Linux-Advocacy Digest #492, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Nick Ruisi)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:22:26 -0500
Stephen Cornell wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've the OS installed for about 24 hours now.
> > How am I to test something other than look & feel in this time span?
>
> Exactly. This is why your conclusion that Whistler was so `cool' is
> so meaningless. That was what AK was parodying.
>
> > Beside, as I'm using the desktop version, it's the most imporant part of the
> > OS.
>
> Agreed, at least for Whistler's prospective market, but the way it
> looks has nothing to do with the way it performs.
>
> > The underlying OS is very unfinished, of course, that is why it's a *beta*.
>
> No, a Beta should have most of the functionality in place, but need
> more thorough testing to assess stability and iron out bugs. What
> you're describing is an Alpha.
>
> > Do you mind telling me what those propriety standards are?
>
> Here's a few, off the top of my head: Broken HTML (created by
> FrontPage) that can only be read by MS browsers; ActiveX; Java that
> contains `features' that make it incompatible with standard JVM;
> closed formats for Office documents that change whenever they have
> been reverse-engineered. As for the whole .NET thing... Remember,
> it's a documented fact that MS have illegaly used their power in the
> market to enforce their own position.
And NOT EVEN CONTESTED BY MICROSOFT.
All that Microshaft is appealing is their sentance, not the conviction.
What does this tell you.
>
> --
> Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
> University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:23:59 -0500
Ilja Booij wrote:
>
> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8vupqd$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > As a note, Whistler should give you the option to turn off the GUI.
> > > Which is something that can be very useful for a server machine.
> > > I'm not sure if the workstation has it, or if it has, how to do this.
> >
> > It's Windon't. It'll never happen.
>
> Why not?
> One of the nice things of Linux (or other UNIX-es) is that you can
> run without GUI. Many people like this and use it. Now, if MS
> implements this in it's systems, is that bad? i wouldn't think so.
We're talking about a company whose product marketing depends
on keeping people tied to the goddamend GUI.
>
> Note that i myself prefer using Linux above using Windows.
> i don't like using Windows, but if it gets better i could be
> tempted to use it again.
>
> Ilja
>
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:03:43 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:rLGU5.140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vv5ba$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:LeCU5.34$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> > > >
> > > > [..]
> > > > � Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not
> crash
> > > hot,
> > > > � either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new
> paint
> > > job. And
> > > > � that *matters*.
> > > >
> > > > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
> > >
> > > Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4,
and
> > > Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge fixes,
> and
> > > the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
> >
> > Well, they got it half right :)
> >
> > 2K is much more than simply a more stable version of NT4.
>
> Out of curiosity, have you had any video-related GPFs yet? If not, what
> hardware are you using? (If you posted this previously, sorry. I sometimes
> don't have time to closely follow threads)
None, I don't have blue screens in Win2k that are not related to the screen
saver.
The only problem I've with win2k is that the display hanging if I run it for
several days without cold reboot.
The computer is on & active, it's just that you can't do anything locally
aside from a restart.
Go to another computer, log user off, and the system is fine.
I tracked down the problem to a bad viedo card (voodoo 3 3000), this is a
verified hardware problem.
It happens on other systems as well.
The new video card is supposed to arrive today. Along with extra RAM. ( I
may need to test web pages on Netscape 6. )
Whistler, during CPU & Memory intensive taks, emulate the display hanging
from Win2K.
It goes away after a short while, between 10 seconds to 3 minutes.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:21:41 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vvcd2$5e9qk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >>
> >> It does show you where M$ priorities lie, when security, a core
function
> >> that should be tight from the git go, is left lax on even an early
beta.
> >
> >No, it shows that the defaults on a workstation release, on a beta1, are
> >overly lax.
> >It would take me roughly ten minutes to put the settings back to high
alert,
> >about half an hour to turn the computer to a paranoid.
> >
>
> That's great????
>
> Don't be surprised if it doesn't work anyway.
I would be extremely surprised to find out that this doesn't work.
Since right now Whistler is configured to be a schinofranic paranoid.
The proccess is very similar to 2K, so it was no problem.
> >> to try and increase the proficiency of new users, and get them to at
least
> >> partially understand how things work and why they are the way they are.
A
> >> section on nettiquette would be nice, too.
> >
> >Well, Whistler apperantly has it, after the OS boots, it try to explain
me
> >*how to use the mouse*!
> >I stopped there, but I don't think you can *get* any more basic than
that.
> >It was with pictures and movies and all of that, too.
> >It make me wonder exactly *who* MS has in mind when they put this in.
> >I mean, even the worst users I've seen knew what a mouse is.
> >
>
>
> This is extremely funny.
> Are you advocating Microsoft?
>
> Or are you saying they are silly?
Both?
Actually, I was pitting them.
