Linux-Advocacy Digest #530, Volume #34 Tue, 15 May 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Admits To Backdoor In IIS [updated] (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Mig)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Mig)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (rich)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Bob Hauck)
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? (quux111)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Greg Cox)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jon Johansan")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("Jon Johansan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Admits To Backdoor In IIS [updated]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:10:02 GMT
On Tue 15 May 2001 08:41, Neil Cerutti wrote:
> Chronos Tachyon posted:
>>On Mon 14 May 2001 05:10, Roy Culley wrote:
>>
>>> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/entrepreneur.html?
>>> s=smallbiz/articles/20010514/microsoft_ackno
>>>
>>> Is there no end to this company's negligence?
>>
>>This is old news, a rehash of the "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN"
>>backdoor in FrontPage extensions.
>
> Is a silly message embedded in a binary equivalent to a backdoor?
> Don't lie to me, 'cause I've seen War Games and I'll know.
>
Nope, not always, it just happens that *this* embedded message is also used
as a backdoor password that gives you complete control over the site.
--
Chronos "erutluconom a ni evil sreenigne tfosorciM" Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:12:03 -0700
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> You cannot remove a CPU and memory from the computer in
> which it resides without destroying whatever information
> it holds. Thus, if the computer does not provide a means
> to access the data in its caches separately from the data
> that is cached, it cannot qualify as a statutory copy.
This is no different from RAM; in the general case, removing it from the
system (mostly) destroys the contents. In any case, you could probably
access the data in cache with test equipment even without removing it
from the system.
> Why do you insist on assimilating functional units with
> separate (and separable) devices?
The statute does not require separate devices. It merely requires that
there be a physical entity holding the copy. Such an entity might be a
memory chip (or module), a CPU chip (or module), or a computer. The
statute does not differentiate.
Copies in the RAM of a computer are clearly statutory copies, yet many
computers and computer-like devices are configured in such a way (with
single-purpose software) that it is impossible to access the RAM
directly. Consider an ATM machine. Can you access the RAM? No. Are
those RAM copies of the software still copies? Yes.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:16:19 +0200
Why dont you dump your Windows programs then?
Start with Agent :-)
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:20:24 GMT
On Tue, 15 May 2001 22:16:19 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why dont you dump your Windows programs then?
>Start with Agent :-)
Because I'm at work! :)
But I still have windows at home for now as well. I'm waiting for my
buddy to bring over his linux CD's and help me with the install.
Like I said, by October 1st. *nods*
________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/sugapablo
(To email me, remove "Sugapablo-" from my email address)
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 15 May 2001 15:26:03 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dqc06$d0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In msgid <3afb33c7$0$78412$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote: on
> Thursday 10 May 2001 17:38
>
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> > And you'll void your warranty. But a car isn't software and this
> > software is
> >> > licensed not sold. Trying leasing that car and see what happens when
> >> > you decide to swap out the motor and change in the interior...
> >>
> >> At least when I buy some Linux distro I own it outright. No licenses
> >> akin to the likes of MS at least.
> >
> > You think you can do whatever you'd like with that Linux setup eh?
> >
> > OK, change something.
> >
> > Try to keep it to yourself.
> >
> > Ooops you are in violation of the GPL - Stallman is gonna kick your
little
> > sisters butt if you don't share your efforts with everyone for free.
>
>
> *BZZT*
>
> Sorry Jan, wrong again. You can change anything you want, and if you don't
> distribute the binary, you don't have to distribute the source, Simple as
> that. But then, you didn't actually *read* the GPL, did you?
Dont' distribute it - what good is it then?
Hey gang, wrote this great new version of the program that works just how we
want it - but you can't have it. Yipee...
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:26:06 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2001 22:16:19 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Why dont you dump your Windows programs then?
>>Start with Agent :-)
>
> Because I'm at work! :)
Well.. XEmacs runs on Windows - i have it installed - and GNUS is a
excellent newsreader :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rich)
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: 15 May 2001 20:27:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>Comments? Flames? Hurrahs?
Hurrah.
I'm working on it at home. No hope at work, where we are going to
Windows 2000 but the home network actually is more than 50% non-Microsoft
which I feel is a BIG accomplishment.
--
begin GetARealNewsreader.jpg.vbs
I'm a signature virus. Copy me! Look here why:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q265/2/30.ASP
end
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 20:43:36 GMT
On Tue, 15 May 2001 22:26:06 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well.. XEmacs runs on Windows - i have it installed - and GNUS is a
>excellent newsreader :-)
I'm using slrn on NT4 right now.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111)
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: 15 May 2001 19:57:05 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:9drvnj$bhb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>> When did BSD cease to become UNIX.
