Linux-Advocacy Digest #573, Volume #33 Fri, 13 Apr 01 05:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home (GreyCloud)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Ed Allen)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Thaddeus L Olczyk)
Ah Sweet Dreams are Made of This (Was: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("2 + 2")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Thaddeus L Olczyk)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Donn Miller)
Re: Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: hmm getting tired of this! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT kiddies, don't try this at home
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:50:00 -0700
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Dave Martel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/5/18265.html>
> : Missing Novell server discovered after four years
>
> : "...the University of North Carolina has finally located one of its
> : most reliable servers - which nobody had seen for FOUR years...One of
> : the University's Novell servers had been doing the business for years
> : and nobody stopped to wonder where it was until some bright spark
> : realised an audit of the Campus network was well overdue...Attempts to
> : follow network cabling to find the missing box led to the discovery
> : that maintenance workers had sealed the server behind a wall."
>
> : Can you imagine an NT server running totally unattended for four
> : years?
>
> In the computer world, that's tantamount to discovering the remains of
> Pompeii. Except that it was still working! Now, the motive of discovery was
> Microshit and software audits. Were it not for the BSA, that lone server would
> have continued until the hardware died, humming away the years like the
> Energiser Rabbit. That is some good uptime, 4 years entombed in a room that
> was sealed off like the dead Pharohs of Old Egypt.
>
> --
> FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
> The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
> The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
I don't think it was working sealed up like that. Our secretaries
stuffed their PCs under their desks without any air flow paths, and
about a month later they complained the computer died. Fried power
supply.
--
V
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:01:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What about BOB? :-)
Before they were married Bill's wife headed a project to "simplify"
the "computing experience".
It was never part of the monopoly bundle so it sold as an extra cost add
on. Hardly anybody bought it. Even newbies thought it was too unreal.
Bill got a wife out of it though and now the bundle comes equipped with
Clippy.
For XP they are not only removing Clippy but are actually trying to
convince people that "It's less annoying" is a compelling reason to
upgrade.
MS has a reputation as a company filled with marketing geniuses but as
their monopoly starts crumbling we can see that it has all been because
of the monopoly since very early on.
They have had campaigns where they put down their own product by
claiming that W2K was thirteen times as reliable and therefore "worth"
ten times the price.
They have addressed complaints that their software crashed too often
with "This one reboots faster".
Their Astroturf campaign was exposed before it even got past the
planning stage and their response was "Other companies do it too".
They have resorted to trying to hide DOS so they can pretend "It really
is all 32-bit".
Not marketing genius, just lock in contracts with the major OEMs.
--
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thaddeus L Olczyk)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:18:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:25:13 -0600, Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <9b4s0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In short, Judge Jackson's comments prove a lot more about Judge
>> > Jackson himself than they ever have or will about Microsoft.
>>
>> Yes, he should have just found Microsoft's counsel guilty of contempt
>> of court months earlier.
>>
>> I suspect if it was anyone but Microsoft he would have.
>
>I'd ask you what you're talking about, but from what you've said,
>it's already apparent that YOU don't know.
>
What is apparent is that:
1) You have no clue about what the law is.
2) You have no clue on what is happening in the Microsoft case.
3) You're a raging idiot who puts down other people for traits you
purport they have. Yet you demonstrate that you have those same
traits yourself.
>You don't find somebody guilty of contempt of court, you place them
>in contempt of court. If you're claiming that somebody lied under
>oath, that's not a reason for contempt of court; it's a reason for
>them to be charged with perjury. It would be a whole separate trial,
>and if they were found guilty, they would quite possibly be sent to
>prison.
>
Talk about stupidity. Yes you can be found in contempt for perjury.
In fact it happened in a very famous case recently called, Jones vs
Clinton.
In that case the Judge, Susan Weber Wright, found Bill Clinton in
contempt of court for perjurious statements he made during a
deposition. It was reported on CBS,NBC,ABC nightly news. As
well as the SUnday morning news shows, McNeil Leherer and
any radio news program.
So is everything that you post as full of shit as this is.
( Oh and no I won't provide you with a link. I don't think
you are worth the time I need to spend to find a link. If your too
stupid to use a search engine though shit. )
>In any case, the facts so far speak for themselves: every decision
>Judge Jackson has made about Microsoft has been appealed.
