Linux-Advocacy Digest #948, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What is user friendly? ("Craig Oshima")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Craig Oshima")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: What is user friendly? (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban ("Jan Johanson")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Jan Johanson")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Jan Johanson")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Jan Johanson")
Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. ("John S. Dyson")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Jan Johanson")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:58:24 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> Craig Oshima wrote:
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
> > I never said anything about the command line, because what's to say?
DOS
> > had a bare bones, crappy command line. No doubt about it. And FWIW, I
> > think Apple's MPW development environment beats the Unix command line.
But
> > *normal people* don't really use command lines anyway, so it doesn't
matter.
> >
> And Microsoft...understanding that it's own CLI was a piece of shit,
> funded a VERY large propaganda campaign to convince those who had never
> even seen Unix that Unix was even worse.
I haven't heard of any campaign to that effect...not that I disbelieve you,
but I haven't heard anything like that at all. Sure, they'll make
competitive comparisons of Windows to Linux...some are reasonable, others
are outrageously whacked. Anyway, I concur that Microsoft's command line is
pretty bad (and Apple's is non-existent, at least until OS X in April). But
command lines are peripheral to the debate, so...
> > > The most popular Unix GUI's are also EASIER to use than the Windows
GUI's.
> >
> > Pphhh. When you've seen users struggle to get through the things you
think
> > are easy, your attitude will be informed by more than your arrogant
> > opinions.
>
> I work with Unix GUI users every day.
>
Maybe we just aren't connecting here. I don't doubt that you know other
people, maybe even a lot of other people who use Unix. But you fall into a
demographic that is highly gifted in abstract, symbolic thinking (e.g.
mathematics). The fact that you all love Unix is irrelevant when you widen
the audience to other people. If you don't want Unix to be on consumer
desktops than fine...you and I don't have an argument. It was designed by
hackers for hackers, and by definition, it's user friendly. But if you
think it belongs everywhere, then you should consider that there are FAR
more people outside your demographic. Their needs and interests differ from
yours, and you should be open to understanding them.
To quote a friend:
"Programmers can use any kind of of interface. They have exceptional minds
that embrace, enjoy, even thrive on abstract, invisible interfaces. They
assume everyone else has a wonderful memory and enjoys manipulating abstract
symbols. (While many people may have good memories, I think the dearth of
Algebra Fun Clubs and Family Centers in our communities speaks volumes about
our collective delight in manipulating abstract symbols.)" (Tog on
Interface 1992, ISBN 0201608421)
--
Craig Oshima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Craig Oshima" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:05:12 -0800
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Indeed, Interface Hall of Shame is a good exaple for that, most of the
time
> I wouldn't notice the UI problems (even if I use them extensively) unless
> they are pointed to me. And even then... it's not very disturbing. But for
> normal users, it's quite different.
>
If you ever get the chance to observe a usability test, especially one
examining a product you're involved with, you should try to find the time to
do it. Nothing opens your eyes like seeing user after user (selected from
representative populations) struggling on the same things over and
over--things that are so obvious to you and me.
--
Craig Oshima
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 21 Mar 2001 00:44:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:q2us6.248195$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> the FREE is Free Software Foundation was never meant to mean "no
>> money". It means it give you the freedom to choose how you work, and
>> not have the choices made for you.
>>
>GPL doesn't do that for you.
Then I wonder who or what does. I am guaranteed that I can always patch
a bug in gcc.
Can you patch a bug in the BSDLed code from Microsoft's ftp.exe?
>> This is done by providing the Source code of the software.
>>
>Source code distribution isn't required by the GPL... Go ask Cygnus
>for all of their GPLed source code: they don't have to give it to you.
Should I copy section 3a of the GPL for you or are you willing to read
it yourself and come back then?
HTH,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Assimilation is irrelevant. You are futile.
-- stolen from 'Skud'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 21 Mar 2001 00:55:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>3) If you want to place the restrictions of the GPL on your code, that's
>great and it is your choice -- but don't call it free. It ain't.
Then neither is BSDLed software. It has license restrictions too.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Bubble Memory, n.:
A derogatory term, usually referring to a person's intelligence.
See also "vacuum tube".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 21 Mar 2001 01:05:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
>> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
>> this software without specific prior written permission"
>>
>That restriction isn't operative UNLESS the are used. :-). That means that
>to loose the right to redistribute, YOU have to perform an action.
>
>With the GPL, you are not allowed by default, unless you perform actions
>or activities.
