Linux-Advocacy Digest #576, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: A Plague of "Chads" (was: Clarification of the word "communism" ("Rob Hughes")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (gdiv)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Disproving the lies. (David Goldstein)
Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Donn Miller)
Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X) (Donn Miller)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: JDK1.2.2 performance, Linux -vs- NT (Jerry McBride)
As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BSD & Linux (Denis Barthel)
Re: BSD & Linux (dbt)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (Donn Miller)
Re: BSD & Linux (Denis Barthel)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux vs. NT as a webserver ("Robert Moir")
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Mark S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: A Plague of "Chads" (was: Clarification of the word "communism"
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:41:53 -0600
Is that a plague of "Chads" or of "Choads"?
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89op5j$b4c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >Maybe Mulligan was really Billy in the flesh, and he was coordinating
> >> >the activities of all these other paid Microsoft guys. =)
> >>
> >> "Chad Mulligan" was certainly vicious and arrogant, so that
> >> fits. It's a shame I didn't tape the threatening phone call
> >> he made to me. If it really was Gates, it might have been
> >> worth money, one way or another. 8^)
> >
> >You mean "Chad Mulligan" actually called your house?? What'd you do,
> >mention the word TCO? ;-) That was a sure fire way to piss off
> >Ozonis, I mean, Mulligan.
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=541375736
>
> >Don't tell me you insulted his cute wittle NT 4.0?
>
> I called him a liar several times -- and proved it.
>
> Ever wonder if Chad Myers and Chad Mulligan are the same
> person?
>
> "Chad" isn't a very common name. How likely is it that
> among the 16 or fewer (the 16 may include other multiple
> identities) high-volume pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
> spammers that have ever operated in c.o.l.a, two of them
> are:
>
> o very knowledgeable about the details of Windows NT
>
> o very well informed about the latest daily Microsoft
> PR spew, no matter where it's published
>
> o intelligent (in a stupid and robotic way)
>
> o extremely nasty
>
> o very persistent -- must always have the last word
>
> o named in the pattern "Chad M*"
>
>
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: gdiv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:46:06 -0800
I wish that your experience had been more positive. If you
were like me and had learned unix before dos/winxx you might
have the opposite opinion. I remember in 1990, when I first
started on unix using color sun workstations. Wow, I never
wanted to log out. I never knew computers could be so much
fun. I dreamed of the day that I could have my very own
workstation at home. I didn't want one of those rinky-dink
pcs. I wanted something fast, powerful, serious, and with a
sophisticated command line. I was resistive to the m$ empire
for 9.75 years.
Finally, I got a pc and found myself using windows98 for
several hours every day. Barf!! That only lasted for a few
months. Every day I became more dissatisfied with the click
on this and that and this menu pops up and that wizard pops
up and all that cartoonish stuff and no *real* windows where
you can be editing and running *real* programs
simultaneously, four or more per desktop with four virtual
desktops at the same time: 16 total (not advised, but
possible) just like *real* programmers do. I tried real
programming using the dos prompt and notepad and after about
six weeks I was ready to kill somebody.
Now I have linux and I am happy. I waited 10 years for
this!! No one can appreciate the beauty and the power of
unix/linux until they try to do something that requires its
special capabilities. It's worth the extra effort. Maybe
another distribution would have suited you better. Corel
Linux and Open Linux are easier, from what I understand, and
have a more m$ish feel to them.
Please don't give up. There's a lot more to it than pain and
frustration. The rewards are worth it.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web
Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:51:58 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I don't know what ".help" is, the best groups for getting help are ...
Good advice. Also, make sure your messages have brief but apt subject lines, so
that the people expert in your particular problem won't miss your questions.
Not everyone has time to read every message posted to a busy newsgroup.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 20:45:32 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
<snipped>
> > 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.