What are you a real idiot or something? You don't expect decisions
regarding Microsoft to not be appealed.
>Under
>appeal, it's been found that his decisions were at least partly
>wrong, so all of them have been reversed in whole or in part.
Every decision going against Microsoft, whether it was issued
by Jackson or a different judge, going through the third circuit
has been reversed. It appears that the third circuit has some sort of
bias for Microsoft.
And BTW in one of those rulings, they did not say that he was wrong.
What they said was there was insufficient evidence for the ruling,
since the judge did not have a hearing.
>He's
>made it quite clear that FAR from being impartial on the subject of
>Microsoft, that he's strongly biased against them.
And yet every article that I've seen before the trial suggested that
of all the District court judges working the third circuit, he was the
one who would be most lenient on Microsoft. As for indications that
he was biased, why didn't Microsoft require that he recuse himself
for that bias. Fact is that under most circumstances if a party does
not make a motion for recusal they lose the right to complain later.
BTW in the hearings David Tatel said to a Microsoft attorney (about
the evidence of Jacksons bias),
"There is no evidence other than your own speculation that he had
these views before the trial started."
Another judge asked:
"What is the prejudice you put forth as a reason for vacating the
judgment, given Judge Jackson was merely stating what was on his
mind?"
>The appeals court
>has consistently had to straighten out the complete mess he's made of
>every case he's heard related to Microsoft, and every indication is
>that his decision in this one won't stand either.
>
Strange since most news report claim that the findings and conclusions
will stand and that the remedy might be overturned. So other than
stories in the Wall Street Journal and Capitalist Pig Times what
proof do you have that they will reverse either the findings, or the
conclusions?
BTW of the seven judges hearing the case only two have ever ruled for
Microsoft in the past.
>Of course they didn't comment on whether his comments were correct or
>not: doing so would be just as bad as the comments he made, and it's
>quite apparent that the judges on the appeals court know attempt to
>DO their duty, rather than making public comments on things they
>clearly know they shouldn't. Nonetheless, they've basically made as
>harsh of comments about him as they're allowed to without violating
>their own duty.
Please, they scheduled a session that neither side fealt was necessary
simply to slam the judge. If they had made those same comments outside
the court, they would be violating ethics. So what do they do? They
schedule a hearing so that they can make those comments legally.
Who do they think they are fooling. I doubt the Supreme Court will by
this.
BTW. If the case is such a slam dunk, why is it that we don't have a
ruling by now? It's been close to two months.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.object,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.theory,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Ah Sweet Dreams are Made of This (Was: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:18:40 -0400
"Ah, take me back
I wanna ride in Geronimo's Cadilac."
1995, it was
bold times, like the good old days
"the network is the computer"
Java applets would be downloaded "on the fly"
well, perhaps like a fly stuck in molassas
fly, baby fly
get up
do SOMETHING
we got servlets
"all we ever needed"
Yep, rooms full of 'em
writing 100% PURE java
sellin' lots of Sun servers
[pulls out a Java CRYSTAL BALL]
Eeeeeekkkk!
It's got a BUG IN IT!!!!!
"a SOFTWARE BUG?"
"No, it's Scott McNealy dressed in drag as JINI"
Scott: "Java picks Bill Gates' lock on the desktop"
[it's predicting the PAST]
[slaps it upside it's HEADBALL]
just like java
where's the hype gone?
it's gonna do wonderful things
soon,
Scott: "They ran over MY BABY!!!"
"They wouldn't LET IT LIVE!!!!"
"BLAME CANADA!!!!"
"For being across the BORDER!!!
"They didn't STOP THEM!!!!"
"From KILLIN' MY BABY!!!!"
2 + 2
unicat wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>(The following are the editorial opinions of the author, no more, no
>less)
>
>It was good to see the DOW go back above 10000 yesterday, but there
>are lingering doubts about whether the bear market is over.
>
>Which has many people asking, what happened to the optimism of the 90's?
>
>Where is that spirit of unbridled optimism that fueled so many years of
>steady growth.
>
>The author would like to advance a pet theory. It's all Microsoft's
>fault.
