Linux-Advocacy Digest #525, Volume #34 Tue, 15 May 01 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Oh Chad -- Look at these TCP scores (mlw)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Oh Chad -- Look at these TCP scores (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Top Servers: ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Top Servers: (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh Chad -- Look at these TCP scores
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:11:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Perhaps you didn't notice that the SGI server had 16 processors *AND* was
> clustered, while the #2 was a Windows 2000 system with 8 processors and
> wasn't clustered, yet with 2x as many processors it achieved less than 50%
> increase and costs more than 2x in the price/perf ratio.
A cluster can not get the performance that an smp box can get.
and 8xSMP box of equivalent speed and RAM vs 2 4xSMP cluster will always
win. There is more work that needs to be done with a cluster than with an
SMP box.
The only reason to cluster is to get substantially more processing power
and/or redundancy. SMP with the same number of CPU's Will always be faster.
This is not an OS issue.
The TPC isn't even an OS benchmark, it is a database benchmark. The
operating system's impact is minimal.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:09:04 +1200
> Linux is missing a accounting system for small to medium businesses.
Most business I know use pre-design templates, with embedded macro's. There is a
small business that actually sells them in New Zealand and offeres support. They
are very basic, but they allow you to keep track of all the GST and tax owing to
the government.
>
>
> Linux is missing a free (both senses) groupware system (Lotus is not
> free and not even cheap when you're looking at client licenses).
Goto www.iplanet.com and choose. Btw, don't just think because you got Linux for
free, you've scored a free lunch.
>
>
> Linux is missing a project management tool like Microsoft Project (one
> which can calculate correctly)
I don't know many people who use that.
>
>
> Linux is missing a not too heavy office package (StarOffice is too
> heavy for systems with 64MB or less).
Applixware: http://www.vistasource.com
StarOffice: http://www.sun.com/staroffice
Wordperfect: http://linux.corel.com
Hancom Office for Linux: http://www.hancom.com/en/
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh Chad -- Look at these TCP scores
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:13:37 +1200
>
I never said they ran UNIX! I only pointed out that Linux ran on one of them.
Mainframe OS's have been designed specifically to address the issues of high
demand, high availability. It is pretty sad that Microsoft still thinks it can
win the enterprise sector over with a product hacked up in a few years, from a
company with a shocking record of security and quality. Also, what does the
comment "What does it say about Linux?" have to do with the poor scability of
Linux?
Matthew Gardiner
> >
> > 3000GB http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-result1.idc?id=101050802, good
> old
> > NCR achieves top result, and doesn't use Windows.
>
> And doesn't use Unix either.
>
> > 1000GB http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-result1.idc?id=101050801, yet
> again
> > NCR remains top, and again, not running Windows.
>
> Again, no Unix.
>
> > 300GB http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-result1.idc?id=100050301, IBM
> > submitting yet another great system without Windows.
>
> Again, no Unix. It's running Dynix/ptx which was originally created by
> sequent before IBM bought them.
>
> > 100GB http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-result1.idc?id=101051401, SGI
> submitted
> > another great machine running our old friend Linux.
>
> And, as pointed out already, gains less than 50% with 2x as many processors
> and 2x the cost of it's windows competitor.
>
> When you see a Windows 2000 benchmark with 16 processors, I'm certain it
> will be trounce the SGI score.
>
> > So what this tells me is that Intel has their act together, and do provide
> the
> > scalability to power bloody huge databases,
>
> Indeed, but none of these are running commercial grade OS's, they're all
> running specialized OS's specific to those tasks.
>
> > however, Microsoft Windows 2000 and Microsoft SQL server doesn't scale
> well.
>
> What does it say about Linux?
>
> > Am I surprise, nope! I've been saying
> > it for 3 years, Windows can't scale, it never can and never will while
> they
> > still cling to the hope that oneday they will find a solution to the
> design
> > problems with Windows 2000.
>
> Your statements are based on pure speculation.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:37:48 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9C3M6.891$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <R90M6.854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> >> >You are certainly on the ball Charlie.
> >> >
> >> >You "just" discovered something that happened over a year ago and was
> >fixed
> >> >over a year ago. Further, there is no evidence the back door was ever
> >used.
