Linux-Advocacy Digest #265, Volume #26 Wed, 26 Apr 00 14:13:43 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? ("craig")
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Binary Thinking (jbarntt)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: Where is PostScript support?? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(s_Ea_DAag0n)
Re: SeaDragon openly confesses he's an IDIOT (Was: Re: "Technical" vs.
"Non-technical"... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (Streamer)
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:44:04 GMT
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 02:30:38 +0000, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>sea_Dragon wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> I have been compiling and installing new Linux kernels for 6.5 years and
>> know what I am doing. I gave the correct root drive. I added the new
>> kernel to MILO, and kept the old one, and neither would boot with the
>
>Isn't that LILO? Could explain the problem.
>
><snip>
Oh dear. You must be ---***___EXTREMELEY___***-- new to Linux.
IMHO, anyone posting on comp.os.linux.advocacy who doesn't what MILO is
needs to be beaten with a cluestick. Badly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:37:37 GMT
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:12:49 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Otto wrote:
>>
>> > So what, I have Caldera 2.4 runing next to my NT box and still do all of
>my
>> > work on NT.
>>
>> You made the blanket claim that windows is a better desktop OS, when in
>many
>> cases (and I used myself as an example) it is not.
>>
>
>Many, meaning 90+% of the desktop users. Your case doesn't fall under that,
>nor does mine. Welcome to the world of minorities...
>For most people the Windows is a better desktop OS.
This rather assumes the great lie that the vast majority of any of that
90% ever had the opportunity to choose freely.
Windows is a mediocre desktop OS. It's immediate predecessor just
happened to become dominant due to market intertia.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:47:54 +1000
Then sack your exchange admins!!!!
I've been through domain name changes with MSX many times - just export your
user lists to a CSV, import into spreadsheet, add the new address via search
and replace, and import the updates.Shouldn't take more than an hour or
so!!!
Incompetence of administrators is to blame here, not the GUI
interface!!!!!!!
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8e5nmo$p58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Subpop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > in article 8e5h9i$qv5$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Leslie Mikesell at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote on 4/25/00 7:37 PM:
> > I wouldn't go as far as to say CLIs are useless, but there sure is a
> lot
> > more than can be done on modern GUIs if they are laid out right.. (of
> > course, this leaves Windows out of the picture)..
>
> *NIX shells are (and always have been) much more than "just" a Command
> Line Interpreter. They're a robust scripting language. We recently had
> a domain name change where I work, and the MS-Exchange admins spent more
> than fifty man-hours pointing-and-clicking to update our users' e-mail
> addresses. I wrote a few quick lines of shell script, and did the same
> thing to all my UNIX boxes in five minutes that it took the MSFT GUI
> folks all day to implement.
>
> Always use the best tool for the job. But when you've only got a
> hammer, all your problems look like a nail.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:40:35 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:44:40 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:09:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>>...by expecting a user to right click on a file, click sharing, and
>>>then say OK?
>>
>> Yes, that is UNREASONABLE. That all presumes a level of knowledge
>> of the system that a novice CAN'T be expected to have.
>>
>> Have you ever actually dealt with dufus end users?
>
>Sigh. Used to do it almost daily. :)
I have to tolerate my share of them as well. That's why I don't
have quite as much faith in these notions of 'Windows as a Dreamcast'
representations for any given situation.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:43:23 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:45:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:12:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>>Please detail how NT/2k is "a rather primitive CLI".
>>
>> NT isn't the dominant player, WinDOS 98 is.
>
>So? Linux isn't the dominant player; WinDOS 98 is.
I never said it was. What Win98 proves is that even
CLI can rule the come to dominate despite needing to
compete against easier, faster or cheaper solutions.
If it were true that 'ease wins', then you likely wouldn't
be using a Microsoft OS today.
>
>> NT5 is just some 'server OS' that it's own author doesn't
>> want being used by 'mere mortals'.
>
>NT4/Win2k is just some stable OS that its own authors can market to
>whomever they choose, but I choose to use as my OS of choice.
...except they have a certain obligation to their customers to
not shovel guano in their customer's laps.
>
>> Perhaps they think there are too many conceptual landmines in it.
>
>Or perhaps they know more about marketing than you do.
"...twernt no lie, it was salesmanship. <blam>".
