Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Chad Myers")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01 Mar 2000 08:12:06 -0500
proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> windows rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> linux blowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!
>
> Too many rightwangers and left_wang_nut homo's in this bunch anyway.
>
> looks like a good ol' fashioned linux barbeecuuuu...
>
> the weird and down-trodden are always welcome....
>
> please shower before coming.....
Gee, wonder who this could be?
$ nslookup 12.79.13.6
Server: ns2.cvzoom.net
Address: 208.226.154.22
Name: 6.new-york-63-64rs.ny.dial-access.att.net
Address: 12.79.13.6
TADA! It's Steve, the closet homosexual with suppressed homo desires.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:24:11 -0500
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89ibbo$2jip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Please note that I am not denying the bug is in pcAnywhere.
> >> Symantec has admitted to the problem and they have a fix.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >>
> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
> >> Protection" does for me.
> >
> >Then you have been misinformed.
>
> Why is it necessary for a remote control application that does
> not drive a real device to install something at the device
> driver level anyway? Compare to the VNC server on a unix
> system which simply provides an additional X server as a
> frame buffer accessed by the client(s) over a network. No
> new device-level drivers necessary.
Well, you have a valid point. pcA does this, I personally believe, because
it's been around for so long and has been doing it this way for so long that
they just haven't changed it. Newer remote control apps do not do this and
as you might expect I've never heard of another RC app take Windows down.
pcA is NOT a model Windows application - it's behavious is not a model for
others nor is it's ability to crash a shared experience with other
programs - especially those that obey the recommended programming
styles/methods.
Think of it this way: pcA is an application written (poorly) as a ring 0
kernel driver that does not follow any of the guidelines for how this is to
be done if you chose to do it (despite being told not to). Do you see why we
shove the blame onto Symantec and not MS? MS warns people not to do what pcA
does but Symantec does it anyway. MS gives programmers the freedom to screw
up :) Just as in Linux, anyone can write a bullshit driver that will take
the entire OS into panic - but people would/should not use it. Well, many
will try pcA and many will have good experiences. Those that don't will move
on to a better product that doesn't exhibit such poor programming behaviour.
And, I'll mention again, pcA version 9 does not crash W2K, it's the first
version of pcA compatible with W2K so using version 8 is pretty much
guarenteed to screw things up (like that company reported in ZDNet, they
were using Version 8).
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:25:42 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89ic0f$1dn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
> >> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
> >> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
> >> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
> >> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
> >> >> Protection" does for me.
> >>
> >> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
> >> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
> >> > there's no system files to protect.
> >>
> >> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
> >> system?
> >>
>
> > Similar to how X can hang Linux requiring a hard reboot?
>
> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
> seen this happen.
>
> Sure, ive seen X lock up (especially under MKlinux, DR2) but the
> system was always recoverable via telnet or ssh.
As they say, your milage may vary :)
I've seen it only twice myself, one right after the other due to a stupid
setup mistake. But it did. Had to hardware reset. I've read of others having
the problem.
But, <grin> you see, everyone keeps saying NT4 bsod's every 4.97 seconds but
I've never once seen this happen - see what I mean?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:28:57 -0500
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > well, there you have it. we are an impass. Every setup I've seen has 98
> > running faster and DEFINATELY more stable. Every setup you've seen has
> > opposite results. There isn't much more that can be said.
>
> Actually my friend saw 95 as more stable... me, it's been about equal
between 95
> and 98. That equal level has been crap compared to every *nix I've used,
and NT
> though. But like I've been saying, I don't see an increase in speed on
the same
> kinds of hardware (at all levels) between 95 and 98. I just see more
features
> in 98 (though not a whole lot more).
Which is why I focus on NT and not W9x, hence the choice of this particular
newsgroup :)
> What's really scary is the main reason I bought 98 when I did: I was
playing
> Descent: Freespace 2 and it kept crashing on me after I'd gotten to a
certain
> point. I read tons of posts on NGs where people with 95 were having the
same
> issue, but people with 98 weren't... and dammit, I wanted to finish the
game..
> so I got 98. Sure enough it didn't crash at that point anymore. :) It
did
> crash another 2 or 3 times before I finished though.
