Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Ed Allen)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 01:52:53 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dkoad$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZPkL6.40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Z1iL6.651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > GCC is perfectly free for Windows, just as it is for Linux. In fact,
> > there
> > > are dozens of free compilers for Windows.
> >
> > While I haven't looked at any of them for several years and my opinions
> > therefore are dated, most I saw weren't worth the trouble to implement.
> You
> > were better off just shelling out for a Borland compiler (For 3.11) or
> > Visual Studion (9x/NT). One of these days I may try GCC for grins and
> > giggles but am afraid to find out that it works better than VC6. Nothing
> > worse than shelling out the dough for Visual Studio 6 Enterprise to find
> > that a free product is better.<g> I truly don't want to find this
out...
>
> I wouldn't be very surpirsed to find out that GCC is better than VC6, VC6'
> compiler is, after all, over 4 years old.
> However, I would use VC just for the IDE. I wonder if you can hock GCC to
> VC, the way Intel Compiler does.
The senior guy at our hack shop was wondering the same thing and we may try
it at some point. A pet project I want to do is a Visual-Studio-like
front-end for X systems. IDE's are a pretty big weakness there. KDeveloper
is starting to head in that direction but still has a way to go. The big
things I want are auto completion, multiple language and compiler support,
and Wizard-Based project generation (but with a less obtuse interface than
IProject and IConfiguration). Someday, when I have the time......
------------------------------
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 01:54:33 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dkoah$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fzkL6.37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 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.
>
> By law, they are required to search in the civilian field first, to see if
> something fits their needs.
> Only if there isn't something there, they are allowed to develop their
own.
Aware of that. I don't like that sort of system when it comes to military
projects. They're just too important. The system works fine for State and
Local government, though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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 16:51:15 +0200
"Clark Safford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> errr... I don't think anyone cared when MS bundled edlin w/ DOS. They
would've
> cared had MS made the editor next to impossible to replace w/ a
third-party
> editor.
I wasn't talking about edlin here. No one would use it if you had something
better avialable.
And I consider *hexing* a text file to be better than edlin.
At least you can see more than one line at a time.
> > It's a good thing as long as it's something that the OS should provide.
> > Today, can you really sell an OS without a browser? Can you *find* an OS
> > that doesn't come with a browser?
> > Today, when so many computers are sold with CDR, I don't see why I
should
> > pay about as much as I paid for the OS just to be able to burn CDs.
> > As for media player, it's the same as a browser.
>
> Why shouldn't OS's have an integrated word processor? Spreadsheet?
Database?
> Why should a browser be considered an extension of an OS? And why
shouldn't a
> user be able to easily uninstall the bundled browser if they'd prefer to
use
> something else?
Wordproccessor, I agree, and it have, pretty basic one, though.
Database? Does the average user need this?
Don't know where you are getting at, but you get a database with Windows, if
you know how to set ODBC correctly.
Spreadsheet is not something that your average user need.
Because today, it's pretty much an essencial need to have a browser, so yes,
I think that it's a logical extention of the OS.
As for using another browser, nothing prevents that from anyone. Including
registering it as the defualt browser/emailer/news reader/whatever you want.
You can't uninstall it, it is used as the file browser, GNOME does it, as
well as KDE, I believe. Nobody sees something wrong *there*, do they?
There *is* a theoretical way you can possibly do this, replace IE with
something else that implements the same interface.
However, this require either:
A> Major amount of hacking, including doing several stuff that has red,
huge, blinking, bleeding, screeming No! on them.
B> *Major* redesign of the system. Including almost certainly great loss of
efficency.
Not to mention that it also require something that implements the whole of
what IE does, to my knowledge, nothing else does it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:52:50 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qFlL6.54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> His original specifications, while quite tricky, were still workable. A
lot
> of sound ideas and concepts exist there from a modularity standpoint and
> what happened was a true shame. It would have been quite nice had that
> original specification been adhered to. The bloat I referred to happened
> when the government IT guys and bureaucrats decided to throw everything
but
> the kitchen sink into it. Not so much a committee thing as a gang-bang.
Yeah, I've to agree with that.
Give me C-like language with Ada's good ideas behind it... (no, Java doesn't
cut it, not even close).
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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 16:56:25 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > > *Shrug*, Linux's API are open, show me the browser that can compete
with
> > IE,
> > > > please.
> > >
> > > Show me one that cant.
> >
> > We can *start* with netscape.
> > But that wasn't the question, is there any browser out there that is as
good
> > or better than IE?
> > Answer this.
> >
>
> Name one that isnt. BTW, for the uncomprehending, you should begetting
> the message that I dont hink much of IE.
No point of arguing, since you are going in circles.
I already gave you one that isn't better.
> > Who testified and where, and what where the APIs they claimed they had
no
> > access to?
>
> Search the witness list and testimony, or news accounts.
You are the one making this claim, back it up.
Name some of those valuable* APIs that MS used in its products that aren't
open.
