Linux-Advocacy Digest #591, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks) (Gerben Bergman)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: The future... (pac4854)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks) (tholenbot)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: a great job ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Your office and Linux. ("Streamer")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 03:08:54 GMT
Matt Soltysiak wrote:
>
> Ok, I think you're not understanding the whole picture. First off, why does
> Windows inhabit 80% of all modern computers in the world? That one is pretty
> easy. It's because Windows makes computers so damn accessible and easy, even
> to those who are hopeless in learning computers or understanding them
> half-way. Linux, like Unix, has never been good at making the computer user
> friendly - period. Don't refute that statement because you know it's true (or
> maybe not). Thus, it's only natural that Windows would dominate the PC
> market.
It was the first Cheap OS. $65 would get your os from the store.
Why do people still drive fords! Remember Grandma and Grandpa talk
about their
model A. It's brand loyalty.
But X windows, Gnome and KDE made the desktop as easy as Window's
itself.
There IS no serious training curve learning X.
There is NO mystery in running Linux.
>
> Now, don't misunderstand me! I love Linux. I've been using it for 4 or 5
> years now. Great OS. I use mainly for programming and as a file ftp server.
> Never crashed on me once, unlike my win2k ftp box (stupid shit). But, there
> are times that even I get frustrated in Linux, to do the most simple things.
> It's awful. What takes a few clicks in Windows takes forever in Unix. It's a
> fact. But, oh well.
No, it's not a fact either. Linux is frankly as easy to administer as
Windows is. Has been for 3-4 years now.
>
> You should see the amout of software available for Windows: the most
> powerful CAD/CAM/CAE software (Protel, ORcad, Cadence); 3d, video editing,
> picture editing, motion editing, special effects (Like SoftIMAGE, Mia,
> Hudini); engineering tools/graphics (Pro/Engineer); programming IDE's all
> exist for the Windows market. And all of them are easy to use, easy to
> install. Why are they for Windows and not Unix? Because Windows is user
> friendly; 80% of the computer world understands Windows. That's why all the
> BEST corporate software exists in Windows, and always will for quite a long
> time.
The reason abundant Windows software exists is because Windows is
abundant right now.
>
> Unix does look ugly on the desktop compared to Windows for ppl using Windows:
> it's not user friendly, intuitive, or shrink wrapped. It's ugly. :)
>
> So there you have it... I hope you get the picture a little.
>
I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse 6.4,
install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just said!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 19 May 2000 03:09:16 GMT
Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
: On 18 May 2000 00:44:19 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
: >Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
: >: Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
: >
: >I'm sure it is. I'm not arguing the technical validity of Linux here,
: >Bob
: >He keeps spewing off about his "experience" with WindowsNT, and how much
: >it crashes, and BSODs.
: Whatever his experience with NT or lack of it, your experience with Linux
: is out of date and it is a bit disingenuous for you to claim "extensive
: linux experience" as you have done in the past.
I do not recall ever claiming that I had "extensive" experience. Did you
find such material on deja.com, or something?
: >It is his childish, and wankish behavior that I am downplaying and not
: >Linux (though in another thread, I did explain one of my personal reasons
: >for disliking Linux which some may consider silly... you decide).
: I saw that post and personally, I do consider your reasons silly, or at
: least superficial. If I understand correctly, it boils down to a couple
: of the kernel hackers sometimes putting four-letter words in their
: comments in the source. I fail to see what that has to do with the
: quality of the code itself, the reliability of the system, or anything
: else that's measureable, but you are entitled to your opinion. I wonder
This might be considered a judgemental attitude, but from my POV, people
who behave professionally, are professional. People who do not, are not
serious (as I said, from my POV). Please don't think that I'm some prude
that has no sense of humor, because that is not the case at all. I just
think its inappropriate to place vulgar language in source code (ie, it's
non-scientific). Can you imagine the ridicule a physicist would get from
his/her colleagues, if he/she had "fuck", or "shit" in any part of their
presentation?
I look at computing as a science Bob, and I would expect anyone else who
takes the profession seriously to do the same.
: if their are any such words in NT's source? Would you change your opinion
: of NT if there were?
I would question the seriousness of its developers, yes. But since I
don't get to see the source code anyway, it's a non-issue. Now, if
Microsoft started creating registry keys to that effect, then you can be
sure my confidence in WindowsNT would be lessened... shakened even.
Everyone uses vulgarities to make a point. But using it in everyday
dialogue is the stuff of people who cannot communicate with intellectual
grace. Vulgarity in the right place can be hilarious:
Bill Cosby: What is it about Coke?
Person : Well, it intesifies your personality.
Bill Cosby: Well yes, but what if you're an asshole?
But misplaced vulgarity is disconcerting, IMHO.
