Linux-Advocacy Digest #571, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Sucks ("MH")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: How low can they go...? (chrisv)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (.)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Roberto Teixeira)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Roberto Teixeira)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Chad Myers")
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Roberto Teixeira)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:51:11 -0400
Lexical parser version 1.3
parsing stream...
something named "Gardiner Family"...
parsing...
Uh oh... <"looser">..trying to recover...
must be "loser"...continuing....
Context problem encountered spanning lines 1 + 2...
Uh oh...<"they type that would">...trying to recover...
checking eubonics sources for <"they type that would">
No such entry...
parsing....
suggestion.. <"the type || they type">...
acceptable...
parsing...
finished...
lexical suggestion[add this looser to your kill file. He's they type that
would add useless content]
> maybe everyone should give this guy a clap for being such a looser, they
> type that would get lost in a telephone booth.
>
> matt
>
> Richard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I tried Linux and I think it stinks. While there seem to be hundreds,
> > if not thousands of applications included with the basic cd, most of
> > them are useless junk that seem to require an interpreter of sorts to
> > figure out.
> >
> > My advice is to let Linux be and allow it to die the slow death it
> > seems to be dying as we speak. What junk this linux is. Do people
> > actually like this sort of rot?
> >
> > Richard Y. Hertz
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:52:26 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology)
>
> This one always irritates me, the Windows people say it about Linux, and the
Linux
> people say it about Windows.
Well, the Linux people seem to not understand the difference between
Win9x and WinNT/2K (which only further proves my theme that Linvocates seem to
have not much clue about the state of the rest of the computing industry).
WinNT/2K is not based on DOS. Period. DOS (cmd.exe) in NT is merely a tiny
subsystem for compatibility, just like POSIX subsystem and the OS/2 subsystem.
Linux, however, is almost entirely based on it's Unix predecessors (which isn't
necessarily a bad thing). Linux is somewhat reminiscent of Win9x (yes, I know
Linux has a better kernel, etc that's not my point). Win9x is hack upon a
hack upon a hack upon an old 16-bit non-multitasking OS. By way of comparison,
Linux is a hack upon a hack upon a hack upon a 30 year old archaic OS that has
none of the features of a modern OS. Linux should just be called the Unix
modernization project. Except all it does is add more instability and more
inconsistency.
> But unless you're talking about the wheel or fire, all technology is based on
older
> technology.
But how deeply is it rooted? That's the question.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:53:29 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad wrote
>>
>> "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > I vote that you're scumbag who, since you make a nice living with
>> > Microsoft products, will defend the evil empire to the end, despite
>> > the overwhelming evidence of their illegal activities.
>>
>> There is no "evidence" of their illegal activities, only conjecture
>> by the DOJ and an over-willing judge who takes anything the DOJ spoon
>> feeds him. The appealate courts are jumping at the chance to overrule
>> him as they see what a railroad job this was and that it has absolutely
>> no merit, legally or logically, whatsoever. Sleepy said that this
>> findings will be overturned himself. This is why the Supreme Court
>> didn't bother with such an obvious mis-carriage.
And another one, coming out of the woodwork. Turn on the lights and
watch them scatter!
Sorry Charlie, but the findings of fact are almost never overturned.
>Bill Gates belongs in jail. So does Steve Ballmer. So do a dozen other MS
>executives past and present. Microsoft was built on theft, lies, and
>plagiarism, and it hasn't changed a damn bit. It never will. You're one of
>the apparently endless number of fools who can't or refuse to see this.
>
>Software in general, but especially OS software, is at LEAST 10 years behind
>where it would have been if not for Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, et al, and
>their utterly evil willingness to stifle any and all competition illegally
>while investing next to nothing in improving their own products.
>
>This is not conjecture. It is not bitter spewing from a Microsoft hater.
>It is fact. It has been proven. It is reality.
Exactly.
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:56:50 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >If you can have 3 times the performance for the same price, seems quite
> >compelling to me.
