Linux-Advocacy Digest #241, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Government to break up Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Elian (Ari Asikainen)
Re: Elian (Ari Asikainen)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (JEDIDIAH)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Gary Connors)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:44:59 GMT
If, like me, you are concerned about the fact Microsoft has frozen
progress in every software industry segment they have entered, here's
good news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2076-2000Apr23.html
Office will be broken up into a separate company. This company will
be free to port Office to Linux, BeOS, PalmOS etc. Office, together
with business applications written in Java will make all these
alternative platforms viable.
Microsoft will no longer be able to leverage their monopoly in desktop
operating systems to foreclose competition in productivity software.
Neither will they be able to leverage their monopoly in productivity
software to try and gain unfair advantage over competing platforms
(like they are doing with PocketPC vs Palm today.) They will not be
able to use their monopoly profits to subsidize weak products such as
SQL Server to the detriment of fair competition in this industry.
The proposal is well-thought-out. Here are some excerpts:
The goal of a breakup proposal would be to tear down the barrier
to competitors entering into competition with Windows, sources
said. In his ruling U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
described the barrier as the absence of a cluster of companies
willing to write the software programs, necessary to give a
potential rival enough of a following to challenge Microsoft's
Windows monopoly.
This plan is meant to create one or two companies that could sell
the bundle of software programs necessary to spur competition for
the Windows operating system. The new company or companies could
either become a competing personal computer operating system or
license software to potential Windows rivals that now lack the
programs necessary to compete with Microsoft's Windows.
Another suggestion from industry supporters of the government case
is that such a company might decide to write programs for Linux,
the free personal computer operating system available over the
Internet. That could turn versions of Linux into a viable Windows
competitor, some industry executives argue.
--
Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
(posting from India)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:52:37 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:18:21 +0100, William Palfreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >
>> Fallacy: We only want what is good for business.
>> Fallacy: We are not willing to make tradeoffs that are bad for business.
>>
>> Both of these are reflected in the caselaw of most civilized nations
>> that put limits on commerce based on some public interest. The more
>> extreme examples would be racketeering, gambling, prosititution, and
>> the narcotics trade.
>
>So? You aren't seriously claiming that there in any public interest in
>drugs, gambling and prostitution being against the law, are you? What you
Such laws are typically justified ONLY by notions of public interest.
>do is your own business, so long as you aren't harming anyone else, and when
>you are harming someone else (by doing something to them that they didn't
>agree to, like bashing them over the head) then and only then does it
>becomes an issue for law. There is no public interest involved in my
>playing cards or for that matter smoking heroin in my own home.
That's very much a minority viewpoint.
------------------------------
From: Ari Asikainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:56:07 GMT
"Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scripsit:
>Cybrinjn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 20 Apr 2000 12:47:48 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Linux is sort of a farm cooperative, or native american sort of thing.
>> >> We build stuff in cooperative groups as a community, but use the stuff
>> >> that we build for a capitalistic endeavor.
>> >
>> >Oh dear. Does this mean we're going to have to start scalping our
>> >neighboring tribes and implement mass human sacrifice now? :)
>>
>> Uh... I think he said _Native American_, NOT Celtic tribes.
>> The CyberInjun
>
>Let's not forget the Aztecs in there
The Aztecs, won't anyone think of the Aztecs?!?
--
Ari
------------------------------
From: Ari Asikainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:56:20 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scripsit:
>Michiel Buddingh' wrote:
>>
>> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:32:46 -0400, DGITC wrote:
>> >
>> > >That's not much of a problem, since the majority of Linux users are
>> > >already Communist.
>> >
>> > Bullshit. Go back under your bridge, troll.
>>
>> Bullshit? Linux is one of the best examples of
>> anarcho-communism the world has ever seen.
>
>Except that we like to make money. Actually, I think it is interesting.
>Linux is sort of a farm cooperative, or native american sort of thing.
>We build stuff in cooperative groups as a community, but use the stuff
>that we build for a capitalistic endeavor.
>
>If you think about, look at the Amish, a group of Women together share
>materials and help each other create quilts. The quilts can be given
>away as gifts, or most likely sold for profit. The people share work for
>their own common good. The whole community will build houses for each
>other for free, but will charge each other for other services. It is not
>purely communism, it is not purely capitalism either. It is a balance of
>community good and personal prosperity. It is how mankind has been
>successful for millions of years. Just because the last 25 years have
>been the worst example of wide spread greed the race has ever known,
>does not mean the rules of survival and long term prosperity have
>changed completely.
