Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (Ed Allen)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Tom Wilson")
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:52:53 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" wrote in message
news:9dkoad$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZPkL6.40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Z1iL6.651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> >
> > > GCC is perfectly free for Windows, just as it is for Linux. In fact,
> > there
> > > are dozens of free compilers for Windows.
> >
> > While I haven't looked at any of them for several years and my opinions
> > therefore are dated, most I saw weren't worth the trouble to implement.
> You
> > were better off just shelling out for a Borland compiler (For 3.11) or
> > Visual Studion (9x/NT). One of these days I may try GCC for grins and
> > giggles but am afraid to find out that it works better than VC6. Nothing
> > worse than shelling out the dough for Visual Studio 6 Enterprise to find
> > that a free product is better. I truly don't want to find this
out...
>
> I wouldn't be very surpirsed to find out that GCC is better than VC6, VC6'
> compiler is, after all, over 4 years old.
> However, I would use VC just for the IDE. I wonder if you can hock GCC to
> VC, the way Intel Compiler does.
The senior guy at our hack shop was wondering the same thing and we may try
it at some point. A pet project I want to do is a Visual-Studio-like
front-end for X systems. IDE's are a pretty big weakness there. KDeveloper
is starting to head in that direction but still has a way to go. The big
things I want are auto completion, multiple language and compiler support,
and Wizard-Based project generation (but with a less obtuse interface than
IProject and IConfiguration). Someday, when I have the time..
--
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:54:33 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" wrote in message
news:9dkoah$kk8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fzkL6.37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Sounds like something a politician would buy into. Wonder how much
> greasing
> > under the table went into that little plan. Personally, I think the
> military
> > should develop its own system infrastructure and leave the commercial
> > whoring to State and local governments. Our national defense is a damned
> > sight more important than relying on systems provided by political
favors
> > and low-bidders. There isn't room there for conflict of interest.
>
> By law, they are required to search in the civilian field first, to see if
> something fits their needs.
> Only if there isn't something there, they are allowed to develop their
own.
Aware of that. I don't like that sort of system when it comes to military
projects. They're just too important. The system works fine for State and
Local government, though.
--
From: "Ayende Rahien"
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #33Mon, 9 Apr 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant ("Brig Campbell")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Greg Copeland)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Chad Everett)
Linux mailing list for Iranians (Arash)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Rich Teer)
NT secure server space majority? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Logan Shaw)
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Chris Street)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Sam A. Kersh)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Rob
Robertson)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Nigel Feltham)
Re: another example of why Linux is brain dead. (Nigel Feltham)
Inktomi Webmap -- Apache has 60% now. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (The Ghost In The Machine)
From: "Brig Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 09:47:28 -0700
"Brian Inglis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:46:55 -0500, "Ben L. Titzer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Compaq has several Xeon based servers (4x, 8x, and even more) that have
up
> >to 32 and 64gb of physical RAM. Any kernel running on those machines
> >wouldn't "need" that much memory; it would of course, have to manage it,
> >though, for user applications. Versions of Windows 2000 server have
> >support for these large memory spaces, and I *think* there may be Linux
> >support. Plus whatever OSes companies like Compaq and HP have running on
> >their "big-iron" Intel boxes probably have PAE support as well.
>
> Their big-iron boxes are not Intel - Alpha and PA-RISC
> respectively. They'd probably not push PCs competing with their
> high end machines, although they'd probably sell you one if you
> wanted to give them that much money. How much cache goes with
> your 64GB, and how long does it take to load/save that memory on
> a real PCI/UDMA drive?
>
The ProLiant ML770 is the new 32-processor, industry-standard server from
Compaq. This system delivers maximum scale-up (single server) performance in
the ProLiant line, with 32 Pentium III Xeon processors, large SDRAM memory
capacity and huge I/O expansion. The ProLiant ML770 is based on the Cellular
Multi-Processing (CMP) architecture, designed for maximum performance and
scalability. Compaq has upgraded the CMP architecture by adding additional
high-availability features and Compaq storage and options.
http://www.compaq.com/products/servers/proliantml770/description.html#keyfea
t
--
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 Apr 2001 11:52:05 -0500
Thanks. I was very much aware of that. Just like a helicopter is still
considered to be a rotor wing plane, that is really a ducted rotor plane
as well. It just happens to look more like a car than most planes. In
short, it's still a plane. Which means, planes are planes and cars are
cars.