>
> ...certainly. It's not your data on the line.
Well, if one solution is operating at peak power and the other one is at 33%
to do the same task, the reliabilty of the second one is likely to better
than the first one, anti-Microsoft bias aside, of course.
You may wave hands all you like, but the NT toy seems quite competitive next
to the 'real' OSes.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 13:02:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> This is good coming from a pro-Windows site! *HOW* long did it take MS
>> to finally release Windows 2000 (formerly NT 5?) How long did it take
>> them to release Windows 95? None of these products were on time.
> That's the whole point of his post...
>> I say - let the Linux kernel developers get it right, and if you really
>> need it so much then install the pre-release kernels for 2.4
> Again, the same point... it's *OK* when Linux is way late because they're
> "getting it right", but it's laughable when Microsoft is late when they're
> "getting it right". Why the double standard?
Because microsoft DIDNT "get it right".
>> Mozilla, well that's a different story...
> <laf>
> It's funny, even without worries about money, time constraints,
> being profitable, etc, Netscape still can't release a decent product.
Mozilla has nothing to do with netscape, except that netscape coders keep
stealing mozilla milestones that they didnt work on at all and calling them
"netscape 6 betas".
> Is it still Microsoft's fault, as you guys like to say?
You still dont get it, chad. The problem isnt with microsoft making shit; they
make some excellent software, and they make some shit software, and cost seems
to have nothing to do with whether something is one or the other.
The problem is that winvocates (like dresden and yourself) can see no fault
in microsoft at all, and continually sing the praises of the SHIT, while there
are people who actually, objectively know what theyre talking about (who are
not always linux fans, if youd notice) who KNOW that youre full of shit.
As with the continued claims, insinuations and illusions about the W2K platform
being the absolute best database/webserver in the entire world.
People in the know, know that that is entirely false.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 13:04:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology)
>>
>> This one always irritates me, the Windows people say it about Linux, and the
> Linux
>> people say it about Windows.
> Well, the Linux people seem to not understand the difference between
> Win9x and WinNT/2K (which only further proves my theme that Linvocates seem to
> have not much clue about the state of the rest of the computing industry).
> WinNT/2K is not based on DOS. Period. DOS (cmd.exe) in NT is merely a tiny
> subsystem for compatibility, just like POSIX subsystem and the OS/2 subsystem.
Actually, the POSIX subsystem and OS/2 subsystem dont work at all. Oh sure, theyre
there for certification sake, but they dont actually do anything.
=====.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:05:00 GMT
[cut some groups]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
>> Hard to clone -- make due to lack of understanding from not reading
>> the docs.
> Yes, the WINE developers, and everyone else who has tried to clone
> Windows, are just stupid and can't read. The alternative explanations
> are obvious, but just simply _can't_ be true, I guess.
And I guess it bears pointing out that Microsoft doesn't do such a
great job of cloning the API themselves - at least I've run into
several incompatibilities between Win9x and NT.
But it helps that application programmers test their products on both
families (but generally not on Wine).
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:05:10 GMT
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:BewE5.28074$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > dc wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
> > > > > >TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
> > > > > >seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
> > > > > >gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
> > > > > >Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
> > > > > >sending you messages about updates you need.
> > > > >
> > > > > Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm... how about they dont go around invading
> > > > people's privacy to see what is and isnt
> > > > running on their systems? Even better huh?
> > >
> >
> > <SNIP: Me talking about something different>
> >
> > Sorry, I got mixed up and though you were talking about
> > the Windows Update, which has been the topic of previous
> > threads.
> >
> > What exact privacy problems are you referring to?
> >
> > -Chad
<SNIP: false claims about NetBIOS leaving the port open>
On Windows 2000, right click on "My Network Places",
Properties.
Right click on your LAN connection, Properties.
Uncheck "Client for Microsoft Networks"
Dbl-Click on Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), Advanced, WINS
tab, select "Disable NetBIOS over TCP/IP".
