Linux-Advocacy Digest #509, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 12:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Nathan S.
Grey")
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (Anthony Ord)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Nathan S.
Grey")
Re: Salary? (Jan Schaumann)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux is a lamer ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Colin Watson)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BSD & Linux (Daniel S. Riley)
Re: which OS is best? (Bob Lyday)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 08:10:30 -0700
Drestin Black wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Microsoft has the habit of "proving" that their products can handle the
> > job. Hotmail not running NT, by now, absolutely proves that MS can't do
> > it. When (if) Hotmail runs on NT, you can tell me I'm wrong, but at this
> > point in time, it is not like MS to not convert an acquisition to NT, so
> > there must be a problem in doing so.
>
> You'll find that this logic fails scrutiny. There are a billion reason why
> hotmail is not running NT right now. You've chosen your list but that is by
> no means exhaustive.
of course, it was a totally logical process by which 19th century scientists
determined that going faster than 50mph would kill a person........
>
>
> We can guess all we'd like but we'll not know until a fact presents itself.
>
> We can however make some logical conclusions.
>
> It's patently silly to suggest that NT (4 or 5, take your pick) cannot
> handle the load hotmail has. Sites much larger that hotmail.com run NT4 and
> now NT5 - so that is not the issue.
>
> hotmail is really nothing more than a large database application. Do I even
> need to mention that SQL Server is one of the most powerful database servers
> out there? IIS and SQL server work very nicely together.
as does SQL and Apache, not to mention Apache works well with DB/2, which is
also a fairly powerful database..........
>
>
> Think: you claim to be a programmer with windows knowledge and os knowledge.
> Think - what part of running hotmail.com do you think NT/IIS cannot handle?
> What specifically do you think is so special about hotmail that you think NT
> could not handle it? Try to be honest in your approach. Don't forget that
> pretty much all the leading e-commerce sites run NT/IIS and many of them are
> MUCH more complicated applications than hotmail.
>
> Given proof that NT/IIS has handled much larger/harder tasks than hotmail
> presents - I think it's safe to conclude it's not a technical issue that
> holds them back.
>
> Can you now allow youself to consider that there are _other_ issues? Perhaps
> something in the purchase agreement. Perhaps a purely political one. Perhaps
> something we simply have no knowledge of. PERHAPS MS plans to simply do away
> with hotmail and replace it with some form of MSN service? I mean - again,
> there are zillions of possibilites ... but to continue to blindly spue
> claims nt cannot handle hotmail is a display of pure ignorance. It reduces
> your credibility because it's very obvious to anyone with experience on the
> web that NT/IIS is in fact more than capable of handling even the largest
> web loads. Look at any list of biggest websites and you'll always find
> NT/IIS at or near the top. You can pretend but that won't change the facts.
ahhhhh..... but it is losing ground, to UNIX and Linux...........
>
>
> Finally... what will you be left to say when hotmail does run under w2k...
as usual, Drestin shows his circular logic, and "M$ is #1 now, and so always
will be" loop-tape thinking. Drestin, do us all a favor and take a titanium
crowbar, and pry your mind open. You may find life much more enjoyable than.
-NateGrey
Linux - Because cpu cycles are a terrible thing to waste.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 15:12:33 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 23:03:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The fact that it automatically finds the redundant files
>is nice. Also I'll bet the feature maintains two logically
>distinct files, so if you edit 'one' of them, a separate copy
>is made (this is different than links).
>
>The text-to-speech feature could be nice too, although
>my amiga 500 had that, too. Let's hope it's much improved.
>
>Can you believe this statement about Single Instance Store, though?
>
>"The result is a feature that frees up as much as 80 to 90 percent of
>the space on a server, allowing users to store as much as five to 10
>times the information as they could before."
>
>That is just ridiculous. Surely they studied this issue before
>implementing this feature, and now they claim that 80 to 90 percent
>of files are identical to at least one other file?
