Linux-Advocacy Digest #462, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 20:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (mlw)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Osugi)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (5X3)
Re: w64k - the bugs are being found (5X3)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:16:18 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "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).
>
> Well, then you have a completely unfounded and unreasonable bias,
> which clouds the validity of everything else you say in the rest of
> the document...
Microsoft has been ruled an unlawful monopoly, so, not quite unfounded.
[snippage]
>
> >(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).
>
> What? That's complete bullshit. Spare us your unfounded conjecture and
> stick to the facts, please.
It has been reported by many reliable sources that when Windows NT
enters a situation where CPU load is maxed and virtual memory is highly
loaded that it does BSOD.
[snippage]
>
> > Also, NT and W2K run only on a single hardware platform, one designed
> > primarily for workstation rather than server use.
>
> A 8-way Compaq Proliant 8500 is not a workstation, nor is it designed
> to be a workstation.
>
> What planet are you living on, by the way?
Actually, the whole PC architecture is a very poor server platform. I/O
and interrupt bottle necks are the biggest problems. The issue with
multi-processor machines is that while a CPU might be able to process so
many mflops per second, it can not read that much memory over one
second. The CPU spends most of its time waiting.
PC's make very good "multi server farm" modules. Cheap, redundant easy
to replace. As a big ass 24x7, enterprise wide server, leave that for
real computers.
>
> > The cost-effectiveness of x86 servers tends to decline dramatically as
> > the load per box grows past a certain point;
>
> Not really, in fact, the cost effectiveness GROWS! Reference the
> TPC-C benchmarks. As more processors and systems were added to the
> cluster, the performance gains increased.
>
> (8 systems x performance, add 1 system, x + 20% gain, add another system:
> (x+20%)+30%, and on and on)
The TPC-C measurement is a highly specific benchmark. Not a very general
one, it is also tuned for a specific implementation devised by a vendor
to show how well their configuration does. It not indicative of anything
other than a TPC benchmark.
>
> > improvements in the platform over time continue to push that point of
> > diminishing returns upward, but at the present time, neither NT nor W2K,
>
> The point of diminishing returns on a Sun box is reached far before the
> point with a Win2K cluster. Reference: TPC-C
>
> > nor any other x86-based OS, is capable of competing on the high end against
> > platforms that are optimized for better hardware.
>
> That's a lie. Reference TPC-C. And x86 system beat the pants of the
> biggest and baddest that Sun and IBM had to offer. By at LEAST 60%, or as
> much as 80% in the best case.
The TPC-C is not a general benchmark. They even caution people from
using as anything as one reference point. It does not measure
reliability or other such factors.
>
> > The bigger the application, the more costly PC-based solutions become.
>
> Not really.
Usually.
>
> > PCs are not and probably cannot be competitive as high-end servers,
>
> They are, as already illustrated. Again, what planet do you live on?
> Are you really that out of touch with reality, or is that just what
> you read in your UN*X magazines?
The difficulty in setting up a very heavy load PC system is much higher
than one specifically designed to do such a job.
Again, CPU MHZ mean noting when it comes to server throughput.
Memory/CPU bandwidth is key and the PC don't have it.
>
> > because of hardware limitations that are intrinsic to the platform.
>
> Clustering systems have proven to be better performing than large,
> single systems with gobs of processors.
This is very true, and NT is a poor clustering platform. NT is a better
redundant cluster than it is a parallel cluster.
>
> > 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.
>
> Likewise, if you have a hugely scaled dozens-of-processors mainframe-ish
> type machine, the applications have to be written to take advantage
> of it's capabilities.
Depends on the tools one uses. Just ask any of the SGI guys. They have
the coolest tools. Portland group makes some nice compilers as well.
>
> When you're writing applications that large, there's always going to be
> custom tailoring necessary to optimize performance.
Yes.
>
> However, Windows2000 Advanced Server with clustering makes it easier
> for developers to make their applications take full advantage of clustering.
Please tell us how NT clustering is "easier" than other clustered
environments. I want to hear this.
>
> And the vendors are! They're writing cluster aware apps. Axent is a good
> example. They make high-quality, top-of-the-line firewalls for Unix,
> and more recently NT. They have cluster support in their EagleNT product
> that provides load-balancing and fail-over support.
>
> > 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.
>
> It does not increase lineraly, the performance decreases rapidly as
> the number of processors approaches maximum.
