Linux-Advocacy Digest #906, Volume #33 Wed, 25 Apr 01 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (mlw)
Re: Impact of Internet (Greg Pfister)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product ("JS PL")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Chad Everett)
Re: Why can't the Browser be the GUI for Linux PC? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed. (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Chad Everett)
Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare? (mlw)
Re: A real programming language for Linux: Smalltalk (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Communism
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (Neil Cerutti)
Re: I Love the BSA (mlw)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (mlw)
Re: Baseball (jim dutton)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (Neil Cerutti)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:11:34 +1200
> No, there was no sarcasm. There was just BS in big heaps.
> =
> I do not believe that you ever just saw the really big stuff. Those box=
es
> where just the CPU=B4s, the memory and the IO-processors needed several=
> square-meters. You keep telling us how wonderful those Wintendo-boxes a=
re.
> You just don=B4t realize that they are toys. Even the Win-DC boxes are
> simply just toys compared even to todays bigger unix-boxes, let alone t=
he
> big iron. You know nothing. Nothing of interest, that is.
> =
> Peter
> =
> =
> --
> The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
> that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol.
> Larry Wal=
l
Not only that, but Microsoft relys heavily on the fact that you can
easily cluster NT servers together, thus giving the appearance of a
stable OS, however, if you were to get two identical servers, one
loaded, say with, SCO UnixWare 7.1, and one loaded with Windows 2000
Server, I would be interested to know which will kark it first. =
Microsoft pioneered clustered for the mear fact that one NT server is
not stable enough under a heavy load. Grab a StarFire w/ Sparc III
loaded with Solaris, and it is built like a brick shit house, and no
need for costly clusters of NT servers just to maintain a uptime that is
not hysterically laughable.
Matthew Gardiner
-- =
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:15:34 +1200
> The article says
>
> Halifax will start to replace parts of its NT and Unix infrastructure in
> July, and is aiming to complete the whole project by the end of the
> year.
>
> How do you get from this to "things get better and they never look
> back"?
>
> --
> Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
> I rarely read mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My highschool, as one example, had an NT4 server, bloody unreliable,
over a period of two weeks, the performance and responsiveness of the
server went slowly downhill. Installed the latest service pack, still it
kept happening. Re-installed the whole OS cleanly w/ latest service
pack. A couple of months later they bought a copy of Novell Netware 5,
for the rest of the year, there wasn't one day of downtime.
Matthew Gardiner
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:18:29 +1200
Jon Johansan wrote:
> =
> "Peter K=F6hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > mlw wrote:
> >
> > > Todd wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> The article claims a few other companies have already gone to W2DC=
and
> > >> have good success... did you read the article?
> > >>
> > > I read the article, and am taken with how stupid it sounds. I have =
seen
> > > a couple stories like it followed by the inevitable article a year =
or
> > > two later about how they have to upgrade, yet again, to get the ben=
efits
> > > they thought they were getting with the previous version. In a year=
or
> > > two they will either upgrade again or go back to UNIX. Just wait an=
d
> > > see.
> > >
> > There were several instances in germany in the last years, where exac=
tly
> > that happened. In one case MS tried to replace a working OS/2 network=
> > with a NT4 one. After more than 10M $ spent they simply gave up and g=
ot
> > back to OS/2.
> =
> How about documenting this.
> =
> I do not know of ANY company that spends $10M (we put the $ in front of=
the
> number in this country) to convert and then just "gives up" - yea right=
=2E..
$10M projects aren't uncommon, depending upon the size of it, whether
any custom software had to be re-written, staff retrained and other
associated costs with migrating from OS/2 to NT, the cost can add up to
quite a large sum of change.
Matthew Gardiner
-- =
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:23:52 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >On the x86, process space is 32 bit, usually this space is divided in
> two,
> > > >upper 2G goes to system, lower 2G goes to process. Lately, however,
> lower 3G
> > > >has been mapped to user and upper 1G mapped to system.
> > >
> > > The entire 2GB isn't mapped. Unless you've got a swapfile that big, it
> is
> > > impossible for the stack to run into the heap.
