Linux-Advocacy Digest #206, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 12:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Rumors ... (abraxas)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Christopher Browne)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("boat_goat")
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) ("Rob Hughes")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linus Torvalds (JoeX1029)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (abraxas)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (JEDIDIAH)
Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Sell Me On Linux ("OOrkis")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: 21 Apr 2000 14:38:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We weren't talking specifically about Netscape. Even so, Netscape dropped
> the ball by allowing their code base to become such a mess that it required
> a complete rewrite (and 3 years) to achieve.
You obviously havent looked at the source in the last few months and then
looked at 'netscape six'. Ahem.
But yet again, I am not surprised, since the entirety of your knowledge in
this field comes from trade magazines.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 14:53:00 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Cihl would say:
>Brian Langenberger wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jerry Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system resource than KDE,
>> : so I choose KDE.
>> : However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is Gnome.
>>
>> I'm sure the responses to this will be numerous...
>>
>> Gnome is not a window manager, Gnome is a whole desktop environment
>> like KDE. Enlightenment is a window manager, and a resource hog, and
>> is being replaced by Sawfish (formerly Sawmill) AFAIK. Sawfish takes
>> a lot less resources and is a lot more customizable than Enlightenment.
>>
>> In either case, I don't think "better" is well enough defined to
>> judge KDE or Gnome on the window manager alone.
>
>I agree.
>How about this? I think the issue has been addressed before,
>but i think KDE and Gnome/Enlightenment already look a lot
>alike, and they generally work the same way too. Maybe these
>two groups should try and merge their GUI's to create one,
>hopefully superior, GUI for Linux.
This still betrays the misunderstanding that the _important_
resemblance is the visual appearance of the GUIs.
There are two primary valid perspectives from which to regard
GNOME and KDE:
1. As sets of applications that have some common appearance and
behaviour. This is the perspective appropriate to users.
2. As sets of _libraries_ that may be used to implement applications
having similar appearance, behaviour, and common services. This
is the "developer" perspective.
>From the user's perspective, there is no big problem. They will use
rpm -i whatever.rpm or apt-get install whatever to install appropriate
packages, and the fact that they are distinct is quite irrelevant, as
the KDE and GNOME stuff can nicely run on the same machine at the same
time.
>From the _developer's_ perspective, however, there is no reasonable
"merger" possible.
-> The GUIs have somewhat different models of operation. Code that
works with GTK doesn't magically transform to use Qt instead, or
vice versa.
-> They are largely coded in different computer languages. KDE apps
are almost exclusively written in C++, whereas GNOME has, already,
a mixture of code in C, C++, Objective C, Guile, Python, depending
on the application. (Those are only a few of the language bindings
available with GNOME, but are the ones where apps actually seem to
be getting _deployed_ at this point.)
There are GNOME folk that have _no intention_ of rewriting their
software in C++. And I'm sure KDE folk would not be prepared to
redo their applications in C.
-> There are quite distinct "application architectures," that is, the
set of services that apps are expected to use, like XML, config files,
and such.
>I think we, and i mean the entire Linux community, should
>try to eliminate redundancy in development as much as
>possible to be able to concentrate on creating an even more
>powerful OS for everyone. I think standardization is the key
>in this matter! Standardized GUI's and other API's would
>make it possible for commercial software companies to create
>powerful applications which run on *any* Linux-distribution,
>and not just KDE or Gnome!
>
>Does anybody else have an opinion on this?
The "anti-desktop" approach means that if you want to use XML, you have
to go looking for an XML library, rather than finding the one in the
desktop. If you want a config file parser, you have to find or create
one.
And having a "standard" when there is a GUI redesign roughly every other
year is quite suggestive that we really haven't found the _One True GUI_
yet. *MY* suspicion is that we never will, which means that hardening
one into being The Standard will cause _far_ more trouble than it's worth.
--
"Not me, guy. I read the Bash man page each day like a Jehovah's
Witness reads the Bible. No wait, the Bash man page IS the bible.
Excuse me..." (More on confusing aliases, taken from
comp.os.linux.misc)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:02:35 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8doekn$14k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > How big do you think the installed base for NT4 actually is?
>
> According to Microsoft's own statistics, they own 73% of the server
> market with cumulative sales in the tens of billions. If you don't want
> to do the math, you can order any of several reports from IDC that
> include the annual unit volume figures. Sales of a million units
> (licenses) is diminutive even by Microsoft's own standards.
