Linux-Advocacy Digest #729, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 11:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (westprog 2000)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (abraxas)
Re: Producing Quality Code (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linux ISP? (LFessen106)
Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux! (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Windows 2000: virus haven (Matt Chiglinsky)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: westprog 2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:21:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, but nobody else can modify that something either.
> which is the point of it. (root is all-powerful, so if the all-
> powerful can't do it, then no one else can either)
Which is the limitation of it.
> > He seemed to be indicating otherwise.
> then you didn't read his read his point, or else deliberately
> misinterpreted it.
> > Typical attitude. Blame the user.
> but the user is not root!!! root is not a normal user!!!
"root" is just a particular configuration of the computer which is
required to perform certain tasks. The user
> we are talking about root.. and it's a given on (standard) unix that
> root is all-powerful, all-seeing.
Root is not all-seeing - that is the problem. Root is dumb as a shovel.
Tell it to do something stupid, and it will do it. All the effort is
provided by the user, who has to take responsibility.
The idea that an administrator is not a user, and the confusion between
the user and the settings required to perform a task, are all too
common.
> > Nevermind that the tools don't give you
> > the ability prevent problems.
> what problem?
The problem is that a simple typing error can have disastrous
consequences.
>You're talking about how administrator on NT is/can be
> hamstrung, and you therefore conclude root on unix has a problem?
root on unix is unable to restrict its own access in this particular
way. This is a missing feature.
> fsck off...
> > rm -i is a pain in the ass. I would much
> > rather remove access to files I don't want to accidentally touch. I
> > don't know about you, but I make mistakes when I type.
> then use rm -i... the i does stand for "interactive" and is designed
> exactly for /interactive/ use of rm. I have rm aliased to -i when i
> log in as root.
So, the answer to preventing typing mistakes is to use a tool that
requires much more typing?
> Unix is not NT, thanks be to god, so don't try to claim that because
> Unix lacks idiocy ABC that therefore NT must be superior because it
> does have idiocy ABC.
This is the rule of advocacy - if your system has something mine
doesn't, it must be crap. If both systems share a feature, it must be
right.
One of the hardest lessons in the field of computing is that users gain
power and flexibility by restricting their capacities to do the wrong
thing.
--
J.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:34:32 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Yes, but nobody else can modify that something either.
>
> which is the point of it. (root is all-powerful, so if the all-powerful
> can't do it, then no one else can either)
No. I said that Administrator is not exactly like root. You can take away
priveledges from Administrator so that they cannot accidentally modify or
delete certain files. I was told that you can do the same thing in Linux,
which is incorrect, since root ignores all rights and priveleges other than
global read-only status.
You can't see the difference here?
> > He seemed to be indicating otherwise.
>
> then you didn't read his read his point, or else deliberately
> misinterpreted it.
No, his point was to contradict my statement. My statement is true.
Administrator is not the exact same thing as root. Very similar, but they
have different characteristics.
> > Typical attitude. Blame the user.
>
> but the user is not root!!! root is not a normal user!!!
Under Unix, your right. Under NT, Administrator *IS* a normal user that can
be given (or removed) any specific rights. Hell, you can remove
Administrator status from the Administrator account and it will no longer
even be able to be an administrator.
> we are talking about root.. and it's a given on (standard) unix that
> root is all-powerful, all-seeing.
Which is simply not the case with NT. Adminstrator, can only be such if you
give them rights to every file on the system. They can take those rights,
but it's not such by default.
> > Nevermind that the tools don't give you
> > the ability prevent problems.
>
> what problem? You're talking about how administrator on NT is/can be
> hamstrung, and you therefore conclude root on unix has a problem?
>
> fsck off...
Isn't that a little cliche' by now?
I said nothing about Unix having a problem. Try and follow the thread. My
argument is only that Administrator under NT is different from Root under
Unix.
> > rm -i is a pain in the ass. I would much
> > rather remove access to files I don't want to accidentally touch. I
don't
> > know about you, but I make mistakes when I type.
>
> then use rm -i... the i does stand for "interactive" and is designed
> exactly for /interactive/ use of rm. I have rm aliased to -i when i log
> in as root.
I don't want interactive. I want the ability to not effect files which I do
not own unless I specifically take those rights.
> Unix is not NT, thanks be to god, so don't try to claim that because
> Unix lacks idiocy ABC that therefore NT must be superior because it does
> have idiocy ABC.
How does lack of a very useful feature equate to idiocy?
Your attitude is typical "We can't do it, so it's stupid to want to"
> > I'm glad you're perfect.
