Linux-Advocacy Digest #536, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Michael Vester)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux Hot! (Was: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Sean)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Security in Open Source Software ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:23:13 -0700
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "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?
> Don't need to answer questions to win-trolls... all you turkeys do is
> get way off the subject... I'm primarily in here to say that Linux is
> one good operating system.
>
> --
> V
A true advocate. It is pointless to always state the obvious about
Microsoft. Losedos is a crappy OS. It is irrelevant now. Linux is very
close to being perfect and has reached critical mass. We should be
helping others switch over and drawing attention to all of Linux's great
attributes.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:02:29 +1200
May I stress that it is an SGI machine, and I would be interested in the cost
of the system minus support, as many of the highend systems have 24 hour
responsiveness to any problems. I also wonder why Windows 2000 wasn't
submitted using that exact same system? I also wonder what the system result
would have been if the Compaq system had Linux loaded with kernel 2.4.4
optimised for Xeon.
Matthew Gardiner
Jon Johansan wrote:
> I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
> tpc.org and it's in first place!
>
> http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
>
> There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
> result posted for a W2K box.
>
> Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their stunning
> entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain suddenly
> the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
>
> But... wait...
>
> I peered past the self-congratulatory posts at /. and looked into the actual
> disclosures themselves...
>
> What's this? The linux box is not a box, it's a ... GASP ... CLUSTER! OH NO!
> And, what's this? The W2K box IS a single box.
> And, what's this? The linux solution isn't even availble yet, not until
> 10/31/01 (if it ships on time).
> And, what's this? The W2K solution is 9 months old with less than
> state-of-the-art HW and SW.
> And, what's this? The linux solution uses 16x700 Mhz PIIIs and the W2K
> result uses 8x700 Mhz PIIIs.
> And, what's this? The linux solution uses a fiber channel storage array
> connected via 5 PCI controllers (whew!) versus a single plain jane scsi card
> in the compaq.
> And, what's this? Linux needs a gigabit adapter while W2K does fine with a
> single 10/100 card.
>
> But - say the penguins - remember, LINUX IS FREE and since the OS is free
> obviously (according to them) everything associated with it is so much
> cheaper that you'll always save money using Linux.
>
> * WHAT'S THIS? $347/QphH for the linux "solution" versus $161/QphH for the
> W2K box? *
> (The linux solution costs: almost $1 million vs the W2K solution costing
> about 1/4 that!)
>
> So... I spend almost 250% as much money to get 60% more performance using
> FOUR computers (hey Matt, how much heat is that?? Think of the cooling
> budget!!) that aren't even shipping yet.
>
> The cost of the MS-based software is $16,327 but the cost of the Linux-based
> software is $315,824. I see where the savings using Linux adds up there.
>
> So lets see, the 10/31/01 clustered result is going head to head against
> last years result using advanced server without clustering. Anyone wanna
> take bets on what a Datacenter driven, clustered W2K/SQL2K result using the
> same number of processors is going to do to that score?? I will... (hint:
> check out the TPC-C results for BOTH raw performance and price/performance).
>
> The way I see it, W2K is still better. It's cheaper, runs faster and easier
> to use.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 23:13:59 -0400
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ds00i$bhb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
> wrote:
>
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9dqpng$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?
> >>
> >> Mabey because it is a lot better at it?
> >
> > And why should there be more people choosing MS desktop OS's?
> > hmmmmmmm.......Maby because it is a lot better at it?
>
> Easy: they don't choose. Go in to your local PC World to buy a prefab
> computer. Do you have a chice in OS?
What's PC World have to do with it? Are they the sole supplier of computers?
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:15:05 +1200
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Microsoft has a policy of just deleting things when it becomes a problem!
> >
> > Yes Microsoft does. Microsoft, the Wintrolls, Wintroll Management,
> > Wintroll Administration
> > all have policies of just deleting things which get in their way!
> >
> > Remember the I-LOVE-YOU virus?
> > When that blew thru town and wiped out our network
> > it was decided to cripple our internet services by denying E-mail attachments.
