Linux-Advocacy Digest #228, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why NT? (Donn Miller)
Re: Why NT? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: COM on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 03:09:14 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:38:38
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:44:18
>> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> They are responsible for cheapening computer hardware
>> >> in the form of Win products which are inferior to
>> >> regular products as they rely on YOUR CPU power to
>> >> power the peripheral!
>> >
>> >They do the same thing, right?
>>
>> No, they do MUCH less.
>
>Really?
>I've a winmodem here that serves me just fine.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Guffaw.
>I get 7kbps+ quite often when the ISP is not busy on a 5.6kbps
>The only bad affect that I've noticed is one second when dialing when it
>takes 100% of CPU.
>
>> >They cost *much* less.
>>
>> No, they cost a *little* less.
>
>Nope, the price difference around here is 2.5
>That is *much* more for non-winmodems.
Not considering the relative cost of a modem to the computer. Hell,
people will pay more than that for the *software* to make the modem do
what they want (should they want anything out of the ordinary.)
>> >The customer can easily find out why the price differ so much.
>>
>> No, they can't, despite your contentions. The vast majority of
>> consumers don't even know they have winmodems or winprinters, or
>> understand what that means, until they get burned trying to change OSes.
>
>Igonrance is not an excuse, they can ask.
>Period.
Only if they know to ask. The finality with which you want to end the
discussion arguing that the consumer is responsible for everything that
happens to them is, well, unsurprising. That's what makes you a
Microsoft Apologist, Ayende.
>> >So I can buy a cheap, fully functional hardware, or another on much higher
>> >cost.
>> >Why would I've to pay for the costly hardware?
>>
>> Because its the only way you're getting your money's worth, and because
>> its the only way you can run a PC without getting locked into
>> substandard, overpriced monopoly crapware.
>
>Get cheap hardware that does the same task as the overprice hardware.
>That is a good deal.
It is honestly frustrating to hear this kind of comment. I am so
disconcerted by the fact that it makes me feel angry to read that
response, that I'm going to have to take some time and figure out why.
OK, I think I've got it. You are being very stupid, and that makes me
angry. But the mistake you are making might be a small one, so I'll try
to get past that, and just make a small point about where your logic is
going astray.
The "cheap hardware" doesn't do the same task as the "overprice
hardware". In fact, that's why its cheap; a winmodem uses the
computer's hardware, and software, to do the same task as the real
modem. You are correct in your thinking that this distinction does not
necessarily cause any noticeable difference which the user is aware of.
But then, you're the one who blamed the users for being ignorant. And
now, to sooth my anger just a tiny bit, I get to blame YOU, Ayende, for
the user's ignorance. Because it is your ignorant "this is a good deal"
gibberish (with what I unfortunately picture in my mind an
idiotic-looking grin on your face, 'duh-hyuk') that is where the *lie*
essentially comes from. Because these users are being *DEFRAUDED*,
their money is not buying products, its being stolen from them through
fraud.
Now, I know, in your mindless, slack-jawed head, the glimmer of an idea
has entered your thick, slow-moving brain, and the glint of intellectual
conquest can be seen in your eye, despite being rather deeply set in
your pasty, drooling face. I am being outrageous, you think, to suggest
that *caveat emptor* be suspended for the poor little PC-dweebs who
don't know about winmodems. It got *you* a fully function modem, for
less money, didn't it? (Nope.) What law declares that a modem must not
off-load processing to the CPU; is it not potentially an efficiency,
spawned by the market, that we don't bother putting 'extra' chips in a
modem?
Well, it turns out the law involved is one familiar to many of us. Its
called the Sherman Act. And again, the lump of protoplasm which spawns
your consciousness lurches into action. Certainly, I can't be claiming
that Microsoft is to blame; they don't even make modems!
And here, finally, I lose my patience. You are advocating ignorance,
and abrogating reason. The ignorance of the market is ephemeral, and
typically transient. Right now, what you've got is high prices for
sub-standard goods. Mostly, of course, in the market which has been
illegally monopolized. Calm your ruffled brow; I know you don't
recognize the monopoly pricing, or even the lack of competition. I'm
past that. Microsoft's monopoly makes anti-competitive strategies the
only possible "successful" ones. The regression of technology, the lack
of market constructs to enable the consumer to buy what they want, the
incessant lowering of reliability and failure of the software market to
benefit from competitive pricing....
