Linux-Advocacy Digest #788, Volume #34 Sat, 26 May 01 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why? (John Hasler)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Bob Hauck)
Re: The nature of competition (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Bob Hauck)
Re: ease and convenience (Mark)
Re: ease and convenience (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Zsolt)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Donn Miller)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (Donn Miller)
re: linux capability (Terry)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Opera (Terry)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why?
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 12:13:57 GMT
T. Max Devlin writes:
> What if you want a pretty GUI on one, and configuration tools on another,
> and development tools on yet another?
They all support the same software, and therefor you can have a pretty GUI,
configuration tools, and development tools on any of them.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:32:02 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <9eihd4$ibv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > NTFS is 40 years old ? W2k will run fine on a P200 with 128 Mb RAM.
> > > Doesn't seem all that different from running SuSE 7.1 with KDE to me.
> >
> > Yah. Whatever. It certainly won't run well on a P133 w/72M.
>
> Neither will KDE.
>
> --
> Pete
Runs fine on my p133 with 64 meg (three machines running). It does drag
on a P100 with 32meg though. For that machine I usually run fvwm95.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:43:49 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 06:28:08 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > > I don't know, Pete. C++ still hasn't been standardized yet, and there
> > > are a few differences between compiler vendors yet.
> >
> > You are mistaken. There is a C++ standard. You are correct, though,
> > that not all vendors have caught up.
>
> Visual C++ doesn't follow the standards, whereas I believe Borland's C++
> does, as does GNU C++?
GNU is missing a few things yet. It will be more or less caught up
when 3.0 comes out. Don't know about Borland, haven't used it in a
while.
> Unfortunately, Visual C++ is the fastest one I've tried on Intel
> platforms.
I presume that you mean the executables are faster? Maybe MS ought to
make a Linux version.
Also, since you do Windows drivers, I suppose I should ask you this.
Can you use GNU C/C++ to compile NT drivers?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:43:50 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 06:26:37 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Are you at all familiar with the definition of the term 'dogma'.
> I've already quoted a definition of dogma to you from a dictionary. I
> remember you had the definition wrong then.
Max is never "wrong", merely "mistaken". Just ask him!
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:43:54 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 18:00:26 +0800, Todd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find that the GUI (KDE and/or GNome) seem slower than the W2k GUI.
> I am using a GeForce 2 MX TwinView (2048x768).
Could be. Is it $300 slower?
> The one MindCraft benchmark where MS, PCWeek and RedHat all attended
> clearly showed W2k was faster than Linux in basic tasks.
Yeah, basic tasks like serving static web pages with an unusual
hardware setup. I don't recall any Mindcraft benchmark having to do
with user tasks. Perhaps you can provide a reference?
> W2k seems to scale a lot better with multiple processors as well.
I haven't seen any data for W2K vs Linux 2.4, as opposed to the
well-known Mindcraft test of NT vs Linux 2.2.
> The few times that I have used Linux, it is stable. However, Netscape
> was able to bring it down. I am using RedHat 7.0 btw.
I've never had Netscape take Linux down. Yeah, it takes itself down
once in a while, but not Linux or even X.
> Who knows what vunerabilities are in Linux because nobody is really trying
> to find them... or are *they* ?
Actually, people do audit the Linux source code. It is fairly common
to see patches on BugTraq for vulnerabilities that nobody has seen "in
the wild".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:43:52 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 04:18:20 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not talking about old builds, I'm talking about post-0.9 builds.