>>
>> Technically it never was.
>
> Sure it was.
>
> -Ed
>
AIUI, BSD is not, and has never been, UNIX(tm). It *is* a Unix, however.
The whole "is it Unix or aint' it" argument has never been less meaningful
than now; none of the most popular Unixen are real UNIX(tm). Solaris, like
Linux, is a hybrid of SysV and BSD. The *BSDs are all derivates of BSD
4.4, which incorporated pieces of SVR4.
Interestingly, the *only* "real" UNIX(tm) is UnixWare (now owned by
Caldera). UnixWare is on the cusp of death, and if it dies, there will be
*no* "real" UNIX(tm) OSes left!
quux111
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:01:05 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > > So, in other words, you are perfectly fine with IE, DVD player, built in
> > > zip, cd burner, GUI, networking, memory management, as long as they
> don't
> > > take code from other companies?
> > > All of the above had been developed or licensed by MS.
> > >
> >
> > The compression routines werent licensed. The quicktime routines werent
> > licensed.
>
> I asked about the "above" stuff.
>
Nice snipping. Put back the context. And you are not boxing me into your
little trap.
> > > If not, tell me what features you think that MS should be allowed to
> enter
> > > the OS?
> >
> > features leaglly obtained, and "features' that arent added to the OS
> > merely to kill competition.
>
> No, I don't want this statement, you can weazle out of it.
> I want features.
> Name them.
I dont give a rat's behind what you want. You have my answer as to
features.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:02:16 GMT
On Tue, 15 May 2001 15:58:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:59:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Pat Buchanan used the same thing on MSNBC the other night while
>>debating Phil Donohue.
>
>And I *missed it*!!!??? Damn, I'll bet that was fun.
Actually it was. I can't stand Phil and generally I support Pat but
Phil made a better argument than Pat did on most of the issues.
>
>>He's the one with the dream. If he wants to troll he needs to learn an
>>awful lot about how it works.
>
>Perhaps you could give classes, eh?
Ha hA!
flatfish
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 21:06:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> 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
>
>
Actually, that "act of god" would take 5.26 MINUTES... ;^) Ouch, don't
hit, ouch...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:09:39 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Define stealing from the competition.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, patent infringement (Stac - compression) and taking code
> > > > (Apple - used quicktime code in windows video). m$ lost both cases.
> > >
> > > Stac bought a patent,
> >
> > Stac may have bought a patent, but m$ infringed upon it after it was
> > bought.
>
> Stac also violated MS's license, and lost a countersuit by MS over reverse
> engineering DOS.
>
Stac reverse engineered so they could load there compressions routines
at the same time m$ loaded there's. m4 then had to defend the
undocumented coed which allowed them to load the compression routine. m$
had also told the DOJ that no undocmented coed existed. According to
every report I've read, that type of revese engineering was quite
acceptable in the tech world at that time. m$ got $13ish million, Stac
got $126 million.
> BTW, violating a patent isn't stealing. Millions of patent violations occur
> daily by people that simply come up with the same algorithm as a patented
> one without even knowing it.
m$ tried to license Stac's routines. Stac wouldn't license under m$'s
terms, so m$ took them anyway. And lost $136 million because of it.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:11:11 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:v4%L6.23508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9dpoah$624$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Not familiar with the quicktime code issue.
> >
> > As I understand it, Apple subcontracted parts
> > of QuickTime to another firm- codecs I think.
>
> Actually, QuickTime is based on the Sorensen codec, which Apple themselves
> license.
>
-SOME- of Quicktimne is Sorenson. Some isnt. That is why some QT movies
play in Linux, and some dont.
> > Microsoft later subcontracted parts of
> > Window Media to the same firm.
>
> Again, Sorenson (IIRC).
Do you?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:14:03 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <xwCL6.725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hey Funky boy keep your hair on. What are you implying by 'hosts,
> not
> > > > >> servers'? I presume you are referring to multiple web servers being
> > > > >> hosted on a single machine? The fact that Linux/Unix servers are so
> > > > >> capable at this is just another embarrassment to Microsoft.
> > > > >
> > > > > Windows is just as capable, however Windows is used more often in
> > > corporate
> > > > > environments than ISP environments. ISP's often have hundreds or
> > > thousands
> > > > > of web sites (hosts) on a single machine.
