Linux-Advocacy Digest #395, Volume #25 Fri, 25 Feb 00 20:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Barry Margolin)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Barry Margolin)
URGENT: W3C form standards for non-wintel platforms (James Salsman)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Barry Margolin)
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Miquel van
Smoorenburg)
Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet Censorship
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Jim Richardson)
Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!! ("Brian M")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 25 Feb 2000 23:27:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:15:40 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:24:56 -0500,
> > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > When MS does migrate hotmail to W2K - will you suddenly decide that that
> was
> > > the only critieria you needed satisified to prove how powerful and
> wonderful
> > > W2K is?
> > I can *hear* your sarcasm through the ASCII-encoding. Especially
> > on the "powerful and wonderful" part.
> I am not being sarcastic.
You were *not*?
> > > Suddenly you will drop your false pretenses and rush to embrace it?
> > > If not, what other than trolling is the point of your post?
> > Rubbing salt in the festering wounds. M$ has tried to make
> > Hotmail run on NT, but their enterprise class operating system
> > failed to scale. Hmmm.
> MS never tried to do this. Ever. Period.
So, how shall I interpret the fact that "Long term, Hotmail is
committed to moving to Windows NT Server." ... since at least
"Monday, March 01, 1999"? And "However, *wholesale* migration
to Windows NT Server has not yet been attempted." (emphasis
mine)?
(http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/WEB/NEWS/MSNW/HOTMAIL.ASP)
I can only read that they tried a *partial* migration, which
probably went not too great. For *at least* almost a year were
unable or unwilling to convert "the fastest growing e-mail
service" completely to NT. If MS is unable to do that within a
year or two (and they are rumored to have the source code,
remember?) then how are other people to do such a thing?
Further, MS knew before anyone that they were going to have w2k.
They did not alter that particular page yet.
Also, M$ has a history of double talk, and plain right out lying.
This has been shown once more in the recent process. So why
should I believe them? In fact, other sources claim they tried:
http://www.kirch.net/unix-nt/hotmail.html
http://www.slctech.org/~firth/me/hotmail.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/web-consultants@just4u.com/msg08211.html
(all of which have basically the same message)
> > Now, if *they* do *not* manage to get it to run under w2k (i.e.
> > having so little thrust in their *own* products ability) and
> > still tout it as the best thing since sliced bread, what should
> > I think about the rest of their claims?
> If they don't then you've finally got a legit thing to point to and sneer.
> But, until they try and fail - you've nothing.
They have not yet managed to convert Hotmail to mostly NT, even.
NT is run there. If that's the secretarys typewriter replacement
or if some NT machines do actual work is unknown, but MS made it
aboundandly clear that NT, like Solaris, is just one of several OS
run there. Would you say that of your flagship product, if it was
more than just used in uncritical places? MS does (same URL as
above), and let us draw our own conclusions. I vote for
typewriter ... nothing there says different.
> > No, Hotmail on w2k does not make w2k a winner. But failing to be
> > able to makes it a sure loser when it comes to Hotmail-style
> > computing needs. And wasn't NT already hyped to be able to do
> > that kind of stuff?
> so, they basically cannot win in your eyes no matter what.
No. *IF* (and that's a fairly gargantuan IF) W2k turns out to be
a system that's stable and usable and does not suck too much, then
I'll be happy that those people using it get a better deal than
previously.
Most probably I won't use it for myself, at least not in my free
time. But I might be able to recommend it without feeling very
uneasy about it. Since other people are different, why should
they not choose different OSses ... if they work for them?
> So, what is the point of trying to discuss it?
Pointing out that if neither NT nor W2K have what it takes to
run Hotmail, then how comes that every business and their dog
(with no experience) should switch to it? Especially when MS
says that these kinds of applications are OK with NT (see their
URL up there again). Now, what *is* the truth?
> You've set your mind against NT. Period. So
> my reply ends. period.
NT's dead, babe, NT's dead. It's all W2K now.
-Wolgang
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:37:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:19:59 GMT, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
>>However, in such a world, the present model for controlling proprietary
>>software would exist either. Sure, you could release code in binary only form,
>>but everyone would copy the binaries.
