Linux-Advocacy Digest #743, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me ("MH")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Harry Lewis)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (chrisv)
Re: How to detect sensors using gameport?
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (chrisv)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Joseph Dalton)
Re: Linus position in "Power List" ("ne...")
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Andrew J. Perrin)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why I do use Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Nick Condon)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Nick Condon)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:15:26 -0400
I found the analogy reasonable, and an amusing aside as well. Of course,
everyone has a different sense of humor. I wasn't calling anyone that,
obviously. By simply stating that if someone uses credentials as weight for
arguing a position by way of those credentials, said credentials should be
tangibly verifiable, that's all. If you had told the prospective GF you had
a big...she'd probably think you were an idiot, and if she did take you up
on your claim you better damn well be ready to back it up~! Usenet's
anonymity provides a very easy means by which to make yourself something
you're not. I'm not saying "you're not", not at all. I'm not trying to flame
or inflame. But, having said that, I don't believe that stating an
unverifiable credential ancillary to an encountered situation for means of
disproving a position is a good way to make your point. I state what I
experience, nothing more, nothing less. If someone chooses not to believe
me, so be it. But I'm not going to say "I've done blah blah, and worked at
blah blah, and I saw blah blah" because these things are more often than not
never backed up. And, in some cases, impossible to do so. So I don't argue
from that position on Usenet. In my daily life? Sure. I'm there, they
usually know me if I'm having a discussion along the lines of linux on the
desktop, yay or nay.
I know I'm relegated to troll status here. So be it. I do use Linux.
Everyday in fact.
Why do I post?
I don't think Linux advocacy (in cola) is doing any favors to Linux by
attacking windows as a means to gain validity. When I see that, I will
comment on it. Most of these arguments are either not factual, emotional,
and just plain exaggerated. I believe you should advocate by advocating the
merits, not by tearing down the alternative. The argument is the desktop and
the end user. I've yet to see one compelling reason (other than cost) as to
why Linux should take center stage in this area of computing at this point
in time. I do see, however, many (IMHO) weak arguments in here to support
that claim. By weak, I mean in every sense that an argument CAN be weak.
--No flames from me-
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> FYI:
>
> I usually do respond to reasonable arguments, with reasonable
> discussion. When a person decides to start out using phrases like "big
> d*ck," it usually means that they are being an idiot and not worth
> reading, so I don't.
>
> And if you read my posts, they are, as I know you have seen in the past,
> usually quite factual. I am human, and I have made errors, and have
> usually fess'ed up to them. I have admitted that I have been wrong on a
> few occasions. Also, I do not usually go for the attack posture, and you
> know that too.
>
> I also admit that I do incorporate a bit of sarcasm within the text, but
> hey, we gotta have fun somehow.
>
>
> MH wrote:
> >
> > You may feel that way. That is fine. But seeing as how you don't address
one
> > single issue that I raised I deem the 'argument' over for all intent and
> > purpose. -You lose.
> >
> > In true Cola fashion, when confronted with a position you can't counter
with
> > the usual cola tactics, you turn to #1 --attacking the poster rather
than
> > address the issue. I note that you tend to use #2,
> > supply opinion as fact, use fuzzy analogies, throw percentages around
like
> > you just discovered how to find a ratio\proportion, and IMO, push
> > undocumented and unproven technical background like a chucker to back up
> > your assertions.
> >
> > Go back to #2. You're much better at that tactic. The above reply to a
> > sensible argument is as weak as water.
> >
> > Any how , It seems to work for you here in cola, and you have been a
regular
> > in here for years now.
> >
> > --- Oh yeah, don't forget to vote for Bush. He shares your rhetorical
> > stance.
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > MH wrote:
> > >
> > > I have dealt with you before ubercat. It has been my experience that
> > > arguing with an idiot is pointless.
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Harry Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:20:38 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Harry Lewis wrote:
>
> >Maybe it's the way I use Word (oops - did I just admit to using Word?),
> >as I start with an outline, then proceed in "document view" without any
> >formatting (other than the auto formats provided by Word (oops - did I
> >just admit to using Word "features"?)), then apply the formatting when I
> >actually need the text in output, but - to me - Word is very good at
> >separating content from its ultimate rendition (oops - did I just admit
> >to liking Word).
