Linux-Advocacy Digest #515, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 19:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Salary? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Salary? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BSD & Linux (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux for the Navy ("Mike")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (George Marengo)
Re: BSD & Linux (Chas deTampa)
Re: BSD & Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (Pyrrus)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Timbol)
Re: Giving up on NT ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (George
Marengo)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (John Hasler)
Re: Salary? (Peter Morris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:19:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Consider such a senario, a application like to create a area of a size just
| to fit in certain text. And the application does not want a dynamic sized
| area, because the area is part of a pixel based layout. Now, if the
| application does not know the exact size of the font, how can it achieve such
| a goal. I have seen countless applications that either have a botton that
| does not have all characters displayed, or the botton is truncated because it
| exceeds the frame border and all sorts of bad displays.
Pixel based layout is a BAD way to design.
With people like you designing windows apps and web pages, no wonder I have
such a hard time reading the teeny tiny little letters on my 1600x1200 pixel
video display. I make the default font larger for a reason and you and your
application are trying to screw it up?
I suppose if you were desiging web pages, they would be all scrunched up on
the left side like I see on quite many corporate web pages. I have this
theory that such web pages were really design by graphical artists who came
from the print media (newspapers, magazines, brochures, etc) where the work
was done with the knowledge that the result would be produced in some exact
side they know in advance.
In computers this just isn't so. Consider that the size of the pixels are
different between different video resolutions and different monitors. Having
1600x1200 on a 17 inch (43 cm) monitor is quite different from 800x600 on a
21 inch (53 cm) monitor. Maybe you should be forced to test your apps in
both of these scenarios.
| Besides, the font on X windows are so bad, it wastes display resource. Why,
| because it need more pixels to achieve the same result.
If smaller fonts that use fewer pixels are too small to even read, then what
good are they?
| And I don't think any widgets or window manager can do anything to help that!
That I can't tell you because I don't do windows applications.
However, I do web pages and I don't scrunch them up on the side.
| So, I believe X need to include a basic set of font as part of its standard,
| if my speculation of the way it works is correct, otherwise, you will always
| see broken bottons, truncated texts, and ... frustrating users.
Maybe. I believe it has what works. In X windows I'm just a "user" and it
works fine for me (save for a few bad apps, but the percentage of bad X apps
is a lot lower than the percentage of bad web pages).
If you're chopping the bottoms off your text, maybe you need to consider what
size you're making the cells. Maybe your math is wrong.
--
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | for headlines that | Just say no to absurd patents |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | really matter: | Boycott Amazon.Com (AMZN) |
| Dallas - Texas - USA | linuxhomepage.com | Shop http://bn.com/ instead |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:35:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. Charge what you think you're worth in that job. US$20/hr? US$40/hr?
> What? If you feel quite happy getting US$15/hr and then find that
> you're being undervalued in this position as everyone is earning more
> than you, I expect you'd be a little miffed. Am I right? And yet you
> were quite happy to accept the US$15/hr in the first place. People are
> so greedy.
It's not so much a question of greed; merely fairness. I've been in
the position before where I got hired on at a wage, then discovered
a few months down the road that someone that does an inferior job
(by my estimation and management's appraisals) was hired on at - and
was continuing to make - significantly more than what I was making.
So no, not greed exactly. I just don't want to repeat that sort of
rude slap in the face through naivety.
> Having said that I'd guess that as you've left school and it's an
> admin job I'd go for about GB£20K which would be about US$30K which
> works out at about ....oh dear, US$10.27/hr. Perhaps I have my sums
> wrong.
Doing some quick math, that works out to around $14.50/hr assuming
$30,000 gross annual income, 40 hours a week. I was thinking low- to
mid-thirties, but if sysadmins are routinely making $45k+ I'd feel
like I low-balled myself (doing the same work for less pay). Hence
my inquiry.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:40:38 GMT
In article <eqnw4.142594$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"The Gimme A Buck Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's hope your future employer is not reading this newsgroup!
Why?
I probably should have been more clear.
I'm *not* looking to gouge my future employer. I *am* looking
to avoid selling myself short. I simply don't want to be in a
position in a few months or a year where I realize that others,
doing the same job, are being better compensated. (Had that
happen. Really sours one on the experience.) The whole "same
work, less pay" thing.
