Linux-Advocacy Digest #430, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 17:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Greg Copeland)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (jim dutton)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: No More Linux! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The Microsoft PATH. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: No More Linux! (Craig Kelley)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 11 May 2001 19:37:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Burkhard Wölfel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> If the overwhelming majority of men were truly bisexual, as you claim,
>> then why what reason would that be?
>>
>
>Read any Kinsey report
Kinsey was into urethral insertion. Perhaps he really wanted to make
people think the average weirdness is higher than expected ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:38:08 +0100
In article <WZFK6.1083$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chronos Tachyon"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu 10 May 2001 02:27, Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> [Snip]
>>
>> Probably most of all applications. Back then there was a relatively
>> small instruction set and not many resources. That said, you could do
>> all the intXX stuff from C and QuickBasic (I don't think Qbasic shipped
>> with this functionality). I did quite a lot of mouse stuff from int 31
>> (? its been a long time) from the QuickBasic int() and int86()
>> functions.
>>
> [Snip]
>
> I'm pretty sure you could do inline machine code even in QBasic. You
> stuffed your opcodes into a string, then did some sort of unusual
> syntactic incantation on it (something along the lines of "CALL
> ABSOLUTE OFFSET$(code$)", although it's been far too many years for me
> to believe that I got that right on the first try).
You could, but it really sucked.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 May 2001 14:38:02 -0500
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Personally, I didn't really see how the argument relating to intergrated
> browser as anti-competitive. Question, what about KDE? GNOME? Netscape
> is a shit browser, thats why it lost to IE, and still, after 2 years, it
> still sucks like a vacuum. As for the comment regarding the OS, yes,
> there are some irregularities, however, besides that, Netscape had no
> one to blame except themselves, for producing such shoddy products.
Except, when Netscape went free, IE sucked even worse than Netscape did.
That doesn't make Netscape good, it just means that IE sucked *MUCH* worse
than did Netscape at the time.
Think of it this way. Let's say that Microsoft was only an application
company and that someone else was developing the OS. Do you think there
would of been a snowball change in hell that IE would of been allowed to
be integrated. No! It was junk. On the odd chance that it were allowed,
there is no way it would of been allowed to be that tightly integrated.
Assuming that both of those could of happened, chances are you might of
even see "Netscape Shell" of some such thing which would of been allowed
to compete with IE and its level of OS integration. But you didn't.
None of it happened that way because Microsoft is a monopoly which
illegally used it's OS to stomp out another product.
If you disagree with any of the above, I highly recommend you find IE 1.0
or IE 2.0 and see how well the ultimate crash-o-matic works. You can say
that Netscape stunk all day long, but you must admit that IE was by far
even worse...at that time. IMOHO, IE stunk very badly until 4.x and became
pretty good at 5.x. I've not seen 6.0.
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 11 May 2001 19:38:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Burkhard Wölfel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> If the overwhelming majority of men were truly bisexual, as you claim,
>> then why what reason would that be?
>>
>
>Read any Kinsey report
>Read anything by Freud on general psychology
>> >
>> > I rather easily pointed this out and gave some example reasons,
>> > showing you to be the illogical dumbass we all knew you were anyway,
>> > so now all you can do is start swearing at me. How quaint.
>>
>> Maybe it's for the same reason that even though getting a lot of
>> money is a very popular idea, very few people actually rob banks.
>>
>> It's not THOUGHTS about robbing banks that gets you thrown in
>> the klink, its THE ACT.
>
>Explain, is hallucinating about cocks and asses OK but not the sport or
>what?
>
>
>>
>> By your dumbass definition, 99% of the population are band robbers.
>
>This is so funny, perhaps you should read Aristotle and some other
>Greeks too, not only on logic, btw.
It's always about doing it Greek style with you gay guys.
-Jeem, There's more to life then cocks dude
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:39:24 +0100
> Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>>>>What, in your view, is an API then?
>>>
>>> Documentation on the function calls used by a library.
>>
>>If you look at the name of API (ie application program interface) then
>>the INT system on DOS is definitely an interface used by application
>>functions.
>>
>>So where does the assembler INT instruction become an API?
>>
>>How about when its used from the QuickBasic int() function?
>
> So what the thing is somehow magically changes, depending on how it's
> used?
>
> Is it any wonder I keep bringing up metaphysics?