>
> And I suppose that you have some type of miracle cure that prevents users
> from opening attachments with viruses?
>
> > So our E-business was crippled because of it.
>
> Because you couldn't send email attachments? What kind of eBusiness is this?
> I haven't seen too many eBusinesses rely upon email attachments as the crux
> of thier profitability.
>
> > And when the IIS server was being attacked by worms, they recommended you
> > disable even more services to prevent the problem.
>
> As opposed to the Unix mentality which is "open more services!"?
> Not quite. It is common on both Unix and Windows to restrict services
> that are unnecessary. This is certainly not new in the Unix world, and not
> different in the NT/2K world either.
>
> > And when we discovered there was a new backdoor, we were again asked to
> > delete a particular .DLL program to eliminate the problem.
>
> Which no one uses anymore anyhow.
>
> > When people complain about the lousy rotten service Microsoft provides
> > our company, they are deleted.
>
> What? LOOK OUT! BLACK HELIOCOPTERS!
>
> > When ever you suggest a SANE interface to Windows, you end up getting Deleted!
>
> ? You mean something like X windows? ROFL...
>
> -c
This is coming from a person who plays games on the server, ROFL!
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:41:55 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Under Linux? Lots. Embed a spereadsheet document into a word
> > > > processing
> > > > > > document, for instance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just did it then. Give me another challenge.
> > > >
> > > > Really? You can in-place edit the spreadsheet from within the word
> > > > processing document? I'd be quite surprised to see that on Linux.
> > >
> > > Just imported a Access table into Paradox without any problems.
Quattro
> > > Pro is handling MS Excel with any formatting issues, and Wordperfect
is
> > > as stable as the pope. Please, yet again I stress, where are the
> > > so-called features that MS Office has that Wordperfect hasn't.
> >
> > That's not what I said. I said, In-place edit an embedded spreadsheet
> > within the word processing document. What you are doing is converting
the
> > excel spreadsheet into a database format, which is something totally
> > different.
>
> what part of "Just imported a Access table into Paradox" don't you
> understand?
What part of "Importing is not Embedding" don't you undersrtand? Embedding
is Embedding the entire original document *IN IT'S ORIGINAL FORM* within
another document, then maintaining that that embedded document *WITH IT'S
ORIGINAL PROGRAM* without exporting it first.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 15 May 2001 22:19:04 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3b01a496$0$2882$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
> >I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
> >tpc.org and it's in first place!
> >
> >http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
> >
> >There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
> >result posted for a W2K box.
> >
> >Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their
stunning
> >entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain
suddenly
> >the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
> >
>
> {rediculous bullcrap deleted}
>
> Yes Jan. As we already knew, Linux blows the crap out of W2k,
> whether it be a single PC in single processor mode, SMP contest,
> or a CLUSTER.
sigh ... did you even read any of it?
>
> GEEZUS CHRIST!
obvious not - but you got some religion!
>
> Do you have to read all your crap from magazines and web sites Jan?
not all but some.
>
> Couldn't you just do your own tests like the rest of us?
I have - but who'd believe the results of a small company and it's peeps -
we need independent benchmarks for proof.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Hot! (Was: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 15 May 2001 22:20:02 -0500
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dsjlm$j3k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Jon Johansan wrote in message <3b01a496$0$2882$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
> >tpc.org and it's in first place!
> >
> >http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
> >
> >There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
> >result posted for a W2K box.
> >
> >Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their
> stunning
> >entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain
suddenly
> >the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
>
> Thanks for your kind words.
>
> Linux is hot!!!
>
> 2 + 2
Sarcasm 101 - hint: read the rest of it.
------------------------------
From: Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 03:22:24 GMT
Dear Charlie
Microsoft got DoD C2 Security for Windows NT by having it
tested *without*any*network*connections*. Yes, that's right
it's C2 certified, but only if it's not connected to anything!
Perhaps NT is *really* secure if it isn't actually running!!!!
That was years ago, and things certainly haven't got any more
secure. Talk about deletions!
