Linux-Advocacy Digest #461, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux and the War against M$ (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:21:12 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JS PL" <hi everybody!> writes:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> And if the US judicial system fails then the EU is just waiting to jump
>> >> in. As they have said they are waiting for the current appeal process
>> >> in the US to be completed out of courtesy but if the appeal goes in
>> >> Microsoft's favour then it will be full steam ahead.
>> >
>> > And poor Microsoft won't be able to bribe senators and politicians.
>>
>> It also won't drag on four years. The US system is a farce. By the time
>> a decision is finally reached it is too late. Microsoft have exploited
>> this for over a decade. Their comeuppance is long over due.
>
> How do you like all those things getting integrated into Windows XP
> there...Roy! My god when will the lawbreaking end!!!
> That evil Mr Gates is integrating, or "tying to the sale" or "feloniously
> forcing one to buy" or what ever you prefer to call it lets see, CD burning
> software, Media Player, Digital Editing, Firewall, lets not forget the
> browser STAYS integrated! tee hee...
Personally I don't care what's getting integrated into NT/W2K/XP. I don't
use them at work or at home. At work though things are changing very fast.
Before I had to fight to get Unix/Linux used as a server. Now whenever I
say Linux can do it the boss is highly delighted. Why? I'm glad you asked.
He knows that it costs much less and is stable and secure. That makes
his boss very happy too. :-)
I'm glad you mentioned firewall. Two security bugs in ISA and its only
been on the market for a couple of months. The most recent was a total
DoS. Now I have used Sun's sunscreen amongst other firewalls for the
past 4 years. Never heard of a single security bug in sunscreen. Do
you know why? I doubt it and then neither do Microsoft.
---
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:22:47 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Hardly. I get more flexibility from this than letting windows munge
> > > > things up.
> > >
> > > If you think that desktop market is composed of masses
> > > of people who can and will write *print filters*- or even
> > > configure them- you are quite out of touch.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > When do you have to configuer print filters in Linux or Unix?
>
> When you want to benefit from the
> flexibility of print filters, naturally!
>
> If you just want prefab stuff, then
> it appears drivers will do fine.
So, tell me... what attributes of my Epson 740 can I not take advantage
of under Linux, that I can under Windows? Obviously you seem to think
there are restrictions on its performance under Linux. Please tell me
what they are.
--
Rick
------------------------------
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: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:21:58 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
> >You sure about that? If you admit those things, your
> >argument becomes rather weaker.
>
> If this were true, why do you think it would make a difference to me?
Well, you seem to like being right. :D
> >MS is not as
> >dominant in those areas as in word processors and
> >spreadsheets.
>
> This is true, yet it is not obvious how it could possibly weaken my
> argument, considering my argument remains entirely and exactly correct
> regardless. I don't recall claiming they owned the planet, or were the
> only producer in all markets, or that they 'dominated' every single
> application market. I merely pointed out that the most common
> applications are all Microsoft products.
Oh. You do *not* mean to support any of your points
by pointing that out, then?
Sorry. I thought it was supposed to be relevant.
My mistake.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:22:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 11 May 2001 13:33:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 10 May 2001 15:21:27 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:15:59 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Sheesh! You idiots would argue about the color sh*t!
>>>
>>>Shit can be many different colours, including white. And what are you,
>>>8, that you can't write without censoring yourself?
>>
>>What are you, 7, that you can't argue about the color of sh*t without
>>resorting to nit-picking my "censorship?"
>
>The colour of shit was a heavily used medical diagnostic mechanism
>until the XIX century, and is still used in veterinary medicine.
Presumably also in human medicine. If one's shit is a black color,
for instance, that's possible evidence of internal bleeding within
the digestive tract. I don't know if shit can be white, although it
might be very light in color -- the color of shit is governed by porphyryns
(IIRC) which are broken-down pieces of the hemoglobin molecule after
removal of the all-important iron.
Of course, there are more conclusive tests, once one gets into a
doctor's office, or an analysis lab. For example, one can insert
a scope through the anal sphincter, if one really has to look around.
And one can always do bacteria cultures.
(I can't say all this sounds like grand fun, but I'm not a doctor. :-)
I'm definitely not into this shit.)
>
>And yes, you are censoring yourself.
That he is. But then, we all do to some extent.
>--
>Roberto Alsina
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random shit here
EAC code #191 12d:19h:21m actually running Linux.
