Linux-Advocacy Digest #355, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: OS's ... (2:1)
Re: OS's ... ("TimL")
Microsoft error message (Was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh) (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Do not like Windows but ... (2:1)
Re: slashdot ("TimL")
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: slashdot ("TimL")
Re: Yes, commercial OS are supported (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Yes, commercial OS are supported (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Re: slashdot ("TimL")
Re: Yes, commercial OS are supported (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Pete Goodwin)
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:05:32 +0100
> Why would it want to ? Microsoft can if it want to make the better
> Linux distribution ever made, despite all of your crawls.
Pull the other one, its got bells on!
M$ has tried and failed to make a good OS. What makes you think that
they can put one together?
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:06:05 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff
Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:25:13 GMT, "Pedro Iglesias"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I was just trying to share some thoughts, if you do not like them, do
>>not answer them and if you do, at least be a little polite. I am
>>probably working with computers before you were born ... anyway, arguing
>>that is stupid.
>
> Welcome to the club... These people don't care what anyone thinks...
> They're just Microsoft ver 2.0. I mean really... doesn't the whole "WE
> WANT DESKTOP DOMINACNCE NOW!" remind you of someone?
>
No you're being a complete bigot jeff. Good job. Running out of
thoughtful things to say, I guess?
/TimL
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Microsoft error message (Was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh)
Date: 26 Jun 2000 22:11:47 GMT
In article "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Also, MS also put FALSE ERROR MESSAGES in Windows to make consumers
>> *believe* that DR-DOS was not functioning properly, when, in fact,
>> DR-DOS was fully 100% compatible with MS-DOS.
>
>That is incorrect. They put a warning message in the Beta version of
>Win3.x, saying that this beta product hasn't been tested with this operating
>system.
It would be best, when correcting somebody, if you knew what your were
talking about. The message that was put in the third beta release of
Windows 3.1 (the Christmas beta) definitely didn't warn anybody that
Windows hadn't been tested with DR DOS. Instead, what it said was:
Non fatal error <number> detected. Contact beta support.
See http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html#aardm
The message was included in five different components of Windows 3.1,
including setup and the program used to start Windows. Each program
that checked for DR DOS was a little different, and each had the
portion that checked for DR DOS (but not that checked for OS/2)
encrypted.
>I would consider it poor programming to allow a user to install and use a
>beta product on an untested os without at least warning them of the possible
>problems.
It would have been nice if Microsoft really did that. Instead, they put
in an purposely-misleading message, didn't mention it in the release notes
or other documentation, and, when beta testers asked about the message,
didn't tell them that it was a warning about not testing with DR DOS, but
instead told them that they should switch to MS-DOS.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:12:48 -0400
Marcus Turner wrote:
>
> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Also, MS also put FALSE ERROR MESSAGES in Windows to make consumers
> > *believe* that DR-DOS was not functioning properly, when, in fact,
> > DR-DOS was fully 100% compatible with MS-DOS.
>
> That is incorrect. They put a warning message in the Beta version of
> Win3.x, saying that this beta product hasn't been tested with this operating
> system.
No, they also included false error messages in the compiled code.
This was the very basis for their claim of obstruction of trade,
which is why Microsloth settled out of court.
>
> I would consider it poor programming to allow a user to install and use a
^^^^^^^^^^^
It's poor PROGRAMMING to allow the owner of a machine to install
whatever
software he wants????
You've been drinking from Billy's wee-wee again, haven't you?
> beta product on an untested os without at least warning them of the possible
> problems.
DR-DOS functioned PERFECTLY WELL as a platform for running Windows.
The error messages in question were not based on erroneous operation
of DR-DOS, because, as is well-known, DR-DOS *EXCEEDED* the MS-DOS
specs.
That is the basis for DR's suit--M$ was deliberately trying to scare
their customers from purchasing more of DR's product.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 23:13:52 +0100
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>
> nowadays :
>
> winamp is better than xmms or whatever on Linux
> word is better than startoffice or whatever on Linux (wordperfect,
> abiword, ...)
No its not, *but* they are all buried by TeX. TeX rules. And don't you
forget it ... :-)
> multimedia and games are better than on Linux
Dunno, my PC's too old to run most of them :-)
> photoshop is better than GIMP (besides at Windows there are a lot of good
> ones)
no it's not. Justy coz GIMP doesn't steal the whole screen and assume
thet it's the only package you'll ever use doesn't mean it's eorse.