>
>Repeat after me: "Free SPEECH, not free beer".
>
>The GPL is all about using restrictive licenses to keep the source free.
The GPL is about two things: making source available, and allowing copying
(of both source and binaries). The "free speech" metaphor is more about
the latter.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 23:38:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I don't advocate the dismantling of copyright laws. I'm rather in favor of
: measures to make it illegal to distribute software without source code,
: regardless of the licensing arrangements.
I'm hoping that the market will accomplish the same result without
need for oppressive legislation, by favoring software vendors who
release software (even proprietary software) with source.
Software avaliable in source code form, because it can be inspected
and modified, is much more valuable than software that is available
only as a compiled binary. That is true even if it cannot be legally
redistributed. (If it can be, it is more valuable still, but it
becomes more difficult for the author to be compensated for his or her
work, at least as things stand right now. That is why free software
vendors make most of their money from branding, support, and other
services.)
Joe
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:52:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron M. Renn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:19:59 GMT, Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In fact it should. In a world without silly copyrights, we would not need the
>>GPL. There would be no basis for it, because the GPL is rooted in copyright
>>law.
>
>Actually, the GPL is rooted in contract law. Even in a world with no
>copyright, people could still distribute binary only software or force
>people to sign restrictive licenses in order to get a copy. The GPL is
>very useful here.
But I wonder if they would bother. The GPL currently prohibits people from
giving up their redistribution rights. I believe this is because of RMS's
political goal of encouraging an environment where software freedom is the
norm; he wants to make it difficult for free software redistributors to
shift back into the proprietary model.
But I suspect that in a world where freedom is the norm, we would be
willing to allow people to voluntarily give up some rights if they get
other concessions in return. We've discussed things like this in other
threads. For instance, a beta tester could receive an early version of a
free program if he agrees not to redistribute it. This is not an
unreasonable compromise -- if one of the things that a free software
developer trades on is his reputation for software quality (e.g. Linus's
reputation from Linux probably means he's getting a good deal from
Transmeta), it could be severely damaged if an unfinished product got wide
distribution.
The problem could be that a system without the GPL could be abused. For
instance, you could be given the choice: pay for the software and be
allowed to redistribute it freely, or get it gratis on the condition that
you not redistribute it. Or, as I suspect RMS would fear: pay for the
software and get source code, or get it gratis without source code (as I've
mentioned in other posts, the GPL really has two, somewhat independent,
goals: free redistribution, and source code availability).
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:52:24 -0800
From: James Salsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.speech.research,comp.speech.users,comp.speech,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.mac.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.linux
Subject: URGENT: W3C form standards for non-wintel platforms
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY -- especially in Mac and Linux communities
Yesterday evening I spoke with a member of the W3C HTML Working
Group who removed all my remaining doubt that the HTML WG has any
serious support for open, non-proprietary web form upload standards
for non-wintel platforms. The HTML WG keeps including Microsoft's
OBJECT catch-all element tag, even in "scaled down" versions of
HTML, but refuses to support the non-proprietary device upload
proposal. Your help is needed to correct this situation.
Please read and endorse this petition: http://www.bovik.org/devup-petition
We need as many people as possible to request these features and
support the standard. Thank you for your help with this effort.
Cheers,
James Salsman
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:00:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would say, yes it is a good thing if companies release the source
>code for their applications, but I would argue that the right way to make
>them do so is to put pressure on them via market forces, rather than
>forcing them to do so.
I agree. The free software movement seems to be having some effect in this
manner.
When most important software did not have source code available (except to
customers with deep pockets), it wasn't necessary for a company to release
their source code widely. Their competitors weren't, so everything was in
balance.
Then along came Linux, a strong competitor in the OS market. Now customers
have a real choice: there's a viable open source competitor to traditional
Unix operating systems. Enough customers are switching that the leading
proprietary Unix vendor is switching to open source (well, somewhat -- I've
heard that there are some problematic restrictions in Sun's license), and
this could have a snowball effect. And Netscape has opened up their
browser code; I suspect this is just intended to slow IE's erosion of their
market share -- I doubt Microsoft will open their source in response (but
we can dream, can't we?).