I'm not looking for more than I'm worth, just trying to get a
feel for what I am worth. Does that make any sense?
- Robert Nichols
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:06:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Philipp Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>by wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Today I'm just wondering about various BSDs I've seen mentioned. My
>> company's servers run NetBSD and they run fine. Can someone explain the
>> difference between freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, bsd-lite ? I've also seen
>> 4bsd and bsd4.* mentioned. What are the major variants of BSD today and
>> what are their differences ?
>>
>> Also, how are various BSDs compared to Linux ?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
>long story :)
>
>so: netbsd, openbsd and freebsd are based on bsd4.4-lite.
>the goal of netbsd is to offer an os which is available to many
>platforms
>openbsd is a variant of netbsd and it concentrates on security
>freebsd's goal is a very good os for the i386, but it's ported to alpha
>as well.
>there's also bsdi, which is just a commercial bsd.
^^^^
I think the word 'just' is playing down the significance of BSDI's
product. Several ISP's use it - and there are many companies who
need a fully supported BSD product.
And as I recall - if it weren't for some of the legal battles
that BSDI fought we wouldn't have the free versions we have today.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 5 Mar 2000 22:53:06 GMT
Some asshole who more than likely is in my killfile, since I've yet to
see his article, wrote:
:> >someone should sue this guy for his continued criminal behaviour claims.
Go for it, ass.
Expect a countersuit and a LOT of bad publicity for your employer,
which doesn't need any more.
(To the normal people on all sides: sorry for the bit of bad temper on
my part; I just am not in the mood for idle threats right now.)
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux,dod.pb.af,dod.pb.misc,dod.pb.navy
Subject: Re: Linux for the Navy
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:59:42 GMT
"noone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Brian,
>
> Check out this news link for the NT crash of the Aegis missile cruiser USS
> Yorktown...
>
> http://www.info-sec.com/OSsec/OSsec_080498g_j.shtml
>
To quote from the aforementioned article: "The Yorktown last September
suffered a systems failure when bad data was fed into its computers during
maneuvers off the coast of Cape Charles, Va."
Then, later, it continues: "The Yorktown lost control of its propulsion
system because its computers were unable to divide by the number zero, the
memo said. The Yorktown's Standard Monitoring Control System administrator
entered zero into the data field for the Remote Data Base Manager program.
That caused the database to overflow and crash all LAN consoles and
miniature remote terminal units, the memo said."
Assuming that you aren't arguing that Linux databases are bug-free, aren't
you effectively arguing that Linux wouldn't suffer from divide-by-zero
problems? Doesn't that seem naive?
You may argue that the LAN consoles and remote terminals shouldn't have
crashed, but it's really a function of their dependence on the primary
database. I have a similar remote access terminal, which can't live without
the primary database that it connects to. If the server crashes, the client
doesn't automatically reconnect by itself because the database loses its
current state when it crashes, requiring a minimum of a new login, and
repetition of the previous command sequence to reach the state where it
crashed. Since data is stored locally in the client, loss of either the
server or the client renders the state of the other useless. The server is
Unix, the client is Windows. It wouldn't matter, though, which was which.
I've had failures in both, and the end result is the same. If one crashes,
the other must be restarted. We could probably come up with a system that
was more fault tolerant, but again, it wouldn't matter what the OS was.
-- M
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:14:37 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:17:13 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
>> Quota limits can be bypassed is another. Create as many 0 byte
>> files as you'd like --- the quota limit won't stop you. Now you simply
>> append bytes (736 max) to the existing 0 byte files and use up all the
>> disk space.
>
>Yeah, this one will have to be dealt with, but it's unlikely that
>someone on the local LAN will start doing things like this.
You clearly haven't dealt with students in High School or College.
>> While the window of opportunity is admittedly small, during the
>> installation process anyone can connect to the ADMIN$ share
>> as ADMINISTRATOR and no password is required. The vulnerability
>> exists until the you've entered a password for the Administrator
>> account AND you've rebooted.
>
>Yes, this is another "problem" to be dealt with.
>
>However, there's only a very small period of time for this to happen.
Yes, I know -- I said that already.
>Also, there's not much they could do during this time, they would
>have to have local LAN access to the machine, and most (wise) admins
>set up servers disconnected from the LAN, or at least connected to a
>seperated LAN.
