Linux-Advocacy Digest #584, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:56:34 GMT
Said . in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 15 Jan 2001 23:10:17 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:93vdji$3et$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> So what? Who wants to take over the world?
>
>> Aparently, your spokespeople at Linux.com
>
>Spokespeople? What the hell are you talking about?
>
>You mean like your spokespeople at godhatesfags.com?
>
>Just because someone throws up a site with a familiar name on it does NOT
>mean that they actually speak for who they say they do.
>
>>> Let the idiots wallow in their own ineptitude. They seem to prefer
>>> it that way anyhow, right claire?
>
>> Except for one small problem, you call everyone who can't recompile their
>> Kernel five minutes after booting the damn OS an idiot. And you guys are
>> the first place where newbies turn for help.
>
>1. I absolutely do not do that. I call claire and a few others who have
>refused to read documentation and break everything because theyre being morons,
>idiots, idiot.
>
>2. this is NOT the first place where newbies turn for help, you damnable
>worm. You intellectual cadaver. You lump of fetid sweet meat.
>
>> TRANSLATION= You all suck at tech support, and have the gall to call the
>> people you've been insulting for years idiots.
>
>This is not a tech support newsgroup, you fucking moron. Have you EVER read
>its charter?
>
>Do you even know what a fucking charter IS?
>
>Why the hell would any of us want to waste our time doing tech support for
>free? What the fuck is the matter with you?
>
>Listen pal, if you cant figure out linux from the documentation and your
>OWN resources, you ARE a goddamn retard.
>
>Case closed.
Ahem. Yes. What he said. ;-)
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
(Now that, kids, is what's called a "flame".)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:38:19 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:10:28
[...]
>> It was a piece of shit thrown together at the last minute so
>> that IBM would have a microcomputer to slap it's logo onto
>> to keep people from starting to take Apple too seriously.
>
>No one would argue the piece of shit part. The shrewdness came from the
>timing and the opening of the internals for third party manufacturers.
>Apple took the closed system, proprietary approach and were destined to
>fail because of that. It made no difference how good their hardware was.
>I've already stated that there were far better platforms out there,
>hardware-wise. The competing PC companies lost to IBM's business plan, not
>to their technology.
I think you make a faulty assumption when you presume that IBM started
"the PC industry" as a 'business plan'. Truth is, they did *not*
purposefully release the specs to allow a competitive market on an open
architecture, though that was, indeed the result. There are several
theories, probably all correct to some extent, that they did it a)
because they were required to publish specs according to consent
decrees, b) the managers in charge of the PC unit didn't realize what
they were doing, c) the managers in charge of the PC unit did realize
what they were doing, but didn't see any point in trying to develop a
proprietary architecture for off-the-shelf components.
It was the cloning of the BIOS, not the support of the hardware
architecture, which really set the field for the "PC wars". Those wars
weren't between IBM and anyone or everyone else, but between those who
manufactured *clones* of the IBM PC/XT/AT/etc, and those that
manufactured PC *compatibles*. The clones won. So you are right, "it
made no difference how good [or how bad] their hardware was." But IBM
lost to "the business plan" as much as anyone did. Their attempt to
re-propriatize the market with the Microchannel architecture seems to
conclusively prove that.
Starting the PC market was definitely an 'oops' for IBM. One of those
"accidents of history" which tends to make fortunes. Since then, of
course, IBM has learned how to take advantage of such occurrences, which
is why they are so strong behind Linux.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:38:24 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:43:25
GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> But there is a very strong legal precedent supporting literally
>> *revoking* copyright protection on property (specifically software)
>> which has 'over-reaching' licensing restrictions. So you're effectively
>> accusing these lawyers of incompetence, and, yes, illegal activity,
>> probably fraud, if the intent in including this clause was simply to
>> provide a pretense for fees.
>
>I don't ever recall a situation where the Supreme court (the only body with
>the power to revoke protections under a federal statute) has revoked all the
>exclusive rights provided to an indivudial, or firm in reguard to their
>intelectual property.
It was a "lower" court (federal circuit appeals court), not the Supreme
Court. The most clear case was Lasercomb America v. Reynolds. Reynolds
included Lasercomb's software in their product without permission, and
specifically in contradiction to the license agreement, in addition to
copyright law. But because the license was 'over-reaching' (effectively
requiring a non-compete in order to use the software), the court through
out the license, and literally revoked the copyright protection. Vault
v. Quaid was another big one.
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
>The lawyers who wrote the EULA wrote it under full knoledge that no one
>would ever call Microsoft on it. Think about it. Microsoft was, in
>essense, revoking rights from their customers that Microsoft themselves
>didn't even have to their own software.
