Linux-Advocacy Digest #373, Volume #25 Thu, 24 Feb 00 09:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Hobbyist)
Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience) ("Nils Stuart")
Re: Chad Myers and FUD (was: An Open Letter to Microsoft Customers on Windows 2000
("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Giving up on NT (Craig Kelley)
Re: Giving up on NT (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: Giving up on NT (Donn Miller)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Craig Kelley)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Donn Miller)
Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm... (Dr Yassam)
Re: trying to access a dos partition ("xxx")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Rob Hughes")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hobbyist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:39:23 -0500
petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> This expectation cannot be lowered, especially since Microsoft
> is promoting Windows 2000 as the 'most advanced software
> product' ever.
You're beginning to sound like a broken record. Have you
ever heard of advertising??? Welcome to earth. It is extremely common
for products to be advertised as being 'the best'. Are you going to
continue to be 'anal' and childish about this product promotional
statement?
To take it even further, if it were indeed the best, would
that mean that it's perfect? IOW, be a little more mature about the
whole issue.
> I have been spending a lot of time on Sun machines, so my
> expectations from an enterprise OS are apparently a little
> higher than yours. You DOS people are so used to rebooting and
> reinstalling and reconfiguring that you are apparently willing
> to shrug off what seems like major defects to me.
If your system could not be configured at all to run, the
way it's setup, with win2K, then we could consider it a major defect.
Many posters here have outlined repeatedly that you should have
anticipated the problem with what you were doing and make the
necessary changes. Win2K may not handle it the way that you are so
'spoilt brattishly' whining about, but it will handle it if you know
how to do it.
You know, I have read before that one of the biggest
problems with Unix sysadmins and Windows is that they come to windows
expecting it to work like Unix and if it doesn't then it must be crap
instead of just being different. You are a classic example of this in
action.
> > If you really want to fix it, fine. If you just want to bash
> > windows because you don't understand what you're doing, go
> > away.
>
> Yes, I want to fix it and have. But I also want to criticize
> Windows 2000 for this major defect. Are you saying I shouldn't?
> Is this, or is this not an advocacy newsgroup? Hello?
>
> Are you or are you not interested in debating whether Windows
> 2000 is ready for the enterprise? Do you or do you not consider
> the ability to handle SCSI IDs a feature an enterprise OS
> should have? Do you or do you not agree that Microsoft's claim
> that Windows 2000 is the 'most advanced software product' ever
> is hogwash?
You are NOT interested in debating anything. You're just
being a troll.
<grumble> Clearly education has nothing to do with maturity
or exercising basic common sense or pragmatism. </grumble>
--
-=Ali M.=-
------------------------------
From: "Nils Stuart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:43:14 GMT
> >> > > For this discussion here, PPT = parallel port...
> >> > >
> >> > <snip>
> >> > > So, how much faster exactly is a SCSI over a PPT scanner? I'm
> >> > > guessing not by much.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Exactly? I do not know, but anecdotally I'd say at least 3 times
based
> >on
> >> > the results of just playing with a few here and there.
> >>
> >> At least.
> >>
> >> SCSI is also *much* faster than USB scanners, in my experience.
> >
> >Yes, it is. But I will admit USB scanners have impressed me with their
live
> >plug'n'play ability and relatively decent speed and low overhead.
Plugging a
> >scanner into your laptap can be useful sometimes.
>
> What? You Win32 power users don't have network access
> to scanner hardware yet... <snicker>
Some of us don't chain our users to the central office
In a distributed environment sometime a distributed solution is best
I just wouldn't do to have the sales/ marketing types fed-ex the things they
want scanned to to AA have her load it into the lexmark t-612 and so
forth....
A simpler solution is a cheap USB for the HO /Road they can connect and
send in the "vital" lit via fax /mail/ or file tx over any common carrier
not so vital can come via snail, scan, index and distribute as required
Sounds like your company is stuck in the late industrial age
Your CTO should get it together
It is much more cost effective for us to enter meat space only as required
Travel costs are lower.... commute time are 0. Perhaps you can lead the
effort @ your company to enter in the latter half of the 20th century.