--
"...twernt no lie, it was salesmanship. <blam>". |||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: jbarntt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Binary Thinking
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:39:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Evan DiBiase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This is a long and well thought out post, but I think it is somewhat
> > misguided. Haven't you wondered why you have to multi-boot?
Seriously,
> > it is the same computer, right? I can see having multiple/different
> > computers for different jobs, but what you are really saying is
that the
> > operating systems are deficient when you have to leave them for
another
> > to accomplish a task.
>
> Yes, I'd agree to that. If I have to leave an operating system to do
> something, it's obviously not fulfilling my needs.
I think your original post was right on the money. I also think your
above statement is incorrect, (and, yes, you do qualify it below). I
admin for a small company, (~100 users). Our LAN relies on 2 Novell
Netware 4.x servers, (w/2 NT 4.0 servers performing secondary tasks).
Now, in no sense would one consider Netware an all in one OS. But, as a
file and print services OS it is outstanding - reliable, stable, etc.,
also not too hard to configure to be that way. Plus, NDS is totally
great.
These servers are not dual booted. My home pc is dual booted w/Win95
and Linux. I need Win95 for a few things, even tho' I'd like to go 100%
Linux. I have no need for a Netware server at home, as much as I like
Netware, so I leave it at work.
OS's are designed to do certain things. IMHO, NT tries to be everything
to everybody. Mistake. NT gets away with this because of MS'
monopolistic practices. As a single choice, Linux is better, (this
refers to NT 4, My experience w/2000 is limited to Professional and it
definitely seems better than 4.0 WS).
>
> Having said that, though... there is no "perfect" OS. That was the
> general underlying idea of my post. Linux is good for some things, NT
for
> others. Windows Media Player, GoZilla!, MS Visual C++; these are
things I
> can't get in Linux or FreeBSD. If I want to use them, I've got to
either run
> VMware or reboot.
> Adaptec Easy CD Creator is nice to have, too -- I know cdrecord,
> mkisofs, and the like do the same thing under Linux/UNIX, but being
able to
> drag WAV files into the window and have it work is _very_ nice.
>
> > On a personal level, I HATE multibooting, it means I have to stop
what
> > ever I am doing to do something else. If I have a two day job
running, I
> > don't want to shut down my machine just to do something else. I
almost
> > never have just one thing running, most of the people I know are the
> > same way.
>
> Oh, I hate it, too! It's inconvenient, time-consuming, and can get to
be
> rather annoying when files you want are in other places than where you
> expect them to be (or you can't write to the FS, like with NTFS).
>
> > Multibooting is a DOS mentality that should not, MUST not be
acceptable
> > in any modern computer. If I can't accomplish a task with one
operating
> > system on one computer, then the OS is unacceptable.
>
> Then I have found no acceptable operating system, by your definition.
>
> > Nice post, but wrong. It is not limited to use only one operating
> > system, it is short sighted to assume people desire/should desire to
> > stop everything to do something slightly different on the same
machine
> > with a different OS.
>
> I wouldn't boot into FreeBSD from NT just to type up a document in
AbiWord.
> I _would_ boot into FreeBSD to, say, test a program or work with
something
> involving servers.
>
> I still don't think my approach is wrong, unless you can point me to
one
> specific OS that I will like :) (It's very, very hard... I'm very
picky.)
>
> -Evan
>
> > Evan DiBiase wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey, everyone... some folks might remember me from a while
back. If
> not,
> > > I'm just a 16-year-old who happens to have the problem (blessing
in
> > > disguise?) of having a hard time settling down with operating
systems.
> Now,
> > > however, I think I've found a fairly stable mix, and I figured
that I
> could
> > > share a few thoughts with everyone regarding it and a few other
things.
> > > First off, I've noticed that a lot of people (especially in
Western
> > > societies) have what I like to call "binary thinking." That is, in
> short,
> > > that things are either 1 or 0. On or off. Black or white.
> > > Now, this doesn't have to be bad. There are certain cases
where
> clear
> > > cut decisions have to be made, and I'm not saying that these
shouldn't
> > > happen. But all too often we tend to think "this in exclusion to
that,"
> and
> > > basically make opposing options mutually exclusive.
> > > I used to think this way in regards to operating systems. It
was
> either
> > > Linux or NT, BeOS or FreeBSD. I would not dual-boot; my opinions
would
> swing
> > > from "Linux is the king of operating systems!" to "NT is pretty
damn
> good...