>
> i'm glad i don't have to spout rubbish on newsgroups in other to justify
> my pay packet.
No, you seem to do just fine without being paid.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:42:27 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > 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.
> >
>
> hahahahahahahahhaaa...
>
> they'll be waiting a long time then, won't they?
Yeah, another 6 months or so.
> But surely though, if NT4 is such a great, reliable and scaleable OS as
> MS have always claimed it to be, they could have migrated to it? Why
> didn't they migrate to NT4, erik?
They could have, but it would be expensive to do so and would have to be
done again when Merced hits. Why should they do it twice?
> When hotmail originally started up they didn't say, "golly, we'd better
> for wait for Solaris 7 which will be released next year" did they?
Why would they? They needed it to work, which it does. Migration to a new
platform can wait, getting it working in the first place cannot.
> > They gave no timetable for such a migration, and it's not something that
> > happens overnight.
>
> they stated that they would move Hotmail to NT when they bought it. Now
> over 2 years later, and still absolutely no sign of migration. In fact
> weren't hotmail advertising for Unix developers/admins not so long ago?
So you can see within the halls of Hotmail and know that they are making no
effort of a migration?
> > > : systems. For pure I/O, you'd want 64 bit processing.
>
> just to point to whoever said that: hotmail currently runs on /32 bit/
> platforms!
Who said that?
> Solaris isn't 64bit (yet, only the kernel is 64bit) even though the
> hardware is, and the FreeBSD web frontend servers have no chance of
> being 64 bit.
How do you know that part of the "customization" of Hotmail wasn't to create
a 64 bit TCP/IP stack?
I believe that FreeBSD runs on Alpha and is 64 bit on that version.
> So if hotmail runs fine now on unix on 32 bit, then you can't use a "NT
> needs 64bit because of the I/O" type arguments...
The kernel is generally the defining item as to whether the OS is 32 bit or
64 bit or 16 bit. Are you aware that I/O is a kernel function?
> > Considering that MS hasn't owned hotmail for 3 years, that would be kind
of
> > difficult, would it not?
>
> They bought it when? December 1997? That smells like close to 2.5 years,
> which certainly smells long enough to have ported hotmail over...
>
> (it's such a fast-moving industry isn't it? Are you saying MS are slow?)
MS doesn't move at the same rate that small start-ups do.
> > ... They never
> > said they would be moving it to NT,
>
> yes they did. They said as much on the "about" type pages on hotmail,
> but that is conveniently absent now.
I did not write what you claim I did. That is just plain dishonest. Here
is what I wrote:
"They never said it would be done 3 years ago, they said they would be
moving it to NT"
You are now worse than uninformed, you're being deliberately dishonest.
> > and they have been slowly introducing NT
> > into the system.
>
> have they? where? on the desktops of Hotmail staff no doubt..
>
> Show proof (as you love saying) that NT is used /anywhere/ on hotmail.
>
> -paul jakma
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:44:37 -0600
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Says nothing about the OS or hardware it runs on. She's talking about
the
> > architecture of the application.
>
> Ah... so its just an application then? So there shouldn't be too much
> problem porting over to NT then, should there? Hell, you can get Unix
> porting kits for NT.
>
> So therefore, from what you say, the only variable left is the quality
> of the low-level OS. And MS themselves would therefore be saying that NT
> is not up to it...
Do you pay any attention? *YES* MS says that stock NT, just like Stock
Solaris is not up to the job. They say that specifically.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 21 Mar 2000 14:40:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip*
Didnt you killfile me or something?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 21 Mar 2000 14:34:40 GMT
In article <8b6vvn$ht$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Qsort issues with ordered vs random files.
> Quicksort, as I understand it, is O(N log N) most of the time, for N
> items. But if the list is initially sorted in the wrong direction,
> the time becomes O(N^2).
Quicksort is indeed O(NlogN) on unsorted data, and O(N^2) on sorted
data, however it also not a stable sort (doesn't necessarily preserve
order of values that have the same sorting order) and it is a really
bad choice when you are building your dataset one item at a time and
are mixing lookups and inserts...
>> When to use and when not to use recursion.
> The only problem I can think of with recursion is that it might eat
> up too much stack space, because each function call needs a few
> bytes for passed parameters and local data.
The best rule of thumb I've seen is that you should use recursion
where the data is naturally recursive, and not otherwise. There are a
number of extra tricks you can use (tail recursion, etc.) but they
hardly ever optimise comprehensibility, debuggability or maintainability!
