Linux-Advocacy Digest #459, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 16:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (George Marengo)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (George Marengo)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Scott Smith)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Christopher Smith")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mandrake as bad or worse than MS? ("William Palfreman")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:53:10 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89jl4a$alg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I am a Linux user and advocate, and a firm critic of Microsoft (I
> consider it a criminal organization, and do not voluntarily use any of
> its products).
With such an introduction (criminal?!) we take note of your serious bias and
prepare ourselves:
>
> I too am amused by Microsoft's failure thus far to successfully port
> its Hotmail application to NT or W2K.
<grin> Smile and the world smiles along with you, someone once said.
>
> However, I don't think it's reasonable to insist that the reason for
> this lack of success is that NT/W2K can't handle the load. I think it
> could, but only at a very high cost, which Microsoft has deemed
> unacceptable given the relatively minimal benefits that a succesful
> migration would have offered.
Your first sentence is spot on. Then you turn to pure speculation and then
presume to speak for MS and their motives and thoughts. With MS being one of
the richest corps. in the known universe, I find it funny that you should
choose to examine this based on cost - something MS has never shown any
hesitation to ignore and proceed. Cost is something MS is not afraid of.
Cost is the last thing that would hold them back. All of this, in my humble
opinion of course. I wouldn't presume to know what someone/thing else
thinks.
>
> Clusters of NT boxes manage some extremely busy sites, with acceptable
> reliability and performance (since NT clustering solutions take into
> account NT's tendency to fall down under load, and arrange for others
> to take over with minimal disruption if one should barf).
Well, you tried to muster some truth but couldn't help but fall back to an
attempt at some insult. It weakens you point and I won't waste time
educating you. This is old ground, already covered. BUT, safe to say we both
agree that NT boxes manage some extremely busy sites (I might even say, some
of THE busiest. In fact, at a recent demonstration (W2K rollout), they
showed Windows 2000 running a site delivering 1.6 billion hits/day - more
than all the e-commerce in 1999 squished into 2 days)
>
> But NT is very different than Unix. While porting well-written apps
> from one Unix variant to another is relatively simple, porting those
> apps to NT (or, as many are starting to discover, porting NT apps to
> Unix) is not. Even for projects of relatively modest size, a totally
> new design and a total rewrite of all of the code are usually
> required.
To go from Unix to NT usually requires a very significant if not complete
rewrite of code. I'll grant you that. However, MOST of the time when you
convert from one OS to another completely different one - you'll do so not
only for the OS change but the opportunity to rewrite your app (using
knowledge you've gained and to incorporate new features and new advances in
programming languages and technologies). But - yes, NT is very different
from Unix and porting between the two requires a of rewriting. I could
equally point out that going from NT to Unix would usually involve a total
rewrite of all the code. If going only from Unix to NT was a problem, then
you might suggest that NT (as the end OS) is the troublesome partner - but
since it's the same in both directions your point is rather a wash and moot.
>
> Also, NT and W2K run only on a single hardware platform, one designed
> primarily for workstation rather than server use.
Well, "primarily" for a workstation? True. However, you cannot deny the
server class hardware created for NT and more so for W2K these days. HP,
Unisys, IBM, Compaq and others are creating some serious machines for W2K.
> The
> cost-effectiveness of x86 servers tends to decline dramatically as
> the load per box grows past a certain point; improvements in the
> platform over time continue to push that point of diminishing returns
> upward, but at the present time, neither NT nor W2K, nor any other
> x86-based OS, is capable of competing on the high end against
> platforms that are optimized for better hardware.
I must strongly disagree. There are benchmarks, most recently the very huge
success of the TPC benchmarks and SAP benchmarks and peoplesoft benchmarks
showing HUGE HUGE leads using x86 servers on W2K over hardware of every
other vendor and *nix in every blend.
How can you make your statement in the face of x86 wins of over 67% better
performance using hardware over 66% less expensive!
>
> The bigger the application, the more costly PC-based solutions become.
> PCs are not and probably cannot be competitive as high-end servers,
> because of hardware limitations that are intrinsic to the platform.
I disagree. What intrinsic limitations?
> You can only get lots of MIPS or TPS by adding more boxes, and as you
> do, the cost of communicating and coordinating work done by those
> boxes can grow almost exponentially unless the app is specifically
> designed for that kind of architecture, so even adding more boxes
> doesn't make clusters of PCs viable as high-end servers UNLESS - and
> this is they key, the reason why both Linux and NT clusters can either
> succeed or fail - unless the app is designed, from the ground up, to
> run on the specific OS, hardware, and network configuration that is to
> be used.
