Linux-Advocacy Digest #408, Volume #25 Sat, 26 Feb 00 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Bob Lyday)
Re: which OS is best? (Andy Newman)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Donovan Rebbechi)
This is C.O.L.A here right? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet Censorship
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Damien)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (phil hunt)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: Mandrake as bad or worse than MS? (John)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 16:10:50 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> I wish people would stop arguing over which operating system is best and
> just let all operating systems exist in harmony.
>
I guess part of the reason is that the more popular the OS is, the more
apps, drivers, etc. are available and the greater the long-term
stability of the OS. because computer users have to invest a bunch of $
in apps, etc. they have an interest in keeping their user base as high
as possible. See my point.
> I thought the whole point of linux was to give users a choice as to which
> system to run on their machines.
>
> If linux users force all users to use their system then they are becoming as
> bad as the mighty microsloth.
Excellent point. I for one am sick and tired of Linux users slagging on
the Mac, OS/2, BeOS or the Amiga. They are all fine OS's and they
should all be able to live in harmony with each other. It's retarded.
>
> Lets just make sure all computer users know that there is more than 1 choice
> out there and let them decide whether to run MS Windblows or Linux (or even
> Beos or Mac OS or good old msdos / calera dos).
Or one of the Unixen (BSD, Solaris), OS/2 or the Amiga for that matter.
>
> And before anyone accuses me of being financially connected to microsoft let
> me just add that I hate their unstable operating systems as much ay you do
> and my home PC is dual-boot win98 / Linux (may also add Beos now it is going
> to be free) but I do beleive in letting users make up their own minds
> without being forced to run what everyone thinks they should run (same with
> the Linux KDE / Gnome / Afterstep desktop manager choice).
>
Good point. If someone is perfectly happy running Losedoze then hey let
em, huh?
Bob
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made in here
> >against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only reason there are
> people in
> >NGs arguing against the widespread acceptance of linux is a financial tie
> to ms.
> >
> >Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they can
> change as
> >they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of tech support but
> instills
> >more confidence than the current expensive option availpable?
> >
> >Let's see now:
> >
> >-windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use. MS is highly
> resistant to
> >working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
> >
> >-linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of time
> before
> >an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow neophytes to comfortably
> make
> >use of it.
> >
> >And again, any bugs in linux are quickly eradicated, while windows users
> are at
> >the mecy of ms to repair them, assuming ms even fesses up to their
> existance. It
> >is typical of ms to deny them or their culpability, as they consistently,
> >wretchedly blame the user's incompetence or the other app manufacturer for
> >"improperly written software." Assuming ms even bothered to publish the
> >necessary apis to even allow for development.
> >
> >Personally, I prefer free and stabile over expensive and bloated.
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:31:02 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <OMHCoFHg$GA.247@cpmsnbbsa04>, mikegalos wrote:
>Yes, GIF is a Compuserve thing but the Unisys claim is based on the
>compression algorithm inside the GIF format (some LZW-like encoding)
"some LZW-like encoding" should be read as "the LZW encoding".
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: 27 Feb 2000 00:28:10 GMT
On 26 Feb 2000 21:14:31 GMT, Damien wrote:
>Perhaps you can point me to this file that documents Word doc formats.
>I know a lot of people who would be interested in it, including the
>Word Perfect division of Corel. Their Word document filter suck @$$
>to say the least.
You can find it on the MS developer Network, CD I believe. The guy who wrote
the Linux wordview program ( a owrd to html filter ) explicitly states this.
http://www.wvWare.com/wvInfo.html
But the problem with filtering MS word documents is not just a simple
lexical parseing problem. When you have embedded spreadsheets, Visual
Basic macros, etc, conversion becomes somewhat difficult. The problem
has as much to do with a lack of standards compliance as anything else.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: This is C.O.L.A here right?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:35:36 GMT
Wow, Reading way to much W2K stuff here. Time for talk about a GOOD OS!