> > > I'm not going back to Linux, ever!" It was this binary thinking
pattern:
> one
> > > thing at the complete exclusion of the other. It got to such a
point
> that I
> > > was no longer looking at the operating systems; I had tried each
so many
> > > times that it was merely the variety that drew me.
> > > I think a lot of people in the .advocacy groups are the same
way.
> > > Obviously, if you're from .nt.advocacy, you're not going around
trying
> to
> > > convince people not to use NT. But that doesn't mean that
advocating
> Linux
> > > when Linux is due is a bad thing. After all, what we're all
really after
> is
> > > a better working electronic society, right? Of course, the same
thing
> goes
> > > for .linux.advocacy, BeOS advocacy groups, or almost any advocacy
group
> you
> > > can think of: suggest the right tool for the job.
> > > Yeah, I know, it's been said a lot before, but why don't we
take it
> to
> > > heart this time? Come on, admitting that NT _might_ be slightly
useful
> in an
> > > all-Windows environment with all Microsoft products isn't the end
of the
> > > world. If you're advocating Windows NT, advocate what it's useful
for.
> If
> > > it's a good workstation, say so! I think it's a great
workstation. Of
> > > course, I think FreeBSD, BeOS, and Linux all make great
workstations,
> too!
> > > Would I suggest that my grandma install and administer a FreeBSD
box by
> > > herself? Of course not! We've got to be willing to admit that
there are
> > > tradeoffs to everything. There can be no Ultimate OS.
> > > Perhaps that rubs some of you the wrong way. I know it will,
because
> > > I've seen it in so many posts and so many web sites. "Linux does
> everything
> > > better than NT!" Now, I like Linux. I like the Open Source
concept. But
> > > saying that Linux does everything for everyone is like saying
that Fords
> are
> > > everything to everyone. My family has a Jeep, a Volvo, and a
Toyota --
> all
> > > very different kinds of cars with very different uses. The Jeep
wouldn't
> be
> > > used for transporting a lot of stuff like the Volvo would, and
for long
> car
> > > trips nothing can beat the Toyota van. My parents didn't
say, "Well,
> Jeep is
> > > the best, so we're going to buy three Jeeps!" That would be
stupid. The
> Jeep
> > > is great for off-roading, and for having fun in. It's not what my
mom
> needs
> > > to carpool or what my dad needs to go to work.
> > > So, if we pick the "right car for the job" when we buy or
drive a
> car,
> > > why is it that so many of us refuse to use the "right OS for the
job?"
> I'll
> > > tell you flat out, I dual boot Windows NT4 and FreeBSD 4.0-
RELEASE. Why?
> I
> > > like the availability of applications in Windows, and I think
Visual C++
> is
> > > a great IDE. In FreeBSD, I like playing with all the UNIX tools,
and
> > > learning how to do things related to servers, like designing
interactive
> web
> > > pages with PHP or Perl. The fact of the matter is, it wouldn't be
> possible
> > > for me to use the Windows apps natively in FreeBSD, and I can't
get a
> good
> > > UNIX environment in Windows. So why would I deprive myself of the
> advantages
> > > of both?
> > > I'm not trying to tell you to dual boot, stop advocating your
> favorite
> > > OS, or to switch your opinions entirely. All I'm asking is that
you take
> the
> > > time to consider the problem before you choose the solution. If
you like
> > > Linux a lot, look at NT, FreeBSD, and BeOS for your needs and
still
> think
> > > Linux is the best choice and load it up as the only OS on your
computer,
> > > that's great! You've made a wise, concious decision based on how
you
> feel
> > > about each OS and what it provides to you. You've found that
Linux does
> > > everything you need, and any tradeoffs are completely acceptable.
Of
> course,
> > > if you want to only run Windows NT, that's fine too -- just don't
go
> around
> > > screaming, "NT IS THE SOLUTION TO ALL PROBLEMS" or "LINUX IS THE
> SOLUTION TO
> > > ALL PROBLEMS" -- they're not, and that kind of attitude is not
going to
> help
> > > anybody out, and will, in the end, only end up hurting you.
> > >
> > > Please forgive any spelling or grammar mistakes; I'm usually
pretty
> good
> > > with those kinds of things but it is, after all, 1:00 Eastern.