Well, you are talking about the app here, being specifically designed for
the task. Who can argue with such a thing. I may disagree with a part of
what you wrote here but we can let it stand as it doesn't affect the OS
discussion I thought you were having.
>
> OTOH, you can buy or build UNIX machines to be as big and fast and
> reliable as you want them to be, and the cost increases only linearly
> with performance (maybe even less), not geometrically.
I very very strongly disagree with you assesment of costs. Can you show me
anywhere a Unix solution that came in cheaper than a x86 solution? I mean,
again, back to our TPC benchmarks. Look at those prices for Unix boxes that
can't even produce the same performance. Do you not see that ALL 40 of the
top 40 positions for price/performance are filled by x86 machines (running
NT and SQL Server)? How can you claim UNIX boxes to be faster and less
expensive in light of hard data that says exactly the opposite?
>
> Thus, my best educated guess is that when MS took a *realistic* look
> at what porting Hotmail to NT would involve - a total, ground-up
> rewrite starting yesterday, plus the ongoing cost of maintaining the
> world's largest parallel server farm, one dozens if not hundreds of
> times bigger than the one that runs www.microsoft.com - they decided
> that the cost simply wasn't worth it.
Back to school: #1) microsoft.com generates way more traffic than
hotmail.com - they can do and have been doing it forever using NT on a
server farm far less grand than "world's largest" without a hiccup. #2) they
have no problem with cost, this is MS who has more *cash* than many of it's
competitors have in total equity. #3) Why would a total rewrite frighten MS?
It would give them something else to boast about: "The Unix app couldn't
handle it so we had to rewrite it using our own products"
I do not pretend to know the real reasons why MS did not immediately take
teh property that was already working and rip it up and port it to another
OS and language. I can _guess_ that they said: "Hey, we bought a hot
property. It works. Cool, let's let it do it's thing and see if it survives
and becomes something we like. Then we'll consider converting it, if it
needs it." I can *guess* that recently they thought, "Hey, hotmail is doing
well. W2K is being released. Say, let's port over to W2K and announce yet
another high volume high profile site running W2K." And, as I've said
before, I expect to see Hotmail.com running W2K before 2000 is out. Those
are my educated guesses. But, they are only guesses, which, like yours,
could very easily be right or wrong. Only time will tell.
>
> In other words, Unix was the more cost-effective solution. As tends
> to be the case for *most* enterprise-class applications.
That does NOT follow for many reasons, some of which I've identified in my
reply. Unix has not been the more cost-effective solution for some time. My
company bids against Unix solutions constantly. We are ALWAYS the lower bid
and usually do not have to worry about defending our pricing but instead
have to prove why our non-unix solution should be picked over the more
expensive unix solution. See, it's intersting. Many of our clients are
actually willing to pay more for a solution if it's better. They are not
driven solely by price. But, it sure helps when we have a product which we
can say: "does everything theirs does (usually more) AND costs less." I've
not yet walked into a meeting where a potential client said: "These other
guys have a unix based proposal that costs less, why should we pay more for
NT?" Never happened. Ever.
>
> But this does not mean NT or W2K couldn't have handled the load. I'm
> sure that given enough cost and time, it could and would have done so.
> And that basically is my point.
I think you've strayed from your point but, yes, I agree that NT (W2K is
NT5) could (and will) handle the hotmail.com load but I disagree that it
would be excessively costly.
>
> In the future, Windows-based solutions will probably become more
> cost-competitive, especially at the low end. Indeed, if it weren't
> for Linux and the free *BSDs, NT would be the most cost-effective
> platform for building small, data-centric Web sites today.
The price of a NT webserver and a Linux webserver is very very similar. The
price of the OS barely affects the bottom line (especially for a web server
which doesn't need lots of CALs)
>
> But Microsoft solutions have never been terribly scalable, and as the
> size of a task grows larger, Unix-based solutions become more and more
> attractive.
I disagree.
>
> Hotmail is one of the busiest sites in the world. It is thus the
> *last* place I would expect to find an all-NT solution.
Hotmail is not THAT busy and isn't it true you always find what you are
looking for in the last place you look? :)
>
> Microsoft can't be blamed for not doing the migration. They can of
> course be blamed for promising to do so - a promise which clearly
> didn't reflect very much thought - and they certainly are not only
> wrong, but criminally wrong, for advertising NT or W2K as being
> reliable, scalable, enterprise-class platforms.