> mame goes better (DOS or Windows) than Linux one
Dunno what that is.
> explorer is better than netscape
Nutscrape is not that great. SO browser is quite good.Hell, though I
like lynx. For most of my browsing 9no java, images, , netscape's OK)
> eudora is better than whichever Linux program
dunno.
> outlook express is better than whatever Linux news reader
Er... no.
> development tools are much more better under Windows
BOLLOX!!!!!
> what does remain ?
>
> yeah, Linux is very cheap and very stable and very secure (depends on
> administator),
> but, what to use it for nowadays that can't be done more productively under
> Windows ?
Everything I do. I write documents using LaTeX and
Emacs/vi/pico/ehatever.
I write programs in what ever language I feel like (and there are
plenty)
My computer desn't crash...
I don't have to spend time upgrading.
etc...
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:14:08 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff
Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:09:55 -0400, name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I don' think Slashdot is as concerned about their site being up 24/7 as
>>say maybe MS is with Hotmail. Your point is moot(sp?).
>
> So it's all right as long as you don't care about your site being up
> 24/7 ?
>
> If someone was to believe all he claims about Microsoft I could easily
> justify them by saying "Well you know... Microsoft really doesn't care
> so... it's alright"
>
> That doesn't make sense to me.
Could you perhaps be a little bit clearer?
If a being up 24/7 is not crucial to your site are you going to put as
much effort, spend as much money into making sure that happens?
Comparing Hotmail to Slashdot is just ludicrous.
And if I understand you're comment "So it's all right as long as you don't
care about your site being up 24/7 ?" Well of course it is! If you don't
care about your site being up 24/7 what does it matter if it's not up
24/7??! I guess I just don't understand the contect of what you're saying.
/TimL
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:21:57 -0400
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> In talk.politics.libertarian Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If an OEM decided to sell an alternative operating system, the
> > alternative would fail. Why you ask? Simple. You (as the end
> > user/customer) would have to pay for the copy of DOS/WIndows and not get
>
> This is only true if the competitor charged more than MS for their
> product, or had a product that nobody would buy. If their product
Quit playing the fool, Henry.
I explained this earlier.
When M$ started these practices, Digital Research's DR-DOS product
cost $55, as compared to MS-DOS selling at approximately $95.
Choosing DR-DOS instead of MS-DOS (*) *SHOULD* have resulted in the
customer getting a $40 discount. Instead, per M$ CON-tracts,
DR-DOS customers were forced to pay $55 MORE -- paying for both
MS-DOS *AND* DR-DOS.
Of course, Microsoft knew DAMN WELL that this is illegal, which is
why they kept the whole thing under non-disclosure agreements.
The MS NDA even prohibits talking to law enforcement without a
representative from MS being present.
What a crock of shit!
Now, if you support this sort of thing, and say that it's perfectly
legal, then I suppose you would also support the return of the
old "company town" whereing the local employer owned EVERYTHING--
all the stores, all of the farms, every hotel, etc.
Is that your vision of economic freedom?
(An attractive choice, as DR-DOS was more stable, and DR-DOS 3.0 had
many
features that M$ didn't implement until MS-DOS 5.0)
> was worth the money, people would flock to it since it would be
> cheaper. Or at the very least, the fans of that other OS would band
> together, start a company that doesn't have MS products, and
> undercut MS. The fact that this didn't happen says that the only
> reason the OEM's accepted the deal was because it was in their
> best interest. After all, Compaq, with all the money they saved
> on the deal from MS, could've formed a new company, Qapmoc, that
> only sold Linux machines. End of story. Why didn't they?
>
> > side. If you truly believe Microsoft has done nothing wrong, then I
> > suggest you dig deeper. Even by just following the case you would have
> > seen times when MS execs were proven wrong and caught in lies on the
> > stand. What else do you need to know?
>
> What arrogance.... I've worked on all the OS's in question, I've
> been in the industry forever, I have close friends in the OEM business.
> Don't act like I don't understand the case just because you are wrong :-)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:22:03 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff
Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:20:00 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>
>>> I don't really care why slashdot is down... It's the irony of it I
>>> enjoy.
>>
>>Unfortunately, there's not much irony to enjoy until you know that it
>>was not a power problem, communications problem, hardware problem,
>>application problem, load problem, sabotage, etc.
