Linux-Advocacy Digest #547, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Netscape review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("PLZI")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Netscape review. (spicerun)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:29 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ed Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 06:59:10 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:44:34 -0500;
>>
>>>This is why MS markets Win2k only for the PC platform. It's not
>>>economically viable for them to do otherwise because there's not enough
>>>demand for it.
>>
>>Pardon me, but how is this at all related to the application barrier?
>>If NT/2K actually ran on other hardware, shouldn't Windows applications
>>still work?
>
> Apparently not.
>
> I had a MIPS CPU version of NT and every time I asked why they did
> not offer a MIPS version of their software I was told that it was
> not simply a matter of recompiling their source code from the Wintel
> version.
>
> I knew about the differences between Win95 and NT but I was baffled
> that Microsoft would develop incompatible versions of NT.
>>
>>>Before you develop an application, you need to have a target population
>>>to market it to.
>>
> This was the thinking of EDA (Electronic Design Automation) vendors as
> well.
>
> They kept telling Engineers asking for a Linux port that there was
> nobody cutting purchase orders requiring Linux. Then one of them
> smuggly gave that as an answer to a question from the audience.
>
> Another Engineer stood up and asked him what *part number* to use for a
> product that his company did not sell. The entire audience cheered.
>
> Within six months most EDA vendors listed a Linux port, with a part
> number, as "coming soon". They are doing a booming business on Linux now,
> seems the Engineers had been resisting NT.
>
> So you have it backwards. You must offer to sell something before
> you can expect to see purchase requests.
>
> As Max is fond of saying, "As a business it is *your job* to guess
> what customers want and provide it."
It is a great pleasure to see you posting in the groups, Ed. As always,
you've quite neatly nailed the issue; I continue to be impressed. Even
more so because, although I've never said precisely the quote you
attribute to me, I would not disagree with a single character of it.
It brings us back to a crucial issue, that elusive abstraction of
*marketing*. In truth, marketing is just this: guessing what the
customer wants, and *putting it on the market*, hoping (usually
desperately, if competition is doing its job; desperation does tend to
contribute towards discovery of efficiencies) that somebody is going to
buy it.
The modern world of the "information society" has provoked some myth
that there is some magic way around this activity. One first gets a
market, and then you start developing a product. This is what causes
many modern products, and even more the benefits of these products, to
be completely vaporous. Modern technology, in many respects, has become
little more than a gigantic con-game.
When the rubber meets the road, the fact is that fiber-optic
multi-gigabit backbone equipment producers are finding their is not as
much market for their wares as they'd hoped. I blame Microsoft, most
poignantly. The fact is we have the technology to increase the
capability of networks exponentially. The only reason it hasn't already
happened is the monopoly bottleneck, preventing any innovation which
threatens their dominance.
(I figure, with Ed to act as a "rational voice", I can let the old rant
engine really rev, you know what I mean?)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ed Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:59:10 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:21:00
>> [...]
>>>
>>>Such as?
>>>Evidence, please.
>>
>>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
>>http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/JamesHoward/JamesHoward5.html
>>http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/14214.html
>>http://www.brillscontent.com/features/bill_0998.html
>>http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
>>http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07/schulman.html
>>http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/incomp.html
>>http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
>>http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
>>http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html
>>http://m2.aol.com/machcu/mspquotes.html
>>http://www.airmissle.com/antiMS/quotes/
>>http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
>>http://www4.bluemountain.com/home/ImportantNotice.html?020399
>>http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5343a.txt
>>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3314493.html?tag=st.ne.1430735..ni
>>http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-all.html
>>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>>
>>That'll get you started.
>>
> Damn Max, you are getting as bad as me with overloading people with
> lots of links. ;)
Where do you think I got half of them? (I lie; the fact is that these
links almost all come from other sources. The 'inside joke' is that Ed
sends me something like two dozen links a week. Some of the most
fascinating stuff on the subject of technology and anti-trust. I plan
to have him as a contributing editor on my web site, if I ever build
it.)