>
> I've never seen anybody else use Word like that.
>
> All the people I've worked with spend 90% of their time from
> the very beginning futzing with fonts and margins and
> backgrounds and colors and whatnot rather than actually
> producing content. It would almost be excusable if they ended
> up with something nice looking but vacuous. But the don't.
> They end up with something ugly and vacuous.
>
> With LaTeX, at least the output looks nice, even if it's drivel.
Well, part of my job is professional writing, so I guess that's the
primary driver not only for the tools I choose but also for how I use
them. That being said, I use Word just for editing - for final layout,
everything goes into PageMaker (on the Mac), which is much more suited
to DTP than Word.
Harry
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[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 15:34:58 GMT
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Have you always been a compulsive liar (hint a ow awnser will be funny)
>>
>> "a ow awnser"? Have you always had a 1st grade reading/writing comprehension
>> level?
>
>
>Typo flames are the lowest kind. I meant no. Use your brain (or do you
>still have 1st grade intelligence?)
Typos are ok if the meaning can still be discerned. "Hint a ow
awnser" does not fall into this catagory.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: How to detect sensors using gameport?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:37:02 GMT
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:48:23 +1100, Walter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>I was wondering if there are any utilities out there that can make use
>of the game port to read external sensors (such as switches being
>opened/closed, or electrical resistance being increased/decreased,
>similar to what a joystick does).
>
>I kinda know how I could detect a switch using a serial port (i.e.: the
>switch can short 2 of the rs/232 pins, therefore one could check for the
>status of the particular signal, or check for a loop condition). But the
>game port seems to be more versatile since it is made to be able to read
>multiple sensors simultaneously.
>
do a
man -k joystick
to learn how to program the joystick port. Viewing the source code from some
games would also be a good idea. mame, the multiple arcade machine emulator,
has joystick code you could study.
I searched yahoo for "joystick hardware schematic" and got:
http://www.hut.fi/Misc/Electronics/docs/joystick/pc_joystick.html#pc_interface
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:37:52 GMT
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>More Linux BS. Windows has a very large driver database. WinMe found my
>Matrox video card, yamaha opl3 sound card, both cd roms..in other words
>EVERYTHING.
>
>I had to tell Linux what was what. I did find installing a creative
>soundblaster card in linux a very good experience. Windows has only once
>not found my video card on install. That was a #9 revolution 3D card, and it
>was being installed on NT4. BTW,win2K FOUND the very same card on a fresh
>install. Linux has never found the #9 card, and half the time that card is
>no good because Xfree insists on using the I128 driver for the card when
>it's not compatible...and you get mangled output now and again when going
>between X and the console. Could be a card problem with #9.. I don't know,
>but X's support of the card sucks in any event.
This closely parallels my experience with my Voodoo3 card and Linux.
I finally gave up trying to get X to work. God help you if your
hardware is not in Linux' (small) "best support" list.
------------------------------
From: Joseph Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:45:44 -0400
Harry Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
>
> What you say is entirely true - looking at a Word file, your document
> looks like gibberish, not content in its raw form. However, this isn't
> evidence that word processors aren't about content - it's evidence of
> the fact that word processors use proprietary formats to tie you into
> the product. Once inside the system, in my opinion, you're looking at
> content (which you can export in a number of formats, inlcuding
> unformatted text).
>
As long as your content is disposable I guess.
> This is not to say that I wouldn't find it easier to extract content
> from the source file of a tool like LaTeX than from Word file - it's
> just that working with source files definitely isn't what it's all about
> - it working with content using the tool that matters!
>
LaTeX, as a source file, is far more content oriented than you allude
to here, better so than Word.
> However, I'm not going to try and convert people to word processing - if
> LaTeX works for you, use it!
>
There are problems with many document generation tools, even to some
extent LaTeX (making tables, and including graphics can be painful to
learn, not so bad once you know it). It is just that Word is much more
trouble than it is worth. Sure it gives a nice illusion of ease of
use, but makes you pay with random lost or trashed documents, and
forcing you to deal with nit-picky details of fonts and such. It
doesn't really produce the best output either. LaTeX typically allows
you to concentrate on your content without having to worry about all
those nit-picky details.
