Linux-Advocacy Digest #714, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Se�n � Donnchadha)
Re: Iridium Tech Support (Was Re: . . . Itanium . .. (Shawn Lavin)
Re: Producing Quality Code (mr_organic)
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY ("fysg")
Re: Windows 2000: download bog (abraxas)
Re: Iridium Tech Support (Charles Kooy)
linux statistics. ("Shibu Basheer")
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windows 2000: download bog ("Chad Myers")
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
("Drestin Black")
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
("Drestin Black")
Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: download bog ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: *Real* Win2000 sales figures? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ("Drestin Black")
Re: Kernel 2.4 ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:08:03 -0500
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Though most of M$' stuff is insecure and unstable.
>
I disagree. I find that Microsoft's stuff is on average of better
quality than most of the others'. They produce so much that the bug
lists are long, but pound for pound, their stuff is usually better.
That's just my experience and opinion.
>
>It has to do with useability and the corporate slickness which I
>find nauseating.
>
Really? I find elitist smugness much more nauseating.
>
>Then there's the release churning just to drive profits.
>
They're a public corporation, aren't they? As such, aren't they
required by law to do whatever's necessary (and legal :) "just to
drive profits"?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:17:32 -0800
From: Shawn Lavin <[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 . ..
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill
Vermillion) wrote:
> In article <8atoor$65d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Dear Tech Support,
>
> >My computer somehow got sent up through your big cell phone up to one of
> >your sattelites.
>
> >Please send a technician up there to reboot it ASAP.
>
> >Please do not de-orbitize your system before fixing it.
>
> It looks like it might be turned off this week anyway.
I could be wrong, but I think the reference was to the problem
that a lot of people have been having with 'satellite flash'
where the highly reflective satellites have caused a lot of
incorrectly reported transient events by amateurs (who do not
have a proper database to eliminate these events before
try to get confirmation).
--
Shawn Lavin
As always, my opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic)
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 20 Mar 2000 20:31:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 Mar 2000 15:00:12 -0500, mr_organic pronounced:
>
>Your premise that poor software quality is an acculturated
>result of marketing driven decision making and engineers who
>do not take their craft seriously is flawed (although the
>thread about poor understanding of fundamentals engendered
>through tools that isolate their users from understanding and
>the bit about overly complex systems have some merit.)
>
Marketeering is what drives modern buying decisions, which
in turn forms other business strategies; in this, it is a
self-perpetuating medium. The media/marketers whip up
demand for a (usually vaporous) product; users clamor for
the product; business then rush to produce the product.
Engineers are usually aware of this dichotomy, but elect to
put up with it rather than protesting strongly and acting
as agents for change.
>
>Poor software is not motivated by marketing decision making,
>it is fundamental to the core business model: lock in users
>to a proprietary platform as early as possible in order to
>establish strong network effects. In such a model, speed is
>of the essence -- it is more important to be first than to be
>right -- and software quality suffers as a result. That is a
>business model that works (at least in terms of generating
>revenue), and is the one followed by pretty much every
>successful software vendor (again, measured in monetary terms).
>That strong marketing is essential to such a model is not the
>same thing as marketing being the prime mover of the system.
>
I disagree; see my previous comments.
>
>Furthermore, it is not the case that engineers working within
>such a business model have no respect for their craft -- but
>they are severely restricted by the constraints and demands
>of the business model. While there are definitely some
>engineers and companies that seek to deliberately exploit
>lock-in and network effects with little or no regard for design
>and product quality fundamentals, there are also a large number
>of coders who would dearly love to be able to write software
>that they could be proud of for its technical elegance and not
>just for its ability to generate revenue -- although most of
>them are not willing to give up personal revenue in order to
>acheive that pride in product.
>
>Only by providing a successful alternative to the dominant
>software business model will you be able to acheive any
>significant change in software quality. Jihads and insulting
>pontification will gain you nothing in terms of software
>quality -- and will likely generate nothing beyond ill will.
>Instead of engaging in easy polemics, you need to contribute
>to the hard work of creating software that can break the
>business model and established network effects that chain us
>to poor software quality. To date, Open Source software
>development is the only option that shows any promise of
>generating a return on that hard effort.
>
>--
>Mark Hamstra
>Bentley Systems, Inc.
First, I object to your terminology -- "easy polemics" and
"insulting potification" are inflammatory words, and I do
not thing my orignal post indulged in either. You seem to
be one of the engineers who simply throw up their hands and
say, "What can I do?"
It means doing more than simply paying lip-service to writing
good code. It means not only writing good code yourself, but
not putting up with less from anyone else, either. It means
making sacrifices to enforce good code -- eschewing the new
release of WhizBangProd 1.0 just because it has niftier graphics
or a multimedia layer, for example, until the vendor fixes bugs.
