Linux-Advocacy Digest #605, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (dc)
Re: The Power of the Future! (dc)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dc <[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 16:12:14 -0500
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:49:09 -0700, Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> >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.
Come again?
>> >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.
Run ReiserFS or any other JFS for Linux, if that's an issue. Easily
done.
>> >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.
Absolute nonsense. Either do it in LinuxConf (which handles the
restart of the network daemon) or restart the network daemon manually.
BeOS works essentially the same way when it asks you to restart
networking after a change.
>> >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.
"locate" always seemed to work for me....what does the DB-derived FS
give me over that?
------------------------------
From: dc <[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 16:14:26 -0500
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:21:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>ctrl-alt + or - (or something like) that changes screen res under
>Linux.
>
>
>Can't get much easier than that.
>
>claire
It has been my experience you can change the -resolution-, but the
viewing window size remains the same.
>
>On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:25:53 -0500, dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
------------------------------
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 07:26:41 +1000
"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:21:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >ctrl-alt + or - (or something like) that changes screen res under
> >Linux.
> >
> >
> >Can't get much easier than that.
> >
> >claire
>
> It has been my experience you can change the -resolution-, but the
> viewing window size remains the same.
Depends on whether you have virtual desktops (or whatever they call them)
enabled.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:28:07 -0700
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:484F5.75270$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s2bm5$osf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9TWE5.65867$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If not for that fortunate fact, that code would never have been
> > > discovered, and you would have been saying that Microsoft would NEVER
> have
> > > done something like that. And no one could have proved you wrong. As
> it
> > > is, you're probably going to say "so what? Ancient history."
> > >
> > > So, when did the Microsoft leapord change its spots?
> >
> > Hey, I have a knife in my kitchen drawer at home. At any time, just by
> > bringing it out, I could have used it against somebody.
> >
> > The important thing, however, is that I did not.
> >
> > Simon
> >
>
> Microsoft *did* use it against DRI (as well as Korean DOS and who knows
what
> else). They did it in the beta version, which is what the press was
> reporting on at that time, of course. "Preview of New Windows Version!"
> You know the types of articles that get written up in the trade mags.
No I don't. Could you send me some reviews of Windows from the time so that
I can see first-hand what the damage was? I'd like to say that I trusted you
to do your research on this, but I can't.
> Microsoft's scheme (illegal, by the way) had the desired effect of
> generating false reports that the new Windows would not run on DR DOS.
The reports, please. Not just rhetoric. I want to read the reports with my
own two eyes. And those reports had better say something bad about DR DOS,
or you're just blowing smoke.
Simon
------------------------------
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:42:04 -0400
Marty wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" 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.
>
> More repetition of your inappropriate catch-phrase, but at least you offer an
> explanation this time...
>
> > 'Not even close' has no meaning in the context used.
>
> The context was a loss on your part (presumably in an infantile game of some
> sort). "Not even close" refers to your call on who "lost" this "game". It
> applies perfectly well, as I go on to explain how such a game, had it existed,
> would have been won by yourself.
The context was your post in which you said 'Sorry David, you lose' to
which I replied 'Well, I have certainly lost in the name-calling
category.' The infantile game was your creation and thought. You did
not explain what the game was or how the winner was determined. I
defined the name-calling category and supported my claim that you won
(which you seem unable to accept).
>
> > No indication of what 'losing points' refers to and why 'losing points'
> > is relevant to the discussion.
>
> Take that up with the person who brought it up. Here's the relevant quote:
> DTJ] Well, I have certainly lost in the name-calling category.
I did not define a point system that you continue to refer to.
>
> > No indication of why your alleged supporting of claims with examples
>
> Nothing "alleged" about them. I've reproduced them more than once, in fact.
> Would you like me to reproduce them again so you can feel more comfortable
> with and certain of their existence?
You are changing the subject to 'alleged supporting' rather than the
'relevance of your alleged supporting of claims to the name-calling that
you have done.'
>
> > and facts is relevant to the name-calling you have repeatedly indulged in.
>
> "Namecalling" implies that this is all that was done. I have applied labels
> to your behavior appropriately and explained how such labels were appropriate,
> in much the same way as a scientist classifies a new life form based on its
> traits.
Your scientific work would not meet the tests applied to such efforts,
Doctor. 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. The only
one of these insulting names which you have ever even bothered to
reference with a specific example that I could defend myself against was
"troll" for which the example you used was this comment I made:
"Probably Wenham will be hugely impressed by the capabilities of this
OS/2 software and will soon post here with his new enthusiasm. Heh,
heh."
