Linux-Advocacy Digest #230, Volume #26 Sun, 23 Apr 00 13:13:16 EDT
Contents:
Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company (billy ball)
Re: Red Hat does not recognize IDE drives (billy ball)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Moritz Franosch)
Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company (The Cat)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Unix is dead? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LILO saves the day ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Marty)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Sean LeBlanc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:24:31 GMT
i had to laugh... now Microsoft is trying to claim insurance money for its
legal costs in defending itself against civil claims for monopolistic
actions...
and the insurance company won't pay! (Saying that Microsoft is responsible
for any litigation costs as a result of its own actions, not inadvertant
circumstances)
hah! this just shows how corrupt those Softie weasels are!
Microsoft deserves everything coming its way - in spades...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Re: Red Hat does not recognize IDE drives
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:29:26 GMT
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:40:12 -0400, DE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am trying to install Red Hat 6.1 onto a Thinkpad with a 6gb IDE drive. I
>have successfully loaded Windows 2000 on a 4.5gb partition and have used
>System Commander 2000 to setup the remaining space for the Linux partitions.
>No matter what I do or how I setup these partitions, each time I try to
>install Linux, it does not recognize that I have an IDE drive installed in
>my machine. I have tried to use the Red Hat Support folks, but they have
>been worthless. They won't even respond or acknowledge my problem.
>
>Can anyone lend some insight as to what is going on ??
first of all, you should go to the Linux laptop pages... you'll find links
to other users who have documented exactly how to install Linux on specific
laptops...
secondly, because IBM uses non-standard drive interfaces, you must use a
kernel argument at the boot: or install: prompt to specify the cylinders,
platters and sectors...
go to:
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/kharker/linux-laptop/
and look for your Thinkpad model (no one could help you anyway, since you
don't state what model you're using)...
i've installed Linux on numerous StinkPads (i own two), and it works well...
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
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: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:33:42 -0500
On 22 Apr 2000 22:28:43 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>>That explains a lot. I think a lot of people now expect computers to be
>>much easier to use than you apparently do. There's certainly nothing
>>wrong with how you feel, but be aware you're certainly in the minority.
>
>But there is nothing easier or more consistant that a text
>editor and no reason to learn a different interface for
>every little task.
People by the millions have proven that line of thinking to be in the
minority. I can't say it's wrong, but I can say that most people
nowadays use the GUI, and I think the vast, vast majority of them
prefer that to the CLI. Linux serves up both fairly well, so *I* like
it, but I think most prefer a GUI. I think the Mac method (hide
everything) goes too far, and I think the Linux method (show
everything) goes too far - I think Windows (NT/2k) is good middle
ground for most people.
>>It does require more work. In another post I spelled out what was
>>required of an NFS setup, for example, and it's quite complicated. And
>>that's before GIDs and UIDs come into play.
>
>That is not equivalent to win98 sharing - you are dealing with
>multiple multi-user systems with NFS.
...which makes setup all the more frustrating with NFS. You've got to
trust the machine in question that has NFS-client permissions, else
you open up an entire range of security problems. Without NIS, NFS
is, IMHO, a disaster. I'm sure there's much more to it that I haven't
seen or used yet, but it seems that getting the GID/UID from the
*client* system and applying it to *server* side shares is outrageous
- a security flaw that's easily exploitable.
>>Isn't there something inherently wrong with changing all of the clients
>>when a change to the server is both A) far more secure and B) easier in
>>the long run?
>
>Keep in mind that the old method was just fine with Microsoft
>until easily configured Samba servers became popular.
Do you think that the only reason they changed it?
>>Then I suggest, if you are so inclined, that you learn NT's CLI
>>commands. Most people I know, though, strongly prefer a well thought
>>out GUI control interface, and NT's is, while not perfect, certainly
>>acceptable.
>
>Is it possible to export the CLI commands from a working system in
>a form usable to configure a subset of a similar system?
I don't understand the question. NT's files are the same throughout
NT's installations, which many find -very- nice (they can guarantee XX
file will be there and will work).
> That is
>the real problem I have with GUI's and a CLI instead of files
>doesn't solve it. You can't easily re-use what you have done and
>tested before. You have to repeat all the same steps with all the
>same places to make mistakes on each machine. Unless the CLI works
>like Cisco's where a 'show running' command emits exactly the
>commands needed to reproduce the configuration, having a CLI doesn't
>help although it might give you a way to script the setup. For some
>reason Cisco seems to be the only company that understands that
>you often want to cut and paste between windows connected to two
>different boxes.
