Linux-Advocacy Digest #566, Volume #25 Wed, 8 Mar 00 23:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Steve Mading)
Re: Giving up on NT (Dave)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Jeremy Allison)
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Donn Miller)
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux vs. NT as a webserver (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Salary? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 9 Mar 2000 02:00:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Michael C. Vergallen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> If I still had the link to the site that certified linux I would have bet
:> you 2000 USD. But I can't find the original link anymore...However I would
:> stake 2000 USD that Linux was certified. You prove the contrary.
: Um...no, I can't. *YOU* claimed/claim that Linux is C2 certified. ALL the
: burden of proof is on you, none on me.
: Hmmm... How COULD I do this? I can point to a page, any page, on the
: internet and say: "Look, on this page it does NOT say that Linux is C2
: evaluated, therefore it is not."
Drestin Black is a FUD-spreading person who hates anyone who actually
has the gall to like something he doesn't, and I can't stand him.
But in this case, he's absolutely right, Micheal. The burden of proof
lays with the one making the posative claim, not the negative one.
The negative claim is the default starting position when no proof one
way or the other is present. This is true for many propositions, such
as "You owe me $10,000", or "You committed this crime", or "Linux got
a C2 certification once".
(The same is also true for the proposition "God exists", but good
luck getting the true believers to admit *that*.)
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: Dave <[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: 8 Mar 2000 20:20:14 -0600
On 07 Mar 2000 19:32:05 +0100, Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why? An OS with lots of features will require more RAM. If you want to be
>> stuck in the 1990's, run a IBM PC with 640K of RAM... DOS didn't take much
>> memory at all and booted quite fast... of course, with very limited
>> capabilities.
>
>Linux proves that this is wrong. For the core OS features (multitasking,
>hardware drivers, TCP/IP), you need ~8 MB, for the GUI, 16 MB.
Hey I used to run OS/2 2.1 on a 386-25 with 8 megs of ram! Of course
this was 1993 or thereabouts, so the apps weren't too big. It ran 1
or 2 apps OK, anymore than that it started swapping heavily.
I sure as hell wouldn't want to run Linux in 16 megs these days. Just
because it *can* run in limited memory doesn't mean you *should* run
it that way. Here's a cut & paste from a telnet session from this
laptop into my Linux box in the main "computer room" that has 64 megs
ram on a Pentium 233:
[root@system2 /]# free
total used free shared buffers cached
63064 57668 5396 34740 5356 30564
-/+ buffers/cache: 21748 41316
Swap: 113864 0 113864
This is right after boot, just sitting at the Gnome desktop. Granted,
half of the used memory is cache. But if that memory wasn't there
things would run that much slower. Running "top" shows there are 41
processes running, 40 sleeping and 1 active.
Then we have this Win2000 laptop. It is currently showing 60 meg of
ram usage (same as Linux). It has 210 threads running, 21 processes,
between 1 and 3 percent CPU usage (PII 366), 66 megs available ram
(it has 128 megs total) and 81 megs of "System Cache". So, like
Linux, a good chunk of the "used memory" is cache.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. In fact it's pretty much identical to
Linux. So much for Win2000 "bloat" and "lean and mean" Linux!
Then we have my Win2000 Advanced Server box. Connecting to it via
Terminal Services from this laptop (I'm in the living room in my chair
- ethernet in the house is nice!) it shows 402 threads running, 34
processes, 1 - 3 percent CPU usage (PII 400), 115 meg ram used (192
meg total) and 93 meg of "system cache". Keep in mind that each
Terminal Service user adds around 8 - 10 meg to the ram usage. After
a fresh boot it usually hovers around 90 meg ram usage, most of it
cache. It's currently running ICS for the cable modem, an FTP server,
DHCP for the other Windows machines in the house, network monitoring
and other miscellaneous server type stuff.
The bottom line is: modern OSes want as much ram as possible for best
performance. Memory is cheap enough these days that this shouldn't
be an issue for the vast majority of people. Of course you will
always have the scenario where someone is trying to run a server or
whatever on minimum hardware, but this is the exception. Other things
being equal, more memory gives a better performance boost than faster
CPU.
Jeez. I just re-read this before sending. I'm not normally so
long-winded. I guess OS talk just gets me going! :-)
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Allison)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 9 Mar 2000 02:26:31 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>of course, this Kerberos thing? MS just followed the standard and used a
>field that was left for exactly the purpose they needed.
