Linux-Advocacy Digest #515, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad C.
Mulligan")
Re: Things I have noticed................ (kiwiunixman)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux for nitwits (Bob Hauck)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (Bob Hauck)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:13:41 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900dr0$5pbqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Corneil du Plessis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:900d6e$kaq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > Only Microsoft expects their customers to upgrade everything when they
> make
> > a change.
>
> I still have a win95 running word 6 on a 486 & 12MB
> It's being used daily.
Word 6? Hmm, hardly the first version of that product. Did you come
to the party late or are you just conveniently forgetting the cycle through
the earlier versions - and the fact that for quite some time after Word97
came out and was shipped bundled with a lot of new machines you had
no way to access documents in that format?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:19:31 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cPHU5.25238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:luFU5.446$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > No, it was Novell that was providing most people the functionality
> > > that MS couldn't. I used AT&T unix myself back then, with something
> > > very similar to samba that they called the 'Starlan DOS Server' and
> >
> > Used that one my self.
>
> It was interesting because the original version used an AT&T proprietary
> transport protocol and actually included a DOS version of the server
> as well as clients. Then it was updated to use an OSI transport (back
> when phone companies still believed that OSI was going to replace
> TCP 'real soon now'). The OSI version was the only one available
> on the '486 when SysVr4 was released, and it was never done for
> the 3B1 so we had to go through a weekend of destruction where we
> tossed the 3B1's and upgraded all the 3B2's and clients in order to
> be able to use a 486 server at all. Then there was an OSI stack
> for Windows-for-WorkGroups to match, but this was never done
> for Win95.
I never went the 3Bx route, my first server was a 6386 with UNIX on it. The
proprietary AT&T protocol was a tweaked OEM version of LANManager just like
3Com's network was at the time.
>
> > > through an assortment of upgrades this evolved to 'StarGroup' and
> > > was a WFG/Win95 compatible netbios-over-tcp server - but it
> > > never had to deal with the 32Meg partition limits. Everything
> > > migrated transparently to Linux/samba eventually. I recall one of
> >
> > That's because it's the same thing a LanMan Server Unix port.
>
> And by that time TCP was added besides OSI and everything but
> email could use either. This allowed a fairly smooth switch to
> TCP on the client side.
>
Yeah it was a great little system. My $10K, 20MHz 80386 Server with 4MB RAM
and a whopping 300MB ESDI disk happily supported 100+ users for about three
years, even loading software like Lotus, WordPerfect and dBase from the
network.
> > > my friends trying to install the MS LanMan server back then and
> > > it couldn't deal with a 9 gig SCSI drive that he had been using under
> > > Netware. Great server design...
> > >
> >
> > What 9gig SCSI was available then? Hell up to Ver 9 HPUX couldn't
handle
> > more than 2 GB an that was in '95.
>
> It could have been even smaller, but whatever it was it had worked
> without problems on Netware.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed................
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:22:18 GMT
Thank you James for you constructive response and contribution to this
discussion
Although the comparison between the partforms, in some respect,
simplistic, this is the reality, Windows users can proclaim till they
are blue in the face that Windows NT is great as a server plaform,
however, the main websites in New Zealand are either Linux (mainly
Debian)/IRIX or Solaris, and it would be fair to say that it would
pretty much the same in the US, hence, NT still has not met the level of
reliability required by webservers. Windows on the desktop, however,
will remain the dominant OS as the demands users place on uptime is not
as great as a web admin would have on a websever. For those who demand
a little more grunt, there will always be a number of alternatives.
Highend workstations will remain in the relm of IRIX and the new Sun
Blade 1000, unfortanately, by Intel sticking with really old technology,
they have made their chips performance-impitant. Look at the Pentium 4,
uses ultra-expensive RDRAM, yet does not give a return in performance
one would expect from the amount of money thrown at it. If you look at
the Ultra Sparc III chip, 2.1GB Bus, O2 workstation with UMA - 2.1GB Bus.
The Mac, however, although people say it sucks because you can't put
thousands of pieces of computer equipment on it, however, what most
computer vendors donot understand is that most people who do by a
machine, at the very remote chance may upgrade the memory, hence when
aiming at the consumer market, why worry about massive expandability.