No. I'm saying it doesn't. I say teh ints are an API. You are not. At
some stage the API truns in to a non API (ints) according to you. Where
is that point?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 19:39:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:9dgeto$5kv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> :>
:> :>
:> :> Jan Johanson wrote:
:> :>
:> :> > Is there really any doubt that W2K rox the house?
:> :>
:> :> Yes, because unix systems stay up longer. Remember the "awesome" MTTF
:> :> that Windows 2000 exhibits? LOL.
:>
:> : Yes, I do. And W2K stays up every bit as long as unix systems.I know you
:> : won't admit it or can't imagine it but that's your problem not ours.
:>
:>
:> Linux and UNIX systems are capable of uptimes considerably longer than
:> the total time W2K has existed.
: Win2K is capable of that too, what is your point?
W2K is capable of uptimes considerably longer than it has existed?
And you know that, *how* ???????
Dude, logic is obviously NOT your strong point.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:02:33 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9des77$6pi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Congratulations. As a supposed Wintroll, I think you'll be quite
happy
> > with
> > > > FreeBSD so long as you don't have any needs for unsupported
hardware.
> > >
> > > > I myself use FreeBSD on my primary server, and have been using it
off
> > and on
> > > > for years. It is indeed quite easy to setup and install (in some
ways
> > it's
> > > > more difficult than, say, the Mandrake setup, but it gives you a lot
> > more
> > > > power over what you install without making it as difficult as many
of
> > the
> > > > other Linux installs).
> > >
> > > > I don't know of any people that have used FreeBSD and Windows that
would
> > > > complain too much about it, unlike Linux. Things like standardized
> > > > directory trees, standardized installation packages, etc, make it
really
> > > > nice.
> > >
> > > Yes, debian has that, but wintrolls like you seem to conveniently
forget
> > > it.
> >
> > No, debian doesn't have it. Not all Linux packages work with apt-get,
such
> > as rpm packages. FreeBSD has a single package system.
>
> Ahem, all FreeBSD packages are available as debs for Debian.
>
> Name one that isn't (and that isn't FreeBSD-exclusive, like 'ports' or
> something).
That's not the point. Suppose I come across a random linux package. What
are the chances it's going to work with your distribution?
> > The problem is that there are hundreds of Linux distros, but only a
single
> > FreeBSD distro.
>
> Are you forgetting about NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDI, MacOS X, etc. ? I can
> easily say, "The problem is that there are hundreds of BSD distros,
> but only a single Debian Linux distro".
No, those aren't FreeBSD. The BSD's are now quite different. FreeBSD and
OpenBSD or NetBSD all use vastly different kernels, while Debian and Red Hat
and Mandrake all use the same kernels.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:04:39 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have gracefully moved from using StarOffice 5.2, and purchase
> Wordperfect Suite 2000 for Linux. I constantly hear the mantra that
> "Until MS Office comes to Linux, it (linux) will never grace the
> harddrives of large corporate desktops". If that is the case, what is
> Wordperfect Suite 2000 missing?
Why did you address this to me? I've never said that.
I haven't used Wordperfect since 6.1, so I have no clue what Wordperfect is
like.
> Wordprocessor: Wordperfect 9
> Database: Paradox 9
> Spreadsheet:Quattro Pro 9
> Presentations: Presentations 9
> Calender/Scheduler/Address Book/Memo's: Corel Central 9
> Browser/Email: Netscape 4.76, I have only had it crash once on me, in
> the 2 months I have owned this copy of SuSE Linux 7.1.
>
> So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
> MS Office Pro?
Why ask me?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:10:52 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Thats right... compare RH 6.2 to the latest MS O/S. What about the
> latest RH 7.1 then?
I thought that was one of the advantages of Linux, that you didn't have to
upgrade to the latest to get the latest stuff?
Or are you now saying that you HAVE to upgrade to the latest version of the
distro in order to see improvements?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:13:22 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time.
> >
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com
> > 244
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com
> > 216
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com
> > 189
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.c
> > om
> > 189
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com
> > 184
> They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k
> Server, and then see the uptime.
Clusters actually tend to show LOWER uptimes because it averages the uptimes
of all the machines in the cluster. Netcraft doesn't simply check if the
server is up every so often, it actually determines the machines actual
uptime from the machines packet signature.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 11 May 2001 20:05:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 11 May 2001 15:10:52 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Thats right... compare RH 6.2 to the latest MS O/S. What about the
>> latest RH 7.1 then?
>
>I thought that was one of the advantages of Linux, that you didn't have to
>upgrade to the latest to get the latest stuff?
