Linux-Advocacy Digest #493, Volume #25 Fri, 3 Mar 00 17:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown ("Gooba")
Re: Giving up on NT ("Paul 'Z' Ewande�")
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown ("Gooba")
Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace" ("John Hill")
Re: Bill Gates just cant win ("John Hill")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Bob Lyday)
Linux is it's own worst enemy. (proculous)
Re: Giving up on NT (Eric Remy)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian ("John Hill")
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian ("John Hill")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:47:52 GMT
This is interesting. Question my credibility because I question yours? I
make no claims to anything which need be doubted.
> As your a previously unseen, anonymous poster, I urge any readers to
consider
> the fact that you have no established credibility at all, "Gooba".
>
> >Okay, Terry, you've made it abundantly clear how repulsive you want to
sound
> Interpret it as you wish, your words, ...your opinion.
You have done your best to insult someone who was commenting on a badly
presented demonstration. This is either intentionally repulsive, or
accidentally, but in either instance it was in bad taste and uncalled for
behaviour.
>
> >and how you likewise want to sounds like Mr. Generic Linux User. I very
much
> >doubt however the truth of these notions.
> Fell free to doubt as mich as you wish, its a free world.
>
Aye, mostly, it is free. However, your attack on someone offering a critique
of a bad demo indicates your desire to shut down those who would disagree
with you on the smallest detail. He had no problem with Linux beyond that of
any new Linux user, he only said that the presentation went very badly.
> > You're just doing everything
> >possible to be a stereotypical elitist jerk.
> Good emotionally loaded insults, got any more ?
>
I was giving my interpretation of your intention. Nothing more or less. You
were obviously trying to be a jerk, and doing it in a manner stereotypical
of the unnecessary zealotry that needs to be avoided. You look bad when you
insult people for disagreeing with you, you really do.
> >If indeed there is any truth to your claims, then you were begging for
> >someone to argue with you.
> Argue away, ..I'm yer Huckleberry!
>
> >
> >Your installations went smoothly because you had a particular collection
of
> >hardware and software which worked well together.
> Thats true, however as it happened I *did not* choose any of my hardware
for
> Linux, either in 1993, or in 1997. However it IS a good idea to do so.
>
> Same for Windows etc.
>
I did not imply that you did, I only stated that by some cirrcumstance you
wound up with the right combinations of factors which lead to smooth
installs.
> > That's all. Linux is
> >notoriously choosy about what stuff is supported.
> Bullshit.
>
Refer to alt.os.linux. Check out how many posts there are regarding the
shaky SBLive! support. It's a mainstream card that is very popular and not
yet fully and reliably supported. I'd say any program or OS that doesn't
support a brand-name card is pretty choosy. Even if support is coming, my
point is not undermined by that fact because it isn't here yet.
> > I'm a user of Linux and
> Ok ..... if you *say* so.
>
One way or another, it doesn't matter much whether I use Linux or not. You
presented yourself in a very bad light and I chose to comment on it. I could
be a Solaris, Windows 9x/NT, DOS or BSD user and I'd have said the same to
you.
> >that's cool by me. I can choose my hardware based on what works with the
> >software I want to run.
> So does anyone else if they are wise.
>
You can't expect all new users to be "wise". That's not how "new" works. I'm
sure when you first got your hands on a computer you pored over every manual
and detail of the system and as a result have never had any problem, never
misconfigured anything, and have never written a buggy program because you
started out being "wise". Gimme a break. This is the elitist nonsense that
has to stop.
> >
> >Linux is not Windows. That statement is pretty obvious isn't it?
> Is it ? You tell us ?
>
I already did tell you.
> > But it's
> >not warranted in this context.
> Only in your opinion.
>
The post you replied to was not about where Linux stands in relation to
Windows. It was only about a crappy presentation of Linux. You felt the need
to clarify for us that Linux and Windows are different things.
> > Linux is competing with Windows.
> No its not.