> He will be gone for days if he really reads all those sites.
Shhh! ;-)
> On the other hand there is the old saying from Artificial Intelligence:
>
> Information overload equals pattern recognition.
Wow. I'd never heard that one. I LOVE it.
> Maybe the fact that these things are being said by more than a
> couple of "anti-monopoly loonies" will begin to sink in.
Naw; they're *all* anti-monopoly loonies. The gov't, Caldera, Blue
Mountain, Stac, Netscape. A bunch of whiners who can't compete. ;-)
> People, all those sites represent lots of others who believe that
> the time has come for this criminal activity to cease.
And the list itself, BTW, is copyright (2000) T. Max Devlin. Thank you
very much.
>>
>>>I don't find it very credible, sorry.
>>
>>That's because you have lost the ability to recognize what is an is not
>>credible, because you've been swallowing too much horseshit from
>>Microsoft for too long to even be able to recognize reality when
>>confronted with it.
>>
> Perhaps his taste for good software has been affected ?
>
> "Doesn't crash frequently enough, I need stronger *stuff* !"
Yea, I think I've seen that happen, come to think of it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:38 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ed Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:59:10 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:55:44 -0500;
>>>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>>|
>>>| How did MS controled the price of OS/2?
>>>
>>>IBM did an incredibly lousy job of marketing OS/2.
>>
>>Well, it sure is nice to know that you would have done so much better.
>>Tell me, how would you have handled the inability to escape marketing
>>Windows, without increasing the price to the point where you lost money?
>>
> I think I would like to take a stab at making that clearer:
>
> Microsoft controlled the price of OS/2 by making sure that they got
> paid for a copy of Windows for evey machine shipped even if that
> machine only contained OS/2.
[...]
> This Microsoft scam was called "Per-Processing Licensing."
>
> Microsoft agreed to stop doing it, after they had killed off all
> their competitors, to avoid an antitrust conviction in 1994.
They started ppl contracts again rather soon after. The loophole they
used to avoid prosecution was that they were related to specific model
lines, not all processors. Of course, the major OEMs had contracts
covering *all* models. Now, they reserve some models of
workstation-class systems that they can offer with Linux, but for the
most part it seems per-processor licensing is still in place.
It isn't only ppl which works to control OS/2's price, of course. The
cliff's edge pricing of Windows, as well as the "don't market it or
Windows gets expensive" stuff documented in the Findings.
> Apparently Microsoft cannot avoid monopolising, it is so much more
> lucrative than competeing, so this time they have been convicted.
You've well summarized the situation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:55:49 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:03:39
[...]
>If IBM would've really wanted to push OS/2, they would've not signed those
>contracts.
A fait accompli is hardly a cogent evaluation of the commercial
situation. This kind of "nobody ever agrees to a contract without
agreeing to a contract" stuff doesn't explain why, if IBM didn't want to
push OS/2, Microsoft had to threaten them with making Windows so
expensive it would put them out of business to get them to stop.
>And market OS/2 as the OS of their computer.
>It's called believing your product.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:56:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:08:32
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:14:35
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000
[...]
>> >> >If you've already have an OS which you've gotten to know, would you install
>> >> >buy a new one just because it was localised?
>> >>
>> >> I certainly wouldn't but that's because I don't have any need for any
>> >> localized versions of anything; I don't even know any second languages
>> >> to begin with. But you were saying that you got Windows for localized
>> >> support, among other things. You tell me.
>> >
>> >I just did.
>>
>> Yes, but then apparently you said the exact opposite, which is that
>> there isn't any reason for someone to purchase a localized version if
>> they could use an English version.