Combined with the new Mac OS X, the iMac will be a killer computer as it
would provide the user not only simple to use hardware, but an OS that
works for the user instead of against, compared to one of my relatives
who has a computer, and likes to keep all the files as up-to date as
possible, downloaded the latest version of DirectX, and what do ya know,
dll-hell, for a first time computer user they blame themselves, I
explained to him that these types of things happen (due to the design of
Windows), he has now since moved to Windows 2000 Pro, a big chunk of
money, but it solved most of his problems.
kiwiunixman
James wrote:
> Quite a fair comparison :-) (cannot comment on Mac - very rare around
> here).
>
> So Unix pips WinNT in stability, versatility and scalability.
>
> And Win2k pips all existing Unixes in desktop functionality and usability.
>
> Both are moving ahead to address their respective shortcomings. Unix with
> new desktops like KDE2, and Windows with more stable servers, such as Win2k.
> But for the foreseeable future Unix will continue to be the choice for
> servers, and Windows for the desktop. Amen.
>
> James
>
>
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I know the post I did was very "wintroll like", however, I am only
>> trying to stir a bit of shyte in this newsgroups :) with the absence of
>> Claire Lynn and co, things have been getting pretty boring, needed to
>> post something to liven up the atmosphere.
>>
>> Here are the proper things I have noticed:
>>
>> Windows, although getting better, still remains very bloated. Compare
>> the number of lines of code to UNIX, 20 Million vs 5 Million for Linux.
>> Microsoft advocate's, however, use the typical, superficial rebuttle of,
>> Microsoft has 2,000 developers, whether Microsoft has two thousand or
>> two million, at the end of the day, it is whether the original plain
>> that was set out, carried out, communication between the various
>> developers is constructive and targets are promptly kept. Generally
>> speaking, the most successful OS's have not always had thousands of
>> developers, and example of this would be BSD (and its variants).
>>
>> Here are the main three main OS's I have tried:
>>
>> Windows 2000: (from my experience), fairly stable, pretty good hardware
>> support. However, the hardware requirements of Windows 2000 are pretty
>> steep when compared to it's competition. Also, whether Windows 2000 is
>> more secure than previous NT releases, this has yet to be proven. For a
>> dedicated Wintel user, yes it is a defininate upgrade, however, for
>> Linux/UNIX users, Microsoft is still playing catch-up in terms of
>> realibility, stability and scalability.
>>
>> UNIX/Linux: (from my experience), very stable, average hardware support.
>> The minimum hardware requirements are not as steep as Windows 2000, yet,
>> able to provide the realibility, stability and scalability required in
>> an enterprise situation, from the Workstation to Server, Linux/UNIX has
>> all the bases covered.
>>
>> MacOS X Public Beta: From my limited experience, this OS will definately
>> bring the stability and reliability Mac users have been asking for.
>> Built on a Unix core for rock solid reliability, yet made easy with the
>> re-design of the MacOS GUI (Aqua). The main outstanding feature I found
>> were, Internet access was alot faster as the TCP/IP stack had been
>> replaced with the more robust BSD TCP/IP Stack, Both carbonized and
>> Cocoa apps thrive in the pre-emptive multi-tasking environment and the
>> speed of the booting is considerably better than that of MacOS9.
>>
>> In terms of ease of use, MacOS X would be the winner, however, in terms
>> of rock solid, "built like a brick shit house", reliability, UNIX is the
>> clear Winner. Although the reliability of Windows NT has improved, it
>> still has a way to go to reach the same level of respect UNIX has in
>> large corperations.
>>
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>> <ZIP>
>>
>>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:27:49 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > For that matter, why do people buy "toy" lawn mowers when perfectly good
> > tractor size models are available? (Hint: because the former type is
> > cheaper and more appropriate for small lawns.)
>
> That's your idea of a hint? =)
Well some out there need extra help. 8->
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:29:35 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'm not talking about Telnet, though that's been available on NT for
years
> > as well.
>
> The telnet client maybe...
>
> Or did you mean commercial third party addons for NT that allowed telnet?
> MS's one never appeared to make it out of beta until 2k.