I know exactly what in Decent you are talking about :) While you'll hear NT
advocates talk about drivers drivers and drivers (with an occasional "stupid
admin" thrown in for good measure) - if you talk to a W9x advocate you'll
hear drivers about 4 more times with "remove the old ones first" thrown in
for good measure
:)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Server Sees Rapid Internet Adoption
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:33:03 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 10:53:13 -0500,
> Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Hmmm. That's an interesting observation, but contrary to the position
> >that
> >> you've taken, EVERY survey that I've seen says that corporations are
> >talking
> >> a very long/slow wait-n-see stance with W2K.
> >
> >Someone tell the 2 million new seats going in this year about that.
>
> 2 million? that's it? that's damn near negative freaking growth!
2 million additional seats cannot be negative - that's 2 million new w2k
seats, not total NT seats going in.
>
> >
> >> I'm glad to hear that it's
> >> working well for you. Having said that, it doesn't change the fact
that
> >> it would be negligent and incompetent for choosing such a new and
untested
> >> product for a critical system.
> >
> >I guess you missed the 9 month 750,000 user testing period including live
on
> >the web and in production testing at huge corporations. New? I'd hardly
call
> >W2K new - new to general consumers maybe not "been around" to IT
> >professionals who've been running it for months already.
>
>
> Then why oh why didn't they fix the massive Active Directory
> hole(s)?
what hole? (singular). Not that misunderstanding Novell had and tried to
grow into something to give them ammunition in their losing battle
they are releasing portions of NDS open source you've heard... the last acts
of a desperate company. Of course, MS loves this - thanks Novell, we welcome
the help in finding weakness in your product and enjoy your sharing your
code.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 1 Mar 2000 13:45:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:56:16 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:15:22 -0500,
> > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not agree.
You are entitled to your oppinion. And if NT works better for you
than $OTHER_OS, you should by all means use it.
> > Well, depends on your measurement. But don't marginalise
> > Hotmail: It's an MS-owned shop for two years now ... and still NT
> > is not the primary server. Just one amongst others. That's
> > undeniable, or is it?
> "Just one amongst others." What others? Hotmail is a property owned by MS,
> yes. But, when someone buys property it does not always follow that they
> will then immediately take and strip it down to it's very core (OS and
> Application), rewrite it all over again and carry on.
I agree.
[snip]
> So,
> why apply this to hotmail? People are focused on hotmail not becuase it's
> the biggest or best or fastest or anything - other than it's the only bigger
> item MS bought that doesn't run an MS OS. Yet.
For 2 years. And MS has a webpage where they say: "Yes, we'll
convert to NT!" (and that page is at least a year old.) Now I
wanna see their cards.
> > The lesson here is: If you run Solaris and do something remotely
> > similar to Hotmail, you don't need NT ...
> I do not agree.
Care to explain why you do *NEED* NT if you are doing "something
remotely similar to Hotmail", running Solaris?
> > > - what is the
> > > point of bringing up hotmail again? NT is capable of handling MORE than
> > > hotmail - but hotmail was bought in a working state by MS. "If it ain't
> > > broke, why fix it?"
> > though.) But they did not. They proclaimed they were migrating
> > --- albeit slowly --- to NT. Now, i am just calling their bluff,
> > so to say.
> I think you'll find that bluff called... before 2000 is out.
It won't be NT, then. Oh, well, OK, they should use the best
system they have for the job.
> > MS can now say one of:
> > - There are other OS that can do this, actually we are happy
> > enough with Solaris
[...]
> Well, the first is possible but very unlikely. I agree.
At least it looks like 2 years of solaris were not so
inconvenient that they had to change.
> > > Having said that I tell you that I expect hotmail to be running W2K
> before
> > > the end of the year.
> > Wait and see. If the specialists need half a year, how muh longer
> > will the average admin-team need?
> Again - IF they had been actively TRYING to over half a year and were still
> stuck - then, yes, there are problems. However, my information is clear: no
> one has even tried at all.
I do read their website differently. I could be wrong. But can
we agree that MS looked into the possibility of converting Hotmail
to NT? (No, I have no proof.)
> But, as I said... before 2000 is out... that's
> all I can say.
Time will tell.
> > > But, again, what is the point? So, we announce: Hotmail
> > > is running W2K and is now faster than ever before.
