Linux-Advocacy Digest #470, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 05:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Tom Wilson")
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Flacco")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Les
Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Les
Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Les
Mikesell")
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Les
Mikesell")
Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: OT Movies (Mike Martinet)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: OT Movies ("Tom Wilson")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Anecdote: MS' grip loosening ("Robert Morelli")
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: OT Movies ("Edward Rosten")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:11:13 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ylpL6.2120$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Doug Ransom wrote:
>
> > COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits of code
> > written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate with
each
> > other easily.
>
> ROFTL.
>
> You're kidding right?
>
> COM's means of using a 'binary contract' to allow different programming
> languages to communicate is a result of short-sightedness of the part of
> Microsoft.
Actually, if compiler manufacturers had agreed on a common name mangling
scheme, most of what it offers wouldn't have been a neccesity. Common,
set-in-stone interfaces are a good idea, also. I'm far from a Microsoft
fan, but I have to admit COM has its' strong points particularly with
distributed aplications.
> At Digital, we had a common OBJ file format etc. so that all languages
> could be used together without noticing any differences. We had one
project
> that had C, Pascal, Fortran and PL/1 - all generating OBJ files that could
> all be linked together.
Interesting that all of those language implementations shared a common stack
convention...
> On Windows we've never had that luxury. Microsoft jealously guarded the
> format of their OBJ format, so companies like Borland couldn't steal their
> thunder. The result? Multiple different formats - even with languages from
> Microsoft.
Their reliance on both PASCAL and CDECL calling conventions is a bit
annoying, I must admit.
> COM brought all this together, and added a whole slew of other stuff too.
Some of it isn't so bad, though. Beats OLE, that's for damned sure! I used
to write OLE stuff for 3.11 and it was a nightmare!
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:26:31 GMT
> On linux, CORBA has barely taken off in the ActiveX emulation project
> (Gnome) 5 years behind microsoft.
Not to mention how far behind Linux lags in MALA* technologies. You don't
hear that much about this, but it's the area in which Microsoft's lead is
unchallenged.
--
* Megalomaniacal Asshole Licensing Agreements
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:39 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dkbam$15m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Do the same thing you did with all of your Win 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, WFW,
Win95,
> > etc. programs. Upgrade or toss them, or keep running the old system
that
> > worked. For the many thousand apps that come in a typical Linux
> > distribution, you take care of the whole problem in a few minutes as
> > you load the new copy. With Windows you spend as long just to get
> > the OS in, then you have to feed the box another 20 CD's over the course
> > of the next week to get all of your apps reloaded.
>
> Actually, Win95 could use most of DOS' drivers.
Except when there is an isa pnp card in the box that win95's probing
moves into conflict with the settings on the others. Then you can
waste another day or two trying to work around that problem.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:40 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sy1L6.39515$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Have you tried VNC?
>
> Oh you mean the bloaty, resource pig that is a gaping security hole
> and slowly degrades the performance of any machine its on by leaking
> memory like a seive?
>
> Yeah, I tried it. It sucks =)
No, that's Windows itself. VNC is a great improvement if the machine
isn't within a foot or two of you.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:40 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3afddc0c$0$82796$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dis52$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bragging? HARDLY! Stating that, yes, indeed, there is a lame ass
telnet
> > > server in W2K - sure. But who in their right mind would still use
telnet
> > > when so much better is available?
> >
> > Like SSH on Linux...
>
> or SSH on windows - but, again, why?
If you don't have it, how do you execute remote commands in scripts that
need to cycle through many hosts? Or are you going to tell us that it
is faster to connect to each one with terminal server and use the mouse?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:40 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3afa15dc$0$78437$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Actually, Notepad sucks, even compared to edit.com.
>
> I don't agree, what does edit.com (which just fires up the QB IDE in text
> editor mode) do that notepad doesn't do so well?
Aside from not assuming that you have a mouse, it understands that
linefeeds are a reasonable line terminator for an input file, while
notepad just barfs.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:41 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why anyone should have to edit files by hand to change the font dpi is
> beyond me...