I can confirm that Linus Thorvalds is a big fan of the Amish people.
--
Ari
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:56:40 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:36:59 GMT, Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Craig Kelley posted Apr 22 re: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
>
>|Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>|
>| [snip]
>|
>|> In any case, it's rather nice that X allows such a range of
>|> taste across so many systems. Being able to have the
>|> argument at all is a triumph of the protocol.
>|
>|I totally agree. It's sad that people complain about having a choice.
>
> While I agree with the above sentiment, I must point out that in
>some cases having multiple enviroments/manangers can cause some problems,
>such as not being able to use an application because it requires another
>enviroment than the one you choose to use.
I run GNOME and KDE apps all the time without having either
'enviroment' loaded. Any app that cannot do that is broken
by design. The problem lies with the individual application
programmer and not with 'choice'.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 15:38:30 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Mike Marion wrote:
> Bart Oldeman wrote:
> > BTW, I don't know how much better last year's g77 is than Sun's own
> > FORTRAN compiler. It (Sun's f77) was just the solution offered to me on
> > the SPARC.
>
> You should try g77 on sparc. I wonder how it would do.
Yes, so do I. I'll have to ask the sysadmin to install it then. The
current version of gcc on the SPARC is 2.7.2.1 from Jan '97, so it would
be a good time to upgrade, and gcc 2.95.2 includes g77 (gcc 2.7.2.1
didn't).
Do not expect from me to have the answer this week though.
Bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:00:16 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:22:12 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I've been attempting to install Linux on my older P166 system and having a
>few problems.
>
>I have a SB16 card, and a AHA1520B card. Both are ISA, both are PnP. I
>finally figured out one of my SB16 cards was faulty as Windows would not
>boot with it.
You use ISA, you deserve whatever hardships you bring on yourself.
[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:04:19 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 18:29:56 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8dub6v$pl2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>>> It must work then 8)
>>
>>Yeah... but do you expect everything weird to work on Linux? Remenber
>>that hardware producents have their eye on Windows. Its easy.. never buy
>>a PC if its components are not supported by Linux.
>
>For Linux to catchup and overtake Windows, yes.
Yeah right... like there are just millions of users out there
dying and trying to use crusty ISA soundcards and ISA SCSI
controllers.
The system you are harping about is a relic that even I wouldn't
bother with & I only stopped using my VL 486 system ~ 18 mos. ago.
You could pry open that wallet and try a $20 PCI soundcard or
$30 PCI SCSI2 card.
[deletia]
BTW, I ran it just fine with a mere 32M. Of course I never ran
GNOME, KDE or Englightenment.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:06:05 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:00:07 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8dub6v$pl2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> >> It must work then 8)
>> >
>> >Yeah... but do you expect everything weird to work on Linux? Remenber
>> >that hardware producents have their eye on Windows. Its easy.. never buy
>> >a PC if its components are not supported by Linux.
>>
>> For Linux to catchup and overtake Windows, yes.
>>
>> Both the AHA1520B and the SB16 are supported devices.
>
>SB 16 i have and it works without problems.... actually i remenber having
>problems installing it but dont remenber how i solved it.
I think the critical issue here might be ISA PnP. I've always
avoided it like the plague (to my benefit). My SB16/IDE (nonpnp)
works just fine & has been chugging along since it was in the 486.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: 24 Apr 2000 11:00:44 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
S4eaDra4gon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This morning my FreeBSD machine (which is my DNS server) spontaneously
>ran out of memory. I was able to log in, but any command said "out of
>memory", and nothing would run, and it didn't even respond to DNS request.
>The machine was down! I had to reboot it. Pretty good run, though - it
>was up for about two months. I guess I'll schedule another reboot for
>June.
Named has had a memory leak in all but the latest couple of releases
so you might want to update it. A check with 'top' once a month or
so would show if you are starting to use swap space and you could
restart the just the processes that are hogging memory.
>Sounds like what happened to my Linux box last night. I compiled my
>new kernel, and went though the obligatory reboot then ran with it,
>and then got a kernel panic because the root filesystem couldn't be
>mounted. Then I went back to the previous kernel, booted off that, and
>got the same message. The filesystem was corrupted! Linux spontaneously
>corrupted my filesystem and I had to reinstall! Pretty good run, it
>had been up for a whole six weeks. I will schedule another re-installation
>for June.