>
>No, I said that switching to localize version can be PITA
No, I don't recall anything about switching to a localized version being
a pain in the ass being brought up, actually. You're just trying to
avoid confronting the paradox with the Icelandic localization issue so
well illustrates, because obviously you didn't understand it when you
brought it up. From what I've heard, there are 2.5 million potential
buyers of a localized version of Windows. Why would MS decide not to
localize, given the market opportunity, on the premise that "they
already have a version they can use?" These are people that *wanted* a
localized version, and were willing to pay for it.
Obviously, Microsoft is *not* concerned with whether something is
profitable, but only with whether or not it maintains or extends the
monopoly.
>> >> >Do you know whatever Icelandians write in roman letters?
>> >
>> >This is the improtant question.
>>
>> Now if I could only understand it, we might get somewhere. You need to
>> rephrase it; it didn't translate well at all.
>
>If they use roman letters, then they can write & read on the english OS
>natively.
Well, do they?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:50:54 GMT
In article <75kV5.30250$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <900dqu$5pbqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Well, I've tried netscape. (6, windows version. On Whistler 2296
>> >machine)
>> >> > Just as a note, Whistler being a beta release of windows might skew the
>> >> > results, but I don't think it would do such a degree as to nullify the
>> >> > results that I post.
>> >> > Even if you half the numbers I give, it's still *bad* for Netscape.
>> >>
>> >> I DON'T CARE!!!
>> >>
>> >> I will still continue to run my Netscape 4.75 Browser on Linux which has
>> >> performed for me better than anything MS running Internet Exploder has
>> >ever
>> >> done. Once Mozilla comes out with a version with debugging turned off, I
>> >will
>> >> be switching to it as soon as it is available.
>> >
>> >You've the source, why don't you turn the debugging off yourself?
>> >
>> >> If you don't want intelligent people responding to this propaganda, keep
>> >it off
>> >> the linux and mac newsgroups.
>> >
>> >Netscape is a multi platform product.
>> >Whistler is a direct competition to both Mac & Linux.
>>
>> No, Whistler is the product of a Monopoly. There is no
>> competition.
>
>When you're done smoking, mark, would you come down and
>join the rest of the real world?
>
The Monopoly aspects of Microsoft canning drives
and having windows installed on all the p.c.'s
simply can't be ignored here.
>Is MS is a monopoly, then why are Mac and Linux doing so
>well. You and your kind repeatedly tell us how wonderful
>Linux or the MacOS is doing and how it's much better than
>any OS MS ever put out.
>
It is also impossible to ignore all the special
proprietary formats Microsoft has used to entrap
the public and lock them into MS office.
And what they did with MS office carry's over
to what they did on the internet also.
You know, I can't even view the MS website
properly with Netscape as the ONLY browser
you can see it with properly is MSIE.
>What then, if MS has a monopoly on OS software, is Linux?
>Or MacOS for that matter?
>
>-Chad
>
I think your confusing OS dominace with proprietary
formats which FORCE you to buy MS products.
This IS the set of arguements which convicted
Microsoft in the first place.
And you know this. You just being a dick head
because you can.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:59:35 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:39:45 +1300;
>> > So basically the guy on the phone at MS should have said "Do you expect
>> > software testers to test the software properly?"
>>
>> For those reasons I can't blame software testers, I do blame software
>> designers, and managers on top of them. But, given a monopoly condition,
>> even such incredible errors don't influence profits, so nobody really
>> cares. Except users.
>
>Please excuse me, I didn't mean at all to place the blame on the testers!
>Perhaps what I should have said was "Do you expect us at Microsoft to
>test our software properly?".
>
>I doubt as many testers as they had would have just sat by and rebooted
>without reporting the problems. Professional testers know what they are
>doing, but without some kind of support, the bugs they find will not get
>fixed. I firmly believe many testers were told things like "Oh, that
>happens sometimes, just reboot".
>
>We already know MS don't like to fix bugs unless a major player is
>screaming about it... why do they even have a testing procedure? Just to
>make sure their product stands up long enough to look pretty and get
>purchased?