I would like to know were this comes from?
>
> Note in the TPC-C marks, as boxes were added to the Win2K cluster, the
> performance increased logarithmically. OTOH, the Sun and IBM boxes
> saw rapidly diminishing returns as processors were added.
>
> Is this a function of the OS, the Database, or the hardware? I don't know
> but all I know is that Windows2000, on Compaq Proliant 8500's, with
> SQL Server 2000 kicked their asses by AT LEAST 60%.
The TPC benchmark is not a very good measure, and if you were to go to
the web site you will read paragraphs like:
Q: What do TPC throughput numbers mean?
A: You must understand what the benchmark is intended to measure, before
you can understand throughput. Throughput, in TPC terms, is a
measure of maximum sustained system performance. In TPC-C, throughput is
defined as how many New-Order transactions per minute a system
generates while the system is executing four other transactions types
(Payment, Order-Status, Delivery, Stock-Level). All five TPC-C
transactions have a certain user response time requirement, with the
New-Order transaction response time set at 5 seconds. Therefore, for a
710
tpmC number, a system is generating 710 New-Order transactions per
minute while fulfilling the rest of the TPC-C transaction mix workload.
Not a very general benchmark. More a factor of the database software and
implementation. There are too many variables involved, and the test is
too specific, to conclude that TPC results mean anything as a general
benchmark.
[snipp]
>
> > In other words, Unix was the more cost-effective solution.
>
> Not really. The cost of support is outrageous. They've had to pull
> their kernel and TCP/IP guys off of other projects just to make Solaris
> do half of what it's supposed to do, since it flopped under the load.
>
> They also had to use a BSD load-balancing solution because it wasn't
> cost effective to use Solaris, or because Solaris simply couldn't
> hold the load.
>
> Now they have two very different systems with very unique requirements
> and specifications. This requires uniquely trained and skilled labor
> to operating and keep functioning which costs them an arm and a leg.
>
> Whereas, with Windows2000, the skill requirements aren't as steep
> as everything is straight forward. Win2K can handle the load (no kernel
> hacking required), it can take the packets (no TCP/IP hacking required),
> it can cluster (unlimited scalability with near limitless returns in
> performance), and it can load-balance. One single solution for everything,
> one trained skillset to operate it and develop on it.
>
> > In the future, Windows-based solutions will probably become more
> > cost-competitive,
>
> They are right now. Where have you been?
>
> > But Microsoft solutions have never been terribly scalable,
>
> However, now they are the MOST scalable.
There is is not a verifiable fact. It is your opinion, and I differ.
>
> > and as the size of a task grows larger, Unix-based solutions become
> > more and more attractive.
>
> To you, maybe. But to reasonable people, who are interested in not
> wasting their money, will consider the record-breaking scalability,
> reliability, and performance of Windows2000.
Oh, boy, that is marketing blabber if I have ever heard it.
"record-breaking" really, who says? Microsoft's Marketing dept.? No
thanks.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:37:52 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> Which is why I focus on NT and not W9x, hence the choice of this particular
> newsgroup :)
Bah.. I keep forgetting 90% of the posts in cola are in comna too... was
thinking you were in cola.
> 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
I actually look forward to the day that MS has an OS out that's as stable as NT
(which IME still isn't as stable as *nixes are) but has all the game
playability, TV tuner support and DVD hardware decoder support that 9x does...
But if I had all those under Linux, I'd go there in a heartbeat fulltime. I run
Solaris and Linux boxes 24/7 and only use windows for games, and DVDs... I use
it for my TV tuner too (it runs under Linux, but I switch between it and DVDs
often and don't want to reboot everytime I do).
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Harry: "Yeah I called her up, she gave me a bunch of crap about me not
listening to her, or something, I don't know, I wasn't really paying
attention." -- From _Dumb & Dumber_ (1994)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:41:46 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
> > >-- because that's what it was running when they bought it.
> > >
> > Why doesn't matter.
>
> Of course it does. Maybe not to you, because it helps your
> FUD argument, but large organizations aren't quick to change
> huge operations like Hotmail, even if there are benefits
> involved.
I like when you use the term FUD. It makes me smile. However, Microsoft
was very quick to move operational servers running OS/2 to NT to prove a
point. So, there is precident to suggest that there are issues with NT
that prevent it from working in this capacity.