> > >
> > > -Evan
> >
> > --
> > Mohawk Software
> > Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> > Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > "We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered
the
> > lobster"
>
>
--
jbarntt
<Chocolate Watchband>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:39:12 GMT
Ah, isn't the world of Linux wonderful?? I don't use Redhat so this is
not an issue for me! This app is not a core Linux app and is only
distributed by Redhat. If Redhat continues to ship insecure software,
people will start using the more secure distributions. No retraining, no
redesign, some time switching distributions but that's nothing compared
to what it would take to break MS habit! I LOVE CHOICE! Were will MS
users go if MS continues to insert back doors into it's product???
In article <CM8N4.6410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seeing as how a simple buffer overrun was mistreated as a "backdoor"
that was
> purposely placed by Microsoft, I thought it was only fitting to see
how
> Open Sores can fall victim to the same thing.
>
> http://xforce.iss.net/alerts/advise46.php3
>
> 'cept, it's not just a buffer overrun, it's an actual password placed
in the
> product so that your linux box can be more easily used for DDoS'ing
large
> eCommerce sites without having to mess around with actually hacking
the box
> (not that that is harder or anything).
>
> "With this backdoor password, an attacker could compromise the web
server as
> well as deface and destroy the web site."
>
> -Chad
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 03:49:26 GMT
On 25 Apr 2000 11:55:25 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>s_Ea_DAag0n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>A serial console is not remote capability.
>
>What??? You mean all those years I used unix with modems
>on serial ports I wan't really remote?
Are you really new to computers or something? Modems on Unix machines
are typically connected through terminal servers, not to the computer
itself. A serial console refers to a serial port which the console lives
on (by means of a terminal). Typically it has special priviliges. For
example, sometimes root is only allowed to log on through the console. It
has nothing to do with connecting to a machine over a serial port.
>>In any case there are tools
>>available which allow you to connect a serial console to a Windows
>>machine, to run a DOS session.
>
>Would you be able to do all necessary administration through
>this interface?
The original poster's point was that they are useful in cases where TCP/IP
is down. You can certainly restart TCP/IP through this and continue over
Termial Server (or whatever technology). I doubt most Unix admins would
want to do admin over a serial line, and would prefer an xterm as soon
as it was available.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where is PostScript support??
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:44:22 -0500
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> No, I've just never been impressed with the output of powerpoint.
> I would certainly not be comfortable depending upon it if the
> superficial aspects of a presentation I were to give would be
> considered more important than the content.
That's what I notice with a lot of student presentations here; there is a tendency
to use lots of pp bells and whistles, to the point that the audience (me) is
distracted from the message.
But then, that's what Microsoft is all about, isn't it?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (s_Ea_DAag0n)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 04:06:40 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:15:38 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>First off, just logging into the machine takes a full GUI environment for
>every user. That adds a lot more load to the server, which requires more
>hardware to accomodate users. I can remote connect to a Unix box and only
>load it down with the app itself, the only power needed to display graphical
>content is specific to that app, not a whole X session again (unless the user
>is using an X-terminal or something like Exceed, but those are crappy
>solutions IMO anyway).
First of all, thank you for bringing up technical points. These are the
points I wanted to discuss.
Yes, it is true that WTS requires you to have an entire session running,
When I first logged onto it, I thought it was very awkard. In some cases
I still would like to have just one program not the whole session, though
in the work I am doing now, where I run the same program on multiple
machines, it actually works out well (though I don't expect this to be
everyone's workload).
This doesn't override re-connect ability, IMHO, or the substantially
slimmer bandwidth requirements of WTS (compared to X).
>Also, with X I can connect to a machine that's not running any X itself at
>all... it doesn't need a graphic card or anything.
It doesn't need the X _server_ running, but it certainly does need the
X libraries.
There are various other limitations; for example, on X you have to have
the fonts installed client-side (which is a _major_ inconvenience when
you run something like Mentor Graphics which has its own suite of
fonts).
>With WTS, the machine has it's own GUI running as well, eating up even
>more CPU, memory, etc.
While the current implementation is this way, I don't see this as an
inherent design flaw, and I believe it could be corrected in a future
implementation. It is useful for a lab-setting, so you can log on
to the console, or use it remotely.
>Second, that GUI is tied into the kernel, which means a problem with the GUI is
>a problem with the machine. I've had users have WTS sessions lock on them and
>the only way to get them back their apps (some apps keep running in the bg and
>they can't kill it) is to either kill their entire session, or kill the
>offending app and have them log on again. With a remote connection to a unix
>box, the user can often login again and kill the app themselves.
