Linux-Advocacy Digest #554, Volume #25 Wed, 8 Mar 00 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Christopher Wong)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (George Marengo)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (John Hasler)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Timbol)
Very good news for Linux... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Jim Richardson)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Jim Richardson)
Re: Salary? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Jim Richardson)
Re: Salary? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Jim Richardson)
Re: Disproving the lies. (George Marengo)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Wong)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 04:53:27 GMT
On 8 Mar 2000 02:22:57 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fair enough. My main point is that outside these fonts, you won't notice
>much difference. Even with the sans fonts ( Arial, Verdana ), the difference
>is quite small.
On my part, what I am trying to say is this: TrueType is the only way to
get screen fonts comparable to Mac/Windows/OS/2. The only way, that is,
short of writing your own Type 1 rasterizer. It does not really bother
me that the selection of good TT fonts is limited. Frankly, I really
only need one good serif font for web browsing. The saying goes that you
judge a mountain range by its highest peaks. The same goes here for me:
I only are about the BEST fonts I can get, because those are the ones I
would use. I am not contesting your assertion that Type 1 fonts are
comparable or better on average. The thing is, I won't settle for
average: I want only the best fonts, and that means (cough) Microsoft's.
>>In practice: if I "load up a gazillion fonts", there are two
>>scenarios. If I go with TT, I get excellent fonts most of the time and
>>ugly fonts some of the time. With Type 1, I get ugly fonts all of the
>>time. I think it does matter which one I would go with.
>
>This is misrepresenting the situation. If you "go with" TT, you get
>*very few* excellent fonts. In particular, outside the special webfonts,
>you will notice next to no difference.
And if I set up my system correctly, I need never be "outside the
special webfonts". There are 10 of them from MS, after all. That is why
I said I would get excellent fonts most of the time. It's not like I
write my letters with a gazillion fonts at once.
>>I would need more than a decent Type 1 font. I need a decent Type 1
>>rasterizer: the one that comes with XFree86 is crap.
>
>Like I said, an apples to apples comparison, where you convert TrueType
>to Type1 shows that there is very little difference. Perhaps I can post
>some screenshots.
Please do. I am genuinely interested. Are you saying that if I convert
one of MS' hinted TTF fonts (say, Georgia) to Type 1, I would hardly see
the difference? This is hard for me to imagine without seeing, unless
you regularly set your browser font to 32points. TrueType hints do not
survive conversion, from what I understand, and X's Type 1 rasterizer
does not respect hints anyway. I have tried your font RPM (thanks, by
the way, for offering it) and saw the usual disparity between
well-hinted TT fonts and generic Type 1 fonts. There really is no
comparison: for Linux/X screen fonts, TrueType's best leaves Type 1's
best in the dust.
I also stand by my assertion that X's Type 1 rasterizer is crap. That
URL I posted was not just a comparison between Type 1 and TTF. It also
compared Type 1 rasterizers, and the one in X11R6 was pretty bad
compared to Adobe's. Hopefully, as I think you said, the Freetype folks
will come up with a Type 1 rasterizer comparable to the 10 year old
ATM.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:52:56 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Of course, W98 has the 47 day uptime bug anyways, iirc.
>
> long ago fixed
I suppose the point is moot anyways, because Win98 is used for home
desktop machines, more or less. But, you never know -- maybe there
are some Win98 machines up for over 47 days. Win98 used to stay up
for at least 2 days, and it used to stay up this long consistently.
Well, there's those occasions where it would crash within 18 hours or
sooner.
I guess W98's stability depends on the quality of HW as well. I used
to have uptimes on Win 3.1 longer than 1 day on my P166.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:16:01 -0600
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Of course, W98 has the 47 day uptime bug anyways, iirc. I doubt it if
> W98 would even stay up that long... I used to get close to 3 days
> uptime with W98 before I shut it down. Of course, my HW ain't exactly
> a piece of shit, either. (Well, maybe my BTC CDROM is. :) But,
> cdroms don't factor much into stability if you don't use them much.)
I've actually had upwards of 30-40 days with Win98 SE uptime. Not great in
regards to other OS's of course, but it can run for long periods of time
without problems if you have good hardware and drivers (and don't run
software like Netscape).
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:20:00 GMT
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:16:01 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>I've actually had upwards of 30-40 days with Win98 SE uptime.
Whoohoo... time to celebrate... ;- )
>Not great in regards to other OS's of course, but it can run for long
>periods of time without problems if you have good hardware and
>drivers (and don't run software like Netscape).
Don't run Netscape? Wait, wait, let me guess... it installs drivers?