> > > > >
> > > > > In any event, you're avoiding the question. What is your proof that
> > > there
> > > > > are more physical non-Windows servers on the internet than Windows
> > > servers?
> > > > > Stick to the topic.
> > > >
> > > > Where did I ever mention 'physical non-Windows servers'? You really
> are a
> > > > pratt.
> > >
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > You do realise that Microsoft are a minority when it comes to Internet
> > > > servers
> > >
> > > Clearly you were talking about actual servers, not hostsnames.
> > >
> > > 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.
Each running its own software.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:17:54 -0400
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > I've gone over this before. It most fundamental is
> > > > that it does not provide any way for information to
> > > > get from the printer to the application.
> > >
> > > Then how do I get messages that the printer is out of paper?
> >
> > You are not the application, Rick. :D
> >
> > Unless they've come up with something new recently,
> > the way it works is that any filter can emit onto standard
> > error, and this output can be forwarded to whoever
> > may need it. Usually an administrator, but for a personal
> > workstation I expect they have something more,
> > well, personal, worked out.
> >
> > "Out of paper" isn't really something the application
> > needs to know anyway. "What fonts do you have" is
> > something the application needs to know.
>
> Eh... Does not the modern parallel printer port communicate both ways?
> It does. That is how UNIX can detect an "Out of Paper" condition.
> You know little of UNIX or parallel ports.
>
Doses the printer report out of paper? can the message be relayed un
Unix? Is than not a communication between OS and printer?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 15 May 2001 16:21:03 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
5 9's is not theoretical. There are servers left and right achieving 5 9's
on multiple OSes.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 15 May 2001 16:22:04 -0500
"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:yd_L6.14173$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon 14 May 2001 04:12, Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >
> > That is wrong. There is a simple utility to run to switch between the
uni
> > processor kernel and mutiprocessor kernel for NT4. W2K does not have
this
> > problem and you can change motherboard and CPU counts under it no
problem,
> > it reconfigures itself automatically when you come back up. I recently
> > went from a uniprocessor m/b to a dual board and just shut down, changed
> > hardware and came back up; had to reboot once more after it detected the
> > changes.
> >
>
> That sounds either incorrect or inefficient, but since I don't have an SMP
> machine handy to test your claim, I'll take it at face value.
Would you like a link to documentation on this or would you rather take it
at face value now?
NT4 needs uni2mp.exe while W2K does it itself.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 15 May 2001 16:23:03 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in
> > message news:dnXL6.12464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Mon 14 May 2001 07:01, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > [Snip]
> > > >
> > > > One BIG advantage of Linux is that SMP code can be inlined, by
setting
> > > > a compiler switch and rebuilding.
> > > >
> > > > In proprietary binary operating systems (PBOS), SMP support is
provided
> > > > by libraries. The kernel has to jump to the proper library
function.
> > > > This function call is necessary so that the PBOS can support both
> > > > uni-processor and SMP machines. However, note that the function
call
> > > > is overhead that the open-source kernel can simply compile out of
> > > > existence.
> > > >
> > > > Examples of PBOS's: Windows, Windows, Windows, Windows.....
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > >
> > > I believe that this is wrong: NT/2K ships with two versions of the
kernel
> > > (and a few core libraries) pre-compiled on the CD, one with SMP
support
> > and
> > > one for uniprocessor systems. However, due to the welded-hood
approach of
> > > Microsoft products, one must reinstall the OS from scratch to switch
> > > between the two kernels. Yech.
> >
> > That is wrong. There is a simple utility to run to switch between the
uni
> > processor kernel and mutiprocessor kernel for NT4. W2K does not have
this
> > problem and you can change motherboard and CPU counts under it no
problem,
> > it reconfigures itself automatically when you come back up. I recently
went
> > from a uniprocessor m/b to a dual board and just shut down, changed
hardware
> > and came back up; had to reboot once more after it detected the changes.
>
> Count yourself lucky. After XP comes out, you'll need to call a (as-
> yet-unspecified-if-it-will-be-toll-free) phone number to beg
> permission to boot the machine back up.
Not true - activation occurs over the internet in seconds, with a single
prompt: "Country?"
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 15 May 2001 16:23:05 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Bg0M6.858$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
> in
> > > message news:dnXL6.12464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Mon 14 May 2001 07:01, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [Snip]
> > > > >
> > > > > One BIG advantage of Linux is that SMP code can be inlined, by
> setting
> > > > > a compiler switch and rebuilding.
