Linux-Advocacy Digest #736, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year (Goldhammer)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! ("Otto")
Why Linux is great. (mlw)
[OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad Myers")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Astroturfing ("Chad Myers")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! (Mike Coleman)
Re: Astroturfing (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:01:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >features based on resources -- that means engineering cost, QA,
>> >documentation, tech support. Sierra On-Line allocates features based on
>> >resources -- that means engineering cost, QA, documentation, cost of
>goods,
>> >tech support et al. Would you care to name some software companies that
>> >don't do this kind of cost/benefit analysis when they're looking at doing
>> >feature work? I've already named two that *do*.
>>
>> All of them might think they do. It just goes to show how entirely
>> disfunctional the software industry has become because there is a
>> monopoly preventing free market competition. In real business, you're
>> supposed to figure out what sells the most, not take it for granted how
>> much you can sell based on whether it will intrude on Microsoft's turf.
>> ;-)
>
>How does running your business in a bottom-line manner "intrude on
>Microsoft's turf"???
Ask Microsoft. Or anyone they've attacked.
>In a real business, as you said, you're supposed to figure out what sells
>the most. That means that you're supposed to maximize your profit. That
>means that you implement features based on how much they cost. Do you
>understand?
Yes. A monopoly is not, therefore, a 'real business'. A monopoly
implements everything based on how much it will prevent competition from
threatening their monopoly.
[...]
>> So you are aware you have no argument, and no support for your position,
>> I presume? You can deny gravity, too; that doesn't make it reasonable.
>> Nor is denying the mountain of evidence which proves quite convincingly
>> that Microsoft has monopolized.
>
>We'll see at the end of the court case, Max. Until then YOU have no argument
>either.
Actually, until they YOU have no argument. You see how that works;
you're the one denying the mountain of evidence, fantasizing that it
will all dry up and blow away for some reason, which you are unable to
describe.
[...]
>> >Wrong. Microsoft has to certify its software's ability to do certain
>things.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does?
>
>Ok, it doesn't have to. But if it does, it can cut costs and help reduce
>consumer confusion and complaints. So it does. Most software companies put a
>system requirements list on their boxes. This is to reduce tech support
>costs, and reduce customer confusion.
The system requirements are defined by the developer, not Microsoft.
The only thing that MS has any need for 'certification' of is to pretend
that they are providing some technical validity to support allowing the
vendor to use the Windows trademark. Now, if 'designed for Windows'
meant it wouldn't have problems with Windows, you might have some small
itty-bitty point. But since Windows itself has problems with Windows,
you're just blowing hot air.
[...]
>> Who's talking hardware? We're talking about software compatibility.
>
>Same thing. You certify that it has been tested on a given system. Which
>means that you can reduce costs if people run it on uncertified systems by
>not supporting them. This is done industry-wide, with everything from Dell
>to Microsoft to pretty much any other company.
In that case, I'd expect that Microsoft would never 'certify' anything
at all, hardware *or* software, since they seem hell-bent on ensuring
that they never have to support any of their customers. Check your
license; it costs MS 0$, whether it works or doesn't, because they don't
support it.
>> >I didn't claim that no-one desired compatibility. I stated that if the
>> >desire for compatibility doesn't outweigh the cost, then the extra work
>> >won't be done.
>>
>> IOW, you tried to use a tautology as a logical argument.
>
>No, I didn't.
Yes, you did. You stated that if it is not cost-effective, then it will
be not cost-effective. This 'delusional position' of yours which holds
Microsoft harmless, despite their monopolization, seems based on the
rather simplistic idea you have that business is a question of waiting
until after something happens, and then second-guessing why it occurred.
No, software vendors do not have the pleasure of enjoying omniscience
concerning what will or will not cost them money in the future. They
certainly try to minimize their costs; that is obvious. But what you
fail to address is the question of whether monopolizing with crapware
has anything to do with economic principles. In fact, its very easy to
make money, when you are willing to break the law to do it.