>
Again, if they run on the same hardware, are run by the same pool of users
(i.e. the world population of computer users) and can't be run at the same
time on the same hardware under normal circumstances, then some sort of
competition is going on. For every computer that is currently running Linux,
that is, currently booted into that OS, that's a machine that *isn't*
running Windows.
> > It may not
> >be agressively competing with Windows, but it is competing. A giraffe and
an
> >elephant compete for the same waterhole, how often do you see them fight?
> Linux and Windows aren't competing for anything.
>
Stick your head in the ground if you really like, but until Linux and
Windows are as separate as Windows and Mac OS, they will be in direct
competition for resources. In this case those resources are users, machines
and developers. Users and developers don't have the sort of mutual
exclusivity that a machine does, but they will have a preferred OS.
> >Are you really cool with the idea of being the only remaining Linux user
in
> >the world?
> Are you really serious ?
>
This is an extreme example, but it is valid. Should the Linux community as a
whole start to fail, there will be fewer developers. Less developers leads
to less coding. Less coding means less innovation, bug fixes, etc. Linux can
stay where it is with even one user, but it can't advance anymore with a
single user.
Before you jump in about Linux being a single developer, remember he only
started this thing. It wouldn't be where it is now without contributions
from other parties.
> > Having to code new drivers for yourself?
> Sure
> > Reverse engineer or
> If needed, np.
>
You're crazier than I thought. Do you honestly expect to be able to reverse
engineer *all* the hardware on your system and write drivers for it all
without external support or information?
> >apply for licenses for every new piece of hardware?
> No Free Software does NOT do deals with proprietary information owners.
> If you had more than a passing introduction with it, you'd know that.
>
Talk to Daryll Strauss who brought us support of the 3Dfx chipsets. Free
software DOES do deals with proprietary information owners. It does so to
its own ends, but it still does deal with them.
> > I think not, this is why
> >Linux needs to compete, it needs a certain base number of
users/developers
> >to remain a viable, modern OS.
> Your totally, completely 100% *incorrect*.
>
Do you truly believe that Linux will continue to develop at the same pace
regardless of how small a pool of users it has? It may run on a back-end
server that hasn't changed it's hardware for 10 years, but it's not going to
be the up and coming thing.
By the by, *you're* incorrect.
> >
> >In short, we might not need to attack Windows, but we would do best to
keep
> We ????
>
Yes, we. Like it or not, Linux users are a group, though not necessarily as
cohesive as would be nice, but we are a group. I am one, so are you.
Something like humanity, no matter how much you dislike us, you're still one
of us.
> >an eye on it.
> >
> >I would appreciate it if you didn't post anymore.
> Sorry I don't do requests for Linux newbies or windows trolls.
>
I'm not a newbie, nor am I a windows troll. You're seeking support for
yourself by calling me names which will trigger people's knee jerk
reactions. Knock it off.
> >For those who don't
> >realize you're an individual making yourself look bad, you're making
Linux
> >users look bad.
> Hey thats your interpetration. Windows is about ***looks***, Free software
is
> about doing, not looks.
>
In a market, of any sort, first impressions are important. Whether it be the
color of the car that catches your eye initially to the body of the woman
you see across the bar, something has to initially inspire you to look
deeper. If Linux is presented badly, no one is going to investigate further.
>
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 1 week 5 days 10 hours 46 minutes
> ** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
How odd..a day ago your post said it was up for one day...
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:13:10 +0100
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> How about being proactive.
>
> Explain why MS is NOT using Win9x as a multimedia OS. It's a mature,
> stable codebase is it not and it's good for multimedia so why not use what
> is already has developed and established in the marketplace?
That doesn't make it automatically a bad multimedia OS. It makes NT/2K
better.
> I can tell you why - so can the CEO of BeOS who said it far funnier than
> I. Win9x is a crummy OS for multimedia. He said it's akin to putting a
> tight dress and lipstick on a grandma and sending her to a disco to "get
Ooooh. The CEO of a competing OS disses Windows9x, what a shock ! And yes i
do believe that BeOS [with the proper hardware and software] is a better
multimedia platform than Win9x, after all, it's a specialist, Win9x is a
generalist.
