Linux-Advocacy Digest #687, Volume #25 Sat, 18 Mar 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: *Real* Win2000 sales figures? (Bob Tennent)
Re: Propaganda Technique: Snob Appeal (was: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux
the next desktop OS!! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Iridium Tech Support (Was Re: . . . Itanium . .. ("LP")
Re: gnome website sabotaged? (Mig Mig)
Re: Propaganda Technique: Snob Appeal (was: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux
the next desktop OS!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Jeremy Allison)
Re: *Real* Win2000 sales figures? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: *Real* Win2000 sales figures? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: virus haven ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 18:33:03 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:56:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 12:52:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
>>wrote:
>><snip>
>>>Ed Letourneau is simply a lunatic/bigot who is trying to make OS/2
>>>users appear to be extremely unpleasant in an effort to drive people
>>>away from OS/2.
>
>>That alone shows he's a nut. He doesn't need to drive anyone away from OS/2
>>-- IBM did that without his help.
>
>>From a former OS/2 1.3, 2.0, and 2.1 user -- never used Warp.
>
>So george, what is your abnormality -- besides an obvious inability
>to think clearly -- or will we have to suffer thought endless lines of drivel
>until it becomes apparent?
If it's true that you're trying to drive users away from OS/2 by
showing that you're a lunatic/bigot, then you're indeed a nut.
If you have some specific input that makes you think that I have
an inability to think clearly, please share it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: *Real* Win2000 sales figures?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 18:47:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Mar 2000 16:23:59 GMT, mr_organic wrote:
>I've been hearing a lot about Windows 2000 hitting the "one
>million" sales mark. Is this real end-user sales, or does
>it include things like OEM preloads, distributor deals, and
>so forth?
Not to speak of the CDs they're giving away for free. I wonder when
they're going to start paying us to use it? All for a good cause
though: keeping the MS share price up!
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Propaganda Technique: Snob Appeal (was: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel,
Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 18 Mar 2000 18:51:17 GMT
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In article <8ap7s1$t5q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >>
: >> OTOH, I saw RedHat 6.1 at Walmart yesterday.
: >>
: >> $29.95
: >>
: >> I *never* thought I'd see it in a department store. It's come along
: >> way since Slackware 1.0.
: >
: >Yeah, I saw it too... right next to all the rest of the bargin-bin
: ><$30.00 software and old, washed up games.
: The propaganda/PR technique that Chad Myers is using here is
: "snob appeal" -- manipulating the victim (prospective customer)
Funny... AFAICT, it's the UNIX elitists that do the very thing
you're whining about.
: by means of a powerful social prejudice: that expensive things
: are always better than cheap ones, and that people who buy and
: flaunt lots of expensive things are better than those who don't.
Tell me, are you one of those militia nutcases, who hides out in
the woods, and contemplates "stuff"? If not, then I think you're
missing your calling.
: Ads on TV and in magazines do this quite frequently.
Right. It's called marketing. Ever heard of it?
: "Chad Myers/Mulligan" and "Drestin Black" have both used this
: ploy many times, bragging about their expensive computers and
: cars, and saying that no real computer professional would
: refuse to spend a couple thousand dollars every two years for
: the new version of Microsoft's WindowsXX, development tools,
: office suite, and the new hardware necessary to feed the raven-
: ous and bloated requirements of this software. (Of course,
: they don't put it exactly that way.)
Sounds like you're merely envious to me.
: Here's a list of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
: spammers operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and
: past (including multiple fake names used by the same person).
: Some of them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month,
: each:
: "Drestin Black", Chad Myers/"Chad Mulligan", Stephen Edwards,
: Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/heather/mcswain/
: "S"/"Sponge"/"Sarek", etc., Jeff Szarka, Erik Funkenbusch,
: Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies, Boris, "Cuor di Mela",
: "ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "boobaabaa",
: "[EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com)", etc.
Ah, the "list". You've clearly spent a lot of time on this.
It just reassures my contention that you are a pathetic loser.
: Is Microsoft behind much of this high-volume pro-Microsoft/
: anti-Linux propaganda barrage? They've certainly done
: similar things in the past:
: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-121243.html?tag=st.cn..