For myself, posting the original memo was the first part of my
own project to raise awareness to the issue; the next step is
to evangelize it in my own circle of developers. If the ill-
will of lazy programmers is the worst I suffer, I'll be glad
of it.
Regards,
mr_organic
------------------------------
From: "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:19:45 GMT
> If you're a secretary who only needs email and office tools,
> linux is not for you!
Neither is it Windows. A pre-installed Linux with that tools is just like
a pre-installed Linux except that it will failt before than the Linux box.
> Same for
> children who want to play Quake.
That's what consoles are for. Anyway, there are not too many games for
Linux, but this has nothing to see with Linux itself. Besides, DOS was
considered a good games platform when the games were just awful.
>Same for those who use their
> computers mainly for browsing web or for chats.
The same case of the secretary. Linux is faster, more secure and just as
easy as Windows.
> I feel sorry when I see that Linux more and more looks like
> M$ Windoze (understand me right, I mean user interface, all
> the fancy buttons and stuff).
You do not have to use them ... but I agree, it is important to keep OS
and addons separated.
> Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers
> and for programmers or researchers !!!
Not agree. If you do not know about computers, Windows is as difficult as
any OS.
> If you're doing a real development like file/mail/web/database
> servers, or developing some new network protocols, or
Oracle is very good, and PHP is excellent, there's even an ASP
translator.
> calculating some huge amounts (~Tbytes)
> of statistics data, or some intelligent pattern
> recognitions e.t.c (endless list)
I know people that works with Linux just because it was the best at this
... they solve 200x200 complex number matrixes under Linux (64Mb machine).
>then Linux is what you need.
Hehe, just finished reading now :-)
> But trying to install Linux with intention to use
> it as an mp3 player (substitute here by GnuCach or
> whatever) this hurts my feelings.
The thing is that for these uses, Windows use to be pre-installed, and
Linux could be too.
> I myself use WinNT when I need to prepare a presentation in
> PowerPoint.
Why to use a propietary model ?
> I hope you understand my point, and will express your
> opinion. Please don't be mad, I didn't try to hurt anybodys
> feelings.
Hope no one is hurted by a computer choice even when they are wrong not
using Linux :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: 20 Mar 2000 21:32:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "rm_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> How come Barnes and Nobles hasn't migrated to W2K? I bet their
> they have
Citation?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Iridium Tech Support
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:32:21 +0000
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry
> McBride) wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > They lucked out. That could have easily been a city...
>
> Not likely. Cities don't occupy a very large fraction of the Earth's
> surface. The chances are probably worse than one in a million.
Bugger - knowing my luck I'd be be well advised to rush off to the local
Very Strong Table shop to buy myself a very strong table to hide under.
ck
------------------------------
From: "Shibu Basheer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux statistics.
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:43:23 GMT
Hello!
I am looking for some web site which can provide some statistics about linux
usage throughout the world, and compared to other operating systems. Also
about number of linux web servers out there..
I need this for a college report. I would appreciate any help! Thanks.
Also, could you Cc your reply to my email address : [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
Thanks,
Shibu
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:10:47 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 20 Mar 2000 17:23:35 GMT...
...and David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And then, there's XFree 4.0 and KDE 2 coming very soon! It just keep s
> getting better and beter for us!
XFree86 4.0 is already out.
KDE 2 is just some weeks/months ahead.
And don't forget that we've got three major steps to GNOME 2.0
scheduled for this year:
April GNOME will give us a little overhaul and general improvement of
the suite again, preserving compatibility.
August GNOME will release Nautilus, the Eazel file manager developed
by members of the original Mac development team, and Evolution (the
mail/groupware app) upon the GNOME world.
And with November GNOME, we'll step the development platform up and
reach GNOME 2.0.
Then there's Abiword and Gnumeric doing quite fine, too.
mawa
--
Ich kann mich noch ganz genau daran erinnern, als ich von meinem
Kanzler das erste Subventionsbonbon bekam. Es waren W�hler's Original,
bar und zinslos und unvergleichlich gut. Und ich wu�te sofort: Du
w�hlst jemanden, f�r den du etwas ganz Besonderes bist.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:12:17 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 20 Mar 2000 11:40:37 GMT...
...and Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On UNIX ( Motif to be precise ) it's ALT-C and ALT-V. Only recently, we're
> > seeing KDE and GNOME move towards the "Windows way" to make life easier
> > for new users.
>
> Also, many Motif programs support Emacs-style keyboard shortcuts as
> well (Ctrl-W for cut, Ctrl-Y for paste.) Exactly what keys should do
> what actions has been the subject of Holy Wars for as long as I can
> remember...
Right Thing: Make them configurable in the individual GUI toolkits and
write a simple, small application that will set a global key
configuration for every supported widget set (Xaw, Motif, GTK+, Qt).