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 03:04:41 GMT
David T. Blake writes:
> Apple would be unlikely to grant a free ride for True Type fonts on a
> free platform while it accumulates royalties from other platforms - it
> doesn't make sense.
How would it harm them to permit free use of True Type on free platforms
when there is little chance that they could collect any royalties for such
use anyway? While I doubt that they will do it, it certainly could make
sense.
> They would have to freely license the technology to all.
They would have to do no such thing.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Timbol)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 8 Mar 2000 05:28:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike Timbol wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > It also lags in sales and game publishers like EDIOS are dropping form 20
>> > to 12 titles in 2000 so they can focus on the PSX II. If you look at the
>> > development today the PC is losing.
>>
>> One market will always be larger; that's nothing new. Eidos was always
>> both a PC and console publisher. They're scaling back PC game development.
>> OK. Maybe next year, they'll drop it. Probably not.
>>
>> Tell me, why does Eidos still develop some games *specific* to the PC?
>
>They're releasing 12 PC titles this year but I'm not sure what new titles
>they have begun - if any. The spokesperson indicated they thought the PC
>wasn't a game platform.
That's nice, but doesn't answer the question. If you want, look at last
year. Why did Eidos release games *specific* to the PC last year?
>> >Possibly, if you stick to the categories where the PC had a lead and it
>> >is very easy to find console games the inspired PC titles.
>>
>> Then name them. Which PC titles have been inspired by console games?
>> Sports, fighting and action games are all that come to mind. RTS?
>> Adventure? FPS? Strategy? Simulation? All dominated by PC games.
>
>Adventure - I played that game on a DataGeneral mini computer.
>Simulation comes from UNIX workstations. FPS - Doom was designed on a
>NeXT Computer - UNIX.
OK, a number of things:
1. I'm talking about the adventure genre (including games like Grim
Fandango and Curse of Monkey Island), not the game "Adventure".
2. Being designed on a NeXT means nothing. Do you think there's a single
console game that's actually designed on a console? Of course not.
3. You've failed to name a single console game that inspired a PC title
in any of the categories I've named.
>> >But we're trying to avoid the issue which is the DC's raoring success
>> >and the pending PSX II have all the main PC game makers moving invetments
>> >to the console at the expense of the PC.
>>
>> Really now? You mention a single company, Eidos, and suddenly "all the
>> main PC game makers" are moving to the console at the expense of the PC?
>> Blizzard? Interplay? Lucasarts?
>
>You want to tell me they aren't.
I can't do that, because I don't know. All I can say is that I'm not
aware of any movement by them to kill PC development, and you haven't
pointed to any.
>> >> Second, there aren't really that many ports from consoles to PCs. And,
>> >> in my experience, they usually suck.
>> >
>> >SO WHAT?
>>
>> So your contention that PCs are cloning and emulating console titles
>> is wrong. You name Final Fantasy as the game that proves your point.
>> The game sucks on the PC. Blown away by native games.
>
>The evidence the PC is emulating console games is PSX emulator and the
>MS X-BOX strategy.
The PSX emulator does not demonstrate that PC games are copying console
games. It demonstrates that the PC is capable of playing games designed
for the PSX, just as it is capable of playing games designed for the
Atari 2600.
The X-BOX is still over a year away, so there can't possibly be any PC
games emulating games for the X-BOX.
>> >Is realism the optimal goal for a game maker - NO. Complexity and
>> >difficulty aside, it is often too niche and unpopular. You've followed
>> >the cutbacks with the Jane series of flight simulators.
>>
>> Yes, it may be niche and unpopular. There may have been cutbacks. But
>> these games don't exist on the consoles at all. Lack of diversity.
>
>These canceled titles are losers. Lack of interest isn't a sign a PC has
>the advantage - it is a sign the realism isn't a popular feature.
Thus, my point stands; games which aren't "popular" don't get developed
on consoles. Lack of diversity. If you want a game in a genre that
console makers don't consider "popular", you'll probably find it on
the PC. That *is* an advantage.
Now, take some other games, like Homeworld, or Half-Life: Opposing Force,
or Diablo II, or Age of Empires II. Are you going to claim that those
titles aren't popular? If not, then why aren't they on consoles?
That's an advantage, too.
>> >> When comparing a PC game to a console game in the same category, the
>> >> console game almost invariably has fewer options, and is less
>> >> extensible, too.
>> >
>> >Thank god.
>>
>> For many people, it's a good thing. They like simplicity. Why plan a
>> mission, when you can just jump into instant combat? Why worry about
>> a complex plot when all you want is flashy graphics?
>>
>> Some people like player-designed scenarios, or complex plots, or strategic
>> planning. Many game publishers recognize this, even if you don't.