> lucky". When people blame QT they implicitly recognize that Win9x isn't
> preempting QT and copeing with the network download. Showing the Mac to
I don't. Windows9x multitasking is closer to NT/Linux/UNIX than to
MacOS8.x/9. Now if running QT degrades the network perfomance, IMO, QT must
be doing something really, really bad.
On my system, encoding or compressing archives have a really negligible
impact on my download speeds.
Now, you are sure that a poorly coded application could not degrade the
performance of an NT/Linux/UNIX system ?
> be worse doesn't fix Win95 and we all know OS X is a BSD based OS which
> does have great multitaksing.
Wai-wai-wai-wait !. The original claim was Win9x is worse at multimedia
than MacOS because under QT, the MacOS behaves better.
This I take issue with, since IMO, QT doesn't define multimedia, it's just a
subset and IME I have no problems whatsoever multitasking when using other
multimedia apps [Windows, MediaPlayer, WinAmp, XingMpeg Encoder,...].
> QT is one example - IMHO a leading example but let's just call it one
Leading example ? Says who ? .MPG or .MP3 encoding/listening/watching isn't
? Windows Media Player doesn't fit the bill ?
> example that is better in size and quality than streaming video which such
> crap that it's often untolerable. Disagree - show us a few examples of
> streaming content that rival Apple's QT trailers.
I don't know, what's so special about them ? I've never have any problem
streaming videos with Windows Media Player.
I gave many example of other sets of multimedia activies and I/O stuff, that
my Win98SE handles nicely.
> > I don't disagree with it, I just stated that there is more to multimedia
> > than QT. And my system has no problems with many other multimedia apps.
>
> > Frankly, nothing special by todays standards, but i tried to get my
hands on
> > as much RAM as I could. :)
> >
> > Celeron 400, 256 MB, Maxtor UDMA 8.4 GB [soon to be replaced by a 40GB
> > Maxtor, really, really fast], IBM UDMA 6.4 GB, Pioneer A104 40/10 DVD
Rom,
> > Yamaha 4416 IDE CD-burner, TNT2 M64,Win98SE/2000/FreeBSD3.2...
> >
> > The processor is not everything, you have to have good peripherals.
>
> In the case of multitasking the processor seems to be the difference. My
> system struggles with QT and downlaoding and it has a 200 mhz P Pro and
> 128 RAM andon a boxe designed as a server with high end SCSI disks and an
> excellet network connection.
>
> If the problem were QT then the OS would still preempt QT, the app, and
> maintian a fast download, the QT video would suffer.
Maybe, maybe not. Now, Windows Media Player, Winamp, XingEncoder,..., File
compression, file decompression, PCTV Vision don't have this problem, even
Photoshop. What can I say ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:17:35 -0800
We should perhaps start a website for Linux advocacy. That is, we need
to have flyers downloadable, speech outlines, and a certain pool of speakers
available in preferably a centralized location. Just as a matter of making a
good presentation, nevermind competing with anyone. Sort of a "Linux Demo
FAQ". The point of any good presentation of this sort is of course to leave
the audience thinking you've got a cool idea/product/etc. and I think that
with some little pooled resources we should be able to pull that off pretty
easily.
To start, let's build up a list of things that we'd like to show off and
that will catch the audiences attention.
Multimedia:
People like this stuff. What Linux does in this regard, they wanna know.
Audio, video and image editing software should be demonstrated. People like
to watch movies so show them that they can, and how they can. Talk to Loki
and see if they won't let you demo their games, I bet they would.
Office Suite:
Whether people like this stuff or not, they're stuck with it and will want
to know they can do this in Linux. Moreover, *we* want them to know they can
do this in Linux. Grab copies of WP, StarOffice, whatever you can for
display/demonstration. Have a little practice in the software before you
demo it as well. It always helps to be able to answer a question or two.
