Linux-Advocacy Digest #745, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development (Terry
Porter)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (nohow)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Alan Burns)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Mika Yrjola)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Loren Petrich)
Re: which OS is best? (Daniel Tryba)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Loren Petrich)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Boris")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Mar 2000 17:13:48 +0800
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:53:40 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>On 21 Mar 2000 13:22:19 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
<I snipped the IBM stuff, cause I don't know anything about it :)>
>>Perhaps your anonymous persona will prevent us from ever finding out who "Steve"
>>the troll really is ?
>
>I like to keep you guessing Terry. Giving you just enough technical
>information, but not quite enough. Duping you into thinking I know
>absolutely nothing about the industry and then springing the trap on
>you after you walk onto the battlefield unprotected hurling insults
>instead of factual data.
Oh you've given me enuf info, to ascertain your Linux knowledge Steve :)
Industry ?? The Fud industry ?
Trap ???
Battlefield ??
Thats the funny bit Steve, Linux won't be joining your battle, only one army
has shown up, ..... yours, the MS army :)
>
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:18:39 -0800
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:51:13 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >You didn't answer the question. Hotmail runs on highly customized
>Solaris.
>> >You have no idea what they've implemented in user or kernel and what
>they've
>> >implemented in 64 bit.
>>
>> Can you detail this *high* customization? Do you have any idea what
>> they've implemented in user or kernel? Do you have any idea what
>> they've implemented in 64 bit?
>
>No, and that's just the point. Neither can Paul, therefore his statements
>regarding what Hotmail has and is doing are completely fictitious.
>
That maybe true but my point was your use of the term "highly
customized Solaris" is just as misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong but
besides the tcp/ip stack we don't know what has or hasn't been
customized, how its been customized, nor the effort this customization
took. The only infrence I draw from the whole episode is that since MS
has a track record for using it's own stuff and since they didn't move
Hotmail over that maybe NT 4 couldn't handle it. Personally I believe
in the "if it ain't broke don't fix" school of thought and wouldn't
move it over unless necessary.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:54:17 GMT
On 22 Mar 2000 06:27:04 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[deletia]
>: the Microsoft Let's-bring-down-linvocates-to-make-us-look-better Mold 2000
>: and selling at Best Buy for $89.95 for the upgrade and $310 for the full
>: version? :)
>
>*grin* Okay, let's face it, geeks are as diverse as X toolkits. My point
>was, that people shouldn't have to become technically oriented users, just
Either you're going to learn about the tool, or you simply
aren't going to get very effective use out of it. That's
all there is to it.
This is especially true for the hobbled-together-over-the-decades
PC Kludge Klone platform where WinFoo can expose you to as much
arcana as Linux might if you're unlucky.
>to use an operating system. Especially if their aptitudes, and interests
>diverge away from computers altogether.
>
>: >- Because UNIX stinks for desktop applications.
>
>: It's all relative. Windows might have more applications, but the actual
>: production (in work hours) is roughly about the same, if you count in time
>: lost to weird system crashes, BSOD's, etc...
>
>But you must also consider the amount of time required to set up and
>maintain typical UNIX operating system. Surely you'd agree that it's at
>least a little more cumbersome, no? Then again, this could also be
Nope. I spend LESS time maintaining any Unix (whether it's
a server or desktop) than I ever do, or have done, futzing
with Windows.
>considered relative, as knowledge does wonders for setup time.
>
>My point was, that UNIX is ideal as a workhorse for managing heavy network
>traffic, and very large databases. But it's akward to use on the desktop
>(for the typical end user).
No it isn't. It might be awkward to setup, but then again
so can any PC OS. Once setup, WIMP is the same whether or
not you're running GEM, GEOS, Windows or X.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Alan Burns <aburns@!SPAMTRAP.ebicom.net>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:26:47 -0600
In article <8b9pv7$8ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reason why I dislike most UNIX variants, is because I understand
> them all too well. It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has
> everything to do with intolerance of cobbled-together antiquities, that
> cannot keep up with innovation.
Can non-experts join in the fun here? :-)
I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm sure most of the folks here know
far more about a lot of this than I do, but I see the above very
differently. I'm not a sys admin or anything, but I have used many different
OSes a good bit as a hobby/side job, and from my "average Joe" perspective,
NT certainly looks far more "cobbled-together" than any *NIX I've ever used.
I guess the most prominent example would be the way NT handles multiple
users. Under NT, you have software trying to write crap *all over* the
hard drive, including the system root, because NT comes from a lineage
of basically single-user OSes. You try to lock down the system root
as read-only, and you break about 70-80% of your apps. It looks to
me like they took a basic structure that was intended to be single-user
and just stuck some user validation on top of it to make it multi-user.