People who speak well, command respect. Vulgarity spoken out of place is
not speaking well. Therfore, it gets little or no respect from me.
: I also think you are very quick to dismiss people's experiences on the
: basis of it being "anecdotal evidence". As far as I know there is no
: other kind of publicly-available evidence for something like frequency of
: BSOD. Can you point us to any actual statistics of this kind for any OS?
: Them that could afford to pay for the surveys won't necessarily be
: interested in releasing the results.
The point is, neither my, nor yours, nor Charlie's experiences stand as
"proof" of anything. Using one's "experience" as proof is fraudulent, and
absurd. The only things that can be offered as "facts" are things that
can be proven.
If I told you I was an NT systems engineer posting from Ice Station Zebra,
how could I prove it? :-) Is the fact that I claim that it's my
experience enough? Heck no.
: So, for how often we see BSOD vs a kernel panic, we are pretty much
: limited to collecting anecdotes as far as I can tell. I agree that BSOD
: is fairly rare. However, that doesn't mean that NT is as reliable as
: Linux either.
I honestly don't know. I'm simply debating the claim made by Charlie that
WindowsNT crashes constantly.
: I'm not going to comment on the rest of this because I really don't care
: what you think of Perry or Charlie. I do agree with you that there are a
: lot of bozos posting in this group (I'm reading this in cola). I may
: disagree on exactly which posters those are.
That is fine. Disagreement is why we debate in the first place. And of
course, you have every right to paint me as a kook, if you so wish. That
is what I am doing in Charlie's case. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: Gerben Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
(was Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 05:09:40 +0200
Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
| > The ones you're suffering from, Eric.
|
| Illogical,
How ironic.
| as Eric
Referring to yourself in the third person again, eh Eric?
| is not suffering from any "attribution problems".
Typical pontification.
| If you had decent reading comprehension skills,
How decent is "decent", Eric?
| you would have recognized this fact.
What alleged "fact", Eric?
| > Balderdash, Eric. He's done nothing of the sort.
|
| Liar.
Incorrect, given that you're the one who's lying, Eric.
| > You're erroneously presupposing that he has provided the evidence, Eric.
|
| On the contrary.
Evidence, please.
--
Gerben Bergman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 03:15:10 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> I honestly don't know. I'm simply debating the claim made by Charlie that
> WindowsNT crashes constantly.
>
Go convert the 30 year old work of 13 life insurance companies.
Spend the years necessary to accomplish this!
Do the project in NT as I did.
Then show me how to make the machine work for more than 1 day without
re-booting.
While your at it, prove it to those presidents and their owners also.
Oh, we can get buy for 1 day of processing. But that's all.
You fail to re-boot your servers and you will be going down by 3 pm on
a typical day or 11 am on a busy month end.
You'll find out you can't do it.
And apparently neither can W2k. It has about the same longevity.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: 18 May 2000 14:32:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In all fairness if you want to lay "blame" for that (if you consider it
>something that deserves to be "blamed" on someone) you would have to lay it
>on Apple. After all, as the Mac advocates are so proud of trumpeting, they
>did pioneer that whole document-centric GUI thing.
Oh, that's very possible. I have exactly zero experience with the Mac,
so I really can't say. I do consider it a problem, though, that email
content can be executed from within the mail client. If that is also
common on the Mac, they are at fault just as well.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Ceterum censeo, quod ne ipse delendant, Fenestras delendas esse.
-- Stolen on Usenet
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The future...
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:31:14 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Looking over the landscape of the computer industry, here are
some
>observations.....
>
>The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone.
Directory services, high-availability, clustering, storage area
networks, authentication, are all becoming more dependent on
dedicated server-class systems. My feelings are that it is
beginning to look more and more like the mainframe days of
yesteryear. Even Microsoft views the server side as a very
different market segment.
>Desktop PCs
>will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients,
Agreed. Today's desktops are beginning to evolve into tomorrow's
internet appliances. Embedded OSen. Inexpensive. User-proof.
>or be
>indistinguishable from servers.
>From the user's perspective, it may be indistinguishable where
their application originates and where their data resides. But
hardwarewise, there will be a vast difference in architecture.
>I think the NOS market is gone. Novel and whom ever is pursuing
it is
>wasting their time.
Quite correct; that market has almost disappeared as a separate
technology. Novell has pretty much abandoned their NOS/LAN
strategies and are positioning themselves as an enabler of the
Internet and e-business.
>All real OS's will just do it right.
>Windows is going to die. Not because of MS, exactly, but because
the
>world is going towards standards.
Agreed. I think the end-users of the world are extremely fed up
with proprietary protocols and the vendor-lock baggage that comes
with them.
>While UNIX is not a majority player,
It all depends on whose research you believe. Microsoft has
bragging rights on unit volume, but a single *NIX license often
supports thousands of users and hundreds of applications.
