Linux-Advocacy Digest #473, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Karel Jansens)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("David Brown")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening (Charlie Ebert)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening (Charlie Ebert)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 20:29:00 +0000
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Ginn wrote:
> > >
> > > "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Ginn"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > evolutionary? It amazes me how many people have fallen for the lie of
> > > > mutations being the cause for the existence of all the species of animals
> > > > living today(not to mention how "lucky" we are that a star exploded that
> > > > gave rise to a planet with a perfect enough enviornment to support life
> > > > Talk about order in chaos; far fetched bed time stories more like it).
> > > > It amazes me how scientists can be stupid enough to say
> > > > that a single bolt of lightning (1.21 gigawatts for those BttF fans)
> > > > caused amino acids to go haywire and make something out of nothing (a
> > > > single celled organism) which led to the evolvement (their words,not
> > > > mine) of the human species.
> > >
> > > I smell troll, but that's OK.
> > >
> > > Actually, I'm a Christian, so I don't really think that luck had that
> > > much to do with it. Evolution has nothing to do with how life
> > > started; it has everything to do with how life adapts to its
> > > environment. All non-living things change when confronted with
> > > changes in the environment (erosion, phase changes, etc.). Why should
> > > living things be any different? We're made out of the same basic
> > > stuff after all.
> > >
> >
> > Pers'nally, I think God is One Smart Dude. Think about it, what is more
> > clevererer: work Your transcendent fingers to the metaphysical bone by
> > creating every single species seperately, or come up with this really
> > kewl set of rules, throw some amino acids together and let them sort the
> > whole mess out themselves?
> >
> > So sure, evolution takes longer, but then again, being God, time is not
> > exaclty in short supply, right?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Karel Jansens
> > ==============================================================
> > "You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
> > ==============================================================
>
> What if you were God??
Why do you assume I am not?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 16:07:09 +0200
Tom Wilson wrote in message ...
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dl5sf$60p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:gNoL6.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > As for 2000 server, we got the timed version with MSDN. Never did
>install
>> it
>> > and don't plan to. No reason to. Not even remotely interested.
>>
>> Spec used DC, cost millions and doesn't come with MSDN, my mistake, I
>> thought it was AD.
>
>I take the SpecWeb thing with a grain of salt - Just as I did when MS was
on
>the losing end of the test. All benchmarks, to me, are suspect and little
>more than trivial flame war fodder. The only thing that matters is how the
>stuff performs in the "real world". Is it secure? Is it fast? Is it
>reliable? Is it cost effective? Are their licensing issues? Will the
company
>be around five years from now? How will they respond to the eventual
>problems that arise? Is the current equipment up to the task of running it?
>Are my IT guys too clueless to run it? Those sorts of things are all that
>matter, really. The rest of it is just meaningless posturing.
>
And more to the point, are the test setups even vaguely related to reality?
Does anyone really use a 32 GB Ram machine to serve 25 GB of data?
Sometimes these benchmarks reminds me of the nucleur arms race - it is not
enough to have the weaponry to destroy the world - you must be able to
destroy it more times over than the enemy. Similarly with these
benchmarks - it is not enough to be able to completly saturate any
reasonable external bandwidth - you must be able to saturate it many times
over.
Why don't they run benchmarks that test the use of the system in more
demanding situations? Set up a PHP-Nuke discussion board, or a perl-based
web email system, and compare the speeds of the different systems. Even
better would be to specify a system such as a discussion board, and
implement the same interface with PHP, ASP, JSP, ColdFussion, Perl, or any
other dynamic web system and compare the results. The backend database
should also be interchangable. Then we could really see what systems are
the most cost-effective for web servers.
------------------------------
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 14:13:19 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dkov3$lno$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZblL6.19394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > NT isn't a microkernel, it is just microkernel like.
[snip]
> > It may evolve into a microkernel, though.
>
> Okay, AFAIU, it started out as a micro kernel, but micro kernel design has
> some problems with efficency.
I was not aware that the NT design was ever
intended to be a microkernel. It should be recalled
that it is very VMS like at this level, and given
Dave Cutler's provenance, this may be no accident.
Microkernel design has historically had
efficiency problems. Perhaps someday they
will be seen as insignificant, but not yet.
> They compromised, in the end.
> I'm not sure ir having drivers & system services in their own adress space
> is portable.