>> Just once give me a guy that knows how to write a decent hash table.
[...]
> And the ideal choice of hascode algorithm would be one that would
> make the items evenly distributed.
The real problem with hashing being that the best algorithms are
dependent on both the nature of the keys being hashed and the number
of keys to hash.
[...]
>> And, if you know these things, drop me an e-mail, we need good people.
> I'm not sure I'd be in any position to accept such an offer.
I'm fairly sure I wouldn't accept such an offer anyway. Leastways,
not unless mlw could be very persuasive on just how interesting
working for him would be...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:55:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:44:36 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >What in the world are you talking about? My argument has been that
> > >regardless of the illegal activity that MS did, OS/2 ultimately failed
> > >because of IBM.
> >
> > True. IBM couldn't market a parachute to a bloke who just fell out of
> > a plane at 30k feet.
>
> I beg to differ. IBM would NOT be around let alone worth $205 billion
> in market value if they were that bad. Historically IBM has been known
> as a great marketing company for computers. Wang, Digital, DG are the
> real losers.
>
> IBM isn't a good consumer company but you know what? Neither is MS.
> Most of MS's customers are OEMs. Most windows users are OEM customers.
> MS has had and done a great job with PR and media manipulation (until
> recently).
Excellent point.
IBM's reputation for lousy marketing should be specified as "lousy
consumer marketing".
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LFessen106)
Subject: Re: Linux ISP?
Date: 21 Mar 2000 15:10:04 GMT
>Just a quick warning, there's only one free ISP that I am aware of which
>supports Linux. I don't recall the name at the moment, but I know somebody
>(Steve, Chad, Drestin, etc.) will go off on it as if the lack of Free ISP's
>reflected on the OS itself.
>
>Good luck
>
>"JoeX1029" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I need a good dial-up ISP for my Linux box. Anybody have any info please
>EMAIL
>> me. Remember: Free is good...
>>
www.freewwweb.com
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 09:15:55 -0600
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:03:16 -0600,
> Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> >
> >> The fun begins AFTER the install, setting up everything that Windows
> >> sets up during it's install. Printers for example.
> >
> >No, the fun begins after you have everything set up like you want it and Windows
> >decides it knows what you want better than you do yourself, and so spontaneously
> >reconfigures itself.
> >
> >I do spend some time configuring (and customizing!) my Linux installations, but
> >when I'm done they stay configured. No reinstalls, no spontaneous
> >reconfigurations.
> Well said Bobby!
>
> My dam Win95 install would occasionally decide I had "new hardware" and go into
> safe mode for lemmings, to protect me from this new and non existent hardware.
>
> All the 800x600 icons would be nicely smeared over the 640x480
> safe mode desktop, what a mess, what fun.
>
> Naturally, Linux NEVER does this, and its bliss, sheer bliss.
>
I concur. I have a dual boot box with Linux and Win98. I had it pretty
stable in Win98 to where I could play a game and not crash.
Then (I should have known better) I bought a new keyboard and mouse of
the same type I already had - PS/2. I replaced the hardware and booted
the machine into Win98 upon which it found new hardware, tried to
install it and promptly messed up my video driver! I ended up removing
the drivers for all keyboards, mice, and video (rebooting at least five
or six times... I lost count) and having to download a fresh new version
of the video driver before getting back to square one.
Linux, on the other hand, just booted up and worked... no questions
asked.
What's up with that??
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:21:05 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Yeah, another 6 months or so.
>
6 months?? hahahahaa...
> They could have, but it would be expensive to do so and would have to be
> done again when Merced hits. Why should they do it twice?
>
if its coded properly why would they have to port it again to go to
Merced?
In fact why would they have to port from NT4 to W2K? Are they not
compatible?
> > just to point to whoever said that: hotmail currently runs on /32 bit/
> > platforms!
>
> Who said that?
>
uhmmm.. what do they use? Solaris and FreeBSD -> 32 bit.
Solaris kernel was 32bit up to 2.51 or 2.6 iirc. Solaris userspace is
still 32bit.
> I believe that FreeBSD runs on Alpha and is 64 bit on that version.
>
yes it is, but they don't use alpha do they?
> The kernel is generally the defining item as to whether the OS is 32 bit or
> 64 bit or 16 bit.
but i doubt that hotmail is implemented in kernel.
> I did not write what you claim I did. That is just plain dishonest. Here
> is what I wrote:
>
> "They never said it would be done 3 years ago, they said they would be
> moving it to NT"
>
> You are now worse than uninformed, you're being deliberately dishonest.
