Linux-Advocacy Digest #600, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Josiah Fizer)
Re: The Power of the Future! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (dc)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:53:38 -0300
El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Simon Cooke escribi�:
>"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:00101113570904.10021@pc03...
>> El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Simon Cooke escribi�:
>> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:vSPE5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:8rtf3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > 3) Notepad is a trivial windows application. (Defined as an
>> >> > > application a good Windows programmer could complete in a week or
>> >> > > two).
>>
>> [snip about how two weeks is way overkill]
>>
>> >And then there's printing, which takes the other 3 days (most people
>[99%]
>> >haven't done printing support, and it'll take them that long to get it
>> >right).
>>
>> Well, if you were using linux, how long would it take to write a system()
>that
>> calls a2ps with custom arguments? ;-)
>
>Not very long at all.
>
>Now, if you're using Linux, how long does it take you to convert your
>X-Windows graphics display code to a postscript rendered so that you can do
>complex work?
No time at all. QPrinter inherits QPainter. Ok, I will have to add page jumps
and such.
>In Windows, you can use the same code that you used to display it onscreen.
>It's only the really bog-standard simple case that doesn't have an easy way
>to do it. Which means you've got to spend 2 days working on it.
Same thing. No 2 days.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:49:36 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s218v$i2f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <FzjE5.27898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As the server or client? The Client is designed to run on Windows CE
> > handheld devices. It would fly on a P133. It barely uses any
> > resources on a modern PIII. It uses about 3.8KB of RAM.
>
> That memory figure is deeply disingenuous as it omits a load of stuff
> that is in the client's GUI layer. If it's not an utter joke it must
> be using encrypted and authenticated comms too, and you'd be hard
> pressed to put that into that space. It probably doesn't cope with
> architectures with different endian-ness either, but in your current
> delusory state you'd claim that as a *feature*.
Shall I post a screenshot of it's memory usage?
The MS TSC runs on all windows and there is a client for CE.
Citrix provides clients for almost every major platform, and
what platforms aren't covered are covered through a Java browser client.
I happen to be running the TSC in 1280x1024 mode right now which is
using 5K or RAM. The 3.8K number I was quoting was running at 1024x768
mode.
Why are simple facts so hard for you to accept?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:49:09 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dc wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:49:24 GMT, Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> >> incapable of.
> >
> >"Conceptually" is nothing but code for "it could do it someday if
> >someone writes the program". Let's look at some simple things I can do
> >in BeOS that I can't do in Linux as of today.
> >
> >1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
> >rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>
> An annoying issue with Linux, no doubt.
>
You can also have multipul virtual desktops within BeOS each running in a
diferent res and bit depth.
>
> >2) I can fill the root partition to 100% and not be totally f*&$ed.
>
> No experience with this.
>
The nasty part is that by default you are limited in the size you can make
the root slice with Linux.
>
> >3) I can flip the power switch off and not have to sit through a long
> >fsck reboot (or possible crash).
>
> How stable is the BeFS? What happens when you crash during a write to
> that write operation and the few before it? What happens to the files
> committed for writing?
>
Journalized file system. If a file is opened for edit but not closed it is
regressed to the last known good file after a crash.
>
> >4) I can set my network settings with the click of a button. Exact
> >sequence was: Menu, Preferences, Networking - clicked DHCP. Restarted
> >networking server (not OS). 3 clicks and 2 mouseovers - no typing.
> >Bing - I'm surfing.
>
> Linux can do this too.
>
Not for me. I had to restart the OS after switching to DHCP inorder for it
to work. BeOS can change the network settings without rebooting.
>
> >5) I can search through my filesystem without using "find" (but I can
> >if I want to).
>
> Huh? Linux has nice searching features; what's the problem?
BeOS BFS is a journalized / data base derived file system that allows you to
perform SQL like queries. Linux has nothing like that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:50:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, joseph
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:02:05 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that the average newbie installing Linux tends to take
>> the Install Everything selection so as not to miss anything, and this
>> typically starts up all kinds of services that leaves her wide open to
>> attack.