Well, that's what you get from a monopoly; it is the "most efficient" at
extracting money from victims. Too bad its not a free market, which is
less efficient at fraud and more efficient at production and innovation.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:45:22 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:48:38 GMT, PLZI
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Now, very slowly, please explain to me, what is MS supposed to do with NT
> >group information? Provide a NT Group support for all *nix platforms?
>
> Well, they could have made getting the group information a separate
> request. That way, an NT server could provide that, while an existing
> Unix server could still authenticate users. This method would avoid
> the need to either replace existing Kerberos servers or have separate
> authentication for NT and Unix. It would have taken a few milliseconds
> longer to log in though.
>
> I don't know that much about Kerberos, but my meager understanding is
> that supporting this kind of thing is the purpose of ticket-granting
> tickets. User authenticates and gets a ticket, which he then uses to
> obtain other services. Joining an NT domain and getting group rights
> can be viewed as one of those other services.
>
> Was that slow enough for you?
By god, intelligent reply. Thank you very much, saved my day.
However, if I've understood correctly, the GUIDs coming back in the Auth_data
field inside the ticket can be discarded silently. If the unices do not have
any use of them, they won't simply be used. They are a part of authorization,
not authentication. The ticket is still valid.
- PLZI
------------------------------
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:00:54 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> Your example had me wondering though.
>
> What practical real world task are you doing with you real world
> operating system in the context of browsing that I can't achieve with
> IE? I use Netcaptor to be exact that uses the IE engine. I don't use OE.
Avoiding Trojans comes to mind. Not to mention that NT/2000 require
some serious reconfiguration to avoid myriads of problems due to that
leaky boat called "port 139".
Chris
--
Now why don't y'all juss leave this
poor ol' cuntry bawh alone? Ah'm a simple man,
and I don't unnerstand this windoze 'n' linux
crap. Why can't a man enjoy porno all by his
lonesome w'out some revenuer buttin' in????
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase?
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:01:24 GMT
I get the Wellington Evening Post and Dominion (morning paper) and the
main jobs are based around
UNIX/Cobol/Fortran/Oracle/Sybase/SAP/Netware/Linux, saw an UNIX admin
job going for 120K a year (now that's serious cash), but surprise,
surprise, ya maybe lucky to see one or two NT jobs going. The server
marketplace in New Zealand, is surprisingly, not dominated by
Microsoft's henchmen (like Dell, and Compaq), but by Sun, SGI, Unisys
and Cobalt, hence the demand for UNIX admins.
PS. Claire Lynn, don't turn this into a Yank vs. Kiwi argument.
kiwiunixman
chris@looking_for_advice wrote:
> I just went to dice looking for jobs, and typed linux, and got
> more than 5,000 jobs!
>
> I remember trying this a year ago, and I think there was only 300-400
> linux jobs at the time.
>
> this is an amazing increase of Linux related jobs.
>
> I think linux/unix skills are getting to be very good thing
> to have. I am thinking of concetrating on this area instead
> of Java stuff (which I am starting to find kind'a boring actually).
>
> I think I am making the correct thing, please tell me if I am
> wrong, and why you think so. Any people actually working on
> linux for living? can you tell what do you think the future for
> linux jobs will be?
>
> chris
>
------------------------------
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:03:22 GMT
Curtis wrote:
>
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> Uhm, you say that many in the know that are in your acquaintance prefer
> OS/2 to Win2k.
>
> I said the opposite and you said that I'm wrong. I'm saying that you are
> wrong in saying that I'm wrong. I'm not saying that your initial
> statement was wrong.
In logic or sophistry, 2 wrongs can make a right.
--
Now why don't y'all juss leave this
poor ol' cuntry bawh alone?
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:03:42 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> You've the source, why don't you turn the debugging off yourself?
Thanks for the challenge. I am indeed doing this and will switch to Mozilla
when finished.
> > If you don't want intelligent people responding to this propaganda, keep
> it off
> > the linux and mac newsgroups.