> |||
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
>
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chad Myers and FUD (was: An Open Letter to Microsoft Customers on Windows
2000
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:16:52 +0100
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >It's not ? If a you're running your computer and the filesystem takes a
hit,
>
> No. Most OSes aren't in the habit of constantly keeping core
> system files open for writting. If I'm going to toast something
> powering off Linux (or any other Unix) it's likely going to be
> something in /var or some other part of the system that is
> written to on a regular basis.
>
> The most I've ever lost from powering off my Linux machines
> is the system log: /var/log/messages.
Let's just say that I'm a very lucky guy, I've been running around with open
core system files for almost 4 years on different Win9x boxes, and I, and
any of the people I [personnally know using Wind9x boxes] have yet to
experience all the gloom and doom.
<SNIP> Some more stuff </SNIP>
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:27:00 +0100
fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Actually I heard Microsoft was migrating hotmail to Linux.
It's joke, isn't it ? Do you really think that Microsoft would go from
Solaris/BSD to Linux ? What would be the point of that ? If they are to
migrate the thing, I think it will be to Win2K.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Feb 2000 06:18:00 -0700
Mark Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Ritchie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:knowbodies-5DAB40.18395623022000@news...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Actually, as much as I hate to admit it, QuickTime 4 has one of the
> >> >> most advanced feature sets of all the current players.
> >> >
> >> >If only you could get rid of that damn annoying "You should upgrade to
> >> >the Pro Version" nagware splash.
> >>
> >> You can. Just set your system's date to about the year 2010 and then
> >> run QT. Then set your system time back to normal and it shouldn't show
> >> up again until the year 2010.
> >
> >but you don't get access to the pro features...
>
> And he didn't ask for the pro features. He just wanted to get rid of
> the nagware splash. Besides I was quite confident that someone else
> would suggest how he could pirate QT Pro.
I don't belive in piracy. People who pirate commercial software are
hypocrites, seeing the wide availablilty of freeware.
Your 2010 work-around was great. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Feb 2000 06:21:14 -0700
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:891eus$9j5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Apple has nothing to gain by wasting time implementing anything
> > > > better than
> > > > a "good enough" version of QT on Windows. On Windows, QT is really
> > > > nothing
> > > > more than a movie player, and has never even really excelled at that
> > > > (on
> > > > Windows).
> > >
> > > Actually, as much as I hate to admit it, QuickTime 4 has one of the
> > > most advanced feature sets of all the current players.
> >
> > If only you could get rid of that damn annoying "You should upgrade to
> > the Pro Version" nagware splash.
>
> You can.
>
> Pay for it.
>
> > The more I use commercial software, the more I loathe it.
>
> That's funny, the more I use free software like Linux, the more I wish
> for professional level work.
That's funny because the only reason I even have to use QuickTime is
because of the proprietary lock-in sorensen codec. If commercial
sofware is so much better by merit alone, then why not compete with
merit instead of crap like this?
Why is Apple using open source software for Darwin?
They couldn't do "professional level work" for MacOS X? Give me a
break.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:39:15 +0100
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> Sounds like Microsoft. Didn't MS take "bits and pieces" of FreeBSD
> 3.2's TCP/IP stack for use in Windows 2000? I've seen this discussion
> on FreeBSD's mailing list.
>
> I believe it, too. Windows engineers just don't "cut the mustard", so
Ah. I fondly recall that thread where one guy, just went blah blah blah,
Windows programmers are sub-par, blah, blah, blah made a fool of himself by
taking on Sang K Choe, who happens/ed to work at MS.
Mr Choe proceeded at pointing at all the flaws at the other guy's
programming knowledge. It was priceless. :)
> they had to cut a piece of the TCP/IP stack of a high quality OS like
> FreeBSD. Microsoft probably doesn't like the GPL license, so they
> decided to "embrace and extend" an OS with the BSD license, which
> allows more "embracing and extend". There's an aweful lot of
> embracing and extending going on over in Redmond, isn't there?
Heh, reinventing the wheel can be a time consuming process. :)
<SNIP> Some more stuff </SNIP>
> - Donn
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:22:13 -0500
On 24 Feb 2000, Craig Kelley wrote:
> I don't belive in piracy. People who pirate commercial software are
> hypocrites, seeing the wide availablilty of freeware.
Agreed -- we're lucky we have the freeware version of Qt. Lucky for us,
Troll decided to release Qt under both free and commercial licenses,
depending on our needs. A lot of companies would agree to this, and it's
probably the reason Motif isn't more popular. (Although Lesstif is a
great alternative.)