What do you do and what can't you do in NT/2k?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:34:07 -0500
On 22 Apr 2000 22:33:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>So, I'll need to retract my statement - syskey no longer gives the
>>protection it once did before PWDUMP2 was developed.
>
>The fact that you know or don't know about the existence of
>PWDUMP2 really has nothing to do with the security your
>system. Your potential attackers may have had equivalent
>or better tools all along.
And you're here to suggest that Linux's shadow password file is
significantly better?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:35:47 -0500
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:03:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>>For an office setup, sure, with NIS it isn't that bad once you've done
>>it a few times, but for one-offs, *I* wouldn't want to be the one to set
>>up someone else's filesharing over the phone.
>
>With Linux, I could log into his system over the network, and configure it
>right speedily.
And what if he calls you up remotely, has no network connection, or
doesn't know how to grant rights to you?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:37:53 -0500
On 22 Apr 2000 21:35:44 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>>
>>> Likewise: I've never seen anyone right-click on anything without
>>> knowing they are supposed to. Perhaps a result of earlier
>>> bad experiences...
>>
>>Experienced Windows users typically right-click in new applications
>>without knowing they're 'supposed to', just as most folks on most OSs
>>left-click on menu items. It's just part of the standard paradigm, that
>>most apps support.
>
>And experienced Linux users copy over the config file they've
>used before. But I thought we were discussing beginners here.
I think the typical Windows user who would right-click a file can be
trained that way in about 10 seconds. How long before you can train a
typical Linux user in how to copy -the right- files 'over'?
I consider myself a Linux newbie; I'd *love* to know how to copy (and
which files to copy) files 'over' to make, say, a backup of my scripts
in case I fsck something up. Just make a tarball of /etc? Or ... ?
Suggestions welcome....
And how do I permit root logins in Telnet, now that I have your
attention?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:48:01 -0500
On 22 Apr 2000 21:32:38 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>David Corn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Go into Linuxconf on the server and add shares to NFS's config. Don't forget to
>>change the root permission (a security flaw if enabled, a newbie headache if not),
>>and turn on RW. Most newbies would never understand this stuff.
>
>What you are doing here is approximately as complicated as arranging
>trust relationships between two domain controllers in the NT world.
>Does it bother you that newbies don't understand that? And it
>boils down to a line in a text file that you can copy over to your
>next machine.
Except for one thing - Win98's sharing is far, far easier.
>>Run exportfs -r because linuxconf doesn't automatically do it for you. Again, no
>>newbie would know this without extensive man page reading.
>
>If the exports file is correct before starting nfs, you don't need
>to do this.
Granted.
>>/etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs start, because linuxconf doesn't do this automatically.
>>You've now lost just about everyone. So much for not needing man pages....
>
>I've always set nfs to run myself, but I'd consider it a bug if
>linuxconf doesn't do it for you after exporting somthing.
Hmm...
Why all of these complicated steps just to get filesharing going?
Face it - this is *complicated* - you have to know *exactly* where to
go and *exactly* what to do, and there are no prompts or similar along
the way to help you along.
>>Now, for the client:
>>
>>Assuming NFS is working OK (a bit of an assumption, but an acceptable one), a
>>mount ip:/servershare/serverdir/serverdir/serverdir /mydir will map the directory
>>correctly....assuming the user's already created that directory (/mydir) on his
>>machine. If not, time to break out the man pages again.
>
>Isn't the error message: '/mydir does not exist' enough of a hint
>that you need to create it?
Why not just create the dir to begin with? Or prompt the user?
Remember - *ease* of use.
>>This doesn't even deal with the real problems of different GIDs and UIDs on the
>>different systems. I finally got sick of managing the entire thing and went to
>>NIS. NIS works well, but it, too, is a PITA to set up - I can't get the
>>domainname variable to 'stick' between reboots (yes, yp.conf appears to be set
>>correctly), so I've got to log in as root on the NIS client, do a domainname
>>mynisdomain, and then I can log in as NIS'd users. I had to do some
>>experimentation with groups before I realized GIDs under 500, by default, aren't
>>permitted or "learned" from the NIS server for security reasons; this meant the
>>creation of a group on the server over GID 500 so I could effectively use group
>>permissions.
>
>The simpleminded way to make UID/GID's the same is to copy one password
>and group file over to the other machines. NIS becomes better at
>some number of machines.
And how do you sync them once things start changing again? You can't
guarantee, sans NIS, that any two machines will have the same logins,
passwords, etc. That's minor, though, for just a few machines, and
doesn't interest me much. The real problem is GUI/UID syncronization.