>
>Or are you now saying that you HAVE to upgrade to the latest version of the
>distro in order to see improvements?
Linux is good, but it's not magic. If you don't upgrade your software,
how do you expect your software to improve?
You could update your software without getting RH 7.1, of course.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:09:20 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dh4lr$cmh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:y2UK6.17545$t12.1345945@bgtnsc05-
>
> > I am not aware of any so-called "API"s today that do
> > not offer *any* low level primitives. They often offer
> > much more than DOS did, but they do offer the
> > primitive stuff DOS gave you as well.
>
> Java?
The java.io.* package would appear to be able
to do low level byte-oriented file I/O.
That's definitely an area of overlap with DOS.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:24:13 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > We are tho,... (ashamed) we could do magnitudes better than this.
> > > The original Amiga was developed by the orignial team from Atari.
> >
> > Not true. The Amiga was developed by a group of people, only one or two
of
> > them was from Atari (Well, Jay Minor created the chips for Atari, don't
know
> > if he actually worked for them), while others worked for HP and other
> > companies.
> >
> > > Their mobo design was very advanced for the price compared to the
Intel
> > > boxes of that day. If Amiga had better management we would be seeing
> > > something equivalent to an SGI box or better. But, such that it is...
> >
> > It also had many limitations, for instance, serial ports were very
> > unreliable do to their low priority over other things like the video
> > display. This made it difficult to do reliable MIDI without an add-on
> > serial card.
>
> I always reset the priority on these items.
And just exactly how did you do this? You ripped the paula chip apart and
rewired it's microcircuits? The interrupt controller is a part of the
custom chipset, and not something you can change.
Therefore, you are lying.
> Actually, I've never seen
> better animation better than the Amiga in its days. I have read from
> various magazines of that era, that the Atari team (originals) were very
> much involved in the hardware side...
Only Jay Minor worked for Atari, and even then I think he simply contracted
and was not an employee.
> the OS was a Cambridge University design.
No, it wasn't. It was designed by R.J Mical and Carl Sassenrath primarily.
> A very compact OS! The best I've ever seen to fit in under 1
> Mb of ram.
It was indeed very good, but it also lacked many very important features,
like Virtual memory, Memory protection, and isolated process space.
> The serial port I've never used... as a matter of use, the internet
> wasn't there for the average user to use modems then. I never used a
> modem for it then... at the time I was more interested in the CPU
> architecture to program.
Apart from what you could find at your local Amiga shop, about the only way
to find software was to get a modem and call BBS's. I'd say you are an
exception, almost all Amiga owners I knew had modems.
> The graphics were great during that time as
> well as it could do the best animation of its time. The basic
> interpreter from Microsoft was better than the interpreter for Intel.
You're not aware that Microsoft wrote the Basic interpreter for it?
> Amigas' problems were from management! They should have stayed with
> what they could do best. The developers of the Amiga may have well been
> from other companies, but Atari sticks out far more in my mind than the
> rest.
Atari had nothing to do with the Amiga, other than loaning them money. When
the time came to collect on the loan, Jack Tramiel was going to absorb the
Amiga but Commodore bailed them out, saving them from being owned by Atari.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:15:28 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dh4so$d0g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fESK6.16674$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > You say this but you give me no reason to believe
> > it. I'm asking you to tell me how int 21h is *different*
> > from those things you do consider APIs.
>
> 21h isn't documentation, that is how T. Max percieve API.
He says that Win32 is an API, and Win32 isn't
documentation either.
I think Max is confused.
[snip]
> > Is that right?
>
> T. Max typical answer: "No, they aren't API, they are monopoly crapware!"
Now, now. Max can say those things for himself.
He's had enough practice at it. :D
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:26:38 -0500
"Bob Tennent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 13:20:09 -0400, Lloyd wrote:
> >>
> >> According to MS, forking is bad. So why do they >criticize the GPL
which
> >is
> >> mainly responsible for preventing forks? Their >hypocricy is
staggering.
> >
> >How? how exactly does the GPL prevent a fork?
>
> Because the sources of all the forks must be available to all. The effect
is
> that the good ideas tend to get merged. If the sources to derived works
don't
> have to be made available, there is more temptation to producing
proprietary
> differentiation, whether with good ideas or bad, and forks become
permanent.
Not true. You don't have to make the source available to all. You don't
even have to make the source available to the original authors. You need
only provide source to the people you give or sell your changes to.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:29:45 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Final question: Do you work for MicroSoft??