I seem to have a lot more hangs and weird behavior with the Windows
version (on NT4SP6a) than the Linux one. OTOH, the Linux version is
slower.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 13:53:23 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 05:56:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] flung this gem:
|
|Thought I'd try a new newsreader tonight. Would this be easier on
|Windows or Linux?
|
|(Debian) Linux:
|1) launch a shell
|2) apt-get install knode
|3) knode&
|
|Windows:
|1) fire up a web browser
|2) navigate to the newsreader company's website
|3) sort through 3 or 5 layers of hyperlinks to find the obscurely
| located 'free trial version'
|4) download to hard drive
|5) double-click installation executable
|6) exit installation program and close all other running programs
|7) double-click installation executable
|8) scroll down and click "I accept" to a legally binding contract you
|didn't read
|9) accept all defaults
|10) click 'start' and navigate to the program icon, usually under
| a submenu named after the company (fortunately "branding" no
| longer involves a hot iron)
|11) grant permission to clobber the installation of competing products,
| making this the 'default application'
|12) scan past the 'buy now' button and click the 'buy later' button
| (it's a lie, but the only way to start the program)
|13) read about all the great features in the full version you're missing
| and click 'ok'
|
|I could have gone a lot further overboard with this and maybe thrown
|in a reboot; this comparison isn't an exaggeration. Commercial
|software will always be a hassle because its purpose is not to serve
|your needs, but those of some business.
That's quite a good read! Allow me to balance your experience with one
of my own. Networking, where Linux reigns supreme.
Task: Install & setup NIC cards in a windows & linux PC.
The Card: NetGear FA311. Very popular card, sold at places where the
'end-losers' (as you like to refer to them) shop.
I bought mine at Staples.
BTW the card says "linux supported" on the box.
Windows:
1. Shutdown
2. Open case and install card. Plug in the cat5 cable.
3. Reboot
4. windows says "New Hardware Found" ...
5. Feed it the driver provided on the floppy from the box.
6. Reboot
7. NetHood -> Assign IP and subnet if needed.
8. NIC install is complete with all protocols installed for basic
networking. Initializes quickly with no problems.
Linux:
1. Shutdown
2. Open case and install card. Plug in the cat5 cable.
3. Reboot
4. Log into Linux as root
5. cd /
6. mkdir fa311
7. Mount -t msdos /dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy
8. cp /mnt/floppy/fa311.o /fa311/fa311.o (/mnt/floppy/ "path where
drivers are on the floppy"
9. cd /fa311
10. install -m 644 fa311.o /lib/modules/2.2.12-20/net/
11. Start linuxconf
12. ->Client Task
13. ->Basic Host Information
14. ->Enable the card
15. ->Check DHCP if needed
16. ->Add IP address and subnet if needed
17. ->Net Device = eth0
18. ->Kernel = fa311
19. ->Accept changes
20. ->Activate changes and allow the OS to remount the floppy drive
21. ->If window is still there then hit Quit
22. sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/network stop
23. insmod fa311.o -f
24. sh /etc/rc.d/init.d/network start
25. Card is basically installed, but eth0 takes 5 or more minutes to
initialize on every reboot.
I could have gone overboard and talked about how a novice computer
user would have NEVER gotten this card to work under Linux.
Commercial Hardware will always be easier to install ......
What's the point? It is and always will be ( I Hope ) apples &
oranges.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:00:19 GMT
Todd wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
>
> Windows:
>
> 1) Start->Windows Update
> 2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
> 3) Start IE->Tools->Read News
>
No can do. Last week at work, IT sent around an e-mail about installing
Rational Rose. Simply click on the link & run install. At the beginning
the install routine downloaded and "upgraded" to IE 5.5. and crashed the
system. For some reason trying to install IE 5.5 generated about 400meg
of temp files, moved stuff around, fragmented the hard drive, lost
files, and caused another ~400meg to dissapear. Even after removing the
temp files, running the uninstall, and the system reporting 400meg free,
the defragger wouldn't run. It and all other programs kept crashing for
insufficient disk space. After deleting another 200meg or so of
applications, the defragger ran. Then things started running (almost)
again. In the end a complete re-image with no IE was required to get
everything running.
> Easy. Most Windows versions already have IE with a news reader and it is
> great.
>
> You can pretend that it is hard under Windows, but average users will find
> it a lot easier than Linux.