[...]
>> >If it will sell enough copies of the software to recoup the
>> >costs, then the work will be done. Capice?
>>
>> So omniscience is a prerequisite for commerce, is that what you're
>> saying? Or is it just control of the market, prices, and competition?
>
>No, you run focus groups. Market surveys. Talk to your potential customers.
>Talk to your current customers. This is how most business is done in the
>real world. There's no use spending millions of dollars developing something
>that people don't want -- so you do your homework first.
And then you cross your fingers. You seem to be under the delusion that
doing these things ensures your product will be a market success. If
that were true, then free enterprise would not work, since there would
be no risk.
>Show me a company
>that doesn't, and I'll show you one that's either just got a SHITLOAD of VC
>funding and needs a way to blow it, or one that'll be out of business very
>soon.
No, they're generally just lucky. Or at least that's what you'd call it
when you tried to explain in retrospect what was successful and what was
not. In the real world, you make the best product you can, set the
price, and see if it sells. Everything else is just MBAs playing CYA,
and has little to do with production or markets.
>> >If enough people want that
>> >compatibility, they'll vote their their checkbook, and it'll be put in -- or
>> >the company in question won't be able to sell that software.
>>
>> So first they pay for it, and then later on it gets developed; is that
>> what you're saying? Boy, supply and demand must be really easy to
>> figure out when you're omniscient, or you've got your customer base
>> locked-in to a monopoly.
>
>No -- they vote with their checkbook. They *don't* pay for it, the company
>goes back and says "oops, we screwed up", and adds the functionality that
>they *will* pay for.
>
>Stop being so facetious, Max.
As soon as you stop defending illegal business practices through
intentional ignorance, I will be more than happy to stop being
facetious.
[...]
>> >They won't have any customers if they rip them off. Cause and effect.
>>
>> You mistake 'customers' for victims of a monopoly. Lock-in and
>> predation.
>
>So let's see: if a company rips off customers, then the customers are
>victims of a monopoly?
No; if customers are victims of a monopoly, they are being ripped off.
You see how that works? The key is that your 'won't have any customers'
is only a valid presumption in a free market. This is the basis of what
the Supreme Court calls "the rule of reason". If you're ripping your
customer's off, and you still have customers, then reason indicates that
you are monopolizing.
>So this is why the company I work for does everything I've stated above.
No, they do everything you've stated above because they're clueless
morons who want to make money without having any idea what makes a
superior product.
>Wow. I didn't know we were trying to get a MONOPOLY! Cool! That'd be like so
>neat.
Well, illegal anyway.
>We could lock them in and feed upon them. Thanks for the idea, Max!
Yea, right; like the software company you work for hasn't already been
doing this. Sure; I'll believe that when you prove it to me.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:00:57 GMT
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:01:44 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It's not very far off. (Isn't 'bc' wonderful? :-) )
>
Hey, if you like bc, you should check out Pari-GP. Really
kicks ass.
--
Mike Smith:<8cu6md$7pn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:08:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Is that the point? To demand proof over and over until finally your
>opponent gets so tired of providing proof that he quits?
>
>jwb
SHHH! We don't want them to know we've caught on....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:21:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >Nope. It has to be Lotus -- because everyone always quotes "DOS Ain't
>Done
>> >Till Lotus Won't Run", and it's being used as a keystone for an argument
>> >here.
>>
>> What a straw man. Its rather telling that you have to take a casual
>> remark and pretend it is 'a keystone for an argument'.
>
>Well, look, I said that they use brute force when necessary to get a product
>out and working. You returned with "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" --
>so was it the keystone for your argument or not?
No, it was a comment. The keystone(s) of my argument can be found here:
http://www.brillscontent.com/features/bill_0998.html
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html
http://www4.bluemountain.com/home/ImportantNotice.html?020399
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>Do you have any proof for that claim? Or are you just spreading fud?
It seems you have no understanding whatsoever of what the term 'fud'
means.