>
>So, by default, the GPL isn't free.
>So, by default, the BSDL is free.
My $DEITY, how many times should people quote the stuff that you should
have read before sounding so, er, uninformed?
Quote from /usr/doc/copyright/BSD:
] 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
] notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
] 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
] notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
] documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
That makes the BSDL, by default, what?
Please RTFL next time.
HTH,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.
-- Donald Knuth
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 01:39:29 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Name even ONE Unix user who has never used Windows.
actually i entered grad school in '90 and until '95 didn't touch
windows. it was unix all the way. if i hadn't gotten out of the
university, i'd probably still never have used windows.^1
you can probably find some poor^2 tenured grad student who's only used
unix, vms, tops-20, but no windows. because microsoft pretty much
forces one person per computer, most universities don't use much
microsoft. i can't name those who've never used windows but i'm sure
they exist.
[1] when i got shown a windows computer at the first job i got after
that, i was thinking, whar are you putting this piece of windows crap
in front of my face for? do you expect me to get any work done?
fortunately there were plenty of suns i could use. i am still using
unix and linux for 90% of my work. ;-)
[2] i don't feel sorry for them for not having seen windows, but
because they haven't graduated yet...
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:40:20 -0600
This is comp.ms-windows.nt.advocacy sir.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Shades wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone imagine, let's say a CTO of a large multinational company,
the
> > kind Linux advocates would love say they beat MS in, jumping into one
of
> > these newsgroups and reading the "professionalism" expressed in this
> > group(see below)? Unix people have always been touted as being this
> > arrogant and narrow-minded and I have had my fair share of the
> > unprofessional manner.
>
> This is alt.destroy.microsoft, numb-nuts.
>
> --
> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:41:09 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > hahahaha - silly penguinistas - I TOLD you it was a lie... but you
choose to
> > believe your own fud machines... hehe
> >
> > http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C42502%2C00.html
>
> Did you actually read the article you posted?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Andy Mueller-Maguhn, a leader of Berlin's Chaos Computer Club and also
Europe's
> representative on the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and
> Numbers (ICANN), said he believed the German government was probably in
> damage-control mode. In other words: He thinks the report in Der Spiegel
is
> probably accurate.
Gee, the Chaos Club? A linux lovers/ms-haters hang out. Uhhuh...real
objective...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:44:06 -0600
wrote in message news:...
> From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
> Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:30:04 +0100
> Organization: SMP
> Lines: 41
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <3ab6a824$0$28214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<tVAt6.2611$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
> X-Trace: news.t-online.com 985079312 01 26996 b6d70PGSUYICV 010320
09:08:32
> X-Complaints-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> User-Agent: KNode/0.4
> Xref: newscene.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:461643
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:204674
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> Andy Mueller-Maguhn, a leader of Berlin's Chaos Computer Club and also
> > Europe's
> >> representative on the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
> >> Names and Numbers (ICANN), said he believed the German government was
> >> probably in damage-control mode. In other words: He thinks the report
> >> in Der Spiegel is probably accurate.
> >>
> >> "You have to remember we have a new U.S. government to think of and
> >> it's very sure that no one in the German government wants to hurt that
> >> new political relationship," said Mueller-Maguhn, an occasional adviser
> >> to government figures.
> >>
> >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > So who cares what this wacko thinks? Who the hell is he? The leader
> > of some computer club? ROFL.
> >
>
> You canīt read, Chad, right?
> There was also mentioned that he is a member of ICANN and advisor to
> government.
WOW, ICANN! woooppheeeee!!!! Like that means ANYTHING. NOT!. "Advisor" to
the government? What does he go, go around saying, "I think we should all
dye our hair blonde" and people do?
> But beeing a member of Chaos Computer Club is even more important,
> in my eyes.
yea, obviously...
> Naturally you donīt know what that is and who those guys are, as you
> have shown.
I do - and it impresses me, zero.
>
> In addition you probably donīt know "Der Spiegel", one of the most
> renowned magazines of the world. If they write something, in nearly
> all of the cases it is really good researched. *VERY* rarely they got
> it wrong.
Guess what - THEY GOT IT WRONG!
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:44:09 -0600
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 19 Mar 2001 18:48:15 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >hahahaha - silly penguinistas - I TOLD you it was a lie... but you choose
to
> >believe your own fud machines... hehe
> >
> >http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C42502%2C00.html
> >
>
> hahahaha - stupid MicroSoftGreyMatter...did you actually READ the article
in
> the link above? It confirms everything you MicroHeads were so vigorously
> denying.