>it is a standards based multi-vendor platform. MS will bluster
about
>being the "defacto-standard" but more and more IT people are
realizing
>that public standards are better than ubiquitous proprietary
standards.
And about damn time, too.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
(was Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:37:43 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gerben Bergman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
>
> | > The ones you're suffering from, Eric.
> |
> | Illogical,
>
> How ironic.
On what basis do you make this claim, Gerben?
> | as Eric
>
> Referring to yourself in the third person again, eh Eric?
Illogical, as only two people are participating in this discussion.
What alleged "third person"?
> Typical pontification.
Where?
> | If you had decent reading comprehension skills,
>
> How decent is "decent", Eric?
See what I mean?
> | you would have recognized this fact.
>
> What alleged "fact", Eric?
See what I mean?
> | > Balderdash, Eric. He's done nothing of the sort.
> |
> | Liar.
>
> Incorrect, given that you're the one who's lying, Eric.
See what I mean?
> | > You're erroneously presupposing that he has provided the evidence,
> | > Eric.
> |
> | On the contrary.
>
> Evidence, please.
See above. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to
be seen!
--
On what basis do you claim "this is the end, my only friend, the end"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: 18 May 2000 22:38:17 -0500
In article <ksVU4.486$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>X is bloated. Its implementations are staggering under the conflicting ideas of
>modernisation, stability, compatability and HW support.
Care to make an estimate of the difference you have to spend on RAM
and video card acceleration today to get equal performance (X vs MS
or whatever)? Now do the same comparison after adding remote
capability to the other system.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 18 May 2000 22:33:57 -0500
In article <A11V4.5008$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Linux is heating up.
> Linux market hype is cooling down.
>
>What does that tell us?
Perhaps that other OS's are better at separating the the fools from
their money?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 03:41:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner) writes:
> : 1. A streamlined, easy install process;
> Disagree. System should be installed by competent techinicans in
> computer shops. Windows is not any more easy to install than say
> Mandrake 7.0, only user do it much more frequently, so get used to it.
Never installed Mandrake, so I can't speak on this. Perhaps the
problem has already been solved.
> : 2. An office suite roughly as functional as Office, and at least as
> : easy to use;
> But based on quite diferent ideas - it shouldn't be so bloated and
> should have ability to use its components in scripts, and add own
> components written as simple scripts or C programs to common GUI.
I'll go along with that. It definitely shouldn't be the *same* as
Office - you should just be able to do the same things with it as you
would with the MS correspondent.
> : 3. A GUI package installation mechanism that's as easy to use as
> : InstallShield (trivial if we get a file manager for GNOME or KDE); and
> Whats wrong with capt?
The fact that I've never heard of it? I'm guessing it's apt-based;
the only apt GUI I've used is gnome-apt. It'll be nice when someone
puts some time into it.
> : 4. A GUI interface to the most common configuration files.
> Never, never, never let user who doesn't understand things tweak the
> config files. For such users remote sysadmin service via SSH should be
> provided.
Huh?
Are you suggesting we start up a Centralized Linux Administration
Bureau or something? And remember that not all computers are on a
network, and very few of them are on one all the time.
> : 1. A GUI interface to *all* configuration files;
> I've expressed my opinion above. I'd prefer something like expert system
> - somethig which allows to ask question on natural language, and answer
> with extracts of man and howto. NO GUI - interface just like micq, but
> much more interactivity than stupid office equipment in MS Office
> 2000.
I prefer CLI for most purposes, but nobody outside of our little
hacker niche will use Linux unless there's a usable GUI.
> : 2. Integration of all Linux documentation into a centralized,
> : searchable help center;
> Whats wrong with dwww?
Again, never heard of it.
Does it have *all* Linux documentation? Man pages, info pages, PS
files, HTML files, all integrated into a single common format and UI?
> : 3. A DirectX-like platform for hardware-accelerated devices, not
> : necessarily at the kernel level;
> Whats wrong with OpenGL?
The fact that it's not hardware-accelerated? Perhaps this will go
away as of XF86 4.0, but audio can also be hardware-accelerated.
Sound support on Linux is abysmal at best.
> : 4. Abstraction of many protocols and features, ala ODBC (which I hate
> : because it never works, not because it's a bad idea); and
> Whats wrong with
> 1. ODBC?
Is there ODBC for Linux?
> 2. DBI/DBD?
Never heard of them.
> : 4. A "killer app." Unfortately, the odds of this being in the office
> : suite are about zero, as MS has far too much of an edge on this
> : front. The GIMP, with a few unique features, may have the
> : potential to get there.
> Given Adobe PhotoShop for Linux coming in half a year?
Will it be free?
> No, if apache is not killer app, you'll have to invent totally new way
> of using computers.