>
No the resource kit has had a telnet server for years.
>
> But then, telnet isn't too useful on a system with a hampered command
> line either...
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:29:47 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900a3b$5s4t8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > > Use NT or better yet, 2000 for a good system.
> > > > Which also allow the same delivery mechanism.
> > > > At least by default.
> > >
> > > What delivery mechanism?
> > >
> >
> > How many would you like?
> > http://www.guninski.com/index.html
> >
>
> What system is your primary/favoirate OS?
I'm multi-OSal: Win98 and Linux machines at home, WinNT/2K/Linux/freeBSD
at work. I've had the most trouble with Win98 and NT. Win2K seems better
but is too much of a sealed black box to suit me. Linux/freeBSD just do
what they are supposed to do. As an example of the Win2k oddness, I was
trying to set up some virtual web sites under IIS with their home
directories
on a different server today. The first 2 were initially created on a local
drive
so I went into 'properties' and changed only the home directory to the UNC
path and they worked fine. The next one was new so I went through the
setup wizard with everything exactly the same except that I gave the UNC
path initially. Even though it was configured for anonymous access it
prompted for a login and password. I deleted it, added it back as a local
directory with everything else exactly the same, then went to properties and
changed the home directory to the UNC path and it works. Black magic?
Everything looks the same if you wade through all the tabs in properties
between the working/non-working setup. Using apache I would just cut
out the sections of the config file and diff them to see if I missed
something
obscure. How do you do that when all your configurations are hidden behind
a GUI?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:34:54 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > Perchance you need some learnin' on system configuration. BTW Linux 2.3
> > with KDE really stunk on that system. And Linux wouldn't run the SQL
> > application.
> >
>
> Perchance you need some learnin' on system configuration.
> Like I said, if you read carefully enough, this is a fresh,
> default install from the Windozzzzzzzzzzzzz 2000 Pro CD.
> No extra crap running, just the default stuff.
>
> Maybe you need to take a mulligan.
Nope, maybe you need to learn how to configure systems. The funny thing
about the old piece of junk is the HD is flakey too but software performance
is fine.
>
> Chris
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:37:36 GMT
Something like the old Amiga Workbench 3.5, small, reliable, fast, and
used bugger all memory, would be nice for the PeeCee. When I used
Workbench 1.3 on my old Amiga 500 (with 1.5MB RAM), I never saw it
crash, every when "multi-tasking" :)
kiwiunixman
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:33:56 GMT, kiwiunixman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 06:05:25 GMT, Matthew Soltysiak
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have a p3 500...128 meg ram...runs fine...
>>>
>>> So...I guess you think that's a small machine? What was the man saying
>>> about bloatware?
>>
>> Finally, someone actually looked at the question. I want an OS that has
>> a very small footprint (I don't really care about media players and
>> integrated web-browsers), say 200MB, small memory requirement, say,
>> around 32MB, if it was done to-day, I would be as happy as a clam.
>
>
> I'm running with only 48 MB of memory on this P-120 laptop. Works well
> enough that I've no plans to upgrade it. However, I'm using the
> blackbox window manager and 16-bit color, not the latest 3D gizmo and a
> "modern desktop".
>
> The 800 MB disk has only about 250 MB free though, as I have a full
> development system (several languages and target cpu's), xemacs,
> wordperfect, and a whole slug of network tools on it.
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:41:27 +1300
sorry, around 30 years anyway.
Bennetts family wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> SO, conrade, by you so-called definition of an advanced OS, anything CLI
>> is shyte!, yeah right, how come SGI super computers run UNIX? Howcome
>> IBM's Deep Blue runs AIX (an IBM UNIX variant)? How come most financial
>> institutions (such as the National Bank of New Zealand) rely on UNIX?
>> because it has 30-35 years of proven reliability, NT4 was meant to be
>> the big UNIX busting OS....hello!....UNIX is still here.....stronger
>> than ever.
>
>
> Come on, Unix is only about 30 years old, certainly not 35. Although Multics
> might reach back that far, possibly...
>
> --Chris
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:43:44 GMT
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:07:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>> For a very lightweight window manager that has a clock
>> at the bottom of the screen, multiple workspaces, and
>> kde compatibility, you might want to look at Blackbox.