- Donn
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Feb 2000 06:28:49 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >It is a difficult problem. UNIX is up-front with the user, Windows
> >and MacOS hide it and then certain applications start "acting funny";
> >hence fun tools like "Conflict Catcher" and "First Aid".
>
> But Linux is not UNIX, unfortunately. I'd love to have the UNIX
> aproach, but the Linux aproach is braindead.
Linux certainly behaves like UNIX (if are a pedigree bigot) in this
regard. If you don't believe me, then explain how Linux differs from
"real" UNIX (whatever that is) for library support.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Feb 2000 06:32:24 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) writes:
>
> >Hmm. I don't know what flavour of Linux you've used, but it's clear it's
> >not one that handles dependencies very well. A sensible distribution
> >will handle your library problems transparently. Of course, third-party
> >software that hasn't been packaged for your distribution won't have this
> >convenience,
>
> There is no such thing as a Linux OS! There is RedHat Linux,
> SUSE-Linux, debian Linux, and lots of other. Face it, Linux already
> has fragmented.
>
> This will kill Linux, because if you want to support Linux, you have
> to support more than a hand foll of operating systems, that only
> differ slightly. And although you officially are supporting Linux, you
> are not supporting all thos linux systems, that are not just installed
> from CD, but self compiled.
Oh? Like Windows 95, 98, NT4, NT4/Alpha, NT2k, and the CE variants?
Or MacOS/68k, MacOS/PPC, Carbon, Cocoa?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 13:35:28 +0000
>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> And the existence of the university is proof that intellectual
Mark> property need not be subject to arbitrary scarcity
Mark> restrictions to be fit into a capitalist economy. The fact
Mark> that my math teacher does not "own" the algorithms necessary
Mark> to solve a set of equations does not mean that his knowledge
Mark> has no market value. And, if she is one of the great minds of
Mark> our time and solves a previously insoluble problem, she will
Mark> publish the results and receive due reward -- without the need
Mark> to patent her algorithm and restrict its use.
Ah were this the case.
Sadly it is not. Your maths teacher might not own the patent
she has produced but you can be damn sure that the university
does. Its a recurrent problem that I have working in the university
sector. I dont mind not owning the IPR on the stuff that I
produce. What does really really piss me off is that my employers do
own the IPR and can therefore prevent me distributing freely my
work. I cant even guarentee to be able to use my own work once I
change university. How stupid is this?
I try and use the GPL as a way around this. My GPLing my
own work, I can guarentee myself that I can use it later on. Of course
this requires the copyright holders (which isnt me) to give permission
to GPL work. At the moment you can often get this if you try hard
enough, but as soon as the uni's realise that they corporate arms have
lost any money over it, this will go out the window also. And with it
of course much of my ability to do the job which the university pay me
to do in the first place.
Its a mixed up muddled up shook up world....
Phil
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:36:37 -0500
"Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah. I fondly recall that thread where one guy, just went blah blah blah,
> Windows programmers are sub-par, blah, blah, blah made a fool of himself by
> taking on Sang K Choe, who happens/ed to work at MS.
>
> Mr Choe proceeded at pointing at all the flaws at the other guy's
> programming knowledge. It was priceless. :)
Reminds me of the time I was ripping into Bjarne Stroup's book on
comp.lang.c++, or whatever the group was called. Much to my shock,
Bjarne himself responded to my message. :) I was going to rip into his
book a little more, but for some odd reason, I restrained myself.
Man, am I glad I did that -- I would've been really embarrassed. =)
(It could've been an imposter, but I think he was the real deal.)
[I wrote:]
> > they had to cut a piece of the TCP/IP stack of a high quality OS like
> > FreeBSD. Microsoft probably doesn't like the GPL license, so they
> > decided to "embrace and extend" an OS with the BSD license, which
> > allows more "embracing and extend". There's an aweful lot of
> > embracing and extending going on over in Redmond, isn't there?