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:08:51 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:52:08 GMT, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Aaron M. Renn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:19:59 GMT, Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In fact it should. In a world without silly copyrights, we would not need the
>>>GPL. There would be no basis for it, because the GPL is rooted in copyright
>>>law.
>>
>>Actually, the GPL is rooted in contract law. Even in a world with no
>>copyright, people could still distribute binary only software or force
>>people to sign restrictive licenses in order to get a copy. The GPL is
>>very useful here.
>
>But I wonder if they would bother. The GPL currently prohibits people from
>giving up their redistribution rights. I believe this is because of RMS's
The GPL does not grant any exclusive distribution rights to the licensees, so
there are no such rights to speak of. Certain rights are granted provided that
the conditions are met. To distribute outside of these conditions means going
*beyond* the granted rights, in effect asserting more rights than you have been
granted.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 26 Feb 2000 00:46:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Adam Ierymenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>True enough, but as an end user of both NT and Linux I can
>say that I encounter library problems more under Linux than
>NT. Of course, when I *do* encounter them under NT they
>are much more serious and often require a lot of work to fix.
I have never ever seen any library problems. Using libc5, glibc 2.0
and glibc 2.1 binaries and god knows how many other libs.
Ofcourse Debian _is_ the technically superiour distribution ;)
Mike.
--
"dhbgr zr ba guvf bar - biretnna bc Rkpunatr vf rra jvwf orfyhvg" -- ZnepbU.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet
Censorship
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 00:53:36 GMT
On 24 Feb 2000 22:50:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Drestin Black wrote:
>>> Mark S. Bilk ... Go screw yourself OK?
>>
>>I'm certain he has,,, many times. With light bulbs, po-go sticks,
>>plungers, gerbils and other devices.
>>
>>Take a look at :
>>http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=493570751&CONTEXT=951347144.1067122696&hitnum=0
>>for details.
>>
>>Steve
>
>That URL goes to an article I posted about a PBS documentary
>on kids being taught not to hate gay people. This is the
>correct URL, found by using the DejaNews power search
>and clicking on "view for bookmarking":
>
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=493570751
>
>Imagine what sort of mind Steve must have, to read about
>teaching children kindness, tolerance, and civil rights, and
>to associate that with the bizarre, bigoted, sadistic sexual
>fantasies that he posted.
Kindness, tolerance, Civil rights?
How about teaching them the truth, which is the gay male condones sticking
his dick up another mans ass. Tell it like it really is Bilk, don't try and
sugar coat it.
Women wearing dildo's to compensate for a man's penis.
How about:
http://www.health.org/res-brf/June99/2.htm
http://www.sexuality.org/l/lesbigay/gaysex.html
It get's sicker by the moment.
>He also assumes that anyone who feels that homosexual people
>shouldn't be persecuted, and should have the same civil rights
>as everyone else, must themselves be homosexual. In other
>words, Steve hates gay people so much that he takes it for
>granted that all other non-gay people hate them too.
I don't hate gay people, I hate their deviant behavior.
I live in NYC Mark and have seen my share of deviants, on a daily basis.
Green haired men dressed as women. Women dressed as biker men and so forth.
Have YOU ever seen the Greenwhich Village Halloween parade?
A spectectle of deviant behavior second to none.
It's an exit Mark, not an entrance....All the KY in the world will not
change that fact.......
No one should be persecuted, but all should understand fully, what the gay
agenda is about and it is not about love. It's about sticking a mand penis
up another mans ass and saying that due to free speech and the constitution
it is normal and ok.
Guess what Mark....It's not normal....
>Steve is one of a gang of spammers* who's been flooding the
>comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup for most of a year with
>thousands of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda articles
>(and he's used a lot of fake names to do it -- teknite77,
>steveno, sewer_rat99, skagg71, time2leave, theman, etc.).
True, I have used multiple ID's. I won't deny it. So have several Linux Pro
folks who claim to be Sponge, but are mere imitations.
BTW skagg71 does not ring a bell?
>It may be relevant that about a year ago, an article in the
>San Jose Mercury noted that "Microsoft execs spend time at
>the Heritage Foundation." That's one of the largest Right-
>wing propaganda organizations in the US. Of course, it is
>opposed to civil rights for homosexual people.