> >>
> >> So are you EF. It's a new one!
> >
> >No, it's not. Search for "Netscape Engineers are Weenies!", and it's the
> >same one.
>
> Well your wrong Erik. It's not.
Then please provide an article that contains a date. There is nothing on
CERT or BugTrak or on TechNet corroborating your claims. Further, no other
media source has "picked up" this supposed major security leak. Could it be
because it's more than a year old? Nah...
http://www.zdnet.com/zdhelp/stories/main/0,5594,2551858,00.html
While this page doesn't have a date on it either, the search engine lists
its date as April 19th, 2000.
This one from April 14th, 2000 (actually dated) says pretty much exactly
what the Yahoo page you quoted said. Note the phreas "last thursday" which
is identical to the one used in the Yahoo story.
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2543490,00.html
> And further, I'm glad to see you finally admit they had a backdoor
> considering the amount of pig pissing you did a year ago when I
> first brought the story of a backdoor in IIS.
So you're now admitting that it's a year old. Second, I never did any "pig
pissing".
> You said it was a lie then and you were full of bullcrap buddie.
I never said any such thing. Prove it with a deja link or shut the fuck up.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top Servers:
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:41:21 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The top unclustered systems:
>
>
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=noncluster
>
> Where is Windows?
Considering that all of the computers in this list do not run Windows 2000,
it would be a little hard to compete on the same hardware, don't you think?
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:21:55 +1200
Todd wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have gracefully moved from using StarOffice 5.2, and purchase
> > Wordperfect Suite 2000 for Linux. I constantly hear the mantra that
> > "Until MS Office comes to Linux, it (linux) will never grace the
> > harddrives of large corporate desktops". If that is the case, what is
> > Wordperfect Suite 2000 missing?
> >
> > Wordprocessor: Wordperfect 9
> > Database: Paradox 9
> > Spreadsheet:Quattro Pro 9
> > Presentations: Presentations 9
> > Calender/Scheduler/Address Book/Memo's: Corel Central 9
> > Browser/Email: Netscape 4.76, I have only had it crash once on me, in
> > the 2 months I have owned this copy of SuSE Linux 7.1.
> >
> > So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
> > MS Office Pro?
>
> The applications within the suite do not have the same functionality as the
> ones in Office. Also, MS Office applications are far more refined, and they
> interoperate with each other very nicely thanks to COM.
>
> And if you think Netscape doesn't crash, you just lost your credibility with
> those that use IE under W2k... Netscape sucks compared to IE. (I am running
> IE 6 prelease - and it hasn't crashed once - not bad for beta software).
>
> I applaud Netscape for the 6.x release for its compliance with the W3C, but
> its stability is worse than 4.x.
>
> Applications under Linux have a *long* ways to go before they even begin to
> compare to Office 97, much less Office XP which is out right now.
>
> -Todd
What can you do on Microsoft Office that you can't on Corel Wordperfect Suite?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:50:56 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dqpng$fvt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Don't weasel out of it. What is your proof?
> >>
> >> http://www.netcraft.co.uk/survey/
> >
> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same server
> > can server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
>
> And why shuold there be more names hosted by UNIX than WinNT?
Because Unix is used primarily in ISP's which have traditionally the highest
number of hosts per server, while Windows is used primarily in corporations
where the number of hosts per server is often < 1 (many servers to one
host).
> Mabey because it is a lot better at it?
Not so, For instance, Webjump is running NT4 and hosts over 300,000 hosts on
the same IP. But despite the few large instances of this on NT, the vast
majority of ISP's that house thousands of hostnames are all run by Unix.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:30:31 +1200
> By WordPerfect I'm assuming you mean Corel.
> When did WordPerfect "get it is act together"
Version 8. Version 7 I accept was absolutely shit house, however, they (Corel)
were trying to rush out a product just as they (Corel) finished buying
Wordperfect off Novell. I have used Corel Wordperfect 2000, and at least it
can handle graphics properly with out the whole of the OS locking up. It can
actually anti-alias text when resizing. When opening a 3-4MB document caked
with pictures and graphs, it does't die a horrible death. Maybe Microsoft
should learn something from them. What even better they include books, I know,
amazing, a software company that actually provides books!