>
> Heh, reinventing the wheel can be a time consuming process. :)
That's pretty much how a lot of software gets "created" -- you pretty
much just use an existing piece of software for a template and go from
there. So, if one is going to write a book on programming with
examples, that person better double check his programming examples. A
lot of software engineers, I think, take pieces of certain textbooks'
examples, and use them in their own code. So, if your code sucks, the
"trickle down" effect will cause a whole bunch of bad software to be
written. :-/ I think mlw said something to this effect... he feels
that Petzold's book has some not-so-good examples, and that
programmers that he's seen are creating "bad" programs based on the
"bad" examples from his book.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Dr Yassam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm...
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:33:22 GMT
> > He also believes PCs will be few and far between with 4-5 years (hey
> > come on, stop laughing!), and that the PS2 graphics is based on
> > some new rendering technology rather than polygons. :)
>
> Asserting yourself doesn't make me the fool. If you have some URLs
> or data to share then we'd all appreciate a good laugh at my
> expense.
I have provided more than sufficient URL's within this thread to support
my arguements (check out the messages I posted yesterday!).
You have also failed to respond to the points I've just raised (my
apologies for the tone of that message).
> My motives are academic. I enjoy reading about technology trends.
> In this case the trends contradict your opinons based on a reliable
> if not dull predictive technique - persistence.
I also enjoy reading about technology and technology trends. But whilst
you prefer persistence, I prefer FACTS! Thats the main difference. In
otherwords you have a viewpoint which you persistently attempt to prove
by focusing ONLY on data which you believe supports it (and ignoring the
rest). In contrast, I prefer to gather as much information as I can,
past and present, for and against etc, and forming my opinions on that
basis only.
There are many issues regarding technology and the computing industry
that I don't like personally, but I accept it. Putting your head in the
sand and pretending something is not true will not change anything, you
only do yourself a disservice.
Also, if I have a viewpoint which is proven to be wrong, I WELCOME BEING
CORRECTED. I'm have NEVER been afraid to admit I was wrong, and see it
as a _valuable_ learning experience (if embarassing at times). When this
has happened to me, my respect and thanks went out to the poster who
corrected my error. However, I cannot respect the views of those who
stubbornly stick to believing something just because they WANT IT TO BE
TRUE rather than because it IS. Unfortunately, your comments on many
aspects of the Wintel PC often falls into this category (as seen in this
thread).
Perhaps you've spent so long defending OS/2 against unfair attacks from
hordes of ill-informed MS-Windows users that you've blinded yourself to
the many great aspects of Wintel based PCs(?). If so, then I can
understand some of your resentment, but it's time to move on! That's not
to say you must suddenly fall in love with Microsoft (who does? :)), but
as a technology fan you should attempt to put your prejudices aside and
take a more unbiased and a more level view towards software/hardware
(you learn far more that way). Not easy and not always possible, but a
worthy goal IMO.
Note: My apologies if the above comes across as patronising, but atleast
think about it.
> Personally I don't think home users are going to want to run an OS
> at home that costs $300 and was designed for corporate use.
Naturally, WinNT wasn't for the home user either. Instead Win9X is the
OS for home PCs. Microsoft have recommended that home users should wait
for WinME instead (the successor to Win9x) rather than Win2K. Yes, Win2K
was originally suppose to be the successor to WinNT/95/98, but in fact
it is now just the successor to WinNT (again predominently for corporate
use), with WinME for home users.
Dr Yassam
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "xxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: trying to access a dos partition
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:43:25 +0200
If I understand correctly the hda1 partition was set on your previous
install. This could have changed, so try hda0 to hda6 or something. I had a
very similar situation, and my DOS (Windows 9x) partition ended up at hda5.
I mounted it not at all often, so I manually mounted it with: mount -t vfat
/dev/hda5 /mnt/dos
Hope this is some help... I am no partition wiz. I only have some experience
with a similar situation, so do not ask me how it works - lol ;)
Cheers
Nico.
Jim Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi everyone. Here's the problem:
>
> I decided to reinstall Mandrake 7 while working in it one day, so I
> inserted the CDROM, restarted, and off it went without trouble. At
> the time I restarted, I had booted into Linux using Boot Magic, and
> Boot Magic was set to hide the hda1 partition from Linux. (Hda1 is my
> c:\ partition in Windows. The default setting in BM is to hide all
> non-active boot partitions from the active operating system.) As a
> result, the installer didn't make hda1 available to Linux. I have
> sinced changed the visibility setting in BM, but I still can't find
> the partition to mount it. I would expect it to show up in the drop
> down box in the DrakConf/Linuxconf/File Systems/Local File Systems/Add
> screen, but it doesn't.
