Linux-Advocacy Digest #440, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 11:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (phil hunt)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (phil hunt)
Re: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption (Greg Copeland)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Angelos Karageorgiou)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Joe Ragosta)
64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm... ("Todd")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:27:18 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89fo7b$ffi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
> >>
> >> Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
> >> *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit
address
> >> spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
>
> >MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs
on
> >64 bit processors right now.
>
> They have a 64 bit OS *in development*. You can't buy it, I can't buy it.
> When making purchase decisions, 64 bit NT does not come into it.
Well... let's think about this. it's the same OS with some parameters
"stretched" and expanded and runs on particular hardware. Is there that much
difference that you can't base a part of your evaluation on shipping
versions of W2K right now?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:28:35 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89fklv$1toe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:89eujs$q0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > And you are CERTAIN of the ship dates for Intel and AMDs 64-bit chips
??
> >>
> >> > You mean like when Intel released the 733 Piiis 6 months ahead of
> > schedule?
> >>
> >> Intel has been running a losing race with AMD for quite some time. The
> > release
> >> date of the Intel chip will be directly dependant on the release date
of
> > AMDs.
>
> > You fool - don't you realize what you yourself admit. The REASON Intel
CAN
> > make their release dates dependent on release dates of AMDs is because
the
> > chips are done and ready they just wait for AMD to come out with
something
> > and then they just trump them. Don't you read? Haven't you noticed this
> > happening over and over and over and over. Show me once when AMD has had
the
> > faster processor out for more than a month.
>
> Actually, having been shopping for a new motherboard and processor for
> my home machine, ive noticed that athlons have had an average of 50mhz
> on pentium IIIs for quite a while.
>
> www.pricewatch.com
>
> As of right now, the latest *consumer available* athlon processor is
850mhz.
> AFAIK, the fastest PIII is 800mhz, and is on average, about 200 dollars
more.
>
> > Oh, and did we mention actually
> > available for purchase as opposed to back ordered? You go and try to get
one
> > of those latest AMDs - and keep waiting and waiting and waiting...
>
> Both Accubyte and Paragon Technology, Inc. had athlon 850s available for
> shipment at 4pm, EST today.
>
If Accubyte has athlon 850s shipping today then I'm wrong - but last
thursday they did not and did not have any expected shipdate.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:29:39 -0500
sigh ...
forget it ...
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89fkto$1toe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:89evc9$q0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> I'm sitting 1000 feet away from a machine running solaris that can kick
> >> the ass of anything that you're running NT on, guaranteed.
>
> > Guaranteed eh?
>
> > So, you bring your solaris box and I'll bring my NT box and we pick a
> > benchmark and winner takes all??
>
> Its not mine, and I'd need a semi to haul it.
>
> > Care to run a TPC benchmark? Webspec99 benchmark? SAP? Hell, wanna run
the
> > Oracle $1million challenge (I can provide the terrabytes of data from a
> > warehouse, can you?)
>
> Nope. Whitepaper is quite clear enough.
>
> > Better yet - why don't you materialize that magical ping attack and take
my
> > W2K box down in 7 seconds flat? Remember that lie - the one that
introduced
> > you to this world? We all do.
>
> Why dont you come up with your little 'c' webserver?
>
> > yea pook - remember, you just work there, it ain't your stuff ('cept for
the
> > stuff you leech and pocket but we won't go into that)...
>
> Wise, but becoming very, very stupid.
>
> > unlike me; I own
> > it.
>
> Uh huh. Just like that viper.
>
>
>
>
> p0ok
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:40:09 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I'm still not clear how this is Microsoft's fault? Microsoft and
> >3rd parties saw early on that Alpha wasn't demanded. Microsoft
> >held in there and kept producing their latest server software
> >for Alpha, perhaps in the hope that 3rd parties would jump in
> >too. They never did, so Microsoft gave up too. No use dumping
> >money when neither the consumers nor the 3rd party ISV's don't
> >want it.
> >
>
>
> Could that be because the nature of NT-Alpha was a 32 bit OS
> pretending to be a 64bit OS? Why would you waste a 64 bit system,
> on what was a 32 bit OS?