>>All of this took a tremendous amount of reading of the manual. The belief that
>>this isn't necessary to get filesharing going is laughable.
>
>Equivalent passwd files, a line in /etc/exports, and the startup
>for nfs in the right runlevel. OK, that's worth a few pages. Now
So much for the contention (not yours) that no reading is
required...The /etc/exports setup alone would stump many people.
>how do I get a disparate group of users in a Win2k domain access
>to things in a different NT domain?
NT domain must trust Win2k domain; in SHARING for the object to be
shared in NT domain, select Win2k domain, and add the users. This
will be completely transparent to the users; there will simply be
another resource they can access, with no password prompt or other
things to learn. On the client side, *no* work is required once the
users have joined their domain (which should happen before the users
ever get their machines.)
This is very different from Win98 filesharing, where you can literally
click the resource to be shared, select Sharing..., give it a name and
password, and bingo - the world can now access your resources. THAT
is simple, and Linux should get some sort of setup like that.
I'm really focusing on sans-NIS for the brunt of my criticism. With
NIS it seems that the worst of the sync problems go away.
------------------------------
From: Moritz Franosch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 23 Apr 2000 15:43:17 +0200
"William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have yet to hear of a genuine example of a monopoly occuring in a free
> market. They are all government supported with new entries banned or they
> are not monopolies. Microsoft is a very good example. No matter how crap
> its code may be it is blantently not a monopoly, else we all wouldn't be
> here on this newsgroup. In fact, as virtually all the internet runs on
> servers running one of the (countless and competing) flavours of UNIX, I
> think you can forget about the MS being any kind of monopoly at all.
Only because Microsoft doesn't compete with spoon producers this
doesn't mean it has no monopoly of any kind. E.g. it could have a
monopoly on home computer operating systems. Here is doesn't matter
that a couple of people also use Linux or even don't use spoons at
all.
Moritz
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:54:24 GMT
Kind of like trying to sue the firemen for getting your rugs dirty
while they were trying to save your house from burning down.
TheCat
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:24:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
wrote:
>i had to laugh... now Microsoft is trying to claim insurance money for its
>legal costs in defending itself against civil claims for monopolistic
>actions...
>
>and the insurance company won't pay! (Saying that Microsoft is responsible
>for any litigation costs as a result of its own actions, not inadvertant
>circumstances)
>
>hah! this just shows how corrupt those Softie weasels are!
>
>Microsoft deserves everything coming its way - in spades...
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:34:03 GMT
Followups trimmed to a dull roar. :-)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 23 Apr 2000 01:00:08 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], laugh at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
>4/16/00 1:07 AM:
>
>> Robert,
>
>> And with Linux growing to 35% of all servers and 10% of desktops this year
>> alone
>> (half of those being NT replacements), there won't be much of an audience
>> for any future releases of windows when and if they do make it out.
>
>If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world, NT is
>not a desktop OS.
How so?
NT is on quite a few desktops. Either you meant it should be on
servers only, on desktops AND servers, or it should be taken
off entirely for a true desktop OS -- whatever that is, I've
no idea. :-)
But NT + Office2000 makes a good desktop, from the standpoint
of convenience. (There are some issues with respect to interoperability
and reliability, though. Of course, desktops don't require great
reliability, although it does help -- the story of the DoD coffeepot
surviving a nuclear blast comes to mind for some reason. Interoperability
is because there are a lot of Unix boxes out there. :-) )
Linux makes a good server OS, but the desktop convenience isn't
quite there yet. (To be fair, I haven't evaluated KDE and Gnome
recently; I'm an old Unix-head and use fvwm (not fvwm2-95) as a
window manager, :-) and I'm not up on BeOS -- which sounds like the
hottest thing since the Amiga, from a multimedia standpoint.)
And Windows95/98 is good for....something. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:35:19 +0000
Stefan Ohlsson wrote:
> Colin R. Day wrote:
> >Shell wrote:
> >> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> >TeX/LATeX does the job. As does emacs, gcc, etc.
> >>
> >> So does Notepad. Doesn't mean I like to use it.
> >
> >Does what job? Can you compile programs from within Notepad?
> >
> Writing? Can you edit text with gcc?
> Don't get me wrong, I like and use emacs (altough I don't use it to compile).
He mentioned Notepad, and I pointed out that one cannot compile
within it. Nor (AFAIK) does it support TeX.
>
>
> /Stefan
> --
> [ Stefan Ohlsson ] � http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ � [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
>
> I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:37:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 23 Apr 2000 03:56:58 GMT
<ewuM4.169129$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> If a user wants the GUI, he should be able to get a usable GUI.