: http://www.theregister.co.uk/991018-000017.html
: http://www.opensource.org/halloween
Sing it, Mark! You are the savior! I mean, seriously! In the
grand scheme of things... of life itself, you alone have discovered
Microsoft's dark government conspracy! _YOU_ are _SO_ important!
Heed the call, Mark! Start your own religion! Some will scoff, but
others will follow! You are Jesus, Mark! You are Jesus reborn!
Take it to the mountain!
Then please, do us all a favor, and leap off head first.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Iridium Tech Support (Was Re: . . . Itanium . ..
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 19:23:16 GMT
Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, evilsofa
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> @In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> @Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @
> @> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
> @>
> @> > It looks like it might be turned off this week anyway.
> @>
> @> The amateur astronomers are just *waiting* for someone to de-orbit the
> @> Iridium satellites...
> @
> @They won't be de-orbiting them over populated areas. That reminds me of
> @SkyLab, by the way, which after a mind-boggling amount of hysterical
> @hysteria, ended up squashing a jackrabbit somewhere in backwoods
> @Australia.
>
> Yeah, but it was an aussie jackrabbit. So skylab just pissed it off.
> It went on to slaughter 8000 Aborigonies and some tourists before going
> to England and killing some Brits in olde armour. The issue was finally
> brought to rest with the Holy Hangrenade. Imagine a swarm of those
> beasts.
But look at the bones!!!!!
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gnome website sabotaged?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 21:14:04 +0100
patrick hutton wrote:
> I went to gnome gnotices section and clicked on comments for various
> news bits. On doing so I was sent to microsoft web page! What's going
> on? I tried site at 13.00 hrs gmt 18/03/00.
No problems there at the moment... 20:15 GMT
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Propaganda Technique: Snob Appeal (was: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel,
Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 20:13:28 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b0j75$5dt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : The propaganda/PR technique that Chad Myers is using here is
> : "snob appeal" -- manipulating the victim (prospective customer)
>
> Funny... AFAICT, it's the UNIX elitists that do the very thing
> you're whining about.
That's why Mark has earned the prestegious PL0NK award =)
>
> : by means of a powerful social prejudice: that expensive things
> : are always better than cheap ones, and that people who buy and
> : flaunt lots of expensive things are better than those who don't.
>
> Tell me, are you one of those militia nutcases, who hides out in
> the woods, and contemplates "stuff"? If not, then I think you're
> missing your calling.
It's only a matter of weeks before he posts his manifesto to
COLA and COMNA...
> : Ads on TV and in magazines do this quite frequently.
>
> Right. It's called marketing. Ever heard of it?
Of course not Stephen, as that would involve that silly thing we
call "common sense" (using the finger motions like Dr. Evil in
Austin Powers 2)
> : "Chad Myers/Mulligan" and "Drestin Black" have both used this
> : ploy many times, bragging about their expensive computers and
> : cars, and saying that no real computer professional would
> : refuse to spend a couple thousand dollars every two years for
> : the new version of Microsoft's WindowsXX, development tools,
> : office suite, and the new hardware necessary to feed the raven-
> : ous and bloated requirements of this software. (Of course,
> : they don't put it exactly that way.)
>
> Sounds like you're merely envious to me.
Wow, he's even so delusional that he things Chad Mulligan and I
are the same person.
> : Here's a list of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
> : spammers operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and
> : past (including multiple fake names used by the same person).
> : Some of them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month,
> : each:
>
> : "Drestin Black", Chad Myers/"Chad Mulligan", Stephen Edwards,
> : Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/heather/mcswain/
> : "S"/"Sponge"/"Sarek", etc., Jeff Szarka, Erik Funkenbusch,
> : Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies, Boris, "Cuor di Mela",
> : "ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "boobaabaa",
> : "[EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com)", etc.
>
> Ah, the "list". You've clearly spent a lot of time on this.
> It just reassures my contention that you are a pathetic loser.
... with no life that sits around and stews. He probably
was an old *nix sysadmin... you know the guys with beer bellies
wearing t-shirts that say "GNU's not unix!" that has beer stains,
pasta and god knows what else on it, with unkempt beards with
cigarette ashes, bread crumbs, and other unidentified particles
in it and hair that hasn't been washed, let alone combed in about
2 years. He probably got fired when his company realized they
were paying him way too much for something that could be done
more easier and must less costly... they migrated to NT, he couldn't
even figure out how to install it and keep from having to reboot
it daily and somehow thought this was Microsoft's fault. The company,
not willing to listen to his ignorant biased rantings fired him.