Indeed they did. Now where is the *documentation* for
what they did ?
Normally that's part of "adding" to a standard. Telling
others what you did (or at least in the IETF world that you're
claiming Microsoft is playing in).
Note: I do expect Microsoft to release this info eventually (I have
a personal assurance from someone I trust very much at
Microsoft that this will be done). It's just that we've been asking
for this for *2 YEARS* - don't tell me that with the resources
Microsoft has they couldn't document their PAC format within
that timeframe.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 08 Mar 2000 21:56:33 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Matthias Warkus would say:
> >It was the Wed, 08 Mar 2000 13:19:52 -0500...
> >...and Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Guys, it's OK to like Motif.
> >
> >You are missing an important point. Compared to GTK+ or Qt, Motif is
> >medieval technology. It's a pain in the rear to program. Ever
> >contemplated how many lines it takes to write a simple GUI "hello,
> >world" program in Motif, as opposed to GTK+ or Qt?
>
> I don't care how long "Hello, world!" is.
>
> I *do* care how much grief there is in writing non-trivial
> applications.
I guess that with anything else, mileage will vary, depending on what
the person's needs are, and how much experience he has with the
various toolkits. For example, someone who has been coding Motif apps
for years may prefer that as his toolkit of choice over Gtk or Qt.
Also, there's other toolkits other than Qt and Gtk. Wine has its own
widget set, as does Mozilla.
I think coders are better off just using what they find best, and use
a different toolkit in case their boss or a client prefers something
different.
I think that Motif is looked down upon in the free software industry,
but a lot of companies prefer to use Motif. *Shrugs* I don't think
it's really all that bad. I like using Lesstif, and it seems to work
with a wide array of Motif apps.
"Hello, world!" is a bad example to be basing toolkit choices on. For
example, Motif apps typically need a few extra lines in startup code.
But, as the app grows bigger, maybe the differences in code length
aren't that great. But like you pointed out, it's not really the size
of the code that matters, it' the ease of use that counts. Also, you
have to consider what your previous apps are coded in - if they
already use Motif 1.1 or whatever, then there's no sense in porting
them to another widget set if you just use Motif or Lesstif. It may
take too much time.
Personally, I think X toolkit wars are senseless. X was supposed to
facilitate the creation of many different toolkits, according to
taste. Tk wars make about as much sense as vi vs. emacs wars, and BSD
vs. GNU license wars. If a person is a vi fanatic, don't try to
convert him to emacs, and vise versa.
- Donn
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 06:50:37 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> 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?
People obviously buy PC games. Edios is cutting titles form 20 to 12. What does that
tell you or more important - what do you want that fact to tell you?
> >> >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".
"Andventure" inspired these games Mike.
> 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.
A Wintel PC isn't the most efficient platform for creating content.
> 3. You've failed to name a single console game that inspired a PC title
> in any of the categories I've named.
We disagree about what it menas to be "inspired".
>
> >> >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.
See Newsweek. One PC game publisher says the platform was never intended for games as
he explained why they were shifting to the consoles.
> >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.
It demonstrates that a PC is capable of emulating a console for access to console
titles. The Atari 2600 is 80's whereas the PSX is 1990's games.
X-BOX demonstrates the mechanism by which MS will let console devleopers port ot the
PC. The Dreamcast WinCE is a flop but that oo was an attempt to move/keep titles on
the PC.
> The X-BOX is still over a year away, so there can't possibly be any PC
> games emulating games for the X-BOX.
No Mike the emulator does emulation and the X-BOX (And DC WinCE) is the mechanism by
which PC will copy/follow comsole titles.
...
> >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.
Lack of stupidity for consoles. They seem othave better screening of games and more
professional approach to game development.
> 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.
Oh sure Mike the PC is full of technical and content advantages over consoles until
you start counting the impact of these advantages. You have agreat hypothesis until
the data fail to support that these advnatages are really advantages. Access to
titles not popular and/or then canceled isn't an advantage. Diablo like games are in
development for the new consoles like DC.
> >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?
Some are indeed stupid and spend $ on deelopment and then have titles canceled before
bringing them to market. Some are stupidly stubborn or scared and they refuse to
author console titles. For the stupid and scared we have the freemarket. It punishes
those who refuse to service customers. Some could not care much about lost
opportunites, their investors will care eventually. Others need to go bankrupt.