Exactly, that's just another reason for MS to can the Alpha dev
in the short term. Perhaps when they have Win64, there will be
renewed interest. I know that the Alphas were a big help in the
development and testing of the preliminary Win64 spec before
the Merc *cough* Itanium hit silicon.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:44:15 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Feb 2000 22:09:39 +0000, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donovan> There are certainly tougher, and nastier schemes that the
> Donovan> industry could come up with if they cared that much. And
> Donovan> not all consumers would be prepared to use the "cracking
> Donovan> software" because it would be largely regarded as morally
> Donovan> questionable.
>
> I find this dubious. How many people do you know how wont
>pirate M$ software because they find it morally questionable.
Few. But that's because MS are seen as a bunch of shits.
In the 1940's J. R. R. Tolkien was faced with the problem that because
of a legal nicety, some of his books were copyright-free and a company
was publishing them without paying him any money. He began a campaign
of telling his readers by word-of-mouth not to by that company's version
ofd his books -- and he was successful. of course, if the Internet had
been around then, he'd have been even more successful at getting his
message across.
> It might
>legally be considered theft but I can think of almost no one who
>does. Of course it depends on the size of the firm (or artist for
>other copyright works). This shows a moral decision, but I dont think the
>large multinationals are going to benefit from it.
Good. They are typically a bunch of shits (at least, the multinationals
that deal in "intellctual property" often are).
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 00:49:34 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Feb 2000 22:15:01 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:05:18 GMT, NF Stevens wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>>This example is fatally flawed, since in the UK at least, car "theft"
>>is a specific crime (taking and driving away, TDA). Theft requires the
>
>Are you saying that taking someone else's car for a joyride is not a crime ?
No, he isn't saying that. He's saying it isn't *theft* it is *taking and
driving away*.
(My understanding is that that crimne is now TWOC i.e. "Taking Without
Owner's Consent")
>
>>Furthermore, until quite recently, squatting and trespass were not
>>_criminal_ offences.
>
>Ah huh. I'd also agree that there shouldn't be criminal penalties for
>copyright infringement.
IMNO there should be criminal penalties if it is commercial (i.e.
someone is earning their living doing it). But for non-commercial
activities, e.g. taping a friend's CD, it should be a civil matter
with the copyright holder entitled to sue for revenue lost (this
implies it would be an allowable defence to say "I wasn't prepareed to
buy it for ther cost of a CD, so the copyright holder has lost nothing")
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: 29 Feb 2000 13:55:54 GMT
In article <38b27da7$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ elided ]
OK, who's the dolt that's reposting my messages? There seems to be a
problem with personalnews.de.uu.net (or one of the systems connecting
to it) and I'd appreciate it if it was cleared up!
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT - Hmmm...
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:10:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:23:09 +0800
<89fh6l$633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Michael Wand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Träger) writes:
>>
>> > Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Joseph, (why is it that only your messages don't get automatically
>quoted?
>> > > :)
>> >
>> > He uses
>> >
>> > X-Newsreader: Mozilla/3.0 (compatible; StarOffice/5.1; OS/2)
>> >
>> > and you use
>> >
>> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
>> >
>> > I've noticed this before, for some reason OE has problems with posts
>> > made with StarOffice. And before somebody (again) puts the blame on SO,
>> > no other newsreader seems to have these problems.
>>
>> MSOE does not quote messages that are encoded with quoted-printable.
>
>Hi, just what is 'quoted-printable' anyway?
RFC 2045, section 6.7.
It's the one with the equals signs. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who had been wondering about the particulars himself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:15:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:58:54 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> comp.sys.mac.advocacy removed from newsgroups. Not that I have
>> anything against Macs, but this thread doesn't seem to be
>> going there. :-)
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on 28 Feb 2000 17:50:07 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:59:16 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>The design still supports it.
>> >
>> >Fat lot of good that does for the consumer.
>>
>> Most consumers are going to be on x86 equipment.
>> The power user is going to be the one who will want the
>> weird, the oddball, the slightly offbeat -- for example,
>> I have a Sparc running Linux, and wouldn't mind getting
>> a G4/PPC machine, either. (With a network card, of course.)
>>
>> But Joe Blow just wants to plug in and go. And that
>> means Intel-compatible, for the most part.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if the IA-64 can run Win2K/64 or
>> whatever it's called, though. I suspect that Microsoft is
>> *not* going to abandon the 64-bit server market; too much
>> money in it! :-) And that's the logical place for that beastie,
>> short term.
>>
>
>W2K/64 has already been successfully run on IA-64 silicon. :)
Well, there you go. :-) With that sort of power, Microsoft can
make oodles more money....
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- is this a good thing?