>
>-Chad
What about home users who are replacing NT who have existing
connections to the 'net? Are you quite _sure_ that it won't work over
the Internet?
------------------------------
From: Chas deTampa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:22:24 -0500
> Microsoft is at a disadvantage, because they have to be so careful
> about guarding the Windows source code. They have done a pretty good
> job keeping that a secret, IMO. Us FreeBSD and Linux guys have no
> worries, because our work is an open book; we have nothing to hide.
> Microsoft, OTOH, does have to worry constantly about the source code
> leaking out. They have to spend most of their time watching their
> backs, which has to be somewhat of a distraction.
>
> Anyone see the DOS/Windows or Windows NT source code? I thought so.
>
> - Donn
Just another $.02US. I think Win2000, and it's older siblings, is so
damn broken, slow, and ugly, that any one wanting to make a -decent- OS
would be better of starting from scratch. Or borrowing technology from
an open source *IX.
Chas
--
UNIX is never having to say:
"Reboot the system and see if you still have the problem."
"I have this blue screen full of letters and numbers."
"You must reboot your computer for this installation to be complete"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 5 Mar 2000 17:10:21 -0600
In article <89u5la$4p4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bryan Bursey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, mixed in with the unnecessarily vulgar language, are numerous
>errors. FreeBSD (and the other BSD's) really ARE UNIX. They were
>derived from source released by Berkley. Linux is NOT UNIX. Rather,
>it is UNIX-like.
This is a very strange concept, because BSD is the one where
a lawsuit established that it *did not* contain UNIX code.
UNIX was developed by AT&T and is a different beast entirely.
I think a better perspective on the current situation is that
BSD code was developed on large (for the times) timesharing
systems with the expectation that it would be installed and
tuned by an experienced administrator. Linux was developed
with the expectation that it would run on a small personal
computer. The two systems have approximately converged
now to cover the full range, but sometimes the roots still
show.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pyrrus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks]
Reply-To: pyrrusATnerdherdDOTorg
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:22:40 GMT
>meaning of words changes. This does not mean, however, that we
>have to agree or confirm :)
umm, do you mean conform?
--
If ignorange is bliss then USENET would be paradise.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Timbol)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 5 Mar 2000 23:27:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 4 Mar 2000, Darren Winsper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:18:54 GMT, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > The fat lady is singing and PC gaming is emulate/copy the titles in
>> > the more profitable console market.
>>
>> Eh?! Where's the equivalent to Unreal Tournament? Homeworld? ST:
>> Armada? Remember the C&C games appeared on the PC first, so the
>> console is actually emulating the PC there. Perhaps they have
>> something to rival Freespace 2? No? Oh dear, your argument fell flat
>> on its face.
>
>What was my argument? You named some very interesting games best of the
>breed for PCs - but you havent looked forward. There are some very
>similar games in the works for consoles including the DC.
Really? Name them. In some categories, consoles get the best games
first, but in many others, PCs have the most innovative games. The games
Darren mentions are in categories where PCs dominate.
And, even if you can name some comparable games "in the works", your
contention is still wrong; it's the console copying the PC titles, not
the other way around.
>Also there are
>emulators literally that let a Mac and PC play PSX games. Well see more
>of these emulators and/or ports.
People make these emulators not just because they're dying to play the
games (e.g. Atari 2600 and C64 emulators). Usually, they write the
emulator because they can.
Second, there aren't really that many ports from consoles to PCs. And,
in my experience, they usually suck.
>I will not deny pioneering work on PCs in fact let me add that there are
>very realistic simulators on UNIX workstations like SGI that predate the
>PC and I do believe DOOMs engine was engineered on NeXT. These neat
>technologies have migrated to the PC and to the console.
Not exactly. PCs have "realistic" flight simulators, but consoles don't.
The "realistic" aspect doesn't fit the console demographic, and consoles
don't usually have the kind of controllers to play these games.
When comparing a PC game to a console game in the same category, the
console game almost invariably has fewer options, and is less
extensible, too.
>The problem is that the Moores law is catching up with the humans senses
>(as it did with stereophonic music) so the technology edge PCs once had is
>diminishing. Also increased realism also means production costs are up
>ten fold (see Newsweek) and therefore demand larger markets than the PC
>can offer to recover costs.