>
>
man, you are really stupid aren't you?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:46:07 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jon Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Andy Walker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Blue Screen of Death" has a whole new meaning.
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately that's not an issue with any properly configured system,
> > > > especially not a W2K system hardened for military use - silly boy...
> > >
> > > Look who is being silly. According to Microsoft's sponsored tests,
by
> > > NSTL, Windows 2000 has a MTTF of 2839. That's 118 days. So, just
before
> > > they enter battle, they should reboot. Or they should never be out at
> > > sea for more than three months. Give me a break.
> >
> > that's for a release candidate version of the OS using drivers made
before
> > the product was finalized. The final version of the product, updated to
> > service pack 1 and using WHQL drivers doesn't crash. We've never seen a
blue
> > screen. I personally consider it bullshit created by unix losers envious
of
> > how easily windows smokes unix's CLI butt
>
> Ahh, yes, here we go again. "This version (service pack) of [NT, 2K,
Windows,
> etc.] is stable, unlike the previous version."
Not at all true. What's so unusual about requiring a final release version
of some product? Are you that used to running beta software that you prefer
it over fleeting releases before more point betas are released?
Go post this stuff to a thread
> where people will believe it. (hint, that's not here.)
No, it's in technical forums where real people use it all the time and know
what I'm talking about.
>A good number of the
> machines in the study were the released version.
Wrong.
>
> I don't think anyone care's what you "personally consider."
Only those that use it daily nod their head knowing I'm right.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:47:03 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jon Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Andy Walker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Blue Screen of Death" has a whole new meaning.
> > > >
> > > > Fortunately that's not an issue with any properly configured system,
> > > > especially not a W2K system hardened for military use - silly boy...
> > >
> > > Oddly enough....not a single MCSE can name a single "properly
configured"
> > > Microsoft system.
> >
> > I can. Mine. Never crashed under W2K. Never. Not once. Ever. Period.
What
> > did I do special? Loaded W2K, applied SP1, downloaded non-beta drivers
and
> > have enjoyed 100% uptime. Simple...
>
> The statistics are against you.
Not true - I don't know anyone who's had any problems with W2K beyond what
any ordinary user might with any OS. Damn stable is what EVERYONE reports.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:47:06 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > GreyCloud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andy Walker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan Johanson wrote in message
> > <3ab419a9$0$48766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > > > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/11929.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Lockheed Martin is working on the design of the new US CVN 77
> > aircraft
> > > > > >carrier, and Microsoft Federal Systems is to co-operate in the
ship's
> > > > > >information technology architecture. This will, we kid you not,
be
> > based on
> > > > > >Windows 2000. Microsoft Consulting Services will meanwhile chip
in
> > with
> > > > > tech
> > > > > >support during the ship's software design, development and
> > deployment."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Cause the Navy knows what everyone else already knows, W2K is
rock
> > solid
> > > > > >enough to trust lives to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This seems to explain why Americans keep hitting friendly troops
> > then....
> > > > > How about a competition for the first person to knock out the U.S.
> > carrier
> > > > > with the I love you virus!
> > > >
> > > > LOL! FULL SPEED AHEAD! DAMN THE TORPEDOES!! (WHAT DO YOU MEAN
YOUR
> > > > MOUSE POINTER FROZE UP!!)
> > >
> > > NO!!!! NO!!!! Don't start Word NOW!!! NO!!!!!
> > > *poof*
> > > BSOD
> > > boom
> > > glug...
> > > glug...
> > > glug...
> > >
> >
> > What does "BSOD" stand for? Never heard of it - must be a unix term.
>
> You must not have any Windows experience. BSOD is the "Blue Screen Of
Death."
> A constant reminder ho bad MS really is.
Given that Windows is all I do, and NT 4 is where I began and W2K is my
daily life I'd say I've had WAY more than you and I've never seen a BSOD
except those cute ads in the magazines.
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:54:38 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The bottomline is that the GPL prevents that any version of the code =
is
> or will be restricted in its *use*. The BSDL does not do that, because
> you are not allowed to install Microsofts ftp.exe on more than one
> machine, even though it contains BSDLed code.
>=20
ftp.exe is not under the BSDL, and it makes no difference that it isn't, =
because
the code is of little or no value. The original code (if they started =
with the BSD command)
is still free (of course), and the additional work done by Microsoft is =
appropriately owned
by them.
