Linux-Advocacy Digest #744, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Astroturfing ("Drestin Black")
Re: Astroturfing
Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Re: The Linux Experience (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE ("Todd")
Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51???? ("Todd")
Re: Why I do use Windows
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (2:1)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:49:18 -0500
"Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8smrcp$dbi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
<snip good, factual, reply material>
> It looks like you are wrong, and Win2K/SQL2000 best the competion at
*both*
> performance and price/performance, with regard to your "they never include
> the cost of running that type of configuration in a commercial
environment,
> which has been proven to be more expensive in the long term that having
two
> big fucking servers" argument.
>
> Well, according to TPC-C anyway, which was a great benchmark when Sun was
> dominating and now utter trash now that Windows kicks butt and takes
names.
>
Paul, you couldn't have hit the nail more on the head than with this last
remark.
I can remember for YEARS having to listen to people, fairly and accurately,
tell me that Windows and SQL Server were lightweights and they would quote
TPC-C (either when Windows simply wasn't there or during it's infancy when
it was making a very poor showing). Touts of Sun is king and Oracle rules...
there was no other benchmark to throw around. Oracle STILL has posters in
it's main lobby (quite old now) that show all of the top 10 positions
occupied by hardware that ran Oracle. Sun would put TPC figures (even
price/performance figures) in their sales material. There was a time when
even at the hyper inflated prices for IBM and Sun equipment and software
they were kings and MS blew donkey dicks, compaq was a toy-maker.
AHhhhhhh, but now how things change. MS matures their products, compaq's
billions in R&D pays off and suddenly we see MS/Compaq ruling the roost. Not
only shattering every performance record with ease but doing it cheaply! AND
with both hardware and software that is off-the-shelf. You can buy record
setting software from your local store or even the flea market. You can
order the record setting hardware in a single afternoon on the phone and
don't need any factory engineers hovering over trying to get it all working
together at some exhorbant fee.
And now TPC-C is useless and invalid? Of all the whinning apologist crap
I've heard from the unix mainframe elitists this is the one I get the most
satisfaction from. (Lets not mention the other world record benchmarks set,
this is good enough for me).
TPC-C will be useless when the sales pitch: "More for less, easier" no
longer makes sense.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:51:06 -0500
and considering that both of the ISPs in Luxemburg run BSD we can announce
that the ENTIRE country of Luxemburg is connected via BSD - talk about
market penetration! Wow!
...and this means what to the rest of the world??
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> considering the whole of the New Zealand's financial sector relys on the
RBNZ, it
> just goes to show that they are not willing to take chances on NT, even
with all
> the hype surrounding, and I say, it is a good move the RBNZ made.
>
> matt
>
> Gardiner Family wrote:
>
> > adam, gid-day from a fellow kiwi. Here are some sites that use
linux/UNIX for
> > their website:
> >
> > WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand)
> > New Zealand Government Website
> > Telecom
> > ihug
> > zfree
> > majority of proxy servers in New Zealand
> > RNBNZ (IBM AIX)
> >
> > the list goes on and on, Windows NT is a product that never lived up to
its
> > supposed "UNIX Smashing" reputation that was originally declared by bill
gates
> > back in 1993-1994.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > Adam Warner wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Chad,
> > >
> > > >> 1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
> > > >> computers.
> > > >
> > > > Windows 2000 professional will do all this.
> > >
> > > I wasn't aware I could set up software RAID using Win2k Professional.
The
> > > only ability I could find was to set up a larger logical partition.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> 2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
> > > >
> > > > MSDE (essentially a free copy of MS SQL Server 7.0 limited to 2GB of
db
> > > > size) is free and runs on everything from Win95 to Win2000 DC
server.
> > >
> > > What does "essentially a free" mean? Will this mean I won't be able to
use
> > > the server to also serve content?
> > >
> > > >> 3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
> > > >
> > > > Win2K has ICS (with NAT functionality) built in.
> > >
> > > Odd, I wasn't aware it came with firewalling, which was part of the
> > > requirement.
> > >
> > > >> 4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Outlook Express is free and comes with IE which is free. FrontPage
is
> > > > not necessary for web development, in fact, it's not recommeneded
unless
> > > > you've never written one line of HTML in your life.
> > >
> > > I did ask for a "full MS solution" (probably unfair).
> > >
> > > > So the list actually comes down to:
> > > >
> > > > 1.) 2 x copies of Win2K Professional at ~ $200ea. You can get OEM
prices
> > > > since you purchased new hardware, contact your vendor.