Also, porting server programs from NT to UNIX is easy. Porting server
programs from UNIX to NT is difficult because NT has a very bad process
model. The fork() command in UNIX is a god-send in server design. NT's
processes a so bloated, the only viable alternative is threads. Threads
are bad news when it comes to server stability.
>
> Let me explain common sense and logic to you, since you
> guys seem to be completely void of it...
>
> MS hasn't ported it yet, because it's going to be a major
> project, and when they do it, they better do it right
> because many people depend on them for email.
Then why did they move all there servers from OS/2 to NT and announce
that years ago? Because they thought NT servers could do it and wished
to make that point. Why don't they port hotmail to NT, because "its a
big project?" I smell a double standard.
>
> MS isn't going to migrate to NT 4.0, just to migrate
> again to Windows2000, just to migrate again to Windows2000
> Datacenter Win64.
Actually they did this with the OS/2 to NT migration. Had a big
announcement when all the servers were running on 4.0. Again, why not
hotmail?
>
> > >>That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
> > >It says that MS wasn't stupid enough to try to pick up a
> > >half-way working system to move it to NT, only to move it
> > >to Win2K again in a few months.
> > >
> > It says one or more of several possible things.
> > Is it that MS deemed it too expensive to port?
>
> That's certainly a possibility, but I can't imagine
> the money they're spending right now to keep that hacked
> system and globbed-together technology running under
> that kind of load.
What makes you think it is a "hacked system and globbed-together
technology?" Other than your own bias.
>
> > Is it that MS realized that is wasn't possible?
>
> That's certainly not the case.
I have seen neither opinion documented, so I wish to assume that it is
not possible with the tools currently available on Windows. When (if) MS
ports hotmail, I will change my mind.
>
> > Did they test and NT couldn't handle the load?
>
> It's possible NT 4.0 couldn't have, but highly unlikely.
> Even if NT 4.0 could handle it, Win2K is an obviously
> better choice, so why waste the time porting to NT 4
> only to have to move it again to Win2K?
Why would Win2K be a better choice? I have yet to see any real (i.e.
non-marketing) information that indicates that Win2k performs better
than 4.0. I have seen material that indicates that, with the exception
of a few cases, that NT 4.0 out performs Win2K.
>
> > The questions are many but MS (maybe wisely) keeps their mouth shut.
> >
> > Either way, it's bad PR to run a site with competitor's OSes, because
> > whatever the exponation might be it gives the impression that their
> > OS can't handle it.
>
> It gives that impression, but it's certainly not the case.
> There are sites that handle much higher load and use NT 4.0,
> even.
Microsoft has the habit of "proving" that their products can handle the
job. Hotmail not running NT, by now, absolutely proves that MS can't do
it. When (if) Hotmail runs on NT, you can tell me I'm wrong, but at this
point in time, it is not like MS to not convert an acquisition to NT, so
there must be a problem in doing so.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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 19:39:34 -0500
"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
>
> That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
weak... very weak...
So, in order to destroy any *nix supporting argument I merely have to point
to a single instance in where a vendor uses anything but 100% their own
product (even in properties they bought unrelated to their own business) to
totally invalidate their product? I won't sink so low...
------------------------------
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 19:41:24 -0500
"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
>
> That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
Actually a better reply to you "Mr. Rupert"
When hotmail.com runs on W2K later this year, I'll be expecting to hear you
say: "MS is running W2K at their hotmail site. Solaris/BSD couldn't handle
it and sucks - W2K is king" You'll be expected to lower your head and scurry
away from any comparision threads because all we have to do is say; "Yea,
but MS runs hotmail on W2K so... nah nah nah nah naaaaaaaah nah" and we'll
win! yipee!! (I'm hoping everyone recognizes the sarcasm dripping here)
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:36:08 GMT
In article <38bd784e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Scott Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
I agree, anymore, win9x is a gaming platform - thou' lokigames is
slowly but surely changing that. Now ms is (supposedly) coming out with
the xbox - which IIRC will be able to handle pc games. Does anyone else
think ms is shooting themselves in the foot with this? I know several
people who are using win98 only because of games and who would switch
to mac or linux in a second if they could still play the games they
have. There are probably a lot of people like this out there, so what
is to stop them from getting an xbox and the next day a copy of linux?