If you're asking do I have evidence that there actually was such a
mantra used at Microsoft, the answer is no; nobody does. You can call
it a myth, if you wish, but the point is that even if it is untrue, the
fact that it was widely believed at the time is indicative of
Microsoft's predatory tactics, as is the substantial amount of evidence
that this is, indeed, the way they develop their crapware (see links
above.)
>> Oh, did they? And 'futzed' means "in a way MS could screw over when
>> they wanted to promote their Media Player", I guess. How fortunate for
>> Microsoft; boy, they sure do know how to compete (not).
>
>No; it means that they didn't use the standard, fully-documented mechanisms
>for registering their file types in Internet Explorer and Netscape -- IIRC,
>they just added a plugin, but didn't back it up with mime-type registration.
Yes, I know; they did it the way Microsoft does it, not the Microsoft
Way which MS wants everyone else to do. MS was able to catch them on a
technicality, so that people such as yourself could, until the end of
time, insist that it was there fault that MS broke their software.
>Everyone else's worked. On independent analysis, RealPlayer had not
>correctly written their installer. So how is this Microsoft's fault?
>
>If you're trying to claim that it IS Microsoft's fault, you've got a pretty
>damn weak argument.
No, I just don't have the evidence you would like to see. The case
itself is rather strong. Consider Win98ME, which did for Real what
Win98 originally did for Netscape. The very fact that the OS developer
insists so strongly that the fault is the application developer is
indicative of the fact that MS does not market a competitive OS, but
merely defends a predatory monopoly. IYRC, a browser plug-in has
nothing to do with a file system association, which is what Real set up
and what MS tromped on, because they could. You are trying to blame
someone else because of Microsoft's predatory development.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
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, 18 Oct 2000 19:34:25 -0700
Sorry Max... I've gotten bored of your games.
Bye.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:12:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:44:45 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >
: >Snip...
: >
: >: >Even with that, you're right, it isn't terribly taxing. I just happen
to
: >: >like Windows installation routine, setup.exe for most of the programs,
: >: >install.exe for others. That has nothing to do with being
"indoctrinated
: >: >into", it's just personal preference.
: >:
: >: Sure it does. You only tolerate one way of doing things regardless
: >: of how featureful or easy any other method is. Things must all be
: >: a clone of WinDOS.
: >
: >Did you ever think about that maybe the Windows way IS easier and people
:
: Merely wondering about it doesn't make it so. Also, the mere
: fact that people have been indoctrinated to use it is why it
: may seem artificially easier. This is in contrast to someone
: for whom the current WinDOS incarnation represents the 4th or
: 5th GUI they've been exposed to.
One step vs. many and you still say that "may seem artificially easier". You
based that on what fact, your preferences? There people with other
preferences, even if they had seen 4-5 different GUIs.
:
: >might not need additional feature? You call them "indoctrinated into", I
:
: ...steered in one and only one direction.
One can be steered if one wants to go into that direction. It's all about
choices.
:
: This is distinct from having a pool of available candidates and
: having a situation where there is some viable opportunity for
: individual choice.
:
: Did you ever think that just MAYBE WinDOS isn't the optimal
: choice but is tolerated merely because people are used to it.
Did you ever think that it might be the optimal choice for many people?
People do not tolerate it, they want it.
:
: >call them practical. Just to get a program running on a system,
regardless
: >of the actual OS, a single file should be sufficient enough. Computers
:
: This does not describe WinDOS.
:
: >suppose to make life easier, not harder. If developers, admins, etc, want
to
: >play around with libraries and other features, that's fine. They should
not
: >try to push it on everage users as "it is as easy as setting up programs
: >under Windows", because it isn't.
:
: However, people aren't being "punished". That is the big lie.
: Source is quite tolerant when it comes to dependencies and
: binaries that have binary constraints have them for a reason
: and not merely to torture fools.
Most people don't want to know about source and dependencies. Other people
enjoy it, but it doesn't mean that everybody should use it.