>
>Well, Red Hat 6.2 has an install is conservative and doesn't
>even enable ftp for the workstation.
>
>Generally speaking, any system on a network is vulnerable to
>sucessful attacks.
Well, we don't exactly have to worry too much about the
unsuccessful ones, do we? :-)
(Although it's clear that if there *is* a successful attack, the
unsuccessful attacks may show that a successful one exists.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:48:47 -0500
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:30:02 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> >> incapable of.
>
> > 1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
> > rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>
> CTRL-ALT-[Plus/Minus key] can be used to switch resolutions in XFree
> on the fly on all platforms.
That changes the viewport size, which isn't quite the same thing.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:59:44 -0300
El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Josiah Fizer escribi�:
>dc wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:49:24 GMT, Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
>> >> incapable of.
>> >
>> >"Conceptually" is nothing but code for "it could do it someday if
>> >someone writes the program". Let's look at some simple things I can do
>> >in BeOS that I can't do in Linux as of today.
>> >
>> >1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
>> >rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
>>
>> An annoying issue with Linux, no doubt.
>>
>
>You can also have multipul virtual desktops within BeOS each running in a
>diferent res and bit depth.
I can do that on Linux, too. Except that copy&paste between desktops doesn't
work (but I bet a workaround can be produced....)
>> >3) I can flip the power switch off and not have to sit through a long
>> >fsck reboot (or possible crash).
>>
>> How stable is the BeFS? What happens when you crash during a write to
>> that write operation and the few before it? What happens to the files
>> committed for writing?
>>
>
>Journalized file system. If a file is opened for edit but not closed it is
>regressed to the last known good file after a crash.
How is it better than ReiserFS in that respect?
>> >4) I can set my network settings with the click of a button. Exact
>> >sequence was: Menu, Preferences, Networking - clicked DHCP. Restarted
>> >networking server (not OS). 3 clicks and 2 mouseovers - no typing.
>> >Bing - I'm surfing.
>>
>> Linux can do this too.
>>
>
>Not for me. I had to restart the OS after switching to DHCP inorder for it
>to work. BeOS can change the network settings without rebooting.
You were probably doing it wrong. In the worst case, a "/etc/rc.d/init.d/network
restart" does the exact same thing as rebooting about networking.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:02:17 -0300
El mi�, 11 oct 2000, Chad Myers escribi�:
>"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8s218v$i2f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <FzjE5.27898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > As the server or client? The Client is designed to run on Windows CE
>> > handheld devices. It would fly on a P133. It barely uses any
>> > resources on a modern PIII. It uses about 3.8KB of RAM.
>>
>> That memory figure is deeply disingenuous as it omits a load of stuff
>> that is in the client's GUI layer. If it's not an utter joke it must
>> be using encrypted and authenticated comms too, and you'd be hard
>> pressed to put that into that space. It probably doesn't cope with
>> architectures with different endian-ness either, but in your current
>> delusory state you'd claim that as a *feature*.
>
>Shall I post a screenshot of it's memory usage?
>
>The MS TSC runs on all windows and there is a client for CE.
>
>Citrix provides clients for almost every major platform, and
>what platforms aren't covered are covered through a Java browser client.
>
>I happen to be running the TSC in 1280x1024 mode right now which is
>using 5K or RAM. The 3.8K number I was quoting was running at 1024x768
>mode.
That is silly. It must be using (or making other subsystem use) over 1MB of RAM
(more likely 3MB). Or else, where is the picture stored?
>Why are simple facts so hard for you to accept?
This particular fact looks pretty weird.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 05:04:35 +1000
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paul 'Z' Ewande�
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:02:25 +0200
> <8s1rc6$bqt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > Can Linux run pre 386 apps ?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> I have just played a game of `Alley Cat' (remember that?) from dosemu
> >> under linux. It's not perfect, but it's certainly an 8086 game IIRC.
> >>
> >> Also, since most Linux stuff is OSS, pre 386 apps could be recompiled.
> >
> >Yes, but the thing is that 8086 DOS apps run under Win9x without
> >recompilation, since Jedi was criticizing the backwards bending Win9x
pull
> >developers through.