>
>Publishers recognize this $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>Complex games produce this $. Fun games produce this $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Then tell me why publishers don't spend all their money developing
"fun" games? Are they stupid?
>It isn't fair to label console agmes as instant combat kiddy games that
>don't require strategy. Final Fantasy 8 great example fo a console game
>that defies the comic-kiddy stereo type.
Final Fantasy had a good plot. It had horrible "comic-kiddy" gameplay;
tedious and repetetive, usually with little connection to the plot. It
required very little strategy. Have you played the game?
>Homeworld was praised for its simplicity in the review. It isn;t as
>complex as other games where too much time is organizing and planning
>resources.
So, we can agree that Homeworld is a good and popular game. Now explain
why Homeworld isn't available on any console.
>> >Oh no Mike. It was over the day MS waffled on consumer NT and said
>> >W2K/Whistler was the next consumer OS.
>>
>> Insisting that your view of the future is what the future will really be
>> doesn't support your argument much.
>>
>> If it's already over, why is Eidos, your prime example, producing PC games
>> at all?
>
>If it isn't over then why is MS producing the X-BOX?
Microsoft is producing the X-BOX to get a share of the console market.
They see an opportunity, and they want to exploit it. That's a perfectly
logical answer that explains the situtation and doesn't mean the PC is
dead.
Now, would you care to answer *my* question?
- Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Very good news for Linux...
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:18:15 GMT
http://www.metrowestnews.com/metrowest/news/business/news/0-9692_0_linux_030700_5604615a14.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:46:00 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Mar 2000 23:03:44 GMT,
Steve Mading, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 12:59:11 -0500,
>
>: If M$ is claiming that W2K is "the most secure windows ever"
>: where is the C2 rating for W2K? What evaluation method are they
>: using to make that claim?
>
>Not that I enjoy defending MS, but a C2 rating is a really long
>and involved process with government red tape. Whether or not
>W2K is actually good enough for C2 compliance or not, it hasn't
>been around long enough to get it.
>
>Not that C2 means much about the OS anyway. It spends just
>as much time dealing with RF leaks and the ability to open
>the PC case, and things like that. MS pulled a fast one by
>convincing people that it was relevant in the first place,
>and every time we argue back about it we play into their hands.
Which of course begs the question, what metric is M$ using when
they claim that W2K is the most secure windows ever? surely
they're not just saying it with nothing to back it up? :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:48:50 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:25:02 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:44:22 -0500,
>> Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >
>> >"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
>> >useless,
>> >> : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
>> >> : on two screens really provide?
>> >>
>> >> Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system except
>for
>> >> a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and whistles
>> >> vs. Linux functionality.
>> >>
>> >
>> >ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Metro-X does multi monitor, next?
>>
>
>is that built-in or an add-in?
>
>
Depends on who you buy from.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:15:33 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Mar 2000 00:04:33 -0600,
Leslie Mikesell, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>So the wages are lower in Europe, but the cost of living is lower, too.
>>
>>hehe, I live in a boat, my "rent" ranges from $0 to about $400 mo
>>for slip fees (I own the boat of course.) But I am a few sigma
>>off of the SD in this area :)
>
>Does that include the internet connection?
>
No, at the moment, I pay ~$30 for the phone and $12mo for ISP.
Soon, I shall have wireless, and then, no more landline :) (have
a cell phone for voice. )
Does your rent come with internet? (there's a few apartments
now that have it included, like cable, must be nice...)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 20:54:24 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:08:02 +0100,
Frank Mayer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>I wonder if someone could help me understand a claim that the development
>paradigm for open source software in general (and for Linux in particular)
>yields higher reliability, maintainability and stability.
>
>I understand that open source software is developed by a large decentralised
>group as a labour of love. It is hard to imagine that the developers would
>voluntairly submit themselves to the irksome quality requirements of, for
>instance, software generated using ISO-9000 standards.
>
>On the other hand, I imagine (?) that when a central authority pays for an
>operation system (or other) development, they can institute and enforce
>demanding quality standards. So I would expect that the code generated under
>the centrally controlled paradigm to be more easily maintainable.
>
>The Linux community claims that this is not so.
>
>Am I missing something?
>
>Frank
>
>
First, ISO-9000 is not about building a quality product, it's
about documentation. It's the blame game, you can build a total
POS product, and be fully ISO-9000 complient, provided your documentation
is up to snuff. It is hoped that the certification will produce
good products as a result of well documented procedures, YMMV.
Read the Cathedral and the Bazaar for reasons why open source is
a good thing, and tends to produce better results than closed
source.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:21:08 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Mar 2000 08:40:12 GMT,
Desmond Coughlan, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:31:57 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I think it's a myth that wages are higher in the United States, at least
>> > when the high cost of living is taken into account.
