Linux-Advocacy Digest #180, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools) (Jason Bowen)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (WickedDyno)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (WickedDyno)
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Tim Kelley)
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (David M. Butler)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Stuart
Fox")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Tim Kelley)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Ian Davey)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (David M.
Butler)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (.)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (.)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:47:35 -0400
"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > That's right. All those things are in the NT 5 kernel, aka Win2K.
Which
> > > is exactly what Chad and Alan have been saying.
> >
> > No such thing as an NT 5 kernel.
>
> Sure it is. Until around Beta 3, Microsoft called it NT 5. They changed
> its name to Win2K at that time.
>
> For all practical purposes, Win2K is NT 5.
I know that the name change was announced on or around October 98, it
doesn't change the fact that references made to NT5 are false.
When the Windows 2000 final release code was compiled Dec. 1999 it was not
known as NT 5, it was known as Windows 2000.
>
> >
> > Why don't we just make up personalized names for everything? That will
> > surely be of benefit to all wont it?
> >
> > Boy I saw (aka heard) that Rhapsody (aka OSX) sure is doing bad (aka
good)
> > in its retail release (aka beta release)
>
> Idiot.
How is Rhapsody 2.0 doing?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Global warming. (was Public v. Private Schools)
Date: 18 Sep 2000 14:46:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8q58q5$291$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason Bowen
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Joe R." wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > > > I'm not the moron here. Temperature determines CO2 levels that
>> >> > > > is
>> >> > > > rich.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yes Kulkis, how exactly does temperature determine CO2 levels in
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > atmosphere? Thats such an assinine statement it should be fun
>> >> > > watching you
>> >> > > dig a deeper hole trying to explain it.
>> >> > > Does "magic" somehow figure into your temp. to co2 equation?
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually, temperature _does_ have an impact on CO2 levels.
>> >> >
>> >> > Within normal limits, higher temperatures tend to increase plant
>> >> > growth.
>> >> > That means more CO2 is tied up in the plant.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course, that's only one of several thousand things that affect
>> >> > CO2
>> >> > levels, though.
>> >>
>> >> You're not helping Aaron though. If more plants grow at a higher
>> >> temperature than they use more CO2. Where is the CO2 coming from????
>> >> Lets increase the average daytime temperature to 110F and then again
>> >> tell me about the plants. I'd watch most everthing around here
>> >> wither.
>> >> Plants thrive because of a variety of factors. You can have a lush
>> >> forest in a cool place and rising temperatures there would kill th
>> >> forest off
>> >
>> >As I said, there are many other factors. AND, I specifically stated
>> >"within normal limits". If you raise the temperature a degree or two,
>> >you'll get greater growth. If you raise it a lot, you start killing
>> >plants.
>> >
>> >The CO2 comes from the atmosphere.
>>
>> I know, I know but according to Aaron there is more CO2 because of the
>> increase in temperature. So where does it come from then? He has his
>> feedback cycles mixed up apparently heh?
>>
>
>Not necessarily. As I said, there are many factors, some of which work
>in opposite directions.
>
>For example, let's just take the effect of temperature on CO2 levels.
>
>1. Higher temperature (within limits) increases plant growth which will
>tend to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
>
>2. Higher temperature reduces the solubility of CO2 in the ocean, which
>will tend to increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The rate that it leaves the ocean is much slower than it is used up, even
with a rise in temperature. Plus you need to pinpoint where this rise in
temperature comes from.
>
>3. Higher temperatures (within limits) will increase the metabolism of
>animals which generate CO2.
Do you have numbers for this? Or is it just a theory. I can't imagine me
putting out twice as much CO2.
>
>4. Higher temperatures will increase the rate of decomposition of
>organic matter which will lead to higher CO2 levels.
>
>You're trying to make it into a single equation. it's not. There are
>literally thousands of interlocked differential equations. Many of the
>factors have relationships which can go in either direction like the
>example above.
I know that but providing some base numbers will help you.
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:53:38 -0400
In article
<39c5b9c1$11$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob
Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/18/2000 at 05:54 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
>
> > See your showing your bias. Have I mentioned the ozone hole once? You
> > mentioned Copernicus being persecuted and yet you'd do the same for
> > people looking for answers as to what is happening with out world
> > today.
>
> Ah, but Copernicus PROVED his theory by verifiable, repeatable
> measurements which eliminated all other possibilities. Einstein's
> theories
> have been proven by repeatable experiments which preclude any alternate
> possibilities.