Networking:
Especially the internet. Big things here are email and web access. Toss in
an ICQ clone or maybe something akin to EveryBuddy and see what happens.
Save the IPsec and IPv6 demos for the techie crowd. If possible, have an
email and web server on-site for the demo, or if you really want to make
people drool, install/set these up in front of them.
Installation:
This is a big sticking point. Pick your hardware carefully before the demo.
Not to say make it all easy on yourself, but know going in which cards won't
be easy to set up and which will. Have your tech support issues worked out
beforehand so that, if need be, you'll have the materials you need to fix
problems on-hand.
Information:
Show people how to get information they don't have. Teach them the "man"
command, and also important, show them "apropos". Give book
reviews/recommendations. You don't have to know where they're going, you
just have to know how to get them to the nearest map.
Expect that your audience consists of 2 different kinds of people. Those
who are interested in Linux, and those who are there to disprove it, either
to themselves or others. Don't play to or away from either crowd, just show
them what is honestly cool about Linux. If you don't know an answer to a
question, tell them so. Honesty is a good thing. Offer to take email
addresses to send out answers to questions that take research, or give out
email addresses for further inquiries, probably both if you have the time
and energy to handle it.
Don't take the "we're Linux users, we know what we're doing, don't tell
us about presentation technique" view, it's downright arrogant and will lose
you public opinion. You don't have to take a class in public speaking either
(though it wouldn't hurt), just remember you're not up there showing off
your new toy to your clubhouse of curious friends.
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace"
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:30:44 -0000
Jeff Szarka wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:56:47 -0000, "Neil"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>:"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>:news:89miqc$rnn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>:> The "truth" from Microsoft, posted very quickly by its
>:> faithful and diligent servant, Chad Myers.
>:>
>:> On the other hand...
>:
>:My understanding of the Kerberos situation, is that Microsoft have made
use
>:of a current aspect of "whitespace" in the spec, to add security
>:information, pertinent to the W2K environment to the ticket.
>:
>:Not fundamentally changing the manner in which Kerberos authenticates, per
>:se, but adding info to an current undefined portion of the ticket, in a
>:similar method to that which they did to "tokens" in the previous NT
domain
>:model.
>:
>:Neil
>:
>
>Exactly. They had to change it. What would you rather have? An open
>protocol that is slightly modified or an untested protocol?
>
>Microsoft made the right choice.
So - you are saying that, by modifying the Kerberos open standard and using
their own, untested standard instead of the widely tested open standard,
Microsoft
made the right choice ?
What an irrational thing to say.
>
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates just cant win
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:34:01 -0000
Jeff Szarka wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 07:39:24 -0800, Meethune
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>:I'm not a *vocate of anykind but I got this email and thought it
>:was damn funny.
>:
>:This cracked up several of us at the office
>:
>:The classically minded among us may have noticed a new TV ad for
>:Microsoft's Internet Explorer e-mail program whish uses the
>:musical theme of the "Confutatis Maledictis" from Mozart's
>:Requiem. "Where do you want to go today?" is the cheery line on
>:the screen. Meanwhile, the chorus sings "Confutatis maledictis,
>:flammis acribus addictis," This translates to "The damned and
>:accursed are convicted to the flames of hell."
>:
>:So where do you want to go today? :)
>:Remember, this is supposed to be FUNNY so treat it like humor
>:and not some MS swipe.
>:
>:BTW am I being too paranoid by thinking that regardless, I will
>:be getting mail saying how I am a MS basher, linux lover, beos
>:bigot, etc. ?
>:
>:
>:
>:
>:* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
>:The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
>
>
>MS official: Win2000 sales topping expectations
>
>REDMOND, Wash. -- Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) officials said that Windows
>2000 has gotten off to a surprisingly good start. Windows marketing
>director Keith White said during a local media briefing here Thursday
>that the industrial-strength operating system exceeded the company's
>own expectations by racking up more than 500,000 unit sales to small
>and medium businesses and to individual users in the U.S. alone. In
>disclosing the figure, White noted that it does not take into account
>worldwide sales or those to large corporate accounts. -- Chris
>DeVoney, Sm@rt Reseller
>
>
>Actually... not only is he winning, but he's winning big.