>
>> What high cost of living?
>
>I believe there was an article on this very subject, in 'Time'; aside
>from Windows 98 (which they used to artificially 'bump up' the price
>of living in Europe), things are cheaper in Europe.
>
>> Food's cheap. Petrol's cheap. PHone calls are cheap?
>> You don't have a HIGH cost of living.
>
>The last time I was in the United States, I struggled to find a hotel in
>Boston for less than $100 per night ... OK, so that's probably for tourists,
>but it doesn't speak to a 'low' cost of living.
I can't speak for boston, but in Seattle, you can get a room for
$50 or so a night. Not the Sheraton, but no flea bag doss either.
>
>Aside from that, it appears that the cost of real estate in California is
>prohibitive ...
At least in the major metro areas. I lived in the Mojave desert
for 3 years, rent was cheap there :)
>> > I presently earn a tad under 500,000 FFr a year, which I think translates
>> > into about 73,000 US$ per year. That doesn't seem much, but I live in
>> > a relatively large flat, and only pay 4,000 FFr a month (580 US$).
>>
>> > So the wages are lower in Europe, but the cost of living is lower, too.
>
>> Really. Try living in the UK for a while.
>
>I did; for thirty years ...
While I was living in England, which was admittadly, over 15
years ago, food was more expensive than the US, so was petrol,
phone, rent, cars, computers, and just about everything I can
think of offhand. When my mom and stepfather moved to the states
in 1987 or so, one of the reasons was the high cost of living in
England, (and of course the taxes) (the other was to be near my
mom's family, in Missouri.) I can't speak for now personally, but
the friends I have in England, still complain to me about high
prices for electronics, cars, & etc, and the prices they tell me
of seem rather high to me.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:35:37 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 13:37:18 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>> > On a related note. (uptime and upgrades) Motorola has announced
>> > that they will begin shipping Linux servers with hot swap PCI
>> > (including the CPUs, which are on a PCI card) in may, guaranteed
>> > 99.999% uptime. Pretty soon, you will be able to have your
>> > upgrade, and uptime too...
>> >
>> > sorry, W2K need not apply. :)
>>
>> Oh well, maybe W3K will finally get it right. :)
>
>Of course, vendors have been offering these kinds of gaurantees on
>NT 4.0 and now Win2K for quite some time.
>
>*yawn*
>
Show me one company who offers 5 nines on any microsoft operating
system Chad.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 05:35:39 GMT
On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:10:40 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
What struck me as odd right away was Table 1, which isn't
Aberdeen's reliability figures, but figures they obtain from
Microsoft. It says the early adopters used RC1, RC2 and
the RTM versions. Fine so far... but look at the customer #2.
4.18 years? Using RC1, RC2 and RTM versions?
The numbers don't skew the end results one way or the other,
since the machine with 4.18 years of Run Time was exactly at
the average uptime, but it's just odd... and they don't explain it.
What I personally find most appealing is the reduction of
reboots after software installs... all you Windows users know
the routine... install software -- reboot. On NT, install SP, reboot,
install Hot Fix, reboot.
That's nice, and it's about time.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:43:01 -0600
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:16:01 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >I've actually had upwards of 30-40 days with Win98 SE uptime.
>
> Whoohoo... time to celebrate... ;- )
>
> >Not great in regards to other OS's of course, but it can run for long
> >periods of time without problems if you have good hardware and
> >drivers (and don't run software like Netscape).
>
> Don't run Netscape? Wait, wait, let me guess... it installs drivers?
No, it's a crappy program. Win 9x isn't a completely memory protected OS in
order to give better DOS performance than more protected OS's. That means
that crappy programs can sometimes crash the OS (and Netscape seems quite
adept at finding these holes).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:47:35 -0600
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 23:10:40 -0500, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
>
> What struck me as odd right away was Table 1, which isn't
> Aberdeen's reliability figures, but figures they obtain from
> Microsoft. It says the early adopters used RC1, RC2 and
> the RTM versions. Fine so far... but look at the customer #2.
> 4.18 years? Using RC1, RC2 and RTM versions?
That's a combined "Server years" figure, adding up all time in all servers.
> The numbers don't skew the end results one way or the other,
> since the machine with 4.18 years of Run Time was exactly at
> the average uptime, but it's just odd... and they don't explain it.
They do explain it, if you go to chapter 3 like they tell you to.
> What I personally find most appealing is the reduction of
> reboots after software installs... all you Windows users know
> the routine... install software -- reboot. On NT, install SP, reboot,
> install Hot Fix, reboot.
You still need to reboot when installing a service pack, just like you need
to reboot when upgrading your kernel.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