Perhaps they were looking through their marketing directory - "What future
Microsoft operating systems will do."
Regards
Anthony
<snip>
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 08:17:45 -0700
Drestin Black wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
> > > > absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
> > > >
> > > > That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
> > >
> > > Actually a better reply to you "Mr. Rupert"
> > >
> > > When hotmail.com runs on W2K later this year, I'll be expecting to hear
> you
> > > say: "MS is running W2K at their hotmail site. Solaris/BSD couldn't
> handle
> > > it and sucks - W2K is king" You'll be expected to lower your head and
> scurry
> > > away from any comparision threads because all we have to do is say;
> "Yea,
> > > but MS runs hotmail on W2K so... nah nah nah nah naaaaaaaah nah" and
> we'll
> > > win! yipee!! (I'm hoping everyone recognizes the sarcasm dripping here)
> >
> > But how will *vocates know how many (if any) extra computers will be
> > being used. If MS migrate to Win* and need twice the number of
> > processors (but migrate non-the-less) does that still mean that you win?
>
> What if they use the same or less? Does that mean you "lose" twice as bad?
no Drestin, it proves the primary point that anyone who actually has
experience with both WinXXX and UNIX knows, WinXXX requires more cpus to do
the same job a smaller number of RISC cpus under UNIX can do. It's that
simple, look at the I/O bandwidth and memory bandwidth of a Sun Enterprise
6000 or a Compaq Wildfire series AlphaServer sometime, you'll find their I/O
and memory bandwidth to be several orders of magnitude greater than the
fastest x86 machines that can be built. Combine that with UNIX's vastly more
efficient process handling....... well, use your brain........
-NateGrey
UNIX/RiSC - Record-Breaking Performance? We got your record-breaking
performance right here.....
------------------------------
From: Jan Schaumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 10:20:01 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sorry if this is OT for these forums, but I really don't know where
> to post a question like this... I find myself in the somewhat
> embarassing position of stepping into a job as a Linux administrator
> and having no idea of how much I should be asking for, in terms of
> salary. Vital stats:
>
> Experience: 4.5 years running production Linux and UnixWare servers for
> my college, while a student. Paid positions, but still student work. A
> about a year working for a pre-launch Internet start-up as an admin, and
> working as a PC Tech for a retail chain. I make about $10/hr at all of
> my jobs.
I don't know one thing about the going salaries for sys-admins, but
$10/hr is a rip-off in *any* job, I think.
go and by the Sunday's edition of the New York Times. Look into the
jobs-section and compare the salaries that are offered to sys-admins to
get an idea.
HTH,
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann
http://jschauma-0.dsl.speakeasy.net/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 15:56:01 GMT
"Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > That's certainly a possibility, but I can't imagine
> > the money they're spending right now to keep that hacked
> > system and globbed-together technology running under
> > that kind of load.
>
> hmmmmmm....... last time I bothered to check, Hotmail was run on SPARCs
> with Solaris as the OS.
> Sun Microsystems is not a company I'd associate with "hacked system" and
> "globbled-together technology".
> Especially considering the fact that Sun was building ultra-fast
> workstations and servers when 386dx's where brand new.
I don't consider Sun or Solaris "hacked together" either, but in this
case, Solaris had to be gutted (well, the TCP/IP stack at LEAST) to
get it to be able to handle the load that Hotmail does. The process had
already begun before MS had got their hands on it. When MS bought them
their load increased even more, and therefore required a reengineering.
The TCP/IP stack on those boxes is almost entirely handwritten at current.
I don't know about you, but I call a system that has to have bits and
pieces re-written from the ground up to handle that kind of load a "hacked
together" system.
Also, it appears that they use BSD for their load-balancing. I'm not sure
if this is true (that's what Netcraft returns), but if that's the case,
now they not only have to deal with a hacked version of Slowaris, but
they also have to deal with BSD. Now there's two different systems they
have to architect and administer.
This sounds like a sub-optimal system at the very least.