Yes, it is. At least, insofar as having separate address
spaces at all is portable. Not all CPUs can do it.
> If it isn't, than it's a big, red, blinking, no no to MS.
It would be, for NT, but it's not an issue.
> > > On top of Win32 layer, there is the shell (explorer.exe), and all the
> > > programs.
> >
> > Some of these programs lead double lives as development
> > tools too. Explorer is, for instance, a user interface framework;
> > developers can write plug in modules for it that let it brows
> > into things it otherwise could not.
> >
> > Sure, it comes with a filesystem browing plugin. But
> > there's much more under the skin for developers.
>
> Okay, can you give some examples?
Well, notice that when you install Office, it
puts an extra icon in My Computer? It's
there to support Office's 'save-to-ftp'
feature.
Notice how when you install realplayer it
adds an extra pane in IE for its radio gizmo?
And a toolbox? Google has a toolbar for
IE too.
That's all done with plugins for explorer
(it is the same explorer whether you are
viewing a web page or a directory- those
things are plugins too)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:16:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Morelli wrote:
>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?
>
It isn't so much MS's power as it's your own organizations stupidity.
It should be of no surprise that morons are running your company.
I'm trying to be serious here. Our BOSS reads CEO magazine.
>From CEO magazine, she makes the determination for where our
organization will be 5 years or 10 years from now. What OS,
what web server, what applications and so on so forth.
I hate to say this, being a person who was recently recognized in
several magazines for rewriting the functionality of the NT server
by turning it into a mainframe, I am not impressed with this kind
of management and I believe it should be fired before it causes
serious financial hardship for the company.
I have a lot more respect and would feel much more comfortable
if the person making the calls could write a web page or a cobol
program,,,, fuck even a stinking basic application!
Microsoft is surviving only due to the presence of these managerial
intelligence imposters.
>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.
>
When Microsoft got it's start, it came into the business market
with small business's as mainframes controlled the DP needs for
just about all the companies. The SMALL company ended up leading
the rest of the market and the larger firms eventually followed
10 - 15 years later.
The reason why large companies followed is once again, blockeded
obsolete Management who got it decision making powers from some
GAY magazine proclaiming to know something about business management.
Essentially these managers, managed companies with a WEEGIE BOARD!
There were fucking idiots! CATTLE waiting to be harvested!
And as Microsoft progressed into the market that CATTLE was harvested.
They stood their like Cattle as the hunters {Microsoft folks} came
into their shops and put bullets into their brains. They just stood
their chewing their cud waiting for the rifle shot to the head!
They mainframe managers were all slaughtered by the Microsoft folks.
The moral of this story is the SMALL BUSINESS leads the market. They
have less money and don't PISS IT AWAY on things like MICROSOFT.
The small business today is using Linux. 60% of the current business's
I'm aware of today are using Linux, even on the desktop! They are 100%
Linux shops running either Gnome or KDE2! They are actually starting
to experiment with Linux webserver clustering and have replaced all
backoffice servers with Linux.
The reason LARGE BUSINESS'S NEVER LEAD is because their management is
mainly comprised of a bunch of arrogent stupid asses who actually believe
they know where the market is heading and don't care to listen to facts!
If they wasted a million or two in this years budget, nobody would notice.
They are cattle waiting to be butchered! They'll stand there like a bunch
of fucking dumbasses until they are harvested by the Linux crowd.
>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?
It's true! MS is loosing it's market this year.
Did you know that when it rains out on the western ranches of Oklahoma,
we have to drag the cattle out of the ponds with tractors as if you don't
the rain will fill the ponds up sufficiently that the cattle will drownd.
Their too stupid to come in out of a flood.
Did you know we lost 13 head one year due to fire. They were too stupid
to calmly walk away from a brush fire so they just stood their and were
all burnt up.
This is EXACTLY how management in large corporations is! They are as wasteful
as shit and as stupid as shit! That's why I REFUSE to debate with these
ignorant dumbasses! They don't give a fucking flip about saving money,
in fact they actually RALLY and PROMOTE people who PISS AWAY more money
and increase their budgets. They are the tumors who banks hire and they
piss away the vital life blood of sucessful corporations every day, wasting
the funds on things just like Microsoft.