To touch on the original topic, it's often forgotten the difference
between real exploits and theoretical exploits. It's often important
to understand that many people simply use SSH as a means to keep clear
text passwords off the wire.
I'm assuming (*that* word) that you were trying to be funny. If so,
that's how I took it. Enjoy!
Greg
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > With your logic that SSH = telnet + encryption, I can say that a car and
> plane
> > are exactly the same thing; isn't a plane a car with wings?
>
> http://a432.g.akamaitech.net/7/432/622/1229993214/abcnews.go.com/media/T
> ech/images/ho_moller_skycar_h.jpg
>
>
>
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==
--
From: [E
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 06:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: RTFM at M$ (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: M$ doing it again! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft stricks again: Why is Media Player 7 so slooow, so heavy?
("Edward Rosten")
Re: RTFM at M$ ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Now we know why Allchin was tweaked! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:06:48 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Le0m6.6258$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I fail to understand the correlation. MS blocks pings at the border, long
>> > before it gets to a machine other than a router. This is to prevent the
>> > most common DoS attacks.
>>
>> I thought the most common DoS attacks were SYN floods.
>
>Not just pings, but all ICMP.
>
>Notice the routers name:
>icpmscomc7503-a0-00-1.cp.msft.net
>
>Most DoS attacks are ICMP based.
This is a blatant fabrication. Possibly common, even popular, but still
a complete fallacy.
A network which firewalls ping is a network which should not be
considered run by people competent to be connected to the Internet.
>> I've never heard
>> of a DoS attack with normal, short, non-broadcast pings (and a quick
>> google search failed to point me to any - I would be grateful if anyone
>> could show me a documented case).
>
>They block all ICMP.
No, they block ping, and can't tell the difference between ping and any
other ICMP. All other ICMP, however, is optional; ping is mandatory.
Truly mandatory; MS isn't alone in breaking this rule, but they are
breaking the rule, nevertheless.
>> Why do yahoo.com, google.com, and
>> other high-profile sites not see the need to block valid pings?
>
>Because they don't tend to be as large a target as MS is. MS is bombarded
>daily by script kiddies, and only very seldom do they succeed.
Because they don't need to; these networks are run competently.
>> Not
>> that I'm going to lose sleep over MS pings, but it just seems to be
>> another small example of MS doing things their "own way".
>
>It's actually getting to be quite common. Try pinging www.netscape.com,
>www.aol.com, www.att.com, www.gm.com, etc..
It has been going in and out of vogue since 1994.
>> If they've
>> been blocking them for 3 or more years, maybe blocking all pings was
>> just a quick-and-dirty fix to their NT "ping-of-death" bug a few years
>> back, that they didn't bother to unfix after the NT patch.
>
>No, since pinging them is not all that productive, why leave a potential
>hole open?
Because ping provides *necessary and essential* connectivity information
and diagnostics. The NT "ping of death", BTW, used malformed datagrams.
>> I have heard of ultra-paranoid security people recommending blocking
>> pings, although more to "hide" the system from OS-type detection via
>> subtle packet "signatures" (nmap program) than to prevent DoS attacks.
>
>Any machine that has a single port open can still be vulnerable to these.
Any connectivity is a security risk. All firewalling of ping is due to
clueless paranoia.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:06:50 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Feb 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 22 Feb 2001
>> >Of course not, but they do have a right to defend themselves from attack.
>>
>> The only defense t
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 19:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: More Linux woes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: More Linux woes (mlw)
Re: The real truth about NT's aggressive caching ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: One case where Linux has the edge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:00:00 -0600
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93qqpo$aqc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I'm jsut going to pick a few nits here
Please do.
> > > > Actually, Apple started it.