I just upgraded to Mandrake 7.0 and I am impressed! The best install
program I have EVER seen! As usual, I went for expert mode. Well, I was
suprised at how much power a GUI install could give me! At one point I
was asked what level of security I wanted...5 choices from "Welcome
Hackers" to "Paranoid". Liking the sound of a Paranoid security level, I
clicked that. It asked for a TEN(10) letter root password the griped
that the one I picked was toooooo simple. Geees. I found I could change
the security level using the new system management tools form Mandrake.
Overall, I find the new GUI stuff from Mandrake much better than the GUI
from the other OS vendor. And I still have the command line!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 11:15:43 +1000
"mr_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:40:14 GMT, "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michael Wand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > > Now, if *they* do *not* manage to get it to run under w2k (i.e.
> >> > > having so little thrust in their *own* products ability) and
> >> > > still tout it as the best thing since sliced bread, what should
> >> > > I think about the rest of their claims?
> >> >
> >> > If they don't then you've finally got a legit thing to point to and
sneer.
> >> > But, until they try and fail - you've nothing.
> >>
> >> I have - the question *why* they didn't.
> >I'm 100% pro-Microsoft. However, I must admit that NT4 was probably
underpowered to run
> >Hotmail. There were a number of NT4 problems which were fixed in SP6/6a
(released at the
> >end of 1999). I don't know if those patches made it into Win2K.
> >In addition, the most powerful member of Win2K family hasn't been
released yet (Datacenter
> >addition). Also, some portions of COM+ (component load-balancing) were
rejected by
> >beta-testers and didn't make it into release of Win2K (I understand that
those components
> >are due to be released by mid-2000).
> >I would be surprised if Hotmail weren't converted to Win2K by the end of
2000. MS might
> >decide to wait for Win64 to be released, though.
> >I agree, that Hotmail conversion would be an excellent argument in favor
of usability of
> >Win2K for the largest web sites.
> >
> >Boris
> >
>
> Finally a voice of reason from the MS camp. Thanks Boris for
> providing some valid reasons to this issue.
That's an interesting comment given that Boris is basically saying the exact
same thing every other NT advocate has been wrt the Hotmail issue......
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet
Censorship
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:14:57 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't hate gay people, I hate their deviant behavior.
> I live in NYC Mark and have seen my share of deviants, on a daily basis.
> Green haired men dressed as women. Women dressed as biker men and so forth.
> Have YOU ever seen the Greenwhich Village Halloween parade?
> A spectectle of deviant behavior second to none.
Come out of the closet and admit you are gay. Anyone with such hangups must
be suppressing his real sexuality.
Of course I may be completely wrong in which case you are very sick.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Feb 2000 01:41:57 GMT
On 27 Feb 2000 00:28:10 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 26 Feb 2000 21:14:31 GMT, Damien wrote:
|
| >Perhaps you can point me to this file that documents Word doc formats.
| >I know a lot of people who would be interested in it, including the
| >Word Perfect division of Corel. Their Word document filter suck @$$
| >to say the least.
|
| You can find it on the MS developer Network, CD I believe. The guy who wrote
| the Linux wordview program ( a owrd to html filter ) explicitly states this.
|
| http://www.wvWare.com/wvInfo.html
|
| But the problem with filtering MS word documents is not just a simple
| lexical parseing problem. When you have embedded spreadsheets, Visual
| Basic macros, etc, conversion becomes somewhat difficult. The problem
| has as much to do with a lack of standards compliance as anything else.
The problems:
"[The MS Office file formats] all made freely available from the MS
msdn website in 1998. Since then they have been removed,"
One can speculate as to why.
"[The specs are] often incomplete. Some fields are wrong, and some
information is not fully correct,"
The problem is not only a lack of standards adherence, it's the reason
behind it. MS proprietorizes everything it can in an effort to
monopolize every market it can. This is a Bad Thing(tm).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:53:18 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26 Feb 2000 02:23:00 -0800,
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In gnu.misc.discuss, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Here's an interesting question about that analogy: why are TV, radio,
>> and web pages paid for mostly by sponsorship, but theatrical movies and
>> home video paid for directly by the consumers? Currently, the
>> traditional software industry is apparently modeled after home video:
>> you buy (or rent) a copy, and you're not allowed to let your friends
>> make duplicates. What would it take to shift it to the sponsorship
>> model?