Am I wrong here? (I'm just waiting for somebody to say, "yes" :-)
*NIX, in contrast, seems to me to be designed as multi-user on a very
basic conceptual level. No application I've ever seen tries to write to
/bin or /sbin or /etc, because *NIX has been multi-user for almost 30
years, from the day it was created. Every configuration file, every
preference, everything - in the user's home directory and *only* in
that directory. That seems to me 1000% cleaner and better thought
out than the NT model. Yes, it's old. But it was always intended to
do exactly what it does, which makes it far better designed in my
book.
Again, this is just a layman's opinion, but if I were going to call one of
these OSes "cobbled-together," it would be NT. In fact, based on my
experience with NT, I'd even go so far as to call it a hatchet job - and
a few other things that are unprintable. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:19:53 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:41:48 -0500, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> The notion that a GUI
>> must be big and bloated is a Microsoft phenomenon.
>
>And this from a guy that runs X on his Linux box? Care to compare the relative
>bloat of X and say, Windows 3.1 (a Microsoft product) on a 386 with 4 MB RAM?
I personally wouldn't tolerate Windows 3.1 on 4M. Infact, after having
bought my first WinDOS 3.1 based PC running on a 486 my first
subsequent action was to buy an extra 4M of RAM to make the
responsiveness of Windows barely tolerable. Mind you, it was just
barely tolerable at 8M. 16M is what it took to make it reasonable
when compared to what I had grown accustomed to with the ST.
Until I could afford 16M or more of RAM with Win3x or Linux/X, I
still entertained ideas of going back to GEM in some fashion.
>The relative rendering speed of X vs Windows NT 4.0 (w/o IE4)? Granted, Windows
I've run X fine on 5M Xterminals actually. Both X and Windows 3.1
are a dog in low memory configurations. You would be a liar to
try and imply otherwise.
Although, X is at least more modular and network transparent.
>isn't the slimmest GUI on the planet, but just about every modern GUI has its
>fair share of "bloat".
>
>> So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
>> make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
>> Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
>
>This is a very bizzare statement no matter how you look at it.
Not really.
Gutenberg and the printing press had the benefit of a gratis
open standard. The knowledge of how to decode a book is freely
disseminated. Similarly, such things as Morse code, ASCII,
NTSC, teletext, and mpeg are all open. Whereas QT4 is a source
for vendorlock much like msword where the formats are secret
and you have to pay a certain select few for access to those
formats. Those formats aren't even supported genuinely widely
in binary forms that still protect the 'ownership' of the
format.
Media on the web presented in RealAudio, Windows Media or QT4
is no less assinine than converting your web pages over to
msword rather than HTML. This is especially so when would be
OS competitors are ignored to their detriminet. It creates a
market barrier no less problematic than Win32.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:06:31 +1000
"Alan Burns" <aburns@!SPAMTRAP.ebicom.net> wrote in message
news:8ba3k8$tit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8b9pv7$8ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The reason why I dislike most UNIX variants, is because I understand
> > them all too well. It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has
> > everything to do with intolerance of cobbled-together antiquities, that
> > cannot keep up with innovation.
>
> Can non-experts join in the fun here? :-)
Anyone with their asbestos suits can join the fun !
> I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm sure most of the folks here know
> far more about a lot of this than I do, but I see the above very
> differently. I'm not a sys admin or anything, but I have used many
different
> OSes a good bit as a hobby/side job, and from my "average Joe"
perspective,
> NT certainly looks far more "cobbled-together" than any *NIX I've ever
used.
This, I suspect, is because you want/expect NT to behave like Unix.
> I guess the most prominent example would be the way NT handles multiple
> users. Under NT, you have software trying to write crap *all over* the
> hard drive, including the system root, because NT comes from a lineage
> of basically single-user OSes. You try to lock down the system root
> as read-only, and you break about 70-80% of your apps. It looks to
> me like they took a basic structure that was intended to be single-user
> and just stuck some user validation on top of it to make it multi-user.
>
> Am I wrong here? (I'm just waiting for somebody to say, "yes" :-)
Well, sorta. Your example is correct (big apps do have a tendency to want
to write to the system directory, amongst other things) but this springs
from a long linage of *application developers* who don't know how to
accomodate the sort of multi-userism you're talking about. Certainly, this
is because they were used to developing for single-user oriented tasks, but
it isn't really NT's fault (and there's not much it can do about it).
Remember, Windows (and its apps) has always been primarily targetted at the
single-user workstation/home machine type market, where "multi-userism"
isn't really high on the list of requirements.
You must also remember NT was never designed, nor meant to be used, in the
same fashion as Unix with a whole bunch of interactive users on a single
machine.
> *NIX, in contrast, seems to me to be designed as multi-user on a very
> basic conceptual level.
Both are multi-user, just meant to be used in different ways. Unix is
supposed to be used by a whole bunch of people interactively, at once, via
telnet sessions or Xterms or whatever. NT is not.