Sometimes I just get a little frustrated with people who don't get it.
I hope you understand.
>> >> Microsoft is responsible for creating a mass slave
>> >> market of MSCE thru their licensing programs, a
>> >> program established so that Microsoft alone can
>> >> DEEM you UNFITT to hold a license and deny it
>> >> no matter how intelligent you are or how much
>> >> money you might have. If you don't have a license
>> >> then you are simply doomed to work in another field!
>> >
>> >False.
>>
>> Exaggerated, yes, but clearly not false.
>
>No.
Thank you for that [lack of] clear and comprehensive discussion of your
point. Obviously, you are wrong.
[...]
>All the documentation you want is available to you.
>Just go to http://msdn.microsoft.com & http://mspress.microsoft.com
All the documentation you _can get_ is available; so what? Obviously,
its not enough documentation to enable competition for Win32 OSes and
middleware, and it *evidently* lacking in allowing competition for
Office, as well. Unless you subscribe to the notion that competitors
are by definition stupid.
>> >It's by no means different than other titles which companies grant.
>>
>> I will grant you that one. Except all other companies grant
>> certification to *resellers*, mostly. Microsoft (and Cisco) are
>> probably the only ones who target the consumer base for this bogus ploy.
>
>What do you mean resellers?
>I don't understand this sentence.
>
>Around here, it's a company which was certified by Microsoft to do the
>tests, and give the titles.
No, not reselling the certifications. Jeez.
I was pointing out that the certification programs within the IT
industry were for the participation of the reseller channel, not the
consumer base. Microsoft's certifications are notoriously "marketecture
driven". Its a combination of a couple soft points, I'm not surprised
it didn't make a lot of sense. Suffice it to say that Microsoft's MCSE
is generally learning how to wave dead chickens, because the whole
program is voodoo. Fact is, that's crapware, proprietary crapware, and
its not even worth learning. But somehow, in order to serve the
monopoly, people *have* to keep using it for all sorts of inefficient
and unreliable things, so we need "experts" to tell us to reboot every
time it crashes, and to clean up after the mess that this rickety
sorry-ass pile of shit leaves behind everywhere it goes.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 03:09:15 GMT
Said JSPL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 13:04:02 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:27:40
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Then I would say that both you and they are incompotent NT
>> >administrators.
>> >>
>> >> I'm a Unix admin, I thought I made that clear -
>> >> The windows reboots are handled by others.
>> >
>> >You said that *you* had to get up in 3AM to reboot a BSOD NT
>> >
>> >A> An NT server would reboot automatically if BSOD and resume operation
>> >within minutes.
>>
>> That NT can be configured to reboot on a blue screen is true. That it
>> is not the default is disconcerting. That it will "resume operation" is
>> highly debatable.
>
>I believe it IS the default in Win2k. I've had ONE BSOD in 12 months of
>using Win2k. (opened the cd rom while transferring a full cd to the HD).
And that caused a BSOD? <*chuckle*>
Admit it; you reboot your PC every night.
>The
>system blue screened, dumped RAM memory to a file and rebooted, all netwok
>connections resumed normally with absolutely no interaction from me (besides
>sitting there watching).
You mean all Microsoft network connections resumed, don't you? I
suppose that's probably all you use. We all develop our own private
strategies for dealing with monopoly crapware.
>The one pain in the ass was finding and deleting
>the huge 256mb RAM dump file it created.
Did you just say what I think you said? Guffaw.
--
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
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 03:09:17 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:45:35
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:42:16
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001
>20:15:50
>> >> [...]
>> >> >> >Found another one.
>> >> >> >www.walmart.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Another one WHAT, Ayende?
>> >> >
>> >> >Check this one in netcraft.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> >Adam Ruth asked about sites which displayed unbelivable resutls.
>> >I gave two so far.