[ ] Check here to always compile your own software.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:24:57 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9dis2j$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > And WINE sucks. Badly. Run some windows apps with it.
> > > >
> > > > That's because the Windows API is buggy and poorly documented. IIRC
> > > > Linux/PPC can run MacOS programs rather beter than Wine can run
> Windows
> > > > programs.
> > > > -Ed
> > > >
> > >
> > > Linux/PPC does the same thing as OS X (IE, load the Mac OS to run its
> > > application).
> > > An API can't be buggy.
> >
> > It cant?
>
> No, an API *implementation* can be buggy, but that doesn't reflect on the
> API.
>
> > > And the Windows API is very well documented, it's just *very* big.
> >
> > If its so well documented, why are Microsoft's competitors continually
> > pointing out that micro$oft engineers have access to APIs that they
> > dont?
>
> *Shrug*, Linux's API are open, show me the browser that can compete with IE,
> please.
Show me one that cant.
> There are a couple of API that are undocumented, but they are usually
> trivial ones like PickIconDlg() and other minor UI ones.
If they are undocumented, how did you find out about them?
> I'm not aware of any "big secret API" that can make a program so much better
> in Windows.
>
Well, if you were aware of them, they wouldnt be secret, now would they?
> Can you provide proof for such a thing?
Are you calling the people that testifyed about them all liars?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux and the War against M$
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:25:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mikkel Elmholdt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 12 May 2001 00:14:55 +0200
<9dho7g$a0q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Mad.Scientist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:OlE9gwy1AHA.55@cpmsnbbsa07...
>> http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/9509.html
>
>Not a completely good and well-balanced article (a bit rosy and optimistic
>about future Linux development), although with some good points. Especially
>the bit about XP and "Microsoft is trying to let the average home user, who
>usually bootlegs the software, pay the full price for its software."
"Trying to let ... [him] pay full price" ???
Ow, my brain hurts.
>
>That one hurts .... and makes me wonder whether my next Windows upgrade will
>be to KDE?
But that wouldn't be Windows, now, would it? :-) On the other hand,
what are the needs of the average business user, and can those needs
be met by non-Microsoft software?
(The answers are: various, and yes, in many cases.)
>
>Mikkel
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 12d:20h:38m actually running Linux.
[select one]
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
This is not a .sig.
Most likely, no neutrinos were found during this message.
This is not a .sig.
We are all naked underneath our clothes.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
I am, you are, he, she, and it is, but they're not.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:28:59 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > I was referring to this Jan fellow, specifically. By the way he presents
> > himself around here, he strikes me more as high school kid than a
> > professional.
>
> He's one of those high-school pseudo-genius science-jocks who always
> manages to squirm out of the hellacious beatings he so richly deserves.
>
> > While I may disagree with their business methods and curse their
bugginess,
> > I have a stake in whether or not MS screws themselves out of the
high-end
> > business market as the primary project I'm involved with is for that
very
> > platform in that very area. While my emotional side wants to see them
get
> > their just desserts, the rational side (the one that makes money) would
> > rather that not happen because a great deal of work would have been
expended
> > for nothing. We want to port to alternative platforms but not before
we're
> > ready and able to do so.
>
> I'm in kind of the same boat. Our client (SPAWAR) really is a Microsoft
> house. They've got Novell running now, but will get rid of it in a
> tremendously disruptive and expensive boondoggle which will benefit
> EDS, Cisco, Microsoft, and a few other companies:
"Hey Sailor, you wan' goood time? Wan gooood network? Me stay up looong
time! Me Never go down!"
Government contractors are so shameless sometimes, its' an embarassment <g>
>
> http://www.eds.com/nmci/nmci.htm
>
> "The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) is a massive,
> enterprise-wide initiative that will make the full
> range of network-based information services available
> to Sailors and Marines for day-to-day activities and
> in war. When initial operating capability is achieved
> by the end of 2001, NMCI will give the Navy and Marine
> Corps secure, universal access to integrated voice,
> video and data communications. Afford pier-side
> connectivity to Navy vessels in port. And link more
> than 371,000 desktops across the United States as
> well as sites in Puerto Rico, Iceland and Cuba."
>
> Not only is this agenda laughably ridiculuous, but it will ensure
> security mainly by taking control of the desktops of all users.
> No NT/2000 user will have administrative rights on the user's own
> machine. The cost per seat is something like $350 per month.