There are some people who resent the fact that individuals might own and =
control the
derived works of free code, but that is one of the freedoms associated =
with free code
and/or programs.
If someone doesn't like free software, then they shouldn't lie about it =
and redefine the
term 'free' for their own misuse. You appear to like to hear the term =
'free', yet don't
like it's meaning... By making the representation, like you do, =
intentionally misusing
the language, with a meaning to apparently deceive, then that is a =
sort-of lie. I am
disappointed that you might not only lie to others, but apparently lie =
to yourself. I cannot
help those who continue to lie to themselves.
Eventually, those people who are temporarily confused, and recognize =
that they have
lied to themselves, will quit using the term 'free' to describe GPLed =
works. Some of those
people might basically be honest, but it requires their choice to be =
honest to rectify the
situation (akin to drug abuse.)
John
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:51:03 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Windows Update is very free and clear. It's obvious what must be done.
> > OTOH, Red Hat forces you into a pay scheme and offers a service that
> > doesn't really count for all that much.
>
> The only difference is that Windows doesn't provide "daily patches".
True - they like to perform regression testing before releasing their
patches - no sleepless nights of untested beta code for me, thank you.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: 20 Mar 2001 19:52:03 -0600
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:998jjs$s8m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > However, if you're a corporation and want some legitimate service, you
> must
> > now pay. On the other hand, if you want to keep your systems up to date,
> > you must hire a person to monitor the daily patches and keep the systems
> > up to date, thus costing you. Either way, it's still a costly
proposition.
>
> You are admitting it yourself. You can CHOOSE to pay for a service. No one
> is forcing you to pay RH if your tech staff are better at admin then you
can
> run it yourself at NO COST.
>
> My company Runs a few RH machines. We have never paid a cent for
*service*
> because if you pull your finger out you can quite easily do it yourself.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that *companies* need to have the
latest
> bleeding edge *update* of *every* single package that is out there.
>
> You don't need the latest Kernel.
> You don't need the latest version of Sendmail or Postfix.
> You don't need the latest KDE or Gnome.
> You don't need the latest version of Apache.
> You don't need the latest version of Tomcat.
> You don't need the latest version of PostgreSQL or MySql.
> You don't need all the latest shared object libraries.
>
> The point is if your installation is working and secure you don't need to
> upgrade just because it's out there.
>
> > > E.g. MS model. You must pay us to service your car. Even if you can do
> it on
> > > your own.
> >
> > Please show us where you must pay for the Windows Update service.
> > (Hint: you can't, because you don't)
>
> Hmmm whats the difference between an upgrade and an update?
> Win3.1 --> Win3.11--> Win95 --> Win95B --> Win98 --> Win98B --> WinME -->
> Win2K
>
> Don't get me started on the Visual Studio series of upgrades just as bad.
Allow me, jerkola, to quote you back to yourself:
"The point is if your installation is working and secure you don't need to
upgrade just because it's out there."
IDIOT! No one forces you to upgrade windows either. W3.1 to W95/98/ME (take
your pick, either does the same) to NT4/W2K (either is fine, W2K is better).
HOW many kernel versions have they gone through?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[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: 20 Mar 2001 19:56:04 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:996vsq$jd1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Feb 2001
> >> > >"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.
> >>
> >> Actually Erik, there were several separate reports from Drestin Black,
> >> each with
> >> great enthusiasm for Microsoft, that claimed that Microsoft was going
to
> >> convert
> >> hotmail.
>
> > He NEVER claimed a change to NT4 and rebuked you on it several times.
>
> >>Each attempt was identified - Drestin cited the use of NT
> >> servers on
> >> the site.
>
> > Bullshit.
>
> >> The NT 4.0 attempt failes, as did NT 5.0 and the up-times on
> >> Windows 2000
> >> aren't looking that great.
>
> > BULLSHIT IN THE EXTREME!! NT4 was NEVER attempted. Period. NT5=W2K so
you
> > are obvious confused. Finally, from someone who's worked there and
continues
> > to work there; W2K performance has deliver 100% uptime so far. Not a
single
> > crashed W2K server.
>
> I was involved with attempting to use a W2K based dhcp server to spray
addresses
> and such at over 10K nodes.
>
> It ended up not being used, because it crashed too much.
Oh my god, you are such a liar! Why a DHCP server would puke based on how
many nodes is so pathetically lame I can't believe you are making such shit
up. A single DHCP server for 10K nodes? God, someone teach you something
about networking - what an idiot.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