>The trouble with migrating to other window managers is that,
>as a new convert to Linux, I don't automagically know how
>to switch to the new window manager after having installed
Ok, that's reasonable. You might want to look at the XWindow-User
HOWTO. Find it on your hard disk or via <http://www.linuxdoc.org/>.
It explains how to set up a custom window manager, and a lot of other
stuff about X.
>In fact, actually doing more than changing the pretty
>colors or altering the theme is not something the Linux
>community feels the need to write documentation for.
KDE and Gnome offer a lot more customization than that. The start menu
equivalents are just as customizable as in Windows as far as I can
tell. You can make desktop shortcuts. You can drag and drop between
folders. And so on.
FVWM is just a window manager, not a complete desktop. Same with
blackbox. Which I thought it what you wanted, but now you seem to be
lamenting that fvwm doesn't do desktop-like things. Oh well.
Something about cake and eating it too would probably fit here.
Anyway, fvwm is actually one of the more complex of the manually
configured window managers in terms of it's config files. So the good
news is it doesn't get any uglier.
>I think that there needs to be a standard--sigh--like
>Windoze--double sigh--
It is indeed quite unremarkable that Windows refugees think that Linux
needs many more Windows-like features. It is a different OS. You'll
have to get used to that. Macs aren't exactly like Windows either.
Hopefully the benefits outweigh the need to change.
If you want something more like Windows, then you ought to use one of
the more Windows-like desktops, such as KDE or Gnome. If you don't
want to learn how to install them, get a distribution that does it for
you. FVWM doesn't even pretend to be a complete desktop. It looks a
lot like Windows, and that's about it.
If you want minimal, you can have that with Linux. If you want easy
point and click customization, you can have that. I don't know how to
do both.
>This standard Window Manager menu structure would then be the defacto
>standard method for all Window Managers
The big problem with this idea is that the existing window managers
already exist, have existed for many years (some predate Linux) and
already have their own mechanisms. I don't know how you are going to
get them all to rewrite their configuration interface to this new
standard.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Statistic about this bigot group
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:43:46 GMT
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:25:24 GMT, Gerson Kurz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I evaluated 1335 mails including the heavy traffic threads "Of course
>there is a downside" and "The sixth sense". This is a list of the top
>ten newsreaders used to post messages.
I guess now I have to go back to gnus just to stand out in your list.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Statistic about this bigot group
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:43:50 GMT
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:30:56 -0500, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, because as has been bandied about ad naseum, linux != decent end user
>internet platform due to second & third rate browsers, news readers, mail
>clients,..on and on and on and on....
It instead might prove that there are more trolls here than advocates.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:43:57 GMT
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:34:43 GMT, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I love how virtually all Linux lovers say they are forced to use Windows
>at least sometimes.
This seems to surprise you. Why?
>Usually end up that they just plain can't do something the need to in
>Linux and have to go back to Windows to do it.
Yes, because most people don't get to pick their own software at work.
I get to pick some things, but I'm not the one that decided that
specifications are to be written in Word. At home, where I pick all
the software, I have no Windows.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:43:54 GMT
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 06:22:10 GMT, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Question: Is Terminal Server the rich man's X-Windows server?
>
>Again. Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.
Ah, you must be a consultant paid by the hour to solve Windows
problems.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:44:00 GMT
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:43:22 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>No, it means that Linux users like this don't give a rip about what
>consumers want.
I agree. I don't give a rip what "consumers" and "market segments"
want. I give a rip what _I_ want.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:44:52 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ak%U5.25824$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9002v7$5mp65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > MS went out of its way to fix this. Did it very fast, too.
> > >
> > > Note that this was at a time that MS had legal problems over
> > > anti-competitive
> > > practices. I remember having to upgrade many applications over the
> years
> > > because they quit working with some particular MS version change or
> > service
> > > pack, but can't remember the details. Did anyone keep records of
which
> > > app broke at each change?
> >
> > So, "MS broke a lot of application." and "I clearly remember that" and
> "I've
> > no details about it"*
> > Somehow, I am finding this statement completely unbelievable.