So how does that relate to true uptime? I can state that my three
linux servers that I administer have an uptime of three months and this
would prove nothing. Why not? Because one of the boxes just came online
and the uptime numbers are insignificant. With NT 4.0 server, it would
take more than the 4.18 years of service time to equal the uptime figure
quoted.
David Goldstein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:01:51 GMT
10. X-Windows fonts look like shit. Go "borrow" true-type fonts and
they still suck. Mac looks great. Windows looks good. Linux looks like
shit. Not to mention X-Windows is slow as shit.
9. Sound Blaster Live is supported in an abortive manner, if you can
even make it work at all. Top selling card for over 2 years and still
semi-supported. Corel announces alliance with Creative to develop
multimedia applications (ala Sound Forge, WaveLab, Cakewalk etc) and
yet Corel still can't provide a binary on their website that works.
Damm shame, but typical "wait till it's obsolete to support it" Linux
fluff.
8. Postscript printers are really the only ones that fully function
easily under Linux. What you save in dollars on the OS, you will pay
for on the printer.
7. Scanners. SCSI scanners still rule in the Linux world although they
offer no advantage over parallel port scanners, except being supported
using a crude but appropriately named program called inSANE. This does
not even touch on the fact that all of that great software included
with your new scanner (Adobe Photoshop, Cannon Greeting card and so
forth) won't run under Linux. You pay one way or the other....Just
make sure to send all of those "useless under Linux" programs to me :)
6.Dial up's and Free ISP's as well as AOL. First point AOL does not
work. That automatically eliminates millions of users from using
Linux. Secondly, most Free ISP providers require surveys and scripts
to be run that only run under Windows or Mac. Linux does not work and
no amount of begging will change anything.
5.Netscape. If you hate Netscape, you'll hate Linux cause you have no
choice except KDE, a poor substitute or a text based browser, and
believe it or not there are folks running these. Mostly in the Linux
community, because that's the best they can do. Opera will be
out....anyday....anyday......anyday.......
Mozilla.....anyday.....anyday.....anyday........
4.Compatability with the rest of the free world. No Lotus Notes
Client. Domino server, but no client. Compatibility with Office and
Lotus is a joke. Some things work ok others die at the starting gate.
Do YOU want to be the one to tell your boss to send you a Power point
presentation as a text file? How about begging a software or hardware
manufacturer to support Linux. Get used to it. It is the Linux way.
3. No real group ware. Star office is ok for a single user and one
could hardly argue with the price but it is hardly group ware.
It also looks crude an boxy, like most Linux applications.
2. Multimedia is way, way behind even the crudest Windows
applications. Want to use a far outdated Real Player? Try Linux cause
that's what it uses. DVD? Coming real soon now...yea right.....
1. Fragmentation of the various distributions. Red hat, Corel, SuSE
and others are all competing for press and that coveted best
distribution award. As a result RPM's don't work with deb's, libraries
are incompatible and you will find yourself spending hours if not days
trying to make even the simplest of tasks working under Linux. Don't
let the Linowacko's deceive you into thinking you are stupid, for they
are the foolish ones running an OS from the stone age.
Linux sux, it always has, it always will and we will make certain
everyone we come in contact in the computer field knows that.
The organized assualt has begun. Shields up cause we're gonna blow
this baby wide open!!!
Good Luck LinoNuts cause you will need it. We are out there to
disprove each and every idiotic claim you make to try and support that
miserable OS called Linux.
z
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:08:00 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 10. X-Windows fonts look like shit. Go "borrow" true-type fonts and
> they still suck. Mac looks great. Windows looks good. Linux looks like
> shit. Not to mention X-Windows is slow as shit.
'Shup, Steve!
- Donn
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:15:10 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X)
George Richard Russell wrote:
> [snip "I wrote it with Motif, and the GUI is large and boring, compared
> to writing cool new stuff." Fair enough] Otoh, Motif is not the toolkit of
> choice for new stuff.
I kind of like playing around with Motif, though. Companies are
probably still hiring Motif developers, so I've got to be prepared.