> No application I've ever seen tries to write to
> /bin or /sbin or /etc, because *NIX has been multi-user for almost 30
> years, from the day it was created.
This springs from where and how Unix is/was used, more than anything else.
The fact it's had 30-some years to get it right probably helps as well :).
> Every configuration file, every
> preference, everything - in the user's home directory and *only* in
> that directory.
An equivalent exists in NT - the USER part of the registry is supposed to be
used to store user-specific settings.
Many apps don't use it, but that's hardly the fault of NT.
> That seems to me 1000% cleaner and better thought
> out than the NT model. Yes, it's old. But it was always intended to
> do exactly what it does, which makes it far better designed in my
> book.
No, it's not the *model* that's any better thought out, it's the *execution*
in that particular usage method. But again, to be fair, you must remember
NT was never meant to be used like that, so blaming it for a poor execution
of the "Unix way" isn't really valid.
> Again, this is just a layman's opinion, but if I were going to call one of
> these OSes "cobbled-together," it would be NT. In fact, based on my
> experience with NT, I'd even go so far as to call it a hatchet job - and
> a few other things that are unprintable. :-)
NT was designed with a clear set of goals and requirements by a single
development group. Unix, OTOH, has sort of "evolved" over time with
requirements and goals added as they were found necessary by multitudes of
different people. I'd imagine that's why Stephen calls it
"cobbled-together".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:54:59 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:54:58 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:25:27 -0500, Bob Germer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 03/21/2000 at 03:53 PM,
>> George Marengo, a liar of the first order in the grasp of the RICO
>>named Microsoft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>
>>> >> Whatever MS _wanted_ them to do, what IBM did with OS/2 was their
>>> >> choosing, not MS's.
>>> >
>>> >Pure MS sponsored and paid for FUD.
>>
>>> Are you saying that it wasn't up to IBM to decide what IBM would do?
>>>How is that FUD?
>>
>>It is FUD because IBM had no more choice than a restaurant owner who was
>>told by the local Mafiosi that he would install a cigarette machine, use
>>XYZ garbage collection company, and pay $100 a week "insurance". And you
>>know damn well that is the case.
>
>Oh please... IBM knew darn well the selling their PC's with
>OS/2 would be financial suicide for the PSP division -- that's
Why would it be financial suicide? It would be just another
option, hardly something that they would be 'betting the
farm over'.
[deletia]
Now, a 5x increase in licencing is another matter. While they
still might have thought that they could sell OS/2 it might
have been in smaller numbers. This doesn't necessarily mean that
it would have been something that they would have not done other-
wise. It just means that it wouldn't have been lucrative enough
to counteract the damage done by Microsoft's punitive pricing.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Mika Yrjola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: 22 Mar 2000 11:15:38 +0200
Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And this from a guy that runs X on his Linux box? Care to compare
> the relative bloat of X and say, Windows 3.1 (a Microsoft product)
> on a 386 with 4 MB RAM? The relative rendering speed of X vs
> Windows NT 4.0 (w/o IE4)? Granted, Windows isn't the slimmest GUI on
> the planet, but just about every modern GUI has its fair share of
> "bloat".
X is rather bloaty, but a few comments about this in general; X does
quite a bit more than 3.1, so there is some excuse (although it surely
isn't as small as it could be). Also, the 4.0 version of xfree86 is
quite a bit faster than older versions (just try changing from one
desktop in your window manager to other to see it ;), so it's at least
in that way better than before.
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
I Fantasy, Sci-fi, Linux, Amiga, Telecommunications, Oldfield, Vangelis I
I Seti@Home, Steady relationship, more at http://www.lut.fi/%7emyrjola/ I
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 10:17:08 GMT
In article <8ba3k8$tit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Burns <aburns@!SPAMTRAP.ebicom.net> wrote:
>I guess the most prominent example would be the way NT handles multiple
>users. Under NT, you have software trying to write crap *all over* the
>hard drive, including the system root, because NT comes from a lineage
>of basically single-user OSes. You try to lock down the system root
>as read-only, and you break about 70-80% of your apps. It looks to
>me like they took a basic structure that was intended to be single-user
>and just stuck some user validation on top of it to make it multi-user.
I think it's interesting to compare the MacOS in this respect.
The MacOS is also essentially a single-user OS, but multi-user features
have been hacked on with much less difficulty.
One thing that helps is that the vast majority of MacOS apps are
essentially self-contained. They are either a single file or a folder;
the only thing they put in the System Folder is a preferences files.
However, Apple has supplied a well-defined API for locating the
Preferences folder in the System Folder, making it easy to remap this
folder to some other folder, as MacOS X will be doing. So Apple will be
having an easier time here than Microsoft.