>
> Like I said... it doesn't matter why it was down. I thought Linux was
> great at clustering? If you believe Linux is as great as every says
> slashdot.org should be run on a p233 with 32MB of ram and never fail.
OK, now I'm starting to think you are moron. Who says Slashdot has enough
resources for clustering. Who says they aren't having problems with the ISP
upstream?
Your origonal point was a good one. Perhaps if Hotmail went down Linux
Advocates would start pointing fingers at NT. But as my kidnergarten
teacher said "2 wrongs don't make a right". If you think pointing fingers without
facts is wrong, why are you doing the same? Seems pretty childish.
>>You're grasping at straws, Jeff. No amount of problems with Slashdot
>>will make Microsoft's products quit sucking.
>
> It has nothing to do with Microsoft besides the obvious point that Linux
> advocacy and Linux users are more anti-Microsoft than pro-Linux.
And this suprises you? Yes this is a completly obvious point. You bring it up
because...?
/TimL
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yes, commercial OS are supported
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:26:59 -0400
"Sam E. Trenholme" wrote:
>
> One of the old arguments against Linux was that it did not have commercial
> support. This argument was usually retorted with the "Have you ever tried
> getting support from Micrsoft?" statement.
>
> Just because Microsoft has crappy phone support does not mean that
> competent support does not exist. To wit: Sun microsystems.
>
> I recently had the pleasure of a Sun computer crashing on me. Naturally,
> it was important to find out why this system crashed. So, I looked in
> /var/crash and found a Solaris Kernel Crash Dump. I called Sun support on
> the phone. It took three phone calls, but I was able to get a competent
> kernel hacker on the phone. I read him the output of strings on the
> kernel crash dump. He was able to tell me _exactly_ why the system
> crashed.
I have had similar experiences with HP-UX.
Usually, it goes like this:
1. Call the help line,
2. Call dispatcher takes down the problem description, and your phone
number.
3. Correct support person calls you in 5-120 minutes.
>
> --
> Please post, and not email, questions you have about my answers
> Go to http://samiam.org/cgi-bin/mailme to get my email address
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yes, commercial OS are supported
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:27:56 -0400
"David M. Cook" wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2000 01:19:19 -0700, Sam E. Trenholme
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >One of the old arguments against Linux was that it did not have commercial
> >support. This argument was usually retorted with the "Have you ever tried
> >getting support from Micrsoft?" statement.
>
> Just curious, but what commercial Linux support organizations have you
> evaluated? In particular, what support packages did you evaluate?
>
HP and IBM are now selling Linux Support on a par similar with HP-UX
or AIX support.
> Dave
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:26:41 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:37:41 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>>
>> > Word is very expenisive for "light Work".
>>
>> I do not smoke, do not drink, I save a lot of money that I can
>> spend as I prefer.
>
>I'd prefer to spend it on airline tickets and overseas hotels.
You can find some really shocking travel deals on the web... '-)
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:28:13 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff
Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2000 11:09:14 GMT, "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You don't see the point... There is no reason why slashdot should be
> down.
>
Huh? What on God's green earth are you talking about? Is this site some
24 hour banking website? Is it some Online store? IS it something people
rely on for their livliehood?
Hey SLASHDOT, Jeff Szarska says there's no reason for you guys to be down
Sunday night! He wants his money back!!!
Hey maybe you could clue us in on your way of thinking.
/TimL
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yes, commercial OS are supported
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:29:11 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> As a longtime sysadmin of IBM products, if their committment to Linux is
> only just average by IBM standards, it'll exceed the quality of
> Microsoft support by several orders of magnitude. IBM support is
> legendary, and is what every other support organization on the planet
> aspires to.
The only problem is... IBM software (YUCK!)
IBM makes the best hardware in the world, and then takes the lustre
off with 2nd-rate programming.
>
> I'm waiting to see with HP. Best helpdesk operation in this hemisphere,
> but their involvement with Linux seems to be another of HP's "me too"
> marketing strategies. My impression is they're not keen on helping
> Linux, they're helping their IA-64, and Linux is just one way to do it.
> As soon as MSFT announces something better that happens to run their
> stuff, HP will be there with banner ads saying "me too".
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:29:11 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:33:40 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Cihl wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Szarka wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:53:23 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> Konqueror gives you all the control of a classic FTP-client.