Again, depends on the type of game. Strategy and simulation games don't
require production costs as high as console games (which pay licensing
costs as well). Action, fighting, and sports games have almost always
been better on consoles -- the new generation of consoles only moves
them farther ahead *in those categories*.
>In addition MSs next generation OS for PCs is Whistler and then Blackcomb
>pure Windows2000 corporate OS with all the baggage associated with running
>that large OS. This years new generation of game consoles have enough
>power and are so low cost and focused as entertainment devices that PCs
>have been overwhelmed.
You are using the wrong tense; the PSX II isn't out yet, so PCs cannot
"have been" overwhelmed by it.
>Finally the internet/network allows a console to
>act as a thin client, strong in graphical and multimedia, they are ideal
>as a reliable, low cost access device for a wealth of media and content
>that can be cached locally but is maintained and sold by a service
>provider.
Again, you are using the wrong tense. Perhaps the future will play out
as you predict, with PC game releases and sales dropping precipitously
in the next few years, and millions of people using their game consoles
to surf the web. Maybe not. We'll see.
- Mike
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:29:17 GMT
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Someday, when our OSes require gigabytes of memory... we will look
>> back and laugh at what you just said :)
>You made a "red herring" argument. The day OSs require gigabytes MS's
>Windows will require terabytes. Patters of resource abuse never
>change.
That's BS. So, NT doesn't run so well on 32. What can you do with
NT Server on 32MB? Run file sharing, Mac file sharing, DHCP,
DNS, WINS, and a PDC for a small network That's pretty much basic
functionality with a server.
You probably could do more with Linux, but why?
With 64-128MB of RAM, you can do just about anything with NT
up to about 35-50 users. 128MB of RAM is around $80 for PC100
so what's the big deal? 64MB isn't much to ask these days, in fact,
it's pretty much the standard for desktops. 128MB is minimum for
workstations. Is it too much to ask to put 128MB in a server to
get full fuctionality out of NT?
NT workstation, on a default install takes 12MB total.
NT Server will usually boot to about 20-24MB.
That's a little on the high side, but it's nothing rediculous.
Win2K Pro averages about 20MB, Win2K Server default (no ADS) seems
to average 30-36MB. Still not terribly bad. Expecting an enterprise
server like Win2K Server to work under 32MB is just rediculous these
days. RAM is dirt cheap, expecting 128MB isn't asking much.
Talking about Red Herrings, your arguments are straw men. Working
under 32MB is simply irrelevant in this day in age. If you want to
keep dwelling in the past to make your arguments, that's fine,
but you'll end up in my killfile.
>Sadly for the NT advocate Windows2000 resource demands do not map to
>more features but to achieving greater OS stability and supporting a
>unique approach to computing.
They don't? Have you even used Windows2000? Do you even know half
the features in it? Do you know half of it's innovation?
Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't be implying that it's "bloat".
Anyhow, Win2K's memory consumption is not that bad, so this argument
is moot anyhow. Disk space could be argued, but then, that's dirt
cheap these days anyhow.
>Shoving a lot of unneeded overhead and
>crap on to customers so a vendor can maintain a one size-fits-all
>product is an artifact of a monopoly.
Who's doing this? Not MS in Win2K. If you're implying this, you're
sorely mistaken.
Perhaps that's how you justify it to yourself?
>Like OS/2 and BeOS, BSD and LINUX are modularized whereas Windows2000
>is a monopoly's hair ball.
What? What a pile of crap. You have no sense of anything. Do you just
make this up as you go along?
You make no sense, cite no specific examples, you just make it up
because of your blind hatred for Microsoft.
*PL0NK*
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 5 Mar 2000 17:21:08 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>The W2K show is over. Put a fork in W2K, it's done. Adios
>Mr. Gates, it was fun while it lasted. Your closed source
>OS model is outdated. No one wants a nosey noo-noo snooping
>through their setup while online.
I'd have preferred that they put a fork() in it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 5 Mar 2000 23:42:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:17:13 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Quota limits can be bypassed is another. Create as many 0 byte
> Yeah, this one will have to be dealt with, but it's unlikely that
> someone on the local LAN will start doing things like this.