> > > > >
> > > > > In proprietary binary operating systems (PBOS), SMP support is
> provided
> > > > > by libraries. The kernel has to jump to the proper library
> function.
> > > > > This function call is necessary so that the PBOS can support both
> > > > > uni-processor and SMP machines. However, note that the function
> call
> > > > > is overhead that the open-source kernel can simply compile out of
> > > > > existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Examples of PBOS's: Windows, Windows, Windows, Windows.....
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe that this is wrong: NT/2K ships with two versions of the
> kernel
> > > > (and a few core libraries) pre-compiled on the CD, one with SMP
> support
> > > and
> > > > one for uniprocessor systems. However, due to the welded-hood
> approach of
> > > > Microsoft products, one must reinstall the OS from scratch to switch
> > > > between the two kernels. Yech.
> > >
> > > That is wrong. There is a simple utility to run to switch between the
> uni
> > > processor kernel and mutiprocessor kernel for NT4. W2K does not have
> this
> > > problem and you can change motherboard and CPU counts under it no
> problem,
> > > it reconfigures itself automatically when you come back up. I recently
> went
> > > from a uniprocessor m/b to a dual board and just shut down, changed
> hardware
> > > and came back up; had to reboot once more after it detected the
changes.
> >
> > Count yourself lucky. After XP comes out, you'll need to call a (as-
> > yet-unspecified-if-it-will-be-toll-free) phone number to beg
> > permission to boot the machine back up.
>
> 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.
The default method is to activate over the internet in seconds.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 15 May 2001 16:24:03 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
It is 14 days for a beta (you are expected to use and test the product as a
beta tester) and 45 days as has always been reported by MS.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 15 May 2001 16:25:01 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9drn57$6oo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
> >
> > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
>
> If your time is worth nothing, install Linux.
>
> If both your time and money are worth nothing, then install Microsoft.
I am convinced there is almost no way you attend oxford - unless your
parents paid off admissions...
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 23:01:27 +0200
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
>>
>> >> At least when I buy some Linux distro I own it outright. No licenses
>> >> akin to the likes of MS at least.
>> >
>> > You think you can do whatever you'd like with that Linux setup eh?
>> >
>> > OK, change something.
>> >
>> > Try to keep it to yourself.
>> >
>> > Ooops you are in violation of the GPL - Stallman is gonna kick your
> little
>> > sisters butt if you don't share your efforts with everyone for free.
>>
>>
>> *BZZT*
>>
>> Sorry Jan, wrong again. You can change anything you want, and if you
>> don't distribute the binary, you don't have to distribute the source,
>> Simple as that. But then, you didn't actually *read* the GPL, did you?
>
> Dont' distribute it - what good is it then?
>
> Hey gang, wrote this great new version of the program that works just how
> we want it - but you can't have it. Yipee...
>
>
Look Jon (or Jan), it is *you* who started it this way.
Read again:
>>> You think you can do whatever you'd like with that Linux setup eh?
>>>
>>> OK, change something.
>>>
>>> Try to keep it to yourself.
>>>
>>> Ooops you are in violation of the GPL - Stallman is gonna kick your
>>>little sisters butt if you don't share your efforts with everyone for
>>>free.
Where was ever claimed that it should be given away to anyone else?
The above statement is just simple BS, worthy of an really dumb wintroll.
I always thought that you are special in your dumbness, but now I´ve got to
suspect that you achieved the until now thought impossible: The absolute
vacuum. How you managed to remove the last 2 atoms flowing around
between the ears of the normal wintroll is beyond me, but you sure managed.
Peter
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: 15 May 2001 16:28:02 -0500
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3b004931$0$37252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jon Johansan"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Remember - growing from 100 users to 1000 users is a 1000% growth rate -
> > but what does that mean when your competitor ONLY grows 1% from
> > 100,000,000 users to 101,000,000 users?
> >
> >
> >
> Hmmm. Interesting. You get caught in yet another lie, you get plonked,
> and you change the spelling of your name. Do you still deny that all you
> are capable of is trolling?
> Don't bother answering, the question is rhetorical, and I've already
> added the changed spelling to my bozo list.
Hmmm... so, tell me, what IS flawed with what I wrote and you quoted above
eh?
Changed spelling? I don't know that I've done that...
I love it when someone claims to killfile. First they are usually lying but
secondly it admits they have failed in the argument.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