>> >
>> >Netware + IIS
>> >Linux + IIS
>>
>> Adam Ruth asked for sites which displayed inaccurate uptimes, and has
>> pointedly, specifically, and repeatedly mentioned that 'unbelievable
>> results' are not at all interesting in this regard.
>>
>> Perhaps some web designers somewhere have discovered that there are
>> certain Microsoft software products which do not behave correctly unless
>> the server identifies itself as "IIS" in the HTTP header strings. I
>> think this is an ominous possibility, for what I hope would be obvious
>> reasons.
>
>You do realize that <non windows>+IIS is the *only* thing we can identify as
>wrong, do you?
I suspect this was a typo, correct? What else have you "identified as
wrong", and what bearing does it have on the discussion about whether
their uptime numbers are accurate?
>And I'm not aware of a single reason that would require you to fake your
>server.
Nor am I. Yet apparently people are doing it. I suspect, therefore,
there might be a reason. That would not be an indication that you know
of a reason, but thanks anyway, huh?
>Aside perhaps to hide your true server, which might offer some (very little)
>protection from hackers.
Or maybe just boredom and a predilection for tom-foolery. But it seems
reasonable to consider that, given Microsoft's historical methods and
evident strategies, that it might be necessary for certain sites to
pretend they are using IIS. This could be to satisfy a "you must use
our product" predatory contract clause, or it might be because certain
other Microsoft products behave incorrectly unless they can verify they
are connecting to an IIS site. The fact that, I believe, two of these
sites used gsp, a GNU version of ASP, seems like it could have something
to do with it. Its worth checking into, to see if there's a
correlation.
--
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
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 22:09:12 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
mlw wrote:
>
> With operating systems as great as Linux and FreeBSD available for free,
> why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
You forgot Plan 9. When I had this particular interview, the person
doing the hiring said that Windows NT is easier to use than unix. He
also said that a lot of software was being ported to Windows from unix,
so that makes it a good reason to switch. (*Shrugs*. This is a good
reason to switch?!) Departments switching from unix to NT also cite
that fact that Windows has the great clipboard thingie, and that you can
do all kinds of sophisticated OLE stuff with it. For example, if you do
some analysis with engineering software, you can select the data, or
click on a graph for example, and select "copy" from the menu. And --
get this -- brace yourself -- Windows' clipboard is so neat and
ulta-sophisticated, it allows you to select what kind of data you'd like
to paste into your document. For example, you can select "plain text",
"word document", and "bitmap". Dammit, X11 doesn't have anything near
this sophisticated, so I suppose that automatically makes Windows NT
better. Besides, they say, unix isn't a good OS to use unless you are
doing intensive computational projects, or running a server.
Also, remember, it doen't matter if you use TeX and LaTeX as your word
processor. If you don't know Word and Excel, you're automatically
computer illiterate. Of course, Word and Excel run only on Windows 95
and NT, so that makes NT a better platform for truly computer literate
users.
That's what I actually got on one interview where they were replacing
Solaris boxen with NT boxes. The fact that NT is able to run the same
engineering software that unix does, except you can cut and paste into
Word/Excel with the ultra-sleek Windows clipboard makes NT a better
platform than unix in many people's eyes.
Bill Gates is looked upon by many people as this computer genius in our
society. How many times have you heard people who aren't computer savvy
say "In the future, Bill Gates will give you this piece of software that
does this..", or "he was kind of nerdy, like Bill Gates...". Or, during
the election hoopla in Florida (no, I don't want to argue about Gore vs.
Bush), someone wrote in letters to the editor: "They should have
Microsoft design the next electronic voting machines, so we won't be
stuck with this pre-historic system we've got now".
So, unfortunately, many non computer-savvy people automatically point to
Microsoft as being a great software company, and Bill Gates as being the
smart-but-nerdy-looking computer scientist. This is all they know.
====== 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: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 03:08:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With operating systems as great as Linux
> and FreeBSD available for free,
> why would anyone consider Windows NT Server?
The answer is simple propaganda. Himler used it to control Germany
and Europe. Gates uses it to control U.S. corporations.
Microsoft uses a combination of a $4 billion advertizing budget
and nondisclosure agreements with nearly 80% of the largest U.S.
corporations to control the flow of information.