You are wrong. Especially repeating your inane "criminal" claims. NT has
already proven itself to be reliable, scalable and enterprise-class by being
and doing these things in real companies in the real world today. You
personally may not have wittnessed such things but fortunately a lot of
others have and many run their entire business on the reliability of NT
servers and are still here to prove it. It's hard to claim criminal
misrepresentation when you can bring in witnesses who can certify and
demonstrate the claims to be true.
> By the standards of
> any competing platform, they certainly are not. There are several
> market niches that they do fill very nicely, but these are at the low
> end, not the high end.
Your opinion, I do not agree.
>
> For those willing to even consider a non-Microsoft solution, Linux and
> the *BSDs are killing NT at the low end; commercial Unix kills it at the
> high end. Microsoft is well aware of this, and is working on carving
> out a niche somewhere in the middle that it can defend. It would be a
> mistake to underestimate Microsoft's ability to adapt to changing
> conditions. Once it realizes that it can't make a one-size fits all
> OS and that nobody really needs another one anyway - UNIX in all its
> flavors is already as close as anything needs to be - it will find and
> do its damnedest to fill whatever market niches it thinks it can. The
> results should be interesting.
>
Your opinion, I disagree.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:55:36 GMT
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:10:38 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>I think you would be wrong. Again, as the TPC benchmarks show,
>using less processors and less machines, the Compaq/MS solution
>smoked various Sun solutions.
You're right, but that's a single benchmark. Meanwhile, if we look
at http://www.top500.org/lists/TOP500List.php3?Y=1999&M=11
we find that a Linux Beowolf cluster called CPlant is number 44
on the list.
Maybe I just missed it, but I didn't notice any Windows based
machines on that list.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:00:25 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 14:03:39 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:89ibbo$2jip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
Please... VNC on Windows is dog slow compared to faster
remote control software. Take a look at RemoteAdministrator
and compare its speed (on Windows) to VNC. Guess what?
RAdministrator uses driver hooks to get its speed.
VNC on *nix doesn't have the speed problem because it is
for all intents and purposes, just another X implementation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:03:10 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:30:51 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:17:09 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:11:57 GMT, Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell) writes:
>>>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:53:43 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>Wordprocessors and editors are not comparable. If you want to compare word
>>to Emacs, you are deluded.
>
> Actually, this comparison is fairly necessary. Windows apps tend
> to come in two flavors only: full featured & castrated. The
> 'need to be compatible' certainly doesn't help in this respect
> either.
Just like those Linux wordprocessors, pay for the fully featured or write
code for the castrated versions. Linux has no stable, open WP's, and the
closed one are inferior ports from their native platforms (SOffice, WP )
> Depending on what 'advanced features' of Word you're most interested
> in, a vi or emacs comparison could be quite relevant.
The only thing they have in common is they allow the input of text.
You can create similar output in either, but you could just do that
by writing the file contents with a hex editor - its just how much
pain you'll take to write a Letter to Aunty / Thesis / hello.c
(I have seen people write code in Word, and cut n paste it to an editor to
save before compiling. Scary. But so is using TeX for creating a simple letter)
>>
>>>>Menus should not be mouse accessible only, nor nested 10+ deep. The UI is a
>>>>shambles.
>>>
>>>If you want to use a mouse, there are the menus, if you want to use the keyboard
>>>there are the ->user configurable<- keybindings. Your argument has problems.
>>
>>Not so many as Emacs's UI, nor its lisp like syntax, or its poverty of good
>>documentation, or its preference for configuration via editing the rc file
>>(now thats intuitive design)
>>
>>I guess you've never heard of menu accelerator keys, hmm?
>>Or usability studies.
>
> A 'study' by itself is meaningless outside the context of
> it's assumptions, data collection methods (and quality
> thereof) and the stats used to analyse the data.
Quite. And its self evident that its faster to open a menu with a
key combo like Alt-M, than it is to move hand to mouse, move pointer
and click. And guess which emacs requires.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: Scott Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 15:01:29 -0500
I use both Linux and Win98. However, the only thing I use Win98 for is the huge pile
of games I have for it! Windows security sucks and IMHO Linux security rocks! (when
you set it up right, not too hard really) That is
why I prefer to use Linux with and ipchains firewall up when I am on the net. Also,
new games are being ported
to Linux all the time: i.e. Unreal Tournament, QIII Arena. If this trend continues it
will be so long microsoft for me!!
-Scott Smith
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:18:42 +1000
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
> >> seen this happen.
> >
> >Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like
squake.
> >Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
>
> This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
> trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
> apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
The issue being whether or not X could crash the system IIRC. It can.