>
>
Do you have a cite for that? I found a snippet at
http://www8.techmall.com/techdocs/TS980213-8.html that said:
"As the number of small businesses with networks grows, the
number of connected PCs will soar. IDC estimates the number of
small businesses with local area networks will grow by 15.8 percent
annually to reach 2.3 million in 2001. At the same time, the number
of PCs networked by small businesses will grow by 17.1 percent
annually to reach 17.8 million in 2001. While the traditional benefits
of print and file sharing are cited most often by small businesses,
more advanced applications like communications and shared
Internet access are increasingly important."
With an assumption that the best market for Win2K probably is this "small
business" sector, agreeing for the moment that the "enterprise" market is
still the property of IBM and big Unix, a few million units represents
pretty much the entire installed base.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 2000 15:08:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: That, however, still leaves the question as whether you want
: a choice in GUI's for your desktop, or one standardized
: desktop. I think the latter should be the case so developers
: can concentrate on developing applications for that GUI.
: I think we, and i mean the entire Linux community, should
: try to eliminate redundancy in development as much as
: possible to be able to concentrate on creating an even more
: powerful OS for everyone. I think standardization is the key
: in this matter! Standardized GUI's and other API's would
: make it possible for commercial software companies to create
: powerful applications which run on *any* Linux-distribution,
: and not just KDE or Gnome!
I'm still very ambivalent on the issue of standardization.
Life would be easier if there was a single standard to target
for total desktop environment integration. There'd be only
one widget set which would make everything look consistant.
Support would be easier. Development would be easier.
At least that's how it seems at first glance.
But I don't want to lose *my* mishmashed non-desktop environment
and am not yet convinced of the benefits of standardization.
Most importantly, do end users find that having one application
looking very similar to all the others a significant benefit?
We accept this on faith but with very little evidence to support
it. Having a button with an "X" on a window's title bar makes
for a good "kill window" standard, but wouldn't having a
"quit" or "close window" button *in* the window be more
intuitive?
In short, I believe there's too much emphasis on standardizing
on a *single* design for each application rather than each
application evolving toward the ideal design for that particular
application. But maybe that's just me...
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:26:32 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8donc0$avi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> : Drestin, you are one of the last people I would ever be able to respect.
> : You're a freak, and often scare me with your narrowness of vision as
well as
> : of mind. We are on the same "side" only in that we made the same choice
for
> : our primary operating systems/network operating systems. I would venture
to
> : guess though that we made these choices for completely different
reasons.
>
> I think Drestin's actions are more geared towards "giving the other sides'
> zealots a taste of their own medicine", rather than genuine WindowsNT
> zeal. At least, that is what appears to be the case from my perspective.
Perhaps, but since I don't frequent cola, I only see the stuff here. Even
though this is .advocacy, it gets annoying to see things that are obviously
pure marketing fluff, as oposed to information one might use to actually
advocate, or show, the advantages of one system over another.
<snippage>
> I would suggest that users of any OS try (or at least, read/research info
> about) other operating systems. You just might find a better way to do
> what you're doing now.
agreed
> : add-ons, or natively, but I personally prefer FTP and email, and require
the
> : same from my users. I like to log ;) *gets ready for the
network/sysadmin
>
> You require your users to _prefer_ FTP and E-mail? Gee, you are a mean
> sysadmin! *grin*
hmmm... should have said "require my users to use". Let's just say that I
make every effort to guide them to my way of doing things, as I make it
bloody difficult for them to use other tools that present greater, or at
least more persistent issues. Now let me qualify that statement by adding
that any time they can demonstrate and actual business purpose behind me
opening up my network, I do all I can to help. I'm just having a lot of
trouble seeing why people need to chat online (as opposed to the phone) with
their SO, or trade MP3s all day.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 09:09:46 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 20 Apr 2000 12:55:02 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >We currently run NT4 on all our desktops (except the Macs and Linux
> >boxes, of course). I have not had a single person ask to be
> >upgraded. There are no compelling reasons to go out and buy Yet
> >Another Version of Windows just because it jumped from "4" to "2000"
> >(is that a record?).
> >
> >We'll order new Windows machines with NT 2000, but we have no plans at
> >all to replace our current crop of NT 4 licenses; what possible
> >benefit could we use to justify the cost?
>
> My understanding is that there might be some new functionality
> related to domain controllers -- in other words, Win2K desktops
> can take advantage of Win2K servers. I don't know precisely what
> this new functionality would be.