Shouldn't be hard.
mawa
--
MSCE: Microsoft System Crash Explainer ("Bad hardware! Bad drivers!")
MCSE: Must Call Someone Experienced
MSCE: Microsoft Seems to Certify Everyone
-- from c.o.l.advocacy
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:52:50 -0600
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b65ea$1pp0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "rm_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> How come Barnes and Nobles hasn't migrated to W2K? I bet their
>
> > they have
>
> Citation?
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/guide/server/profiles/dotcoms/bn.asp
There's even a video of Gary King, CIO of BarnesandNoble.com stating that
Windows2000 is "an integral part of our capability to achieve the
kinds of reliability and scalability that an e-commerce site needs".
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:05:07 -0500
"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > To make the most of its limited capital, seeUthere.com began development
> > using the Linux platform since the company's engineers were familiar
with
> > UNIX, and Linux tools are very inexpensive. However, after two months of
> > work, developers were falling behind schedule because the Linux platform
> > required that they build infrastructure before developing core business
> > logic. That's part of why seeUthere.com then began a parallel
development
> > program using the Windows DNA platform. Windows DNA provided the
necessary
> > infrastructure so developers could get right to work on business logic.
> >
> > In three months, the team working with Windows DNA caught up with the
work
> > it had taken the Linux group five months to do.
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews2/031700.htm
>
>
> Drestin dear boy, think for a minute what the above URL contains...
> It contains the domain, 'microsoft.com'.
>
> I will hand you this, you are the laziest corporate shill fudster
> I have ever come across on USENET.
>
> --
So, the facts are accurate but you are taking me to task because I was lazy
and didn't wait for this to be reposted elsewhere and give that URL. I can
live with that.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:05:29 -0500
"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b62h7$s8q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> > To make the most of its limited capital, seeUthere.com began development
> > using the Linux platform since the company's engineers were familiar
with
> > UNIX, and Linux tools are very inexpensive. However, after two months of
> > work, developers were falling behind schedule because the Linux platform
> > required that they build infrastructure before developing core business
> > logic. That's part of why seeUthere.com then began a parallel
development
> > program using the Windows DNA platform. Windows DNA provided the
necessary
> > infrastructure so developers could get right to work on business logic.
> >
> > In three months, the team working with Windows DNA caught up with the
work
> > it had taken the Linux group five months to do.
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews2/031700.htm
>
> When are you going to post something original - something not from
> Microsofts PR department ?
>
> Give us an opinion on something Drestin - youre hopefully something more
> than a monkey copying others.
>
> Greetings to all lemmings
> BTW.. Is this the first company that switches the other way around?
So, the facts are not even remotely in dispute - good.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:08:23 GMT
Thanks for your help. Appreciate it.
-Jdimarco
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:15:35 GMT, mr_organic pronounced:
> >My company is planning on hosting roughly 200 web sites on a single
> >Linux box (I am unsure as to which flavor), using Apache server. The
> >server will have roughly between 500 megs ~ 1 gig of memory. These
> >sites will by dynamic and primarily database driven on a separate
> >server which will be using MYSQL as the back end and Perl to access
the
> >data. Is this a feasible notion, can a single Linux box coupled with
a
> >database server with the previous stats be capable of hosting and
> >handling approximately 200 dynamic web sites?
> >Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> Opinions in this forum will vary, but here's my $0.02 -- no way
> in hell would I do that on a Linux box at present, unless you have
> some dedicated admins, a *really good* hardware platform, and
> very little organized tech support. Linux is great for small
> or medium sites, or even large sites if you're willing to babysit,
> but if you just want to have a hassle-free webserver than can handle
> a huge load, I'd consider a SPARC/Solaris solution right now. It's
> battle-tested and proven, apache runs fine on it, and it's got
> prodigious support not only from Sun but from the ISP community as
> well.
>
> Regards,
>
> mr_organic
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question (B1 on Linux & Free B1)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:09:10 GMT
It was posted a little bit later on about Secure Computing doing some
security work on Linux for the NSA, so I wanted to let people know that
Argus Systems Group will be doing a B1 implementation on Linux.
Networking will also be a component of this implementation.
The Argus product is called PitBull and currently runs on Solaris Sparc
and x86. It has been certified to B1 under ITSEC and is
currently undergoing a Common Criteria Evaluation through CSC. As it
always interests people, the certification will include networking. For
more information on the Linux efforts please take a look at the Argus
web site under press releases (www.argus-systems.com).