* Valuable meaning that it can't be trivially implemented.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:59:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bobby D. Bryant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 11 May 2001 20:19:03 +0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> He was always fascinated by Norton Speed disk moving the blocks around
>> on the screen :)
>
>I used to *love* to sit and watch the W'95 defrag display.
>
>Life is great when you're easily amused.
Yeah, doncha just miss the "good old days"? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- it could be worse, though -- imagine toggling in a
bootstrap loader a la the CDP-1802 :-)
EAC code #191 12d:23h:53m actually running Linux.
[ ] Do you want this message to be private? Oops, too late.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:59:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy Culley wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yeah, I just looked at the latest OS graphs on Attrition.org. No doubt
>> about it, W2K and IIS are setting new records.
>>
>> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
>
>Especially considering that Microsoft are a distant second in Internet
>web servers. Any company that uses Microsoft for their Internet services
>deserves all they get.
>
>Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
>record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS.
Clearly,
To use Microsoft products in the AGE OF THE INTERNET is STUPID!
The SAME WORM which brought those 9000 servers down is the same
one which was release during the last version. Microsoft issued
a patch to protect the previous version of IIS then when they
released this latest version it had the same security flaw as
the original unpatched previous version.
You have to be an ignorant JACKASS to use Microsoft products
and rely on them for you companies backbone.
It's been my observation that people who use Microsoft IIS
don't really have to rely on E-business for the majority of
their income. It's mainly just an experimental market for
them.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:00:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Question, why is it everytime a company is bought towards the DOJ, its
>always the governments fault, reality stick please! why would a
>government wish to unnecessarily ruin a cash cow? Microsoft broke the
What makes you think they are a cash cow for anybody but themselves
and the ones they have deluded into supporting their illegal
activities ?
They have paid no Federal Taxes for the last six years.
Little wonder that they fancy themselves as more important than the
government or the courts. Since they believe that the best sign
that you are winning is who gets the most money their government
contracts get money from the Government into their pockets and they
pay none of it back in taxes, They think they are "winning".
>law, had they gracefully accepted the findings, the trial would never
>taken as long, it would have improved the image of the company, in that
>it is humble enough to accept they made a mistake, and even at the
>outermost, the company was split up, no would lose out, consumers would
>benefit in that the OS company would only sell the OS, thus the rest of
>Microsoft cannot use Windows as a leverage, and vise-versa
>
>Matthew Gardiner
--
Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:00:54 GMT
In article <3afc9a7a$0$41681$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson 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.
>
>Of course that is true, we all know that. And that will always continue to
>be possible because both linux and unix predate Unix - get it? However, what
>you fail to address is that now that W2K is here it runs as long as wants
>to. It is capable of the same uptimes as linux. Put a w2k system and linux
>system side by side and let them run. They'll both run as long as you let
>them. Simple.
>
>>
>> You are making one of the most fundamental mistakes that can be made
>> in debate or any other kind of confrontation. You are attacking an
>> enemy at the point where it is the strongest and you are the weakest.
>> That just isn't good strategy.
>
>No, your mistake is the typical one. Judging W2K by windows 95 standards.
>Wrong entirely. If you had actually seen a copy of W2K perhaps you'd begin
>to have a clue. While previous versions of Windows may not have had steller
>uptimes - W2K does. No amount of denial you can foist upon yourself will
>change that simple fact.
>
>>
>> If you must advocate Windows over Linux, my advice would be to get to
>> know both systems as well as you can. You may find that your
>> allegiances change, but even if they do not, at least you'll be in a
>> position to advocate Windows in a more credible fashion.
>
>you might take your own advice - had you ever even run w2k before you'd know
>how dated and completely inaccurate your attacks on w2k uptimes are. Look,
>face it, W2K is stable and runs as long as any other OS. If you deny this
>then you are a fool and proving it. Consider, if I said Linux crashes as
>much as Windows 95 does we'd both laugh. We know it's untrue. However, you
>are saying to me the same thing. You are trying to propogate the FUD/lie
>that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes. Well, it is. Period. Get over
>it - I know it hurts to lose the ability to attack MS from that direction
>any more but you must learn to accept defeat and reality and move along...
>
>
>
The main reason the experts are blaming the worm damage was the FACT
that IIS is based on OS code. And further, to say that W2K is a
24/7 OS just verifies to the crowd your an ignorant idiot.
Hope that helps!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:58:54 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VNlL6.58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dkoad$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ZPkL6.40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:Z1iL6.651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > GCC is perfectly free for Windows, just as it is for Linux. In
fact,
> > > there
> > > > are dozens of free compilers for Windows.
> > >
> > > While I haven't looked at any of them for several years and my
opinions
> > > therefore are dated, most I saw weren't worth the trouble to
implement.
> > You
> > > were better off just shelling out for a Borland compiler (For 3.11) or
> > > Visual Studion (9x/NT). One of these days I may try GCC for grins and
> > > giggles but am afraid to find out that it works better than VC6.