>
>For the past decade, there has been a bubble of investment spending,
>which
>has produced high profits and further investment, all based upon a
>single phenomenon:
>Moore's Law. The principle that says that computers will go twice as
>fast every 18 months.
>
>This has given us desktop computers with the compute power and disk
>storage
>of mainframes from a decade ago, at prices of pennies per MIP instead of
>kilobucks.
>
>So businesses have scrambled to find ways to use this computing power to
>improve every
>aspect of their enterprise. Which meant lots of capital spending. Which
>fueled the
>growth of tech sector companies, resulting in lots of high wage jobs,
>which fueled
>consumer spending, which benefitted mainstream business, and so forth in
>a virtuous
>cycle.
>
>And every year or so a new type of microprocessor would be released with
>even more
>power. And not coincidentally, a new version of the Windows OS would be
>released,
>which added features at the expense of using more CPU resources. So
>everyone had
>to spend a bunch of new capital on upgrades, which started the virtuous
>cycle all over again.
>
>But now the cycle seems to be breaking, and the blame, for this author,
>rests squarely on
>Microsoft. They seem to have hit the wall, to have run out of ideas.
>
>It has been three years since Windows 98 now, and Microsoft is working
>on their fourth attempt
>at a replacement OS (Windows SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, and now Win
>XP), but
>most desktops are still running good old Win 98. Why? Because there are
>no features in the new
>OS's that are interesting enough to be worth the pain and expense of an
>upgrade.
>
>When the internet began to take off there was an opportunity for
>Microsoft to become
>its champion. However instead MS appears to have seen the internet as a
>threat to its desktop
>based computing empire, and it attempted to smother the baby. First (as
>this author
>recalls) by promoting the MSN as a rival to the internet itself, and
>when that didn't work,
>by (according to Sun)poisoning standards like Java that could have been
>used to
>build robust e-commerce systems, leaving the world of internet commerce
>in disarray,
>and turning dot-coms into dot-bombs as cunsumers shied away from the
>resulting mess.
>In an attempt to close the barn door after the horse was out, MS has put
>forward their
>new dot-net initiative. It has been called mind-numbingly complex, and
>due to customer
>suspicion over Microsofts motives, it is seeing adoption rates about
>equal to the Ford Edsel.
>
>In the view of the author, Microsoft overall seems to be transitioning
>in behavior, from an
>innovator that liberated users with cheap easy-to-use software, to a
>mainframe-style company,
>obsessed with controlling users and maximizing its revenue from each
>trivial product upgrade.
>As users balk at painful and expensive upgrades, MS is squeezing for
>more license fees from
>products already in use. One recent article seemed to indicate that MS
>had asked one firm to pay
>a license for every CLIENT system that accessed a web site built using
>windows NT.
>
>Students of history will see that this sort of behavior will inevitably
>to the demise of Microsoft.
>But for the US economy, this will be a good thing.
>
>The Barbarians have already gathered at the gates. The Linux OS, which
>some claim is more
>powerful and robust than Windows, giving the scalability of large UNIX
>servers to cheap intel iron,
>is already growing faster than Windows 2000, and is reported by the Wall
>Street Journal to have claimed
>over a 30% market share in servers. Although Linux use on the desktop
>has been limited to under 10%
>by the inertia of users accustomed to MS Office, there has now been an
>end-around-run. The Openoffice
>organization ( http://www.openoffice.org ) has released an office suite
>with nearly the same look-and-feel
>as MS Office. It will process MS office document formats, and runs
>equally well under Windows and Linux,
>and is being given away for FREE in perpetuity.
>
>Not only that, but old-time arch-rivals of MS, like IBM, are beginning
>to lose their fear of defying
>Microsoft. It seems that it has suddenly dawned on them that Microsoft
>isn't all that talented, or
>tough, and given their relative sizes, it might just be time for IBM to
>give pipsqueak Microsoft a
>thrashing they have long deserved. The first blow is for IBM to spend
>over $1billion on Linux
>development this year.
>
>As Microsoft does a long slow fade into irrelevance, there will be a
>liitle pain for the current
>users of Windows, but it will be quickly replaced by enthusiasm. As the
>constipating plug of Windows
>is removed from corporate IS departments, a flush of new creativity will
>ensue as technical personnel
>suddenly feel free to explore more creative and innovative ways to build
>servers, networks and protocols.