Now he's scorned and has a hatred for Microsoft (really a hatred for
himself and his incompetence) and he maintains "lists".
Next thing you know, he'll be living in a shack in montana and sending
letter bombs to Bill Gates.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Allison)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 18 Mar 2000 20:13:36 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>A Power user is not root. Hell, an Administrator is not root either, as in
>the Unix style.
WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !
In NT (and Windows 2000)
Administrator == root
Please don't repeat Microsoft marketing without any
understanding of technical facts please.
>In unix, a root user has full access and can do anything with any file.
>Administrators are bound by the same rights as everyone else is and cannot
>modify other users files without first taking ownership of them.
WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !
Please explain to me why my Windows NT "chown.exe" (Win32
subsystem code) that does *exactly* this works then please :-).
Look, I'm not saying Administrator == root is bad, I'm just
saying that it is a functional equivalence. If you can repeat
these mistakes (and that's a *kind* word for them) from the
Microsoft marketing, documentation and resource kits (note
that Microsoft *engineers* never go in for this sort of self
delusion) then you obviously don't really understand how
NT works, and should definately be using training wheels
in comp.os.linux.advocacy :-).
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *Real* Win2000 sales figures?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:38:26 -0600
The one million figure was for Win2000 *SERVER* and *ADVANCED SERVER*. It
didn't include the workstation product, which has obviously sold much more.
If you read the original article, it stated that it didn't include OEM
preloads, it was from the sales channel.
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been hearing a lot about Windows 2000 hitting the "one
> million" sales mark. Is this real end-user sales, or does
> it include things like OEM preloads, distributor deals, and
> so forth? I'm asking because Win2000 isn't, like, flying out
> the door at the local Best Buy....
>
> Regards,
>
> mr_organic
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *Real* Win2000 sales figures?
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:39:06 -0600
Bob Tennent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 18 Mar 2000 16:23:59 GMT, mr_organic wrote:
> >I've been hearing a lot about Windows 2000 hitting the "one
> >million" sales mark. Is this real end-user sales, or does
> >it include things like OEM preloads, distributor deals, and
> >so forth?
>
> Not to speak of the CDs they're giving away for free. I wonder when
> they're going to start paying us to use it? All for a good cause
> though: keeping the MS share price up!
MS never gave those CD's away for free. A magazine did. In any event,
those were professional CD's, the 1 million figure was for servers, not
workstations.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: virus haven
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:45:27 -0600
rm_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows 2000: closed source virus haven. Why oh why, would any
> company in their right mind want this OS for doing business?
> http://cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/17/melting.worm.idg/index.html
This is being called a worm rather than a virus. Viruses infect other
files. This doesn't, it just transmits itself.
Worms are possible on any OS. Are you forgetting the most famous worm in
history? The Morris Internet Worm from the late 80's which brought the net
to it's knees?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:47:54 -0600
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b06a1$bl6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : There is no evidence to back up the assertion that MS has tried even
once,
> : let alone "several times" to migrate to a completely NT system for
Hotmail.
> : Where is this documentation? The only people claiming this have only
> : "unnamed sources close to Hotmail".
>
>
> They *said* they would, some time ago, did they not?
>
> If so, then I see only two possibilities:
>
> (a) They tried and failed; or
>
> (b) They didn't try, when they said they would (meaning they lied).
or (c) They are waiting for Windows 2000 Data Center 64 bit.
> So they're either dishonest or incompetent. Take your pick, but I
> would have more respect for them if they were merely incompetent
> rather than dishonest.
They gave no timetable for such a migration, and it's not something that
happens overnight.
> : But still, why hasn't MS done the migration? Probably because they're
> : waiting for IA64. Solaris is a 64 bit system, not easily replaced by 32
bit
> : systems. For pure I/O, you'd want 64 bit processing.
>
> I agree; it certainly would make more sense to wait until W2K and the
> Intel platform itself are capable of handling the job in a
> cost-effective fashion (assuming that day ever comes).
>
> But then why the f**k did they claim they were gonna do it two or
> three years ago???