Sean
====
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Microsoft has a policy of just deleting things when it becomes a problem!
>
> Yes Microsoft does. Microsoft, the Wintrolls, Wintroll Management,
> Wintroll Administration
> all have policies of just deleting things which get in their way!
> <snip>
> It was never ready for prime time.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:27:12 +1200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You know, I've been a Windows user since 95 first came out. But more
> and more, the product, and the actions of Microsoft (MS) anger me more
> and more.
>
> Now with all I'm reading about XP, I've had enough and I'm checking
> out all my hardware and I'm putting linux on my machine. The more I
> learn about linux, the more I'm impressed.
Me: BBC --> Amiga 500 --> Windows 95 --> Linux
>
>
> I feel though we should all encourage others to do the same. It would
> be negligence on our part to let MS's treatment of consumers to go
> unchallenged. To remain silent and not take action would be an
> endorsement of MS's actions.
>
> I think we should begin a simple campaign, encouraging people to be
> "Microsoft Free by October 1st" (the release date of WinXP).
Windows Xtra sPlippery is being released on 25 October. One only needs
to wait 2 months before the cracks start to appear.
>
>
> With this, people knowledgable in Linux should simply keep making
> themselves available to newbies like myself (everyone in the
> newsgroups, and in other user groups have been very helpful to me,
> thank you guys) who might have questions and need help along the way.
I do. When I was at University I spread the word about Linux, I
regularly installed linux for people (using SuSE Linux 7.1), downloaded
all the patches for them, converted all there information, and should
them where to get software and how to configure and use applications. At
the end of the degree, people were virtually vomitting when they heard
Windows being refferred to as an OS. Windows was used in every example
of what you shouldn't do when programming, and co-incidently, Linux was
used as an example of what should happen in an organisation, that is,
co-operative development, whether proprietry or opensource.
>
>
> Take action against monopolies and unfair treatment of consumers.
Hence the reason in the free market they government steps in to correct
the market so that competition will thrive again.
btw, Microsoft is not the only company that has been investigated. Visa
and Mastercard are also being investigated for anti-competitive
practices. American Airways is another company being investigated for its
anti-competitive pratices thus ensuring that there is no competition in
the domestic routes.
>
>
> (I know I sound silly, but I've just been pissed off at the latest
> articles I've been reading out MS and XP.)
>
> Comments? Flames? Hurrahs?
Windows XP is a rushed job. Just wait until the cracks appear in the
MIRC rooms.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.geocities.com/sugapablo
> (To email me, remove "Sugapablo-" from my email address)
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 15 May 2001 22:28:02 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jon Johansan wrote:
> >
> > I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
> > tpc.org and it's in first place!
> >
> > http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
> >
> > There you have it, a linux powered result of 2733 smoking past the 1699
> > result posted for a W2K box.
> >
> > Well, I extend my hand in congratulations to the penguins for their
stunning
> > entry into the world of high end database benchmarks. I'm certain
suddenly
> > the TPC will be in style again and accepted for all to see.
> >
> > But... wait...
> >
> > I peered past the self-congratulatory posts at /. and looked into the
actual
> > disclosures themselves...
> >
> > What's this? The linux box is not a box, it's a ... GASP ... CLUSTER! OH
NO!
> > And, what's this? The W2K box IS a single box.
>
> Score one for Win 2K on the Unisys machine.
<bowing>
>
> > And, what's this? The linux solution isn't even availble yet, not until
> > 10/31/01 (if it ships on time).
>
> Sounds like a ship date similar to XP!
But it isn't and this has nothing to do with XP. The linux solution isn't
available yet. The Windows 2000 solutions uses pre-SP1 (i.e., virgin release
code) Advance Server, not even the latest code.
>
> > And, what's this? The W2K solution is 9 months old with less than
> > state-of-the-art HW and SW.
>
> A non-point.
I wonder what you'd say if the tables were turned... nevermind, I already
know.