MS loses a lot of money from upgrades and new sales and linux and mac
(and be and etc) all grab larger shares of the desktop market.
just some thoughts.
--
Osugi Sakae
if you are interested in japanese history or open content,
http://openhistory.org
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: 2 Mar 2000 00:51:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Richard Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> 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.
It does, does it?
I think you might be thinking of x-enabled emacs ore even Xemacs, not
straight up old emacs.
And even if you were thinking of x-enabled emacs or Xemacs, youd still
be wrong, because every single one of those menu options have equivalent
key combinations.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Subject: Re: w64k - the bugs are being found
Date: 2 Mar 2000 00:55:03 GMT
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> and another one:
>>
> sounds like another one, kinda. I mean, what kinda weirdo creates zillions
> of 0 byte files to expand to 768 bytes?
> But... ok, 2.
What kinda weirdo runs two concurrent root display applications under
linux?
Not many, but I think it certianly goes to show that it can be done, dont
you?
:)
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:51:45 -0500
"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:25:08 -0500, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
> >
> >No, more than one. Many more, but it just happens that both of the two
most
> >recent submissions BOTH beat every other machine ever submitted. And I do
> >see every other OS/hardware represented.
>
> Yes, there are several TPC-C entries, but the point is that TPC-C
> isn't the be-all, end-all benchmark --- it's only one of several.
True - but there are others. TPC-H in the same vein. SAP, PeopleSoft... etc.
>
> >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.
> >
> >No, I don't see any either. Perhaps none have been submitted.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps no Linux cluster have been submitted for TPC-C
None.
>
> >This reminds me of a talk I had with someone who refused to list TPC
> >benchmark results because there aren't any linux results. The threads in
> >here regarding TPC constantly reminded us that there were no Linux
results
> >in TPC so it's impossible to make any comparisons to how Linux _might_
> >perform until there is an actual test. SO, unless you are saying Windows
> >machines TRIED to make the top 500 list and failed - it says nothing that
> >they are not there if they never tried.
>
> That's right, it says no more about NT than TPC-C says about Linux.
> We don't know if there were even any submissions.
That is right. That is my point. Until there is a linux submission in TPC-C
we cannot use TPC to compare to *linux* (but we can use it to compare to
other hardware/os combinations - we can use TPC to make apples to apples
comparisons; TPC reveals that for 1/3 the cost you can go twice as fast as
the best sun boxes running unix and oracle)
Until there is a windows submission to the "top 500" we cannot use "top 500"
to compare to windows. Would be interesting to see how the server they used
during the W2K rollout demonstrating near linear scalablity to 16 processors
running a massively intensive airline ticket price search program would do
on this Top 500. I'm sure no top 10 places but... could be interesting. I
think it's also fair to note that from what I've read this top 500 list is
MUCH more dominated by the hardware side than what OS said hardware runs.
The OS doesn't appear to play much of a role in the type of benchmark
they've chosen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:04:17 GMT
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:39:34 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
>> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
>>
>> That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
>
>weak... very weak...
>
>So, in order to destroy any *nix supporting argument I merely have to point
>to a single instance in where a vendor uses anything but 100% their own
>product (even in properties they bought unrelated to their own business) to
>totally invalidate their product? I won't sink so low...
Go ahead. Point out a Unix vendor that doesn't use it's own
product for the sorts of things it markets it's own.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:00:01 GMT
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:39:34 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Both Chad's and Drestin's rebuttal argument to Joseph's post is
>> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
>>
>> That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
>
>weak... very weak...
Microsoft can't make it work with their own OS. They have
to depend on the product of their primary competitor. They
can't do that which they expect all their customers to do.
>
>So, in order to destroy any *nix supporting argument I merely have to point
>to a single instance in where a vendor uses anything but 100% their own
>product (even in properties they bought unrelated to their own business) to
>totally invalidate their product? I won't sink so low...
>
>
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:58:06 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 20:03:10 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 )
It rather depends on what features you want. None of you
Bloatware Worshipers have managed to come up with just
what it is that anything not MS lacks. This isn't just a
general Linux vs. WinDOS function but applies equally to
apps on Win32 itself.
>
>> Depending on what 'advanced features' of Word you're most interested
>> in, a vi or emacs comparison could be quite relevant.
[deletia]
Until you can provide something resembling detail regarding
what you think you get from bloatware apps, any comparisons
between them and ANYthing else are meaningless.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