What people decide to build is less important than what they can sell and how many
they can sell.
> >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?
Somewhat - I don't now own a PSX but I have read extensively on the strategy and the
plot and the adult reviewers say otherwise about the characters and game play. Again,
bashing a popular title is simply offering a different opinion whereas the sales and
follown on games due to the success impact titles and devleopment.
> >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.
Homeworld is popular in the PC niche. I cannot say if it is as popular as a console
title - the priase was for it's unqiusness, not sales. I think I understand why
Homeworld is not on the PSX 1 or N64.
> >> >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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:14:15 -0600
Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Having done this several times, it's quite easy. Fiddle a few settings
in
> > your X config, causing the video card to fault the bus.
>
> Oh, you need root access? Hey, I can top *that* with ease.
> (sleep 10m ; cat /dev/null > /dev/kmem;) &
> in /etc/rc.d/boot.local or something is far easier. Yes, you
> can get Linux to crash _reliably_. Can you do that with W2K, as
> administrator?
>
> > Then i'm just very adept and finding such ways.
>
> Nah. Wanton misconfiguration as root is shooting fish in a barrel
> in any real OS. I dunno why you'd want to, but there may be
> reasons one day. Like the (M$- ?) police busting through your
> door :-/
I was merely pointing out that a machine can be configured to crash, either
on purpose or accidentally (like I said, when configuring X). The reason
that some people have huge problems with Windows 9x is because the machine
isn't configured correctly (I include DLL Hell in this category).
Of course there are other reasons as well, such as faulty drivers.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:17:01 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The "home" computers was you call them, were totally nerd material. I
> build my first computer in the later '70s from a Byte magazine article.
> The 1802 Elf.
And the Apple II wasn't totally nerd material?
> Computers were in business way before they were in home use. The Pet,
> Altair, and original Apple were WAY harder than anything that anyone
> says about Linux. The principal use of these machines was either hacking
> (which does not count as home use, IMHO), or business applications. Ever
> use WordStar?
The Apple II was not very hard at all. In fact, it was downright simple.
The Pet was a bit more cryptic, but not much. Hell, I still have a Pet. I
call hobbyist systems "home" systems, since these were the people that
created the home market.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. NT as a webserver
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 03:07:03 GMT
In article <8a1g59$knj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Fabio M Albertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Maybe some of you have some answers for me...
> I'm trying to convince my superior at work that
> installing a Linux webserver
> instead of an NT server will be a very good
> decision that the company won't
> regret for at least a decade.
First, minimize the risk. Find out if the company keeps a
"boat anchor closet". Don't buy a new machine, start with
a "free machine" that the company would have had to throw away.
A 486/DX4 or Pentium 90 is a good "showpiece".
> So, basically, why is Linux better than NT,
> and can you back it up with any
> online resources?
Look at what's included. In addition to the Web server, you get
"Linux back office" (sendmail, nntpd, chat, and databases) along
with development languages (mod_perl is great for Apache).
Then you get the CPAN library of PERL web interfaces - chat boards,
news reader interfaces, and e-mail - direct or otherwise.
With Linux, each user can be given a private directory which contains
a "public" subdirectory. This means that you can keep confidential
information confidential, publish general information, and use
.htaccess to allow or deny certain machines or domains. You can even
use SSL to further restrict access.
You also get a great set of secondary development tools. You can
use these tools to parse other input and archive documents and generate
static or semidynamic web-pages.
ASPs and DHTML are great when every access is likely to yield a
different result from the previus result, but you can lighten the
load by using cron jobs to generate new static content that can be
supplemented with the latest and greatest information.
The file systems and utilities of Linux make it very easy to operate
on and manage large hierarchies of files automatically. Furthermore,
you can "make" new HTML files from updated source or templates.
This will minimize the dependence on ASP/CGI/PHP dynamically generated
content which will give greater capacities.
Keep in mind that Linux also includes a number of other tools
including text search engines, and tools that can either be used
to generate indexes, contents, and other aids to search, as well
as tools that can be interfaced directly to the web server.
And when you have something you really like, you can either clone
it for other departments (remember, web hosting centers host hundreds
of "departments" in the same building), or you can scale it up to
a larger machine. If you decide that you want to eventually go up
to a Solaris or AIX machine, you can easily migrate your site from
one system to the other.
> I'd be extremely grateful for responses.