>
>I'm not sure an advocate of free software would want to draw that
>particular comparison, as the primary difference between theatrical movies
>and TV programs is that theatrical movies are significantly higher quality
>in pretty much all technical respects and even in most creative respects.
>(There are, of course, exceptions.)
Cinematic movies cost more money than TV shows, certainly. But does that
make them better quality? IMO, no. The only way I'd say quality is
definitely better is regarding expensive special effects. In terms of the
quality of the scripts, the quality of the acting, etc, there is little
difference.
In creative respects, most cinematic movies are sorely lacking. This is
partly because, with the amount being spent per film, movie executives
are very cautious -- so every successful film gets loads of sequels,
usually of decreasing quality every time, and other films attempt to
copy the idea of a successful one.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Feb 2000 01:46:36 GMT
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 23:37:24 -0000, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| I thought the whole point of linux was to give users a choice as to which
| system to run on their machines.
Actually the purpose behind Linux is world domination. The GNU
project however started because people thought software should be
free.
| If linux users force all users to use their system then they are becoming as
| bad as the mighty microsloth.
I disagree.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: 27 Feb 2000 02:15:21 GMT
On 27 Feb 2000 01:41:57 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On 27 Feb 2000 00:28:10 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| On 26 Feb 2000 21:14:31 GMT, Damien wrote:
>|
>"[The MS Office file formats] all made freely available from the MS
>msdn website in 1998. Since then they have been removed,"
>
>One can speculate as to why.
Yeah, bring on the X-Files music. They have still made the specs available.
>"[The specs are] often incomplete. Some fields are wrong, and some
>information is not fully correct,"
So their documentation is imperfect. However, GTK's documentation until
recently was also imperfect or perhaps nonexistant. To assume that poor
quality documentation is the result of some "conspiracy" is jumping to
conclusions.
The main problem IMO is standards. Star Office have done just fine writing
Office filters, but the main problem is that they use things like Visual
basic macros. In short to be MS Office compatible, you need a Visual Basic
runtime environment.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:45:21 -0500
"asrmj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I liked how you put that (TM) in there to make this message
> > >> > sound legit.
> > >> >
> > >> > Your description sounds like bullshit to me. Try again.
> > >>
> > >> You really are the biggest arsehole on this newsgroup.
> > >
> > > allow me to suggest: go fuck yourself.
> >
> > If only I could I would be flattered. :-)
> >
> > You M$ guys just don't understand how scsi works. Here was a guy who
> > couldn't boot his sytsem when he powered on a scsi device which had a
> > different scsi id from the other devices on the scsi chain. M$ have
> > screwed up here. Why they can't handle scsi devices like everyone else
> > is unbelievable. Many complaints against M$ are due to their marketing
> > people dictating what the system should do. Here is a case of a pure
> > s/w design cockup. Who in their right mind will deploy any M$ is a
> > company critical environment?
> >
> > Drestin, to stop making a complete fool of yourself any more please
> > desist from posting until you know what you are talking about.
>
> My theory: Drestin is an ms artificial stupidity drone. Not a real
> human, but a BOT designed to smother all valid ms criticism once spotted
> in a ng. I will never answer to a Drestin post, it's no use because it
> wouldn't listen anyway.
Your theory is as wrong as the rest of your other posts.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake as bad or worse than MS?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:10:25 GMT
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:20:51 GMT, Darryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>This frustrated linux user hasn't given up and has no plans to, but it
>was good to see this as well. From my experience in the last month
>with Linux, I've come to like both Linux AND Win95 more, oddly enough.
>
Can't say I like Win95 any more, its okay. I do enjoy getting around
in Linux. The thing I like in Win95 is that most apps are mostly
stable vs. some of the ones I've used under Linux. Though under
Linux, I haven't found any problems yet with command line stuff I have
used.
>And it's made me much more humble when it comes to explaining how to do
>things in W95 to users where I work.