>
> > And, what's this? The linux solution uses 16x700 Mhz PIIIs and the W2K
> > result uses 8x700 Mhz PIIIs.
>
> Nice to see Linux scaling so nicely!
Now THAT was funny! And, in fact, it's not scaling well, it didn't double
the performance with twice the processors like W2K has done.
>
> > And, what's this? The linux solution uses a fiber channel storage array
> > connected via 5 PCI controllers (whew!) versus a single plain jane scsi
card
> > in the compaq.
>
> "Plain jane" scsi? Where'd you come up with that one?
US slang - figure it out.
>
> > And, what's this? Linux needs a gigabit adapter while W2K does fine with
a
> > single 10/100 card.
>
> It would have been nice to see the slower adapter on the linux box,
> and to have a better breakdown of the bottlenecks on both systems.
why - to lower the results on the linux box? weird...
> >
> > But - say the penguins - remember, LINUX IS FREE and since the OS is
free
> > obviously (according to them) everything associated with it is so much
> > cheaper that you'll always save money using Linux.
>
> As happened here... $317 for Linux (why did they cost it as four copies?)
> versus $2400 for Win 2000 Advanced Server.
because there were four machines in the cluster. redhat requires one
licensed copy per server.
>
> > * WHAT'S THIS? $347/QphH for the linux "solution" versus $161/QphH for
the
> > W2K box? *
> > (The linux solution costs: almost $1 million vs the W2K solution costing
> > about 1/4 that!)
> >
> > So... I spend almost 250% as much money to get 60% more performance
using
> > FOUR computers (hey Matt, how much heat is that?? Think of the cooling
> > budget!!) that aren't even shipping yet.
>
> Look at SGI's server storage costs! $304000 plus $71280 for 5-year
maintenance
> versus only $157000 plus $30000 for the Unisys hardware.
>
> I'd say SGI hardware is more than twice the price!
yes, that is true. Unix servers cost more than wintel servers, we already
knew this.
>
> > The cost of the MS-based software is $16,327 but the cost of the
Linux-based
> > software is $315,824. I see where the savings using Linux adds up there.
>
> The total cost of software in the SGI system is essentially due to the
> cost of IBM's DB2 software. That's about $316000 plus $50000 versus
> $16,000 plus $10000 for the Unisys solution.
but that's what they ran... and that's what it cost. If they had a cheaper
solution, why didn't they use it?
>
> You can't fault linux for the greater cost of the SGI system.
I'm not, necessarily, but finally it's dawning that the cost of the OS is
insignificant. A "free" OS means squat when the hardware and other software
makes up the lion share of the price. Are you starting to see why I
mentioned this? Linux being "free" means nothing. Zippo.
>
> > So lets see, the 10/31/01 clustered result is going head to head against
> > last years result using advanced server without clustering. Anyone wanna
> > take bets on what a Datacenter driven, clustered W2K/SQL2K result using
the
> > same number of processors is going to do to that score?? I will...
(hint:
> > check out the TPC-C results for BOTH raw performance and
price/performance).
>
> I sure would check them out, if I could find the comparable setup. Can
> you provide the link so we know we're looking at the same data? Thanks.
> I'd rather look at the specs myself than have to filter out your
> ejaculatory verbiage.
I posted the link to the TPC-H. You can easily navigate to the TPC-C results
from there too. Just start at www.tpc.org and have fun. it's not my job to
help you perform some basic clicks (but, what the heck, here you go: TPC-C
by performance: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp and
TPC-C by price/performance:
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp)
>
> > The way I see it, W2K is still better. It's cheaper, runs faster and
easier
> > to use.
>
> Cheaper than SGI hardware, and cheaper than IBM database software, that
is.
> In both systems, the OS is a trivial part of the cost, Linux being about
> 0.03% of the cost of the system, and Win 2K Advanced Server being about
> 0.85% of the cost of the system.
I totally and completely agree with you 100% The cost of the OS is trivial.
I will remind you that we agree on this every time someone says "but linux
is free!"
>
> Can't see how this is a comparison of two operating systems, but I do
> agree that it puts SGI and IBM in a somewhat bad light.