>> If he wants CLI (side note: CLIs are not what they used to be,
>> although the mods aren't quite as visible -- but '<TAB>' command
>> and file completion didn't exist in the 80's).
>
>Well, maybe not in Unix, but I used a system in 1984 that had it...
Hm....OK, which system? :-)
I'll admit, this is interesting (and will teach me to spout off
generalities like that :-) ).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- oh well, ghosts aren't omniscient either :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:49:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) writes:
>Bullshit. 10 gigs costs $300 Australian dollars.
Uhm --- in a word, no. A$300 will get you around 17-20G at the Melbourne
swap meets. A$300 got you 13G many many months ago, when I bought two such
disks.
Bernie
--
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible
Lord Kelvin
president, Royal Society
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LILO saves the day
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:49:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Sun, 19 Apr 3900 13:40:05, "Clockmeister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In any case, Win95 couldn't possibly trash a drive to the point where it
>> required a LLF, unless the drive itself had a problem to begin with.
>Whatever you say. :)
>
>In my experience usually the trouble is caused by EZ-Drive, OnTrack,
>LILO, and/or sequential installs of _OSen (the old 'uppgrade'
>routine).
>Never has a l/l formatter failed to do the job for me, but my db only
>includes a couple dozen hd's of the modern sort ( '93 or newer).
There is a difference between something doing the job and something
being required.
I'd bet hard disks against floppy drives that your disks could have been
resurrected just fine by booting from a linux boot floppy and typing
"dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda".
Bernie
--
I'm the one that has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me
live my life, the way I want to
Jimi Hendrix
American guitarist, 1942-70
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:58:08 GMT
George Graves wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >George Graves wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing that
> >> >> >> >> Apple could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is to
> >> >> >> >> roll over, belly-up and die. With Apple gone, they wouldn't have
> >> >> >> >> that little nagging voice in their head that keeps saying "did
> >> >> >> >> I choose the wrong platform?" Because with no Apple, there would
> >> >> >> >> be only ONE platform and the Wintrolls could sleep secure in
> >> >> >> >> their beds with no nasty Apple confusing them with that pesky
> >> >> >> >> Macintosh.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly
> >> >> >> >aware that there are alternatives to MS based products, thus there
> >> >> >> >are far for than "one" platform available.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> With what, pray tell, to run on them?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's called "software" I think.
> >> >>
> >> >> There just isn't enough of it for most people to get any work done.
> >> >
> >> >Let's leave that up to "most people" to decide for themselves.
> >>
> >> They have. "most people" chose Windows, the rest chose Mac.
> >
> >You've just called everyone using OS/2 and Linux and every other PC OS a
> >"nobody". If this is your intention then we will file your opinion
> >appropriately (that's what the "Shredder" on the OS/2 desktop is for,
> >after all).
>
> Not at all. I was talking about the TWO platforms who have the
> preponderance of shrink-wrap productivity software available. Those two
> are Windows and Mac. It isn't that the rest don't exist or that these
> people are somehow inferior, its just that they fall outside the scope
> of the conversation we were having in this thread. I.E. We're talking
> about beef and potatoes, and you think we are damning broccoli by not
> mentioning it when in reality, we just happen to be talking about steak
> and potatoes, and the subject of broccoli just never came up.
If there was broccoli on the plate as well as carrots and you made the
statement, "Most of the plate is occupied by meat and the rest is occupied by
potatoes," you'd be wrong, just as you were when you made the statement in
question a few levels above. Thank you for your subsequent clarification.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
From: Sean LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:58:54 GMT
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'm not sure what you mean by "NT is not a desktop OS"...when I contracted
at Corning-Asahi in State College, they had switched EVERYBODY to NT (in 1998).
"Everybody"
includes software engineers on down to secretaries...before they switched
everybody to NT, the group I worked with (IT) had been using NT since at
least 1996 (that means NT 3.51). NT was also used for server end, too, with
a healthy mix of VMS for legacy stuff. I think Corning counts as the real
world.
NT may not be without problems, but it
makes the perfect desktop, IMHO, given the right hardware. 95/98 only
create maintenance and security nightmares in the corporate environment.
Arguments that NT is not really fit for high-end server stuff I could believe,
but not fit to be a workstation? You've got to be kidding.
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], laugh at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
> 4/16/00 1:07 AM:
>
> > Robert,
>
> > And with Linux growing to 35% of all servers and 10% of desktops this year
> > alone
> > (half of those being NT replacements), there won't be much of an audience
> > for any future releases of windows when and if they do make it out.
>
> If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world, NT is
> not a desktop OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