> > >
> > > Actually, Busy/Wait was first used in FORTH. Even today,
> > > many FORTH systems are used for robotics and engine control
> > > on automobiles, as well as thermostats, microwaves, and VCRs.
> >
> > Which doesn't change the fact that the previous year, Apple introduce
MacOS
> > with cooperative multitasking. If it was obsolete, why did Apple do
this?
> > And better yet, why is it only MS's fault?
>
> Actually, Apple have made *lots* of technically bad decisions, along
> with bad
> business decisions. They have also made enough good decisions in both
> areas to
> be plugging along with approx 7% (I think) of the desktop market.
> It will be interesting to see how well the Mac faithful take to MacOS X
Indeed. I still don't understand how Cooperative multitasking was MS's
fault, and how it was "obsolete" years earlier.
> > > Windows 2000 has a number of technological "anti-linux" measures. It
took
> > a
> > > bit of time for the Linux community to figure out work-arounds. I
> > personally
> > > love that Windows 2000 supports both FAT 32 and NTFS.
> >
> > How is that "anti-linux"?
>
> I'm not sure what Rex means here, either. The changes to SMB (Windows
networking)
> and RDP (Windows terminal server) certainly don't help interopability
much.
> Citrix Metaframe still seems to work nicely, though.
I highly doubt that the changes were made to be anti-linux. Chances are,
they weren't even thinking about linux when they did it.
> To be fair, MS are helping the Samba project to some extent.
They also worked with the kerberos people too.
> > > SMB and WNS were published when GPL file systems such as NFS and AFS
> > > were about to be offered for Windows.
> >
> > NFS has been on Windows since 1990. I was using a sun NFS client way
back
> > then.
> >
> I think Sun offered PC-NFS even earlier than that. It was very
> expensive, though. Rex may have been talking about an NFS server for
Windows.
> I think these are comparatively recent. They also seem rather flakey :-(
If he meant server, I don't think NFS was GPL'd when SMB was created back in
the late 80's. I think it was still a Sun protocol.
> I also remember using TotalNet (SMB compatible) in 1990 or 1991 to allow
PCs
> to use an AIX box as a file/print server. HP had LAN Manager / X out even
> before that.
Agreed.
> > > Microsoft tried to lock Linux out of the internet using MS-CHAP,
> > > but leaked the information when Linux servers threatened to lock
> > > out Microsoft MSN customers.
> >
> > MS-CHAP is merely an authorization protocol for dialups. Clients don't
NEED
> > to use CHAP.
>
> Not sure about that. I saw a lot of emails complaining about MS-CHAP
> where it seemd the ISP was forcing CHAP. Never tried it myself, so it's
> anectdotal evidence.
If an ISP demands the use of MS-CHAP, it's no different from an ISP
demanding the use of Netscape. It's the ISP's decision.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:54:58 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:45:06 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your ignorance is astounding.
Sorry mlw, but it is YOU who is ignora
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #30 Mon, 27 Nov 00 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (Jacques Guy)
Re: Whistler review. (Jacques Guy)
Re: Things I have noticed (Jacques Guy)
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Patrick Raymond Hancox")
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Things I have noticed ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:10:09 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
> > >Now look what NT does. It exposes a 32 bit value, which is incremented
> > >in units of one hundredth of a second, as per specs, but when it reaches
> > >a value 10 times smaller than the all 1's value (i.e. after 49.7 days,
> > >instead 497) it goes back to zero. To be exact, when it reaches the
> > >binary value 11001100110011001100110011001 it goes back to zero. It's
> > >not a binary counter rolling over to zero!
>
> That's not the case. NT's tick counter is not in 10ms units, it's in 1ms
> units, though it increments it 55ms at a time (the system tick minimum
> resolution)
>
> It does roll over to 0 after filling up with all 1's.
>
> Here's a little exercise. Calculate the largest number of days a 32 bit
> value can hold if it holds 1ms units. The answer, 49.7 or so days.
Here's a little exercise for you.