Had it not been for Usenet and the internet, which couldn't be
censored, Microsoft might very easily have literally achieved
total world domination. Gates first outlined his plan in a
magazine interview in 1984, in which he blueprinted exactly
how he would leverage his control of MS-DOS to control the
applications, then the communications, then all banking, finance,
and media interests. Eventually, he would simply order all of
the companies he controlled to make substantial donations to
the candidate of his choosing in each key country, and he could
literally rule the world by the time he was 45-50 years old. The
original timetable would have given him total control over the economy
by 1994, and control over all world governments by 2000.
The internet and Linux have delayed those plans by roughly 6 years
thus far.
> I can't think of a single reason why any
> responsible IT department would deploy NT.
Perceptions. The corporate executive decision maker who signs the
checks rarely has "battlefield experience" with UNIX, Linux, or
even NT servers. His primary knowledge generally consists of
NT workstation and possibly mainframe or VMS experience.
In fact, DEC laid off thousands of VMS people who were left without
a market. Many simply learned what they could about NT and learned
to create great powerpoint presentations, word documents, and excel
spreadsheets. The really slick ones learned Project and Access.
It didn't matter matter that their databases were twice as big as they
should be, that their Project plans were nearly always "90% complete
even when the project was 500% late, and 800% over budget. Even if
you had to fire half the staff, you could bury the dead bodies and
celebrate the eventual successful deployment (even if that deployment
was ultimately to a UNIX system).
The smart managers simply tripled their estimates, and tripled them
again by packing the plan with deliverables that no one was going to
do anyway. They then proceded to cover implementation slippages on
Windows by waiving deliverables. You can tell a project is seriously
in trouble when they start waiving help menus, test plans, and even
stress testing. In some cases, the even conduct stress tests on
a prototype and then rerun the tests on the real code just prior to
production roll-out.
With enough smoke and mirrors, you can make smoking look glamourous
and make sniffing white powder up your nose look chic.
In fact, it's the "cocaine mentality" that drives the Windows market.
Just as dope pushers give free samples to women in very revealing
black leather dresses to get the guys to turn over their Rolex
watches for a gram they can share with one of those girls,
Microsoft uses images, agreement, peer pressure, and the
illusion of instant gratification to persuade executives
to purchase products which are not only inferior, but even
harmful.
I once had a price on my head because a dope pusher decided I was
bad for business. I could work with drug addicts for 8-10 weeks
and have them helping others get off drugs. I pointed out the scam.
Once they realized that they were spending $100/day for chemicals
that gave them the same effect as a $3 bottle of primatine or a
$3 bottle of benedryl, simply because they couldn't waive the
bottle of primatine in front of the girl with the long legs
and the short skirt and say "wanna party", the gig was up.
Hey, if you can get someone else to take the fall for reccomending
Microsoft Windows for a project over UNIX or Linux, you can look
good, get promoted, and get free trips to Redmond.
I'll admit, I still get tempted by the woman in the short leather
skirt, but I know the game well enough to know that I'm expected
to share some addictive drugs with her, her friends, and even her
boyfriend (just before she leaves). When the coke is gone, so are
the friends.
When you reccemmend that project for Windows, you burn the budget,
you run out of money, and eventually you either switch to UNIX
and don't tell the brass, or you freshen up your resume.
I have "rescued" a number of managers who were days from the firing
squad. What's ironic as that one or two UNIX programmers were able
to do in a few days what an army of Windows "Gurus" had failed to
do in months. In one case, I was able to implement a project in
less than a week that had taken an entire organization over 1 year
to implement unsuccessfully.
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: COM on UNIX
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 21:34:08 -0600
"Andy Newman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >COM was first developed in 1988 though, while the OMG wasn't even
> >founded until late 1989.
>
> But COM by itself doesn't do everything CORBA does. DCOM is required.
Likewise, CORBA didn't do what COM did (at the time). CORBA came the other
direction, distributed first then they gained a object model. COM had the
object model first, then gained the distibuted features.
> >Well, it's certainly accomplished that in Windows 2000.
>
> With the required extras.
Umm.. no. COM+ is included in Windows 2000, which includes transaction
processing and message queuing.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
