Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 05:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Need help with NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: RPM Hell ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!! (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need help with NT
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:12:02 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9388h3$da1$04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > I couldn't search the newsgroups because the network adapters weren't
> > working.
>
> What, network adapters weren't working?
> Under NT? or even W2K????
> Well, that really is grave. You've got my whole sympathy.
You can't seem to follow a discussion very well. The 2 3COM 3c905b network
adapaters I had in the Linux firewall I was trying to configure. I had no
idea it was because they happened to be the same exact card, or I would have
pulled one out. It was just these random problems. One minute the card
would work, the next it wouldn't.
Installing FreeBSD cured the problem.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:29:22 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thanks Alan,
>
> I knew I wasn't imagining it
>
> Erik, your thoughts?
First, you claimed the NT server crashed 13 times in a year. The article
says the NT server crashed on average once every 6 weeks over 10 months, not
a year(that's crashes, not 13) and it was "since January" and the article
was published on November 1st. Giving standard publishing deadlines for
weekly magazines, that means the article was probably submitted September
1st. Even if we give the author credit for having written the article in
only 1 day, that means that at most the test period was over 9 months or 39
weeks. 39 / 6 = 6.5. So the server crashed 6 times, not 13.
Second, This took place over 2 years ago. Using NT4 SP3, which was not all
that stable for some tasks. SP4 was much more stable.
Third, Despite your grossly overexagerated claims, a 45 day uptime is quite
good for NT4 SP3. Windows 2000 has no such problems.
>
> jjs
>
> Alan Boyd wrote:
>
> > OK, I'll back him up. I saw that article too.
> >
> > In fact...look here:
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/issue/0,4537,2387282,00.html
> >
> > Conventional wisdom says Linux is incredibly stable.
> > Always skeptical, we decided to put that claim to the
> > test over a 10-month period. In our test, we ran Caldera
> > Systems OpenLinux, Red Hat Linux, and Windows NT
> > Server 4.0 with Service Pack 3 on duplicate 100MHz
> > Pentium systems with 64MB of memory. Ever since we
> > first booted up our test systems in January, network
> > requests have been sent to each server in parallel for
> > standard Internet, file and print services. The results
> > were quite revealing. Our NT server crashed an average
> > of once every six weeks. Each failure took roughly 30
> > minutes to fix. That's not so bad, until you consider that
> > neither Linux server ever went down. This test, coupled
> > with our technical staff's extensive Linux and NT
> > experience, leads us to believe that Linux truly is more
> > stable than NT on uniprocessor servers.
> >
> > --
> > "I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
> > program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
> > will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:43:36 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:24L56.56134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:1_q56.9004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Note that Microsoft did not offer these until AFTER forcing
> > > all competing WYSIWYG editors out of the market.
> >
> > What are you talking about? When Office 97 was released (in 1996) it
> > included the filter so that Word 95 could read Office 97 documents on
the
> CD
> > (as well as a free download).
>
> I don't remember that as being the case in the original release and I know
> the download either wasn't available or wasn't publicized until many
> months after it was needed because everyone I know was literally forced
> to upgrade from word95 for no reason other than to be able to read
> the attachments being sent by people who bought new PC's with
> Word97 pre-installed. Even if the 97 CD did contain a filter, I don't
> see how that helps the people who have word95 and obviously don't
> have a copy of the 97 CD.
I got my release of Office 97 throught the MSDN about a month before it was
available on the shelves. It was on the CD, because I used it. That CD was
exactly the same as the retail version which I got with a new PC at work
shortly after it was officially released.
I also downloaded the file from MS's office site on 3 different machines 2
weeks before 97 was released, since I was using Office 97 document format on
one machine (My home machine) and needed to use it at work and didn't have
the Office 97 MSDN cd with me.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:45:01 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:18:06
> >[...]Even if the 97 CD did contain a filter, I don't
> >see how that helps the people who have word95 and obviously don't
> >have a copy of the 97 CD.
>
> Well, you can't very well put in on the 95 CD. ;-)
>
> And, as Erik is so anal about pointing out, it was available for
> download.
>
> But I wonder why on earth Microsoft couldn't provide a filter for 95 to
> allow it to save in 97 format, as well? Is it just that its
> nonsensical? It does seem bizarre, doesn't it? Word97 could read 95
> files, of course; it just couldn't write them (till people complained).
> Still, that's premised on the notion that there was some beneficial
> format change to begin with, which means wanting to save a 95 file in 97
> format should make sense?
The filter did allow it to save and read in 97 format. Yet again, you make
an assumption which is incorrect.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 09:23:57 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZXV56.159628$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
> > Kulkis is actually the only entry that I have in my killfile. I can
> > tolerate Chad Myers and Drestin Black because they at least don't have
> > to resort to 3rd grade toilet language when responding to someone that
> > disagrees with them. In the 6 or so months that Aaron has posted
> > here, I have yet to see a post that actually contributed positively to
> > any thread.