Why would anyone have a computer if they don't want to edit files?
And why should they have to learn something other than editing files
to make any change they want?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:41 GMT
"Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Di2K6.48449$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I haven't got antialiased fonts, and I have to say that I don't miss
them
> > a bit.
> > -Ed
>
> Why? They seem to make all the difference with webpages.
Only if your screen is very low resolution so you have to fake
the look with anti-aliasing instead of real pixels.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:40 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9djsjs$c22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > But did you think for a second - there are programs that can do this
> > > Windows too? Hmmm... isn't running a program from the GUI the same as
> > > running something from the CLI - sure, it is. It's a process off doing
> > > something for us and getting a result.
> >
> > If you have an existing GUI that does this then great. If not, go hire
> > a programmer and in a few weeks time, you'll have a GUI. Now change
> > what you want do a little bit and wait a few more weeks for a new GUI
> > program. A good command line shell lets you do simple programming
tasks
> > without ever realizing that you are writing a program.
>
> A> It doesn't takes weeks to do GUI.
> B> A good GUI allows you to do the same.
I recall that same argument from about 15 years ago when someone thought
they could make a GUI shell that would represent pipelines graphically
so you could construct them by dragging icons instead of typing names.
Did anything like this ever really exist?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:40 GMT
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Matthew Gardiner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Better yet, for a small business, Cobalt Qube (now part of SUN) @
> > $NZ3500 +GST, that provides, file server, webserver, email server,
> > shared net access, fire wall and lots more. All of this can be admined
> > through a browser, would be the ideal solution, and whats even better,
> > they won't be shitting brick over whether they have the correct amount
> > of licenses.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
>
> Well, MS is wising up to that. See the tread about their W2k Server
> Appliance. It is quite obvious who the targeted competition for that
> machine is: Cobalt, with it's Raq and Qube series.
Yet another promising approach: http://www.e-smith.org. They rip out
everything from a base RedHat distribution that you don't need in a
server appliance and simplify the install and admin to the point where
you just fill in the forms. You can download for free (if you use the
.org address instead of .com) or buy it with support.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:51:23 GMT
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rOpL6.439$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On linux, CORBA has barely taken off in the ActiveX emulation project
> > (Gnome) 5 years behind microsoft.
>
> Not to mention how far behind Linux lags in MALA* technologies. You don't
> hear that much about this, but it's the area in which Microsoft's lead is
> unchallenged.
>
>
> --
>
> * Megalomaniacal Asshole Licensing Agreements
It bears mentioning that their controversial new Subscription Liscensing
Scheme is an idea stolen from Columbia House Records and Doubleday Books and
was also used back in the late seventies and early eighties by UNIX software
vendors who rightfully abandoned it.
Can these people do anything original?
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:53:35 +0600
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Sounds fishy to me....but then, I'm replying just for the halibut...
I thought it was a service for finding lost shoes.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:56:20 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would just like to see, once, a real computer in a movie. Not those moronic
> throwback to the 50's hollywood imaginations. Even if they show a real laptop,
> they have some silly need to have text displayed at 50 baud with beeping or card
> reader noises. I laughed myself blue when I saw an anderson-jacobson (?) 110
> baud modem in "war games" (I think) enhanced with strings of christmas lights.
>
> Oooo! Flashing lights and beeping! It must be thinking!
Hey. It's not just computers. For instance, why do almost ALL tires
screech when the cars stop or start on screen? I've seen shows/movies
in which car tires screech ON DIRT. Break me large.
MjM
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 09:54:08 +0200
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3afdd9f2$0$82854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can understand your frustration that every comment is met with
> rebuttle, but ... what can I do ...
>
>
You were the one stating he has no interest in controversy, and just want
to be left alone. You are also the one that spams this newsgroup
regardless, and without provocation at that.