Hit OK a few times to go back to the desktop.
Go to another box (of any OS) and telnet (Win2K box) 139
Your connection will be refused. No NetBIOS problem.
You lie Dolly. Please stick to the truth.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:06:29 GMT
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad,
>
> We;ve installed tons of Win9X and NT boxes all with
> that stupid checkbox disabled... the earlier
> versions a simple portscan would reveal NetBIOS
> bound to port 139 anyway. The newer versions still
> bind it but hide it better.
>
> Try my little test yourself if you dont believe
> me.
As I've demonstrated before...
If you disable the workstation service, WINS, and
uncheck NetBIOS over TCP/IP in Windows NT 4.0,
port 139 (TCP and UDP) will no longer be open.
Period. You lie. Please give it up.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 11:07:10 -0200
>>>>> "Chad" == Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chad> Again, the same point... it's *OK* when Linux is way late
Chad> because they're "getting it right", but it's laughable when
Chad> Microsoft is late when they're "getting it right". Why the
Chad> double standard?
It is not a double standard. We *really* believe linux hackers to be
trying to make it right. When Microsoft is late, we believe they are
just trying to make their product start up. Win 95 was delayed and yet
it was still full of bugs, wasn't it?
Chad> It's funny, even without worries about money, time
Chad> constraints, being profitable, etc, Netscape still can't
Chad> release a decent product.
That is true. Netscape us laughable.
Chad> Is it still Microsoft's fault, as you guys like to say?
I don't think so. I think Mozilla's hackers are to be blamed. Of
course, they had to work with horrible existing code, but they were
supposed to be a lot better by now.
regards,
-- Roberto.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:07:47 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39e2a8ff$0$5851$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On another off topic note... guess what database/commerce
> > solution manged to get C2 security? IBM's. MS has applied,
> > but like their last attempt at C2 with NT, they will fail.
> > YES, MS failed in the C2 rating for NT on a network, so
> > they reapplied with no network card or modem to get the
> > bogus rating they weasled out which is of course useless
> > in the real world).
> >
>
> Guess which database solution managed to get C2 security? MS SQL 2000
> Guess what rating NT4 has ON a network: C2
>
> You were wrong 2 outta 2 times.
There are no 2 major issues in which Dolly is either completely
misinformed, uncapable of comprehending common facts, or just
flat out lies.
Either way, he's *PL0NK*ed. I suggest you do the same Drestin.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 11:11:11 -0200
>>>>> "Chad" == Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chad> Well, the Linux people seem to not understand the difference
Chad> between Win9x and WinNT/2K (which only further proves my
Chad> theme that Linvocates seem to have not much clue about the
Chad> state of the rest of the computing industry).
Really? I think I know the difference between Win9x and WinNT.
Chad> WinNT/2K is not based on DOS. Period. DOS (cmd.exe) in NT is
Chad> merely a tiny subsystem for compatibility, just like POSIX
Chad> subsystem and the OS/2 subsystem.
Ok, WinNT/2000 is *not* based on DOS. I know that.
Chad> Linux, however, is almost entirely based on it's Unix
Chad> predecessors (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Linux is
Chad> somewhat reminiscent of Win9x (yes, I know Linux has a
Chad> better kernel, etc that's not my point). Win9x is hack upon
Chad> a hack upon a hack upon an old 16-bit non-multitasking
Chad> OS. By way of comparison, Linux is a hack upon a hack upon a
Chad> hack upon a 30 year old archaic OS that has none of the
Chad> features of a modern OS. Linux should just be called the
Chad> Unix modernization project. Except all it does is add more
Chad> instability and more inconsistency.
That's where you are wrong. Linux was *not* based on any existing
code. Linux was coded from scratch. It is surely not a hack upon a
hack as you state.
Linux is unstable you say? Coming from someone defending Windows, that
is to laugh.
regards,
-- Roberto.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:10:54 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> There are alot of companies which make enormous machines that are fully
> >> capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely away.