>
> But until the econuts PROVE their theories about CFC's, they are junk
> scientists and not to be trusted. And until the theories are PROVEN, I
> refuse to sanction actions based thereupon.
Bob, you have no clue how science works. No one PROVES jack shit. You
look at the evidence, draw inferences, and after an idea has been found
to meet every single bit of the evidence you can find and has failed to
be disproven by the possible tests, you tenatively accept it as the
posible explanation for the evidence.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:54:17 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Jason Bowen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Bob Germer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On 09/18/2000 at 05:54 AM,
> > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
> > >> >
> > >> > > See your showing your bias. Have I mentioned the ozone hole
> > >> > > once? You
> > >> > > mentioned Copernicus being persecuted and yet you'd do the same
> > >> > > for
> > >> > > people looking for answers as to what is happening with out
> > >> > > world
> > >> > > today.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ah, but Copernicus PROVED his theory by verifiable, repeatable
> > >> > measurements which eliminated all other possibilities. Einstein's
> > >> > theories
> > >> > have been proven by repeatable experiments which preclude any
> > >> > alternate
> > >> > possibilities.
> > >> >
> > >> > But until the econuts PROVE their theories about CFC's, they are
> > >> > junk
> > >> > scientists and not to be trusted. And until the theories are
> > >> > PROVEN, I
> > >> > refuse to sanction actions based thereupon.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Oh man this is rich. So unitl it is verifiable you will call it a
> > >> lie and not support looking
> > >> into it? You would've been right their lynching Copernicus. What
> > >> an asshole.
> > >>
> > >
> > >What is the concentration of CFC's in the upper atmosphere, oh
> > >ignorant
> > >freshman.
> >
> > Last reading I saw was 3.6ppb billion, already referenced it.
> > Plantlife
>
> In other words...negligible.
Because you say so?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:01:39 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >I love the way Max is suddenly an expert on "technical design", to the point
> >> >> >where he starts lecturing experienced developers. Ask him any elementary
> >> >> >question about OO design if you want a good laugh.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am so so so hurt by your pointing out I'm not a programmer.
> >> >>
> >> >> I 'suddenly' became an expert in "technical design" starting about
> >> >> fifteen years ago. It doesn't take knowledge of OO design (and that has
> >> >> precisely *what* to do with user interfaces?) to know that most
> >> >> 'experienced developers' have their head up their ass when it comes to
> >> >> building a practical and efficient user interface. Save your ridicule
> >> >> for someone who gives a damn.
> >> >
> >> >Being such an "expert" in "technical design" for so long I'd have to assume that
>you
> >> >can post some ISBN number of the books you've written or contributed to or
>perhaps a
> >> >few URLs where you are cited as an authoritative source. Until you can do that
>you
> >> >are no more an expert than Kulkis.
> >>
> >> 1) I would have thought you'd at least be smart enough to know that you
> >> shouldn't make assumptions. It means you're stupid.
> >
> >But my assumption was correct and by assuming I drew you out. I'll look stupid
>anyday to
> >be effective where intelligence fails.
> >
> >> 2) I was parroting Donovan Rebbechi's rhetoric; perhaps you didn't
> >> notice. Then again, perhaps you didn't want to notice, since it makes
> >> trolling a lot easier.
> >
> >I fail to see the parroting. Could you show me what you mean? How does simply
>asking
> >for your credentials contitute trolling? If I am to trust you experience in UI
>design I
> >should be allowed to research it.
>
> By 'parroting', I mean:
>
> -------------------------------------
> > [...]
> >>I love the way Max is suddenly an expert on "technical design", to the point
> >>where he starts lecturing experienced developers. Ask him any elementary
> >>question about OO design if you want a good laugh.
> >
> >I am so so so hurt by your pointing out I'm not a programmer.
> >
> >I 'suddenly' became an expert in "technical design" starting about
> >fifteen years ago. It doesn't take knowledge of OO design (and that has
> >precisely *what* to do with user interfaces?) to know that most
> >'experienced developers' have their head up their ass when it comes to
> >building a practical and efficient user interface. Save your ridicule
> >for someone who gives a damn.
> -------------------------------------
>
> You are trolling by pretending to have a pretense of whether or not to
> trust my experience in US design.
Look Max. You've shown virtually no reasons that anyone should trust
you. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
> >> 3) ISBN: 0830643613 (contributing author); RFC 2271, 2274, 2573, et. al,
> >> (acknowledgements). Most of my work has been private development for
> >> ELTRAX's "Enterprise Networking Technologies" curriculum.