Considering that our PDC is a Samba box running Linux, that's not very
exciting. :)
> There's also the Kerberos silliness. :-)
>
> Personally, I might get Win2k if I got a new computer, but that's
> only if I require NT functionality. (I might, for virtual networks
> connecting into our primarily NT network at my current place of
> employment. Sigh. Of course, in that case the corp pays for it... :-) )
NT is a great operating system. I just don't trust it as a critical,
unclustered server yet.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: 21 Apr 2000 15:22:57 GMT
"hard working companies like microsoft" Lemme tell you something asshole,
microsoft's products crash continually, cost way too much and have way too much
shitty programming. How is Linux the downfall of the software industry?? My
Win95 box (P200, 16mb ram, 2g hd....) crashes all the time. Last week it went
down 8 times just rebooting. My linux box (486/66 8mb ram 12g hd...) only
reboots when i issue the command. It hasn't crashed on me yet. BTW, if you
couldn't tell already, Microsoft is DONE!!! Finished!! Hope your shares drop
even more...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 2000 15:27:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jerry Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system resource than KDE,
> : so I choose KDE.
> : However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is Gnome.
> I'm sure the responses to this will be numerous...
> Gnome is not a window manager, Gnome is a whole desktop environment
> like KDE. Enlightenment is a window manager, and a resource hog, and
> is being replaced by Sawfish (formerly Sawmill) AFAIK. Sawfish takes
> a lot less resources and is a lot more customizable than Enlightenment.
Aaaahhhahahahahooo thats funny...
Do rasterman/octoberx have anything to do with sawfish?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:33:52 -0500
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 06:27:06 -0700, dakota
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I must say, it's been so long since I've
>>actually had to install WindowsNT, I wonder if I remember
>how...<?>
>
>It's really not hard. But Openlinux and Redhat are MUCH, MUCH
>easier (you don't have to reboot to convert partition
>tables,upgrade buggy apps, etc. in Linux.)
Having just come through a few Linux installs (notably LinuxPPC,
Mandrake 7, and most recently RedHat 6.2) I'd still have to disagree
here - NT (well, the current incarnation, Win2000) is easier. Face it
- going through a bunch of MAN pages to do common things just isn't
fun.
>>Netware isn't even worth commenting on.
>
>Netware has always kicked NT's ass in the print/file server
>area. Netware 5's web services aren't too bad either (harder to
>use than IIS though.) I've seen netware servers that have went
>more than 1 year without requiring a reboot. On the other hand,
>with NT you have to reboot almost ever time you install
>something and anytime that you change a network setting
>(unacceptable in a production setting).
Try Win2k; I think you'll find it removes this (and other) NT4
problems. However, face it - how often do you need to redo the
network settings in NT? Once it's set up, you shouldn't need to
change anything.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:29:53 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:28:37 +0000, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Karl Knechtel wrote:
>
>> <rant crossposted to comp.os.linux.advocacy, where it should hopefully be
>> somewhat more relevant. Those of you in rec.games.roguelike.nethack are
>> warned ;)>
>>
>> Dylan O'Donnell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> :"discordja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> :> i'll be honest, i'm not the most well versed in linux operations. i have a
[deletia]
>> The whole idea of something being "in your path" is easily one of the three
>> least intuitive things about *n?x I've run into (the others being the vi
>> keys - which I avoid by using pico - and the idea of forcing something to
>> run in the background with. I thought this class of OSes was supposed to
>> do PMT; how come if I run netscape without an & from an xterm, the commands
>> in the xterm window don't get executed until I quit Netscape, even if I
>> minimize it and bring the xterm window into focus?
>
>Would it be too difficult to run multiple xterms? I can get four on one desktop
>(1024 x 768). As I have eight desktops (in KDE), I could have thirty-two
>xterms at the same time. Even more if one allows overlapping.
>
>But I invoke Netscape by clicking an icon, anyway!
Someone even made an xterm based on the mdi scheme.
So, you could have DOZENS all separated in a mirc-ish
fashion...
>
>> Shouldn't a command
>> window always have relatively high priority implicitly, since it's where
>> you're running everything from?). Why on EARTH saying the equivalent
>> of "go to the current directory and open this file" should under any
>> circumstances allow you to do something that saying "open this file" wouldn't
>> is beyond me. Off-topic (to RGRN), perhaps, but please do enlighten us
>> (me). I presume there must be some obscure security reason for it.
>> Which would be one more thing I don't understand; why all these linux hackers
>> who aren't running web servers and are the only ones in their family who
>> would dare touch a computer would want to run an OS designed for multiple
>> users, and why it doesn't bother them that doing everything they want
Quicken, TurboTax, personal Game savefiles, other possibly
useful data you don't want trashed or access by the wrong
(possibly inept) people.