>
> > But they haven't?
>
> You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096 processor
> mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
>
> No, really.
Spare me the sarcasm. Please answer the question. Why hasn't IBM
enterered their top-o'-the-line into the TPC race and annihilated the
competition? What reason would they have not to?
It's simple logic, there should be a simple answer. What is it?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 06:12:22 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:43:18 -0400, "David T. Johnson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.sys.mac.advocacy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Marty wrote:
> >>
> >> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Marty wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Marty wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > [repetitive comments snipped]
> >> > >
> >> > > Sorry David, you lose.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I have certainly lost in the name-calling category.
> >>
> >> Not even close. I lost too many points in that category for supporting my
> >> claims with examples and facts.
> >
> >Typical nonsensical, illogical gibberish. 'Not even close' has no
> >meaning in the context used. No indication of what 'losing points'
> >refers to and why 'losing points' is relevant to the discussion. No
> >indication of why your alleged supporting of claims with examples and
> >facts is relevant to the name-calling you have repeatedly indulged in.
> >
> >>
> >> > Congratulations.
> >>
> >> To you.
> >
> >Illogical as the congratulations were for you for winning the
> >name-calling competition. You have called me a "hypocrite," "liar,"
> >"mime," "troll," "club president," and "Net Cop" while also also
> >accusing me of "mudslinging" and claiming that I had a "hard-on" for
> >Wenham. In contrast, I have only called you a 'liar' and a
> >'hypocrite.' Clearly, you win and are deserving of the
> >congratulations.
> >
> >>
> >> > > Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
> >> > >
> >> > > "[repetitive comments snipped]"
> >>
> >> Note: no response, and the hypocrisy continues.
> >
> >Interesting that you expect to see a response to your imperative.
> >Apparently, even you realize the absurdity of the comment that your
> >statement makes. No surprise there.
>
> David, fetch me a beer, please.
Precisely the point.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:16:57 GMT
"Andrew Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > You mentioned that Linux was pretty stable as long as
> > you didn't enter XWindows (which is correct).
> >
> > I was attempting to say "so what have you gained then?".
> >
> > Linux is a really stable beefy version of DOS, essentially?
> > heh
> >
> > Command-lines are at their most useful when they compliment
> > a good GUI. Maximum productivity is acheived, despite what
> > the Linvocates would argue to make themselves seem more
> > important.
> >
> > If I want cmd-line that doesn't crash much, I could
> > use DOS too, so what have I gained besides having a little
> > bit better hardware support?
>
> Would you run a server using DOS?
Of course not. It was a joke =) I realize that Linux can do many
more things from a command-line than DOS. It was just a dig into
Linux about not having a decent GUI.
> I don't see why a [ firewall | router | web server | file server |
> etc... ] would be any more useful with a GUI running...
Well, firewalls can be pretty tricky to configure, especially if you
have ISKAMP or IPSEC tunnels running all around, different network
entity definitions with various rules on various interfaces, various
inbound connections being routed all over kingdom come... I've seen
several firewalls both with GUI and with cmd-line or text file based
configurations and the GUI ones are far easier and quicker to configure
and it's easier to see rules and routes that are no longer needed to
keep your ship tight. There are obvious advantages in using GUI to
configure a firewall.
Router? Well, there would be benefits, but it's an acceptable level
of difficulty configuring a router in the CLI.
Web Server? Again, Microsoft's Internet Services Manager is very good
in this regards. The GUI configuration makes it easy, straight forward
and quick.
FileServer... yes, of course. This is why even the Samba team have a
GUI configurator to their software because it has become so complex.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:18:59 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rv445$utm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology)
> >>
> >> This one always irritates me, the Windows people say it about Linux, and
the
> > Linux
> >> people say it about Windows.
>
> > Well, the Linux people seem to not understand the difference between
> > Win9x and WinNT/2K (which only further proves my theme that Linvocates seem
to
> > have not much clue about the state of the rest of the computing industry).