Hell no.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:32:05 -0500
"JamesW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <bwzK6.166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Not true. For instance, a one-time pad is considered weak, but is still
> > theoretically unbreakable, no matter how much data you have.
>
> A one time pad is only weak because if you have a copy of the pad
> decryption is trivial. In effect you have a trivial algorithm - XOR - but
> a key which consists of random data that is as long as the message
> itself. The weakness is keeping the key secret. Your original argument
> was the algorithm AND the key could be trivial if both were kept secret -
> this is patently untrue.
The key is trivial, just because it's long doesn't it's not.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:33:35 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Erik" == Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This is incorrect. A true one-time-pad would be generated by
> >> reading a naturally random source of noise that an attacker
> >> would have great difficulty introducing patterns into. A good
> >> example would be the timing between decays in a sample of a
> >> radioactive isotope.
>
> Erik> Which is something an average person can get access to, how?
>
> Linux has a /dev/random as a source of true random bits. It's been
> there for a few years. To generate random bits is simply reading from
> this char device. I often do that in shell scripts with 'dd' piped to
> 'od'. How hard is that?
Quite, apparently. No computer generated algorithm can generate truly
random numbers. /dev/random can create exceeding complicated predictable
patterns, but that doesn't make the truly random.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:39:58 -0500
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 15:10:52 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Thats right... compare RH 6.2 to the latest MS O/S. What about the
> >> latest RH 7.1 then?
> >
> >I thought that was one of the advantages of Linux, that you didn't have
to
> >upgrade to the latest to get the latest stuff?
> >
> >Or are you now saying that you HAVE to upgrade to the latest version of
the
> >distro in order to see improvements?
>
>
> Linux is good, but it's not magic. If you don't upgrade your software,
> how do you expect your software to improve?
>
> You could update your software without getting RH 7.1, of course.
Which is not what I said. I said "upgrade to the latest version of the
distro".
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No More Linux!
Date: 11 May 2001 14:53:42 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Ahem, all FreeBSD packages are available as debs for Debian.
> >
> > Name one that isn't (and that isn't FreeBSD-exclusive, like 'ports' or
> > something).
>
> That's not the point. Suppose I come across a random linux package. What
> are the chances it's going to work with your distribution?
You're dodging the point.
> > > The problem is that there are hundreds of Linux distros, but only a
> single
> > > FreeBSD distro.
> >
> > Are you forgetting about NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDI, MacOS X, etc. ? I can
> > easily say, "The problem is that there are hundreds of BSD distros,
> > but only a single Debian Linux distro".
>
> No, those aren't FreeBSD. The BSD's are now quite different. FreeBSD and
> OpenBSD or NetBSD all use vastly different kernels, while Debian and Red Hat
> and Mandrake all use the same kernels.
So?
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:02:58 +1200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time.
> > >
> > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com
> > > 244
> > >
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com
> > > 216
> > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com
> > > 189
> > >
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.c
> > > om
> > > 189
> > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com
> > > 184
> > They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k
> > Server, and then see the uptime.
> >
>
> Netcraft can't handle clusters.
These sites use clusters.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:05:31 +1200
> You are going to put electricity bill into the equation? Strange, since I
> didn't mention $$$.
>
> I was asking why you can be proud of something that it much more powerful,
> but perform only a little better than a much inferior box.
> I would say that there are certainly some efficency problems here.
you commented a few posts back about Windows 2000's great
price/performance ratio, and I actually included one of the costs
factors, power.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:07:23 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > I use both Mac and Linux (PPC and Intel) becasue i
> > > > want to. If had the choice at work, I'd wipe the HD of every Windows
> > > > machine at work.
> > >
> > > I know; but your personal preferences are not
> > > what matters.
> >
> > Really? Then why did you question my platform of preference?
>
> Mac bashing is fun. :D
>
> But rest assured that your choice of platform
> has nothing whatever to do with it.
>
> > > Windows is a development
> > > platform, and it is the developers preferences
> > > that makes all the difference in the end.
> >
> > Really. Developers dont care what users want? Developers dont care what
> > apps -WE- want?
> > You are full of crap.
>
> Developers care what apps you want. They use the
> tools that let them produce those apps that you
> want.
>
> And if that means they write Windows apps, then
> they write Windows apps.
>
> And Windows wins.
>
> [snip]
Yeah,... thats why Gates and Microsoft are so scared of Open Source in
general, and the GPL in particular.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