The other big problem with Word is that it tries as hard as it can, as
you noted, to lock you and everyone else for that matter in to its
proprietary format. I really don't care if you use Word. But I don't
want to be forced to use it if I don't want to. Unfortunately this can
be difficult to avoid what with MS being a monopoly and all.
> Harry
--
-- Joe Dalton
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus position in "Power List"
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:46:17 GMT
On Oct 19, 2000 at 12:14, 2 eloquently wrote:
>mopi wrote:
>>
>> Just caught the repeat of "The Power List" on UKs Channel 4 - Linus
>> got a position in the top 100 for work on Linux.
>>
>> Zero mention of RMS or FSF but ibms promotion of Linux got a big plug.
>
>RMS and the FSF are more behind the scnes, despite providing the bulk of
>the coed needed for an operating system.
>
>
>>
>> Did anyone get the actual position - I must have blinked for that bit.
>>
>> fyi The Power List is drawn up anually and lists the 300 people who
>> have the most power (influence?) over the lives of people living in
>> the UK - prime minister of China came in at number 68, madonna at 96,
>> head of Starbucks was well up there - never even see a starbucks!
>
>I think I've seen 1 (it's quite good).
Well if you shuld ever need a copy of your birth/marriage
certificate and you travel to London, there is one but
five minutes walk from the office at Angel.
--
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
You will be married within a year, and divorced within two.
11:38am up 2 days, 16:24, 9 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:46:57 GMT
IceCap is not a firewall. It is a tool that allows central management
of BlackIce. And like the Linonuts love to say when the weekly dirty
laundry list appears from the various security groups "there are
patches to plug the hole".
next.
claire
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:10:26 +0000, "Scaramanga"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The Ghost In The
>Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Scaramanga
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:33:24 +0000
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> This is a piece of cake with either Norton Firewall, ZoneAlarm (free) or BlackIce
>or SonicWall which I believe is also free
>>>> for personal use.
>>>
>>>ipchains doesnt allow remote users to execute shell commands though.
>>
>> That's what pcAnywhere and Remote Desktop are for. :-)
>>
>> (For Linux, ssh/sshd work very well.)
>>
>> [.sigsnip]
>>
>
>I actually meant unauthorised users, most of the products claaire mentioned have had
>disasterous
>(or at least dubious) security histories. Take for example, if you will, the problem
>in Black Ices
>iceCAP, which allows attackers to remotely execute shell commands, with no
>authorsiation what so ever.
>
>And yes, ssh2 is great :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:36:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am suprised that Microsoft is still selling Windows, considering
that 80%
> of their revenue comes from Microsoft Office. If I was the CEO from
> Microsoft I would open source Windows (both NT and 98), combine the
good
> aspects of GNU/LINUX and Windows and release a Microsoft Linux.
<snip>
But haven't you ever wondered why Microsoft coincidentally dominates
every product niche they enter? It's not because 95% of consumers
are stupid. It's because Microsoft produces the best software in
many respects much of time time. How do they do that so consistently?
A deal with the devil perhaps? No, it's because they're playing on
home turf all of the time. If the office people need a new system call,
they just get it put in. If they can't figure out whey their program
is crashing or why an OS service does some quirky thing, they have
direct access to information to solve the problem. When a new version
of windows is coming out in 2 years, they get inside information on its
details so they can update their software first and make everyone else
look obsolete.
In other words the question of why Microsoft creates the best software
should be reversed - why can't anybody else create software as good
or better for Windows? Because all the other developers - Corell,
Novell, Wordperfect - are on the outside looking in.
Making Windows open source - well, why bother discussing it, because
it won't happen. But separating the OS division from the applications
division, that just might happen. This needn't decrease the rate of
innovation or quality of Windows software, not if the new OS division
gives public access to information to what is now insider information
(and there would no longer be any reason to withold it).
Instead of ruining Microsoft application software, that would empower
other developers to seriously compete, improving Microsoft applications
if nothing else. It would be good for everybody - except microsoft.
That's why Microsoft would be crazy to give away the OS as you suggest.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Perrin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:25:15 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Clarke) writes:
>
> Which journal doesn't accept Latex files then?