This would not meet any normal person's definition of a troll comment,
even if they were unfamiliar with the context which supported my usage.
>
>
> > > > Congratulations.
> > >
> > > To you.
> >
> > Illogical as the congratulations were for you for winning the
> > name-calling competition.
>
> This from the person who just said:
> DTJ] No indication of what 'losing points' refers to and why 'losing
> DTJ] points' is relevant to the discussion.
The point system is your creation and you have not defined it as I
mentioned.
>
> > You have called me a "hypocrite,"
>
> And I explained why.
Without any evidence, however.
>
> > "liar,"
>
> And I explained why.
With a further lack of evidence
>
> > "mime,"
>
> And I explained why.
With not only a complete lack of evidence but also without even a
rudimentary explanation other than to say your were especially proud of
your usage of the term.
>
> > "troll,"
>
> And I explained why.
Your evidence and explanation did not support your conclusion but this
was clearly your best effort.
>
> > "club president,"
>
> And I explained why.
You used the term without an explanation, example, or meaning as I
pointed out.
>
> > and "Net Cop"
>
> And I explained why.
You used the term without an explanation, example, or meaning as I
pointed out. Your reply to me was nothing but a sneer.
>
> And all of this explanation was removed by you without a single response to
> it.
There was nothing of substance to remove.
>
> > while also also accusing me
>
> "Typical nonsensical, illogical gibberish."
This expression was only used with specific examples provided. In most
cases, I attempted to describe the nonsensical nature of the comment.
>
> How ironic.
>
> > of "mudslinging"
>
> And I explained why.
You failed to provide an explanation, only to accuse me of 'widening' my
net of 'mudslinging' in response to a comment that did not even include
'mud.'
>
> > and claiming that I had a "hard-on" for Wenham.
>
> And I explained how the metaphor applied.
Not that you ever bothered to post.
>
> > In contrast, I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
>
> Without any justification.
Actually, I provided specific examples of each of these with an
explanation of how each applied.
>
> > Clearly, you win and are deserving of the congratulations.
>
> Thanks for admitting that I've won the argument. Now move on with your life.
There was no argument for you to win. All there are are your repeated
insults and name-calling directed to me by you in response to posts that
I made to other people that you disagreed with. Your posts fall into a
typical pattern of combining name-calling and insults with weak or
nonexistent logic incorporated in claims of "evidence" for your
name-calling. Other than your name-calling and insults, I have yet to
actually see you express an opinion regarding any of the topics you have
posted on: 1) the thread falsely claiming that Dr. Tholen was insane,
2) the Wenham pattern of inflammatory posts, and 3) the extended threads
on non-COOA topics such as politics and economics. The entire thrust of
your posts over the last week seems to be personal attacks. The only
contest that existed that could be "won" that I can see was one of
name-calling for which I have awarded you the victory as I mentioned.
It is puzzling that you are so reluctant to claim the crown for an
activity that you have pursued so vigorously for over a week.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> It was wishful thinking, admittedly. I could not have realisitically expected
> you to stop being a hypocrite nor grow up on my command. Point taken.
Actually, you apparently miss the point. If I told you to:
Stop beating your wife
that statement would include implications (that you have a wife and that
you are beating her) that may not be true and that you could therefore
not comply with, assuming that you even wished to.
>
> > Apparently, even you realize the absurdity of the comment that your
> > statement makes.
>
> Apparently you're suffering from reading comprehension problems again.
Your comment contradicts the comment you made a few lines earlier in
which you said 'point taken' (erroneously, however, as I noted.)
>
> > No surprise there.
>
> Likewise.
Likewise.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 11 Oct 2000 16:52:08 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> No wonder you absolutely fucking REFUSE to reveal your name.
Poor baby.
**Again**, let me leave you with a quote from your own .sig:
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> > <snip>
> >
> > > G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 16:56:04 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s1qj7$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > > news:8rtqq8$1lap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >> >> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you.
> > IBM's
> >> > 4096
> >> > > >> >> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a
candle
> > to
> >> > W2K
> >> > > >> >> running on 32 processors.
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> Yep.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > Then why hasn't IBM entered this beast into the running and
nuked
> >> > > >> > all the competition?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Because its not a "web solution", though it can be used as such.
> >> > >
> >> > > > TPC doesn't meter "web solution"s, it meters transactions for all
> >> > > > sorts of things. Namely, financial transactions, manufacturing
> >> > transactions,
> >> > > > just about any type of transactional processing etc. What exactly
do
> >> > these
> >> > > > beasts do if they do not process anything? Granted some due
science
> >> > > > and mathematical calculations, but is that all? Why would
> > transactional
> >> > > > processing metrics not apply to them.