> Enjoying my free OS, and my free beer.......
Hey! Free is good! But if you want quality...
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 09:03:15 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> After a week of playing around with this Corel Linux shit I have gotten my money
>back at
> the local computer shop. I can't believe that they are trying to sell shit like this.
>
> i agree with others in this club that Linux is really a total waste of time.
>
> My suggestion is save your money, buy Windows and live your life instead of
>dedicating it
> to trying to make a system run.
>
> What a piece of junk this Linux is.
>
> BOOOOOOBBAAAAAAAAA
And let me guess, tried to install it on daddy's 'puter?
Please, finish middle school before posting more examples of your supreme incompetence.
-NateGrey
The only thing I have in common with W.C. Fields, I find kids annoying............
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:14:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hey, they changed the bit about only one processor.... That wasn't there
>>when I read it.
>Having no knowledge of German, I relied completely upon
>babelfish.altavista.com for the translation, which I then
>edited for readability. The errors you mention are present
>in the babelfish output (maybe it does better on Vogon
>poetry 8^).
It *is* an automatic translator, after all.
>I tried to be very careful with my edits, but if they messed anything
>up, please correct -- in particular, whether one or two processors
>were used.
I don't think *you* messed anything up. Babel just got a couple of points
wrong (due to the intricacies of the German language ;-) that changed the
meaning. Being native German, I thought I'd better correct them, lest someone
accuse c't (or you) of saying something that isn't true.
On the processor issue --- I check the c't page every day, and when I first
saw the story, it simply said "running on a Dual Itanium system". It seems
that they were alerted to their omission afterwards and added the "only one
processor" bit.
Bernie
--
The chief distinction of a diplomat is that he can say no in such
a way that it sounds like yes
Lester Pearson
Canadian Prime Minister 1963-68
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:14:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon) writes:
>> Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>> > > How many machines do *you* know that are in active use today
>> > > *and* were so 15,20,30 years ago?
>>
>> > 2 that I've worked with personally.
[...]
>One of the 2 machines is (yes, it's still in use) a 386DX40 with
>32MB RAM and an RLL drive on a 16MB cache card. I have 4
>machines in pieces at home that outpower that thing.
A 386DX40 is less than 10 years old. Not 15, not 20, not 30, and most
certainly not 38.
Bernie
--
You see things, and you say 'Why?' But I dream things that never were,
and say 'Why not?'
George Bernhard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:14:44 GMT
proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Benchmarks?
>Where are they? Not some stupid German Linux magazine that nobody
>reads, but some verafiable benchmarks? Any out there?
I surmise you are talking about c't? A magazine that had its first issue
in 1983 (8 years before linux was even a glimmer in its author's eye) and
sells about 350,000 copies every fortnight (Q4/1998 figures, see
http://www.lac.de/ct.htm).
Lots of nobodies out there.....
Bernie
--
Ah well! I am their leader, I really had to follow them!
A.A. Ledru-Rollin
French politician
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 09:10:50 -0700
Drestin Black wrote:
> "mr_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 15:38:43 -0500, "Rick Bestany"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> IIS is *awful
> > >
> > >
> > >Could you clarify please?
> > >
> >
> > Simple. Create a CGI program that allocates dynamic memory
> > which terminates without freeing the memory.
> >
> > IIS pools the memory created by a CGI program. No matter how
> > poorly a program has been written in regards to freeing memory,
> > the memory should be freed upon program termination. This is not
> > the case with IIS.
> >
> > One simple, but poorly written CGI can bring WSK and IIS down to
> > its knees in a heart beat.
> >
>
> The funniest lies are the ones easiest to disprove and ignore...
> hahahaha
well Mister "truth" explain how the afore mentioned statement is a lie,
be a man and take up the burden of proof. Win2k is the unproven kiddie
here, Linux is proven, so cough up the proof. Independant, unbiased
benchmarks? Real-world results? cough 'em up. Before calling someone a
liar, you had best be prepared to prove it.