>
> -Todd
>
> > Thought I'd try a new newsreader tonight. Would this be easier on
> > Windows or Linux?
> >
> > (Debian) Linux:
> > 1) launch a shell
> > 2) apt-get install knode
> > 3) knode&
> >
> > Windows:
> > 1) fire up a web browser
> > 2) navigate to the newsreader company's website
> > 3) sort through 3 or 5 layers of hyperlinks to find the obscurely
> > located 'free trial version'
> > 4) download to hard drive
> > 5) double-click installation executable
> > 6) exit installation program and close all other running programs
> > 7) double-click installation executable
> > 8) scroll down and click "I accept" to a legally binding contract you
> > didn't read
> > 9) accept all defaults
> > 10) click 'start' and navigate to the program icon, usually under
> > a submenu named after the company (fortunately "branding" no
> > longer involves a hot iron)
> > 11) grant permission to clobber the installation of competing products,
> > making this the 'default application'
> > 12) scan past the 'buy now' button and click the 'buy later' button
> > (it's a lie, but the only way to start the program)
> > 13) read about all the great features in the full version you're missing
> > and click 'ok'
> >
> > I could have gone a lot further overboard with this and maybe thrown
> > in a reboot; this comparison isn't an exaggeration. Commercial
> > software will always be a hassle because its purpose is not to serve
> > your needs, but those of some business.
> >
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:04:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2001 01:09:53 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Joel Barnett wrote:
> >>
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> ome.com...
> >> > On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:12:36 -0700, Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >> On Wed, 23 May 2001 18:26:11 -0700, "Joel Barnett"
> >> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > >> >
> >> >
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
> >> h
> >> > >> > ome.com...
> >> > >> > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 00:53:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > >> > wrote:
> >> > >> > > >I installed SP2 under Win2k and it worked perfectly, just like SP1
> >> > >> > > >did. Contrast this to the Mandrake update CD I was sent in the
> >> mail
> >> > >> > > >thaty destroyed my entire system.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > >Sorry but Linux still sucks and Windows ROCKS!!!!!
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Fuck off and die troll. Win2k is pathetic for it's 40 year old
> >> file
> >> > >> > system and
> >> > >> > > the cpu and memory requirement of a super computer just to not run
> >> > >like a
> >> > >> > dog.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > NTFS is 40 years old ?
> >> > >> > W2k will run fine on a P200 with 128 Mb RAM.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> What??? 128 Mb RAM before you can open Notepad???
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >You claimed W2k required the cpu and memory of a super computer. Was that
> >> > >claim false, or do you consider a P200 and 128 Mb RAM supercomputer stuff
> >> ?
> >> >
> >> > take a course in history
> >> >
> >> > and you're dreaming if you think it'll work worth a shit on a P200.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Nope, I used the P200/128Mb RAM example because I recently installed w2k on
> >> that machine. It's used as a business desktop - Word, excel, email, AccPac,
> >> inhouse inventory/purchasing/ordering app. Works fine. The user said it is
> >> faster than it was with W98/64Mb RAM.
> >>
> >> > A pIII@500mhz is pretty the minimum if you don't want it to be dog slow.
> >>
> >> jbarntt
> >Neither Windows 95, 98, nor NT will run for crap on a P200. What did W2k
> >do differently to make it so much faster?
> >
> >Please post the code if you can.
>
> I use a nearly plain win95 box that is a pentium 200 with 64M of ram. My system
> in '95 was os/2, a P90 and 16M and it screamed. I only brought it up to 32M
> later so it wouldn't trash when doing graphic manipulations on 300dpi 4x6
> images.
>
> This windows box is too slow to keep a win printer running, spool 32M photo job
> in less than 15 minutes, or keep a 12x plextor 12/10/32 cd writer feed
> continueously.