>Which will result in another rush of capital spending, and we will begin
>anew the virtuous cycle
>of economic growth.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thaddeus L Olczyk)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 08:31:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:15:09 -0700, "Dennis O'Connor"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:9b5cbi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> If it was anyone but Microsoft, they'd have been tried for perjury.
>
>Well, anyone but Microsoft or Bill Clinton, maybe.
Actually, Bill Clinton has been cited for contempt, and the only
reason he hasn't been tried is that he made a plea bargain.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:37:18 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Donn Miller wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > Actually, X always runs as root, even if you don't start X as root. If
> > you use startx to start X, then either X is run as suid root (bad), or a
> > wrapper (such as Xwrapper) executes the X server for you as root. xdm
> > also starts the X server as root.
> >
> > Do
> >
> > $ ps axcu | grep X
> >
> > on your system and see what I mean.
>
> I had to use a similar ps... no root process for Xsun.
> Its under the user that logged in.
> X does not run as root in UNIX.
Oh. But that's a different architecture, though, although I will admit
to generalizing this to all unix platforms. Must be an artifact of the
PC platform. I think it's one of those things about the i86 platform,
that in order to access ports that the video HW needs, you need to be
logged in as root.
Of course, you did mention "UNIX", which is what SunOS is, as it has
been certified as such by the Open Group. (What an honor. 8-)
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:37:35 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > * Have You Heard...Compaq has been left red faced by a
> > > > defacement
> > > > > > > > > > > double whammy as two of its sub domains were
vandalized by
> > two
> > > > > > > > > > > different hacking groups?
> > > > > > > > > > > Publication: vnunet.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Issue Date: 22 March 2001
> > > > > > > > > > > Title: Compaq Websites Suffer Double Hack
> > > > > > > > > > > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1119535
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This was the article.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The article doesn't seem accurate.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com+
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Shows that on March 25th, the first site was running on
> > Compaq
> > > > Tru64
> > > > > > > > Unix,
> > > > > > > > > > and only switched to NT4 sometime in the last week or
so.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well, it may not seem accurate, but an intrusion is an
> > intrusion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure I follow you. The article claims that it was
NT4
> > that
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > breached, yet Netcraft seems to indicate that at the time of
the
> > > > attack,
> > > > > > > > they were running Tru64 (and Apache). Clearly one must call
> > into
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > the validity of the article at all if they can't even get
what
> > OS
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > computer was running correct.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The two sub domain servers, both running hackers' favourite
> > > > > > > Microsoft IIS 4 on NT, were hit overnight."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the part above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note also that it says which web servers were hit:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "One of the defacements on www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com by
> > > > > > Antihackerlink appears to have used the well documented Unicode
> > exploit
> > > > "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And again, look at the link I provided:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com+
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It shows that www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com was running Tru64
> > with
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > at about the time the article claims.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Compaq's main site, Compaq.com, runs the less attacked Apache
web
> > > > > > > server on
> > > > > > > Compaq's own flavour of Unix, Tru64."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would say by all of this that MS draws more attention to
hackers
> > and
> > > > > > > that hackers do breach the security. If UNIX was the target,
I'd
> > say
> > > > > > > they would have a more difficult time. Not impossible, just
> > difficult.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which is completely irrelevant to the point here. At least one
of
> > the
> > > > > > breached computers was apparently actually running Unix, and not
NT4
> > > > like
> > > > > > the article claims. That brings the entire article into doubt.
> > > > >
> > > > > I went to your suggested link. All I found was that
> > > > > www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com uses NT. Never mentioned the
Tru64
> > > > > UNIX as the server being intruded upon. But thats Compaqs
problem.
> > > >
> > > > You appear to be blind. Look at the bottom of the page where it
says
> > "OS,
> > > > Web Hosting History".
> > > >
> > > > See that table that says "Compaq Tru64" next to "Apache/1.3.11
(Unix)"
> > next
> > > > to "25-Mar-2001"?
> > >
> > > I did. It says IIs ... that ain't UNIX my boy.
> >
> > Now you're just plain lying. It's right there in the table at the
bottom of
> > the page.
> >
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com+
> >
> > It says quite clearly that on March 25th, 2001
> > www.ols2.software-acq.compaq.com was running Apache/1.3.11 under True64.