You have an internal tick counter made the stupid way MS has
done. (Don't tell me that a 1 ms resolution with 55 ms
uncertainty is smart because I won't buy it, but that's
another matter)
Now you have decided to provide a function whose specs
require to expose, as a continuity indicator, a 32 bit
counter which increments in units of 10 ms. Remember that
you may not provide it. IBM's AIX doesn't, just to make an
example. It's just a function you may have or not. But
you've decided to have it.
1) What's the largest value this counter will hold? Is it
497 or so days or not?
2) How would you implement it, in such a way as not to be
called an incompetent amateur?
Would you derive it from your 32 bit value which has a 1 ms
resolution (with 55 ms uncertainty), so that it will break
continuity, each 49.7 days, or think of something else?
--
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:14:16 +
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C++ -- Our Industry...
kiwiunixman wrote:
> Mind you if ya live in America (the country with the
> cheapest petrol)
No! Honest, petrol is way cheaper in Saudi Arabia,
and way cheaper in Indonesia (count the a's).
--
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:26:00 +
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
> Ok, so go away... why did you respond to this? Stupid linvocates.. whistler will
> continue windows domination over the world.
Sieg heil! Or, in Italian: Eia, eia, eia, alalà! But, of course,
to understand that, you must either have lived under Mussolini,
or watched Pasolini's stunning adaptation of Sade's "120 days
of Sodom".
--
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:35:19 +
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed
kiwiunixman wrote:
> 3. So-called ex-linux users using the excuse, "it is too hard" as an excuse
> for not continuing to use Linux. Down the road at my local book store there
> were hundreds of books, from linux for beginners up to programming linux on
> servers
That just goes to prove that Linux sux. If it didn't you wouldn't have
hundreds of books on the shelves: they'd all have been bought out!
Frogguy, standing in for Lynn, as every gentlemanly frog should
for a lady. (***smoch*** Claire darling!)
--
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:27:35 +0200
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gPlU5.54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #29Thu, 5 Oct 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 2.4! (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: 2.4! (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Hotmail still runs BSD. ("MH")
Re: programming languages and design (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2.4! (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Consistency (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! ("MH")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:37:04 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Todd wrote:
>
> "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, I just moved to 2.4 test 9... I must say, I'm impressed! All my
> > USB devices working... great... great... great *jaw lying on the ground
> > after compilation* ... WOW! I love it!
>
> yawn... Windows 2000 has had USB support since its inception. Also, Windows
> 2000 has *drivers* for the USB devices so that you can actually *use* them.
>
> What good is USB support with the drivers for the devices?
Hmm.. my mouse, my keyboard, my camera, my printer and my speakers
work... what's the matter?
>
> > Hmm.. with this kernel, and some more work by the GNOME foundation and
> > Helixcode Linux can finally kick some real butt on the Desktop (together
> > with NVidia hardware, we just need a damn open-source GL driver *g*).
>
> Linux is going to need a hell of a lot more work before it is suited for the
> desktop. But then again, don't take it from me, just look at the market
> today.
Exactly, 5% growth per month. That's a lot! 2004 and Windows and Linux
will be equal at share. (at the current rate, which at my opinion will
decrease a little because dumbasses like you don't know how to deal with
Linux)
>
> > I'm so proud.
>
> Only a Linux user would be proud of a hacked OS that just got a feature that
> has been around on other OSes for quite some time.
Hmm.. MacOS is the only platform that has really decent support for USB,
in Windows it's still kind of flaky...
>
> BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware runs
> OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
Those were made with 0.92, if you take a look at the current benches
(0.95) with kernel 2.4 you will see a slight increase that brings Linux
to a slowdown of as low as 3%.
>
> Why even use Linux??
Because it's great, stable, fast, and free.
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
--
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:39:36 +0200
From: Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Darren Winsper wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:00:19 +0200, Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I just moved to 2.4 test 9... I must say, I'm impressed! All my
> > USB devices working... great... great... great *jaw lying on the ground
> > after compilation* ... WOW! I love it!