They've a userbase which include enough people that don't know what a mouse
is that they put a *turial* to explain them this.
Is this not a reason to pity them?
> >> NS6 isn't worth looking at, try it's OS cousin, Mozilla. Much more
stable,
> >> and better compliant with standards.
> >
> >One reason I take Netscape 6 is that I do web development sometimes.
> >Apperantely it's going to be the next-big-thing (I hope so, maybe we
would
> >see some retaliation again, the browsers war were good to the surfers)
> >So far it looks nice.
> >I'm on new application tour right now, so it seems.
> >
>
> Humm.
Ooom.
Are we meditating?
> >Actually, I think that this is what whistler is doing.
> >You get the pro shell (misnamed) which is friendly and nice and goes *out
of
> >its way in annoyingly cute degree* to help you.
> >And the normal shell, which is probably very much like the usual windows
> >look.
> >You can also turn all the bell and whistes off once you stop finding them
> >amusing.
> >
>
> And that's what most people do.
>
> They buy Windows for the FLASH then when the new-ness
> is OVER, all the crap get's turned off and you end
> up with a ho-humm, sadly - rarely working thing.
You are talking about the 9x line, probably.
Especially ME, which is very good for newbies, but an experianced user is
*trapped* there.
Hell is adminning infinite number of ME mahcines equipt with the kind of
users that need turial to use their mouse.
Oh, and incompatible drivers.
NT, 2K, and Whistler beta1 are all working, with or without the flash.
> >Very good.
> >Install hardware on NT, blue screen.
> >Install hardware on 2K, true PNP.
> >
>
> As of service pack 4 NT supported PNP.
> And both W2k and NT bluescreen.
Difference is, NT bluescreen for real.
2K blue screens are screen savers. : )
BTW, did you know that you can force the computer to blue screen if you so
wish?
*Real* blue screen.
One has to wonder *what* is the use of that.
http://www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=16149
> >Redhat 6 (for that matter, AFAIK, all versions of RH) would erase every
bit
> >of HD that they can reach if you do an install as a server.
>
> This I think is still true.
> Not much demand for a dual boot Windows box with a Server in the
> other partion. If you stop for just 5 seconds to think about
> that, doing a server in a seperate partition is absolutely stupid.
I never said that it wasn't a good decision, what I'm complaining about is
that it didn't warn me about such a distructive act.
Beside, who is talking about dual booting a server, I'm talking about data.
There is a lot of reasons keep your data as you install a server.
BTW, what would happen if Win2K would format all your HD to use as it sees
fit without even a shred of warning? After all, there is no point in having
anything but Win2K on the computer.
I'm a winadvocate and even *I* don't see the logic in this arguement, can
you see the one in yours?
> >Ever since RH6, I pull the power cable off any HD I want to keep and do
> >custom installs.
> >It's more trouble, but at least that way I won't get my data erased.
> >
> >
>
> I think they just do a repartitioning of the drive in question.
> I don't think they go after all the drives.
They go after *all* the drives.
> But again, it's stupid to have a workstation on one partition or
> drive of your machine then a server on another. Why?
No, it's not stupid at all to want to preserve your data from another
OS/Installation/Partition.
I use one HD as an OS, second for files.
The second HD is shared.
Now, assume that I want to switch OS.
I want to do an install, and choose server, because it's what I would need.
All the files on my second HD are now gone.
You see why this is wrong to do without a warning?
> But further, if you choose a custom install you can do it
> on the same hard drive if you want to. The choice is yours.
I know, and that it what I did from that point on.
I'm not complaining about that it did it.
I can understand (sort of, at least) why it does it.
The part I'm objecting to is the *total lack of warning* during install.
When you do such an action, with such a potential to be disasterous, you
should get asked if you *really* want to do this.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:23:13 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:v3HU5.142$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vthhu$5kru8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [trimmed comp.sys.mac.advocacy]
> > >
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking*
it.
> > > > For those of you who doesn't know what this is, whistler is an the
new
> > OS
> > > > (the one that will inherit both win2k & win ME) from Microsoft,
> destined
> > to
> > > > finally eliminated the 9x line.
> > >
> > > OK, fair enough. It sounds pretty nice, esp. the behavior you've
> > > described when ctrl+alt+delete is pressed. IMO, UI only matters to
end
> > > users, but I guess that's what Microsoft's aim is: ease of use, etc.
> > > You forgot to mention how well it runs your existing Win 95/NT 4.0/Win
> > > 2000 apps. Also, how well does it run Win 3.1 apps? Can you format a
> > > floppy and do anything else while the floppy is formatting? Just
> > > kidding.
> >
> > My Whistler is a workstation version, so it would be optimised to the
> user.
> >
> > I didn't mentioned it because I didn't have the time to test it.