>
sorry. i made an honest cuting and pasting mistake, which reflected very
dishonestly on you. I apologise.
> > > and they have been slowly introducing NT
> > > into the system.
> >
> > have they? where? on the desktops of Hotmail staff no doubt..
> >
> > Show proof (as you love saying) that NT is used /anywhere/ on hotmail.
> >
you forgot to respond to this one....
> > -paul jakma
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:28:07 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 13:12:35 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>-20. I *protest*!
>But I'm still right Steve, you're just going further back in time. Gimme back
>those 20 points you Windows Troll !
Ok you can have the 20 points back. Just don't tell anyone
;)
>>>They used Banyan email utilising "Streetalk" naming methods, and they loved it
>>>. Word was just another app.
>>
>>-10 points. It's all about app's. OS means nothing to a secretary.
>Thats my point exactly, so I'll have those 10 points back thanks.
>
>>>>
>>>>How many times must we dispell this crap? This is EXACTLY the sort of person
>>>>linux is perfect for. This is EXACTLY the sort of job windows (and Mac for that
>>>>matter) is HORRIBLE for.
>>>I agree 100%.
>>
>>Unless you want groupware ala Lotus CLIENT and file formats including
>>charts and tables that the rest of the office world is using.
>>*.txt files are long dead. Today's Email for better or worse (I vote
>>worse) includes video, graphics and so forth. You need to ACCURATELY
>>be able to reproduce the formats or you are out of the game.
>>>People who say this have no real world experience, its just the MS propaganda
>>>line.
>>
>>No they are just used to seeing MSOffice in just about every client's
>>account they have.
>Yeah I'll go along with that, but it still doesnt mean that its the best.
>Things are changing, how long will MS Office be the defacto standard ?
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>I'll agree that linux is not suited to the typical home user/gamer.
>>>>Fine. Almost no one here would say that it is.
>>>Everyone but me that is :))
>>>My kids loved networked Koules (Windows uses have NEVER have seen it, never
>>>will), networked Quake, Networked FreeCiv, Adom etc.
>>
>>Buy a Sony Playstation. Trust me, you and your kids will love it.
>They have one, a Nintendo, and Game Boys. Trust me kids LOVE Koules,
>mine screeched and raved playing that game for weeks.
I can understand that. Tetris is still one of my favorite games and I
still like Duke Nukem'. I don't have the time nor the patience to
learn complicated games.
>Now they're looking at the Linux Game Boy progamming kit, all free of course.
That sounds interesting.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers
>>>>> and for programmers or researchers !!!
>>>Crap.
>>
>>-10 points here. No contest. Linux/Unix is for geeks.
>Nonsense, Linux is as good as Windows at most things, better at many
>and is Free and Open.
>I've helped a long time Windows user to move to the Linux desktop :)
>She has had a Linux server up 97 days, but always used Windows for her
>own desktop pc.
I never said it couldn't be done. Heck one of my favorite programs was
PFS Write. All I want to do is write a letter not have the program try
and think for me. Unfortunately in my day job Lotus Notes is used and
i need compatibility.
>After the initial mental adjustment (that Steve has never been able to make)
>she's settled down to being *way* more productive than she was under Windows
That's great for her and I'm sure she is not alone. Obviously Linux
has it's place and many will agree with you. I say that replacing an
already entrenched in Windows market is a tough sell and cost is the
big reason Linux is being considered, not features. Again desktop, not
server.
>
>Another satisfied Linux Desktop user.
Fair enough.
At the end of my distribution evaluation I said Linux is finally a
competitor for the desktop and I stand by that. It depends on whose
desktop it is going on though.
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:30:09 GMT
Sorry I should have clarified that. I of course meant consumer market.
Another example of IBM's inept consumer marketing skills was those PC
Stores they opened in the 1980's to offer direct sales to consumers.
They failed miserably.
steve
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 22:18:16 -0500, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:44:36 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>
>> >What in the world are you talking about? My argument has been that
>> >regardless of the illegal activity that MS did, OS/2 ultimately failed
>> >because of IBM.
>>
>> True. IBM couldn't market a parachute to a bloke who just fell out of
>> a plane at 30k feet.
>
>I beg to differ. IBM would NOT be around let alone worth $205 billion
>in market value if they were that bad. Historically IBM has been known
>as a great marketing company for computers. Wang, Digital, DG are the
>real losers.
>
>IBM isn't a good consumer company but you know what? Neither is MS.