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:55:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:89eujs$q0j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > And you are CERTAIN of the ship dates for Intel and AMDs 64-bit chips
> > > ??
> >
> > > You mean like when Intel released the 733 Piiis 6 months ahead of
> schedule?
> >
> > Intel has been running a losing race with AMD for quite some time. The
> release
> > date of the Intel chip will be directly dependant on the release date
> > of
> AMDs.
>
> You fool - don't you realize what you yourself admit. The REASON Intel
> CAN
> make their release dates dependent on release dates of AMDs is because
> the
> chips are done and ready they just wait for AMD to come out with
> something
> and then they just trump them. Don't you read? Haven't you noticed this
What a stupid argument.
PC sales growth is slowing (single digit in a lot of cases). If Intel
could release a much faster chip than they currently sell, they could
get a lot of people to upgrade their computers sooner than otherwise. In
effect, Intel has two competitors--AMD and the consumer's existing
computer.
If Intel's current chip is only 30% faster than the current computer, x
number of people will upgrade. If it's 50-60% faster, more people will
upgrade. And that's not even considering the sales they've lost to AMD
(have you seen AMD's market share recently?)
There's no conceivable scenario where Intel benefits from not releasing
their fastest chips--even at a big price premium.
But it doesn't surprise me when clueless people who don't understand
business cook up wierd stories like this.
> happening over and over and over and over. Show me once when AMD has had
> the
> faster processor out for more than a month. Oh, and did we mention
> actually
> available for purchase as opposed to back ordered? You go and try to get
> one
> of those latest AMDs - and keep waiting and waiting and waiting...
Gee. Just like trying to get one of those latest Intel chips.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:09:19 GMT
In article <JbGu4.3115$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Microsoft is a corporation, they have to make money. If there was
> > > money
> > > to be made in Alpha, they would've kept it.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Then perhaps you can explain why they gave MSIE away when their costs
> > were very, very real. They obviously didn't care whether they made
> > money
> > on MSIE or not.
>
> Of course, the thing is, they didn't need to charge for IE, because they
> use IE in many different applications for many different things. Having
> a robust application like IE allows them to get many miles out it. They
> save so much time by using what IE already has, or by only having to make
> minor modifications (as opposed to designing a whole new type of
> interface)
> that they save time and money. IE pays for itself several times over.
>
Nonsense.
Total, unadulterated nonsense.
MSIE cost Microsoft a lot. It seems to be a major factor in introducing
instabilities into the system. Yet they give it away.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption
Date: 29 Feb 2000 09:07:50 -0600
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[some stuff trimmed]
> >Greg Wrote:
> > Hmmm... Almost everyone I know, including extreme Windows people are
> > taking a wait and see position. Generally, they tell me that they want
> > to wait for the first two or three service packs to come out and let
> > other people field the problems that are sure to shake out with new
> > product that is that complex and has that much change at one time.
> > Rightfully so. I personally would fire anyone that brought W2K in for
> > critical system. If it had to be NT, it would be NT 4.0+SPs or else I'd
> > walk them out the door. That's called gross negligence and incompetence
> > no matter what product it is.
>
> First: Anytime I here this: "Wait for one or three SPs" I laugh outloud. Who
> are they fooling? Tell me anyone that waited for 3 SPs from NT4 before
> installing? Who waits a year? Especially cause SPs are different for W2K
> than they were for previous NT versions.
>
> Also, go ahead and fire then - send them to me. We're using W2K right now
> (and have been) in the most mission critical applications you can imagine.
> Why? Cause they work and working fucking great. We haven't been able to
> crash a server yet and they run faster on the same hardware. Bugs? If they
> are there, we haven't found them. Huge companies are racing to install W2K.
> You go ahead and wait a year... pick up your unemployeement check on the way
> out.
Hmmm. That's an interesting observation, but contrary to the position that
you've taken, EVERY survey that I've seen says that corporations are talking
a very long/slow wait-n-see stance with W2K. I'm glad to hear that it's
working well for you. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact that
it would be negligent and incompetent for choosing such a new and untested
product for a critical system. I would not have any problem with someone
installing and using it. The distinction I make now and then was that of
a critical system. If you can afford down time, it is, by definition, not
a critical system. If the company has little to no finacial loss because
the system went down, it is not a critical system. Now that I've stressed
that, anyone that uses W2K, as is, and doing so now, on a critical business
system is incompetent or overstating the importance of the server/applications.