I like this observation, it does remind you how hard it is to be a
stranger in a strange land.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:05:41 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:897m88$5lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> The above is along the lines of "Although McDonalds claims that the
BigMac
> >> is the healthiest burger on its menu, 75% of McDonalds customers still
> >> buy fries". Or how about "Although Thyssen touts the Transrapid to be
the
> >> most advanced and most mature of the magnetic levitation trains, 99% of
all
> >> customers using Thyssen equipment still choose older, rail-bound train
> >> transport".
>
> >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
>
> Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
> *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit address
> spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs on
64 bit processors right now.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:55:40 -0500
"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Karri Kalpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >Windows Server Is the Leading Internet Platform Among Fortune 500
> > > > Companies
> > > > > >Microsoft Corp. today announced that the Microsoft� Windows� 2000
> > Server
> > > > > >operating system has seen rapid adoption among Web sites.
According
> > to
> > > > > [remainder of Microsoft press release wiped and flushed]
> > >
> > > Eh..? From MS web site (front page, actually):
> > >
> > > "Register to attend the Feb. 17 launch of Windows
> > > 2000, the business operating system for
> > > the next generation of computing. Appearing live
> > > via satellite in major cities around the
> > > world, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates will highlight
> > > customer solutions, showcase
> > > powerful new Windows 2000 features, and, of course,
> > > inject lots of surprises. Hurry,
> > > seating is limited."
> > >
> > > ...and from my xterm:
> > > batcave% date
> > > Fri Feb 11 09:39:21 EET 2000
> > > batcave%
> > >
> > > I might guess that somebody at the MS PR department fucked up and
> > > published the results of that "research" a month too early...
> > >
> >
> > Actually no, you are just suprised to learn that despite the general
release
> > of Windows 2000 still a week away W2K is ALREADY heavily favored by
those in
> > the know. Release code has been avaialble since Dec 15th - people are
> > already running it for their most critical applications and sites.
>
>
> Hmmm... Almost everyone I know, including extreme Windows people are
> taking a wait and see position. Generally, they tell me that they want
> to wait for the first two or three service packs to come out and let
> other people field the problems that are sure to shake out with new
> product that is that complex and has that much change at one time.
> Rightfully so. I personally would fire anyone that brought W2K in for
> critical system. If it had to be NT, it would be NT 4.0+SPs or else I'd
> walk them out the door. That's called gross negligence and incompetence
> no matter what product it is.
First: Anytime I here this: "Wait for one or three SPs" I laugh outloud. Who
are they fooling? Tell me anyone that waited for 3 SPs from NT4 before
installing? Who waits a year? Especially cause SPs are different for W2K
than they were for previous NT versions.
Also, go ahead and fire then - send them to me. We're using W2K right now
(and have been) in the most mission critical applications you can imagine.
Why? Cause they work and working fucking great. We haven't been able to
crash a server yet and they run faster on the same hardware. Bugs? If they
are there, we haven't found them. Huge companies are racing to install W2K.
You go ahead and wait a year... pick up your unemployeement check on the way
out.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:24:14 -0500
"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:899ao9$q58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Perry Pip wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:09:36 -0800, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:56:59 -0500,
> > > Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > brought forth the following words...:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > >>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:07:29 -0500,
> > >>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Oh really? Think again. MOST banks use windows in their branches
almost
> > >>> > exclusively. Do you consider Prudential a small "banking"
operation?
> > >>60,000
> > >>> > copies of W2K pro going on-line during these first 6 months
(10,000
> > >>> > laptops). I think it's time you visit your banks again.
> > >>>
> > >>> My bank (Deutsche Bank) changed from terminals to NT a couple of
> > >>> years ago. I had a few lines with their people, saying that these
> > >>> machines (just workplace ones were NTs, not the ATMs) crashed
> > >>> often. I got an enthusiastic "yes, you should have told that to
> > >>> our management before they changed". Guess the terminals were
> > >>> more stable.
> > >>>
> > >
> > ><Snip a bunch of German banks, few of which use NT or IIS>
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> as they say, the ball is on your side now ...
> > >>
> > >>German banks - not US. I will grant you that there are more German
banks
> > >>using some form of unix for their external website than IIS. I can't
address
> > >>the topic of German OS choices very well. I was speaking of US banks.