>
> There's one major regression in test9 from test8 that I've found; if I
> switch from X to the console and back to X my mouse dies. Ho hum, at least
> test8 has been amazingly stable for me.
>
Are you using DGAMouse on XF 3.3.6? If so, upgrade to 4.0.1, it doesn't
have these problems.
--
Best regards,
Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
--
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hotmail still runs BSD.
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:44:10 -0400
Oh god, another one of these. Yes, and Bill Gates reads Slashdot,.. and
Ballmer runs his home network on Open Linux. Who gives a sh*t?
Why are these assertions pertinent?
To validate you? Over your use of a computer OS?
Pathetic.
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
>
> "We were premature with last month's comment to the effect that Windows
> 2000 had replaced FreeBSD at HotMail. Markus Senoner was first to point
> out that although www.hotmail.com is indeed running Windows 2000,
> several of the other HotMail front end servers are still running
> FreeBSD."
>
> They give a link so you can see for yourself which ones are and which
> ones aren't.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 23:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux (sfcybear) Re: Om (mlw) Re: news article (Tim Hanson) Re: Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than Crack-Cocaine) (Me) Re: It's official, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Microsoft=AE?= porting applications to (Tim Hanson) Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Donovan Rebbechi) Re: It's official, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Microsoft=AE?= porting applications to (Tim Hanson) Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious (Jim Richardson) Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Jim Richardson) Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Jim Richardson) Re: Windows has made me stupid !!! Thanks, Bill. (Windows is worst than (Gary Hallock) Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating (Jerry McBride) From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 02:04:12 GMT In article , "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:8mg4e0$sml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > Lycos has tried Windows NT three times. > > lie. > > >The first time, they tried > > to run an array of NT 3.51 servers against Sun servers. The were > > allowed to announce that they were using NT, and users were given > > the options and counts for each server. You could pick either. > > NT failed so badly that Lycos pulled the plug on it. They issued > > a carefully worded announcement (designed to slip past the Microsoft > > NDA censors) which - if you read between the lines - said "We had > > so many problems we just decided that we couldn't afford the hassle, > > no matter how much free stuff Microsft was willing to give us". > > More lies. How old are you Drestin? What were YOU doing in 1994! How many web sites had YOU hosted! I had already put Dow Jones on the site, had worked with techical leaders at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and was in communication via e-mail with Marc Andreeson and the founders of Lycos, Yahoo, and Infoseek. see http://www.open4success.com/Olnews Lycos was one of the first commercial web-based search engines (WAIS Inc, with whom I was working, was the first). They originally implemented using Sun machines. Initially Sparc 20s then 6s and then Enterprise 1000s. > > When NT 4.0 came out, Lycos waited until after Service pak 3, and > > again tried using NT 4.0 strictly as a front-end server. Again, > > they found that the overhead was too expensive. The trial was > > unplugged before they even got out. > > even more lies. I got this one via a usenet post, so it could be bogus. It was during 1997 when I switched from Online-Newpapers mailing lists to dejanews. I'm not sure which source. I know Microsoft had been putting a lot of pressure on everybody to put NT into high-profile server roles. It's certainly likely that they were approached, ran some preliminary tests, and simply decided not to even attempt to put it into production. > > This time, Microsoft is pulling out all the stops. > > They are planning > > to support 1000 Windows 2000 servers as "front-ends". Lycos could > > still pull the plug and switch to Linux or FreeBSD, but this way > > they get free hardware, software, installation, and support. > > one way of putting it... And if this test failed, Microsoft will insist that Lycos honor the clause of the agreement which forbids it from publishing information that could damage the brand name. You don't really think that Microsoft will be willing to have Lycos print on it's home page "Microsoft bombs again" do you? > > Don't expect to find either of the above tests on the Microsoft > > site. Microsoft burns the dead bodies. > > a... so convienient... and I supposed > MS also killed EVERYONE involved > in the project, present and ex-employees > and burned their dead bodies too? I didn't mean that Microsoft actually killed anybody. I'm just saying that you aren't going to see many public disclosures of Microsoft failures. Certainly not on the Microsoft site (even in the "here's what NOT to do section"). When news of a virus or killer bug does leak out, Microsoft announces a trivial patch that is supposed to fix it. Which rai
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #27Tue, 4 Jul 00 23:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which Linux should I try? (cpliu)
Re: Linux beats Win2k yet again! ("Joe Kiser")
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which Linux should I try? (cpliu)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. ("Rich C")
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451730 (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Which Linux should I try? (OSguy)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Gary Hallock)
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Shock Boy")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Shock Boy")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Shock Boy")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Shock Boy")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (cpliu)
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 01:22:49 GMT
Thank you all for the suggestions and pointers.
