Linux-Advocacy Digest #581, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("Chad")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~! (JoeX1029)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Chad")
Re: CROSSPOST Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Jim)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:25:06 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:10:02 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande�
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ><SNIP> Part where Jedi admits that the toy OS cluster more than matches
the
> >'real' OS single servers </SNIP>
> >
> >> Where is the single NT based server that can do 160K TPM?
> >
> >No where to be seen.
> >
> >Where is the real OS cluster that puts out more than 500K TPM ?
>
> Just partition your data.
>
Gee - I wonder why IBM or Sun didn't do that when they lost? I guess you are
smarter than all of IBM and Sun - silly then not thinking to partition their
data so they could effortless beat MS/Compaq... IBM had to drop AIX and run
W2K to get their 2nd place score but their inferiour DB held them back.
Perhaps we'll next see IBM running SQL 2000 on that same hardware and
perhaps then, yes, they'll beat the MS/Compaq solution. But that hasn't
happened yet so... until then :P
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:26:03 GMT
"John Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charlie Ebert
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The ones which went into Mars at 62 degree angles were W2k equipped.
> > >
> > > I'd like to see documentation that the OS onboard that spacecraft
> > > wasW2k. I do not believe it.
> > >
> > > The official reason was that one processor talked in m/s while another
> > > processor talked in ft/s. OOps.
> >
> > I believe the operative phrase here is "D'oh!"
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Hey, how does the mouse work in zero G?
Hmm.. I would imagine it would function quite normally. Perhaps
you'd have to have a bigger mouse ball to keep it from floating
around inside the chamber.
I would think trackballs would work just fine, as would the
little finger pointers (IBM thinkpad-types) or touchpads.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:26:10 -0500
"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >How do you know?
>
> 110 lines so that you can ask "How do you know?" How do you know
> what?
>
I asked (if you read any of the 110 lines) how does he know Yahoo uses BSD
(or any OS) ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 21:26:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro=
te:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:27:00 +0200, =3D?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=3D=
A9?=3D
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message news:
>> >8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>> >Take that strawman ! And that ! And that !
>> >
>> >Now that the strawman has been thoroughly thrashed, will you agree tha=
t
> your
>> >"Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching IBM =
in
> any
>> >way, shape or form." was a little overenthusiastic ?
>>
>> Show us the single Compaq that can manage 160K TPM.
>>
>> [deletia]
> Your point? I didn't even look to see if there were but... so? Would you
> prefer putting all your eggs in one basket or, as most do, enjoy the saf=
ety
> of clusters?
Oh I see. It doesnt MATTER that ibm kicks compaq's ass in this arena,
because no one would want to buy ibm machines in the first place because
they all fit in one basket.
Or something.
I'm not entirely sure that even dresden understands what his last point wa=
s.
(and btw, he would have known that 160K TPMs can be sourced in clustered=20
environments if he knew anything at all about ibm's product line; this is=20
proof positive that hes been lying; he indeed does not)
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 21:27:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:10:54 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >
>> >"." <[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?
>>
>> Perhaps their marketing department is a bit more sophisticated
>> than that.
> I don't consider that more sophisticated, I think it's stupid. If it WERE
> such a thing that was "below" IBM - they wouldn't have entered at all
> (instead of several 100 times) and certainly wouldn't have spent $millions
> to achieve 1st place (now second).
>> Perhaps they know that this consumer grade sort of
>> stinginess is less prevalent amongst customers willing to spend
>> 6 or 7 figures on computing solutions.
> I think that is very unlikely. If someone can spend a low 8 figures and
> smoke the pants off someone in the higher 8 figures - there is a difference.
>>
>> Perhaps they don't find any reason to worry about being "outdone"
>> by massively clustered solutions.
> Perhaps they should be worried if bottom lines mean anything to anyone at
> IBM sales..
Perhaps they know that they are the only competitors in the market in which
the machines in question exist.
Idiot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 10 Oct 2000 16:28:13 -0500
"Dan Howard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Drestin,
>
> If she's refereing to the fact that a hacker can easilly use any share
> on windows if you have netbui installed, check this link:
>
> www.grc.com
>
thanks Dan... I know steve's site well. It's actually not if you have netbui
but if you have windows shares and your sharing is bound to TCP/IP - the
nearly effortless 100% solution to this problem is to unbind Microsoft File
& Printer sharing from TCP/IP - bingo, problem solved better than a
firewall.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 21:29:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> So, again: where is Compaq's machine that can do 160TPM?
> So, again: who cares?
Apparantly you only care about performance up to and including the very top
of compaq's product line.
> Do we say: "Ah, Google with Linux is so pathetic, they
> have to use clusters! ahahhaha." then add: "Show me the single linux box
> that can run Google"?
An IBM S/390 64x64. Theyve even got cool light up blue stripes down the side.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~!
Date: 10 Oct 2000 21:30:40 GMT
>Note: Has anybody tried doing this?
>
> Take a Windows 9x computer with a dial-up modem and a Network card. Dial
>up a free service and run one of the many Win-Proxy programs out there (also
>comes with Win98) and then connect your Linux box to the Network card for
>free access.