> It's not a remoteable exploit of any kind.
So only remotely exploitable bugs are serious? Then I know why
Windows usually does *not* have a telnet server running, for
example. Must remember your argumentation.
> > While the window of opportunity is admittedly small, during the
> > installation process anyone can connect to the ADMIN$ share
> Yes, this is another "problem" to be dealt with.
Oh, a remote (usually company wide, if the firewalls are working,
else more) exploitable bug. Well, call it a >>"problem"<<. Maybe
it'll just disappear.
> However, there's only a very small period of time for this to happen.
Apologist.
> Also, there's not much they could do during this time,
... they could just set the admin password and maybe put a few
interesting things on the HD ... nothing important ...
> they would
> have to have local LAN access to the machine, and most (wise) admins
> set up servers disconnected from the LAN, or at least connected to a
> seperated LAN.
This would not be neccessary if MS had done the right thing.
And should not be neccessary.
Wait a moment ... did you just say that servers must be on a
different lan? As in ... naah ... musta hav misheard you.
-Wolfgang
PS: You'd have foam on your mouth if half as severe bugs were to
be found with Linux.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[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 23:46:20 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:25:03 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<snip>
>> If what you really mean is that it was re-written and is almost
>> entirely new/different from the one originally supplied by the
>> OS vendor... do you have a cite for that claim?
>
>I don't handy, but it's common knowledge. There were several threads
>about 2 or 3 months ago when this debate was active then documenting
>these claims.
What's common knowledge is simply that modifications had to be made
to the TCP stack. The breadth and depth of those modifications isn't.
>I don't believe there's any indepth discussion on it, but it's
>commonly known that there have been major revisions.
>
>Here's a start:
>http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp
"...had to customize the filestore service as well as the IP stack..."
is hardly needing to be re-written from the ground up, which is what
you claimed.
Given Microsoft's penchant for, err.. bending the truth, what exactly
does "customize" mean? If I go into the Windows Registry and
change the default TCPReceiveWindow to 64K, have I, in MS
speak, "customized" the stack?
The bottom line is that you have no evidence that the stack was
anywhere near re-written from the ground up.
>> Oh, you meant free OS's?
>>
>> MS gave away NT with purchase of Visual C++ Pro
>> MS gave away NT with purchase of Visual Basic Pro
>> (that's how I got NT -- for free)
>
>Specials and promotions are not the same.
No? They gave away the OS for free, and there wasn't even a
sticker on the box saying it was included.
So you don't like my examples. How about Solaris? You pay
for shipping and handling, Sun sends you Solaris 8.
>Cost is of little importance to them, when the face of their company
>is involved, at least.
Of course they don't... but that doesn't lend any credence to your
implication that free means lower quality, whether you're talking
about OS's or applications.
>This is why there is a huge adoption of NT and now 2K for web
>and application services on the Internet.
>
>-Chad
>From current NT sites? Sure. If they were taking business away
from *nix sites, MS would be crowing about it, and they're not.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 22:59:10 GMT
pickle_pete writes:
> It also seem sluggish to me, even running a Matrox G400.
Sluggish how? I'm running a G400 as as far as I can tell everything is
instantaneous.
> Dragging Windows around produces "shadows" and remanent's of destroyed
> Windows.
I don't see that either.
> Sucks if you ask me.
I didn't, actually. Are you trying to ask for help? If so, why be
hostile? If not, why not just go back to Windows? Do think we care that
you don't like X?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Morris)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:52:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Underpaid? That's interesting because whenever I've talked to people
about working in the USA, they've always quoted less that I was
earning in UK.
I'm currently an A/P earning over US$100K. 35hr a week but admittedly,
no benefits.
PAM.
__________ Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __________
>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Having said that I'd guess that as you've left school and it's an
>: admin job I'd go for about GB20K which would be about US$30K which
>: works out at about ....oh dear, US$10.27/hr. Perhaps I have my sums
>: wrong.
>
>IT folk are underpaid in GB or overpaid in US :) Starting admin job in CA
>40-60k, depending on experience (maybe more for high-power jobs) and
>depending on stock options/benefits. less than 40 is crazy - especially in
>California.
>
>--
>Tim Hockin
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>This program has been brought to you by the language C and the number F.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