> That's about $130 million. Not a bad haul in a year for one
> project.
Sounds like something a politician would buy into. Wonder how much greasing
under the table went into that little plan. Personally, I think the military
should develop its own system infrastructure and leave the commercial
whoring to State and local governments. Our national defense is a damned
sight more important than relying on systems provided by political favors
and low-bidders. There isn't room there for conflict of interest.
>
> Our group will probably be forced make a local network, and then
> have some kind of firewalled access to the rest of the network,
> so that our admin access (we're developers, fer Cripe sake!)
> won't affect the outside world. Of course, it'll cost, and
> who knows who will foot the bill, and there will probably
> be wrangling amongst all parties involved.
>
> I got me a Linux boot disk a-waitin'. But the Navy's got
> that brig a-waitin' just across the street!
Sound like the reason a good friend gave me some equally good advice while I
was starting out. "Avoid government work at all costs". Aside from a brief
stint upgrading a court-house network, I've followed that advice
religiously.
Good luck!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:31:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, pookoopookoo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 5 May 2001 22:41:49 -0400
<hR2J6.25070$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> But Wine is not an emulator. Currently, most Wine binaries are compiled
>> for i386 and many times with debug enabled. That's why it's slow.
>> Recompile for i686 and turn off debug and it is quite fast.
>>
>> Gary
>
>Isn't there a place to download the binaries precompiled (I'm sure there
>is)? I've never compiled anything in my life =) I think if I had to
>recompile my kernel, I would go into coronary arrest.
>
Recompiling Wine is extremely simple.
Download a compressed tarball, tar xzf it, then
./configure
make depend
make
and then su and 'make install'. No kernel builds are needed for Wine.
It's even simpler if one uses ./tools/wineinstall, although I
haven't tried that, myself.
There's even a README file that explains all this.
If you can't handle that, I can't help you. :-) It's darned near
a no-brainer. (Linux kernels aren't difficult either, although there
are a large number of options which might be quite intimidating
to the casual user, and the fact that the wrong kernel can hang or
crash the machine.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random observation here
EAC code #191 12d:20h:51m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:32:52 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 18:46:17
> [...]
> >> It has to be what people familiar with the term mean when they say
> >> "API".
> >
> >I'm trying to get a fix on what *you* think it is.
>
> An API is the minimal amount of data necessary to know how to use a
> library in programming software.
>
> Also; the specification of this in a formal encoding language,
> documentation in natural language concerning that specification and its
> use, and/or a label used to denote a general class of problems possible
> while using the library.
Nope. Its' an acronym. You're reading more into it than you should. It's an
interface to OS internals for use by applications that sit atop the OS.
Nothing more. You can filibuster until blue in the face but that fact will
not change. End of story. Next subject please...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 12 May 2001 19:36:09 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Then why isn't there a mass movement from UNIX towards Win2k? and how
> come SUN has been having some fab quarters? so much for a dying OS.
Actually - there are more new installs of W2K than unix installs - pretty
much the unix camps stay unix and all the new stuff is W2K. No one is buying
30 year old technology when they buy new. Fab Quarters? They managed to save
themselves last quarter by shutting the entire company down for a whole
week. mandatory time off for everyone for a week - yea, a real survivor that
one...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 12 May 2001 19:37:08 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9di9ga$m63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3afc9ad7$0$41685$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "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.
> > >
> > > Matthew Gardiner
> >
> > I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been running
> non-stop
> > since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1 was
> released,
> > intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime during the
> > first period and continues 100% at this time.
> >
> > Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable.
>
> Time for another reboot, SP2 is here.
I got the final build Friday - it's smooth, really slick. But it's not a
requirement if you've kept up on security patches. I like how you can now
slipstream SP2 into your new installations. This way when you install a
brand new W2K box all the SP1+2 fixes are already there when you finish.
Slick! I don't know of any other OS that does that.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 12 May 2001 19:38:13 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been running
non-stop
> > since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1 was
released,
> > intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime during the
> > first period and continues 100% at this time.
> >
> > Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable.
> How many users does it serve?
It's a small department file/print server, 144 people. DHCP, DNS, WINS,
File&Printer, NAT, that's about it. Nothing special really...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:38:26 GMT
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <st%I6.9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Essentially, what Max is saying is correct. ADA was almost universally
> > trumpeted by the government back in the eighties. It was dragged out of
> > academia (Where, IMHO, it belonged) and promoted as the cure-all and
end-all
> > computer language. As with anything embraced by a bureaucracy, ADA
became
> > over-developed. A language just can't be made to be everything to
everybody.