Despite your accusation of "contrived", it was something I stumbled upon
quite innocently switching between squake and X.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 1 Mar 2000 19:41:41 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 13:52:29 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>Boy, I believe that! I tried posting an article on Deja one time. I
>was typing a lot of text, as I was making a long post. I began
Best to just write the post in a text editor and paste it.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 19:44:59 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:47:41 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> You, nor any of your other Bloatware worshipers have yet
> to demonstrate why most, if not a vast majority, of end
> users WOULDNT be suitably served by RTF.
The ones that can live with RTF can also live with Wordpad. The fact that
users seem to buy word would indicate that not everyone wants to settle for
RTF. While not all users need a real word processor, there are a lot of
users who want and use features like embeddable components ( especially
spreadsheets and equations ), styles, etc.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 19:49:25 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:51:44 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 1 Mar 2000 02:30:28 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a truely assinine comment.
>
> If anything, it is proprietary software that causes product
> to be 'rammed' down people's throats. This is the aspect of
So your solution is to propose that OpenSource software be rammed down
peoples throats instead? The only thing that causes anything to be
rammed down anyones throat is an abusive monopoly. Without the abusive
monopoly, you would not have this problem.
> current copyright law that most motivates my opinion that IP
> law as it is now should be scraped and is woefully inadequate
> for it's orginal intended purpose and is actually 'bad for
> business' in a purely capitalist sense.
So in other words, you think all users should settle for emacs, Latex
and RTF. Unfortunately, the users do not want that which is why your idea
( of scrapping IP law ) is quite unpopular. Indeed, it lopoks like a
transparent attempt to boost software that you are partial to by vandalising
the software industry. Are you not prepared to let OpenSource software
succeed or fail on its own merits?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 19:51:08 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:47:41 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> How exactly has the bloatware brigade progressed since then
> and why would most people care? Most people put up with the
Laughable in the extreme. I won't even dignify that with an answer.
Suffice it to say that most users don't want to live in caves and don't
want to compute with 80s software. Go hide in your cave if you like, but
don't expect other users to join you.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake as bad or worse than MS?
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:28:01 -0000
Tim Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:09vq4.1444$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi!
>
> I've installed Linux4Win 6.5, which AFAIK is a neat
> way of wrapping up Mdk 6.1, so that the Linux ext2
> filesystem resides in one dirty great file within
> a normal Win partition, and similarly for the swap
> file.
>
> All well and good, the install was unspectacular,
> with just a little meddling with the install
> batch file to get the ball rolling. All H/W was
> detected nicely, and after 1 hour or so, I was looking
> at a nice, crisp KDE login screen.
>
> Except...
>
> The frigging mouse pointer was less than pointless!
> Rather than the usual diagonal arrow or whatever,
> I got a 1/2" x 1/2" square barcode!
My SiS6326 did this (along with blacked out fonts) until I downloaded the
correct VGA server from the SuSe website (I use Mandrake) and forced a
symbolic link from one of the files the rpm spawned onto XF86SVGA. Maybe
there is something wrong with you SVGA server too, and there is a more
appropriate one for your hardware?
Regards,
Bill.
--
Keys on www.impac.freeserve.co.uk/wfpkeys.asc
ID: 0xC278373D for main key.
065D 2382 2645 1FBA 5522 8A5B 8810 ACB0 C278 373D
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:55:24 -0500
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"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.
> >
> >Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like
squake.
> >Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
>
> This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
> trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
> apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
it may be contrived but it does demonstrate linux hanging - just a quicky
way to demonstrate that this is in fact possible. There are others...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:58:12 -0500
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Win2K doesn't let regular users install any software. Software
> >installation is a privilege that can only be granted by the
> >administrator. Beyond that, I don't see how it's Win2K's
> >responsibility to warn you when a driver gets installed. No
> >OS I've ever worked with ever did that. Certainly no version
> >of Unix does, so why are you holding Win2K to a higher standard?
>
> It is because of practices Microsoft encouraged in the past.
> Have you ever installed a Windows application that doesn't copy
> a bunch of files into C:\WINDOWS?
Yes, MANY. And in fact, with the new logo requirements for W2K - in order to
be certified for W2K - nothing goes in the C:\Windows folder. For everyone
who makes "fun" of how long it's taking to get apps certified for W2K (not
to be confused with "compatible" with) you may want to read up on how much
harder it is to get certified (finally) and this includes some big changes
on what an app can or cannot do during installation. i.e., I doubt
pcAnywhere will EVER be a certified W2K app, it breaks too many rules.
<snip>
> As for privileges, Windows 2000 has a all-or-nothing policy.
bull!
go away troll
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