> >
> > That depends on the layout of he process. If the stack is close to the
> heap,
> > and you only have a few dead VM pages between bottom of stack and top of
> heap,
> > pushing a large structure can get well past it.
> >
> > In a program on most x86 systems, I can put the stack where ever I like.
> Also,
> > think of threads, where does their stack come from? It is largely based on
> the
> > preferred layout of the build tools.
> >
> > Lastly, on the x86, in a flat model protected environment using virtual
> memory,
> > a process is laid out in a 4G space. Only a small fraction of it is used.
> This
> > does not mean it is not laid on in the page directory as pointed to by the
> CR3
> > register. The 4G space must be defined. It just need not be very
> populated.
> >
> > Perhaps there is some confusion of what "mapped" means and in what
> context.
>
> I think the confusion is in "reserved" for the system/user, versus "mapped"
> to the system/user.
I wouldn't want to introduce the word "reserved" because that has a special
meaning in OS terms. It means that the virtual memory has been allotted but
page space or memory has not been assigned. Many virtual memory systems have
the notion of lazy allocation. When a program asks for a large chunk of memory,
the OS only checks if it can fit in the address space and returns a pointer to
the address in which it should go. It isn't until the program actually uses the
memory does the OS actually allocate it.
char *p = OSLevelAlloc(size);
memset(p, 0, size);
Memory does not get allocated in the virtual memory system until the memset,
not the allocation request.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Greg Pfister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.theory,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Impact of Internet
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:01:05 -0500
Maynard Handley wrote:
[snip]
> the Reagan years did not turn
> back the fact that adult men and women now take it for GRANTED that after
> some (smallish, 1..5) number of dates there will be sex.)
You weren't around in the 60s, were you?
Greg Pfister
<not my employer's opinion>
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:23:56 +1200
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Except that it isn't true. Many companies are finding that an NT/2K
> solution is
> > not more stable, is not cheaper, is not easier to manage.
>
> Except that what you just wrote is NOT true. W2K IS much more stable and
> cheaper and in every single way imaginable much MUCH easier to manage. I
> mean, night and day differences.
Ok, you roll out a server solution, two commercial packages, Solaris for
Intel and Windows 2000 server, this is assuming all hardware is
compatible with both OS's. Solaris, install, configure, migrate,
replace. Windows 2000 server, install, check licenses, check number of
clients, check clustering license, check node license, and some extra
checking so that you don't get a knock on the door by the BSA,
configure, migrate, replace.
Now, which one do you think will be easier to setup?
Matthew Gardiner
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:25:53 -0400
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:F6tF6.27520$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue 24 Apr 2001 11:33, "JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >
> > Neither does Windows2000 pro. You, once again, are working with false
> > information. Users can easily burn discs with default user permissions.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Anyone caring to see for themselves simply install CDRWin from
> > goldenhawk.com , and burn to your hearts content. I'm sure just about
any
> > other app will work too.
> >
>
> This terrifies me. Users should not have the ability to directly send
> low-level commands to the hardware (ANY hardware) by default.
They don't. Users do not have the ability to install the burning software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Apr 2001 08:00:43 -0500
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:13:11 GMT, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Solution is simple:
>
>Run Photoshop on Linux, print to the HP under Linux using your expensive ink
>and paper, and burn all your CD's under Linux using the latest burning
>software available. Have fun~
>
>Done deal!
>
Too bad you can't read. I moved everything to Linux and am using gimp
and things are working just fine.
Oh little one, perhaps you could tell us all where to get Photoshop
for Linux and what the price is?
>> > Windows 2K Pro with 384Meg RAM and lots of free disk space running
>> > Photoshop 6.01 ( a $900 program! ). Windows 2K is at SP1 with all
>> > recent windows updates installed.
>[ snip ]
>
>> > Printing 5-6Meg JPGs to an HP 880C deskjet (on parallel port) works
>> > find *most of the time*. Sometimes only prints 25% to 75% of an
>> > image and then just ejects the paper. Really annoying since the
>> > high quality photo paper and inkjet cartridges are expensive.