> > > >
> > > > That's it!
> > >
> > > Jason addresses the licensing issues.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Sure, it's anecdotal, but then, you really haven't provided any
evidence
> > > > to the contrary.
> > >
> > > Funny, I don't need anecdotal evidence, they're working right now!
> > >
> > > >> Or more importantly, who really believes MS can sustain a lower TCO
if
> > > >> a MS solution is indeed more attractive at this point in time?
> > > >
> > > > Everyone who has deployed an MS solution properly and is reaping the
> > > > benefits.
> > >
> > > Well you'd have to because the costs are so great :-)
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >> and the development rate appears much faster.
> > > >
> > > > And quality has fallen through the floor as a result. Cite: Red Hat
> > > > 2500+ bugs in a rushed 7.0 release.
> > >
> > > Haven't noticed any significant ones yet (apart from being hacked off
that
> > > they didn't compile in the IDE backport, making the installation
rather
> > > difficult. They will finally be officially included in the 2.4 kernel
> > > though).
> > >
> > > Rushed? I've been waiting for it for ages.
> > >
> > > At least I can be rather optimistic that bugs will be fixed, and
rather
> > > rapidly. And am actually able to converse with developers. And won't
be
> > > told to buy the next version to get bug fixes.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Adam
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:54:20 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9s8H5.9667$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > If you install on an box with an Intel 810 chipset, it's usually 1 less
> > than the MB you have installed. 128? No... 127. 256? No... 255 or 254
> > Otherwise? Kernel panic! There's quality software for you.
>
> Neat! How many Microsoft people are paid to do research on Linux's
> weak points?
>
Research? Why not just read the published bug reports, join the developers
lists and read about the bickering, egos and little power trips resulting in
conflicting coding efforts... lastly, just follow the trends of those that
buy it, install it, then install WinME over it so they can get something
done.
Paid? Hell, you'd only have to pay me if you forced me to use unix again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:56:42 -0000
On 19 Oct 2000 13:51:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when the
>>> > install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
>>> > mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
>>> > amount available.
>>>
>>> You have an awnser to your problem, but your not interested in it. Why
>>> bother to ask?
>
>> Are you penguinistas so devoid of common sense that you cannoy see the
>> obvious?
>
>> Who's the leading seller of buisiness PCs? Dell? If not, Compaq, right?
>
>> Let's talk about Dell then...
>
>> What's Dell's leading PC? The OptiPlex line And/Or the Dimension line?
>
>> The Dimensions and the OptiPlexes range form Celerons at the low
>> end to PIIIs at the high end.
More than anything else, this is a great reason to tell the
unwashed masses why they should AVOID brand name PC's like
the plague and have some awareness of what's going in their
box.
810's a pretty cheezy chipset to be sitting in a brand name PC.
You might as well get an emachine at that point.
>
>> The Celeron boxes all use the 810 or 810e chipset, and the PIIIs use
>> the 815 or 815e chipset, which isn't too much different.
>
>> Shall I now explain to you why water is wet?
>
>Not to be terribly argumentative, but it may be worth noting that dell
>sells multiproc Xeon machines as well.
Now, as far as 810's and 815's go...
Just do a search for Linux+810 on google and see what pops up.
--
Dawn, n.:
The time when men of reason go to bed.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Anything cut to length will be too short.
You can always pick up your needle and move to another groove.
-- Tim Leary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:00:59 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:37:52 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"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.
>
I never had any problems with my Voodoo3, or Voodoo2, or Intel 740,
or S3Virge, or Matrox G400.
Infact, recent releases of Bughat will autodetect the V3 for you on
bootup and put you through the configuration utility.
3dfx officially supports the card, has documentation available for
it on it's own webspace and has nice binary packages for everything
including the 3D support.
Now, a Number9 is another matter entirely.
Are they still even in business these days?
--
I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.
-- Groucho Marx
Power is the finest token of affection.
It is always the best policy to tell the truth, unless, of course,
you are an exceptionally good liar.
-- Jerome K. Jerome
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:02:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Haoyu Meng
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:23:56 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>Linux is not ready for the desktop. Functionality offered by
>KDE/GNOME is relatively imature and unstable, compared to
>Windows, especially Windows2000. GNOME and KDE crash way
>too often, is slow unless used under root account, and
>has almost no cross-application integration (ActiveX).