> > My dialer, which is a known trouble maker, is working, I'm now going
> through
> > the phase of testing the applicaiton support.
> > I can format a floppy and work while it's formatting, (although I don't
> deal
> > with floppies this often)
>
> Does print spooling bog the system down as noticably as in NT?
Not that I've noticed.
I don't print that much, though. So I can't really tell you.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:38:03 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Is that why about all previous versions of Netscape about all Unices are widely
> regarded by Unix folks as unstable too? Windows Netscape has always been the
> flagship for obvious reasons. Perhaps you should read up on all the problems with
> Netscape UNIX development at www.jwz.org. "Building a GUI with these toolkits is
> like building a bookshelf out of mashed potatoes."
On the same site, a link that almost made me stop searching for what
the hell you're talking about:
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:47:47 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Again. Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.
Considering that I've spent far more of my time so far
in life configuring and dicking around with Windozzzzzzzzzzzzzz
systems, I'd say that the cost of Windozzzzzzzz in time for
me has been far greater than that of Linux. And I have
to pay for Windozzzzzzzzzzzzzz on top of it all!
Of the time spent with both OS's, I consider the time
with Linux relatively far more productive, because it
has proven much easier to get information concerning
Linux-related formats and issues than it has been to
get Windozzzzzzzzzz information.
So you're statement is just one of those cute little
aphorisms that idiots come up with to irritate people
(and it works!)
--
[ ] Encrypt Winboys.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:54:09 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> > Giuliano Colla wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm forced to use for a portion of my time Windows, but this doesn't
> > > necessarily make of me an incompetent amateur.
> >
> > I've been peeved by Microsoft's Gilligan-like iconclasm for a long time.
> > I got my first real computing experience on a PDP-8, then worked with
> > a time-sharing terminal (Digital OS again) from Atchison, KS, to
> > Kansas City, I think. Then a small IBM mainframe. Then a DEC-10.
> > Found a resonance in a PDP-11 running UNIX. Nothing else has
> > felt so good since, until Linux.
>
> But yet you too are "forced" to use Windows?
Another dumbass aphorism. Sure I'm forced to use Windows.
I discovered Linux only relatively recently, but my company
(not the one in my header) has been using Windozzzzzzzzzz for
quite some time. Since I have to develop a project that
works on Windozzzzzzzzzzzz NT, I have to use Windozzzzzzzzzzz
tools.
At home, where I have a choice, I still use Windozzzzzzzzzzzzzz on
occasion, but for work crap. For the rest, it's Linux only.
You must be some young punk who's never been through college and
used a variety of different operating systems, and had a chance
to experience a range of application types. You've probably
never read various types of source code, and seen the differences
in them. Maybe you can't even write a DOS batch file?!
Then again, I've noticed that know-nothing numbnuts usually
can come up only with "pithy" one-liners, rather than any
statement with substance.
--
[ ] Encrypt Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Nick Ruisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:46:57 -0500
<SNIP>
OK, folks,
There's a hell of a lot of usenet bandwidth being used to discuss a
trivial issue. Trival as follows:
winntUptime > 49 days = never
Think about what you are talking about.... uptime for a Windows-based
OS!
Whats the old saying?
"Your mouse has moved. You must reboot your system for the changes to
take effect. Pressk "OK" to reboot. [OK]"
You can't even change the IP address of a ethernet adapter or change the
hostname without restarting the system.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:56:41 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> --
> Curtis
>
> | ,__o
> !___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
> <(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
Nice sig! Very apt!
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:26:03 +0200
"Stephen Cornell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've the OS installed for about 24 hours now.
> > How am I to test something other than look & feel in this time span?
>
> Exactly. This is why your conclusion that Whistler was so `cool' is
> so meaningless. That was what AK was parodying.
>
> > Beside, as I'm using the desktop version, it's the most imporant part of
the
> > OS.
>
> Agreed, at least for Whistler's prospective market, but the way it
> looks has nothing to do with the way it performs.
>
> > The underlying OS is very unfinished, of course, that is why it's a
*beta*.
>
> No, a Beta should have most of the functionality in place, but need
> more thorough testing to assess stability and iron out bugs. What
> you're describing is an Alpha.
No, it's a beta1, assuming it would follow win2k, it would've three or more.
And, for what it worth, aside for minor glitches (two places where I noticed
unwrappable text) and things like that, I've found no problems in Whistler
so far.
(Although, during CPU & Memory intensive &
> > Do you mind telling me what those propriety standards are?
>
> Here's a few, off the top of my head: Broken HTML (created by
> FrontPage) that can only be read by MS browsers; ActiveX; Java that
> contains `features' that make it incompatible with standard JVM;
> closed formats for Office documents that change whenever they have
> been reverse-engineered.