> Avoid Corel Linux!
>
I just downloaded yesterday. Can you give me specifics why shouldn't I
try it? I probably will start with Mandrake 7.1.
Thanks,
cpliu
--
From: "Joe Kiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2k yet again!
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 21:25:03 -0400
"Jens Prüfer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi folks,
>
> just felt like sharing this one. According to
>
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2
>
> Linux leads the "fastest Web Server" list by far. A quad-CPU Dell server
> with 8 GB RAM running Linux and the TUX threaded web server 1.0 is more
> than 2.5 times faster than Win2k running Microshaft IIS on the same
> hardware (4200 vs. 1598)! The second fastest server is an IBM RS/6000
> 7026-M80 with 8 processors, 24 GB of RAM running the Zeus webserver
> 3.3.5
Where are the BSDs and Solaris? Not a flame, just a question...
--
- Joe Kiser
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mindspring.com/~joekiser/
"I walk the Earth, another day.
The wicked one, that comes this way.
Savior to my own.
Devil to some.
Mankind falls, Something Wicked Comes."
-Iced Earth
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 01:18:30 GMT
The bottom line is you are claiming that Linux lags behind with the user
inerface. I beleive that it is MS that lags behind. With MS, you are
stuck with one interface and no real choice! While with Linux you have a
choice! I can choose what Xserver I use, xfree or one of the commercial
versions. I can choose my desktop, from native X to the likes of KDE,
Gnome or CDE. I can even run WITHOUT a GUI if that is what *MY NEEDS*
are at the time! man, what flexibility, what power! With MS you get one
interface, if that does not meet your needs or you do not like it,
you're screwed! MS has a Long way to catch up! Only one real interface,
how sad and outdated.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 01:28:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8js6lj$lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >No, he is NOT! Linux is an OS kernel and KDE is a Unix desktop
Developed
> >by DIFFERENT people, though cooperating they are INDEPENDENT of each
> >other. The Linux (being a KERNEL) servers an different function than
KDE
> >the desktop. Linux CAN and does run WITHOUT KDE and KDE can and DOES
run
> >without Linux. They are independent of each other! I would submit a
> >Linux bug to the Linux development team and a KDE to the KDE
> >development team!
>
> Avtually I was referring to calling it a lie, not KDE bug = Linux bug.
>
> >Using your logic, any application that RUNS on Windows that has a bug
> >means that Windows has that bug! after all, KDE is only an
APPLICATION
> >that runs on Linux!
>
> See above.
>
> >Did you check the logs You claim an absolute! that means that
there
> >can be NO error recorded ANY where! Or were you just being unclear
> >again??? Being so unclear that I could say "if there was no error,
how
> >did the application crash?"
>
> Yep, checked the
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Not so fast... (George Russell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (CAguy)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (CAguy)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (mlw)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: win millenium (The Ghost In The Machine)
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:54:31 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> More specifically, a toaster is a class of device, not a brand. DR DOS is
> a brand MS tested for and issued a nonsense warning.
Actually, MS did not test for DR-DOS. Instead, they walked the internal
structures of DOS looking for any variation that would indicate that the
user was not running on MS-DOS or PC-DOS. It just so happens that DR-DOS
failed some of those tests (as I'm sure software like FreeDos would).
The distinction here was not that they tested specifically for DR-DOS, but
for anything that was not compliant enough with MS-DOS to have internal
structures act differently. OS/2's VDM was also effected.