>> > Checked out Windows ...
>
>
> [ -- usual dumbass comment about something MH knows nothing about -- ]
>
Please enlighten us, oh little one, how to properly configure the Windows
2K Pro system to alleviate the problem in question.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why can't the Browser be the GUI for Linux PC?
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:29:40 +1200
nntp user wrote:
>
> Here is the $64M question: Why on one is making the Browser the unifying
> desktop GUI for the Linux PCs?
>
> Ask youself this question: Is there any thing KDE/GNOME can do that the
> Browser can not do?
> Remember, the old Mac's desktop GUI is called the Finder (get it?).
> Windows/Mac desktop GUI is not much more than a high level "disk browser"!
> For graphics, have the Browser support W3C's SVG/X3D. What else do you need?
> The Browser can interact with everything on the net and it can interact with
> anything on your local disks.
>
> --CW (thank me if Linux PC takes off with the Browser as its desktop GUI)
A number of reasons, first, slow responsiveness, if you were to have
everything using XML and UML, you would have the equivalent of Netscape
6 as an GUI, aka, a slow, shit, unstable GUI, something Linux DOESN'T
need. KDE and GNOME are the two default desktops. If you want to be Mr
Super Special by using some obscure, unnamed, star-trek like desktop as
you GUI then so be it, however, don't expect a huge following from the
populous or software companies. Personally, I prefer KDE, I have used
it since 1.1.2 on Redhat 5.2, and it is stable and reliable. I have used
GNOME, however, since I am already familiar with KDE, I might as well
stick with it.
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed.
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:31:26 +1200
Apart from you snide remarks, do you have any valid input into this
discussion forum?
Matthew Gardiner
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Apr 2001 08:07:32 -0500
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 03:23:56 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>jet wrote:
>>
>> Wow, are you ever easily amused.
>
>Man-hating women like jet have no sense of humor
>
How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Answer: That's not funny!!
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare?
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:37:33 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The Microsoft zealots always quote marketshare at some point, have you
> noticed?
> > I started thinking about that, why is it important? Is it important?
> >
> > I think "why" marketshare is somewhat important, is because you need a
> > community of users and developers to create the various software. The days
> > where one could write all that they need are long gone.
> >
> > The real issue is how big does that market need to be? How many active
> > users/developers does it take before a system is self sustaining? Also,
> does
> > open source make this number larger or smaller than the equivalent closed
> > source?
>
> It's more than just number of users. There has to be a viable market as
> well. Many software developers don't see the Linux market as viable even
> though it probably has enough users to otherwise make it so (if it were a
> closed source platform, like the Mac).
Markets are a funny thing. It isn't just numbers, it is how many users can you
get, how much does it cost to sell to them, etc. Many, many aspects of a
"market" besides size is important.
>
> The reason is that Linux users are always screaming about price, and how
> things are free. ISV's see this as "Nobody wants to pay for software, and
> I'm not going to write it for charity".
We Linux people see Linux as a good way to get stuff done. It is cheap(free)
and stable.
Yet, I will pay for software when it provides a real value. Problem is, the
last software that added value was VisiCalc and wordstar, everything else is
just market driven drivel.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A real programming language for Linux: Smalltalk
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 01:33:33 +1200
Mark Watson wrote:
>
> As an older programmer (I started in 1966), I feel that
> the current state of programming tools sometimes
> compares badly with what we had 10 or 15 years ago.
>
> Sure, the hardware is way better, but even my favorite development
> environments (e.g., JBuilder for Java, Emacs + Lisp/Prolog/Python)
> seem poor substitutes for the old Lisp Machines and dedicated
> Smalltalk environments.
>
> I have enjoyed using the Open Source Squeak Smalltalk
> system (www.squeak.org), but I just re-discovered an
> industrial strength development system VisualWorks Smalltalk
> that runs great on Linux (and just about every other platform)
> that is now free for non-commercial use (and $500 a year
> for a commercial use license).