>-MLH
Dude sweet idea. Never tried (never thought abou it!) Im gonna try that.
I'll tell ya if it works
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:31:10 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:54:11 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande�
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >I'll include comp.sys.ms-windows.nt.advocacy since it may be of interest to
> >them.
> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> ...all real world experience aside as well.
> >
> >You have examples of Win2K failures while dealing with databases ?
>
> Sure. However they're all covered by NDA's.
Uh-huh... sure.
>
> >
> >> >You may wave hands all you like, but the NT toy seems quite competitive
> >next
> >> >to the 'real' OSes.
> >>
> >> ...except for that little catch about possibly needing to
> >> change the structure of the data.
> >
> >That what makes NT a toy OS ?
>
> Sure. Unix and AS/400's actually can support enough hardware
> in a single machine to run in the tpc-c top 10 without the
> need to indulge in loosely coupled clustering.
At a significantly higher price. The key is not to throw
unlimited amounts of money at the problem (processing as many
transactions as possible as fast as possible), but rather to
do as much as you can with as little cost as possible.
Windows 2000/Compaq/SQL2K achieve this goal as it tops both
the Price/Performance and the Performance category with the
lowest prices of all the contenders.
> >
> >> The fact remains that the only systems in the tpc-c top ten
> >> that require clustering to get there are the Windows boxes.
> >
> >What prevents the real OSes vendors to cluster their mighty boxes ? In
>
> Considering that the data is right there in black and white
> on the "top of the pops" chart, there really isn't any need
> to. Any professional with some semblance of objectivity can
> clearly see the whole picture once they start drilling down.
>
> >price/performance and top perfomance, they are currently thoroughly
> >embarassed by this little toy OS. All your twisting, turning and squirming
> >won't change that simple cold fact.
>
> What's to be embarrassed about?
>
> Compaq still doesn't have a machine that will do 160K TPM.
>
> This is true no matter how much you lemmings squirm.
That's not the point though. They can build high performance
boxes for a drastically reduced cost thus allowing clustering
and much high performance and scalability for far less than
a giganta mega Big Iron box that costs 3-4x as much.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Jim<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: CROSSPOST Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:31:39 -0400
Reply-To: Someone who gives a damn
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:37:21 +0000, in comp.sys.mac.advocacy,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] took a break from surfing the porno sites
and said:
>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.
Make that two, and wash your hands, first.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 10 Oct 2000 16:34:20 -0500
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the application
itself
> > has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year is out.
>
> www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2610894,00.html
Yes, that link just verifies what I already said. Thank you.
>
>
> Here's a far older message that MS keeps changing the
> date on and revamping...
> www.microsoft.com/ntserver/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp
Hmm... the date is STILL May 1, 1998 - just like it was when they first
posted it on... May 1, 1998. The text is the same as it was then too. In
fact, it needs to be updated to reflect the change to W2K.
>
>
> If you do a web search on Google, you'll
> find much older earlier versions of
> the same statement (the latest seems to be where
> someone got your scalability better than Solaris
> statement).
I did and did not find any such thing. Had you, which I doubt, then I think
you would have done yourself and us a big favor and posted those links. But
you didn't. How about prove to me that you are not making this up and
actually post some? Funny how even though I use Google all the time I've
NEVER seen it offer up multiple cached older versions of current pages...
hmm... how do you do this again??
>
>
> Odd, huh? Oh - an earlier one already stated the
> transition was in progress for a full transition.
And you can see this where???
>
> There's also an MSNBC link that suddenly doesnt
> exist - ooops, guess MS was upset about that
> article. You can find a link to it through
> google still. Just not the page... pulled
> the whole story and didnt even redirect to
> their fancy page not found message - just a simple
> 404 error.
Oh, but that page magically WASN'T cached by google (unlike the others you
mention above but no one else can find either).
Sorry - you have presented NO proof whatsoever to support ANY of your claims
and did provide proof to support one of mine.
Huh?
Hotmail.com is running W2K and IIS (instead of BSD and Apache as it used
to) - the main application is currently running on Solaris ... it is being
rewritten (not ported, to be most accurate) for ASP+ right now but won't be
migrated to until it's done AND ASP+ is released.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:34:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donal K. Fellows
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 10 Oct 2000 10:25:41 GMT
<8ruqr5$9jf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> What metric would you use to measure "explanatory power"?
>> Cubit meters of hot air per hour? :-)
>
>Kilograms of bullshit per second? (You'd have to standardise the
>temperature and pressure of the hot air with your suggestion. :^)
*grin*
Yeah, but it might depend on the runniness of the stool, too. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random absolutely disgusting picture here
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[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 21:34:52 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:06:29 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"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.
>
> No, you just proved his point. You amply demonstrated
> that NT is "broken as delivered" and that you have to
> know what is broken and how to fix it.
Considering no one has been able to demonstrate this
supposed NetBIOS exploit, then how is it broken?