I say we call for a USENET death penalty. You deserve it.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:14:53 +0100
> 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
^^^^^^
Bird shit.
:)
-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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 08:16:24 GMT
"Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I would just like to see, once, a real computer in a movie. Not those
moronic
> > throwback to the 50's hollywood imaginations. Even if they show a real
laptop,
> > they have some silly need to have text displayed at 50 baud with beeping
or card
> > reader noises. I laughed myself blue when I saw an anderson-jacobson
(?) 110
> > baud modem in "war games" (I think) enhanced with strings of christmas
lights.
Because acoustic couplers were just so unsexy, I guess.
> >
> > Oooo! Flashing lights and beeping! It must be thinking!
Blame the fifties sci-fi movies for that. Computers aren't computers unless
they blink and beep.
>
>
> Hey. It's not just computers. For instance, why do almost ALL tires
> screech when the cars stop or start on screen? I've seen shows/movies
> in which car tires screech ON DIRT. Break me large.
Or cars spontaneously bursting into flames after *every* accident.
Speaking of tires on dirt roads, watch a few of those cheesy westerns from
the 60's and early 70's. Good guy gallops into town...Tire tracks all over
main street. No effort made by the film crew to cover them up...
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:18:16 +0100
>>Yep, most of the thermal noise RNGs I found used either a noisy resistor
>>or a pair of noisy Zener diodes. With a little Googling, I even came
>>across one project that lets you construct a RNG that connects to your
>>sound card's Line In, runs off a single AA battery, and costs about $20
>>in Radio Shack parts. True random numbers are *not* that hard to
>>produce.
>
> You misunderstand the theoretical concept of "true" random numbers. We
> already knew this would happen back when pseudo-random numbers (rather
> than merely 'apparently random numbers', I guess) began to be possible
> on the PC platform. The random numbers you're getting are
> pseudo-random; they look random for almost every practical purpose when
> all you really need is an *arbitrary* number. A *truly* random number
> is not so easily come by.
Thermal noise is truly random gaussian noise. Junction noise is also
truly random, but not quite gaussian (because of shot noise).
-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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:22:20 +0100
>> You show the same degree of competency in quantum physics as you do
>> cryptography, Erik. What gave you the impression that anyone is
>> 'debating' whether or not nuclear decay is random? It seems to me to
>> be
>> a rather fundamentally secure aspect of physics that this is, in fact,
>> the very definition of 'random', at least as close as we can possibly
>> get in the real world. As far as I know, in fact, it is truly random,
>> and other than Einstein's intuition (long since proven false) that "God
>> does not play dice" almost a century ago, nobody seriously questions
>> this.
>
> What is debated is that we cannot know if it is truly random or not.
> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows that the mere observation of
> the particle effects its state, and thus its randomness. Even if the
> decay were completely random, there mere act of measuring it would make
> it non-random.
That is not true. If you took 500 cats in boxes and lookes at them all at
once, n would be dead and 500-n would be alive. You would have no way of
predicting in an individual case whether the cat would be dead or alive,
thus the observation does not stop it being random, it merely forces it
in to a random (but observable) state.
-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: "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: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:39:04 +0100
>> 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.
I insist now that you declare your ignorance of the UNIX print system.
Repeat after me:
It is not windows and it does not work like windows.
OK? Got that?
Right, here's how it works (briefly: there are more levels):
When you print a file, the file is sent to the printer daemon. The deamon
then applies filters to the file and then sends the filtered file to a
driver program and finally out to the printer.
Without the filters, the drivers would have to be called by hand by every
app printing.
For instance, if plain PS arrives, the filter will recognise this and
pass it to GhostScript telling GS what device to generate output for (eg
PCL5).
If a PDF file comes in the filter may pass it through Adobe's acroread
instead (I find it is rather better than GS) and tghen pass the output of
that to GS for final rendering before printing.
If a TeX DVI file arrives, the filters fill recognise this, and filter it
with dvips, and then passs the PS output to GS.