>
> Lotus SmartSuite died with version 4. There is no market for it.
> They were basically giving it away during version 3.1's life cycle.
> As for Wordpro, hardcore users preferred Ami-Pro.
> Even WordPerfect uses VBA at this point. What does that tell you?
> They can't give WP away ... same with Star. Why?
Version 96, 97 were shit house, however, ME was very good. My brother uses it
on his PC w/ Windows 2000 Pro.
>
>
> Because the desktop market for Linux isn't on the freaking radar screen,
> that's why Hymie.
Who's "hymie"?
>
> It's (it is) not a lucrative market. Read 'no money to be made' at this
> point.
> If you think that IBM is going to port Lotus to Linux... well, hold on -- I
> take that back.
> Their marketing dept. is about as sharp as a ball bearing. It could happen.
> And guess what?
> The same thing will happen there as did in windows land. It will flounder
> and die.
Evidence please, I can name several organisations that have kept Lotus Smart
Suite because MS Office was bloated, buggy and had no more features that what
they were currentlying using.
>
>
> The desktop computer user is something the OS-Zealots will never understand
> because their jaundiced eye has them blinded. They use what they use and
> they're happy with what they use.
> Any market evolution will take place of its (not it is) accord, not because
> the LinZealots scream & shout about the evils of MS.
I don't care what Microsoft do, I get pissed off when Microsoft produces
shit-house products, sells the software by trying to make mutton look like
lamb. It doesn't work.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:32:51 +1200
btw, please email me once MS Office has a native PDF filter so I can save my
documents to PDF format without the need to buy expensive add-ons.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:57:00 -0500
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Speaking as someone doing software maintenance, step one of fixing a bug
is
> to create a test (or several tests) that exercises the bug. Only then do
you
> actually devote any effort to trying to correct the problem. If you've
done
> the test generation right (and that's why you're the maintainer, yes?)
then
> stopping the bug from occurring in the test suite will indicate that the
> fault is fixed and no known problems have been introduced. Unknown
problems
> are, well, by their very nature unknown. :^)
>
> The creation of the tests should be done with comprehensive knowledge of
the
> area that is failing. But that's obvious. Also, whenever new software is
> created, a test suite should be written that exercises as many paths
through
> the code as possible (possibly with the aid of a coverage tool.) Once
your
> tests have coverage (you might need to add extra code to achieve this in a
> controlled fashion) you can be fairly sure that faults added will be
spotted
> before the embarrassing stage (AKA release to the wider community...)
The part you are forgetting is that a component can pass all of it's tests
and be working flawlessly, but still cause software that uses it to fail
because that software relied on some previous undocumented functionality
that you "fixed" or changed when fixing the bug. This is what happened with
Lotus Notes and SP6, and the reason for the SP6a release to add the
side-effects back in.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:57:40 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9dmur9$de5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Are you trying to suggest that there are no linux servers that ever
> > > > crash within the first 100 or 200 days? I hate to tell you this,
but
> > > > there are.
> > >
> > > So?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mean also means some crashed AFTER 120 days.
> > >
> > > Ah, now you get the point I was making? It is meaningless to quote a
non
> > > average statistic for this kind of thing. Ans 120 days mean is rotten
by
> > > any standards.
> >
> > Really, then what is the mean of Linux? Where are the statistics?
Where
> > are the studies?
> >
> > A random sampling of Linux web sites on Netcrafts server shows an
average
> > uptime of of much much less than 120 days.
>
> Why don't you BUZZ off you gadfly!
Why don't you answer the question?
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:38:59 +1200
> That's unit testing, or black box testing.
>
> Regression testing tends to be done with scripts, and is based on previously
> discovered bugs. You regression test to make sure that old bugs don't creep
> back in.
>From my experience, they lack both black box and white box testing abilities.
ME is a perfect example of a walking, talking bug. XP will be no different.
