Linux-Advocacy Digest #636, Volume #30 Sun, 3 Dec 00 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Adam Ruth")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Linux is awful ("Les Mikesell")
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their cheap PC's? ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is awful ("Les Mikesell")
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:03:18 -0700
I cannot vouch for any of your experiences. But when Exchange 5 and IIS 3
would die (which was all too often), about 25% of the time, they would not
come back up. The wonderful control panel you describe was absolutely
worthless. The services would be in some kind of limbo state. You couldn't
start them because they were already running and you couldn't stop them
because they were not running. At leasting according to NT. The services
control panel had all buttons greyed out. A command line attempt to restart
the services gave the errors I mentioned above.
What do you do at that point? Well, ususally I would run the kill command.
That would about half the time kill the process and allow me to restart it.
At that point, since rebooting is neither the only nor the best solution,
what do I do? I'd really love to hear a definitive answer on that one.
> My milage is indeed different.
> Why on earth would you restart the whole machine just because a service
has
> died on you?
> There is *no need* to do that if a service crushed, you simply restart it,
> at worse, you've to stop or terminate it, and then start it again.
> And on 2000, you can go to Administrator Tools>Services, and get a very
nice
> MMC that display all the services, allows you to stop/start/restart/pause
> every service which run on the computer.
>
> Frankly, I don't think that you or whoever took care of the NT/2K boxes
had
> much knowledge in NT/2K, or did their work correctly.
> There are plenty of problems that can be solved by a reboot, and it's
> defintly the easiest way, which take the least thinking. However, it's
> neither the only one nor the best.
>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 00:09:34 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>>>>>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>>>>>>>>>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
>>>>>>>>> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>>>>>> You'd be surprised....
>>>>>> Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>>>>> The power switch is NOT "intuitive"
>>>> You mean you need to consult a manual to learn how to turn a computer
>>>> on???
>>>>> Proof: put a primative tribesman in a room with electric appliances
>>>>> and tell him to start the things into operation.
>>>> How does that represent proof for your claim? Intuition comes from
>>>> experience. If you don't have the experience, then you need to consult
>>>> a manual. You're hypothesizing a situation in which there is no
>>>> experience.
>>> Circular argument.
>> Incorrect.
Note: no response.
>>> You lose
>> Also incorrect.
Note: no response.
>>> Dumbass.
>> Ah, the invective I've come to expect from people who don't have a
>> logical response.
> You're just pissed off because you're being identified for
> the brainless loser that you are.
How ironic.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:14:13 -0700
Exchange 5, IIS 3, and sometimes the print spooler. In another post I
mentioned that about 25% of the time when these services failed, or hung,
that they could not be restarted. Control panel, command line, or even API
call (I tried to write my own service restarter when nothing else worked)
failed to do anything. If you tried to start the service, NT would error
out because the service was already running, and stopping the service gave a
similar error about the service not being started. So, you need not worry
about me walking up to a console, I know how to use NT. BTW the bank didn't
train me, Microsoft did. I'm an MCP, MSCE+I, and MSCD. The systems were
initially configured by personnel from Microsoft. Actually, when we were
having problems with the systems initially, we brought them in. They
improved our situation greatly, but only to the 3 month maximum I mentioned.
That's the best that THEY could do, on all brand new Compaq hardware.
I don't deny that Windows can be better than my experience has shown, I'm
sure that there are things I and those around me have done wrong. It's just
quite clear to me that Windows has a much greater chance of failure than
Linux. On my first try I set up a RedHat (on an ALR server) that has been
up for 192 days without a hiccup. That speaks volumes to me, and my
opinions are echoed by 95% of the computer professionals I know. The other
5% have blinders on. We had some die-hard MS people at the bank who would
regularly claim we had 90-99% uptime. Their memory of Windows failing was
very selective.
"Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vNvW5.9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam,
>
> I'm curious, what service was crashing on these 200 NT servers. I really
> can't recall a system that I've ever had to reboot in order to restart a
> dead process and I would like to know why you had such bad luck. Your
> comment about using the control panel kind of worries me, I hope you
weren't
> actually walking up to the console to verify and restart these services.
It
> sounds like you were not given proper training on managing NT /WIN2K
systems
> by the bank before being assigned the task. Sadly this is all to common.
>
> Patrick
>
> BTW, W2K has a service similar to inetd for starting, stopping, and
> restarting other services. The ability to create escalation levels if a
> process fails is quite helpful..
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:19:43 -0700
Just out of curiosity. What the current best uptime of the NT/2000 boxes
under your control? I'd really like to know. Honestly, I can believe my
experiences may atypical. What you're experience?
"Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vNvW5.9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam,
>
> I'm curious, what service was crashing on these 200 NT servers. I really
> can't recall a system that I've ever had to reboot in order to restart a
> dead process and I would like to know why you had such bad luck. Your
> comment about using the control panel kind of worries me, I hope you
weren't
> actually walking up to the console to verify and restart these services.
It
> sounds like you were not given proper training on managing NT /WIN2K
systems
> by the bank before being assigned the task. Sadly this is all to common.
>
> Patrick
>
> BTW, W2K has a service similar to inetd for starting, stopping, and
> restarting other services. The ability to create escalation levels if a
> process fails is quite helpful..
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90dr8a$b7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > False.
> > > A properly configured Win2K has no problems staying up for as long as
> you
> > > like.
> > > The only reason it's not up for years is because it's less than a year
> in
> > > the market.
> >
> > I have to disagree with you here. My 2 cents, from my experience.
> >
> > I've been involved with the set up of more than 200 NT Servers, about 5
> 2000
> > Servers, and 5 Linux Servers. Most of the NT Servers were at a bank (I
> was
> > on their Y2K project).
> > > Not 1 of the NT Servers was up more than 6 weeks. Actually, that's
not
> > true, one SQL Server remained up for 3 months but had to be moved. So I
> > guess kudos for whomever set up that machine. Some of the rest of the
> > machines had scheduled reboots anywhere from every night to every couple
> of
> > weeks. This was to prevent them crashing in the middle of the day.
Most
> of
> > the time, they didn't crash, though, it's just that a service died and
>
> > couldn't be restarted. I shook with fear everytime I clicked 'Stop' in
> the
> > Services Control Panel.
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:19:55 -0700
Just out of curiosity. What the current best uptime of the NT/2000 boxes
under your control? I'd really like to know. Honestly, I can believe my
experiences may atypical. What you're experience?
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90eanq$tels$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90dr8a$b7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > False.
> > > A properly configured Win2K has no problems staying up for as long as
> you
> > > like.
> > > The only reason it's not up for years is because it's less than a year
> in
> > > the market.
> >
> > I have to disagree with you here. My 2 cents, from my experience.
> >
> > I've been involved with the set up of more than 200 NT Servers, about 5
> 2000
> > Servers, and 5 Linux Servers. Most of the NT Servers were at a bank (I
> was
> > on their Y2K project).
> >
> > Not 1 of the NT Servers was up more than 6 weeks. Actually, that's not
> > true, one SQL Server remained up for 3 months but had to be moved. So I
> > guess kudos for whomever set up that machine. Some of the rest of the
> > machines had scheduled reboots anywhere from every night to every couple
> of
> > weeks. This was to prevent them crashing in the middle of the day.
Most
> of
> > the time, they didn't crash, though, it's just that a service died and
> > couldn't be restarted. I shook with fear everytime I clicked 'Stop' in
> the
> > Services Control Panel.
> >
> > The 2000 Servers fared better, though, I think that on has been up for
> about
> > 4 months. I'm not really sure, I'm not with that company anymore. But
> most
> > of them have had to be rebooted for the same 'dead service' reason. It
> may
> > be stable if you NEVER EVER EVER TOUCH IT, but that just doesn' t happen
> in
> > the real world.
