Linux-Advocacy Digest #353, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux as an investment ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (R. Tang)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux as an investment (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available! ("Robert Moir")
Re: Maximum file size question (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Joseph)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux as an investment
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:06:15 -0500
"R. Spinks" wrote:
> I'm thinking that Linuz will be a good financial investment in the long
> term. Microsoft has proved very profitable for many, why not Linux? Does
> anyone have suggestions as who is likely to be profitable as an
> investment in Linux? I've heard Red Hat is public, but I don't know much
> more than that. Suggestions?
Unlike certain other operating systems, Linux is designed to be *used*
rather than to be *sold*. Thus it cannot be expected to generate much
long-term interest on the stock market.
Likewise, the openness of Linux makes it hard for a vendor to corner the
market on it, which again makes it unlikely that a given vendor will
generate much long-term interest on the stock market.
Moreover, open-source software has put IT into a period of turmoil. It is
very hard to predict how things are going to shake out. Even if Linux
"wins" -- as it already appears to be doing in the server market -- it is
quite possible that all the current Linux vendors will disappear and be
replaced by new vendors sometime within the next few years. So it's really
hard to single one out as a good long-term investment.
There was a brief "Linux IPO" craze last year, and lots of people
apparently got rich off it, but now the new has worn off and expectations
are more realistic, so I would not bank much on having the same thing
happen to future IPOs.
You mention Microsoft's profitability, but you should compare what there
shares are going for now vs 9-18 months ago. Some people have positively
bled by buying in at the wrong time.
I am not a financial analyst, but I would be extremely careful about how I
invested in IT right now. We may still be coming down off an overinflated
bubble in IT stocks. We may see a temporary downturn resulting from
election-year jitters. We may see a longer-term downturn if investors lack
confidence in the new administration's ability to keep the economy
booming. Frankly, I suspect Treasury Bonds would be a better investment
than Linux stocks right now.
OTOH, Linux is IMO good for the economy at large, because it lets
businesses get part of their IT done on the cheap, and they can spend the
saved money on important things like R&D, lower prices, or bigger yachts
for the shareholders. In that light, you may be able to pick a stock at
random and see it do better than it would have otherwise, due to "the Linux
factor".
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 16:17:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, what you said about the BSDs is true. They are cleaner
> implementations of Unix, because they are *real* Unix derivatives, not
> re-writes from the ground up.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
I would have thought re-writes should be cleaner than the Unix
implementation. Any guesses why it is not so?
Regards,
ANAND.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Tang)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 11 Aug 2000 16:09:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > One would need to assume the DOJ and Judge were FACTUALLY wrong.
>>
>> THis is not a huge assumption to make.
>
>It is a huge, unreasonable assumption. I A single fact in a finding of fact is
>rarely changed - Let alone the entire finding of fact.
Agreed. People forget that the findings of fact are based on what
is presented in court. Given the absolutely shoddy Microsoft presentation,
I think there is little room for Microsoft to hope to reverse the findings
of fact.
>I can't (and will not) change your mind. I need not because you're opinion is
>based on outlandish circumstances that haven't and (will not) happened. As the
>case progresses, these doors will close. For now there is the improbable hope
>that MS can over turn the facts on appeal.
Far more likely that the penalty portion will be amended.
--
-Roger Tang, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 12:44:21 -0400
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> > Just look at the commercials with poor lil' ol' Bill.. looking like a
> > common man talking about how they've worked so hard to do the best they
> > could.. and the big bad DOJ is coming after them for no reason. Yeah..
> > right.
>
> Well ok there is a reason. The reason is that too much of the rest of the
> computer business is too incompetent to compete with any company that
> organises itself decently, and these incompetents go running home to mommy
> crying "foul" when they get beat.
>
> > > If you want lin-crap to win it should be competitive. It's that simple.
> >
> > It is competitive. MS isn't. They squash everyone they can...
>
> Isn't that competition? The idea is to *beat* your opponent after all,
> doesn't matter if its to the sale, the launch date, the football...