Which toolkits are commercial users using? A lot of them still use
Motif: VMWare and Corel WP are two examples. Plus, everytime I see a
shot of a UNIX workstation on the news (such as CNN), I see a Motif
app when the camera gives a close-up shot of the screen.
I don't know... I guess it's OK to like more than one toolkit. I
will still be using Gtk and Qt, but I'll still be using Motif. What
we need is one toolkit that uses "skins". That way, all our apps will
look identical, but we can vary the look-n-feel just by changing the
skin. I guess that's the same as themes, but it goes futher and
changes the actual shape of the widgets. You know, we can make our
buttons look round instead of rectangular.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 22:18:18 GMT
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:01:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Newsflash : Steve gets a new name having destroyed the credibility of his
old handles beyond repair -- and posts the same trasdh that has been
refuted more times than we can count.
yawn. I'm going back to bed.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:26:55 GMT
Wrong again...
Close....
But wrong...
God this is fun :)
On 9 Mar 2000 22:18:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:01:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Newsflash : Steve gets a new name having destroyed the credibility of his
>old handles beyond repair -- and posts the same trasdh that has been
>refuted more times than we can count.
>
>yawn. I'm going back to bed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:27:30 GMT
On 9 Mar 2000 22:18:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>yawn. I'm going back to bed.
Hopefully, for your sake that is, it is with a female :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:28:21 GMT
The truth sometimes hurts Donn....
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:08:00 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 10. X-Windows fonts look like shit. Go "borrow" true-type fonts and
>> they still suck. Mac looks great. Windows looks good. Linux looks like
>> shit. Not to mention X-Windows is slow as shit.
>
>'Shup, Steve!
>
>- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:29:27 GMT
Nobody is "playing around with Motif" as you put it.
Motif is long dead. Soon to be followed by Linux!
BUY MSFT!!!
It's your only hope!!!!!
z
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:15:10 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>George Richard Russell wrote:
>
>> [snip "I wrote it with Motif, and the GUI is large and boring, compared
>> to writing cool new stuff." Fair enough] Otoh, Motif is not the toolkit of
>> choice for new stuff.
>
>I kind of like playing around with Motif, though. Companies are
>probably still hiring Motif developers, so I've got to be prepared.
>Which toolkits are commercial users using? A lot of them still use
>Motif: VMWare and Corel WP are two examples. Plus, everytime I see a
>shot of a UNIX workstation on the news (such as CNN), I see a Motif
>app when the camera gives a close-up shot of the screen.
>
>I don't know... I guess it's OK to like more than one toolkit. I
>will still be using Gtk and Qt, but I'll still be using Motif. What
>we need is one toolkit that uses "skins". That way, all our apps will
>look identical, but we can vary the look-n-feel just by changing the
>skin. I guess that's the same as themes, but it goes futher and
>changes the actual shape of the widgets. You know, we can make our
>buttons look round instead of rectangular.
>
>- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: JDK1.2.2 performance, Linux -vs- NT
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:31:06 -0500
In article <89k8bu$ja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Sikes) wrote:
-- snip --
>HotSpot is coming in the Linux 1.3 release (due pretty soon I think),
>and IBM is supposed to ship a 1.3 VM by 2Q.
>
Any word on whether this will be a free offering or will it be placed on
Software Choice as a commercial product?
--
*******************************************************************************
Finance majors do it with interest.
*******************************************************************************
* NetRexx - The onramp to the Internet - http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:49:39 GMT
What will be the new kid on the block challenger to MS Windows?
Beos? Multimedia is it's game.. Could very well be a challenger.
FreeBSD? Incorporating some obvious server security features that
Linux seems to miss...Great choice.
Linux?
Dead at the starting gate..Horse fell over...Don't bother...
Not convinced?
http://www.corel.com
http:www.redhat.com (better have your barf bag ready)
http://www.suse.com
http://www.freshmeat.net is there a translator in the house? I don't
speak geek.