I promise you, three months after the launch, a cracker will create a script to
allow them or a script kiddie to gain access via the remote control add-on that
will be included with the new version. They are rushing the product out, and
they are going to pay the price for this arrogance. They would be better off
throwing to the middle of next year, get is really stable, throw a copy of
Windows XP on a server, and let people hack and crack it. People who gain
access get a $10000 prize + a free copy of Windows XP. Hence, putting crackers
to work for you.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top Servers:
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:40:27 +1200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The top unclustered systems:
> >
> >
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp?resulttype=noncluster
> >
> > Where is Windows?
>
> Considering that all of the computers in this list do not run Windows 2000,
> it would be a little hard to compete on the same hardware, don't you think?
Then create a Intel solution that can compete against it!
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:43:55 +1200
> Not true. You'll have 45 days to activate the software from the time you
> install or overhaul your machine (simple hardware changes won't trigger a
> re-activation). It will be toll-free, as the Office activation number is
> toll-free already.
So, it has gone from 14 for te beta, to 30 from what I have read on the MSNews
groups, to 45days, according to Eirk.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:07:34 -0500
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Qo5M6.902$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > >
> >> > > > It's not intimate knowledge, it's the equivelant of an MD5
> >> > > > checksum. It's a hash created by a number of unique identifiers,
> >> > > > with no way to reverse the data to retrieve the original data.
> >> > >
> >> > > 1) It must be more sophisticated than an MD5 checksum of unique
> >> > > identifiers, otherwise they would be unable to tell if I changed
> >> > > a single NIC or the entire system
> >> >
> >> > More likely, the hash doesn't change radically if you change one
> >> > piece
> > of
> >> > hardware, but if the entire hash changes, then you changed a lot of
> >> > hardware.
> >>
> >> That's not the definition of a hash.
> >
> > And pray tell, what is the definition of a hash?
> >
> > A hash is simply a value which is derived from other values. Typically,
> > this is a value which cannot be reversed to retrieve the orginal
> > results.
>
> I seem to have misplaced Mr. Schneier's book, but I believe that one
> quality of a good hashing algorythm is that there is no corrolation
> between input and output. So, if you change a single bit of the input
> the resulting output should be completely different.
>
> If a small change in the input resulted in output that was similar to the
> original output, i could figure out the original because the hash would
> tell me when i was getting close.
>
> You are welcome to argue that whatever is in the MS 'hash' is not
> supposed to be cryptographically secure. That would explain a hash that
> only changes a little. It would also allow anyone to find out about
> whatever goes into the hash.
I don't see how. If each component is hashed seperately, then each one
would be cryptographically secure, yet would allow changes.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:08:13 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I have gracefully moved from using StarOffice 5.2, and purchase
> > > Wordperfect Suite 2000 for Linux. I constantly hear the mantra that
> > > "Until MS Office comes to Linux, it (linux) will never grace the
> > > harddrives of large corporate desktops". If that is the case, what is
> > > Wordperfect Suite 2000 missing?
> > >
> > > Wordprocessor: Wordperfect 9
> > > Database: Paradox 9
> > > Spreadsheet:Quattro Pro 9
> > > Presentations: Presentations 9
> > > Calender/Scheduler/Address Book/Memo's: Corel Central 9
> > > Browser/Email: Netscape 4.76, I have only had it crash once on me, in
> > > the 2 months I have owned this copy of SuSE Linux 7.1.
> > >
> > > So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
> > > MS Office Pro?
> >
> > The applications within the suite do not have the same functionality as
the
> > ones in Office. Also, MS Office applications are far more refined, and
they
> > interoperate with each other very nicely thanks to COM.
> >
> > And if you think Netscape doesn't crash, you just lost your credibility
with
> > those that use IE under W2k... Netscape sucks compared to IE. (I am
running
> > IE 6 prelease - and it hasn't crashed once - not bad for beta software).
> >
> > I applaud Netscape for the 6.x release for its compliance with the W3C,
but
> > its stability is worse than 4.x.
> >
> > Applications under Linux have a *long* ways to go before they even begin
to
> > compare to Office 97, much less Office XP which is out right now.
> >
> > -Todd
>
> What can you do on Microsoft Office that you can't on Corel Wordperfect
Suite?