>>
>> Could you please stop being so nasty? What has the Linux community
>> done to Windows to make you people so nasty?
>
>Disturbed their smug feelings of superiority by pointing out
>that M$ products suck.
Even that's not necessary.
All you have to do to trigger their inferiority complex is
to merely point out that something non-WinDOS could be merely
suitable.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:33:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Name an app that will bring down a properly set up VMS system.
On the last day of my first job, I ran a clock program on a VT100 on a VAX-
11/750. It was running just before I left... then I looked around to see
the VAX crashing, oops! I'd run the application as the system manager and
down went the whole system.
Generally speaking its very hard to take out OpenVMS. It has limits on the
number of spawned processes you can create. Linux doesn't have this limit
by default - maybe it should?
Pete
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:26:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
TimL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't know, why don't you tell us?
Pedro won't so I will!
> Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>
> > ... then tell me why the Hell a home
> > user should to care about compiling
> > sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what
> > the Hell open source is useful to ?
Let's say you are buying an older used car. Let's say a 1965 corvette.
You could care less about being a mechanic, you don't care about
that chilton's manual in the trunk, but the guy who sold you the car
told you to keep it in the trunk in case you even needed repairs.
When you've driven it for about 50,000 miles, you bring it into the
mechanic you've come to know and trust for 15 years. You ask if he
can fix your car, give it a tune-up, and make some other minor
repairs. He hesitates, but you tell him you have the chilton's manual
in the trunk. He pulls it out and smiles and says "yes, I can get 'er
runnin' good as new". About 3 days later, you get a nice call telling
you your car is ready. You pay a modest fee for parts and labor and
you are back on the road for another 50,000 to 100,000 miles.
The driver of the car doesn't need to know anything about mechanics,
but he needs to know a good mechanic. The Mechanic however, needs
a great deal more information about the machine than the driver needs.
And if the mechanic can't get the right parts, he might have to go to
a machinist, who needs even a higher level of detail.
> > If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install
> > procedure, why the Hell
> > should he/she know that awk 1.0.4
> > prevents gtk from compiling correctly ?
This is about like the guy who can do his own oil changes and can
change his spark plugs wanting to know why the timing chain is
important.
Normally, a casual user (a "Driver") needs to know very little about
Linux internals. He will purchase a distribution, with matched
applications and functions.
A "hot rodder" might want to download all the latest and greatest
goodies the minute they show up on the net, even if they are in "alpha"
state. But these hard core "hot rodders" also know that they may
need to make some adjustments, and that the latest version of GTK may
require the latest version of awk. Normally, a real hot-rodder would
just get the latest and greatest of everything.
Linux distributors try to release new distributions at least once
every 6 months, and most of the security patches are configured
to be implemented with minimal impact on a "Stock" Linux distribution.
Are there drivers who might get in over their heads (pulling all
the ignition wires and forgetting which order to plug them back in)?
Absolutely. That's why it's nice to have a mechanic who makes house
calls rather than being totally dependent on the manufacturer who will
tell you to "Get rid of that junker and buy a brand new model".
It's very much like Web Site creation and administration. The webmaster
is resonsible for the legal, ethical, artistic, and technical issues
related to the site. The composition artists manage the artistic
layout, the technicians tweak for performance, and the architect
manages to interface to the rest of the enterprise. Not everyone
who publishes a home page needs all of these functions, because the
hosting servises provides all of this under a "blanket flat
monthly rate". And even though millions of Internet users use the
15 million UNIX sites on the internet every day via their web servers,
e-mail packages, and chat software, most Windows users aren't even
aware that UNIX is doing 90% of their most important functions.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:33:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
>
> What's the point of this? It's a dead link.
Be glad you got it that way. Imagine the stupidity - posting a
link to an "exe" file which is supposed to happily dump itself
into your computer, take over it's guts, and hopefully not publish
your credit card numbers, social security numbers, and mailing
address information all over the bloody net!
And to show that he's exceptionally bright, he posts it on a LINUX
Avocacy group. Sure, I want to download an executable file from
Microsoft and run it under Linux on my WINE Windows emulator.
This is better than those GEICO commercials (we all do really stupid
things in our lives, but...)
> --
> �I live!�
> �I hunger!�
> �Run, coward!�
> -- The Sinistar
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