>
> Dunno if it's 8086 or 80286, but I know of at least one game that
> I have yet to get work on Win95 -- namely, "Delta V".
> Its main claim to fame is that it requires 600K of conventional
> memory.
Sounds like Falcon 3.0 (614k conventional, if you want it with sound). I'm
willing to bet Falcon 3.0 sold more copies of QEMM and DOS 6.0 than their
respective marketing departments could ever have dreamed possible.
Heck, I'm surprised they didn't bundle QEMM with it. There was a whole
booklet in the Falcon 3.0 box dedicated to explaining how to tune your
system to get that much conventional memory free.
Then again, a lot of games in the dying days of DOS started to require
stupid amounts of conventional memory, usually to the point where you'd need
special boot disks or configs - one for normal work and one (or a few) for
games.
> (You heard that right folks! :-) )
>
> I don't have Win98, Win2K, or WinMe at home to test it. (Win2K might
> run it under some sort of emulation -- if it works at all.)
Win2k won't, I can almost guarantee.
Win95, booted to DOS with enough fiddling might be able to get that much
free, but you'd need quite a bit of experience in the voodoo of DOS memory
management (most of which I have certainly forgotten :).
DOS 5.0 and 6.0 certainly would, if you can locate copies.
> I haven't tried it under dosemu. It's a CD-ROM game -- an old one.
> I could try to boot into DOS mode, but I doubt it would work any better
> there.
It would. Booting DOS 5.0 or 6.0 with DOSEMU might help you as well.
> (I have something even older -- a Stargate clone that runs on CGA,
> off a floppy that has to be booted into, Last time I tried to run *that*,
> it ran, but so ridiculously fast one can't see anything. :-) )
Gotta love those old games :).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:57:10 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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!
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> >> No one has supported you that I've seen. No I don't agree. AMD never fabbed
>Intel
> >> chips with the Intel brand. Period.
>
> >
>http://x66.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=679539628.3&CONTEXT=971283837.539295811&hitnum=9
>
> > Guess I am right. There was another post corroborating
> > my statement... and soon a pic or two when I get
> > around to developing and scanning one.
>
> It's a corroborative statement, but it also does not include any
> proof, references or reasons to consider Rex as an authority. Rex
> could also be mistaken.
>
> It would be best to produce that picture, but even then it's value
> would only be equal to how this newsgroup sees your integrity. You
> _could_ doctor the picture.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
>
> P.S. I would not be surprised if AMD did manufacture chips with the
> Intel brand in the past, I've even spent several hours searching for
> evidence ever since you claimed it. But I haven't found any such
> evidence, even from non-authorative sources.
How about pulling apart an old 286 or so. Check the
keyboard controller and (less likely but possible)
the CPU. Also some printers have intel chips that
were fabbed by AMD. Notably some old IBM/Lexmark
systems. Also some keyboards (inside the keyboard
themselves) have control chips also Intel designs
and copyrights, but made by AMD.
Soon as the pics get back I will post them, but
in the meantime, dig around, sure you'll find one
or two if you have as much old hardware lying
around as I do in my basement.
Dolly
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:53:39 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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!
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Dolly" == Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> > http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no3/guide/1259-1.html
>
> > Really? This clearly states that DB2 has it, that
> > NT only has it if not networked and that SQL
> > Server (MS) has applied for it but not gotten it.
>
> > So - time to eat your words. :-)
>
> No, he can leave his words on the plate for a little longer while you
> pay more attention to publishing dates and learn how to read your own
> favorite publications.
>
> The article you cite is dated February 7, 2000 and names MS SQL 7.0
> as a product still being evaluated. Drestin named MS SQL 2000 as the
> product which has a C2 rating. As this October 2nd report from your
> own favored source shows:
>
> http://www.gcn.com/vol19_no29/news/3049-1.html
>
> "SQL Server 2000 is the first Microsoft Corp. database management
> system to be certified at the C2 security level through the
> government's Trust Technology Assessment Program."
