is made up? I do hope you
> noticed that the articles talk about converting two different operating
> systems, both of which Hotmail apparently runs on.
That doesn't indicate that such a conversion has been attempted and failed.
> So, does it actually run on Solaris or BSD? Or does it run on both?
It ran on both, now it runs on Solaris and NT.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:32:25 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Umm.. Berkeley's TCP/IP stack is free software. You can't "hijack" it.
> It's free for whatever use you want, including use in closed source
> applications. You don't even need to give them credit anymore as of a few
> years ago.
>
> In any event, MS does include Berkeley copyright notices in several of it's
> TCP/IP apps, such as ftp and finger, etc.. The fact that they include those
> in those programs, but not in the stack makes one think that perhaps they
> may have used the berkeley stack as a guide, but not the actual code.
>
I thought the BSD licence allowed any use, but insisted that you don't
claim you write the code if you nicked it. M$ seem to claim they wrote
it (which is wrong, if indeed they did not)
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:40:53 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 26 Feb 2001
> [...]
> >Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to
NT
> >all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible
news
> >site with "unnamed" sources.
>
> There was only one occurrence, so it is not surprising that all
> references are based on the same story of this occurrence. The fact is
> that you would go to your grave swearing that it never happened, and
> using as your only proof a series of arguments from ignorance, and the
> fact that unless the attempt was successful, it can be disqualified by
> your rules for not being 'complete' enough.
I'm not using an argument from ignorance. MS has stated quite clearly that
no conversion was attempted, much less a failed one. It's an anonymous
source in a less than credible news site versus the actual people that would
know. You choose to believe the anonymous sources because you want to.
> >Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
> >attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
> >weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
> >familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task,
let
> >alone complete and fail within weeks.
>
> How do you complete something that failed? You moron. As if we give a
> rat's ass what Microsoft "themselves" claim.
Hint: Look up the word complete. You can either successfully, or
unsuccessfully complete something.
> >> As for getting the details from microsoft.com or hotmail.com, MS would
be
> >> only too happy to lie if it was in their best interests, so they are an
> >> unreliable source of information. Just check out Billy testifying in
the
> >> court case!
> >
> >And the only other source is unnamed.
>
> And unrefuted.
What exactly do you call the MS official statement that the rumors are
false, if not a refutation?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:26:43 +0100
In article <t5dn6.1205$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you compose a text document in Star Office 5.2, will it be readable on a
> Windows platform (as a text or Word doc) ? I can't seem to find any FAQs
> that address this issue. Thanks for any help!
I've recently written quite a few documents in StarOffice, and
I've found the export to Word97 to be OK. There are a few problems;
the most visible one is the use of the Starbats font for the
bullets. This font is not available on the average Word/Windows
box, and you get wierd glyphs as bullets (like folder icons).
Specifying "Symbol" as the bullet font is an easy fix
(Format|NUmbering/Bullets|Customize|Character).
I spent a lot of time trying to fix a header that caused Word97
to crash on printing (yes, it read the document OK, displayed it
OK on the screen, and keeled over when trying to print...).
It turned out that a particular GIF logo, inserted in the first
element of the table I put in the header was the culprit. Another
GIF, no problems.
Unfortunately, Word has no bugs, so I had to find a workaround :-(
On the whole, I find StarOffice remarkably good at importing
MS Office documents, and more than acceptable at exporting
MS Office documents. In my experience, people have as many, if not
more, problems getting different configurations of Word to
reliably exchange documents (especially the formatting), that the
odd misplaced table entry or off-center footer you get with
SO generated .docs doesn't even raise an eyebrow.
Take care,
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 17:41:48 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Feb 2001
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of
Hotmail
> >to NT
> >> > all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible
> >news
> >> > site with "unnamed" sources.
> >>
> >> Cnet - Sun->NT
> >> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-344896.html
> >
> >This (and it's related links) talk about MS having plans to convert, but
not
> >actually doing so.
>
> In case you seriously never "got it", Erik, this is described, perfectly
> accurately, entirely consistently, and completely practically, as
> "trying and failing".
Really? So, if my plans are that I will visit europe, but It takes me 3
years to do so, that means I failed simply because I didn't do it right
away?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