I'm opposed to another man sticking his dick up my ass.
If you want to vote, fine. If you want medical benefits, or tax incentives
for your slut live in forget it.
Get married, to a real female that is.
It is sick. You can't pro-create that way. Most heterosexual females oppose
it strongly and you are a deviant sicko.
Next time you are on a heterosexual date, well maybe you better ask a
friend on this one, but anyway, ask the female (real female that is) how
she would like a dick stuffed up her ass and see what she says.
>Did "Steve" (or whatever his real name is) learn to hate
>homosexual people, or to spout the particular kind of venom
>quoted above, at the Heritage Foundation? Probably not.
>But since Bill Gates is sending his executives there for
>political/cultural/economic indoctrination (that's what they
>do there), it wouldn't be surprising that some bigot in Micro-
>soft's PR department would employ a bigot like Steve to fill
>the c.o.l.a newsgroup with Microsoft's anti-Linux propaganda
>and thousands of garbage posts, to intimidate people so they
>drop the newsgroup and don't learn about Linux. It's a ques-
>tion of what type of political culture exists among Microsoft
>executives, and training at the Heritage Foundation pretty
>much guarantees the type that it's going to be.
After 30 years of living in N.Y.C and working in the arts I have learned to
accept them. I witness to them whenever I can, but I don't judge them.
My personal opinion is that if they do not change their ways they will be
rotting in hell for eternity and I pity their souls.
Aid's is nothing more than God's method of dealing with sexual deviant
behavior.
Ask any normal male in this group how he feels about laying on his back,
leggs in the air and having a penis stuffed up his ass.
Sorry for the graphics, but it is abnormal at best.
I suggest you discover women Mark. They are naturally soft, have holes in
the proper place and are designed to pro-create. It is really great. Try
it, you might agree.
Sure beats sticking your dick in a hole full of shit.
>It's interesting to think of the pro-Microsoft spammers like
>Steve and "Drestin Black" madly searching through every arti-
>cle I've ever posted to Usenet, looking for something they
>think would embarrass me; maybe they'll learn a thing or two
>if they actually read them. Apparently it hasn't occurred to
>these creatures that if I had written something I was ashamed
>of, I probably wouldn't have published it in a place where
>millions of people all over the world could see it, forever!
>Oh well, nobody ever accused these guys of being overly bright.
You believe every word of it which is what is so sad.
>I'm beginning to think that something I previously wrote
>has touched a nerve; probably it was this:
No. We have touched several nerves in you Mark, or is it Mary?
YOU post with your real name and expose yourself for what your are. There
is some merit in this, and I do respect your opinions on the various
matters and i would NEVER want censorship on what you, or I say. However
the movement you support trys, in vain, to justify a deviant form of
behavior that is supported by a miniscule portion of the population and I
feel the truth should be heard.
>] "Drestin Black", one of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propa-
>] ganda spammers, has been posting dozens of articles to
>] c.o.l.a yapping that some Linux folks here don't know much
>] about SCSI. Presumably he's doing it because he's been
>] instructed to trash up the newsgroup with as many useless
>] posts as possible every day, so that people who come here to
>] find out about Linux, and who don't use a threaded news-
>] reader or put him in the killfile, will get frustrated and
>] go away without learning about Linux and so will stay with
>] Microsoft Windows.
Linux,Windows,whatever is a small, insignificant fly in the ointment
compared to what your real agenda is.
>It's pretty clear that this is one of the spammer gang's major
>tactics; certainly it's one of the most obvious characteristics
>of what they do. "Drestin Black", Stephen Edwards, "Sponge",
>"S", "Steve"/"teknite"/etc., "Chad Mulligan" -- all of them
>have posted thousands of articles containing no real content
>whatsoever -- often followups quoting an entire previous arti-
>cle and adding one vicious insult. A casual reader encounter-
>ing this flood of garbage and nastiness might easily reject the
>entire newsgroup, and thus not be exposed to Linux advocacy.
>Of course, this is exactly what Microsoft wants to happen.
I suggest everyone take a good look at Bone-Smoking Mark's posts which are
all signed by the way.
Just don't bend over to pick up that dropped quarter.