Most Linux distros ship with a exploitable copy
of Sendmail, or wuftp, or any number of open
holes. So then we can, by your logic, assume that
Linux is "broken as delivered" and has no security
like was insinuated by Dolly?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 21:36:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro=
te:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:10:02 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande=A9
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message news:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> ><SNIP> Part where Jedi admits that the toy OS cluster more than matche=
s
> the
>> >'real' OS single servers </SNIP>
>> >
>> >> Where is the single NT based server that can do 160K TPM?
>> >
>> >No where to be seen.
>> >
>> >Where is the real OS cluster that puts out more than 500K TPM ?
>>
>> Just partition your data.
>>
> Gee - I wonder why IBM or Sun didn't do that when they lost? I guess you=
are
> smarter than all of IBM and Sun - silly then not thinking to partition t=
heir
> data so they could effortless beat MS/Compaq... IBM had to drop AIX and =
run
> W2K=20
Ummm...
Its an intel platform, dresden. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 10 Oct 2000 16:37:19 -0500
"Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rvoft$nc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39e2aab3$0$5789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> >
> >W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the application
itself
> >has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year is out.
> >
>
> I berated somebody for making an inference about Hotmail's poor
> performance lately but now I guess maybe I was wrong. I rarely deal with
> Hotmail addresses but of late the few I've dealt with took 3-4 hours to
> receive mail that I sent. I guess corporate decision making doesn't take
> into account that if something ain't broke, don't fix it.
I'm not certain I got this right so if I'm wrong forgive me. Are you saying
that hotmail is slower now that it's on W2K than before? and when you/I say
slower here you mean in the time to deliver mail?
If that is so then I think you don't realize that you have further
reenforced the nickname for Solaris "slowaris" because it's the Solaris
portion of Hotmail that handles the actual routing/delivery of mail - NOT
the W2K/IIS front end server pool.
yes, i would agree that the reason they are fixing the hotmail application
is because solaris cannot scale well enough to handle the loads hotmail
generates.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:38:31 GMT
No...wasting my time responding to your twisted rhetoric gives me a
headache.
SuSE is in business to make money.
People work towards wealth.
All the Open Sores philosophy in the world won't change the fact that
SuSE and RH and Corel etc want to make money off Linux.
In COrel's case they were looking toward Linux to save them from sure
death. Ironic that Microsoft stepped in and did that.
If you feel otherwise, write SuSE a letter and tell them to send their
net profit to charity and give away their complete products for free.
And BTW you haven't proven me wrong on one single point.
claire
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:10:25 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:44:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Back into the killfile with you..
>
> The truth pains you, doesn't it.
>
> You never established that Suse is infact targeting the market
> in question. The fact that they are growing or helping perpetuate
> Linux in and of itself does not demonstrate that they are claiming
> that Linux is ready for the desktop, trying to compete with Microsoft
> on the desktop, claim that Linux is ready for HA, or are trying to
> compete with Sun or IBM in HA.
>
> Also, since Billy-boy wants to own everything: the mere fact that
> someone might be trying to "take profits" from Megalosoft doesn't
> in any way give you any clue what market is the one in question.
>
> Eventually, Proctor&Gamble will be trying to steal marketshare
> from Microsoft.
>
>>
>>claire
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:24:01 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:44:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>So SuSE has offices in God knows how many countries just out of the
>>>>goodness of their heart and the spreading of that joy we all know as
>>>>Linux?
>>>
>>> Neither of your assertions have any relation to the point
>>> you are attempting to prove.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's all about money and making the real big money means taking market
>>>>share from Microsoft on the desktop.
>>>>
>>>>claire
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:29:01 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:57:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>It seems to matter to the folks that think they are going to make a
>>>>>>fortune off Linux, Like Redhat, SuSE etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, the sorts of things your talking about have little
>>>>> to no relevance to Suse. They're more relevant to the likes
>>>>> of SGI or IBM.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you honestly believe they are not trying to take market share away
>>>>>>from Windows?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your head is up your *** if you do..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>claire
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:12:48 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
>>>>>>Warkus) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It was the Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:15:47 GMT...
>>>>>>>...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> And if it doesn't get it's ass in gear it will remain a niche' system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And nobody gives a damn about whether it will or won't except for a
>>>>>>>certain sad git without a real name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mawa
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:38:58 GMT
I know that.
claire
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:17:46 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> But there is no more DOS to boot into afaik.
>> Of course Windows runs on top of DOS, I assumed I didn't have to
>> mention that.
>
>It is there is is just that MS is trying to hide it. Just because you
>think you see it, does not mean that it isn't there.
>
>
>>
>> claire
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:29:13 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> You seem to have a fixation on Notepad?
>> >> MSDOS is dead...
>> >
>> >I think you should rethink this statement in that Windows ME still boots
>> >DOS first.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 10 Oct 2000 16:39:04 -0500
"Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
news:5azE5.125728$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
<snip well written reply>
> My position exactly!!! Keep it up but realize that to beat the opponent
you
> must ARGUE better not only have the best position. Many campaigns have
been
> lost by better opponents with lesser debate skills.
>
Thank you for your time and reply Mike. I have taken your comments to heart.
db
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