> > That is where my "Next Big Thing" statement originated. A LOT of noise
was
> > made about it back then.
>
> The CCITT tried to do the same. They had a committee to design a new
language
> for telecoms systems. They came up with CHILL. All new telecoms systems
were
> to be written in CHILL. Thankfully the system developers said no thanks.
If
> you have ever used CHILL you would know why. I've never programmed in ADA
but
> if it is anything like CHILL then it deserves to die.
Not familiar with CHILL since telecom work isn't in my resume. I've been
told I'm fortunate in that regard, though. A lot of telecom folks seem to
dislike the field.
If it's anywhere near as bloated and over-engineered as ADA was/is, then it
deserves its' oblivion! Sad how suit types and academics can take good ideas
and screw them up so much.
>
>
> ---
> Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
> record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
> looking any better.
And this comes as a surprise to who? <g>
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 12 May 2001 19:40:21 -0500
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:PPbL6.793$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been running
> non-stop
> > > since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1 was
> released,
> > > intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime during
the
> > > first period and continues 100% at this time.
> > >
> > > Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable.
> > How many users does it serve?
>
> * One would be my first guess...
> * My second guess would be that our friend with the pubescent debate style
> is embellishing a bit.
the truth is hard to swallow sometimes eh?
>
> Actually I couldn't care less. I've heard no such testimonials in the real
> world where people actually work with it as opposed to talk about it.
Funny - that's exactly the sort of testimonial I've just given and that I
hear constantly. I am hearing from EVERYONE at every conference or show I go
to - wow, W2K sure is solid. No one even seems to care when SP2 comes out
for it cause it works so perfectly fine right now.
The NT
> line is garbage and needs replaced. NT5 being no exception to this. Hence
> MS's release of XP a scant year after introducing 2K. Releasing 2K was
dumb
> move (IMHO).
It's your opinion, and, just like assholes, everyone's got one.
<snip confused rant>
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 12 May 2001 19:43:13 -0500
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gOcL6.809$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dji9u$q9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:PPbL6.793$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > I have one lone server loaded with W2K Server that has been
running
> > > non-stop
> > > > > since Feb 17th 2000. It was rebooted one single time when SP1 was
> > > released,
> > > > > intentionally obviously, and never since. It has 100% uptime
during
> > the
> > > > > first period and continues 100% at this time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you starting to understand? W2K is reliable.
> > > > How many users does it serve?
> > >
> > > * One would be my first guess...
> >
> > There has been a test with couple of thousands, Win2K had the third
place
> > ever, just recently.
>
> I was referring to this Jan fellow, specifically. By the way he presents
> himself around here, he strikes me more as high school kid than a
> professional.
Perhaps because you hate my in-your-face style of debate. I don't dance
around the topic. I throw facts fast and furious. I give some hard lines
instead of grey conversation. I'm stating as a fact I've got W2K servers
that are perfectly reliable. You just don't want to accept that. HELL - it
would be even better if I were a high school kid so I could add in: "and a
high school kid apparently can setup a server better than you unix-gurus who
can't keep windows 2000 running for a day without a crash- AHAHA"
>
> >
> > > * My second guess would be that our friend with the pubescent debate
> style
> > > is embellishing a bit.
> > >
> > > Actually I couldn't care less. I've heard no such testimonials in the
> real
> > > world where people actually work with it as opposed to talk about it.
> The
> > NT
> > > line is garbage and needs replaced. NT5 being no exception to this.
> Hence
> > > MS's release of XP a scant year after introducing 2K. Releasing 2K was
> > dumb
> > > move (IMHO).
> >
> > No, it wasn't.
> > Win2K is spesifically targeted at servers & workstations, nothing more.
> > Plenty of people use it as a desktop, but that isn't where it's aimed
for.
>
> It makes a good desktop OS. I've not heard flattering reviews of its'
> abilities as a server. (I don't take testimonials here under consideration
> at all, BTW, as they tend to be colored more by individual bias than by
> accuracy. I listen to folks I've known and dealt with for years and who
are
> competent enough to know what they're talking about. They don't much care
> for it)
obviously your opinion has been set by others and not your own experiences
so I see no further value in debating with you over something you've no 1st
hand experience in
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