>Incidentally, Microsoft has just adopted another strategy to
>deal with the huge amount of criticism it's getting in Usenet:
>It's eliminating Usenet access for all the customers of its
>MSN division -- a major Internet service provider.
Hopefully you are included so we will be spared from your deviant crap.
>Power corrupts, and Microsoft has far too much of it.
And you have so very little :(
>
>* The list of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda spammers
>operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and past (includ-
>ing multiple fake names used by the same person). Some of
>them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month, each:
You're posts are in the 10's of thousands. GOD knows, and I am sure he
does, how you have the time to type in the detailed leftwing crap you do.
>"Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Stephen Edwards, Jeff Szarka,
>Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/etc., "Sarek",
>"mcswain", Erik Funkenbusch, "Chad Mulligan", "S", "Sponge",
>Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies, Boris, "Cuor di Mela",
>"ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "boobaabaa",
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com)", etc.
Great bunch of folks.
Not a Bone smoking fella amongst them....
Take a look a Drestin's wife some time....
>Is Microsoft behind most of this high-volume pro-Microsoft/
>anti-Linux propaganda barrage? There are good reasons to
>think so:
Take a look at your shit BILK...
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-121243.html?tag=st.cn..
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991018-000017.html
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween
>
Steve....Why I did this I will never know......
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:39:54 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:37:05 -0600,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8940np$5pc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Whats Linux got to do with it?
>
>Well, seeing as how mr_rupert was a linux troll, not unlike yourself,
>he made it relevant.
>
>> They have had several years to do this and have been incapable of doing it.
>
>s/incapable/unwilling/ They knew it was going to be a huge undertaking,
>and they wanted to wait until Win2K came out. What's the point of migrating
>it to NT, just to turn around and upgrade it to Win2K. Why not just wait
>and do it all lock-stock-barrel.
>
So you're saying that it'd be tough to migrate from NT4 to W2K ?
where does that leave the folks currently running NT4 servers?
Sounds like there's no point to them putting the effort into an
NT4>W2k changeover.
>> If they want to have companies to use W2K, then they must show that their
>> own high volume sites can run on NT/W2K.
>
>They do. www.microsoft.com, many of the msn.com related sites, as well as
>many high volume, high profile sites like Dell, Barnes and Noble, etc
>all run on it. All of those get many more hits than hotmail.com does.
So why is hotmail not running it?
>Chad
>Friends don't let friends use Linux
>
>
(It occurs to me, that M$ slogan of "it just works" is jumbled,
it should read "It works, just")
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:50:59 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:28:03 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>What I see here is nothing but denies and rerouting and backpedeling. People
>are asking you to prove ANY of your assersions. Where is your mystical ping
>attack? Where is proof that MS didnt' modify the solaris stack for hotmail?
>Where is any knowledge of SCSI other than throwing the word "differential"
>around and being suprised that you could have more than 7 devices per
>"chain"
Why would M$ modify the TCP/IP stack in solaris for Hotmail? they
didn't buy hotmail until after it was running on Solaris.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Brian M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:06:25 -0000
Ivehadit!!! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Okay, we all know windows sucks!!!!
Ahh. Well ...whatever.
> But I still have to use it for some stuff...
>
> Right now I'm surfing the net and I have several Netscapes running.
> What this shit program keeps doing is, if I'm in one netscape and I
> click on something, instead of waiting I'll go to another netscape and
> start reading something there, but then the other page will "pop"
> up...
>
> I don't want this to happen, version 3.04 didn't do this, if I can't
> fix this...well I guess I'm through with Netcrap...
There is a concept in windows , and most operating systems, called the
'input focus'. There are advisory 'good habit' documents given to windows
programmers. If Netshit wants to grab the focus via unnecessary calls, and
the OS (in this case Windows) complies, it is of course the fault of
Microsoft. Lets face it, you might as well switch to linux..and
erm..netscape..
Wait a minute..you had a point..right?
No?
So your point is that the only company to write a decent html client for
linux makes crap calls in windows, so you thought you would write to a linux
advocacy ng to complain .. about Microsoft, because the netscape programmers
make crap OS calls, and the OS complies?
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