Again I agree but I'm posting something being reported on every pro-Linux
news site and even ZDNet now. The very first appearence of a system running
linux in a major official independent benchmark. And it didn't do too well
(when comparing apples to apples that is).
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:30:01 +1200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Under Linux? Lots. Embed a spereadsheet document into a word
> > > > > processing
> > > > > > > document, for instance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just did it then. Give me another challenge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? You can in-place edit the spreadsheet from within the word
> > > > > processing document? I'd be quite surprised to see that on Linux.
> > > >
> > > > Just imported a Access table into Paradox without any problems.
> Quattro
> > > > Pro is handling MS Excel with any formatting issues, and Wordperfect
> is
> > > > as stable as the pope. Please, yet again I stress, where are the
> > > > so-called features that MS Office has that Wordperfect hasn't.
> > >
> > > That's not what I said. I said, In-place edit an embedded spreadsheet
> > > within the word processing document. What you are doing is converting
> the
> > > excel spreadsheet into a database format, which is something totally
> > > different.
> >
> > what part of "Just imported a Access table into Paradox" don't you
> > understand?
>
> What part of "Importing is not Embedding" don't you undersrtand? Embedding
> is Embedding the entire original document *IN IT'S ORIGINAL FORM* within
> another document, then maintaining that that embedded document *WITH IT'S
> ORIGINAL PROGRAM* without exporting it first.
Commonly called, "insert"
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: 15 May 2001 22:32:04 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> May I stress that it is an SGI machine,
Um, so?
> and I would be interested in the cost
> of the system minus support, as many of the highend systems have 24 hour
> responsiveness to any problems.
All TPC tests include the cost of support because that is a real world
factor in buying and running hardware and software. What good does it do to
have free tech support on-line for a free OS - when the cost of everything
you run on it makes that "free" meaningless? It's called TCO and it's
important when you enter the business world.
> I also wonder why Windows 2000 wasn't
> submitted using that exact same system?
Ask IBM? They are free to use whatever they want. I'm certain we'll see new
results from Compaq or Unisys or perhaps even IBM using W2K and perhaps
they'll chose to cluster or maybe just level the playing field and use the
same number of processors... then we'll see...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Security in Open Source Software
Date: 15 May 2001 22:36:04 -0500
"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dq7ue$u3j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yeah apt-get update; apt-get upgrade --assume-yes is a really hard thing
> to put in a cron job for the server and have it run every 24 hours. The
> machine will then check for updates to itself every 24 hours and apply
> security updates that it finds.
>
> What I have found is maintaining open source boxen is far easier then
> maintaing windows or other unix boxen.
Hmm... wait for the background update reminder to pop up an icon when a
Windows update is available, click on the "install now" button and the
machine is updated as often as needed. That's hard?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: 15 May 2001 22:37:03 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <TN0M6.56211$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers
wrote:
> >
> >I know, the Open Source promise is a strong one, but in the real world,
> >it just doesn't pan out properly.
> >
> >-c
> >
> >
>
> 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!
Um... slashdot is stupider than yahoo - this is an over 1 year old story
regurgitated on yahoo (and since deleted) that has been taken care of ages
ago. There is no back door in IIS. This is old news.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 15 May 2001 22:40:03 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 5 9's is not theoretical. There are servers left and right achieving 5
9's
> > on multiple OSes.
>
> If it is achievable on multiple OS's, then how come people use Windows
2000 for
> their servers?
cause it works great? cause they want to?
>hmm, do I here ANOTHER small-medium NZ business move to a Linux
> solution?
I don't know - do you?
>oh, yes did, using a Cobalt Qube with Linux, and admin tasks
> completed via web browser. Sold many of them, not one return. Maybe you
should
> start living in reality where cash is precious, and no one likes to waste
it
> on substandard products such as Windows 2000 Server.
Perhaps the "small-medium" NZ businesses can only afford a 'free' OS...?
just cause they are poor doesn't make W2K bad.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