>
> Sean
Unfortunately most of the social science journals don't.
--
======================================================================
Andrew J Perrin - Ph.D. Candidate, UC Berkeley, Dept. of Sociology
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA - http://demog.berkeley.edu/~aperrin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:14:36 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> > It was enough of a pain in the ass getting it to see
> > the modem and work the video card, which Windows manages to do all by
it's
> > self.
>
> That's utter bullshit and you know it. Windows does not see anything
> more than a VGA card by itself. You give it drivers and tell it
> explicitly what card you have. So you had to do the same thing under
> linux? So fucking what? How does this now make linux worse?
Um. No. Windows PnP sees EXACTLY what card you have and ONLY if it doesn't
already have drivers for it does it ask you for drivers. And you can change
the drivers effortlessly. AND manufacturers make the *best* drivers _first_
for Windows +quickest+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why I do use Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:17:38 GMT
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:35:27 GMT, "Idoia Sainz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I included his post to be sure he could understand how badly wrapped
>> his lines were. That's pertinent.
>
> I CR/LF my posts under Outlook to this group to be sure tin, slrn and
>the so can read them.
How true. And god help you if you go over 80 columns. Want to launch
attachments?
The news readers some of these guys are using are antiques.
Of course they could use Netscape. Come to think of it, I would rather
use the antique :(
>> Balanced?? His post was full of subjective opinion and misinformation,
>> Off the top of my head:
>
>> 1) Needing an emulator to play games under Linux - misinformation.
>
> I am weel informed, and know which games are and which are not
>available under GNU/Linux, getting my sentences out of context won't
>answer my issues.
Another Linonut technique when they have nothing to say. Some of them
must have practiced for years to have mastered it so well.
>> 2) IE better than Netscape, Outlook a better newsreader, etc. -
>> subjective opinion.
>
> Opinions are subjetive by definitions unless you prove it with maths,
>arent't they ? By better I usually try to mean more featured (or at least
>more wide-demanded featured) and easier to use to a certain level.
Linonuts HATE features. They call all those nice features we Windows
users have "bloatware". They also prefer to use 5 different,
disjointed programs to reach the same end result that we can with one
program.
It's sour grapes on their part.
Everyday tasks are just so much more involved under Linux.
>> I've seen and heard all this before and I'm not going to waste my time
>> addressing it.
>
> That's your prerrogative, no one pretended neither to offend you nor
>to make you waste your valuable time.
Which proves what you are saying is correct and he has no answer for
you. He's just trying to wear you down and make you waste your time.
Another Linonut technique BTW.
>> NONE of the points?? I demonstrated that his newsreader, Outlook, is
>> not telling him what it is really posting. This is typical of so many
>> Windows apps: they do things to your data, often botching it up,
>> without even telling you.
>
> Well, even when at some cases it may be annoying, computers were
>first designed to help doing calcs, evolving then into tools to help
>people, even doing (if they are well designed and programmed) what
>people does not have to know how to do or even know has to be
>done, that's what I understand computers for ... do you care if your
>car integrated-computer do things that you have not explicitly told
>to it do to ? No, it is just a pice of hardware to aid your driving.
And his news reader requires him to use 4 different programs or more
to do what you can do with one program . Of course he can set up score
files all day to filter out material he doesn't want to hear. More bit
tinkering instead of using the program to read news.
Oh yea, Slrn/Slrnpull (or suck/Leafnode), editor, spell checker and
slrn itself just to read news offline. Not to mention all of the other
programs so you can read HTML and launch attachments. And of course
the configuration files (text of course, and cryptic as well) to make
it all work.
You've made some good points, but you are dealing with a bunch of
yo-yo's that can't see the forest for the trees.
claire
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:24:22 -0500
"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!
>
<snip crap>
Lesse... a MS operating system that doesn't support an Intel chip. Gee, how
likely is that?! HA!
Hmmm... MS doesn't have released OS support for a chip that's not sold yet -
boy, that hurts! NOT!
Gosh, linux supports a chip that NO ONE running Linux would(/could) afford.
>From the ranks of the "if it's not free we will steal it" linux types - why
would IA64 support be important? It's not like linux is used by enterprises
in high powered computing (apart from some showpiece specials).