Well, its not possible to not have rights to your own software; I'm not
sure what you mean. But, yes, I do agree that both the executives and
the lawyers are culpable for writing EULAs which are over-reaching (and
therefore potentially unenforceable.)
>The Microsoft standard EULA has changed conciderably since 1995, when the
>company hit the US-DOJ with their business practices. The EULA has since
>then, included more "standardized" langugage in reguard to restrictions on
>the liscense. Language that is conciderably more similar to the e-liscense
>provided at the install-time of a lot of other software makers.
>
>I think this is when Microsoft got a new law firm.
Actually, it was probably the change to Maryland law, so that they could
claim that they have no legal responsibility to ensure their software is
usable at all for any purpose. I posted a message on that yesterday.
>> So, again, we're left with the "intimidation" alone, which is illegal.
>> I should think there'd be other grounds, in other circumstances, but
>> given the intent and the result, anti-competitive actions are best dealt
>> with through Sherman Act prosecution.
>
>Microsoft can put all the intimidating language they want into an EULA.
No, they can't. Including 'intimidating language' for its own sake
would invalidate the license.
>It's taking action that they have no right to take, which they haven't.
>Microsoft doesn't attempt to prosecute people selling their software WITH
>original media, and liscense copies IF the seller doesn't have an offical
>OEM status with the company. This is a violation of first sale statutes
>provided by Title 18, which basicly provide the ability to do just that.
>
>The same action under a 1997 revised EULA is "a violation" (or maybe the
>1995 era revision, I can't keep track) of the EULA and could warrent the
>*GASP* retailiatory actions based upon the violation.
The real meat of MS's licensing shenanigans is in the OEM licenses,
anyway, not the EULA. In Germany, Microsoft was prosecuted for trying
to stop an OEM from selling 'excess' Win98 CD/licenses. They lost, of
course, even though their OEM license explicitly said they can't do
that.
I read an article in Maximum PC yesterday (Jan 2001 issue) that
erroneously said that a license can not just contradict, but supersedes
copyright law. This is not the case; no license can ever prevent a user
from doing what the copyright law already allows them to do (such as
make a backup copy).
>Now, if you sell a computer WITH Windows, and don't give the new owner the
>liscense (which is embodied in both the original CDROM and "unlock" code
>papers) THAT Is a violation of the 1996 Telecomunications act, which
>provided definitions toward "copies" and they're status as indistributible.
I think it would be safer to just ignore the 1996 'telecommunications'
act. Ripping someone off was already illegal before that.
>And finaly, I'm one to think that Sherman Antitrust needs a make over. This
>is the same law that nearly bankrupted IBM back in the 80's... The case
>against Microsoft is five years old, based on laws that are nearly 80 years
>old. Times change, and legislation NEEDS to as well.
No, it was IBMs anti-competitive behavior, not the law, which "nearly
bankrupted" them. The only change that is necessary with anti-trust law
is it needs to be more routinely enforced. Times might change, but the
tricks used by profiteers and monopolists do not.
>Linux's existance, Microsoft's pathetic server dominance, Apple's new OSX
>are all poised to change the computing market against Microsoft. It's time
>for a reevaluation.
>
>What a shame John Ashcroft is gonna be the guy to do it.
Don't bet on it. Something tells me Mr. Ashcroft is going to have an
uphill battle.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:38:12 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 16 Jan 2001
00:04:01 -0600;
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well what do you expect from a man who claims Linux doesn't scale
>> well. How many god damn super computer clusters do they have
>> to build with Linux before EF comes to his senses?
>
>Why do you keep making this shit up? I never said any such thing, and your
>continuing practice of saying otherwise is beginning to get annoying.
Oh, bullshit. He's not 'making this shit up'. If the quote wasn't
precise enough for your pedantic ass, Erik, nobody cares.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:11 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 13:59:29
[...]
>The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue. Even
>NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
BIG lie.
[...]
>> >isn't even out of development yet ... big deal? Do you really think itanium
>> >will ship before it runs Windows? (p.s., there is a beta of Windows 2001
>> >that will run Itanium, butthead)
>>
>> When is MS starting development for the 64-bit AMD chip then - linux development
>> started at least a month ago. Why shouldn't the itanium ship before a compatible
>> version of windows - why should Intel wait for MS to be ready?
>
>It's irrelevant, MS is ready, they've had at least 2 or 3 demos of
>Windows 2000 running on Itanium.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:13 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:00:52
[...]
>They claimed Linux 2.2 was "enterprise ready" which was a big pile of crap.
And Microsoft claimed Windows 3.11 would be the last version of Win/DOS.
Which was the bigger lie? I hear Whistler's vapor-child Personal
Edition is "desktop ready", finally, or will be; at least that's the
current mumble, though it was supposedly Win2K PE before that, and Win2K
before that, and well before that, NT4.