>
> Anyway, I will probably get FLAMED for recommending
> a proprietary system, but I still recommend that Linux
> programmers try out a "hyper productivity programming
> environment" (I am quoting myself <grin>) like
> VisualWorks (www.cincom.com). If you do try VisualWorks,
> just work through the built in tutorials, and in a few evenings
> you will be surprised at how much programming you can do
> in a short period of time.
>
> -Mark
>
> -- Mark Watson
> -- Java and C++ consulting www.markwatson.com
$500 a year, a rip-off. Now, a one off $500, now that would be worth
it. Maybe you should email them and inform them that people aren't made
of money, and if they want a loyal Linux following, charge at a
reasonable, ONE OFF price.
Matthew Gardiner
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:32:04 GMT
>>>>> Gunner writes:
Gunner> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:54:40 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote>
>>>>>>> Gunner writes:
>>
Gunner> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:19:40 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote>
>>
>>
>> >> That is hyperbole. But even if true, would not justify his call to
>> >> kill democrats in general.
>>
>> >> He is a proven liar, a cowardly forger, and if you value your personal
>> >> credibility you would stop defending him.
>>
Gunner> Aaron can defend himself, I do however often agree with his concepts and
Gunner> ideas, and I defend those on occasion.
>>
>> When I agree with him I say so.
>>
Gunner> You really need to work on something else besides the :lier/forger:
Gunner> thingy... you have beat that horse to death, and you now sound simply
Gunner> shrill and simple minded. I dont know if he did or didnt, and would be
>>
>> He most certainly did.
>>
Gunner> surprised if he had, but I really dont care about the personal pissing
>>
http> groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
http> groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
http> groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> The above is the forgery, the lies are in most of his posts.
>>
Gunner> contest the two of you have going on between you. I find you more and
Gunner> more using it as a pretext to avoid refuting his ideas..which leads me
Gunner> to believe that he is winning the logic/info debate and you are slipping
Gunner> into LaVoys Corralary.
>>
>> You clearly are not paying attention. He is lying in most threads
>> he participates in. For example the global warming thread has lies
>> in virtually every post he makes.
>>
Gunner> Spend more time on the subject, and less on whimpering.
>>
>> His dishonesty and lies are on topic.
Gunner> Pump sand up your ass, and act as a breakwater. Your dishonesty and lies
Gunner> are also on topic as well as you lie in virtually every post you make as
Gunner> well. So..your point is?
Please point out a single lie I have made?
Gunner> Get real, you sound like a box of puppies.
Apparently honesty has no value for you.
Too bad, it must make you very lonely.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: 25 Apr 2001 13:34:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers posted:
>You could boot to DOS in Win95 and type Win, but you weren't
>really running Windows on DOS at that point, Win95's VMM
>basically took over. It's similar to how Novell 3.x and 4.x ran.
>You could type nwserver (or whatever it was) from DOS, but you
>weren't really running NetWare on DOS, you were running NetWare.
>
>This difference made it slightly difficult to go back and forth
>between DOS, Win95, then back to DOS again.
>
>In the end, it just created support nightmares for anyone
>dealing with Win9x about which apps could run in the 32-bit
>protected mode, and which needed to be in the DOS window, etc.
It needn't have been so difficult as they made it. They
castrated, so to speak, DOS 7 to the point that it became almost
impossible to use without a third-party memory manager like QEMM.
DOS 6 came with terrific tools for managing high memory and
device TSRs. DOS 7 came with nothing, and actually shrunk high
memory to nothing if you used Expanded Memory *at all*.
And then, some of the greatest DOS programs were not included. To
this day, Win98 doesn't install xcopy.exe (although it's on the
CD someplace if you go and get it yourself).
>When Win98 came out, there were still legacy apps which required
>DOS mode.
>
>By WinME, there are almost no apps which require this, which
>allowed MS to finally get rid of the support nightmare and not
>require people to boot to DOS to some things, and boot to WinME
>to do others.
None of those old apps or old hardware has mysteriously
disappeared, though. However, I admit that support for them was
so horribly broken that most people were forced to abandon them.
And in those days there was great gnashing of teeth and cries of
anguish from many who were forced to give up WordPerfect 5.1 or
WordStar.