Apache isn't a killer app. The reason is that only webmasters use web
servers. A killer app is something that most computer users will find
useful.
You might've noticed that a lot of my answers are "Never heard of it."
That's a problem too. There are just too many Linux programs, many of
which do the same or similar things.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 01:02:23 -0300
1$worth <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A great job of shafing Apple and stealing the ideas that were themselves
> stolen from PARC.
Apparently Xerox didn't mind. Anyway, Linux, Star Office, etc. are not
exactly great examples of originality either...
> > N.B. Don't give me crap about how PCs or MS software are expensive.
> M$ software ---- They are! That's not crap. How did he become so rich
> but to exploit his natural monopoly... and why not!
Browse any software catalog to see that the competition is not necessarily
cheaper. If MS products were unreasonably expensive, MS would never
have gotten all that market share.
> Bill - how does it feel to be sued by your own government? - now that's
> success!
MS got too big and Bill got too rich. Tall trees catch a lot of wind and MS
sure does. In a way I feel sorry for Bill and his company, but on the other
hand, the guy is just *too* ambitious. "Windows everywhere" is a stupid
thing to promote...
Francis.
------------------------------
From: "Streamer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 23:03:11 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Hey dipshit did you bother to check the headers? If you had half a
> brain you would have understood my post. I was implying that Charlie
> was a lintroll. A brain dead lab monkey would have understood that from
> the whole "you are emberassing the rest of US" part, but I guess it was
> a litlle too much for you eh?
No, I got it. Obviously you don't understand that Charlie is not merely a
linux troll, he is a linux advocate -- one of the better ones too. If he
embarrasses you, it makes me wonder what type of a Linux advocate you must
be.
> I know you get all excited when you think
> you can flame a windows user, but next time investigate a little bit
> more o.k. In case you still can't figure it out I will help you just
> this once.
I have a lot of sympathy for Windows users, and I try to limit my flamings
to MS FUDsters. In your case, I was only making a joke....Can't you take
a joke?
>
> Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14-15mdk i686)
>
> Netscape..................LINUX..........mandrake
>
Haven't you noticed that many of the Wintrolls in c.o.l.a. post using
Netscape on Linux? Now, had your Newsreader been pan, trn, slrn, or
anything else not found in MS land, I might have figured you were a
serious Linux User <I'm not implying here that you are or aren't., I just
couldn't tell>
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 04:03:27 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ax wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > IBM unloading Redhat stock is not a cooling down in my opinion!
> > >
> > > Microsoft is loosing it's shirt on the market as well!
> > >
> > > It seems to me that the entire market, including IBM are taking
> > > some corrections.
> >
> > Linux stocks made the deepest correction. See the numbers:
> >
> > CORL (Corel): today's closing @$4 3/16, dropped 22%
> > just one day today.
> >
> > It's been nose-diving from its peak @ $44
> > 1/2.
> >
> > 44 - 4 = ?
> >
> > RHAT (Red Hat): today's closing @ $20 1/4
> >
> > It's been nose-diving from its peak @
> > $151 5/15
> >
> > 151 - 20 = ?
> >
> > LNUX (VA Linux): today's closing @$50
> >
> > It's been nose-diving from its peak
$320
> >
> > 320 - 50 = ?
> >
> > Neither IBM nor MSFT can match Linux stock correction.
> >
> > > You could NOT make an honest observation that Linux is COOLING it's
> > > heels
> > > based on market observations anyway.
> >
> > Ok.
> > Linux is heating up.
> > Linux market hype is cooling down.
> >
> > What does that tell us?
> >
> > >
> > > Linux DOES NOT run on the market! Redhat might.
> >
> > Linux has gone commercial. Its position in the market
> > becomes part of the picture.
> >
>
> Okay,
>
> Then we can take it that your opinion is Linux is going to meet certain
> doom within what time period?
>
That may depend on how fat "sitting" Linux Penguins start "fitness"
and whether they will loss weight to the point that they can "stand up"
and "walk".
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 19 May 2000 04:05:53 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: >
: > I honestly don't know. I'm simply debating the claim made by Charlie that
: > WindowsNT crashes constantly.
: >
: Go convert the 30 year old work of 13 life insurance companies.
: Spend the years necessary to accomplish this!
: Do the project in NT as I did.
: Then show me how to make the machine work for more than 1 day without
: re-booting.
: While your at it, prove it to those presidents and their owners also.
: Oh, we can get buy for 1 day of processing. But that's all.
: You fail to re-boot your servers and you will be going down by 3 pm on
: a typical day or 11 am on a busy month end.
: You'll find out you can't do it.
: And apparently neither can W2k. It has about the same longevity.
*sigh* I'd ask for proof, but I think it would be easier to get orange
juice out of a dirt clod.
Your claims are useless Charlie. I know it, and so does everyone else.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