And, IBM couldn't afford to buy MS - it's that simple. But Bill could buy
IBM if he stopped donating CASH (not promises) to charities and non-profit
foundations.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:27:22 -0500
"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!
>
oh, and p.s., MS HAS run windows on a IA64 system... but not on the power4
cause IBM has never shared one with them, kinda hard to do. Of course, your
"prediction" that linux will support it is as likely as MS supporting it. In
other words, it's pure speculation and has NO facts supporting it - pure BS.
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:38:25 +0100
Mike Byrns wrote:
> And the niches will not be supported because the free software developers
> will have no reason to support those niches that they find "less than
> cool".
Then employ a programmer or engage a consultancy to support the niche for you.
With closed-software, there's only one company you can get support from - the
one that created it. With open-source there are thousands to choose from,
including having your own experts on payroll.
> The thing with free software is that it is not market driven and
> thus is not resposive to the business user who votes with dollars to get
> what he wants.
If you have dollars then you can employ programmers or engage consultancies to
make your software do anything you want. In contrast, closed-software means you
follow the creating company's agenda.
As 95% of the world's software is created in-house, anyway, it's a prictise the
business user is already very, very familiar with.
> If the source is GPL'd then no one will be able to get VC to
> start a software company to make profits because every other geek on the
> planet can just take that software and make the same thing and undercut the
> first until the they are both free.
You are thinking of software as a manufactured good. That's a very common, but
completely unfounded error. The software industry is a *service* industry. What
the new software company can offer over "every other geek" is a higher, more
professional standard of service. That's how competition works in the service
sector - it is nowhere near as price sensitive as manufacturing.
> So look at it this way -- voting by
> buying is the American way.
An empty, meaningless statement. Especially as 98% of the human race is not
American, me included.
> > OTOH companies
> > that are consumers of software are likely to benefit, and in
> > particular I'd expect an increased demand for consultants and
> > programmers.
>
> Sure. Reinvent the wheel every time. Depend on often undependable code
> when the OCC is watching (from my experience at a bank). Close all of your
> accountability doors when you are accused of an error. I don't think so.
LOL! Closed-software reinvents the wheel every time. Sharing source-code is
building on the works of others in the time-tested and proven fashion of
scientists and academics.
> > Invest in consultancy companies with high technical competence, system
> > integrators that aren't too dependent on particular software, and
> > hardware manufacturers instead.
>
> And get contracts that make them support all Open Source code they use and
> take full accountability for it. Watch them all get sued out of existance.
Examples of software companies being successfully sued over code they support
are vanishingly rare. Your average support contract is more full of holes than a
... a ... thing with lots of holes. It just doesn't happen.
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:40:15 +0100
Mike Byrns wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > "What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has
> > bugs, suspect that the problem is DR DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.
> > Or decide to not take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for
> > in the office."
>
> That's right. Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with that.
What's wrong with that is it's bad for competition and it's bad for consumers.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:40:50 -0500
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> what has the site "texas church planters" have to do with Windows bench
> marks.
that's stupid.
>Second, the "speed rating" that is used is inaccurate because it
> uses many machines (clusters) of servers running Windows 2000, however,
that does NOT make it inaccurate, it makes you an apologist. The benchmark
was performed according to the published rules. W2K/S2K did it faster.
Period.
> they never include the cost of running that type of configuration in a
> commercial environment,
Just a point of fact: the $ in TPC reports INCLUDE all maintanence and
support for 5 years.
>which has been proven to be more expensive in
> the long term that having two big fucking servers, the first is the
> primary one, the second mirrors the first and automatically takes over
> if the primary server fails for some unknown reason.
Proven? By whom? How long would they have had to prove such things as this
is a _relatively_ new technique in this realm. AND, what good does it do to
have two big fucking servers with a single failover if a) the two combined
still do not equal even half the performance of a cluster for more than
triple the price, b) in that scenario, server one does all the work and
server two is an idiot mirror only until it's needed and then it does all
the work so you pay for two servers but only get the power of one at any
given time and c) should server two be off line your entire operation is
without any backup or should server two fail to mirror at any time your
entire operation is without any backup until the mirroring error be
discovered and corrected (not always quickly, sometimes requiring downtime)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