I'm just waiting for these dumb bastards to get shot in the head, as I know
they will, then things will change again. Just like they did before.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
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 16:18:31 +0100
> My little "computer room" just has two Pentium boxes and a laptop
> running, and it is significantly hotter than the rest of the house.
My SO's dual 866 puts out one hell of a lot of heat. 10 of those in an
unairconditioned room would be a fire hazard :-)
-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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 09:36:09 -0500
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <QDiL6.658$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >Apart from the fact that this decay is debated hotly (no pun intended)
> > about
> >> >whether it is random or not, One-time pads created on PC's without
access
> > to
> >> >such generator are going to be predictable at some level.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> You are really out of your depth here. Radioactive decay is completely
random
> according to any accepted quantum theory. You are thinking in terms of the
> 2 slit experiment where observation does affect the result of the particle
> under observation. With radioactive decay you are detecting when a nucleus
> decays but are not involved in any way the material being observed. There
> is no way to predict when a particular nucleus will decay.
Heisenberg theorized that the mere act of observation altered the subject,
perhaps imperceptibly, but still altered. QM was created as a way to
describe that which we would be incapable of deducing through observation
because of the HUP.
> > Einstein tried to prove the HUP wrong with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
(EPR)
> > paradox, but it's still very hotly debated.
>
> Your understanding is seriously lacking. The Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle
> is not a result of quantum theory but the reason why there must be a
quantum
> theory. The HUP was derived before quantum theory. Regarding the EPR
here's
> a good starting point for you:
You misinterpreted what I said. Probably my fault, I wasn't completely
clear, but when I said "but it's still very hotly debated" I meant that
proving things like nuclear decay bing completely random is impossible, and
since we can't prove it, there are people that take both sides.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:21:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Reese wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Anyone else have similar anecdotes? Comments?
>
>Robert, this sounded so familiar I had to check your name to make sure
>you weren't commenting on my company. We are confronting the same
>question and coming up with the same answer.
>
>We were asked by M$ to conduct a voluntary license-compliance audit. We
>discovered that we needed to switch to volume licensing. We
>did this at enormous expense (but frankly, it was necessary and proper).
>The day before our order went through, M$ took the first step toward
>obsoleting every one of the products we were purchasing; Win98, NT4, and
>Office 2000. None of these products will be available after May 31. After
>that date we will be forced to purchase the Win2K Pro and Server, and
>Office XP.
>
>While it is proper for M$ to demand that their license be respected, it
>is absolutely unacceptable to obsolete products simply because one cannot
>develop superior products without serious flaws. While one
>could argue that these products are 'better' than what they replace,
>their resource demands are enormous -- almost three times the systems
>they replace. We are not going to junk half our IT inventory to gain
>those very modest benefits.
>
>We were a Unix shop until a few years ago. Next week we begin migrating
>network services back to Unix and Linux, and for the first time we have
>real momentum behind the idea of replacing M$ on the desktop. I still
>need to figure out a good way to replace the Exchange/Outlook/M$ Office
>Suite integration, but I've got an angle and some good leads. Once that
>nut is cracked, I'll take it to management, and we'll set a new strategic
>direction. The pilot project would run from mid- to late summer, we'd
>evaluate, and perhaps begin the real conversion at the end of 2001.
>
>John Reese
I wish you luck, but remember this!
If you fail, your business will be Linuxfied anyway probably by 2005
considering current marketing statistics.
The easiest way of steering stupid cattle is to just give them no
choice in the matter. Did you know that 100% of the appliance operaters
questioned think their appliance is just groovy?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 09:38:53 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dlg7a$jbb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
If you take a random number, then modify it, it's no longer random. If I
generate the random number 8 and subtract 4, I get 4. If I generate the
random number 10 and subtract 6 I still get 4, which can be repeated as
often as necessary to produce non-random numbers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:23:21 GMT
On 13 May 2001 19:25:29 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>On 11 May 2001 08:53:06 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>>ELKS. Which version of DOS does?
>>>
>>>Bernie "And I got two of the damn things to check" Meyer
>
>>IBMDOS 1.0
>
>And which one would you rather use today?
>
>Bernie
I don't even know what ELKS is. I was just answering the question
which version of DOS did the original IBMPC use. It was IBMDOS 1.0.
Refresh my memory :)
flatfish
------------------------------
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 14:23:33 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > To do it with a driver, you have to
> > reimplement the whole driver. Windows
> > printer drivers do not 'stack'.