>I had to mention this, because, believe it or not, many
>Windows-haters don't realize this and still think that WinNT or
>2K are sucky like Win3.1 or Win95 and seek to insult it at such
>a level which is, as I'm sure you agree, really ignorant.
I don't think WinNT or Win2000 are sucky like Win3.1 and Win9x.
They are sucky in their own way.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I Love the BSA
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:44:44 -0400
It isn't just Latin american companies.
Now that investor money is becoming harder to find, corporations are starting
to see real value in Open Source. Linux and FreeBSD can truly make a large
impact on an IT budget.
If the crap with the BSA continues, I can see a time when companies declare
that using non-free software is too big a corporate risk.
If the BSA accuses your company of pirating software, you are guilty until
proven innocent. You have to produce proof of licenses.
A totally free software strategy makes sense in light of the thuggary of the
BSA.
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> Linux spreading rapidly in Latin America BY JAMES HILLS
> LinuxWorld.com 4/24/01
>
> "On the other side of the struggle are American corporations like
> Microsoft and the Business Software Alliance. As a result of the poverty
> of local nations and other social issues, pirating software has become
> generally accepted in Latin American companies that cannot afford to
> purchase software legally. But by lobbying for tighter laws like the Lei
> de Software in Brazil, American companies are forcing Latin American
> businesses to re-examine their IT strategies. Paying full price for
> proprietary software (which is not practical for many), or using
> proprietary software illegally and facing steep fines or even prison
> time, are unpalatable choices for local businesses. American companies
> may actually be forcing themselves out of the market by passing such
> laws; they have left a gaping hole for Linux to fill."
>
> http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2362/LWD010424latinlinux/
>
> --
> "It's kind of fun to do the impossible."
> -- Walt Disney
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With Seven Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:50:19 -0400
Neil Cerutti wrote:
>
> GreyCloud posted:
> >I couldn't agree more. NT started out using the rings, but then
> >somebody just had to speed things up and put the video inside
> >the kernel ring. Very stupid if you ask me.
>
> I think they did it because it was the only way they could
> quickly and cheaply port the Win98 look and feel to Windows NT.
> Their attempts to make a Win98-looking desktop in ring 3
> were apparently a failure.
It was the most expedient path for performance. IMHO they could have easily
make it work in ring 3, but rather than rewrite the code correctly, they wanted
to use the Windows 95 code, which expects kernel privilages.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: 25 Apr 2001 13:48:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>> how many retailers sell linux machines again?
>> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>>
>> p.s. sneering & not bathing does not a viable marketing strategy make
>
>Only a moron would wonder about the sales of a
>free downloadable operating system.
>
>Into the breech steps jackie!
If sarcasm bit you on the ass Chris would you notice?
Never mind we saw the answer.
-Jeem, The stupidity runs deep in that one
========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com Autococker2000/Dye SS
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?" --
Paul 1 Corinthians 10:29
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: 25 Apr 2001 13:50:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neil Cerutti posted:
>It needn't have been so difficult as they made it. They
>castrated, so to speak, DOS 7 to the point that it became almost
>impossible to use without a third-party memory manager like
>QEMM. DOS 6 came with terrific tools for managing high memory
>and device TSRs. DOS 7 came with nothing, and actually shrunk
>high memory to nothing if you used Expanded Memory *at all*.
>
>And then, some of the greatest DOS programs were not included.
>To this day, Win98 doesn't install xcopy.exe (although it's on
>the CD someplace if you go and get it yourself).
Oh, and I don't want to fail to mention the most horrible and
glaring ommision of all, the wonderful and pretty much unmatched
(the closest is GNU Info) DOS 6 help command. As far as I know,
there is still *no* documentation available for DOS commands in
Win 9x. WinNT has it, with some glaring ommisions (like a good
overview of batch processing).
Given the emasculation of DOS 7, I don't see why Microsoft has
any right to whine about getting so many support calls for
unfortunates that wanted to run older apps.
It was a strategy for migrating people away from DOS, and it has
worked OK for them.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