Of course if you had installed telnetd on the Windows machines, no problem.
>Regarding losing your apps on a remote box... never heard of nohup eh?
Sure, but it doesn't work with X. The X protocol is not capable of
reconnecting to a different server. I know a thing or two about this.
In a past life, I was on a team developing an X app, where all of the
customers had two different monitors. Since each monitor was a different
display, there was no way to move the window from monitor to monitor.
The only solution was to write a "switch display" button on each dialog
box which would re-construct the window on a separate display, and then
destroy the current one. X doesn't support redrawing an existing windows
on a new display, and AKAIF no available X apps will do this.
>Gosh, then I guess everytime I've connected to a machine from home (instead of
>driving in) and fixing it were all dreams eh? All it takes is a simple
>terminal server for connectivity.
Yes, when connected to a terminal server it is remote, but I thought
you were referring to simply a serial console beside the machine.
>And that allows you to fix problems in/edit the registry? Perhaps allows you
>to do a hard reset (not just a reboot) on the box if needed? I can do that
>on a Sun easily (well, there's no registry of course).
You couldn't do it on a PC running Linux though, as it has basically no
support for a serial console. This is a hardware issue not a software one.
You __could__ do it on a Alpha running Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SeaDragon openly confesses he's an IDIOT (Was: Re: "Technical" vs.
"Non-technical"...
Date: 25 Apr 2000 23:09:38 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
s_Ea_DAag0n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2000 20:19:00 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Except that in the NT case it is our own experience - at least
>>pre-sp6a.
>
>Exactly whose experience was the file system corruption which occured
>on my machine the other day?
But in your case it is most likely your own fault for not having
installed the easily available fix (a kernel above 2.2.10). Just
like it would be my fault if my NT boxes were still crashing
from the bug fixed by sp6a. I'll still grouse about the long
time before sp6a was released, but once it was available it
is no longer Microsoft's problem. The e2fs bug (if that's
what really happened - I'm still not conviced...) was only in
kernels released in about a 2 month window a long time ago.
If you want to go back even farther, someone had set up an NT
box to collect news articles from a wire service and display
via a web server which I inherited at work a couple of years
ago. It added a few hundred small files a day and had plenty
of disk space. It would crash about once a week, and started
taking longer and longer to finish the chkdsk on the way back
up. Eventually it didn't finish over a 3-day weekend so I
gave up and duplicated the setup on a FreeBSD box which is
still going strong.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:14:47 -0500
Ciaran wrote:
> <snip>. He said that investors may have to look into what an
> company is actually doing before investing. What ??? *May* have
> to look into ??? Does this mean that up until now investors have
> been throwing money at random companies in the hope of making
> money ?
You got it! Just check any investor board on yahoo and you'll see a whole lot
of investors who will defend to their death the notion that they don't have to
know anything about the company. Many of those daytraders are arrogant enough
that they think their trading in a company keeps it in business. Needless to
say, anyone going on those boards posting sound reason as to how well the
company products are being received by their customers will result in immediate
and rigorous flaming.
Two humorous yahoo investor message boards to check out: MSFT and MWAR (the
company that produces OS-9 <not MACOS9> and could very well run out of cash
this year).
> Being just a little 'puter programmer, I know as much about the
> stock exchange as the average broker knows about dereferencing
> pointers... but what the hell is going on with this ?
Arrogant daytraders.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 00:16:32 -0400
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
On 04/26/2000 at 02:06 AM,
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> IBM stock dropped over 20 points at the announcement that 4Q99 profits
> were disappointing due to Y2K issues. The market is very volatile and
> dependent on news. MS stock is not at all unique in this way.
> Everybody attempts to be at the leading edge of the "curve" when a stock
> price movement is occurring to maximize profits. That's the way the
> market works.
Bullshit. MS is selling 45% below its high in the last 6 months. It was at
119 and change in December or January. It closed around 67 today or up
less than 2% in a market up nearly 8%.
IBM on the other hand closed up nearly 4% today after being up 3%
yesterday when MS lost 16 points.
What is hurting MS right now is the number of margin calls and people's
positions being liquidated because they can't cover them. In my opinion
they are getting exactly what they deserve for supporting a corrupt
organization.
Greed is its own reward.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