>
> So, how is this a limitation for Linux and a strength for Windows?
You have a remarkably one-track mind, there, Rick.
Review the thead. I'm not saying what you think
I'm saying.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:23:39 GMT
In article <9dli0j$keg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
This almost sounds like love.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 13 May 2001 14:24:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
writes:
>In article <9dkf33$okk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Am I correct in believing that I can create a derivative work, as
>long as I don't try to distribute it (as that would be required to
>make the copyright owner aware of my activities).
Not if you are considering United States copyright law. The exclusive
right to create derivative works is in addition to the exclusive right
of distribution. So you infringe by creating the derivative work, whether
it is distributed or not. See 17 USC 106.
That said, the practicality is that the copyright owner somehow needs
to find out about the creation of the derivative work to file suit. But
that could be through other than its distribution, such as you bragging
about it to somebody who tells the copyright owner. And even if there
is no actual damages to the copyright owner, statutory damages could
still be available.
And note that 17 USC 117 provides a special exception for a particular
type of derivative work -- an adaptation of a computer program as an
essential step in utilizing the computer program, if you are the owner
of a copy of the computer program.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 14:25:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller wrote:
>I've had some bad experiences with the latest Real Player on Win ME.
>True, Real Player is garbage anyways, but still, here goes. Every time
>I use Real Player on Win ME, it crashes right in the middle of a certain
>clip. Every time I try to start Real Player after the crash, it fails
>to start, unless I reboot. If I try to play the same clip, the whole
>episode repeats itself. Apparently, it manages to violate a certain
>part of application memory with the crash in the same exact location,
>and I can't restart RP unless I reboot.
>
>I have RP 8 for Linux installed on my FreeBSD box. The thing looks ugly
>as hell compared to the Windows version, and it won't do full screen.
>But, hell, the thing is a Linux binary, running on FreeBSD, and not only
>doesn't the thing crash, but it won't screw up my application memory
>like it does under Windows.
>
>Pretty sad when I can run a Linux binary under FreeBSD, and it won't
>even run under Windows. The moral of the story is: the programs look
>ugly under FreeBSD and Linux, but at least they work, and they won't
>fsck up the OS to boot.
>
>I could get slightly better performance under Windows, with full-screen
>capability. None of that matters if you can't keep the app/OS running.
>It wouldn't be so bad if I could just restart it, but it won't restart,
>because obviously a part of the app is still lingering in memory, but it
>isn't showing up when I do control+alt+delete, so I can't kill the app.
>That brings up another point about Windows' suckiness: the job control
>is horrid compared to unix systems. I'd be willing to bet that Win NT's
>or 2000's job control isn't much better than 9X.
>
>Don't know 'bout you guys, but I won't be waiting for XP anytime soon.
>Why wait when a superior OS is already here for free? The only strong
>point of Windows is application availability, period.
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Well,
Windows 2000 is actually Windows 3.11 with a slightly improved desktop.
You are correct. Oh, and they added a few other applications....
That's about it.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 09:41:54 -0500
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <e_hL6.649$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Just to be annoying:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > You do realize that most other software also has probably just as many
> > security bugs, but since they aren't the target of constant probing,
they
> > aren't discovered. Also, companies like Sun and HP are constantly
releasing
> > patches to security bugs that they themselves have found before hackers
> > exposed them.
>
> You do realise that Microsoft are a minority when it comes to Internet
> servers where security really matters? There security record is abysmal
> and shows no sign of improving.
And what is your proof of that? The Netcraft Survey? That only counts
hosts, not servers. There is no survey of the number of actual servers on
the internet with their related OS's. So you're pulling this out of your
ass.
> > Hell, each new Linux kernel tends to have at least one security related
bug
> > fix, and sometimes more, not to mention the various buffer overflow
> > exploits.
>
> The number of security bugs in the Linux kernel have been very few and
> far between. The biggest joke is that IIS is the worst SW ever for
> security bugs and yet Microsoft want to move it into the kernel. They
> just don't learn. They want to have the fastest web server. Most companies
> don't want or need the fastest. They want SW that is stable and secure.
> Microsoft have failed in both of these areas to date.
Who said MS wants to move IIS to the kernel? That would be stupid and
wouldn't gain anything. You might have a kernel space cache or other such
speed enhancers, but there's no reason to run the entire server in kernel
space.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