In all these cases, GS is the final step and sends the output to /dev/lp?
(forgetting network printers for the moment).
So, the drivers and filters all work together and the only good systems
use both at once.
If you set them up with Printtool (for instance) you need never know
anything about them ever.
-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: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 02:47:21 -0700
I'd be curious if anyone here has an intelligent reaction to this
personal anecdote.
We all know about MS raising prices and pushing increasingly
restrictive licenses down people's throats. Common sense
dicatates that this could end up backfiring, but the bottom
line is what's going to happen in reality. Does MS still have
a strong enough grip on the market to get away with it?
I recently encountered some of the IT staff at an organization
where this issue is being considered in real life. This organization
is currently running mostly Windows and they've been aggressively
standardizing on MS software in general for a number of years.
These particular folks are directly responsible for about 500
machines, more than 80% of which are running some version
of Windows (Win95, Win98, NT, 2000, and CE). It's a rather
complex organization, with diverse users and uses. (I'm not
going to say what the organization is for reasons that should
be obvious.) What they said is that they'd considered the situation
and decided that if MS substantially raises prices or degrades licensing
terms, Windows is getting replaced with Linux. Why? Because
it's a viable option. They expect that it would involve more
work for them initially, but they also expect to be able to come
out ahead on balance.
I was fairly surprised to hear this, and I'm still a little skeptical
that it could happen as fast as they say. Nevertheless, I take it
as a real sign that MS is finally losing some of its grip on the
market.
Anyone else have similar anecdotes? Comments?
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:52:54 +0100
> Please submit your votes for:
What about standard trolls? I think kookis has to rate rather highly. i
remember when (a few months ago), Bloody Viking(?) X-posted to
comp.lang.c about a problem he was having with compiling C programs
under Linux. Kookis got involved in the thread and ended up getting
plonked by almost everyone on c.l.c.
> Most Talented Wintroll?
There's very little talent to go around, really. Flatfist++++ seems to
get the most replies pre post, so it's my nomination.
> Least Talented Wintroll?
Jan Johansson
> Most Pitiful Wintroll?
Jan Johansson
> Most Likely Wintroll To Be Plonked?
Chad Myers. By being a complete and utter twit, he mansged to get plonked
by a lot of people on comp.ssh (or whatever its called).
> Most Likely Wintroll To Be TOS'd?
??
> Wintroll Most In Need Of A Good Spanking From His Mommy?
Peet Goodwin. He needs slapping in to shape, since for the most part he's
fine, but he can't help spewing out the odd bit of trollified nonsense.
> Feel free to explain your vote and/or to suggest other categories.
> Naturally the contestants are not allowed to participate in the voting
> and judging.
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 10:58:20 +0100
> I would just like to see, once, a real computer in a movie. Not those
Get "The Italian Job" out on video. A real computer was used, which took
up a large building and had lots of tape drives and cool stuff. But then
again, when they made the film, computers looked so cool that they didn't
need to make up stuff about them.
> moronic throwback to the 50's hollywood imaginations. Even if they show
> a real laptop, they have some silly need to have text displayed at 50
> baud with beeping or card reader noises. I laughed myself blue when I
> saw an anderson-jacobson (?) 110 baud modem in "war games" (I think)
> enhanced with strings of christmas lights.
>
>
> Oooo! Flashing lights and beeping! It must be thinking!
Did you see the mainframe in Charlie's Angels? I almost killed myself
laughing.
I also love the idea that really clever people can crack the governments
encryption systems simply by knowing they used a `hexographic' key.
-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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 11:05:53 +0100
In article <i5iL6.653$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dirc0$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >You are trying to
>> > propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes.
>>
>> 120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar.
>
> 120 days was the MEAN, not the maximum.
If you know anything about statistics, then you'll know that quoting only
the maximum is meaningless.
128 days MEAN _with_ a nightly reboot. Yeah stellar!
(Mean: thererfore some actually crashed _before_ 120 days. Geez).
-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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