: >The question is, does people need all of the scalability what Sun can
: >provide all the times? Not to mention the fact that you didn't define the
:
: Even single, uni-processor and relatively small servers aren't
: necessarily priceperformance competitive just because they're
: running an el-cheapo intel architecture.
Oh, you mean that if it is cheap then it can't be good? So much for the free
Linux then....
:
: Once you get beyond that, Intel lags quite quickly.
That explains why Intel hardware is faster in certain areas than Sun's
hardware.
:
: Plus, Intels start to loose their "price edge".
They do, don't they :). You've got to be kidding...
:
: Plus, the top to bottom support options just aren't there.
Really?
:
: Given the ongoing need for such systems that are more than
: what you just replace with an old pentium running linux in
: a closet somewhere: IBM, HP and Sun are in no immediate
: danger of becoming irrelevant.
Sun does, then again... anything is better than Linux running on an old
Pentium.
:
: >level of scalability. Are you talking about the enterprise level
machines,
: >or something less than that?
: >
: >: Sun hardware isn't standing still either. It's undergoing another
: >: rev both in terms of marketing numbers (cpu mhz) and bus bandwidth.
: >
: >Sun has been standing still for awhile now and just like Novell, too
little
: >too late.
:
: The intel architecture has yet to catch up to previous
: shipping Sun hardware at this point. The sorts of comments
: that you hurl really mean considerably less than you would
: have people believe.
And that suppose to make someone believe that Sun box is faster than Intel
box, when it comes to crypto math calculation, right?
: Besides, Sun hasn't been standing still at all.
You are correct, it's been going down....
Otto
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why Linux is great.
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:17:59 -0400
I hate when the seeming majority of messages are either defending Linux
against some idiotic press release, or a dialog initiated by a troll.
Lets talk about why Linux is great, and a pleasure to use.
A typical Linux distribution, out of the box, has 95% of anything anyone
(that's ANYONE!) would want to do with a computer.
Depending on your needs, there is a high likelihood that Linux will do
what you want better, faster, more reliably, and more socially
responsible than Windows any release.
I have a friend that is self employed as a word processor, she uses
Linux, as she puts it, her "time is worth money."
I have relative that uses linux to serve web pages out of his house
using Linux.
I know a couple companies using linux as a development environment.
I know (as a witness) a few major companies that use Linux.
I personally use Linux.
Windows may have some cool eye candy, but lets face it, when all is said
and done, you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish, if you are
willing to pay the price of instability, vendor lock, and
price/performance penalty for Windows, enjoy. If what you want to
accomplish can be done with Linux, you will find that it will be more
reliable and more economically viable than ANY Windows solution.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:16:03 GMT
www.taxclarity.com
Check it out. It objectively compares the two tax plans.
You plug in your numbers and it tells you what you will
save with each plan.
There is a $700 descrepency for me personally between
Bush's plan and Gore's plan. Most of this comes from
not getting a specific credit under Gore's plan because
I don't live in a two-earner home.
I guess if I live my life the way Gore and the liberals
want, I get the benefits, otherwise, they steal $700
from me?
Election day should be April 16. We'd get much more people
out to vote and get much better results at the poll.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:17:56 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
>
> That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
>
> Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
>
> Microsoft doesn't even have the IA64 working!
They don't? What world are you living on?
Win2K and whistler both have been demonstrated numerous times.
A cursory search on Google will return the results. There are
numerous press statements on Microsoft's press site about the
events complete with links to news agencies covering the
events.
> Microsoft is NOT keeping up with technology!
At least they can detect RAM in every PC out there. Linux
can't seem to do this on even a small number of them.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:23:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:40:00 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:UQ8H5.11324$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> I was asked to install a kick-around Linux box on an extra box we had
> >> to test our java SDK on something other than Windows.
> >>
> >> Basic RH 6.2 install... didn't detect hardly anything.