>
> Netscape is a multi platform product.
So is Mozilla and Opera.
> Whistler is a direct competition to both Mac & Linux.
How is Whistler direct competition to Linux? Linux won't be going bankrupt if
people buy Whistler. There will always be someone using Linux somewhere
because they can!
As far as direct competition to Mac....Consider the Military who had their
Web sites hacked and ended up changing out those computers to the more secure
Macs. Why would they ever change back? I bet you'll find there are all sorts
of knowledgeable people who don't want to learn a computer who will keep
buying Macs, and after hearing the problems of Windows, will stay with and
keep buying Macs. Actually, the ball is in Apple's court to keep the Macs a
machine people want. I really think OSX is a step in the right direction OS
wise. The Apple Hardware with the Powerpc's already run rings around Pentium
performance.
However, I think you might be shocked how little the sales are likely to be
for Whistler. Based on the non-success of WinME (people are really getting
burned on WinME as a visit to any ME newsgroup will show), and given how
wonderfully MS made updates for both WinNT and Win9x, people are going to be
leery. I don't that many people will be buying Whistler until they get an
indication that Security and Service Pack Updates aren't needed to fix major
problems in the OS. And if it turns out that MS has found a way to charge a
yearly fee for Whistler, I think you'll find that a lot of people and
businesses won't be buying Whistler at all. In fact, an even larger number of
people will hold off buying Whistler UNTIL the first or second Service Packs
are released for it to fix what will be the perceived as Major Bugs in the
initial release.
> While the second might not interest you, the first should.
Whistler will not affect Linux one bit! Now Go Away Troll....Shooo...out of
the Linux newsgroups.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:05:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Again. Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.
>
You've answered this admirably I think.
>From most of the Windows using crew I've been associated with
in past years, their time truely is worth nothing.
I've seen people fuck around with Windows all day
long attempting to get something installed and
working right or funnier still, rebuilding
their PC as it crashed from a blue screen.
Linux is arguably cheaper as it just doesn't
crash every month.
And I've been saying this for years.
My generic answer to people like you is,
GET OFF OF P.C.'S AS YOUR WASTING EVERYBODY'S
MONEY! IF YOUR TOP PRIORITY IS HOW EASY
AN OPERATING SYSTEM INSTALLS THEN YOU DON'T
KNOW WHAT YOUR ACTUALLY FUCKING DOING WITH
A COMPUTER TO BEGIN WITH. THE CONCEPT HERE
IS TO USE A COMPUTER TO PERFORM WORK, NOT
SEE HOW EASY IT IS TO REBUILD THE FUCKING
THING AFTER YOU'VE CRASHED!
Now do you understand blockhead?
Has it come thru yet?
Linux is cheaper because you don't
reboot 3 times to get 3 packages installed,
because you don't end up spending the better
part of a day rebuilding a PC which crashed,
because you don't spend hours on the phone
with tech support trying to resolve god damn
problems from their BETA RELEASE software
packages.
And it much easier on your asshole to explain
to the boss that this security issue has
been fixed and the patch was install this AM
instead of THEY are planning on including
it with SP ?.
OF course if you knew your head from your
ass concerning PC software you wouldn't
be posting this idiotic crap on a newgroup
with dozens of actual computer programmers
and systems administrators around to
blow your fucking ass out of the water
with this kind of jerk wad comment.
Charlie
------------------------------
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:05:00 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> > > Or did you mean commercial third party addons for NT that allowed telnet?
> > > MS's one never appeared to make it out of beta until 2k.
> >
> > No the resource kit has had a telnet server for years.
>
> So what was the reason for the beta of the MS telnet server we tried for
> NT4?
>
> IOW: if they already had a stable working version, why was ours only
> available in beta?
Microsoft telnet is crap. I find puTTY, which connects to ssh, to be far
more responsive and filled with features. Not to mention more secure.
--
Now why don't y'all juss leave this
poor ol' cuntry bawh alone?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