-NateGrey
Besides, why do you cross-post to comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy? Aren't
they demoralized enough?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 5 Mar 2000 13:08:55 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Feb 2000 14:18:02 GMT, Kari Pahula wrote:
>>It is then distribution makers' responsibility to compile newest
>>versions compatible with distribution-specific libraries, if they
>>choose to do so. Either way, the user is always able to compile the
>>programs herself.
>
>This assumes that there exist no third party binary only apps. This in
>the long term is a dangerous assumption.
Actually, I suspect that in the short term it's a dangerous assumption,
but in the long term it's quite a safe one, at least if the current
open-source climate continues.
>BTW, it would be kind of cool if the build system were more failsafe
>( like the BSD ports ). BSD ports basically automatically download all
>the compile time dependencies, and install them ( trying multiple ftp
>sites in case one is down ) , and the software is verified using checksums
>that come with the distribution. This way, unattended builds are much simpler.
This is on its way in Debian, you'll be glad to hear; Build-Depends: are
not mandatory yet (I'm not even sure if they're mentioned in policy),
but the plan is eventually that you'll be able to build Debian source
packages like this.
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"It's the one who won't be taken who cannot seem to give,
And the soul afraid of dying that never learns to live."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 Mar 2000 16:16:15 GMT
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000 09:51:05 -0500, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | And the proof that this is due to pressure from MS is ... ?
|
| > Are you paying attention? Has it occured to you that the very nature
| > of this tatic means it leaves little or no evidence behind?
|
| More fitting for alt.conspiracy.microsoft, Damien, as that's a classic
| paranoid's reasoning regarding conspiracies.
|
| "The very fact that there is no evidence of this is evidence itself!"
You are really pulling at straws now. You can claim something is
true, yet not be able to prove it. If something cannot be proved,
that does not mean it is not true. Similarly, the fact that their is
no evidence for something, does not mean it is not true, especially
if, by its very nature it doesn't leave evidence behind.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:11:24 GMT
In article <89s9p9$9p6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "mr_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 15:38:43 -0500, "Rick Bestany"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> IIS is *awful
> > >
> > >
> > >Could you clarify please?
> > >
> >
> > Simple. Create a CGI program that allocates dynamic memory
> > which terminates without freeing the memory.
> >
> > IIS pools the memory created by a CGI program. No matter how
> > poorly a program has been written in regards to freeing memory,
> > the memory should be freed upon program termination. This is not
> > the case with IIS.
> >
> > One simple, but poorly written CGI can bring WSK and IIS down to
> > its knees in a heart beat.
> >
>
> The funniest lies are the ones easiest to disprove and ignore...
> hahahaha
>
And we all noticed you did neither, disprove or ignore... It must be
true.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:19:14 GMT
In article <89s630$oof$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just the same as with rebulding a Linux kernel whenever a new security
patch
> arrives.
> Some people just don't install them.
>
> I agree with Donn, Windows 2000 seems to be extremely stable.
>
It may have proven it's self stable in relation to other MS products
(not hard to do at all) but it still has a LONG way to go to prove it as
stable that you can pick up for $29US retail...
I think it's funny that the windvocates have claimed that NT was so
stable are now amazed by an OS that stays up for a month. Get a clue,
the *nix OS's can run for years, now THAT's stability.
> --
> Leonardo
>
> "David Goldstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Donn Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various
NG's,
> > > and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> > > reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on
people's
> > > servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
> > > pretty stable to me.
> >
> > I am quite sure that there is already a service pack in the works.
> > This will, of course, require a reboot and that will be the end of
their
> > uptime.
> >
> > > - Donn
> >
> > David Goldstein
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:24:24 GMT
In article <89saq3$9sf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89mdbo$un0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various
NG's,
> > > and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> > > reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on
people's
> > > servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
> > > pretty stable to me. Then, when I went to www.microsoft.com, the
web
> >
> > That would sound stable to a MS user. To a Unix user 1 or 2 MONTHS
is
> > NOTHING! We Unix and Linux users expect and get up-time in YEARS!