Forcing contracts onto the stadium owners preventing the other teams
from even being allowed into the arena is not "beating" your opponent...
it's running from competition, and then merely POSTURING as a winner.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: 11 Aug 2000 17:13:01 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:03:19 +0000, Jacques Guy wrote:
>Andres Soolo wrote:
>
>> Overall, Russian spelling is much closer to the pronounciation than of
>> most European languages
>
>But still less than Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish. Why, you write
>khorosho and you pronounce kharasho; you write khoroshii and you
>pronounce kharoshii. So, unless you know Russian, you cannot tell
>how to pronounce it. On the other hand, I can read out Hungarian,
>and Hungarians understand me, even though I have no idea what I
>am saying.
All this shows is that you understand the phonetics of the other languages
better than you do Russian. ( presumeably because it's closer to the
default pronunciations in the English language )
It should be obvious that you can't read in any phonetic system unless
you understand how that system works. The fact that you don't understand
a phonetic systen doesn't mean that it's not phonetic. I bet you couldn't
pronounce Vietnamese properly, but if you understood the phonetic system
it uses, it's a breeze ( because it is *truly* phonetic ).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux as an investment
Date: 11 Aug 2000 17:21:12 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 06:00:35 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
You left out APLX. Haven't checked them for a while, but they're more stable
and not as hype driven.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: 11 Aug 2000 17:25:28 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:15:50 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>
>"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Come on, all the nitpicking of words is unnecessary, your sounding like a
>resident of csma.
>All the Windows bashing on earth by this small group won't change fate. Get
>over it, you can view the real world kicking and screaming but it doesn't
>change reality. Windows is proven to be extrememly stable, get over it.
>Hotmail will soon be running on a Microsoft server like the other 20% of the
>entire internet. Mince words all you like, unfortunately time still moves
>forward while you live in denial.
Time is moving forward, but Hotmail hasn't moved to NT. The MS crowd have
talked about Hotmail moving to NT for a long time, but as of today, it's
all talk, and your assertion that the move "will happen" rings as empty
as any other bold claim from an MS cheerleader. I'll believe it when I
see it.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:22:37 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> peer@service wrote:
> Once a few more of us *wake up* or are beaten with the cluestick and
> realize that computers are tools that you need some *training* to know
> how to use, the better off we are all going to be.
That is how things were before the development microcomputers as "home
computers" and "personal computers".
> I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this "UNTIL WE HAVE A WINDOWS CLONE,
> WITH WINDOWS SOFTWARE..." crap has got to stop.
If some people want a freeware Windows clone, why don't they develop their
own system, a REAL Windows clone and not try to force their view on to the
Linux community and hijack a perfectly good unix OS from those who
appriciate it the way it is. We already have free unix OS's, there is a
FreeDos. Why not a FreeWindows?
> We don't need a Windows clone. We need Linux to get better, yes, but
> that does not equate to Windows clone.
Well, maybe and maybe not. It depend on what is considered better and if
the better Linux would make Linux nolonger viable for situations that it is
now perfectly suited for. I don't think the Linux platform need to get
better, meaning making alterations to what he have, what we can use is new
things added to the Linux platform to fill more needs while not impacting of
what already works.
> If you want Windows, use Windows. Don't encourage the destruction of a
> good system just because you want Windows.
Correct, I applaude.
> And if you think you can
> make a political statement by 'avoiding the big bad MS' by using Linux,
> get over it. Politics has nothing to do with 'good' system design. If
> you want Windows, it's still there, use it. If you want Linux, use it.
> But don't try to turn it into Windows.
Or if you want a free Windows clone, create your own FreeWindows from
scratch and LEAVE LINUX ALONE.
This whole situation reminds me of the scene in Dr. Zhivago when after the
revolution the officials come into the Doctor's home and determine that the
building could support more families than just his. They turn him and his
family out into the street to make room for the multiple families who could
not appreciate the home as it had been before. Some have label Linux users
as being commies, but taking away what is our that we have built to serve
our needs to serve the desires of the greater public of Windows users is
more in keeping with the actions of communist regimes. Those who would
dictate and impose a Windows like future for Linux are the real
"cybercommies".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: 11 Aug 2000 17:31:07 GMT
On 11 Aug 2000 04:44:25 GMT, Andres Soolo wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Well, no. Or at least, no, unless you are saying that speech has less
>>> information content than writing?