>
> > WinNT/2K is not based on DOS. Period. DOS (cmd.exe) in NT is merely a tiny
> > subsystem for compatibility, just like POSIX subsystem and the OS/2
subsystem.
>
> Actually, the POSIX subsystem and OS/2 subsystem dont work at all. Oh sure,
theyre
> there for certification sake, but they dont actually do anything.
You can run most of the GNU utilities with the POSIX subsystem and you can
run most OS/2 2.x applications with the OS/2 subsystem (which is what it was
designed for).
IIRC the POSIX version in NT 4 and also Win2K is something like 1.2. There
are updated POSIX subsystems for NT/2K from 3rd parties and even from
Microsoft in their Services For Unix.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:21:09 GMT
"Roberto Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Chad" == Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Chad> Well, the Linux people seem to not understand the difference
> Chad> between Win9x and WinNT/2K (which only further proves my
> Chad> theme that Linvocates seem to have not much clue about the
> Chad> state of the rest of the computing industry).
>
> Really? I think I know the difference between Win9x and WinNT.
Unfortunately, many don't, it seems as they seem to bash NT/2K for
the (obvious) faults in Win9x.
> Chad> Linux, however, is almost entirely based on it's Unix
> Chad> predecessors (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). Linux is
> Chad> somewhat reminiscent of Win9x (yes, I know Linux has a
> Chad> better kernel, etc that's not my point). Win9x is hack upon
> Chad> a hack upon a hack upon an old 16-bit non-multitasking
> Chad> OS. By way of comparison, Linux is a hack upon a hack upon a
> Chad> hack upon a 30 year old archaic OS that has none of the
> Chad> features of a modern OS. Linux should just be called the
> Chad> Unix modernization project. Except all it does is add more
> Chad> instability and more inconsistency.
>
> That's where you are wrong. Linux was *not* based on any existing
> code. Linux was coded from scratch. It is surely not a hack upon a
> hack as you state.
Then why is it 90% the same as other Unixes in form and function?
Whether or not they coded it from the scratch or not is irrelevant
if they coded it to be compliant and identical with Unix.
> Linux is unstable you say? Coming from someone defending Windows, that
> is to laugh.
Actually, it's not. Win2K is way more stable than Linux. FUDsters like
to bash NT for stability and then claim that Linux is stable, which in
and of itself is a joke.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:21:48 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rv41n$utm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Again, the same point... it's *OK* when Linux is way late because they're
> > "getting it right", but it's laughable when Microsoft is late when they're
> > "getting it right". Why the double standard?
>
> Because microsoft DIDNT "get it right".
Of course they did. What basis for this claim do you have?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 11:27:54 -0200
>>>>> "Chad" == Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chad> Unfortunately, many don't, it seems as they seem to bash
Chad> NT/2K for the (obvious) faults in Win9x.
I won't. Windows NT has its own set of problems.
Chad> Then why is it 90% the same as other Unixes in form and
Chad> function?
It is a concept called "compatibility". Not a very familiar term for
the Windows platform.
Chad> Whether or not they coded it from the scratch or not is
Chad> irrelevant if they coded it to be compliant and identical
Chad> with Unix.
Yes, that is true. And that is *very* good.
Chad> Actually, it's not. Win2K is way more stable than
Chad> Linux. FUDsters like to bash NT for stability and then claim
Chad> that Linux is stable, which in and of itself is a joke.
I used to work for a Microsoft Solution Provider so I cannot be called
a FUDster/basher. I really _used_ Windows NT (and I used to say it was
good BTW). I *know* how horrible it is to support a WinNT
net. Sometimes a printer would simply stop working for no reason. The
only way to make it work again was restarting the server.
Sometimes the network was simply to damn slow to work in. What could
we do? Restart the server and everything would be all right. This is
not a stable operating system, my friend.
regards,
-- Roberto.
Chad> -Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