Try it and find out for yourself how much it sucks....
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 23:58:26 -0800
From: Denis Barthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Vilmos Soti wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow) writes:
>
> > Must be a slam, because I would doubt anyone would set out to actually
> > write an OS because they needed it for school.
>
> Didn't Linus just wanted to learn about the task switching feature of
> the 386 chip And ended up with Linux?
>
> Vilmos
yep. and it wasn't school but university ( slightly different :-).
denis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dbt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 14:50:42 -0800
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>Maybe so, but I would still like to hear what 5x3 considers to be the
>right OS for "light workstation duties".
I think you can still download minix somewhere.
--
David Terrell | "Instead of plodding through the equivalent of
Prime Minister, NebCorp | literary Xanax, the pregeeks go for sci-fi and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | fantasy: LSD in book form." - Benjy Feen,
http://wwn.nebcorp.com | http://www.monkeybagel.com/ "Origins of Sysadmins"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:55:40 GMT
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:13:29 +0200, "James McLaren"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
>the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
>they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
>calling it a day.
You only wasted a day on Linux? Most people waste months before they
finally give up....
>How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
>don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure :)
Ain't no support in Linux. Everybody has an answer but so few of them
are correct.
>James <- Asbestos jox in situ
Fuck Linux...It plain suxs
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:55:47 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What will be the new kid on the block challenger to MS Windows?
>
> Beos? Multimedia is it's game.. Could very well be a challenger.
> FreeBSD? Incorporating some obvious server security features that
> Linux seems to miss...Great choice.
I've seen where FreeBSD is supposed to merge with BSDI.
http://www.daemonnews.org/200003/merger.html
- Donn
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:04:31 -0800
From: Denis Barthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Robert Yoder wrote:
>
> Bill Moran wrote:
> >
> > by wrote:
> >
> > > Today I'm just wondering about various BSDs I've seen mentioned. My
> > > company's servers run NetBSD and they run fine. Can someone explain the
> > > difference between freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, bsd-lite ? I've also seen
> > > 4bsd and bsd4.* mentioned. What are the major variants of BSD today and
> > > what are their differences ?
> > >
> > > Also, how are various BSDs compared to Linux ?
> >
> > 4.4BSD-lite is what the others are derived from. Although you can
> > probably get it from somewhere, 4.4BSD-LITE is more or less obsolete.
> > It's no longer under development.
> > FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD (and I think BSD/OS) are all derived from
> > 4.4BSD-LITE. They are all currently under active development and the
> > strengths have been explained in other posts. The best way to understand
> > what each is about is to go to the respective web sites and read the
> > project goals. This will tell you a little bit about where the software
> > is going.
> >
> > While the BSDs are based on code that's been around for many years (and
> > pretty closely descendended fromt the original UNIX) Linux was written
> > to supply a UNIX-like OS during lawsuits in the early 90s. During this
> > time, BSD code was tied up in a lawsuit where AT&T claimed that they
> > owned it and it must no longer be given away. Thus Linus wrote Linux to
> > fill the gap.
>
> Everything I read was that Linus wanted to expand upon Minix.
> I think he would have written Linux REGARDLESS of the legal
> issues around *BSD.
>
> > Linux is good, but IMHO it's still a UNIX-like system, whereas the *BSDs
> > ARE UNIX.
>
> If it looks like a duck;
> Walks like a duck;
> And quacks like a duck;
> Then it's a duck.
>
> (Legal trademark issues aside)
> If an OS provides standard POSIX API's,
> Utilizes standard network protocols,
> And provides the usual commandline utilities,
> Enabling it to interoperate with the other Unix variants,
> Then it's a "Unix".
linux is not a unix, but singing: "ken thompson never lay his hands on
me, lalala". :-))
>
> ry
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Unix: The Solution to the W2K Problem."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 23:01:55 GMT
That would be good. FreeBSD as well as BEOS seem to provide all of the
functions that Linux is so sorely missing.