>The speech has also intonation that the writing doesn't. (I've heard
Wrong. You can use "accents" such as ' ` ~ . to convey tones.
>the Chinese writing system does that by using special strokes above the
>hieroglyphs but since I can't read Chinese, I can't confirm that.)
Wrong again. If you want to write Chinese using the Roman alphabet, you
use these symbols, and write in a phonetic system ( pinyin ). The
characters themselves in general have nothing to do with phonetics.
>
>Actually, it depends on the local dialect. There are some other ambiguities
>too:
> - written "o", when stressed, often becomes "a";
> - written "go" becomes "wo", like "segodnq" (pronounced "sevodnya");
> - "e" is called "ye" but pronounced "e" except when in the beginning of
> a word or following a vowel (Alekseev is pronounced "Alekseyev");
> - there's a letter, e-umlaut, pronounced "yo" but almost always written
> without the umlaut so it could easily be confused with "ye" like in
> the word "ev" (pronounced about "yozh" and means hedgehog).
These are still rules ( except the first one ). So they are not
really "ambiguities".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: FAQ for c.o.m.n.a Now Available!
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:42:29 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Robert Moir wrote:
> >
> > > Just look at the commercials with poor lil' ol' Bill.. looking like a
> > > common man talking about how they've worked so hard to do the best
they
> > > could.. and the big bad DOJ is coming after them for no reason.
Yeah..
> > > right.
> >
> > Well ok there is a reason. The reason is that too much of the rest of
the
> > computer business is too incompetent to compete with any company that
> > organises itself decently, and these incompetents go running home to
mommy
> > crying "foul" when they get beat.
> >
> > > > If you want lin-crap to win it should be competitive. It's that
simple.
> > >
> > > It is competitive. MS isn't. They squash everyone they can...
> >
> > Isn't that competition? The idea is to *beat* your opponent after all,
> > doesn't matter if its to the sale, the launch date, the football...
>
> Forcing contracts onto the stadium owners preventing the other teams
> from even being allowed into the arena is not "beating" your opponent...
> it's running from competition, and then merely POSTURING as a winner.
Whatever. You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. Have
fun now. See you around the Campus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Maximum file size question
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 16:43:54 GMT
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:54:41 -0400, Louis Antoine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Bob, can you try downloading the file using Netscape 4.74. I
>am not sure 4.73 had an issue.
4.74 seems to work for me on both Linux and NT4SP5. I have no Win9x
around, so I can't try that.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:57:44 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
"R. Tang" wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > One would need to assume the DOJ and Judge were FACTUALLY wrong.
> >>
> >> THis is not a huge assumption to make.
> >
> >It is a huge, unreasonable assumption. I A single fact in a finding of fact is
> >rarely changed - Let alone the entire finding of fact.
>
> Agreed. People forget that the findings of fact are based on what
> is presented in court. Given the absolutely shoddy Microsoft presentation,
> I think there is little room for Microsoft to hope to reverse the findings
> of fact.
And in this specific disagreement the two facts are (1) MS has monopoly power.
(2) They abused their power to maintain that monopoly. Also the consent decree
signed in 1995 was motivated by MS's anti-competitive preloading contracts.
Today's PC OS market is a distortion.
> >I can't (and will not) change your mind. I need not because you're opinion is
> >based on outlandish circumstances that haven't and (will not) happened. As the
> >case progresses, these doors will close. For now there is the improbable hope
> >that MS can over turn the facts on appeal.
>
> Far more likely that the penalty portion will be amended.
The clean solution is to split MS IF the appeals court agrees that they violated
the law -- which would hinge on the finding of fact. Having the government
monitor MS would be more intrusive. Also MS has demonstrated they are agressive
and argumentative and that both sides are in wide disagreement (they refused to
settle after the FoF was released). Anything less than a split would result in
endless court hearings and be intrusive so I feel the case will result in a split
or spin off of some of MS's technology.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 11 Aug 2000 17:57:33 GMT
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:24:32 -0400, Colin R. Day wrote:
>> You act the way you do because you were born in the late 20th century.