> > Saying otherwise is purely stupid.
>
> Again... it says IIS.... is that UNIX???
No, it does *NOT* say it was running IIS on March 25th, 2001. It says it
was running Apache. It is *CURRENTLY* running IIS, but seems to have
switched to sometime between the 25th and April 4th.
The article was written on March 22nd.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:48:43 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > No, I've got the MSDN cd-rom set, and it distinctly shows the
> > > work-arounds. Mind you that the MSDN set is huge with info. In
> > > chapt.13 of C++ PRIMER PLUS by Stephen Prata has examples of multiple
> > > inheritance. Some of these examples won't work under VC++6.0 while
> > > these same examples work fine under g++. None of these examples use
the
> > > MFC classes.
> >
> > Then provide such an example. I don't have C++ Primer Plus. I know of
no
> > MI issues with VC++. There are template and other issues, but nothing
> > related to MI (except, as I mentioned, the MFC static data issues).
> >
> > > > In the future, you might not want to get into an argument with
someone
> > that
> > > > knows orders of magnitudes more about the topic than yourself.
> > >
> > > If I were you, you shouldn't. Don't give up your day job.
> > > I've been in this field since 1965.
> > > Retired now, but now just enjoying the field.
> >
> > The fact that you're doing examples in C++ Primer Plus shows you have
little
> > experience in C++. I've been writing C++ for over 10 years, and C for
over
> > 20.
> >
> > Please, back up your claims with some evidence. You should be able to
> > provide a simple example.
>
> I was giving you a simple example of using the primer. If VC++6.0 can't
> handle it thats MSs' problem.
Unless of course the book is in error (misprints happen).
> Give me some time to post the example and I'll do as such. I've given
> you the benefit of the doubt and have tried to be nice... its pointless
> to call each other names... I won't. I've spent my time in the computer
> field while Bill's mother was still wiping his nose.
I think 10 years old is a bit too large for someone to be having their nose
wiped by their mother (he was born in 55, you said you started in the field
in 65).
> Again, I will get
> back to you as a new post. Both the examples and if you have the MSDN
> cd-rom set the search path to it. There are a lot of pluses in VC++6.0
> and a few minuses. One minus is the price ($600+) (Ouch!). Gnu g++
> (free) :-)
> If I can't get a good example... I'll apologize.
I have every MSDN cd-rom since the first "pre-release" in 1993. That's a
lot of CD's ;)
I've searched through the MSDN, and through the knowledge base, and other
than a few obscure bugs relating to optimizations, I find nothing relating
to MI not working.
BTW, only the professional version is $600. You can get the standard
version for $99. You should see the price of Borland's Linux product
(Kylix). $999 for the professional product. They're going to have a free
version, but you can only build GPL'd programs with it (and worse, their
licensing prohibits you from developing your product with the free version
then buying a professional license to ship it).
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:54:47 +1200
What I was using were real world examples of UNIX in action, unlike you,
who uses psuedo facts to some how demonstrate Windows is superior. Mine
are based on documented facts which you can request from the New Zealand
Government, under the Office Information Act.
Matthew Gardiner
<snype>
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operater from Hell)
If you donot like it go [#rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hmm getting tired of this!
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 03:57:50 -0500
"MjM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft took the damn thing over in 1997! It took them FOUR years, 2
> Operating Systems and God knows how many supporting apps to convert it!
> And why did they convert it? Because it was running poorly? They
> BOUGHT something that didn't work for shit and needed FOUR YEARS of
> investment to set straight? Ooh, sound business decision there.
Umm.. No. They bought it in December of 1997, and they converted to Win2k
in July of 2000. that's only 2.5 years.
Why didn't they convert in that 2.5 years? Well, as explained in their
article on the subject from 1998, it wasn't running on stock Solaris or
stock FreeBSD. It used special hardware MIME accelerators, among other
things to speed up the job. It was all around a huge task, and since they
were building Win2k anyways, they added the support they needed to Win2k.
Thus they couldn't convert until Win2k was released.
> No, they bought it because they thought they could run it on MS products
> and point to it as an example of a successful Unix-Windows migration.
>
> And finally, after FOUR YEARS, they can.
2.5 years.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