Nothing
> > > worse than shelling out the dough for Visual Studio 6 Enterprise to
find
> > > that a free product is better.<g> I truly don't want to find this
> out...
> >
> > I wouldn't be very surpirsed to find out that GCC is better than VC6,
VC6'
> > compiler is, after all, over 4 years old.
> > However, I would use VC just for the IDE. I wonder if you can hock GCC
to
> > VC, the way Intel Compiler does.
>
> The senior guy at our hack shop was wondering the same thing and we may
try
> it at some point. A pet project I want to do is a Visual-Studio-like
> front-end for X systems. IDE's are a pretty big weakness there. KDeveloper
> is starting to head in that direction but still has a way to go. The big
> things I want are auto completion, multiple language and compiler support,
> and Wizard-Based project generation (but with a less obtuse interface than
> IProject and IConfiguration). Someday, when I have the time......
Wait for VS.NET, should have all of those, I'm waiting for my copy of the
beta, so far, the IDE looks very good.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:00:11 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:tPlL6.59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dkoah$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:fzkL6.37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > By law, they are required to search in the civilian field first, to see
if
> > something fits their needs.
> > Only if there isn't something there, they are allowed to develop their
> own.
>
> Aware of that. I don't like that sort of system when it comes to military
> projects. They're just too important. The system works fine for State and
> Local government, though.
I'm certain that they ignore this law when it comes to important stuff,
however, what the desk clerk in the <place where you get enlisted? no idea
what the word is in english> doesn't really need a specialized OS.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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 17:01:17 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > > It's a good thing as long as it's something that the OS should
provide.
> > > > Today, can you really sell an OS without a browser? Can you *find*
an OS
> > > > that doesn't come with a browser?
> > >
> > > What OS besides Windows ha an "-integrated-" browser?
> >
> > KDE? GNOME?
> > Not an OS, but same principal.
>
> KDE and GNOME are not OSs.
>
> Konqueror is indeed a file manager/browser, but it is not "integrated"
> into the OS. It is just another application.
IE isn't integrated into the OS, it's just another application.
It *is*, however, integrated into the shell, same as Konqueror.
> What browser is "integrated" into GNOME?
Nautilous, by RIP Eazel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:02:02 GMT
In article <9dkm74$h8j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dkhal$87t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> But Microsoft has never made an OS that approached the reliability of
>> Linux or UNIX. Never.
>
>*Cough* Xenix *Cough*
>
>
AHH *COUGH* *COUGH* They didn't make XENIX!
They owned it for a while but they damn well didn't make it.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:04:50 GMT
In article <3afddb15$1$82822$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > ahha
>> > ahhahhaha
>> >
>> > oh my god - that was sooo funny!!!
>> >
>> > ahhahahahahhhhahhhaaaa
>> So you don't mind paying thousands of dollars for electicity bills
>> relating to keeping a room cool (via air conditioning)? Maybe you
>> should start sharing that money tree with everyone.
>
>Hmmm
>Cost to cool room with 8 processor server: $2000 a year
>Cost to cool room with 12 processor server: $2010 a year
>Cost to embaress Matt on usenet again: priceless!
>
Jan,
Your truely a ledgend in your own mind.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:03:48 +0200
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Question, why is it everytime a company is bought towards the DOJ, its
> >always the governments fault, reality stick please! why would a
> >government wish to unnecessarily ruin a cash cow? Microsoft broke the
>
> What makes you think they are a cash cow for anybody but themselves
> and the ones they have deluded into supporting their illegal
> activities ?
>
> They have paid no Federal Taxes for the last six years.
Their empolyers does, and their stock holders, it even out, in the end.
If it doesn't, however, I want to find out how I can register myself as a
company in the US.
> --
> Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
> Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
ROTFLOL!!!
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:05:35 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The main reason the experts are blaming the worm damage was the FACT
> that IIS is based on OS code. And further, to say that W2K is a
> 24/7 OS just verifies to the crowd your an ignorant idiot.
This makes no sense, and seem to have little to no connection to the post
you replied to.
Can you give some details?
> Hope that helps!
No, but it sure did confuse me.
------------------------------
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 02:08:27 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dkpl6$mp1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qFlL6.54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >
> > His original specifications, while quite tricky, were still workable. A
> lot
> > of sound ideas and concepts exist there from a modularity standpoint and
> > what happened was a true shame. It would have been quite nice had that
> > original specification been adhered to. The bloat I referred to happened
> > when the government IT guys and bureaucrats decided to throw everything
> but
> > the kitchen sink into it. Not so much a committee thing as a gang-bang.
>
> Yeah, I've to agree with that.
> Give me C-like language with Ada's good ideas behind it... (no, Java
doesn't
> cut it, not even close).
Now, Java has some potential... If they can get the speed thing worked out.
I'd love to see someone make a good version that compiles native
executables. Leave the byte compiler for Web-Based programming and give us
application writters a tool to use. The platform specific market is a long
way from being outmoded, yet. When a high speed Internet infrastructure
becomes more common, then they can worry about byte compilation and
multi-platform executables.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
