Linux-Advocacy Digest #961, Volume #34 Mon, 4 Jun 01 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: UI Importance (John Jensen)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux on Itanium (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: UI Importance (Nico Coetzee)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("wang yin")
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Nigel Feltham)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: 4 Jun 2001 21:06:17 GMT
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In article <9fgimv$9gg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > If someone likes slime-mold interfaces, who are we to deny them?
: You're missing the point...
: For one thing, you can't have a slime-mold interface on a CLI.
: For another, I don't care how pretty (or attractivelyugly) the slime
: mold interface is, if the mouse gestures are badly set up and the
: command-key equivalents are stupid, then the UI is still a bad one.
: Anyone who thinks that eye-candy alone makes an UI good is an idiot.
I'm on my point.
I think I have a good eye for interface, but I don't think I have to call
anyone an idiot who thinks differently. There is absolutely no reason
that every interface should please everyone (or even specifically you or
me). If 342 people in North Elbonia love their slime-mold-eye-candy
interface, I say more power to 'em.
AFAIC they can have fun, and let us know how it all works out.
John
--
33° 38' 49N 117° 56' 33W
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:33:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Culley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 12 May 2001 14:29:14 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yeah, I just looked at the latest OS graphs on Attrition.org. No doubt
>> about it, W2K and IIS are setting new records.
>>
>> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
>
>Especially considering that Microsoft are a distant second in Internet
>web servers.
Only among non-secure services; secure services have Microsoft IIS
eeking out a small majority over Apache, as I understand it. (Is
this even remotely true, or just FUD? Who might know this?)
>Any company that uses Microsoft for their Internet services
>deserves all they get.
Dunno about that -- but any company using Microsoft had better be
fully aware of the risks involved, and that includes security breaches.
One can deal with them -- for example, one might put the IIS servers
in a demilitarized zone, or even in a totally isolated zone, with
read-only image backups ready at hand, and have a copy of the website
back behind the firewall in development (where the image backups are
made from; these would be carried by hand to the IIS -- sneakernet!).
Whether this will work for a customer's installation depends on the
customer, of course; there's also the issue of where one puts the
database, if one is required. (Note that the database would not be
included in the images, as it's presumably too volatile. One might
have IIS et al maintain a secure tunnel to another communications server,
but that's begging the problem, in a way; after all, what is IIS but
a communications server? :-) )
>
>Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
>record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS.
Does this mean "easy to use" = "easy to hack"? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random paranoia here
EAC code #191 35d:18h:22m actually running Linux.
The Internet routes around censorship.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Linux on Itanium
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:54:39 -0400
Herr Maestro Bantz wrote:
> 2 + 2 wrote:
>
>> "Intel has teamed with Linux vendors to bring the open source OS to the
>> new chip. And those vendors are eager to raise Linux to a
>> high-performance platform. "We now have a chance to offer Linux as a
>> first-class operating system across the whole spectrum, from embedded
>> applications to the enterprise," said Michael Tiemann, chief technical
>> officer at Red Hat. Intel was one of the first equity investors in Red
>> Hat in 1998.
>> http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2768445,00.html
>>
>> Intel knows a mass market when they see one.
>>
>> 2 + 2
>
> So let me get this straight, a freebie language some 30 years old is
> better than all the billions spent on making a better mouse trap? Why am I
> not surprised. I've enjoyed MIDI for 3 decades and maybe the goliaths
> should take a beat from musicians and their AGREEMENT to have a standard
> format...
>
But Linux is not 30 years old - it may be based on the 30 year evolution of
unix but the linux kernel is only 10 years old and most of this has been
rewritten at least once in those 10 years.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:48:41 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Now, how is the OS so portable, and not the apps that run on that OS?
> > >
> > > Well, Unix is easy to port to new hardware, but
> > > Unix apps are often not easy to port to other
> > > operating systems.
> > >
> > > What's so difficult to understand about that?
> >
> > I asked why, your answer is becasue? figures.