Why should we beleive this ? Microsoft have a proven reputation
for distorting the truth (they lie). Unless independently audited there can
be
no credence given to this "disclosure".
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:35:28 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
David Misner wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > David Misner wrote:
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made in here
> > > > against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only reason there are people
>in
> > > > NGs arguing against the widespread acceptance of linux is a financial tie to
>ms.
> > > >
> > > > Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they can change
>as
> > > > they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of tech support but instills
> > > > more confidence than the current expensive option availpable?
> > > >
> > > > Let's see now:
> > > >
> > > > -windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use. MS is highly resistant
>to
> > > > working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
> > > >
> > > > -linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of time before
> > > > an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow neophytes to comfortably make
> > > > use of it.
> > >
> > > But it is like impossible to install
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Have you ever installed RH5.2? It booted, detected my cdrom, let me choose what I
> > wanted installed, installed it, rebooted and ran without a hitch. On 5 different
> > machines.
>
> I am happy for you then. I have that it it did not work for me. It
> kept asking me
> questions.
>
> Stuff I really did not know and it would not install until I did know.
> This is not
> good. I have 2 Linux boxes
> just sitting here collecting dust because I could not figure our what it
> was asking me or
> wanted from me
>
> It should not be this complicated. I should just put the CD in and it
> install. I
> should not have to read a stack of books
> and have a Computer Science degree to figure out how to install the darn
> thing
>
> David
Put OS/2 or BeOS on instead then. The heck with Linux. If you are a
computer geek who can hack it and loves that sort of thing so for it.
But for the rest of us it is not ready for prime time. OS/2 and BeOS
are two of the most outrageously great OS's ever made -- just as good as
Linux -- and your grandma could operate them. OS/2 is a little tricky
to install but not like Linux. BeOS could be installed by your mom.
--
Bob
\|/ ____ \|/
@~/ .. \~@
/_( \__/ )_\
\_ U_/
------------------------------
From: proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:26:21 GMT
I notice that the Linux advocacy group seems to have much more traffic
than any of the Windows advocacy groups. Simple reason is that Windows,
along with the Mac sell themselves and don't need a band of loonytunes
around to wave the flag. Now that Linux has become somewhat of the
darling of the computer press the chips are out on the table for
prospective users and supporters to try and decide for themselves if
Linux is worth the fuss.
My opinon is that Linux in and of itself fizzles and burns out on the
launchpad before it even gets into orbit. Joe computer user weaned on
Windows needs a hell of a lot more than a free operating system in
order to even consider switching from Windows. Why should he switch?
Graphics? Doubtful considering X-Windows blurry, distorted and hard on
the eyes method of displying fonts.Don't tell me about rendering for
Titanic I know the entire story. Linux was like the GroundsKeepers at a
ballgame. Necessary, but nobody comes to see them.
Free Web Access? Try again. Most of those free CD's that come in the
mail don't work with Linux. AOL has a huge user base and to the best of
my knowledge does not work with Linux. Multimedia? Sure, you can run an
obsolete version of RealPlayer if you wish. DVD? maybe in the future.
Scanners and printers that ordinary folks can afford (non postscript or
in the case of scanners non scsi), that by the way work great under
Windows, not to mention all the free software like Adobe for instance
that comes with most of them. Easy one stop GUI mail/news programs?
Network kits that install right out of the box so the clueless can
install them and have a simple home network up in minutes? Try again.
Hardware support for today's hardware not some 5 year old soundboard?
Mixed bag.
Ease of use? Well Linux with a good gui like Gnome is certainly easy
enough to used if it pre-loaded. The problem arises when the user wants
to update.