> > And the W2k licenses alone cost more than the old licenses *plus*
> > hardware, not to mention that you need 5 times the machines?
> License cost is not a concern to MS - wouldn't you think? :)
No, but to anyone else it is, thus the number of machines is
important.
> 5 times the machine? Not according to recent TPC benchmarks where using W2K
> MS was able to extra 67% greater performance for 1/3rd the price over the
> very best closest comers using any hardware and any os.
I remain sceptical. Knowing MS they probably loaded the test
sommewhat (using a well tuned scenario for W2K) and then wrongly
generalizing the scenario.
I wonder if they had a well-administrated Free|Net|Open-BSD in the
test. Win2K would really need to work wonders on the same HW to
beat a no license cost OS. You happen to have an URL?
> > (Note: I'm not saying that this *will* happen. Just that it
> > could. As with any other OS, including Linux[1].) With enough
> > money you can always be faster, but sometimes thats not the goal.
> Not if you are Sun and Oracle - you can spend 3, 6 and even 24 times the
> money and you will still be beaten by anywhere from 67% to 4400% by the
> smaller, less expensive, easier machines.
That's why I said *enough* money. I wonder how a beowulf-cluster
will perform compared to a W2K cluster.
> > Yes, because unlike some I try not to say things that might turn
> > out wrong ... NT probably can handle Hotmail. If HotmailA's
> > still usable and how to administrate all the dozends of
> > clients is another question.
> I applaud you for not being a typical sing-a-long anti-MS type. However,
> "administrate all the dozends of clients"? Huh?
I assume (and may be wrong) that NT will need more machines than
the currently used Solaris needs. And NT (note NT, not W2K) is
not that easily administered from afar as a Unix. People
routinely do administration from hundrets of miles away with
Unix. NT needs more reboots, too. I hope that changes with W2K.
> MS already knows from the huge numbers of people already using W2K that it's
> plenty tested and rebust and solid enough. Listen... What you are not
> hearing are the bug reports flooding in. Why? There aren't any (well, you
> know what I mean, there are some here and there, little one here and little
> one there, no showstoppers thats for sure!). You'd think if there were
> 63,000 bugs someone would have found some of them by now eh?
As I remember the 63K bug thread many of them were not
showstoppers in first place. But then a few reports are popping
up at BugTraq (and that are only security-relevant bugs!) ...
> It's a fact anti-MS types are having a hard time grasping and coming to
> terms with. MS got it right finally.
^^^^^^^
This is the problem. It took them quite long to get to that
point (and I hope they now *are* at the point).
> W2K really IS much more reliable and stable and performs damn well!
And that after MS-Marketing told us for so long that NT was the
best thing since sliced bread. No, I am not bitter.
> W2K isn't perfect. Nothing is. NT4 was good.
It depends on your needs. My needs were not met by NT4, and they
probably won't be met by W2K, but I feel happier for those people
wo are forced to use MS: Maybe their plights are lighter now.
> I'm sure they'll find a security hole, I would be suprised if they didn't.
Yep. They did.
> I'm sure they will find some ugly bug in there somewhere - but I'm equally
> sure that MS will fix it quickly and it'll continue to work.
I am not so sure on the second part. MS has a history that
indicates different modes of operation. I'd be glad if they'd
admit and fix bugs fast now. We'll all live in a somewhat better
world.
> And I'm sure we'll see more and more W2K servers out there.
This is to be expected, as NT4 is being replaced and the MS-share
of servers will be more and more filled with W2K instead of NT.
The question is, how does the NT+W2K market share (in percent)
will change.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 13:56:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: My suggestion is this -- let everyone license the software as they choose,
: and let the best software win.
I think this is what is happening now, in spite of the best efforts of
monopolistic players to hinder competition and choice.
: If OpenSource is really "the right way", the
: market will choose it. I don't believe that it is right to ram OpenSource
: software down everyone's throat.
I would agree, and again, I think this is happening.
It is not happening uniformly. OSS to date has proven itself in many
areas, but not yet all. There will probably always be a place for
commercial software, although, as Sun seems to be learning, consumers
of software are increasingly demanding source availability, even for
commercial products.
The ideal would be that most "commodity" software would be open-source
and free, and that software vendors would earn their keep by
customizing and extending the existing software base to meet the unmet
(and often unique) needs of specific clients.