They are targeted for sure, but they provide to their target market
instead of trying to be the end all of OS's to everyone like Linux.
Doing digital audio BEOS is more along my path, but if I were running
a server FREEBSD would be the obvious choice...
Linux is too confused and screwed up to even compare..
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 17:55:47 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> What will be the new kid on the block challenger to MS Windows?
>>
>> Beos? Multimedia is it's game.. Could very well be a challenger.
>> FreeBSD? Incorporating some obvious server security features that
>> Linux seems to miss...Great choice.
>
>I've seen where FreeBSD is supposed to merge with BSDI.
>http://www.daemonnews.org/200003/merger.html
>
>- Donn
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. NT as a webserver
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:09:23 -0000
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8a8qtv$8cr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : No they probably would not regret using Linux and Apache, but then
neither
> : would they regret using NT and IIS. It's all a case of what you are able
to
> : support. If you have a room full of NT boxen and experienced NT
sysadmins,
> : why would you want to make things more difficult by introducing a linux
box?
> : Conversely, if you had a room full of Linux boxes, introuducing a NT box
> : would also be just as questionable.
>
>
> If you build solutions using modern, cross-platform tools such as
> Apache, PHP, mod_perl, and MySQL, then you can build and deploy on
> whatever you have, and easily scale it up to something bigger when and
> if the need arises.
>
> Even in an NT shop, there is seldom any good reason to use legacy
> technologies such as ASP or IIS or (shudder) VBScript.
I won't even go to the IIS v Apache debate. I have nothing to say there that
has not been said before and will not be said again. I personally still
maintain that both platforms are good, viable, and in the hands of good
qualified operators very reliable. It's quite possible to start small with a
NT based web server and scale to your needs, in fact I have done it in the
past and am in the middle of doing it now. And I think there is plenty of
life in the IIS/SQL Server/ASP platform yet.
Unless you have specialist needs for this tool or that platform, I still
maintain that you would not want to blindly mix platforms, that is the issue
that I would see as an important one in a small shop. I would never
reccomend introducing a *nix server into a NT shop unless there was
something that could only be done on the *nix platform and I would not
reccomend introducing a NT server into a *nix shop unless there was
something that could only be done on the NT platform, because supporting
mixed platforms on a network is a PITA.
Choosing to use NT or Linux because whichever one meets your needs and fits
into your company IT structure and strategy is a good reason to make your
choices. Mixing and matching platforms and therefore complicating your
support structure for the hell of it or because you heard that $OS is rad
kewl always has, is, and always will be a bad idea.
Rob Moir
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: 9 Mar 2000 23:08:53 GMT
In article <8a8r06$k8m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Raymond Swaim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, let's see....
>
>I assume you must be referring to comp.os.linux.help in which you posted
>*one* question (count it: one) and not the "several" you claim. You
>received a reply from someone who was trying to help you, and who asked you
>for more information about your problem, but you never replied.
A check of Dejanews (always use the "power search") does not
turn up that article, which I think indicates either that
James is not getting good propagation from South Africa, or
that comp.os.linux.help is not propagated widely and redun-
dantly. The newsgroup is not carried by my ISP, Mindspring,
which is a pretty big one.
So he should post his question to comp.os.linux.setup, which
is very well propagated, and has a much larger readership.
It receives hundreds of posts per day (of which 3 out of 4
begin with "Re:", so are *answers*), whereas c.o.l.help gets
only about 8 per day, (at least that's how many reach DN).
Also, he should check DN to make sure his posts are getting
out.
(Whew! Linux is saved from doom; that was a close one! 8^)
>"James McLaren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
>> the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse
>if
>> they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
>> calling it a day.
>>
>> How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
>> don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure
>:)
>>
>> James <- Asbestos jox in situ
>>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