>
> OK, let's try approaching this from the other direction. How many large
> apps
> from MS's competitors are you still running unchanged from the first
version
> of Windows. Or even from 1995?
>
How 'bout WordPerfect5.0 (Many lawyers use it because the line numbering
works).
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:52:37 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:keIU5.25245$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:YTFU5.492$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > Unix had this from the Very Start.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why did it take Microsoft over 15 years to come up with similar
> > > > functionality?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Because in the bad old days, none of the systems were connected to
> > others
> > > > nor were they connected to the outside world, such functionality was
> not
> > > > needed.
> > >
> > > I just love historical revisionism. Windows for WorkGroups didn't
> > > really exist, nobody ever used DOS or Windows on top of Netware,
> > > Windows95 didn't really offer to share files, Windows98 didn't offer
> > > to share files.
> >
> > Not in the beginning. I guess I've been doing this longer than you.
IAC
> my
> > point was even in those limited environments any access was local only
> > (Hint: LAN==LOCAL AREA NETWORK) outside connectivity was rare to
> > non-existent.
>
> If you started with DOS, you haven't been doing it longer. And DOS
> networking
> was common long before Windows was even an idea. AT&T's Starlan
> DOS server included a real DOS version of the server that you could use
> along with or instead of the unix version. I've forgotten the dates but
it
> must have been around 1985 or 1986, and before wide area networking
> was common you had modems which were exactly the same problem
> security-wise.
>
Actually I started with JCL, and OS360 on IBM 360's. Remember punched
cards?
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:53:23 GMT
I wonder who the developers are who develop the apps at Microsoft, does
the big Microsoft think tank say to the developers to write a program
with a whole heap of features (that no body except the 0.01% who find
them useful) and not to worry about efficiency. For once I would like
Microsoft to set a base system that all their Office and Operating
System (Client) software should work at a reasonable level on, say a
Pentium 100 with 850 Mb HDD and 32MB Ram, if it doesn't perform, back to
development until is does, then finally Microsoft will realise that
every computer user does not have a bottom-less pit of money in their
back yard so that they can upgrade their hard disk, memory, and
processor so that they (the consumer) can use the new version of Office
and Windows, why not stick with the version they already have? well,
their work has upgraded, hence the new suite file types are not
compatible with the previous release...could all this bloatware be a big
a conspiracy theory....Microsoft colluding with Hard disk, memory and
processor manufacturers. :) so that they (hardware manufacturers) can
sell more of their products.
kiwiunixman
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
>>
>>> a single UDMA66 20Gb drive sells for about $180 or so, last i looked. 650Mg
>>> (which, i'm guessing, includes your page file) is not much of a problem.
>>
>
> Said kiwiunixman in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:04:53
> GMT;
>
>> Add 34 real media files, development programs, games, office suite and
>> other assorted goodies, and there ya go, almost full.
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>
> It is simply foolish and ignorant to *ever* consider a real resource
> (that being something that is in limited supply, regardless of how large
> the supply is) as unlimited. It is the primary failure in most cases in
> which resource limitations are a problem, in fact, and is the only
> reason they ever do become a problem. Because some numbnuts thought,
> "resources are cheap, so its not much of a problem."
>
> This is most particularly true with hard drive space. You cannot make a
> hard drive bigger; you have to replace the hard drive with a larger one,
> or add an additional drive. (This is trivial in Unix, as a mount point
> can be added anywhere as an extension of the existing file system; the
> only limitation is you can't make it part of an existing directory. It
> is not possible to do this in a way which is operationally effective in
> any MS system, as the new drive is always an additional storage resource
> from the root.) Because the hard drive is persistent storage, it is
> inevitably much more difficult to "expand" hard drive space than it is
> to add RAM, or even to replace the CPU entirely! (Except in any MS
> system, where changing the CPU requires what is effectively the
> equivalent of a "kernel recompile", except you need the OEM disks for
> every piece of hardware you have connected to the system!)
>
> Pretty pathetic how bad PCs are, in the real world, with Microsoft
> illegally monopolizing, in comparison to what you would expect if you
> know anything about computer development over the last thirty years,
> don't you think?
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