Argus will also be launching a new program called the Argus Revolution
that will be giving away free non-commercial licenses to our PitBull
product. These licenses are currently available for Sparc and x86. We
will be officially launching this program at SANS and during the first
Bay Area PitBull Users Group (BAPUG - www.bapug.org). Information on
the Revolution will be found at http://www.argusrevolution.com/
Using PitBull allows individuals to protect their home systems from
attack and can change your chance of system wide penetration due to
application exploits from 99% to almost 0%. It also gives people the
chance to tinker, play, develop, and think about how to use a secure
platform to solve real problems.
I believe that once people begin to understand that level of security
provided by PitBull which is truly the first commercial B1 operating
system, they will never want to go back to unsecure systems.
On a personal note, I am in the midst of setting up a home system
gateway based on PitBull and will be giving away the root account on
/etc/issue to start to show people what kinds of things can be done with
a secure OS.
Cheers,
Jeff
Jeff Thompson
Software Evangelist and Visionary
Argus Systems Group, Inc.
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've read recently that in its current form, Linux not only isn't C2
> compliant, but that it cannot be C2 compliant because it doesn't
> have Access Control Lists and auditing on ACL's -- it only has file
> based permissions.
>
> Further, C2 certified Unix implementations have been "Trusted"
> versions; i.e., no standard off the shelf Unix OS's have been C2
> certified, as is the case with NT (various versions)
>
> I know that file permissions are the basis for the security model
> in Linux, but I thought it also had ACL's.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:08:50 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b65ea$1pp0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "rm_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> How come Barnes and Nobles hasn't migrated to W2K? I bet their
>
> > they have
>
> Citation?
http://www.microsoft.com/WINDOWS2000/guide/server/profiles/dotcoms/bn.asp
ignorance is bliss - but not in here...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:15:40 -0500
Just curious... can you name for me ANY OS that is 100.00% backwards
compatable with every previous version of itself and with every single 3rd
party driver and application.
So - you are bitching about software/OS in general - but whinning in a linux
advocacy forum to try to garner sympathy for the fact that Core Technologies
hasn't updated their software (given 6+ months advanced warning by MS) to be
W2K compatible.... sounds like you should be bitching to Core
Technologies...
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XZIA4.7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just got the news from our support people that Windows 2000 is not
backwardly
> compatible with NT. Case in point is Core Technologies BRIDGE software
which
> is capable of poll-select via a com port under NT, doesn't work under Win
2000.
>
> Reason is the Microsoft team didn't thoroughly test their product!
>
> TRUE, Windows 2000 is almost 2 years behind their original lofty
schedules.
> TRUE, they have had 2 years extra to develop and test their product!
>
> TRUE, it costs over $300 a copy to get it.
>
> TRUE, all we can do is tell our customers we DON'T KNOW WHEN MICROSOFT
WILL FIX IT!
>
> God I'm sick of Microsoft. I'm so tired of the moronic stupidity...
> The cost. The cost. The cost... The cost....
>
> Why is it ! Why can't Microsoft make a backwardly compatible product????
> Not even in VB can they make a backwardly compatible product!!!!
>
> Why is it that a group of part time programmers can make Linux which is
backwardly
> compatible for 9-10 years now and yet a bunch of BIG-BOYS working for
MICROSOFT can
> not.....
>
> The "BIG-BOYS" are having problems!
>
> And because the "BIG-BOYS" are having problems, I'M HAVING PROBLEMS!!!!
>
> I am pissed!
>
> Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: *Real* Win2000 sales figures?
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:19:47 -0500
as it's not targeted for Best But i'm not suprised.
HOWEVER< you might wanna realize that at bestbuy they put one copy (or just
a few) on the floor and replace them as they are sold. Or at my store they
put out a single copy in a plastic box with little paper tags you take up to
the counter to get your actual copy.
1.5 million copies and growing (not including corporate licenses!)
"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: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:16:57 -0500
"rm_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:12:18 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
>
> Do you even have a clue as to how Microsoft tests their OSs for
> every hardware known to man? They use UNIX to simulate all
> potential hardware configurations that their OSs may encounter.
>
> That's right, Microsoft uses UNIX for testing their OSs.
>
> Hold my hand and let's say it together... U-N-I-X.
>
Prove that.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:17:55 -0500
typical bs for mlw - you is mired in w95 and nt3.5 and wouldn't know w2k if
it bit him
his proof is in his own mind...
"tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yxhB4.615$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> More marketing propaganda. The latest TCO research seems to indicate
> that NT is one of the more expensive operating systems. Even more
> expensive than UNIX.
>
> url please or is this more typical bs for mlw!
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:20:34 -0500
catch up...
"Net Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RJ7B4.62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Why to move into 2.4 serie ? Isn't it too many hurry to do it ? Is
Linux
> falling into market tendences ? What the hell does it matter W2K is out ?
I
> thought kernels where bullet proof, and by 2.3.51, kernel I tested had
some
> bugs and a lot of EXPERIMENTAL code ... so why ?
>
> Net Walker.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