>
> You asked "how". Did you want a technical
> explaination of the mechanisms involved?
>
> It's really pretty much standard issue
> stuff. What really sets Unix apart from many
> OSes is that it does not insist on a particular
> endianness or word-size. It *does* insist on a
> flat memory space, so it's not univerally
> portable. But it's more portable that most
> OSes are, and certainly more so than NT.
>
> Unix apps like are any other OS's apps-
> they use particular OS services and assume
> they'll take the form they do in Unix. This
> allows them run be compiled for any Unix
> (more or less), but no other OS.
>
So, you are now saying they are portable, or not?
> [snip]
> > > I was thinking of the GNOME Foundation.
> > >
> >
> > I asked for URL. Im asking again for a URL. You said it was on the GNU
> > page. I looked, I couldnt find it.
>
> No, I said it was on www.gnome.org. I don't see
> why I should be bothered to give full URLs
> if you can't be.
>
I searched the www.gnome.org page. The word foundation does NOT appear.
I looked, which is much more than you do, so please point me to the URL
of the "GNOME Foundation".
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:45:00 GMT
In article <9fgt89$a0v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : In article <9fgimv$9gg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : > If someone likes slime-mold interfaces, who are we to deny them?
>
> : You're missing the point...
>
> : For one thing, you can't have a slime-mold interface on a CLI.
>
> : For another, I don't care how pretty (or attractivelyugly) the slime
> : mold interface is, if the mouse gestures are badly set up and the
> : command-key equivalents are stupid, then the UI is still a bad one.
>
> : Anyone who thinks that eye-candy alone makes an UI good is an idiot.
>
> I'm on my point.
>
> I think I have a good eye for interface, but I don't think I have to call
> anyone an idiot who thinks differently. There is absolutely no reason
> that every interface should please everyone (or even specifically you or
> me). If 342 people in North Elbonia love their slime-mold-eye-candy
> interface, I say more power to 'em.
>
> AFAIC they can have fun, and let us know how it all works out.
No, you're still missing the point.
Eye-candy is fine. You can have all the eye-candy you want.
Let me try to think of the program with the worst UI in the world ...
WordPerfect for DOS. I'll just port that to Windows, and give it a TTY
interface with all the orginal keystrokes and format codes untouched.
I'll add the world's best, most fabulous UI customizer, complete with
Photohsop filters and sample green slime UI skins ... and the interface
will still suck.
If you think that skins alone will improve the usability of an
interface, then you're an idiot.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:50:13 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fg8sn$92b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> Is there some *technical* reason why Unix is more portable than NT?
Sure. But NT can port only to little endian
architectures, whereas Unix can do both
big and little endian.
This is because NT likes storing things in
binary form (not text), and endianness is
significant if you do that.
Other than that they are essentially the
same story, technically speaking.
There's also a non-technical reason-
NT's source is very expensive compared
to Unix source. Plenty expensive enough
that even if endianness is not a problem,
it's worthwhile to go with Unix anyway.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:48:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:09:47 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> >What you suggest is technically very difficult.
> >> >And even if it was possible, would I *really* want to use a program
> >> >that
> >I'd
> >> >to fix its UI first?
> >>
> >> I wouldn't want a program whose UI I could't customise. Imagine mutt
> >> without all its customisations...
> >
> >mutt?
> >
> >The difference is that if I need to change the UI in order to use the
> >program, I wouldn't want to use it.
>
> Even if you want to change it but you can't?
If a program has a nasty UI, then I would not want to use it. I might
want to change it. I might want to use some other program instead.
I dont rank customizability high on what makes a program good. If the
basic UI is sound and well-thought-out, then not as much customizability
is needed. (I'm not talking about skins. I'm talking about changing the
basic functionality of the UI.)
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:28:45 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> Are you suggesting that, no matter if it sucks or not, once a UI is created
> it should forever be locked that way so that idiot users can't get confused
> when something changes or moves slightly?