> >
> > The Linux Servers are another matter entirely. Never has one of them
> > crashed. The 1st server I set up has been up for 192 days now. And
I've
> > upgraded the database server, the web server, the ssh server, the dns
> > server, and the mail server. Nary a reboot. The only times the other's
> > have been down is to be moved, or someone uplugged them, or a hardware
> > failure.
> >
> > Anyway, that's my 'real world' experience. Your mileage may vary.
> >
> > Adam Ruth
>
> My milage is indeed different.
> Why on earth would you restart the whole machine just because a service
has
> died on you?
> There is *no need* to do that if a service crushed, you simply restart it,
> at worse, you've to stop or terminate it, and then start it again.
> And on 2000, you can go to Administrator Tools>Services, and get a very
nice
> MMC that display all the services, allows you to stop/start/restart/pause
> every service which run on the computer.
>
> Frankly, I don't think that you or whoever took care of the NT/2K boxes
had
> much knowledge in NT/2K, or did their work correctly.
> There are plenty of problems that can be solved by a reboot, and it's
> defintly the easiest way, which take the least thinking. However, it's
> neither the only one nor the best.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 02:36:08 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90ebn3$smj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Just read the guides first.
>
> I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it is that
> Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the installation.
> You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive action, you get
a
> warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the most dangerous
> thing that you can do to your computer?
Are you sure about that? I can't remember exactly which steps I used
on which distribution, but I am sure that I went through a workstation
and server install to see what you get and before it changed the partitions
it issued a warning about losing all contents on the hard disks. That
could have been Mandrake, or perhaps you used some unusual modes
expert/text, etc. that exposed a bug.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their cheap PC's?
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:42:14 -0600
"jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > IOW, it was a binary-only driver which didn't work OOTB with major
> > Linux distributions.
>
> what is IOW?
>
> I don't mind if I have to tweak linux to get it to work on the hardware.
> As long as there is a way to get it to work.
You may not mind it, but Dell isn't going to sell a system that doesn't work
out of the box. That solves many of their tech support problems if they
know it works correctly when it leaves the factory.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 02:45:08 GMT
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 17:13:47 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmm.. I'm not real impressed with either WindowMaker or BlackBox from the
>screenshots i've seen. I'm not exactly looking for lots of eye candy
For some reason theme designers always seem to make everything either
dark and gloomy or all bright and cartoony. Either way they are in
love with elaborate and distracting backgrounds. However, some looking
around at <http://bb.themes.org/> will turn up a few good ones that one
can use for real work without going blind, particularly if you get rid
of background bitmaps.
For Blackbox, I recommend "SimpleElegance" without the background
graphic, "Minimal (good for laptops)", and "Ventolin" modified with a
lighter background.
>Worse yet, I have just found out that Linux-Mandrake ships with all hard
>drive optimizations turned off.
I think most of them do. I've had a few machines lock up when
attempting to use DMA. Apparently there are some buggy chipsets out
there. Just put the requisite hdparm statement in /etc/rc.local.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 02:46:07 GMT
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 18:08:30 -0000, Nigel Feltham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Yes, because most people don't get to pick their own software at work.
>You could always use openoffice and tell them it was written with word ;-)
Tried StarOffice 5.2, and it was close. But there were minor
differences for documents that use a lot of fancy formatting and it
happens that our standard templates hit some of the gotchas.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 02:47:49 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VrzW5.9940$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, it failed to work with Mandrake 7.0 then worked just fine with 7.2
If the hardware is the same, they must probe more locations now.
> > There are good reasons that nobody uses ISA anymore.
>
> Buying a decent PCI SCSI card is pretty expensive. This is an old machine,
> so I saw no reason to do any more upgrades to it.