I would not use W2K for a critical production system any more than I would
use the latest Linux devel kernel. Foolish is foolish. Period. Something
you seem to forget is that NT 4.0 is basically NT version 1.4. With W2K,
that makes it 2.0. There are significant changes in W2K down to the core
OS services. NT 4.0 was MOSTLY named 4.0 for pure marketing reasons and
could have easily been NT 3.6 (versus using Microsoft's pick-a-number
versioning/counting scheme).
Greg
------------------------------
From: Angelos Karageorgiou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:59:58 +0200
Bill Vermillion wrote:
> And the sad part is that there are 64bit processors out there that
> MS did support - but no longer.
>
> Remember when MS promoted NT as being cross-platform. Four
> supported processor families. Down to one now.
>
S'Ok , Linux and Netbsd run on just about every type of machine
available so it will not be an issue.
I can have my wristwtch, PDA , home pc , office server and corporate
server all on different CPUs and different BUSes and silicon, use
any OpenSource OS. Life can go on happily without chugging a penny
for inferior software :-)
I have being drooling over an 8 processor S/390 heavy metal machine !
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Angelos Karageorgiou - CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: +30 31 498104
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:20:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hobbyist
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> > > Microsoft is a corporation, they have to make money. If there was
> > > money
> > > to be made in Alpha, they would've kept it.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Then perhaps you can explain why they gave MSIE away when their costs
> > were very, very real. They obviously didn't care whether they made
> > money
> > on MSIE or not.
>
> Usership. Give MSIE away free and many will take it and use it.
>
> Give Alpha support away or at a loss means that not many will use it
> and this is evidenced by the lack of 3rd party support. Third party
> support is always good where the user flock.
Possibly, possibly not.
But that's a nice try at moving the goalposts. The post I responded to
said that MS is only interested in money-making propositions. My MSIE
example clearly disproved that.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 29 Feb 2000 15:30:23 GMT
In article <89fo31$fe8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>How's the Trillian Linux64 team doing?
>>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2431772,00.html
>
>>Hey! A public beta... but wait... when you start reading the
>>fine print, SMP has got a long way to go (gasp! I thought linux
>>was so well designed, it should've been a snap to get SMP working
>>in 64-bit, guess that hacked puke of SMP support in the Linux
>>kernel was a more hacked piece of puke than they thought).
It is Chad Myers' job to spew lies and hate against Linux, and
propaganda in favor of Microsoft, into comp.os.linux.advocacy
at every possible opportunity.
>Or you could fire up Babel and read this one:
>http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-28.02.00-001/
CeBIT-News
IA64 (Itanium) with Linux and Windows 2000
HEWLETT-PACKARD is showing two workstations with Intel's new
64-Bit processor in hall 21, location C34. The computers
are equipped with a dual processor board (however, with only
a 500-MHz processor) and a gigabyte of RAM. One workstation
is running Linux (kernel 2.3.46) in an already completely
functional port, with XFree86 and the window manager Window-
Maker. It also has 32-Bit emulation, for programs that
are not yet ported to the new architecture, which functions
perfectly: Netscape Communicator runs stably as a 32-Bit
program. However, numerous Linux applications that are
available as source code can already be compiled to a large
extent as 64-Bit programs.
On the second computer is the test version of a 64-bittigen
[?] Windows 2000 with an ACD PROGRAM to admire.
(odi/ c't)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 09:26:49 -0600
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <JbGu4.3115$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Of course, the thing is, they didn't need to charge for IE, because they
> > use IE in many different applications for many different things. Having
> > a robust application like IE allows them to get many miles out it. They
> > save so much time by using what IE already has, or by only having to make
> > minor modifications (as opposed to designing a whole new type of
> > interface)
> > that they save time and money. IE pays for itself several times over.
> >
>
> Nonsense.
No it's not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that
they use IE and it's features in just about every application they make,
saving them time and consequently money.
> MSIE cost Microsoft a lot. It seems to be a major factor in introducing
> instabilities into the system. Yet they give it away.
Now you're just speaking out of your ass, because you don't know what
you're talking about.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[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: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:47:28 +0800
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Hi, just what is 'quoted-printable' anyway?
>
> RFC 2045, section 6.7.
>
> It's the one with the equals signs. :-)
>
> [rest snipped]
Thanks, I'll check it out.
-Todd
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who had been wondering about the particulars himself
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