You have done something drastically wrong here, and unique to
your machine. Are you sure the problem isn't really the
lilo configuration setting the wrong root drive? I'd boot
the install CD and tell it I want to upgrade to see if it
sees the old partitions.
>I haven't even _logged out of_ (let alone rebooted) my Windows NT
>workstation at work, since December 1999. I have no idea how long
>it has been up as that was my first day in the office, but possibly
>much longer.
Haven't installed any software, I guess... Almost every new
program or update on my NT box forces me to reboot.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:10:32 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:13:46 GMT, Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 Apr 2000 04:29:12 -0700, test@myhome <test@myhome> wrote:
>>lets talk a little about the broken way of installing software on linux.
>>
>>it is most certinaly is a broken system now.
>>
>>a simple example. I wanted to install some rpm package
>>to try some application. ok, i do
>>
>> rpm -Uhv foo.rpm
>>
>>it tells me it needs 5 others packages that are missing or not
>>to the right level.
>
>Red Hat <> Linux. On my Debian system, to install Mutt, I just type
>"apt-get install mutt". It fetches and installs any depends. automatically.
Even under Bughat, I don't quite have these sorts of problems.
This seems to be more of a Suse quirk. They might botch debs
too if given the chance...
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:16:22 -0500
I am a linux newbie and I have to agree with Fred on this one. Windows is
easy to use, much easier than Linux. It simply isn't stable... if I go a
day with only one crash, I say it was a good day.
Cliff
mlw wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Fred wrote:
>>
>> The goal should be to make the computer easy to use. People just want to
>> turn it on, and use it to get their work done. Most people don't care
how
>> it works. They just want to check email, and cruise the web. They don't
>> want to dwell on how large to make the /var partition.
>
>This is a classic misconception. "Installation" has nothing to do with
>easy to use. The reason Windows is called "easy to install" is because
>it is installed on most computers to begin with.
>
>A "pre-installed" Linux box will be as easy to use (if not more so) as a
>"pre-installed" Windows box.
>
>>
>> > You know about partitions. I know about partitions. The typical
>> > Windows user knows C:\windows and that's it.
>> >Example of people not knowing what they are doing. They're $.10/dozen
>> >anymore thanks to Windows.
>>
>> >True, but it is the reality of the situation and a point the
>> >Linvocates fail to be able to grasp.
>
>--
>Mohawk Software
>Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
>Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
>"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
>lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:29:44 GMT
On 22 Apr 2000 13:18:11 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>>Samba isn't terribly difficult, but it requires knowing how to do many
>>>>other things - how to use a text editor, how to edit files in what may
>>>>or may not be a GUI environment (the examples I've seen show pico;
>>>
>>> Run editor.
>>> Open file.
>>>
>>> These are hardly brain surgery.
>>
>>Which editor? Where?
Try one.
>>What file? Where?
That requires a little bit of foreknowledge, but just a bit.
Global config files typically go in /etc.
Config files usually are named like the app they go with.
So, /etc/smb.conf isn't such a stretch. It just requires a little
thinking and not being completely intimidated by the interface.
>>What files does one edit?
Try looking in the manpage and exploring the system from there.
If the end user is too intimidated to explore a filesystem or CLI,
that same mental barrier will likely keep them from figuring out
how to do the same sort of task in a GUI.
>
>You have been brainwashed to a point that you don't even realize
>it. Put someone who hasn't used a computer before in front
>of win98 and see how long it takes them to share directories
>if no one gives any hints and they don't use the help files.
>It is not all all obvious even though you have been trained
>to think so.
>
>>Sorry; it's not brain surgery, but it's tough for a beginner.
>
>That's the real difference. You aren't a beginner on windows.
>
>>>>will people know they can use gedit or kedit too?), how to search
>>>
>>> Hopefully, the EDIT in gedit or kedit would tip them off.
>>
>>Where and how would they guess they could use either of those files?
>>If a user didn't know what they were to begin with, it's very
>>difficult to just spontaneously come up with this knowledge without
>>reading a lot of ... you guessed it... man pages!
>
>Actually you shouldn't use man pages as a beginner. You should
>find a tutorial that has simple step-by-step instructions.
>The Linux HOWTO's are sometimes good for this, but even there
>you often find more special-case stuff than you need.