Also,
> > >>consider the important transactions happen on SSL - take a look at
your
> > >>netcraft survey regarding SSL servers - overwhelming majority are IIS
and
> > >>growing.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >Bank Of America, www.bofa.com SSL on Netscape-Enterprise
> > >Couldn't find an SSL server on www.wellsfargo.com, but the http
> > >was running on Netscape-Enterprise.
> > >www.chase.com is also running SSL on Netscape-Enterprise
> > >www.bankamerica.com um, Netscape-Enterprise for SSL
> >
> > Not to mention the very bank he mentioned:
> > www.prudential.com: SSL on Netscape-Enterprise on AIX.
> >
> > And his business, drestinb.ic.net is running Apache on FreeBSD.
>
> I just think he has a subdomain there at ic.net. He's main business seems
> to be at www.callitechnic.com.
>
> The strange part is that he claims to be a major operator on Networking on
> NT (claims of installing software on Windows for "14000 seats" once -
> this is very big). So i wonder why he does not host his own business. :)
>
> Greetings
>
Gee - maybe because you continue to chase the wrong person - haven't you
figured it out yet - you haven't a clue who I am.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 27 Feb 2000 03:31:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:10:58 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > (http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/WEB/NEWS/MSNW/HOTMAIL.ASP)
> > I can only read that they tried a *partial* migration, which
> > probably went not too great. For *at least* almost a year were
> > unable or unwilling to convert "the fastest growing e-mail
> > service" completely to NT. If MS is unable to do that within a
> > year or two (and they are rumored to have the source code,
> > remember?) then how are other people to do such a thing?
> MS has done a partial Migration. Hotmail uses NT in several areas.
Not even the MS webpage claims that. the "several areas", that
is. For all we know, 3 secretaries might use it to run word and 4
operaters might run exeed to access unix machines. That surely
would be an "operating system[s] in use", neh?
> > Further, MS knew before anyone that they were going to have w2k.
> > They did not alter that particular page yet.
> Do you know how many pages are on MS's web server?
Do you know how many people are with MS?
> > should I believe them? In fact, other sources claim they tried:
> > http://www.kirch.net/unix-nt/hotmail.html
> > http://www.slctech.org/~firth/me/hotmail.html
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08211.html
> > (all of which have basically the same message)
> None of which have any credible source. Why would "sources close to
> hotmail" use terminology like "They" when refering to Hotmail? If they
> were close enough to Hotmail to know about these things, it would have been
> "We", not "They".
Because, just *maybe* hotmail was *bought*? And they did not fire
everyone, maybe? And probably some of the former hotmail, now
MS-hotmail staff at that time still saw themselves as hotmail, not
MS? Maybe they even see themselves as technicans and 'they' are
the managers and the new NT-engineering team?
Sure, I do give you that the report has no more value than a
rumour. However, reading between the lines on the MS webpage,
even if MS speaks no lie, they did try a partial migration. And
it did not go well enough, so hotmail's still not mainly a MS
shop.
> > Pointing out that if neither NT nor W2K have what it takes to
> > run Hotmail, then how comes that every business and their dog
> > (with no experience) should switch to it? Especially when MS
> > says that these kinds of applications are OK with NT (see their
> > URL up there again). Now, what *is* the truth?
> Few businesses have the demands of Hotmail.
Hotmail is a giant database with a web interface. Just like
ecommerce today needs (just with different data and a different
interface).
> MS runs their entire
> www.microsoft.com domain and msn.com domain on NT,
They can be done for the most part as static webpages. Which is
less and less useful in ecommerce. Or do you disagree?
> and it's one of the busiest sites on the net.
So, you have numbers? URL?
I would especially like to compare the numbers of hits per
NT-Server with the hits per server on hotmail, even if they are
not too comparable (see DB).
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:08:29 -0500
"Iain Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, I'm not. I don't use BSD day to day anymore and don't give a shit. I
use
> > W2K because it does every single thing I could expect my computer to do.
>
> OK.... so I take it speed/performance are not of issue to you then...
>
No, in fact they are which is why I use W2K - that and stability and mostly
because I can actually do EVERYTHING I want to do easily.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