>
> If you're put off by all the Boot Magic stuff, please consider this:
> If you were to use fdisk or Partition Magic or a like tool to hide a
> partition, then you installed Mandrake, then you un-hid the partition,
> how would you make Linux aware that it could now allow the partition
> to be used?
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Jim
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 13:47:11 +0000
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donovan> The ideas were opened up, yes. But their main products were
Donovan> ideas / inventions. This is *NOT* the same as copyrighted
Donovan> works. ( Hint: you can't copyright an idea )
The key difference between patent and copyright though is
reasonable restrictions. If I write something and want to charge a
insane sum for it, then tough there is nothing that you can do. Its my
copyright. This is not true with patents. A nice example I heard for
instance is if I invented a fantastic new door bell, and then decided
that you could not buy the bell without also purchasing the house
attached to it, this would be legally challengable.
The problem with all this "reasonable" shit, is that to a
large extent being "reasonable" actually equates to "my lawyers are
bigger than your lawyers". Hence it is now consider reasonable for
someone to own the patent on one of my genes. The people who worked
out how to clone, manipulate and sequence DNA incidentally released
all of their stuff public domain. The problem is compounded by the
fact that most of the judges ruling on these issues are technically
incompentant. The DeCSS case will not doubt help to demonstrate this
again.
What I am saying is that the theoretical distinction between
copyright and patent, as well as the initial justification for both of
these falls far short of the reality.
Phil
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:50:35 -0600
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > As has been stated earlier, w2k only uses the scsi syntax if
> > you have more than two *fixed* disks AND you install to an ID
> > above 1.
>
> Why? This is either a bug or a design flaw, isn't it?
No. Its well understood behaviour. Its also very thouroughly documented.
> > 2k installed exactly as it should have.
>
> Why do you think this is how Windows 2000 should have configured
> my system? This is a bug as far as I can see. If you don't agree
> please explain the justification for not using the scsi() syntax.
Read the docs. Isn't that what people usually say?
> > You're the one who failed to take into consideration the
> > changes adding and removing the external device (turning it on
> > and off counts) would cause in your system.
>
> But this is a basic expectation I have from a SCSI system. Why
> do you think SCSI IDs exist? Turning a SCSI device on or off
> did not change the SCSI ID of the drive on which I installed
> Windows 2000. So it should have booted fine.
Not necassarily. Just because it doesn't work the way you expect doesn't
mean there's anything wrong with 2k. This is akin to me expecting a menu to
pop up when I click the left button because that's what I expect and calling
it a bug when it doesn't.
> This expectation cannot be lowered, especially since Microsoft
> is promoting Windows 2000 as the 'most advanced software
> product' ever.
>
> I have been spending a lot of time on Sun machines, so my
> expectations from an enterprise OS are apparently a little
> higher than yours. You DOS people are so used to rebooting and
> reinstalling and reconfiguring that you are apparently willing
> to shrug off what seems like major defects to me.
Really? Me too. I also work with HP boxes a lot. My expectations are pretty
high as well. But I don't expect the PC based stuff to work exactly like a
Solaris machine. There are differences and I understand that.
> > If you really want to fix it, fine. If you just want to bash
> > windows because you don't understand what you're doing, go
> > away.
>
> Yes, I want to fix it and have. But I also want to criticize
> Windows 2000 for this major defect. Are you saying I shouldn't?
> Is this, or is this not an advocacy newsgroup? Hello?
Its only a defect in your mind.
> Are you or are you not interested in debating whether Windows
> 2000 is ready for the enterprise? Do you or do you not consider
> the ability to handle SCSI IDs a feature an enterprise OS
> should have? Do you or do you not agree that Microsoft's claim
> that Windows 2000 is the 'most advanced software product' ever
> is hogwash?
I'll reiterate: no sane admin would set up a server or enterprise
workstation the way you did. If you screwed the pooch during setup and now
want to blame it the OS, fine. But don't expect anyone to listen. Go back
and install 2k to your second fixed disk with the JAZ drive active as a
fixed disk. The system will now recognize that it needs to use the scsi
syntax during install making your point moot because it will then work as
you want.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