>
>I use many Linux boxes to do data intensive batch jobs. Another
>friend of mine use a personal farm of about 10 identical Linux
>boxes to do data-mining and spamming. There is definitely use
>for Linux, just not on the desktop -- yet.
>
>Haoyu Meng
Dumb question perhaps, but .... why aren't you using Win2k + Cygwin
to do these data intensive batch jobs? Or just Win2k, period?
As for the speed of X under a non-root account, that should make
little difference unless you're using something like Wine and
are running a DGA-aware Windows application in it...a configuration
that is still not quite ready for prime time AFAIK. This may
be a configuration setup problem and/or bug.
Dunno what to make of ActiveX. It's certainly not appropriate
for Web development, although it seems to be useful for
limited internal communication (Office appears to be highly
depenent on it, for example).
But you're right, Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop. And if
certain businesses have their way, it never will be.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random dire warning here
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:13:02 +0800
"Haoyu Meng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Windows 2000 is rock solid. I have used it for almost half a year. Only
> had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
> hardware devices.
I've found the same... Windows 2000 *is* very stable... in fact, it's never
crashed on me except for a badly seated memory module. Well, I fixed that.
(I guess I shouldn't have drunk that much on the night I decided to
'upgrade' my computer... hehe)
> Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
> as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
Linux isn't going to make it to the desktop for quite a while, if ever.
Only the UNIX radicals will use it on the desktop. Others will try it out
and forget it.
> Personally, I had been a Linux fan since Kernel version 1 with Slackware
> floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem. While in college I used Linux as
> my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to secondary role. But
> Win2k changed all of it. Right now, all the workstation frontends I use
> at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless Linux servers tucked
> away on a network link to do only number crunching and code comping.
Linux is cetainly fun to toy around with, especially given the fact that you
have source code to look at. This has got to be its most compelling feature
for a number of reasons.
However, Windows 2000 has so many more features and just seems to do
everything better. Performance is excellent.
When the .net tools are out, programming for Win32 is going to be so much
easier and web applications will be far faster than your typical cgi/perl
scripting. It is going to make Windows machines easier to program for and
far faster in performance at the same time.
> Any similar stories?
Yup. I can never go back to NT. 2000 is vastly superior in stability and
feature richness. Linux couldn't edge out NT, so I don't know how it is
going to compete with 2000.
Well, I'm sure since this is a Linux advocacy group, you'll get death
threats from the religious radicals, but you are quite right about 2000. It
is great. It has made my life as an IT guy a hell of a lot easier and more
fun at the same time.
Nobody at my company in my department even considers doing any work on
Linux.
-Todd
>
>
> Haoyu Meng
>
> Telpic Internet Solutions
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:14:24 +0800
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:09:08 -0700...
> ...and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One annoyance I have with the windows explorer vs KDE's Konqueror, is
that
> > Konqueror lets you "drill down" the dirtree, just grab a file, and drag
it
> > over a dir, and after a half second, the dir opens and you can drop down
> > another level. This is a lot more convenient that with windows.
>
> This idea is called "spring-loaded folders" in recent versions of the
> MacOS Finder. Would be fun if it is originally a KDE idea ;)
In the words of Linux/UNIX fanatics, Linux *stole* the idea from the Mac.
Isn't this the same sort of thing that everybody here accuses MS of?
Hypocrites.
-Todd
>
> mawa
> --
> Sometimes Usenet makes me feel like a crossbreed of Don Giovanni and
> the Sorcerer's Apprentice; while around me something I created is
> making all kinds of mess, I want to yell "Enough! Enough!" and wait
> for the devil to get me. -- mawa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why I do use Windows
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:22:07 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:17:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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
That all depends on the viewer. There is nothing inherent in a
character rendered interface that excludes line wrapping. Just
where do you get these odd ideas?
Besides, what makes you think a terminal is going to be limited
to a mere 80 characters. Even my ST could do better than that
on a TV set. Where do you get these odd ideas?
>attachments?
Various textmode news and mail readers have no problem launching
attachments. Just because your feeble imagination can't concieve
of it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
>
> The news readers some of these guys are using are antiques.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Why insist on berating a device merely based on it's being
time tested? Just why can't you leave well enough alone?
Are you the grandchild of one of the original busybodies
or something?
>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.
I have a shelf an a half of recent, 1st tier commercial games
that run just fine under linux natively. More on the way. Why
must you resort to lies to make a point. Anything exagerated
to the point of absurdity is bound to get trivially refuted.