We seem to be headed that way, and even Microsoft claims to be well
aware of this fact (that software is and will increasingly be
recognized as a service, not a product).
: On the other hand, I think there's a case to be made though for
: government sponsorship of free software projects, on the grounds that
: these projects develop infrastructure that benefits everyone.
An alternative and in my opinion better (more just and more lawful)
way of accomplishing the same goal would be legislation to require
that federal and state governments use free / Open-Source software
wherever possible, unless no appropriate free software exists or
unless proprietary software would be provably more cost-effective in
the long run (which is seldom the case due to vendorlock).
My understanding is that some governments including the government of
France and the public school system of Mexico have done exactly this.
Financial support for free software developers would be nice, but
there are inherent problems with government subsidies of *any* type in
a constitutional republic, and here again there are some good
alternatives that avoid these problems. Companies could and in all
likelihood would form for the express purpose of providing support to
governments (and other large free software consumers) in their use of
free software. Some of the "support" would obviously include
bugfixes, feature additions, and other improvements, which, at least
for GPL'd software, would have to be released under the GPL also. So,
at least indirectly, government would be funding free software
development, in order to meet its own needs at as little taxpayer cost
as possible, but this development would benefit all of the other users
of the software as well.
Another potential pitfall here is that anything the federal government
purchases, it also extensively regulates. Government regulations are
often stupid and counterproductive, and almost never are reversed
without significant public outcry (and sometimes not even then).
Excessive entanglement with governments could provide benefits, but it
could also lead to very substantial problems. The disproportionate
influence of the U.S. over the world's economy, culture, and network
connectivity guarantees that the impact of these problems would be
felt worldwide, just as was the case with the stupid encryption export
restrictions which caused not only inconvenience, but security
problems, for virtually every Internet user in the world.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:03:39 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89ibbo$2jip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Please note that I am not denying the bug is in pcAnywhere.
> >> Symantec has admitted to the problem and they have a fix.
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >>
> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
> >> Protection" does for me.
> >
> >Then you have been misinformed.
>
> Why is it necessary for a remote control application that does
> not drive a real device to install something at the device
> driver level anyway?
Exactly! That's my point, pcA sucks. This is one of many
reasons.
> Compare to the VNC server on a unix
Or NT, VNC runs quite well.
> system which simply provides an additional X server as a
> frame buffer accessed by the client(s) over a network. No
> new device-level drivers necessary.
Same on NT, from what I've seen. And *shocker* it works well
on both Un*x and NT =)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:07:18 GMT
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89gomf$6rp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <89fo31$fe8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>How's the Trillian Linux64 team doing?
> >>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2431772,00.html
> >
> >>Hey! A public beta... but wait... when you start reading the
> >>fine print, SMP has got a long way to go (gasp! I thought linux
> >>was so well designed, it should've been a snap to get SMP working
> >>in 64-bit, guess that hacked puke of SMP support in the Linux
> >>kernel was a more hacked piece of puke than they thought).
>
> It is Chad Myers' job to spew lies and hate against Linux, and
> propaganda in favor of Microsoft, into comp.os.linux.advocacy
> at every possible opportunity.
Thanks for the warning, Pastor Mark.
> >Or you could fire up Babel and read this one:
> >http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-28.02.00-001/
Hello Mark. Do you even read my posts, or do you just immediately
start writing your hate monger speeches?
The articles I posted showed that there was SMP support running
(kind of) with Linux on 64, but it's >2 processor support was
suffering.
Show me a linux box running 16 Itanium processors and taking
good advantage of each processor, then you can call me a liar.
Until then, you're just spewing lies of your own.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:08:42 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [SNIP Windows is not a multi-user OS]
> >
> > > > Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
> > >
> > > A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who logged
in
> > > hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the freakin DLLs.
> >
> > Does not Un*x have /lib?
>
> Yes, but UNIX lets each user have a lib/ (or whatever you want to call
> it) in whatever place the want to have it.
But there is still one globaly /lib dir that all users can access for
common libraries, no? I mean, it only makes sense that there would be one.
> > Does not un*x have globally installed applications?
>
> It has *root* installed applications; but that is not mutually
> exclusive with someone being able to install their own applications
> (if they have the quota to do so).
This is the same with MS Terminal Server.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