> If MS knews of a specific performance bug or defect then they can flag the
> defect but MS had no such knowledge.
Microsoft internal memo's from the time state otherwise. They say
specifically that DR-DOS has specific defects that cause it to have problems
with Windows.
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 18:55:20 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > MS DOS had technical problems running windows therefore the comment
> > > about DR DOS is a trivial exercise in playing games with semantics.
> >
> > What? That statement makes no sense.
>
> It does and it is still true.
>
> DRDOS and MSDOS BOTH had techncial problems with windows. Claiming there
> were technical problems with DRDOS doesn't justfy what MS did to one
> product but not the other.
What technical problems with DOS are you talking about? You have not
mentioned these before. What were they?
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: Not so fast...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:49:34 GMT
On 11 May 2000 19:04:37 GMT, Darren Winsper wrote:
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 14:02:13 GMT, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think many to pretend it can't happen and it's really just far less
>> likely due to market share.
>
>Wrong. Look; RISC OS never had a market share that Linux has now. In
>fact, at its peak, I imagine its market share was around 1/10 of what
>Linux's is now. However, there were plenty of viruses for the
>platform.
Entirely due to a few things
Its used for Copmputer Studies by most of the UK Education System prior to
Tertiary education (unethical intelligent bored students)
Its a wholly insecure single user OS
Rampant Software piracy
Easy to program in both basic and assembler - hell, I've an infected copy of
ArcElite on 800K disk - nowt to read it, but its there.
It was like Amiga / Atari / Apple - just less popular - and all those had many
viruses - of course, declining use of all those (Apple excepted?) has stopped
development of new viruses... too few users now.
George Russell
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 23:49:37 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 19:26:45 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When one tries to spawn an executable, or a script, i
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465
Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #25Wed, 1 Mar 00 23:13:05 EST Contents: Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach) Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph) Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi) Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach) Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Christopher Browne) Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Christopher Browne) Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Christopher Browne) Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach) Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (pac4854) Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach) Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Michael C. Vergallen) Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux (mlw) Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Ron House) Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux (Andreas Rottmann) Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:17:56 GMT In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am not clear what you are talking about. The user interface to wordpad >is simpler than word, so for users who just need the functionality of >wordpad, it really is a better choice. Ahh, but the functionality of wordpad is different from the functionality of word in ways other than the differences between .doc and .rtf. -s -- Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED] C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/ Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636 -- From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:18:54 GMT Subject: Re: Giving up on NT Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< On 2-29-00, 4:26:17 AM, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re:= =20 Giving up on NT: > "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > HDTV+Playstation3 will be the thing to beat for PC's and Macs. That= > > combo will be so fast and gorgeous. > By the time the PS3 + HDTV + network connects + everything else that=20= makes a > PC a PC, you are going to be spending more money on that system than a= =20 PC! > And, you can still do other things with a PC as well... Not in the context of entertainment. PCs are really limited. You can do more with a PSX II than play games. It's a trojan horse=20 device that is a DVD/CD player and web access device for obtaining=20 digital content. =20 Microsoft is going to announce a Game Console based on Win9x/DirectX. =20= The fat lady is singing and PC gaming is emulate/copy the titles in=20 the more profitable console market. =20 -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work? Date: 2 Mar 2000 03:18:14 GMT On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:29:33 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >Actually, no. It would indicate that people are getting docs saved by Word >because someone's company bought Office. But somebody in the company decided to purchase word. Presumably, someone in the company is using those features, though I'd agree that it's not always true that each word user uses more than Wordpad functionality. In any case, there's not even an OpenSource app that can do the same as wordpad. -- Donovan -- Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:21:07 GMT In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >* WYSIWYG printing. I have yet to see this on any platform, unless you allow for pretty good approximations, in which case, I'm willing to give Lyx credit for matching my expectations. >* Any word processor Lyx? >* A decent web browser ( Mozilla doesn't count until it's out of alpha ) Lynx. It may not have all the features some people want, but it is demonstrably decent and functional. (And before you say it's not good enough, find a blind user and ask whether Lynx is better or worse than Netscape.) >* A decent 3D game. Just