> >>
> >> Intel 810-chipset, one of the most ubiquitos chipsets around... couldn't
> >> detect sound, video, UDMA, RAM, nothing.
>
> ...yet it managed to catch my Voodoo3 and my Matrox G400.
Which is a testament to Linux's desparity and inconsistency.
In other words, if you have mainstream hardware, you're probably ok,
if you happen to have an odd-ball component, you're SOL because they
drivers won't get made unless some developer feels its worthy of
developing.
This is unfortunate too, because many business desktops are 810
(like the one I used and most of the ones in my office on the
non-developer machines).
If Linux ever hopes to take over the desktop, hardware ubiquity
will be hurdle #1 to overcome.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:51:17 GMT
Gardiner Family wrote:
> look at the marketing machine of Microsoft, blantant lies and manipulation of
> the facts. Microsoft can't even release a program that is not being exploited
> by script kiddies, remember the lovebug? The perfect example of when the
> marketing and PR machine take over the places of programmers resulting in
> crapping, third rate products such as Windows ME/98/95 and the biggest joke
> Windows 2000 Pro, mega bloatware, both memory and harddisk space. I am not
> anti-microsoft, I am anti-sloppy programming, if microsoft said to
> programmers, "write Windows 2000 pro so that it takes as little space up as
> possible (say 200MB), uses only 16MB ram
See embedded NT.
> and the BSD kernel as the heart of
> the os
Sure. And be just like the UNIX crowd? I think not. The NT Kernel has
advantages over the Linux or BSD or Mach kernels.
> ", this could be done, it would be just a matter of efficient
> programming.
It is a matter of efficient programming. And scalable programming. And it's
here today and easy enough for even most home users to take advantage of.
> If this was done I would be more than happy to go out and pay
> even $600 for it, however, until that day comes, MS will never be technically
> superior, only their marketing think tank has the advantage over Linux.
Say I could show that you can install Windows 2000 in less than 200MB and that
you can make it run in 16MB. Would you relax your position on the BSD kernel?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
From: Mike Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:52:58 GMT
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The industry started out with Unix and along came NT beating the crap out of
> the "xNIX". When the 64-bit version of NT becomes available sometimes in the
> next year, it'll be lights out for the "xNIX". All of the "real
> professionals" will be flipping burgers somewhere and they can keep
> wondering about what hit them.
I'd rather flip burgers in hell than aid and abet in Redmond.
--Mike
--
[O]ne of the features of the Internet [...] is that small groups of people can
greatly disturb large organizations. --Charles C. Mann
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 03:54:28 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In the bookstores the new books have "MCSP" Microsoft Certified
> > > > Solutions Provider or Microsoft Certified Software Professional,
> "MCDBA"
> > > > Microsoft Certified Data Base Administrator, "MSNA" Microsoft
> Certified
> > > > Network Administrator. The older books still show MSCE. But it doesn't
> > > > matter much what MS says. Just don't call yourself an Engineer on your
> > > > business card if you go into consulting.
> > >
> > > MCSP is a different certification than MCSE. MCSP is a certificaiton
> for
> > > management if I recall correctly, while the MSNA is limited only to
> > > networking versus Windows support, etc...
>
> > MCSP is being used on the programming language books that used to show
> > MCSE. i.e VB, VC++. Perhaps its just a marketing thing to get people to
> > pay more money for 4 letters of the alphabet.
>
> MCSE is a hardware and networking certification. It has nothing to do with
> programming. That's the MCSD (Microsoft Certified Solution Developer) and
> has been in existance for at least 5 years.
>
> An MCP is a Certified Professional, and is sort of a catch-all. Anyone that
> has any MS certification (or has completed at least one test) is an MCP, but
> you have to complete specific tests for specific certifications.
I forgot Microsoft Certified Solution Developer, to go along with
Microsoft Certified Solution Provider. What is the exact difference?
MCSD, MCSP, MCSP, MCSE, MCDBA, MCSA, any more? What hardware does an
MCSE cover? How to use a mouse?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