>Most of MS's customers are OEMs. Most windows users are OEM customers.
>MS has had and done a great job with PR and media manipulation (until
>recently).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Chiglinsky)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: virus haven
Date: 21 Mar 2000 15:30:16 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 15:53:39 GMT, rm_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>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
>
Viruses don't mean much if run as a normal user on a secure OS with a
secure file system. What's it gonna do, try to take over the system
with less than admin rights? A Unix "virus" if there were any wouldn't
do any worse.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:33:04 GMT
The major problem was that with OS/2 2.0 (the first WPS version) IBM
was very late with the DDK and tried initially to sell it. MS was
giving away theirs at shows and it was availible very early on and so
forth. IBM lost valuble hardware support because of this blunder.
Steve
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:41:17 -0500, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 03/20/2000 at 04:42 PM,
> Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>Your post which appear to have come directly from Redmond has been refuted
>time and again. You qualify as a lying pile of pondscum.
>
>> IBM charged an arm and a leg to get an OS/2 devlopment kit while
>> Microsoft gave them away free at schools.
>
>When MS and IBM worked together the Developers kit was around $3,000. When
>they broke off joint development, the IBM kit dropped to $200 a year for
>constant upgrades. IBM provided support to schools long before there WAS a
>Microsoft.
>
>Thus you are proven a liar.
>
>> IBM didn't embrace the concept of CD's and multimedia untell way late in
>> the game, forcing users to install 50+ 1.44meg disks.
>
>Another blatent lie. From OS/2 version 2, OS/2 was available on CD. The
>last version on diskette was Warp 3.0. It contained a total of 28
>diskettes. No version was ever 50+ diskettes.
>
>Again you are proven a worthless liar.
>
>> OS/2 refused to support an easy install method, forcing users to edit a
>> 200+ line CONFIG.SYS file to add a CD-ROM driver.
>
>Once more you are a proven liar. I have Warp 4.0 installed on several
>machines here. The LONGEST config.sys file is 184 lines of which 16 are
>blank, 18 are remmed out. And this machine loads Voice Type, full
>debugging, the network, sound, gradd drivers, CDRW drivers, scanner
>driver, fax drivers, scsi tape backup drivers, screen saver, DOS support,
>Win 3.1 support, etc.
>
>The maintenance partition which provides DOS support but no voice,
>network, scsi tape, or CDRW support is only 87 lines long. Another machine
>has 125 lines and offers full support for DOS, Windows, Multimedia, Fax,
>SCSI tape, network, etc. Yet another, our Notes Domino Server which also
>has multimedia, DOS, and Windows support installed as well as the network
>has a config.sys file of 120 lines. And every command, etc. in those files
>is documented on-line if one installs the help files.
>
>Contast that to Win.ini for Win 98 with over 400 lines, most of which are
>archaic to say the least and most of which are not documented in the help
>files.
>
>So, again, you are proven a liar of the worst sort for claiming a
>config.sys file of 200+ lines.
>
>And more to the point, you fail to understand that to get CD-ROM support
>for Windows 3.1, one had to edit his or her config.sys file to install
>from a CD-ROM, Moreover, Windows 3.1 did not support CD's at all. If one
>purchased a CD-ROM drive before Win95 was released, one had to install the
>support via vendor supplied software. I have over 80 diskettes for various
>CD-ROM drives in our software library.
>
>Long before Windows 95 came along, Warp 2.1 supported some CD drives out
>of the box. The list was short, only about 12 drives several of which were
>IBM products, but the support was there as well as cogent, clear
>instructions in printed manuals for installing support for other CD
>drives.
>
>> IBM droped all consumer level support for OS/2 forcing users to pay up
>> to 200$ an hour for help installing the thing.
>
>Again you are proven a worthless lying pile of pondscum. If one buys the
>retail version of Warp, one still gets installation support as part of the
>package. Moreover, one can purchase support contracts for far less than
>$200 per hour directly from IBM.
>
>Moreover, MS doesn't even print manuals for Windows 98. Nor does it
>provide ANY support for OEM installations of WIndows 95, 98, NT 4.0, or
>Windows 2000. Only an insane idiot would prefer to buy a product with NO
>available Manufacturer support for the OS over the ability to get support
>even if slightly costly.
>
>So, you have been absolutely and without a shadow of doubt proven to be a
>worthless lying pile of pondscum. If you post any further messages, Mr.
>Fizer, the subject and attribution lines will be altered to make the
>reader aware of what a stinking louse you are.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