>> basically requires them to have several "accounts" for themselves.
>> And why so many of them IME have set their id for their user account to
>> plain old first-initial-last-name.
>
>If you don't have multiple users, there's not much (any?) overhead. But
>one should not do everything as root (I've got to stop!), as it is
>preferable to download email to an expendable account.
[deletia]
Seriously, just how is one supposed to keep track of personalized,
individualized configurations WITHOUT user accounts of some kind?
At the very least, different people like different color schemes.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: DCOM versus CORBA, some history
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:34:02 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:35:26 GMT, SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 20 Apr 2000 14:36:26 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The main reason that apps for X have not typically supported anything
>>other than plain text is the lack of agreement on how the data should
>>be represented.
>
>They should give you some sort of an award for stating the obvious. The
>whole problem with X is that there is no agreement on anything. You have
>just restated the symptoms of the problem by stating its cause. You
>have contributed no insightful point to the discussion.
However, there is nothing keeping the interfaces that sit above
the level of X defining their own standards. Even historically,
GUI's in X have done this. The notion that they haven't been able
to is a subtle lie.
>
>This is a fundamental flaw in free software which has been identified
>years ago by the critics of free software. The advantage of a single
>vednor who defines standards is that they can control the standards. You
...and if you don't like those standards: you are screwed.
In the meantime, you can have multiple incompatible vendors
(this is supposed to be capitalism remember, with multiple
producers in a free market). Whereas with free software, anything
produced by anyone else can be incorporated into anyone else's
other product so long as the licence is adhered to.
>lose this when go to free software because the programmers are generally
>less professional and less experienced, and want to do things in their
>own, hackery way, instead of working of the fundamental problems. Superior,
Never done 'professional development'? It sure sounds like it.
>more robust systems such as Mac and Windows do not have such glaring
>limitations as the more fragile systems such as Linux and Unix have.
Mac and Windows, robust?
What drugs ARE you on. You simply need to share them with us.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:37:25 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:55:39 GMT, SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 Apr 2000 05:01:52 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>I think it's silly that some people use an operating system just to "get
>>away from Microsoft" or other such nonsense. Use of an operating system
What's so silly about using something just to avoid total crap?!
Buying a Pinto to avoid having to use a Lada is NOT unreasonable.
>>should be dictated by one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle, and not the
>>other way around. Any other reasoning beyond that is simply mental
>>illness, AFAIC.
Unfortunately, without multiple viable options to choose from
this all is total bullshit.
[deletia]
The most useful thing that could come out of the success of Linux
is the realization by the mundane consumer that they need not be
limited to one or even two options and that they should demand what
they truely desire in an OS. (my guess being that MacOS or BeOS would
satisfy that demand for most of them)
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:40:54 GMT
On 21 Apr 2000 13:54:28 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[deletia]
>I suppose the need to "get away from [whatever]" is already an end result
>of "one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle."
>
>"tastes" is a wonderful catch-all. I may say that I want to get away from
>[whatever] simply becuase I've been using [whatever] for for ten years and
>am getting bored. It may just be a change in taste.
...or alternately: I used to use [something else] quite happily.
However, I've used [whatever] for a few years and found myself
completely disatisfied with it. I would very much like to be able
to use [another something else] and not be excluded arbitrarily
from doing any particular thing that one might want to do with a
[sort of product].
At any point in time, for any task, I've always viewed the M$ option
as second best when compared to something else in the market.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "OOrkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:43:34 -0400
"SeaDragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 4. Linux training locks you into Linux; I have met many a person
> who learned Linux and was mystified when using a Sun or HP machine
> (so moving from Unix flavor to Linux to Unix flavor costs mega-bucks
> in retraining)
my instructor works with both linux and Sun Solaris based servers, and he
says it isnt much diferent, he says if you know linux, learning Sun Solaris
wont be a problem
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:50:44 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:25:44 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:32:56 GMT <8doekn$14k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> How big do you think the installed base for NT4 actually is?
>>
>>According to Microsoft's own statistics, they own 73% of the server
>>market with cumulative sales in the tens of billions. If you don't want
>>to do the math, you can order any of several reports from IDC that
>>include the annual unit volume figures. Sales of a million units
>>(licenses) is diminutive even by Microsoft's own standards.
>>
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>
>I find the 73% a little hard to swallow, given Apache's dominance
>of the Web server market. Granted, there are other types of
>servers out there (file servers, mostly).
According to the last 2 years IDC figures it's just plain wrong.
Commercial Unix still leads the market in total sales in $$$'s.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