> >
> >So you were involved with the SNMP working group. Great. I was involved in DRUMS.
> >Neither one have anything to do with UI. Enterprise Networking Technologies don't
>appear
> >to have much to do with it either. Where were you able to squeeze in that 15 years
>of UI
> >design knowledge? I wrote all the design guidelines for my previous employer. No
>the
> >ideas were no entirely my own. I used an ala carte method of design patterns I
>thought
> >worked seamlessly together in a variety of applications. Things like, don't use
>property
> >sheet UI when the the dialog real estate cannot support it. Avoid scrollbars in all
> >except frame windows. Use proper indenting for subordinate dialog controls and
>don't
> >forget to disable the subordinate controls when appropriate. All kinda things like
>that.
>
> Well, good for you. I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting
> what I've said; I never indicated I had 15 years of 'UI design
> knowledge'.
You WERE the one that posted it, parroting or not. So now you will
constrain your UI commentary to matters of your own uneducated personal
opinion? Nah, I suppose some things are too much to ask for.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:22:40 -0500
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> >This kills me. People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
> >support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
> >bitch because it's gone.
> >
>
> They don't bitch about legacy support in itself being gone, they complain
> about
> the support for their hardware being removed -
Exactly. So my video card is obsolete because MS says so? Fuck
that. That is the sort of arrogance that is driving a lot of
people to try linux.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:33:00 -0400
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
> Save your breath Roberto, some people (....americans?) in this ng have a
> need to feel somewhat ( pseudo-)superior to others...:-)
Gah! Don't categorize all of us Americans there. Just some assholes like
Mr. Kool.
Here's a quote of his from another ng:
"Similar to why the United States (the greatest country on the face
of the Earth, BTW) is the only country to have landed men on the
moon and returned them safely to Earth. We know more and accomplish
more than any other country."
Being an American myself, I'm embarrassed that he said that. I think
there's a lot we can (and SHOULD) learn from other countries, but we're
taught growing up that we're the best and we're always right. *sigh* Wish
they'd change that.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:34:36 +0100
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >
> > >This kills me. People bitch about Windows 9x still having legacy DOS
> > >support, and when they begin to take it out, suddenly those same people
> > >bitch because it's gone.
> > >
> >
> > They don't bitch about legacy support in itself being gone, they
complain
> > about
> > the support for their hardware being removed -
>
> Exactly. So my video card is obsolete because MS says so? Fuck
> that. That is the sort of arrogance that is driving a lot of
> people to try linux.
MS has precisely fuck all to do with whether your video card is supported.
Your hardware manufacturer decides whether to write the driver, not MS. MS
may bundle the driver, but they certainly don't write them...
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 10:33:15 -0500
"David M. Butler" wrote:
>
> Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> >
> > "OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Microshaft Sucks! I hope to NEVER buy another product that Gates had a
> > > hand in selling!
> >
> >
> > Strange thing tough...it only seems to be linux users that having problem
> > with windows setup...how come?
>
> Porbably the same reason that Windows users have the most trouble with
> setting up a Linux system... few will admit when their own preference in OS
> actually does something that makes it difficult, or doesn't seem to make
> sense. Both sides are guilty of this one.
Almost no one complains about linux being hard to install, not
even the schizo steve-heather-keys88 guy that posts here. Even
he thinks linux is easy to install. Most Linux distros also take
less time to install, and is set up so that you fill out all the
info first, then go about whatever else you wanted to do (with
windows you need to sit at attention during the entire install
process).
Consider: a full RH6.2 install takes about 20 minutes, and that
is about half the time it takes to install Win98 and yet is about
five times as much software.
Windows is NOT easy to install. Windows installers (from 95 to
NT) have always been poorly written, klunky, futzy and weird.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:44:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Britain recently outlawed handguns. Murder rates have tripled since.
Where on Earth did you get that statistic? I live in the UK and have certainly
never heard that. They regularly give the crime statistics on the news, and
there's been no tripling of murder rates. Spreading more gun lobby propaganda
again?
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:51:34 -0400
Tim Kelley wrote:
> Almost no one complains about linux being hard to install, not
> even the schizo steve-heather-keys88 guy that posts here. Even
> he thinks linux is easy to install. Most Linux distros also take
> less time to install, and is set up so that you fill out all the
> info first, then go about whatever else you wanted to do (with
> windows you need to sit at attention during the entire install
> process).
Well, there are a couple that complain... mostly in alt.linux.sux. :P
> Consider: a full RH6.2 install takes about 20 minutes, and that
> is about half the time it takes to install Win98 and yet is about
> five times as much software.