I agree. I have a P90 laptop running windows95. It too has trouble
printing and anything graphical is dog slow. Most applications won't run
on it, including MS Office. So I keep it down to a minimum. Just enough
to do MS Word and internet connectivity for travel.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:12:43 GMT
Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 22 May 2001 20:32:54 +0200 presented us with the
wisdom:
> B> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
> the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
Dead on, I agree! That's why I use Linux (and Irix on SGI), because all
molecular modelling and computational chemistry software is written fro Unix
(variants), there is nothing usable on Windows. OK, there were some feeble
attempts of porting some UI snippets by MSI, but those are still useless without
a Unix server in the background doing the computations. And if you have a
Linux box you can do the calculations as well as run the UI, so no point using
an extra Windows machine.
> C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or equal
> product in order to convice people to switch, you need something vastly
> sueprior.
>
Can't agree more! That's why I never switched to Windows.
I went from Unix on SGI/SUN directly to Linux on PC. And so did many
other people who use or develop scientific software.
> Comments, anyone?
> OK, well, let us be realistic?
> Flames, anyone?
>
If this post was meant to be a troll, it has succeeded rather well!
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: 26 May 2001 09:10:43 -0500
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>drsquare wrote:
>>> Oh, on CYGWIN. And that works REALLY well and installs PERFECTLY
>>> doesn't it?
> Well, no matter how buggy it is, it's still better than than using
> fucking winsock.
Let's call it "Funky winsock" in honor of our own Erik Funkensbusch.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: 26 May 2001 09:12:29 -0500
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> days ago. Cygwin keeps getting better, but it is still pretty buggy.
> Do you run it on 9x/Me or on NT/2K? The former has always been
> problematic.
I run it on Win ME. Pretty slow on that platform. "ps -W" still works, but
it doesn't show CPU time for each process.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: re: linux capability
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:29:52 GMT
Try Opera. Go to the Opera website and look around. I use Opera
exclusively and it has instant messaging capability of some sort. I do
not know if it is AOL compliant, but overall Opera is a SUPERIOR
browser.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:31:44 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" wrote:
> I am the blue screen of death
> Nobody can hear your screams
Tell that to my boss. I always hear him
screaming "I hate Bill Gates". But he never
listens to me when I say "strip that 98
and at least install 2000." And, of course,
Linux is out of the question. NMCI wants
to take our machines awayyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Hey, our Windows network at work is
slowing down three of our users' workstations
to unusability. IT is mystified. Maybe
they can get some support from Monopolysoft.
Maybe it will get better at $350/seat/month
with this new NMCI boondoggle.
Bwaaaa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Chris
The subject should read "Windoze dead on my
desktop."
--
Please enter your Message Activation
Code now to read this message
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:33:49 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > Oh, I see. Invisible price hikes.
> >
> > Of course. :/
>
> I'm going by memory to some extent. It's pretty difficult to
> recover those old prices, ah well. I suppose an easy answer is
> to allude to the cost of frequent upgrades. But that's a mere
> cavil. One could mention that, the higher up the user chain
> (e.g. normal versus developer versions, server versus workstation),
> the more Microsoft gouges, but that might simply be due to
> the lower volume of sales or the expectancy of higher quality
> support.
Calling *that* gouging is a strech; Microsoft's
stuff is frequently cheaper than its competition; compare
SQL Server to Oracle for instance.
Server products are expensive because they do have
a smaller market to recover their costs in, and they
do have to meet higher demands in that market, and
they do need to offer strong support to be competitive.
> I found Workperfect Office and Microsoft Office XP in Provantage,
> and their prices at each level of service were comparable (and
> both very high in my book).
Not very surprising; any Office product worth
its salt gives you a *lot* of functionality.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Opera
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:33:13 GMT
Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux
compliant browser, try Opera.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:34:31 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > It seems to me that if, oh, say, Microsoft actually
> > did produce an OS that was consistantly better
> > than its competitors, and kept improving it so
> > that it *stayed* that way, and also kept prices
> > low, they could very well squeeze out all their
> > competitors.