>
> I wish KNode had a killfile.
>
> My Windows news reader claims a killfile but it doesn't actually work. Ho
> hum.
I've nicknamed my killfile the Lazarus Bin as after a few days the
inhabitants magically reappear.
I should say *inhabitant* as I've only seen it necessary to put one idiot in
there.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:51:45 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 6 Jan 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> So in order to avoid having to even bother writing an export filter for
> >> Word95, MS figured they could just use RTF, and save the files with
.doc
> >> extensions to minimize the questions from the mass user base. A
typical
> >> cost cutting process, and not at all a matter of trying purposefully to
> >> screw anyone or force them to upgrade.
> >>
> >> That scenario is quite possible, and I guess you've stumbled onto a
> >> reasonable justification which does not require malice. Merely the
fact
> >> that monopolies are not controlled by a requirement to be competitive,
> >> so brain-dead, unacceptable, counter-productive, moronic ideas like
this
> >> end up being forced down the throat of millions of consumers. No
> >> competitive organization would fail to see how stupid this is, and how
> >> adversely it will affect their customer-base. Microsoft, though; it
> >> doesn't have to care, because its an illegal monopoly. (Which means
> >> that the 'purposeful theory' is still not excluded by reason, anyway.)
> >
> >It's also the most likely scenario. Attributing to malice, that which
can
> >adequately be explained by other means is a sign of a paranoid
personality.
>
> Denying evidence, on the other hand, of purposeful and repetitive
> "malice" (intent to monopolize) in similar scenarios, is merely
> soft-headed.
No, you completely made up the story that MS didn't include a Word95 save
feature in order to force users to upgrade, when in fact it was simply a
cost saving measure. Whether or not MS changes their format to force
upgrades is largely irrelevant to that fact.
Also, consider that the file format didn't change between Word 6.0 and Word
95. Also consider that the format didn't change between Word 97 and 2000.
Also consider that the Excel format hasn't change since Excel 5, 4 versions
ago. If MS was so concerned, wouldn't they change the formats of all their
programs every time?
> >You anti-microsoft zealots put MS so high on a pedestal.
>
> Not so high that you can't see the competition from there.
>
> >They are
> >omnipotent and carefully craft these huge conspiracies which they pull of
> >flawlessly year after year.
>
> No, they monopolize. No omnipotence necessary; its a self-reenforcing
> criminal strategy to restrain trade.
Yet they are able to successfully pull this off, time after time, even when
they had no monopoly in Office software.
> >In your rush to decry them, you are willing to
> >latch onto any feeble rumor and present it as fact (for instance, the
> >neverending stories of how NT contains DEC source code line for line, how
> >Hotmail was converted to NT right away and it crashed, how MS uses secret
> >API's in their apps to make them work better than their competition, and
a
> >ton of others).
>
> All simplifications of factual predatory activity.
None of which are true, or at least proveably so. Nobody has provide any
evidence, not even in the DOJ trials to suggest any of them.
> >Fact is, MS got lucky in a few key areas, and their competition failed to
> >compete.
>
> No, the facts are (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm)
None of the above rumors are in there.
> that they break the law, and act anti-competitively. Of course "the
> competition failed to compete" (did you know that was nonsensical?);
> there is no way to compete against someone who is anti-competing.
Funny how Intuit and AOL have managed to do so.
> Competing harder only loses money faster; your only possible strategy,
> in fact, is to anti-compete. This "cascade effect" is something you'd
> find even easier to hand-wave away. But the utter naivete (or
> stupidity, lets be honest) of proposing that MS "got lucky in a few key
> areas" is rather preposterous. I'm sure you'll find it comforting to
> know, however, that it is now wise to attribute to intellectual
> dishonesty what can be reasonably explained by ignorance.
Anyone can compete against MS. You just have to be agressive.
I've worked for 2 different companies that successfully fought off a MS
entry into their market. I know it works.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:53:19 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > rpm -i --nodeps --replace *.rpm
> >
> > Now *that's* intuitive.
>
> Much more so than the arcane pee cee registry details
> and command lines that one has to deal with windows
> problems.
Note that this is simply install syntax. Changing the registry is more akin
to configuring your app once you've installed it, something you still have
to do even after the arcane install syntax.
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!!
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:31:59 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Take a look at the MGM website but make sure you are not running
> Linsux when you do it because the movie clips are QuickTime format and
> once again Penguinista's, you lose...
>
> http://www.antitrustthemovie.com/downloads_trailer.html
>
> Don't try this one on Linsux kiddies :)
>
>
> Hysterical!!!!!!
>
> When oh when will these LinoScrews ever get anything right?
>
You are right! Lynx does not play this trailer. Now I start erasing my two
Linux-Systems. And then I will install Win3.1/9*/NT/2k. No matter to blue
screens or crashes every 30 minutes, but I have to see this trailer. And
Quick Time is such a good format......
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Auf der Donau 29
45139 Essen
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