Under Linux? Lots. Embed a spereadsheet document into a word processing
document, for instance.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:45:50 +1200
> How soon did it take to Java's applications to appear?
Maybe you should find out the original purpose of Java before you start
quarking on stuff you know nothing about. Just a pre-emptive, hint, it wasn't
aiming for cross platform compatibility when originally designed.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:10:33 -0500
Notice the update at the end of the slashdot article that says it's old
news.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hey DICKHEAD! Or should we call you the GERMAN saying DICHHEAD!
>
> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/05/14/1858201.shtml
>
> Looks like Microsoft has admitted to another back door in IIS!
> Microsoft could see into your entire lan with this one and
> steal all your customers credit cards!
>
> When will you DICHHEADS learn Chad!
>
> In the Open Source world there is no back doors DICHHEAD!
>
>
> Anybody who runs IIS is an utter fool.
>
> Microsoft products are engineered for people like Chad.
> People who don't know their BUTT from a HOLE IN THE GROUND!
>
> Myers,
> I'm convinced you don't have the manhood of my Cocker Spaniel.
>
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:50:04 +1200
> Hell, Matthew, Jan doesn't even know what the terms s/390 mean, let
> alone HP-UX.
Jans so thick she probably doesn't even know what a VAX (not the Vacuum cleaner),
Alpha, R12K or 900z is. Jan is just a simple office clerk who thinks that because
she can use MS Word, that makes her some sort of genius, whilst the rest of the office
just mocks her over the fact that she requires the clippy to help her right a letter.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:51:30 +1200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Um, my calculator says that a 99.999% uptime leaves 5.26 MINUTES
> > > downtime per year - not 8 hours. Did you perhaps calculate for 99.9%
> > > uptime?
> > > --
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > 365days * 24hours = 8760 hours
> > 0.001(difference between 100 and 99.999) * 8760 hours = 8.76 hours.
>
> That would be fine, except that it's expressed in percent. Remember that
> .001 percent is .00001 decimal.
sorry, just realised I fucked up, big time :( anyway, remember, five nines
is theoretical, and act of god can throw it out the Window in a few seconds.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:55:42 +1200
>
>
> Who Cares?? Only intelligent people use Linux and UNIX! It's cheaper
> for the Linux and UNIX people to administrate.
>
> --
> V
Better yet, why not use the remote administration kit that is included with the
many distro's of Linux. All the admin task done through a web browser. Solaris
has also the same things as well, also, it includes real time status of
clusters, load balancing, the whole nine yards. So whats the deal with this,
"Linux and UNIX are too hard to maintain".
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:57:17 +0100
>>> If you have really firm evidence that homosexualtiy is genetic, I
>>> suggest you publish.
>>
>>Then you admit that it's a choice.
>
> Why are bigots so often stupidly illiterate as well?
good question. I've found that plonking Aaron greatly increases teh
signal to noise ratio.
-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: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:58:06 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > Where in my statements did I say I was afraid of homosexuals. I am
>> > not afraid of them anymore than I am afraid of people with bipolar
>> > disorder or any other genetic malfunction.
>>
>> If you have really firm evidence that homosexualtiy is genetic, I
>> suggest you publish.
>
> Then you admit that it's a choice.
Do you think ceberal paulsy a choice? Hint: it isn't genetic.
-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: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 00:59:51 +1200
Roy Culley wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
> >
> >> I think YaST is a mighty fine admin tool. I consider it a loss for the
> >> people at large that this tool cannot be reused in other distributions /
> >> OSes.
> >
> > maybe they (SuSE) could license YaST to other distro's?
>
> Maybe they (SuSE) could GPL YaST? I really do find it strange that
> a company that does so much for OSS (xfree, reiserfs, etc) made
> their admin tool proprietory.
>
Why promote GPL? All I want is a stable OS with stable tools, both proprietry
and GPL can deliver. YaST is a very stable tool, and I have only ever seen two
security concerns that didn't relate to me. If SuSE wants to keep a tight
reign on YaST then so be it.
I don't use Linux because it is opensource, I use it because it is superior to
what Microsoft offers. If I had the chance, I would move to Solaris, however,
there are not enough apps and drivers (For my SB Live!).
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