This is true... the time 98 takes drives me nuts. Plus all the rebooting.
Mandrake takes all of one reboot, and only that if the partition table is
altered.
> Windows is NOT easy to install. Windows installers (from 95 to
> NT) have always been poorly written, klunky, futzy and weird.
I've never actually had the "pleasure" of installing NT, but I'm guessing
the ease of Windows installation is related to how standard the hardware
setup is. I guess I got lucky... when I want to install 98, I just stick
the CD in and set it on it's way. 'Course, as I said, Linux does that for
me too. The things I really like about the Linux installation over
Win95/98/2000/NT/ME are that A) Linux always recognizes the hardware that
was used to install it and B) Linux doesn't need to reboot everytime a
driver is installed... I'm not exactly sure why Windows still needs to.
(Is this fixed yet in ME?)
-D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 18 Sep 2000 15:49:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
>> Sounds like the difference between W2K and W98 are all "beneath the hood".
>> WHich means the Win GUI still sucks the bowel movements of a flyblown
>> carcass.
> That must explain why so many window managers attempt to replicate it.
"So many" being two. That sure is alot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:47:01 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:39:23 +0200, Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:06:59 +0200, Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Thanks Scmocky for the excelent example. The Xerox mouse had three
> >> >buttons, and was copied for use on X Window and the Mousesystems mouse
> >> >for PCs/DOS. Apple did some research and used only one button to keep it
> >> >simple. And then Microsoft "invented" the two button mouse.
> >>
> >> Are you sure? Both Atari and Commodore had 2 button mice. If
> >> M$ "invented" the 2 button mouse then it was one of those
> >> "tree falling in a forest" things where either noone was there
> >> to notice or noone cared (or both).
> >
> >And both came later than the MS-Mouse. Anyway I wasn't quite right:
>
> Microsoft didn't even have overlapping Windows in 85.
What the *$%& does this have to do with the mouse? Damn, you're just as
wiered as Steve Giovanella. The VisiCorp mouse (for PC) also came before
Atari and Commodore. Its right button was labled "scroll" and it was
optical BTW. And it had provisions for a third button (you had to get a
new top).
<snip >
> >So they copied the 2 button mouse from the Star, but can't really say
> >why it was the better design.
>
> ...less need to emulate mouse buttons with the keyboard perhaps.
Three buttons mean even less need. Anyway, neither Windows nor GEM/TOS
used the second button much (I'm don't know about the Amiga). This was
different in apps (esp. games), but there was no consistency between
them.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: 18 Sep 2000 15:51:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chad Irby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > But he also said "-- same kernel, same overall features" which is
>> > incorrect.
>>
>> So tell us.. what differences are there between the NT 5 kernel and the
>> Windows 2000 kernel?
> - Plug and play hardware detection and driver loading
Now, I must step in here. I was on the beta list for NT5 for quite some
time, and I can tell you that it did indeed have this.
> - Power management (big one)
It had this too.
> - Tons of networking improvements in the TDI which, among other things
> allows for dynamic adapter configuration without all the reboots of
> the NT 4 implementation
NT 5 had this, and it is actually a "hidden" feature in NT4. Just hit
'apply' instead of 'ok' and ignore the dialog box that asks you to reboot.
> - Drastically revamped file security implementation with encryption,
> inheritance, etc (this is partially the file system, but also part of
> the kernel)
NT 5 had this.
> - An even better SMP implementation than NT 4 (which has one of the
> best in the industry)
NT 5 admittedly didnt have this.
> - too many more to list here
Inaccuracies? I'm sure we all appreciate it.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:00:23 +0100
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Go read Paul 'Z' Ewande's reply to my post and maybe you'll
> >learn a thing or two yourself.
> Why? It's common knowledge.
Then why didn't you give a few examples?
> >One might think you didn't know any more
> >than I do on W2K.
> Why? Because you aren't paying me to educate you?
Why should I pay you? You obviously don't have a clue.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 18 Sep 2000 15:52:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Britain recently outlawed handguns. Murder rates have tripled since.
>
>Where on Earth did you get that statistic? I live in the UK and have certainly
>never heard that. They regularly give the crime statistics on the news, and
>there's been no tripling of murder rates. Spreading more gun lobby propaganda
>again?
Maybe it went from 1 to 3 murders??? ;-). The murder rate in the US is
more of a sign of people's attitudes towards human life more than access
to guns. When I'm shooting I don't think about killing somebody.
>
>ian.
>
> \ /
>(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
>/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
> | |
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