The only useful use front page has is in making templetes. And I've read
documents created in FP from variety of browsers (the most horrible part of
web designing. I'm trying to stick to HTML 3.2 for the most part, it's
widely supported.) There have rarely been problems with it.
ActiveX is not a standard. It's a de facto standard, which is different.
IIRC, the Java they wanted to develop would've supported windows spesific
commands or libraries.
If you wouldn't use the windows spesific commands/libraries, then you should
be able to move it around.
They can do whatever they want with the office documents, there isn't a
standard for office documents, therefor, you can't claim a propreity
standard here.
> As for the whole .NET thing... Remember,
> it's a documented fact that MS have illegaly used their power in the
> market to enforce their own position.
illegally?
It's not illegal to use your power to enforce your position.
It's illegal to prevent competitors from competing, which MS hasn't done.
That is about as far as my understanding of US laws reach, though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:26:57 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vvetd$5mvor$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vvcd7$5e9qk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> They said W2k was stable and it proved to NOT
> >> >> be stable. They claim Whistler is stable but
> >> >> they have done this before with W2k and NT
> >> >> before it.
> >> >
> >> >Who proved it and how?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Very simple.
> >>
> >> Just use it like the other 10,000 people did in
> >> a business environment or with napster and
> >> just watch that peice of shit bluescreen.
> >
> >Obscure statement, provide some proof.
> >
> >> Or you can read it in the reviews.
> >
> >Provide a proof.
> >None of the reviews I've seen on win2k (and I've seen many) "proved it to
> >NOT be stable"
> >
> >
<snip a lot of childish rubbish>
>
> Charlie
So you've none, then.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:31:06 +0200
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 06:43:38 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >> Just use it like the other 10,000 people did in
> >> a business environment or with napster and
> >> just watch that peice of shit bluescreen.
> >
> >Obscure statement, provide some proof.
>
> "Napster crashes."
>
> "Obscure statement"...
How is Napster crashing has anything to do with 2K stability?
I've used Napster on win2k, both pro & server.
It never blue screened on me.
> >> Or you can read it in the reviews.
> >
> >Provide a proof.
>
> How about you get some experience as a sysadmin? Try to get 2k boxes up to
> (okay, sorry, somewhere-remotely-distantly-approaching) the stability and
> security of unix boxes. If you succeed, _then_ report back to us. Until
then...
Why would I? Sun already did it.
http://www.sun.com/software/white-papers/wp-dhbrown00/#1.1
> I'll provide objective proof as soon as you can get the hands (legally) on
the
> 2k source and turn it over to me, so I can fossick through it...
Sure you can.
All you've to do is pay a ridicously high amount of money to MS and sign a
draconian NDA license that basically says, if you even think about this code
in public, they've the right to kill you in many interesting ways.
Adminning ME, for example.
> >None of the reviews I've seen on win2k (and I've seen many) "proved it to
> >NOT be stable"
>
> Oh, well, silly me and silly charlie. If a review didn't say it to be
unstable...
Show me the review from a credible source that claim that Win2K is unstable.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:38:34 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VxHU5.25237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vsjgv$5j4i5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > What major vendor could have sold you an Intel based PC in 1996
> > > > > without paying for a copy of windows?
> > > >
> [...]
> > No, he claimed that you can't buy a intel based PC in 1996 without
paying
> to
> > MS.
>
> No, I asked which major vendor could have sold you one, and I notice
> that you tried to avoid the issue instead of answering.
What is the big deal about not being able to buy it from a major vendor?
Buy enough from a small one and you'll make it a major vendor :)
> > If the major vendor is such an important issue, then create a
> > goverment-owned vendor to buy proccessors from intel and sell computers.
>
> Yikes, if I don't trust a garage mechanic to build a computer, why do
> you think I would trust the government?
Who do you trust, then?
> > I don't think that Intel, at any point, would refuse to sell its
> processors
> > to anyone.
>
> That doesn't mean just anyone can build a quality box and provide
> timely service.
Not anyone, but I'm sure a goverment is capable of gathering the people who
can do this.
> > I pointed out that even if this is true, then you could still go with
Mac.
> > The wording was wrong, though.
> > However, even if you exclude x86, you still get Linux on alpha, Mac on
> PPC,
> > Sun on Sparc, and so on.
> > Plenty of choices.
>
> Now you can - and should, but we were talking about 1996. The Mac
> and Sun had some apps back then but neither were in the same price
> range as Intel boxes.
What was the OEM price for win95/NT in 1996 in iceland? For that matter,
were the major vendors in Icenland bound by per-proccessors contracts?
In current days dollar, please.
If you think about it a little, you'll see that *even* if you pay for the
win95 OEM, it doesn't add up much to the computer.
Of course, if you don't intend to use windows, this is an annoying issue,
which has been thankfully eliminated, but it doesn't add much to the price
of a computer.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