ISA is all we had for a long time and it worked as long as you configured
it yourself. However the 152x cards are basically CPU driven, and the
154x can only use DMA into the lower 16M of memory (the ISA limit) and
the kernel has to use an extra buffer there, then copy where it was supposed
to go, so it probably isn't what you want on a high performance machine.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:25:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nigel Feltham in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:13:28
>>Not generally, because Adobe owns PostScript, and they don't license it
>>cheap.
>
>Yet most (if not all) linux applications can output to a file in postscript format
>(using the print function with a print driver designed to feed it's input out to
>a file).
Well, actually, Windows can do this too. Not as well, not as easily,
and not as conveniently, but it can do 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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:25:37 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000
>> >I believe in compensating people that do things for me which help. That's
>> >why I purchase even multiple versions of Linux rather than just downloading
>> >them.
>>
>> You are *such* a humanitarian.
>
>No. If you don't compensate people for their work, chances are they will
>not continue to offer it. It's called common sense.
>
>If you like something, pay for it. Even if you don't have to.
OK, so I was wrong. You're not a humanitarian; you're a moron. Or a
millionaire. Or both.
--
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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:25:40 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:19:58
[...]
>> The question you have to ask yourself is, would the same problem arise
>> if it were ported from single-user WinDOS to multi-user Unix, rather
>> than "multi-user" WinNT.
>
>No registry, you would've to either bring the registry with you, in which
>case you wouldn't implement security, as it would break your application.
>Or you would have to change the application to use conf files rather than
>the registry, therefor eliminating the problem to some degree.
>Check netscape 6 for this.
So, the answer is "No." Thank you. (Whether Netscape made additional
errors is entirely beside the point.)
>> >As a rule, you should put your user spesifics settings in HKCU, and machine
>> >settings in HKLM.
>> >I'm sure you can understand why.
>> >That the application put user spesific settings in HKLM means that it was
>> >badly designed, not that the OS is badly designed.
>>
>> Perhaps in your opinion. I blame the whole platform, which would
>> include both badly designed OS and brain-dead applications. Both are a
>> reflection of monopoly crapware, more than anything else. I know you
>> think this makes me a fanatic, but I'm not the one who thinks W2K is the
>> creme de la creme of operating systems.
>
>You used this as an argument to show how "badly designed" windows was.
An example, yes. The argument is what turns the instance into an
example.
[...]
>> That would be Netscapes fault, then, since this isn't a problem endemic
>> to Unix, as it is in Windows. Since Netscape was originally designed on
>> Windows, this isn't very surprising.
>
>Typical, blame windows.
Uh huh. See how the instance turns into an example using a reasoned
argument?
>Doesn't work in this case, Netscape 6 is a rebuild from scratch, you know.
>It was designed to be multi-platfrom.
But according to your argument, they botched the job. Since the error
they introduced could easily be understood to be a "windows-ism", being
the assumption that the system is effectively a single-user system, it
illustrates my argument rather well.
>> >Netscape 6 require /usr/local/netscape to have read/write to *all* users.
>> >Since it stores *user spesifics* settings in there, instead of storing them
>> >in /home/<user>/netsacpe
>>
>> You'll notice none of this is hidden inside of a binary hierarchical
>> database with no public specification. Just files (text files, maybe,
>> but this is Netscape, so I can't be sure) in a regular old directory.
>> If any of this is even true, as you say.
>
>Point?
Point being that your presumption that this is comparable or even
analogous to the registry is fatally flawed.
[...]
>> No, it isn't. Neither /usr nor /home nor how applications store their
>> configurations has anything to do with "linux/unix". This is a Netscape
>> problem. If it isn't an Ayende Rahien problem, and you just don't have
>> it set up correctly.
>>
>> Doesn't that just piss you off? I insist that an application being
>> brain-dead is the OSes fault on Windows, but the app's fault on Linux,
>> *just* because Microsoft monopolizes. How unfair, huh?
>
>Being aware to your own problems is a good thing.
>Now all you've to do is to solve them.
They should be mostly solved by June, I expect, since by the beginning
of March Microsoft will begin the split.