This lib, that lib all around the lib we go. It's like a fsking library
merry-go-round only the names keep changing. Oh you didn't know that
XYZ.lib is part of the ABC.lib package? Silly you for not reading, and
reading,and reading and then reading some more. Then you find that
ABC.lib has some requirements of it's own and back you go. All I want
to do is instal a friggin program, and don't give me that RPM crap
because 7 times out of 10 (and yes I did count) I never seem to have
what is needed. This is a pure waste of time.
Ok so binary files are the answer. Or are they? Do you have the right
kernel version? Are you able to edit makefiles to change SMPCheck and
other housekeeping checks just so the damm thing works? Seen vi lately?
beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppppppppp....What the fsk is that awful
beeping? Do people actually use this garbage?
Anyway, that's my rant. One only needs to try Linux to see how much it
lacks for normal folks. Keep it in the geek realm where it can fester
and provide joy and enlightenment.
Linux is as doomed as the Titanic when it comes to normal folks. Leave
it in some geeks server farm where it belongs, and rightfully so.
PROCULOUS
--
I love my kernel. I really do. I hate my girlfriend.I love only Linux.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 16:56:40 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2000 is hardly a fast system though. My Linux system boots in less time
>thanks to the modifications I made to my kernel build.
My Pilot boots in a few seconds. (After reset) A quad-604e RS/6000 I
used to admin took well over 30 minutes to boot.
Boot time means nothing- I'm sure BeOS on your hardware would boot even
faster.
>But Linux will beat NT when running with less than 64mb of ram and *BSD
>will beat NT when running with more than 64mb of ram.
Which is why Intel runs SPEC benchmarks under Linux and *BSD to show off
how well its chips perform.
Oh, wait, they don't? They use NT? Gee, why would Intel handicap
itself so much?
>NT shouldn't need 64mb of ram to run "properly". No OS can justify such
>needs. Linux and BeOS can run in 16mb of ram and comfortably in 32mb.
You've never run a commercial Unix, have you? I used to run IRIX on a
64MB O2, for example. It was not a very happy camper- it ran, but it
was a swapfest the instant you tried to push it.
And, of course, I'll point out that by real OS (QNX)[1] standards, Linux
is a huge, bloated sloth. Comfortable at 32 MB? Hundreds of MB of disk
space? Come back when you fit the entire OS (and GUI) on a floppy and
can run on a 32*K*B machine.
[1] As Robert Fovell points out, I'm a closet QNX advocate. It's a
wonderful reality check for people pointing fingers and claiming bloat.
*Every* OS we debate about (MacOS, Linux, NT, BeOS) is horrifically
bloated by RTOS standards.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:08:14 -0000
Truckasaurus wrote in message <89np8e$uf3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <88rtp8$od3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >You can use LDAP for authentication. I think it can also be used
>> > >for name services (i.e. host name lookups and stuff like that),
>> > >but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "integrated with DNS".
>> >
>> > The idea of "DNS integration with Directory" was vaguely described
>> > in a memo written by a Microsoft employee before the release of W2K:
>> >
>> > http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.html
>> >
>> > It was supposed to be part of a Microsoft strategy to rid the
>> > Internet of free software.
>>
>> As opposed to the Linux-types' strategy to rid the Internet of
>> useful software?
>
>Hehe! Good one! Now please join the rest of us in the real world, Chad..
oh please God no - not my world anyway
>
>--
>"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
>times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
> -- K. Waterbury, CA
>Martin A. Boegelund.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:10:36 -0000
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote in message ...
>On 02 Mar 2000 22:50:13 -0700,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Where did this internet come from anyway?
>
>> UNIX machines.
>
>> If it weren't for us, you'd be a happy member of MSN; paying by the
>> hour for "quality" content.
>
>You think MS would have ever thought of WANs and LANs without
>seeing the internet first (and fairly late at that)?
The Internet ? Did'nt Bill Gates say there was no future in the Internet ?
If he had his way and all the major sites ran NT then he would have
been proved correct....
>
>-Wolfgang
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