> >> > >
> >> > > >> 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.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps it could. But has it yet? Does IBM have a 4096 processor
machine
> > up
> >> > and running and able to actually perform a benchmark so we can
compare
> > it to
> >> > something useful? I mean, if IBM has this killer rig out there - why
> > don't
> >> > they fire up a TPC score and completely utterly blow both MS and
compaq
> > (and
> >> > sun) so far outta the water that we'll all just cringe at the mere
> > mention
> >> > of it's name (which you've never stated, by the way).
> >> >
> >>
> >> ASCI White. Developed and built in the building next to where I work.
> >>
> >> http://www.llnl.gov/asci/platforms/white/
> >>
> >> It was delivered a couple of months ago.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
>
> > That is VERY cool Gary - even the picture is sweet!! :)
>
> > (there is a picture of the Compaq cluster than set the new TPC-C record
in
> > e-week this week but it pales in comparison).
>
> > And I see it's 8192, not 4096 processors....
>
> I wasnt talking about an ASCII series machine, dresden. IBM makes a
couple of
> very high end hunks of hardware.
I wasn't talking to you.
>
> > I never doubted there is
> > hardware better/faster/bigger than this compaq cluster - but not as
> > abracadabra was presenting it and certainly not tested in this fashion.
I'll
> > look forward to more from IBM...
>
> You'll never see it. The ASCII series has been around for a number of
years;
> AFAIK the S/* series alot longer. They have never been put to any of your
> tests. They dont need to be; the sorts of people that buy them arent
interested.
I love it: "We here at IBM have machines SO powerful you don't even need to
test them or have our claims independently verified. You don't need to know
how we compare to others. We say it's good and we charge you good enough so,
damnit, don't use your own brain, just trust us, give us your money. We say
it's great! Honest! No, REALLY it is. Testing? Bah! Benchmarks? Who needs
them? We're IBM - we can't do anything wrong..."
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 16:59:05 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s1qbu$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8s01oc$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
>
> > No - I just don't care for the comparison. I don't see the value anymore
of
> > a large, expensive, monolithic uni-server solution any more in todays
> > models.
>
> >>
> >> > 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.
>
> > Again... if the choice is SOOoooOooOoo obvious - Google must be pathetic
> > idiots not to take the simple route then eh? I'm sure it's not easier to
> > manage thousands of linux boxes intead of one pretty shiny IBM?
>
> Its alot harder actually, but they had already bought into that
architecture
> in an extreme way; there would have been an enormous non-hardware related
> cost to switch.
Gee, you mean like moving from BSD and Solaris to W2K ala Hotmail - now...
lesse, why was it they had to wait and it took some time? Funny how you
can't make that connection when it's good for MS but when it saves unix it's
OK?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 17:03:05 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s1qff$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8s01jh$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
>
> > oh yeah, THAT makes sense. "We are SO good that we don't even have to
prove
> > it." I'm sure that's the kind of smart marketing that assumes that
everyone
> > else is "smart" enough to ignore published results and just *magically*
...
> > know... that an IBM solution is faster/better than anything else
because..
> > well... just because.
>
> I'm sorry dresden, is there a direct competitor with the ASCII series?
>
> Please let me know who they are.
Oh, I see - so you create a machine which has no competition - therefore it
must of course be the very best in it's class. Nothing can touch it in it's
class. It's the ultimate in it's class. Great! except... what if something
in a different class performs better on the same task? i.e., "The best
compact car in it's class" vs "The 3rd best sports car in it's class" - now,
which of these do you think is going to win on the skip pad or acceleration
or in top speed?
or are you trying to claim that these are the best computers in the world.
bar none. Is that your claim?
------------------------------
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: 11 Oct 2000 17:05:07 -0500
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "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.
> >
>
>
> No - see you missed the whole point. In
> May 1998, they were pretending the
> migration was near done. It was later
> announced that such had not worked and
> that HotMail was running Solaris and BSD
> with forays into re-attempting usage of
> NT (specifically the new W2K). And
> that was from announcements 2 years later.
No, you are simply wrong. They NEVER pretended anything in May 1998. it was
NEVER announced that it never worked because they never tried in the first
place! You fail to document ANY of your lies.
------------------------------
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: 11 Oct 2000 17:06:06 -0500
"joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> MS uses Solaris.
> They do becasue windows was and is a PC class OS from a shrink wrap
software
> company.
>
MS itself (microsoft.com) does not use Solaris - hotmail's application
server does. Oh, and Solaris is shrink wrap software too putz.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