>
> Hmm... let's rephrase that. Instead of saying 3 months lets be equally
> accurate and say:
> It's been up and running since the day it was installed and has never
ever
> in it's entire run time crashed or rebooted for any reason. That sound
more
> linux like?
Pathetic Dresten, even from you this was pathetic.
Just because you installed W2K yesterday and it has not crashed yet does
not mean it is stable.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel S. Riley)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 05 Mar 2000 11:34:55 -0500
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Exactly true, remember GNU's Not Unix. GNU/Linux (it is relavent to
> refer to it by its `proper' title) is not Unix - Unix is an AT&T
> trademark, and they (claim to) own Unix.
Unix was an AT&T trademark, but hasn't been for years. AT&T sold
Unix Systems Labs to Novell, which eventually gave the Unix trademark
to X/Open, which has now merged with the Open Software Foundation to
form The Open Group (TOG). TOG owns the Unix trademark, and Unix
"branding" is now based entirely on passing a conformance suite for
the POSIX based "Single Unix Specification" and paying a fee--so
anything sufficiently POSIX-like can be branded Unix, regardless of
the provenance of its code.
> AT&T were prevented from selling Unix so they gave it away to
> educational institutions.
AT&T never gave away Unix--Universities had to pay AT&T for a Unix
license before AT&T would provide a source tape. It would be more
correct to say that AT&T were prevented from marketing Unix.
--
Dan Riley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wilson Lab, Cornell University <URL:http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dsr/>
"History teaches us that days like this are best spent in bed"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 08:44:57 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> Whats losedoze? Anything like Hypenux?
> Bob Lyday <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]....
> > Enterprise wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't say anything about Windows 95(I went from 3.1 to 98) but I must
> > > say Windows 98 is better then Windows 3.1 in everyday. I find it more
> > > stable and much easier to use and customize.
> > >
> > Nowhere to go but up. It doesn't matter if it is better. It's still
> > one of the most inferior OS's on the market today (and one of the most
> > unstable OS's ever made).
> >
> > > Eric Blair wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is that why you used Windows 95 to post your reply??
> >
> > Maybe he is practically forced to like most everybody else. Most people
> > who run Losedoze don't really like it too much, and a lot of them really
> > hate it. But a lot have to run it for business/work-related reasons.
> > > >
> > > > --Eric
> > > >
> > > > > From: Duallaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Organization: I don't even know
> > > > > Newsgroups:
> > > > >
> comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advo
> ca
> > > > > cy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
> > > > > Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 20:16:44 -0500
> > > > > Subject: Re: which OS is best?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't find Win3.1 to be very buggy, not as bad as Win95 is on most
> > > > > computers (basically every computer I've ever used besides my
> faithful
> > > > > P100 laptop)
> >
> > Interesting. I remember when Lose95 first came out. It was hailed all
> > across the land as a wonderful, fantastic, revolutionary new OS that
> > they whole sane world would soon be adopting (remind anyone of Lose2K
> > hype?). And much better than the "inferior" Lose3x.
> >
> > In fact the hype was eerily similar to the hype surrounding Lose3x,
> > Lose98, Lose98SE, LoseNTx, Lose2K, or whatever. It is almost like the
> > media is reciting some sort of an idiotic script. When a Losedoze
> > version first comes out, it's the best thing since sliced bread and
> > there are "100 reasons why you should upgrade right now or risk being an
> > out-of-it idiot". Then when the new version comes out, it turns out the
> > same version (the one the new one is replacing) was really crappy all
> > along. Don't you find it offensive the way the media and the IT
> > industry tries to force-feed trash to people? I do.
> > --
> > Bob
> >
> > \|/ ____ \|/
> > @~/ .. \~@
> > /_( \__/ )_\
> > \_ U_/
--
Bob
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ .. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
\_ U_/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