>> Ethically speaking, in principle, you hold no higher ground from a
>> cannibal,
>> or a crusader, or a member of the inquisition.
>
>I've never eaten anyone, I've never killed anyone over religion, and
>I've never tortured anyone for his or her beliefs. So how am I ethically
>equivalent?
You're ethically equivalent, because you are inferring that today's
morality is somehow absolute or universal. They made precisely the
same mistake.
Consider this --
(*) Do you eat meat ?
(*) Do you use transportation or other resources in a way that
substantially damages the environment ?
(*) Do you wear clothing manufactured in sweatshops ?
(*) Do you use products that have been tested on animals ?
In this day and age, most people are "guilty" of all three of the above
"offences". While all are considered acceptable today, I could see every
reason why a different society may find them no less barbaric than we
found the inquisition.
There's an excellent episode of Star Trek where an advanced species
board voyager, making themselves invisible, and they use the crew as
guinea pigs, without their knowledge. The captain points out that humans
have long ago abandonded the barbarism of vivisection, and the alien
creatures come up with the usual pro-vivisection rhetoric.
The issue here is this -- if there were a creature considerably
more advanced than us, would it be ethical for them to use us as lab rats ?
>> b) Immoral.
>
>Only by a flawed morality.
And how does one define an "unflawed" morality ?
>> d) Inconvenient (because they would go to hell!)
>
>Then the Church deserves censure for brainwashing.
What's the difference between "brainwashing" and "teaching" ?
>> Beliefs often lack adequate rational basis. They wouldn't
>> be beliefs otherwise.
>
>Oh great, let's take people with no rational basis for their
>beliefs and give them weapons and political power.
We already do. In fact we elect them on the basis that they share
the same beliefs as us.
>Yes. One is responsible for one's value system, and if one's
>value system demands such censorship, then such a
>system is wrong.
That in itself is a value judgement. Even in today's morality, I
can see a place for censorship. Here are some candidates
(*) real life depiction of criminal activity, including snuff movies
and child porn movies.
(*) One could argue that anti-defamation law is a form of censorship
>Hitler's "value system" demanded the extermination of the Jews,
>and his actions were coherent with it. Should he be held blameless?
My value system mandates that he is indeed blameworthy, so I'd answer
that he should not be held blameless.
But it's difficult to prove that my value system is "better" than his,
though it's obvious that mine is incompatible. But I could probably
offer a pretty good argument that policy consistent with my value system
will result in a happier society in the long run.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 11:05:56 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:15:50 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
> >
> >"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Come on, all the nitpicking of words is unnecessary, your sounding like a
> >resident of csma.
> >All the Windows bashing on earth by this small group won't change fate. Get
> >over it, you can view the real world kicking and screaming but it doesn't
> >change reality. Windows is proven to be extrememly stable, get over it.
> >Hotmail will soon be running on a Microsoft server like the other 20% of the
> >entire internet. Mince words all you like, unfortunately time still moves
> >forward while you live in denial.
>
> Time is moving forward, but Hotmail hasn't moved to NT. The MS crowd have
> talked about Hotmail moving to NT for a long time, but as of today, it's
> all talk, and your assertion that the move "will happen" rings as empty
> as any other bold claim from an MS cheerleader. I'll believe it when I
> see it.
Hotmail will never move to NT. Eventually Hotmail will move to Windows 2000
Data Center and it will be expensive and difficult. MS needs to test the new OS
and showcase it can work. This is a new OS that isn't proven so MS needs to use
their own technology and work out the bugs. They are now starting.
Meanwhile
Today MS ally HP has announced they are adding LINUX as a co-equal to HP UX and
Windows2000.
This week MS ally Dell says most of their revenue growth in servers is due to
sales of LINUX servers (for which Dell pays no OS royality).