>
No, not like you put it. I hope that there is more consistancy. Some
changes (like the example I mentioned) are just plain stupid. If it does
change, perhaps a "user friendly" environment will take the time to
explain the new changes to a user. Strange how Linux apps always comes
with a change log that is very visual (usually you would read it before
downloading/upgrading/installing) and to the point, whereas M$ just
always fire away with marketing hype concerning "productivity" and
"lowering TCO" etc, but when you read the fine print you see you have to
get a Super Computer to run the damn thing.
>
> You left off the fact that you can still just type "copy *.jpg a:" in the
> Run... box or at a command prompt, if you feel like it.
> I thought a good OS was one that offered a choice?
That is using a form of CLI... You basically just confirmed that using a
CLI is in fact better in some cases than a GUI ;)
>
> Or just double click on My Computer on your desktop or the little my
> computer shortcut you probably have in your quick launch tray or even better
> (see below)
I hate icons on a desktop. I delete them all as soon as they pop up. If
you let all the apps create their little Desktop Shortcuts, you end up
waisting more time searching for icons. Anyway, the NT4 WS Taskbar (mine
at least) does not have a launch tray - and no, I'm not interested in
installing it.
>
> Or just double click on the My Documents shortcut already on your desktop or
> any of any number of shortcuts already on your desktop cause you figured
> you'd want them conviently nearby so you put them there.
>
You must have a very cluttered desktop...
>
> You COULD do that or you could just click on the "Type" column heading and
> they'll all sort up nice and neat for you.
>
BUT, you must first be in DETAILS view (one more click if you aren't).
>
> or drag them with a single click to your floppy drive in the same window
> that's already open (explorer view).
>
Which sometimes does the wrong thing, like moving instead of copying OR
creating shortcuts instead of copying. Happened again to me just last
week - dragged a couple of files to the floppy icon (HTML files). Came
to the other PC, and what do I find? SHORTCUTS !
>
> I can do that in much less BUT you also have to consider something else:
>
> Lets say you have a set of JPG and BMP files in a particular directory. This
> directory is called:
>
> /usr/files/project/x_34LB/evenlongerthanthepreviousname/causeIcan
>
> And you don't want all of them, you only want, oh, this one and that one and
> perhaps that other one over there and then you also need this .exe file as
> well as a couple of quick TXT files you forgot about and none of them start
> or end with the same letters or even contain ANY common letter groups within
> them. OH, and many of these files have MiXeD case file names too.
>
> Now, funny man, how quickly can you do that at the CLI? And with how many
> errors?
>
> How long did it take you to get to that directory? Did you type it right and
> get the case correct too?
>
> So, you got there with some directory completion key help eh? Now - start
> selecting file names. No * is gonna help this time, even ? is going to be of
> limited use. Meanwhile, I'm just holding down the Ctrl key as I click and
> choose as I need to, unclicking them if I make a mistake without any regard
> for case... and then just drag the entire batch to my destination icon...
>
> So - which is more likely day to day? The ever so convient example of
> copying a *.ext set of files from the directory you happen to be logged into
> or having to copy dissimilar files from a directory you are not in??? I know
> the later is much more likely to me
When working in a CUI environment, you tend to orginise your work
better. In fact, you know where stuff is, and you keep directory and
file names short, yet descriptive. I also try to limit the levels a bit.
In Linux we luckily have environment vars, like $HOME. So if I need to
get to somewhere deep, it ussualy starts like: cp $HOME/a/b/c/files
/mnt/floppy [ as an example ]. Of course the a/b/c part is a bit more
descriptive, but I RARELY have that many levels in a directory tree.
>
> wating period? <1 second?
>
If you re-open it directly after you closed it perhaps. On my system,
after a fresh boot, it takes about 4 to 5 seconds.
>
> Then I suggest you stop taking drugs, sniffing glue is hazardous cause I do
> not know of any version of Windows that made you wait for a copy to finish
> before continuing. what a joke.
>
You have very limited experience using various brands of the M$ Windows
OS.
>
> yes, in the basements of script kiddies everywhere...