>
>>> 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
What "features".
Why should I want to mess with foo?
Why should anyone believe you that foo hasn't already existed
in Unix long before Microsoft decided to implement a version
of it.
>users have "bloatware". They also prefer to use 5 different,
>disjointed programs to reach the same end result that we can with one
>program.
...so much for that might OLE object imbedding.
We all knew it was a sham anyways.
>
> It's sour grapes on their part.
>
>Everyday tasks are just so much more involved under Linux.
You keep on saying things like these but you never seem to
provide any actual details. My daily email experience under
elm is actually simpler than it is under Outhouse. Infact,
Outhouse gave me new found respect for ccmail.
OTOH, since I call all the shots, there is nothing there for
me to be surprised by. While I may not get to hunt and peck
through a set of points and click so anti-intuitive and
convolutedt that documentation may be a necessity, such a
thing is no actual detriment.
Simplicity has it's dividends.
[deletia]
>>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
Why whine about such things? Leafnode is transparent. It
manages itself and only appears as a proxy cache to the
end user. Now, editors are embedded everywhere. So, the
notion that a "separate" editor is necessarily bad is
assinine. Infact, having one editor in all apps actually
makes more sense from your alleged viewpoint than 50
remakes in 50 apps.
>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.
Inline documentation.
Think of it as a Unix "innovation".
[deletia]
Now, as far as the frills in communications go: the sensible
amongst us that still use win32 desktops from time to time
simply can't bother with them anymore since Microsoft decided
to use such things as a new method of contracting viruses.
--
Error in operator: add beer
Ask not for whom the Bell tolls, and you will pay only the station-to-station
rate.
-- Howard Kandel
To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift.
-- Shelley
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:17:10 +0100
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "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+
Result's the same, windows can't do anything with the card. It's not as
if you don't know the cards name anyway: it's written on the box it came
in and on the driver disc.
The best (graphics) cards have the drivers written for IRIX first.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [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 17:25:48 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:25:12 +0200, =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >> ...much like saying something is the best perfumed dung.
>> >
>> >And? I'd say calling it dung is pretty harsh -- it does its job.
>Certainly
>>
>> That's disputable.
>
>It runs some people's software [legacy *and* modern] on some people's
>hardware, with the added benefit for MS to move the market and developers
>from DOS/Win16 to Win32, something that WinNT which makes less compromises,
>wouldn't have been able to do.
Sure it would have. The primary problem would have been games.
Although even those can be virtualized sufficiently. Also,
the resource requirement gap between Win16 and NT wasn't that
large. An 8M machine really wasn't suitable for Win16. Much
more than that and you're already in the position to run NT
reasonably well.
This is a matter of firsthand experience.
>
>> >isn't an operating system that I would run out of choice -- but I have to
>> >run it on at least one of my computers for compatibility testing.
>>
>> There is really no excuse to run Win9x.
>
>Sure there is. Supports a wide selection of hardware and software, and runs
It is not alone in this respect.
>on cheap hardware, well, greater than the other consumer level OS..
So? You don't need "everything". You only need what is sufficient.
[deletia]
Even BeOS can achieve that.
--
... and furthermore ... I don't like your trousers.
A good scapegoat is hard to find.
A guilty conscience is the mother of invention.
-- Carolyn Wells
Women, deceived by men, want to marry them; it is a kind of revenge
as good as any other.
-- Philippe De Remi
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:28:47 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:57:29 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Haoyu Meng wrote:
>>
>> Windows 2000 is rock solid. I have used it for almost half a year. Only
>> had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
>> hardware devices.
>>
>> Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
>> as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
>
>Windows 2000 is only easy to use (if indeed it is) when you know how to
>use it. Personally, I find Linux a whole lot easier to use than Windows
>2000.
There should be an ease of stability curve computed for various
OSes. I would expect that even VMS would come out ahead of NT5
in such a computation for non-trivial values of stable. I would
expect the same of Solaris.
>
>If you've only been using Win2K for half a year. Many Other OS boxes
>have had uptimes ov years in length. Win2K has not been around long
>enough yet to prove its stability.
--
Come quickly, I am tasting stars!
-- Dom Perignon, upon discovering champagne.
I have already given two cousins to the war and I stand ready to sacrifice
my wife's brother.
-- Artemus Ward
Those lovable Brits department:
They also have trouble pronouncing `vitamin'.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