>
> Clearly, while Drestin specifically named MS SQL 2000, you want to
> hold him to the values of an earlier product.
>
> And finally, the article you cite does /NOT/ say that NT only has C2
> level security "if not networked." Your idea of "clearly states" is
> wrong.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
Which does not apply to Windows 2K which was the combination
discussed... only to NT4 with SP6 on... what... 4 different
server models with very limited configuration. Far from
what he or MS is touting it as, making it seem like
the certification extends to W2K - which it does not.
Dolly
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:54:35 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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!
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Dolly wrote:
>
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ah yes... MS says they will stop doing something.
> > > > They dont. MS lies and says they did stop. They
> > > > didnt. MS finally publicly admits they never did,
> > > > and the answer is... "ooh, just turn it off" by which
> > > > I presume you mean the machine - good answer for
> > > > a server... and since if you install TCPIP and NOT
> > > > NetBIOS, it still installs NetBIOS code that is
> > > > hard-coded into the stack I know it's not NetBIOS
> > > > you mean I should turn off.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Dolly - we have all challenged you - respond please: Document this NetBIOS
> > > vulnerability you are talking about. I say it doesn't exist and challenge
> > > you to prove your silly claim. DO it or shut up.
> >
> > Damn - I think I already provided a DOZEN websites
> > that indicate the vulnerability - a number of which
> > state that it's installed irregardless of whether
> > NetBIOS is bound to TCPIP.
>
> You have not. You've only stated your opinion. No point.
You didnt see a single link I posted? Should I fire
up Deja again? THEY seem to have archived them. Perhaps
it's just you need a better news server since you seem
to be missing so many posts.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 05:09:43 +1000
"Daniel Berger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s2970$kf5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> > incapable of.
>
> "Conceptually" is nothing but code for "it could do it someday if
> someone writes the program". Let's look at some simple things I can do
> in BeOS that I can't do in Linux as of today.
I'm not much of a Linux advocate (in this context), but...
>
> 1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
> rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
Ctrl+Alt+[+ or -] will increase or decrease resolution, respectively. What
it can't do without restarting the X Server is change bit depth.
> 2) I can fill the root partition to 100% and not be totally f*&$ed.
Why would you be totally f*&$ed in Linux but not in BeOS ?
> 3) I can flip the power switch off and not have to sit through a long
> fsck reboot (or possible crash).
Linux too - ReiserFS (no, it's not the default, but it's definitely worth
the time to install, and it's not particularly difficult).
> 4) I can set my network settings with the click of a button. Exact
> sequence was: Menu, Preferences, Networking - clicked DHCP. Restarted
> networking server (not OS). 3 clicks and 2 mouseovers - no typing.
> Bing - I'm surfing.
Linuxconf. Not the world's most intuitive interface, but it'll do that for
you.
> 5) I can search through my filesystem without using "find" (but I can
> if I want to).
There's a few "friendly" search tools for Linux - they all use find/slocate
under the surface, but they look nice and they're a lot easier to use :).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:03:11 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rvoft$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.
Do you know what the odd thing is? UUNet uses Solaris, and
at one time had ONE server handling mail - 4 as of 1.5
years ago.... and with 4 it was very fast. The server
handled mail for UUNet, WorldCom, and a large variety
of other customers.
UUNet also does all of MSN's backbone and dialins.
Guess what OS does all the computer back end for
that? Solaris. They flat out told MS no when the contract
was set up (re: using NT - for anything).
Seems to scale quite well, huh?
Dolly
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:04:48 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s2d4l$atv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > (You heard that right folks! :-) )
> >
> > I don't have Win98, Win2K, or WinMe at home to test it. (Win2K might
> > run it under some sort of emulation -- if it works at all.)
>
> Win2k won't, I can almost guarantee.
Actually, you might be suprised. NT 4.0 definately wouldn't have because
most of the "newer" DOS games used DOS4GW which, for obvious reasons,
wouldn't work in NT. However, I noticed that DOS4GW magically works in
Win2K (no doubt some obvious trickery in the NTVDM to make DOS4GW think
it's doing its job).
-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
******************************