Don't they prefer GUI's ? ? ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:50:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Culley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 15 May 2001 00:36:39 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <9dn5mq$pdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <GvbL6.45194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> >
>>> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >>
>>> >> Grief, you people are pathetic. Microsoft has lost the Internet server
>>> >> market. Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year.
>>> >
>>> > That's including Office and such as well. How many were in Red Hat Linux
>>> > and the software that ships with it? At least that many.
>>>
>>> Can't you read. Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW in 2000. A RECORD.
>>
>> Just 100? In *all* their products?
>> Wow, that is pretty low.
>> Have you considerred the bloody *amount* of software they have?
>>
>> Now, how many holes are there in a RH distribution?
>
>Can't you read? It was a record for security bugs found from a single
>comapny. And IIS was the worst. Now we learn that Microsoft has a
>back door in IIS. How bad does it have to get before people realise
>that Microsoft are just plain bad?
One cannot compare "all security flaws throughout the entire life
of a product" (Microsoft) with "security flaws found in one release"
(RedHat 7.0 -- or was it 6.2?) in a meaningful matter.
Similarly with "all products" versus "Apache or IIS".
However, one might compare the security holes year-to-year on all products.
This would be more or less meaningful -- and RedHat won't come back
squeaky clean because of that little worm. But a smudge on a white
wall is a far cry from the grafitto-laden side of a building (although
the graffito-laden side might be more colorful :-) ).
Guess which one's which. :-)
>
>--
>Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
>record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
>looking any better.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random hack here
EAC code #191 35d:22h:50m actually running Linux.
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
------------------------------
From: "wang yin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:09:28 +0800
There is no need to compare Linux with Win2K. Linux's aim should be beat all
Unix!
Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 23 May 2001 13:02:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111) wrote:
>
> >I do a lot of work in C++ Builder, and it's always aggravated me that
> >Borland chose to write the VCL in Pascal rather than C/C++. Having a
> >Pascal-native framework means that VCL classes are pretty stupid: they
> >can't be created off the heap but must always be taken from the
free-store;
> >the AnsiString type has no mapping to std::string (*really* lame IMHO);
you
> >can't override the copy constructor; and VCL classes often behave badly
> >when used with the STL or IOStreams. On top of all that, the VCL is
butt-
> >slow compared even to MFC-based apps. As a high-level application API
the
> >VCL is at best okay. It's meant for the corporate-developer RAD folks,
so
> >I suppose it does the job for them. For myself, I find it quite limiting
> >and in some cases badly-designed from a C++ perspective.
>
> I gave up on C++ Builder for just those reasons. It's great for
> prototyping a program's look-and-feel, though.
>
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:54:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >No, such as *memorizing* commands.
> >This is *bad*, the GUI allow you to *recall*.
> >There is a difference in the amount of effort involved.
>
> Memorizing? How difficult is it too remember things like "cd" and
> "rm"?
We're all perfectly capable of memorizing the names of commonly used
commands. In fact, when I use commonly used commands on the Mac, I go
more by position than the actual series of letters in the menu
structure.
Butwhen I need to do something I don't often do, the Mac's command menus
let me hunt for the thing I want to do, and it's fairly efficient: the
menus are organized by what sorts of things they act on and do. Complex
commands have dialog boxes that let me set command parameters. And the
best part is I don'thave to know the name of the command that does what
I want.
In a CLI environment, I'd have to search through the documentation,
reading the descriptions of all the different commands until I found the
one I want. Unless the docs are really well organized, that can take a
long time. Once I've found the command, I have to read up on it and
learn all the options. (Mostly this consists of reading the options and
ignoring the ones I don't need.)
>If you find that difficult to do, then you should consider
> selling your computer and taking up flower arranging.
You have my persmission to delete man from your computer.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:55:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 12 May 2001 10:14:11 +0100
<9dirc0$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>You are trying to
>> propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes.
>
>
>120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar.
1-minute reboot every 120 days would fall within the 99.999% uptime.