> The main points are : stability, overall cost
> of computer & OS,
This is the best part. The hardware can be very cheap
(free - machines depreciated to zero - that the company would
have to pay a hauler $75 to pick up).
The software can be cheap - for a server, Red Hat Linux with the
bells and whistles runs about $100 which includes an RSA certificate
server.
Installation is cheap too - if you do it yourself.
> cost of hiring staff with knowledge of Linux in the future,
More good news. There are a number of high school and college
kids with ample Linux experience. Many of them are just graduating
from college.
In addition, NT administrators should be encouraged to install Linux
on a spare machine and spend some time getting used to it.
The hard part may be keeping them. Linux administrators can easily
make the jump to becoming UNIX administrators, and really good UNIX
people can be expensive.
The key is that you can often combine support staff with support
services such as LinuxCare or IBM Linux services to get a nice
balance between in-house support for tier 1 and tier 2 and outsourcing
for tier 3 support.
Linux support prices are generally comparable with those charged by
Web hosting companies for dedicated hosting. Generally, the service
company can solve most problems via an X11 connection.
> apache's ability to run ASP...
Keep in mind that ASP was Microsoft's way of handling deficencies
in the FAT and NTFS file system and the operating system. Apachie
can run modules, which can be used to dynamically generate content,
dynamically validate users, or dynamically run an interpreter like
PERL. The MOD_PERL extension is very effective for creating dynamically
generated content. You can either execute perl scripts directly or use
a common perl script to do search/replace of specific target values.
By balancing periodic generation of masters and dynamic generation,
you can often get much better throughput than with a pure optimised
DHTML or ASP system.
You also have ODBC available in PERL and JDBC available in Java.
You even have your choice of databases. Mysql is good for read-mostly
databases with very few concurrent update users (web server processes),
or you can get commercial databases such as Oracle8, Sybase ASE, and
DB2/UDB for a really robust back-end.
If you think you want to distribute, Linux supports CORBA, RPC, and
MQSeries (client for now, server in beta).
The other nice feature is that you can get things fixed. Even if
your in-house support can't fix it, the outsourcing can identify
recurring problems, identify authors or supporters, and often they
can even get things fixed in a matter of hours so that that type
of failure never happens again. In addition, third party support
can often provide the right combination of patched software to get
you working properly with minimal trouble.
> I think you get the idea...
> Anyway, I'd be really grateful if any
> Linux-freak could send some facts my
> way... to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
I cc'd the response to your e-mail.
> Thanks.
>
> Bye,
>
> Fabio Albertin
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:17:08 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 15:02:19 +0100,
Matthias Warkus, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>It was the Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:21:08 -0800...
>.....and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>England is expensive in certain respects. So is France, BTW. But in
>Germany, for example, computers are generally cheaper than they in the
>U.S., indeed, we're one of the cheapest countries when it comes to
>buying computers. I suppose England and France have similar advantages
>in certain areas. Whether a country is expensive or cheap for Joe
>Schmoe does not depend entirely on the country, it depends on Joe's
>needs and tastes just as well.
>
Absolutely! My tastes tend towards computers, obscure (and not so
obscure) firearms, and boats. I get really annoyed by those "my
country, _________ is the best place to live!" types, I prefer
living ni the US, I have experience living elsewhere, but that
doesn't mean that the US is the best place for everyone.
The same can be said for OSen.
"An American, is someone who thinks 100 years is a long time.
A European, is someone who thinks 100 miles is a long distance."
:)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:01:26 GMT
"nohow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <EVEN BIGGER SIGH>
> I can only assume you're lying on purpose as this ground has been gone
> over and over. NT 3.5 was redbook certified in 1995. NT 4 only
> received *ANY TYPE* of C2 certification in 1999 - approximately 3
> years after NT 4's release. I'm not sure if 3.51 ever received C2
> certification though a system did get the equivalent British rating.
What?
<sigh> Do you even have any clue?
NT 4.0 was C2 Red book for quite some time. Since 1996 or 7.
Note that the NT resource kit came with the "C2 Configurator" which
set up NT 4.0 Server or Workstation to be "C2 Compliant", but it was
still only Redbook.
NT 3.5 had Red and Orange.
NT 4.0 now has Red and Orange as well. It received the OrangeBook in 1999.
You're correct about NT 3.51, however, as it never received any
US DoD ratings
-Chad
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