The economic and technical advantage is clear.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:06:57 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
>
> > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If I remember correctly, the links were posted as
supporting
> > > > opinion
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > Windows2K is extremely reliable. Posted because I was
accused
> > of
> > > > > having
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > credibility when I said it myself.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You have no credibility . How could anyone credibly say W2K
is
> > a
> > > > > reliable
> > > > > > > OS -
> > > > > > > > W2K is too new and hasn't be in service long enough to prove
> > itself.
> > > > > > > Hotmail
> > > > > > > > still runs FreeBSD. That's why W2K deployment has been put
on
> > hold
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > firms. It's still hard to get drivers for W2K. Get real.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who cares what Hotmail runs? Whats's the point of changing the
> > server?
> > > > > It's
> > > > > > > just a company MS has purchased like 100's of others. There
are
> > > > > employees
> > > > > > > and hardware in place and I'd be real surprised if the service
> > ever
> > > > > turns a
> > > > > > > profit. Why sink dolloars retraining and purchasing un
neccessary
> > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > and software when the Hotmail doesn't make dime one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because it's a fucking admission that their OWN product (which,
> > whaddya
> > > > > > know, doesn't cost MS a dime) is incapable of handling the task.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well after looking into the matter further I've come across this
> > little
> > > > gem,
> > > > > read it and weep:
> > > > > "HotMail has commenced its much awaited migration to a Microsoft
> > operating
> > > > > system. Some Windows 2000 machines have recently been moved into
the
> > load
> > > > > balancing pool, with currently between 90-95% of requests being
served
> > by
> > > > > the established FreeBSD/Apache platform, and 5-10% from Windows
2000.
> > The
> > > > > Hotmail site infrastructure is enormous, and even if everything
runs
> > > > > smoothly, a migration will likely take several weeks."
> > > > > http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
> > >
> > > You didn't know MS made a boast they were going to roll HotMail over
to
> > > Windows2000. I'm not surprised.
> > >
> > > Let me highlight the text for you.."and if everything runs smoothly, a
> > > migration will likely take several weeks" "IF EVERYTHING RUNS
SMOOTHLY".
> > What
> > > IF it does not? Windows2000 is unproven so WHO knows? Not the OS
creator
> > but
> > > you DO?!?
> > >
> > > As of TODAY MS itself, has NOT yet made the commitment to use NT
(ever)
> > and
> > > they haven't used Windows2000. How can Windows2000 be proven? It is
NOT
> > and
> > > MS is even unsure IF THE PROCESS RUNS SMOOTHLY.
> >
> > Come on, all the nitpicking of words is unnecessary, your sounding like
a
> > resident of csma.
>
> There isn't an option - the facts are the facts.
>
> >
> > All the Windows bashing on earth by this small group won't change fate.
>
> I wouldn't know about fate. I'm not into mythology.
That's refreshing, but by fate I meant the move to W2K by a large percentage
of the server market is inevitable - regardless of the bashing I see here.
> So far W2K hasn't proven itself. That's not MS bashing - it's really pro
MS to
> be honest about W2K! If you really knew about W2K you'd argue about it's
> benefits and tone down the nonsense.
I'm relating my experiences, Window 2000 Advanced Server is extremely
reliable, as a matter of fact I've not had a single OS related problem.
What's nonsense about that, I have yet to see any proof to the contrary by
anyone. What is nonsense is the constant reliability bashing with without a
shred of supporting documentation.
>
> > over it, you can view the real world kicking and screaming but it
doesn't
> > change reality. Windows is proven to be extrememly stable, get over it.
> > Hotmail will soon be running on a Microsoft server like the other 20% of
the
> > entire internet. Mince words all you like, unfortunately time still
moves
> > forward while you live in denial.
>
> I'm sure Hotmail will be running a version of W2K now that MS is finishing
> Window2000 Data Center and will NEED to test W2K DC on HotMail. That's
good
> since the OS needs to be tested before customers will deploy the OS. MS
> isn't going to use the toy verion of W2K you said is stable but I suppose
these
> differences don't register with you.
Depending on your definition of tested. The software has had years of
testing under thousands of environments, the final product was compiled in
December 1999. If your definition of tested is testing in the marketplace,
no it's barely been tested, but it has performed as promised. Can you show
otherwise?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