>
> They've already done that in OS's and office
> suites, except for the part about being consistently
> better than the competitors.
:D
I suspect we may not entire agree
about some of these things.
> I adduce as proof... the Windows Key.
The "Windows Key"? Whats that?
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:37:08 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 22:08:19 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oh, I see. Invisible price hikes.
>
> I think they call those "changes to the licensing terms".
>
> MS have been making changes to licensing so as to require some users to
> buy more licenses than they had to previously. For instance, there
> used to be "concurrent licensing" where you had to have licenses for
> each concurrent user. That's been largely eliminated.
Understandable; Microsoft never had the tools to make
such a scheme work.
> Now, you have
> to buy a license for each posible user. Certain perks, such as taking
> your work copy of Office home, have been eliminated as well.
Are you sure they ever allowed this? I find it
completely astonishing that MS would offer
two-for-the-price-of-one like that.
> And then
> there's the whole disk-imaging issue where companies have to buy OEM
> licenses with new machines even if they are covered by a site license.
I do not think MS site licenses were ever licenses for
unlimited numbers of machines; MS's recent behavior
suggests that they don't think so, either.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:32:28 +0200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > > I don't know, Pete. C++ still hasn't been standardized yet, and there
> > > are a few differences between compiler vendors yet.
> >
> > You are mistaken. There is a C++ standard. You are correct, though,
> > that not all vendors have caught up.
>
> Visual C++ doesn't follow the standards, whereas I believe Borland's C++
> does, as does GNU C++?
>
> Unfortunately, Visual C++ is the fastest one I've tried on Intel
> platforms.
Fastest in what? Compiling? Executing?
I would assume that the Intel compiler would be the best in creating
efficent executables.
VC++'s compiler is quite old, you know, the standard have changed. There is
a new version just out of the corner.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:39:40 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> They didn't make the claim. Please prove it. Otherwise, Shut the fuck up.
If XP is meant to be a consumer version of NT that handles all of the
hardware and software that 98/ME handle [and let me know if I'm wrong
on this point], then some significant changes must have been made.
Not a wholesale rewrite, but plenty of changes nonetheless, or the
beta period would have been pretty short.
> No, I was responding to Matthew Gardeners claim that if MS had got it right
> the first time, there would have been no need for Windows 2000. That is the
> point, stop trying to pretend otherwise.
Unfortunately, Windows is still playing catch-up in some ways.
But is that a big deal? Depends what the machine is used for.
Just remember, though, the usual pattern with Microsoft software
[and I believe it is still in force with all of the latest
Microsoft operating systems] -- they debut to glowing reports.
Then come the service packs. Under prolonged usage, the users
notice more and more flaky behavior. Another service pack, a
bunch of hotfixes.
Then the next version comes along.
One would think that, having captured 90% of the desktop market, that
Microsoft is feeling the pinch in its revenue stream. Luckily,
they've thought of that, and the answers are continual upgrades
and, now, subscriptions.
Keep that money coming. We're Teflon, they'll keep coming back
for more.
Caveat emptor. (Latin for "bleeding from the asshole")
Chris
--
Please enter your Message Activation
Code now to read this message
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:41:17 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 11:42:45 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > NTFS is 40 years old ? W2k will run fine on a P200 with 128 Mb RAM.
>>> > Doesn't seem all that different from running SuSE 7.1 with KDE to me.
>>>
>>> Yah. Whatever. It certainly won't run well on a P133 w/72M.
>>
>> Neither will KDE.
>
>I don't use KDE. However, I can still use all the latest tools (I can
>easily run GNOME stuff), the latest kernel et. al perfectly fine on a
>P133. I suspect I could run all te KDE programs too, but I haven't tried.
Pete is either too fucking stupid and/or willfully ignorant to fathom that
linux isn't a monolithic cast.
He's the microsoft windows posterboy. You should feel sorry for him.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