>> >9x applications that does this are violating rules of writing software to
>> >windows.
>>
>> Which is why I say its Windows fault; why are there rules if they're so
>> readily violated?
>
>Lazy programming?
I would concur; Microsoft does engage in some of the laziest programming
ever seen.
--
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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:25:43 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:36:39
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]How is
>> it if the Win32 apps can use the registry the same way, and its
>> supposedly the same mechanism, it doesn't work the same between the two
>> platforms? Wouldn't it make more sense for NT to be the one to
>> differentiate between user settings and system settings, rather than
>> providing false support to the application developers?
>
>NT registry has security & permissions.
>Win9x registry doesn't support permissions, therefor, anyone can write to
>HKLM.
Sounds like a major flaw in WinDOS. It wouldn't surprise me if
*Microsoft* had some trouble ensuring that ISV's applications could
support both systems. Its really a dumb idea, in the end. But
necessary to maintain the monopoly.
>Users can of course write to HKCU.
>Please check MS guidelines to programming in windows, you'll see that it
>states very clearly that user spesifics settings in HKCU.
>Beside, the very same mecanism (HKCU being user spesific) works in win9x.
And as I've explained (quoted below), this does cause the kind of
problems you're addressing. And they're *Microsoft's* problems, since
the app isn't supposed to have to be re-written to work on NT. Had
Microsoft provided some method of setting machine-wide configuration
settings without running aground of permissions, this problem wouldn't
occur.
>> [...]So they cram all their stuff into the local
>> machine branch instead of the local user branch of the registry (thus
>> allowing all users of the system to share the settings, since they're
>> really all the same person). Doing it the way you want would mean that
>> accidentally "logging in" as a different user would make the software
>> non-functional. Its easier and slightly more intuitive than doing
>> things right.
>
>No, it's not.
>Not by a long shot.
>"allowing all users of the system to share the settings, since they're
>really all the same person" is a silly statement.
I concur. But that's a failure of WinDOS that you're just going to have
to deal with.
>You don't accidently log on as another user, even if that user has no
>password.
Sure you do. Sometimes you do it on purpose, too, expecting Windows to
give you a different desktop or set of user configuration settings.
Either way, WinDOS fails, and NT adds to the confusion.
>And if you do, you should get the other's user settings.
>Because that it how it should work.
Precisely; you should get the other user's settings. Which is why app
developers put them in local.machine instead of local.user. You see how
that works?
>> You'd never hear me defend anyone who did this. But it ain't
>> necessarily their fault; if the OS weren't monopoly crapware, they
>> probably wouldn't have made this mistake, even if given the opportunity
>> (which no competitive OS gives them to begin with).
>
>How does the OS being monopoly has anything to do with this mistake?
I just explained that. Since there is only One Microsoft Way, any
confusion or mistakes in implementing it is *Microsoft's* fault. Free
market competition would prevent such bone-headed application developers
from remaining in business, one would expect. Or force them to be
competitive, which includes avoiding errors like this.
[...]
>> >BTW, my testing of netscape 6 aren't unusual, so it seems.
>> >http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-11/lw-11-netscape6.html
>>
>> Unusual? No. About what I'd expect from Netscape. It only looks good
>> in comparison to IE. Truth is, its pretty crappy software, from what
>> I've seen.
>
>Have you even tried comparing memory footprints?
No, I don't care about memory footprints, generally. Besides, you
*can't* compare memory footprints: too much of IE is actually part of
the OS's "footprint".
>Right now, OE is taking 15MB (peak at 30MB), IE 7MB (peak at 17MB).
>Netscape reached 40MB (peak at 65MB at which point I terminated it because
>it seem to just want more and more) easily, by simply surfing with *one*
>window open. And just openning it would take 22- 25MB.
>Trying to do things with more than one window open increase memory usage in
>a totally unacceptable ways.
Like I said, the only thing that makes Netscape any good at all is that
its better than IE.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