(99.999% = .99999 = 1 - 1e-5 = 99,999 minutes between failures;
120 days = 172,800 minutes).
So yeah, they made it. But I doubt IBM stays up for only 120 days. :-)
Maybe 12,000 days = 32 years would be more like it. (That's 7 9's.)
Although it might depend on how fast IBM reboots.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random uptime here
EAC code #191 35d:23h:15m actually running Linux.
This is my other .sig.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:56:44 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > Unix apps like are any other OS's apps-
> > they use particular OS services and assume
> > they'll take the form they do in Unix. This
> > allows them run be compiled for any Unix
> > (more or less), but no other OS.
>
> So, you are now saying they are portable, or not?
Typically not. There are some exceptions. Some of
the simple command lines tools are written to
ANSI C's standard library rather than anything
particularly Unix specific.
And some software popular on Unix has
gone to great lengths to be portable- gcc
is like that.
But by and large, no. Unix apps are for Unix.
[snip]
> > No, I said it was on www.gnome.org. I don't see
> > why I should be bothered to give full URLs
> > if you can't be.
>
> I searched the www.gnome.org page. The word foundation does NOT appear.
> I looked, which is much more than you do, so please point me to the URL
> of the "GNOME Foundation".
The word "foundation" appears in the phrase
"GNOME Foundation" in the navigation bar on
the left. It's in the blue part.
Sigh. Ok, here's a URL. Click this:
http://foundation.gnome.org/
It will take you right there, if your
newsreader supports that sort of thing.
Their FAQ, if you can't find it on your
own, is here:
http://www.gnome.org/faqs/gnome-foundation-faq/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:57:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 13 May 2001 23:16:01 -0500
<zJIL6.756$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9dliov$kjd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <i5iL6.653$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:9dirc0$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >> >You are trying to
>> > > >> > propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar.
>> > > >
>> > > > 120 days was the MEAN, not the maximum.
>> > >
>> > > If you know anything about statistics, then you'll know that quoting
>only
>> > > the maximum is meaningless.
>> > >
>> > > 128 days MEAN _with_ a nightly reboot. Yeah stellar!
>> > >
>> > > (Mean: thererfore some actually crashed _before_ 120 days. Geez).
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> Not with nightly reboots.
>
>Then you're lying. I have a Linux machine here that crashes after 10
>minutes of use. Of course it's got a flaky video card, but that's beside
>the point. Flaky hardware is included in the averages.
So replace it. Duh.
Or are you monetarily-challenged? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random funding shortage here
EAC code #191 35d:23h:19m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:13:27 -0400
>
> How many of MS' users need ext2 support?
> No, how man Linux's users need ext2 support?
> In precentage, please.
>
How many Linux users need NTFS support or what about the more obscure ones
like Apple's HFS, Acorn ADFS, BEOS, QNX and those used by minix, sun, ibm,
hp and sgi unixes - Linux coders see the use for supporting these
filesystems even if some of them are only used by 0.1% of the linux
community.
Even if only one linux user needs access to a filesystem it is likely it
won't be long before that filesystem is supported yet MS cannot be bothered
to support non-ms filesystems that are used my millions of users of non-ms
operating systems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 21:05:55 GMT
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:13:27 -0400, Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>>
>> How many of MS' users need ext2 support?
>> No, how man Linux's users need ext2 support?
>> In precentage, please.
>>
>
>How many Linux users need NTFS support or what about the more obscure ones
>like Apple's HFS, Acorn ADFS, BEOS, QNX and those used by minix, sun, ibm,
>hp and sgi unixes - Linux coders see the use for supporting these
>filesystems even if some of them are only used by 0.1% of the linux
>community.
>
>Even if only one linux user needs access to a filesystem it is likely it
>won't be long before that filesystem is supported yet MS cannot be bothered
>to support non-ms filesystems that are used my millions of users of non-ms
>operating systems.
They can't even be bothered to include support for MS file systems licensed
to other operating systems, like hpfs.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