>Man pages are intended as references that tell you all the
>possibilities, not which ones you probably want. The equivalent
While I agree with you in the general case: for nfs and
smb, howto's aren't strictly necessary. The manpages and
config files are well enough documented. This is especially
true for samba.
>under windows would be for something describing file sharing
>to include everything you can do with domain control, ACLs and
>policies. Man pages are for after you know which program
>of conf file you need and you want to know specific details
>about it. Note that this separation is good in the long run.
>Most people are only beginners once - once you understand
>the tutorial you won't want to see it again.
>
>>> As I've said before, the interface is the simplest thing here
>>> even if we're talking about samba without swat.
>>
>>Simplest thing here? What does that mean? It's far more difficult
>>than Win95/98's sharing.
...to a novice? That is disputable. It's highly likely that a
Windows novice would have no clue what we are talking about
conceptually.
[deletia]
>>> This presupposes the that the user in question already knows
>>> these things or is capable of exploring the interface. This
>>> is quite often NOT the case. The same attitude that keeps
>>> someone from poking around /etc is the same attitude that keeps
>>> a novice end user from realizing they can access context menus
>>> with right-click.
>>
>>Except that finding /etc - then finding files in it - is far more
>>difficult than clicking on a drive or printer or folder....much less
>>*doing* anything with it.
>
>If you don't know about files in /etc, why aren't you using
>linuxconf? But for most of the people I know, editting files
>is one of the primary reasons for having the computer in the
>first place, not some great mystery.
>
>>> Not in my Redhat. Not in any version of Redhat dating back to 4.0.
>>
>>Read the man page. You'll need to either add it (if it isn't there),
Sorry, but your perverse little 'appeal to authority' just doesn't
wash. So long as you've installed samba on Bughat, it will be running
and sharing all of your defined printers by default.
There will be no need to add anything to services.
inetd isn't even relevant here.
>>comment out the # your distributor probably put in there to begin
>>with, or, if by *amazing* chance it's all already enabled in your
>>distribution, well, you got lucky. For neither LinuxPPC 2000,
>>Mandrake 7.0, nor RH6.2 would a user get lucky in all aspects of SMB
>>setup.
Actually, I managed to 'get lucky' with a ~ '95 copy of Slackware.
Mandrake likely disables filesharing for security minded reasons.
>
>Linuxconf comes up if you type its name. That's much easier than
>mousing through menus.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:32:25 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:26:47 -0500, David Corn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > On 21 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >>Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
>> > >>for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
>> > >>and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
>> > >
>> > >OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
>> > >NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
>> >
>> > NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
>> > going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
>> > that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
>> > example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
>> > such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
>>
>> So use Linuxconf. You can't complain about the lack of tools which
>> exist.
>>
>> [snip more oh-my-god-I-have-to-use-a-text-editor stuff]
>
>The point, which is correct and perfectly valid, is that Linux is far
>more difficult to set up for even basic filesharing.
...only if you put your fingers in your ears, start mumbling some
MS mantra and shove your head in a hole in the sand.
Putting a filepath in /etc/exports isn't THAT difficult. Furthermore,
you don't even have to do that way.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: 24 Apr 2000 16:25:43 GMT
Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "NT is not a desktop OS"...when I contracted
> at Corning-Asahi in State College, they had switched EVERYBODY to NT (in 1998).
>
> "Everybody"
> includes software engineers on down to secretaries...before they switched
> everybody to NT, the group I worked with (IT) had been using NT since at
> least 1996 (that means NT 3.51). NT was also used for server end, too, with
> a healthy mix of VMS for legacy stuff. I think Corning counts as the real
> world.
>
> NT may not be without problems, but it
> makes the perfect desktop, IMHO, given the right hardware. 95/98 only
> create maintenance and security nightmares in the corporate environment.
>
> Arguments that NT is not really fit for high-end server stuff I could believe,
> but not fit to be a workstation? You've got to be kidding.
Corporate Workstation is NOT a desktop.
Second I NEVER once claimed NT is "not fit to be a workstation". There is
a difference between workstation and desktop. Workstations you get work
done on, desktops are for solitare, web browsing, and balancing your
checkbook.
Third, The reason corporations switched to NT from 9X is because MS's
support to corporations in the pre-Y2K no-glitch was the mantra, "switch
to NT, its the future". Which I read as "Switch to NT, then we can charge
you for 9X and NT"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