Considering that MS hasn't owned hotmail for 3 years, that would be kind of
difficult, would it not? They never said it would be done 3 years ago, they
said they would be moving it to NT, and they have been slowly introducing NT
into the system.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:53:57 -0600
A transfinite number of monkeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:40:20 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> : There is no evidence to back up the assertion that MS has tried even
once,
>
> What color is the sky in your world? For two months after MSFT bought
> Hotmail, they tried in vain to do this. They've tried on at least two
> other occasions that I know of. All miserable failures.
Provide some proof of this. Any proof.
> : normal users are restricted from making changes to network protocols or
file
> : shares. Why would you want your normal users screwing around with that?
> : The idea of a normal user is that they aren't allowed to change any
> : administration settings.
>
> Why would I want my mother to be able to change her Internet settings? So
> I don't have to get in the car and drive over to do it for her? She's not
> a retard or anything, and with all of these "wizards" that are supposed to
> let the drooling masses do anything, surely she can more than handle that
> task. That's why.
Then make her a power user. You've deliberately restricted her access then
you're complaining when she can't do stuff. This is YOUR fault.
> : A Power user is not root. Hell, an Administrator is not root either, as
in
> : the Unix style.
>
> Oh? An Administrator can render an NT system completely unusable just as
> quick as a Unix admin w/root access.
But not quite as accidentally. If your permissions are set correctly, then
doing a recursive delete in the root won't wipe out your system. In any
event, this is beside the point. You could have given your mother
permissions to do what she needed to do without giving her Administrator
access.
> : There is a much simpler solution. Remove the Video driver before
removing
> : the card, power down, remove card, power up, let Windows 2000
auto-detect
> : the video card. Done.
>
> Sure, but then I get to experience the *EXACT* same set of steps to
replace
> the Voodoo3 driver that MSFT ships in Win2k with the 3dfx driver that
> supports OpenGL and Glide, rather than just DirectX. After all, I DO want
> to exploit the full capability of the card.
Well then, explain the steps to installing the latest Voodoo3 driver on your
Linux system instead of using the stock one that comes with it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:01:30 -0600
Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b0o1g$nf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >A Power user is not root. Hell, an Administrator is not root either, as
in
> >the Unix style.
>
> WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !
>
> In NT (and Windows 2000)
>
> Administrator == root
Not exactly, similar and you can do the same things as root, but it works
differently.
> Please don't repeat Microsoft marketing without any
> understanding of technical facts please.
I do understand the technical facts.
> >In unix, a root user has full access and can do anything with any file.
> >Administrators are bound by the same rights as everyone else is and
cannot
> >modify other users files without first taking ownership of them.
>
> WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG !
You're saying a root user doesn't have full access to everything? Or are
you saying that the NT Administrator does?
> Please explain to me why my Windows NT "chown.exe" (Win32
> subsystem code) that does *exactly* this works then please :-).
Because your permissions aren't set right.
You can remove the Administrator account from the permissions to modify your
system files and remove ownership. And then the administrator cannot do so
unless they take ownership first. This prevents something like a recursive
delete from wiping out your system.
> Look, I'm not saying Administrator == root is bad, I'm just
> saying that it is a functional equivalence. If you can repeat
> these mistakes (and that's a *kind* word for them) from the
> Microsoft marketing, documentation and resource kits (note
> that Microsoft *engineers* never go in for this sort of self
> delusion) then you obviously don't really understand how
> NT works, and should definately be using training wheels
> in comp.os.linux.advocacy :-).
Yes, they are functionaly equivelant, but not identically equivelant. NT
provides features to further lock down your system, so that even
Administrators cannot accidentally do something. You have to deliberately
do so.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:12:18 -0600
Mark Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:XZIA4.7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Reason is the Microsoft team didn't thoroughly test their product!
> >
> > Not in the slightest. Win2k is the most thoroughly tested product of
this
> > magnitude ever developed.
>
> Really? So what are you comparing it to? What would be the second most
> thoroughly tested product of this magnitude? I hope you're not just
> taking MS's word for it. Oh wait, according to MS there has never been a
> product of this magnitude in software/OS history. Never mind.
Then perhaps you know of a product of this magnitude with more hours of
testing? Over 10 million lines of test code was written for Windows 2000,
and it was tested by more than 750,000 beta testers.
I can't prove that another project similar or larger doesn't exist (it's
like proving that god doesn't exist) but I've never seen or heard of one
that does.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