However, there are a few MacOS apps that like to install lots of
extensions; the most egregious examples are from Microsoft. But they are
the exception rather than the rule.
>*NIX, in contrast, seems to me to be designed as multi-user on a very
>basic conceptual level. ...
Of course, it's hardly alone (IBM VM and DEC VMS, for example),
but Microsoft does not seem to have learned anything :-P
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Mar 2000 10:20:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>>> They sat on their asses from 1985 to 1995 not bothering
>>>>>> to fully exploit the IA32 instruction set and not
>>>>>> bothering to fully deploy gui based systems.
>>>>>Hmmn. I must have imagined Windows 3.1 and NT.
>>>> Windows 3.1 came out in the 90's and was still primitive
>>>> when compared to earlier rivals.
>>> And the 90's were not in your timeline of '85 to '95? Interesting.
>>> And "primitive" was not your claim. You said "failed to deploy." You
>>> were wrong.
>>According to MS Windows95 should have been the first "32-bit" OS.
> Nope. NT predates Win9x.
NT pre 1996 would be NT 3.x. Don't know anything about that one (I saw
it boot on my Alpha before I erased it). What kind of marketshare did it
have? What market did MS target with it? It sure wasn't the desktop/home
market. And by concentrating on an small server market while the huge
desktopmarket started buying it's first early pentiums with them still
running win3.1 I must agree with the person stating that MS didn't do
much to fully deploy the power of 386+ machines.
All other OSes I used pre 1996 already where making use of 386
capabilities.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 22 Mar 2000 10:50:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This in my mind is a paradigmatic example of why Linux (or *BSD, or
>even other Unices) are a Good Thing for hackers to learn, even if they
>don't use it every day. Learning Unix requires mental discipline and
>problem-solving capability, and that's *before* you begin to code.
>And when you code, you *can* use fancy GUI tools like Glade or
>KDevelop for your apps, but you still have to know a great deal about
>the toolchain and associated utilities to produce workable programs.
My favorite development environment is, it must be said, an IDE
(Metrowerks CodeWarrior), and I've found it very helpful to have automatic
makefile management :-) And for GUI layout, I like ResEdit.
There are a few limitations, however, such as having to use the
same compile settings for all the files in a project.
>Now, Windows/Mac folks hate this and shout, "Who wants to learn all
>that crap?" Unix people roll their eyes because they know that the
>Windows/Mac "developers" will come crying to them for help when their
>fancy IDEs barf out cryptic error messages.
I'm not *that* clueless. Or at least so I hope.
[a lot of stuff on Windows-programmer cluelesness...]
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:03:58 GMT
> Can non-experts join in the fun here? :-)
>
> I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm sure most of the folks here know
> far more about a lot of this than I do, but I see the above very
> differently. I'm not a sys admin or anything, but I have used many different
> OSes a good bit as a hobby/side job, and from my "average Joe" perspective,
> NT certainly looks far more "cobbled-together" than any *NIX I've ever used.
>
> I guess the most prominent example would be the way NT handles multiple
> users. Under NT, you have software trying to write crap *all over* the
> hard drive, including the system root, because NT comes from a lineage
> of basically single-user OSes. You try to lock down the system root
> as read-only, and you break about 70-80% of your apps. It looks to
> me like they took a basic structure that was intended to be single-user
> and just stuck some user validation on top of it to make it multi-user.
>
> Am I wrong here? (I'm just waiting for somebody to say, "yes" :-)
Yes, you are wrong. What do you call system root? I just removed Modify and Write
permissions on my c:\Winnt\System32 directory. Everything works fine: Word, Excel, IE.
NT was designed as single-user desktop OS. NT server paradigm is client-server
computing
across the network. From the beginning NT wasn't intended to serve multiple users with
dumb terminals (this is more mini-computer paradigm. One of early Unix platforms was
VAX
which is/was mini-computer).
NT Terminal Server is step-child of NT (that technology wasn't even created by MS, but
by
another company: Citrix).
>
> *NIX, in contrast, seems to me to be designed as multi-user on a very
> basic conceptual level. No application I've ever seen tries to write to
> /bin or /sbin or /etc, because *NIX has been multi-user for almost 30
> years, from the day it was created. Every configuration file, every
> preference, everything - in the user's home directory and *only* in
> that directory.
It stems from the fact that Unix appeared (and was mainly developed) in 70s and 80s -
era
of mini-computers. Other OSes of that period: RSX11, VAX/VMS - use similar approach.
>
> Again, this is just a layman's opinion, but if I were going to call one of
> these OSes "cobbled-together," it would be NT. In fact, based on my
> experience with NT, I'd even go so far as to call it a hatchet job - and
> a few other things that are unprintable. :-)
There were some oversights on MS part: like allowing DLL hell to occur. But NT is
getting
better; W2K solved DLL hell problems.
Boris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