>2.4 is better, I'll agree, but it's still nowhere near the level of Win2K
>DC, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.
You offend people all over the planet when you insist on acting as if
W2K, any flavor, is in the same league with Solaris or HP-UX or AIX.
That's fucking laughable!
>As far as the "4.2 billion users and groups", it doesn't matter because
>the security implementation in Linux is elementary. There is no support
>for ACLs (without "unstable" add-ons), there's only the less-than-secure
>permission bits option. There's no real directory service. NIS+ is about
>the closest thing, but it's still no NDS or ADS level.
Have you specific information that the ACL modules are unstable? Post
it, please, we beg you. And it doesn't make a lot of sense for a
Microsofthead to be bringing up directory services. Guffaw.
>The 2gb file size has also NOT been lifted.
Well, you're blatantly contradicting what has been reported as fact, so
perhaps you should elaborate on how this is not the case.
>There is still no "stable"
>or "released" filesystem out there. RiserFS and ext3 are STILL in development
>and both have caveats that may discourage their use.
Well, despite your protestations, ext2 is both stable, and released. Of
course, that doesn't stop them from improving it.
>> What Processor architectures does Windows 2000 run on by the way Chad?
>
>What does it matter?
>To answer your question, Win2K will run on any platform that it's ported to.
Uhm, I think that's "Intel x86, exclusively", in the real world.
>The NT kernel has been ported to many platforms, but MS only sells the ones
>that people demand: x86 and IA-64.
Liar; you are a dishonest, deceptive, and disingenuous person with no
intellectual integrity whatsoever, Chad. That your lie is an
unfalsifiable statement increases, rather than decreases, the complete
lack of truth in the statement.
[...]
>> Are you unaware that there are now a number of possible solutions, including
>> one from IBM?
>>
>> February 2000 press release:
>> http://oss.software.ibm.com/developer/opensource/features/jfs_feature.html
>
>Released? Default FS on which distribution?
And that's relevant... why? Because you need a position to which you
can safely back-pedal like the lying piece of shit you are?
>> ReiserFS:
>> http://www.namesys.com/
>
>Released? Default FS on which distribution?
Available. I hear its beta (which means its better than Microsoft's
production level, easily; Microsoft's crapware releases generally have
the quality of an *alpha* release on Linux), and of *course* its not the
default (ext2 is still the de facto standard). I can't see what
difference that makes, though, save for the aforementioned weasel room.
>> One testimonial:
>> >From Source Forge
>> http://ftp.sourceforge.net/ has 850GB storage, half of which is reiserfs,
>> half is ext2. Both filesystems have been running flawlessly for > 4 months
>> of production (actually longer, but wasn't reiserfs before). That server
>> pushes between 15Mbit and 50Mbit/sec, and pulls/syncs about 2-5Mbit/sec,
>> 24x7.
>
>Anecdotal. I'd like to see it being used in a video or art production house
>where >2GB files are the norm and they're moved around with a furious pace.
>NTFS4 and NTFS5 handles it with grace. Linux isn't even considered because
>it's a joke.
You're lying again; you're the joke.
>> reiserfs also powers the CVS tree filesystem for cvs-mirror.mozilla.org
>> (also tokyojoe.sourceforge.net), which is the one and only anonymous CVS
>> checkout point for mozilla. That server has run flawlessly under very heavy
>> load since its birth.
>>
>> I don't get involved in kernel politics, but as a production filesystem,
>> reiserfs is ok in my book.
>
>Production? When was it released?
I think it became available a few months ago. Things move quick when
you don't have a monopoly preventing innovation and development.
[...]
>> http://linux-ha.org/
>
>You can say it's HA all you want, but there is no infrastructure to support
>it.
What the hell does that mean? How is "linux-ha.org" not
"infrastructure"? You mean people aren't using it much yet? No shit;
there's still the little matter of an illegal monopoly preventing free
market development of OSes on the PC, nimrod.
>You have to have strong vendor commitment to support a corporation
>running HA, with Linux, it's a "I'll get around to it when I feel like it".
What you need is a legal remedy, followed by a profit motive; easy as
pie. Thanks all the same for the empty posturing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:16 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:18:15
>"Karri Kalpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Just because there's some brave souls out there doesn't mean
>> > that the Linux community is about to say: "Linux is enterprise
>> > ready, and we have an enterprise OS called "ReiserFS", it's
>> > good enough to run NASDAQ without worry of fault".
>>
>> Well, true. That very much unlike the situation with Windows. The
>> Windows approach is that "when the next version is released Windows
>> will be more enterprise ready than ever". And that's how it�s been
>> since Windows 3.0.
>
>Windows 3.0 is a client OS, so is 95, 98, Me, 2000 Professional, etc.
>
>We're not talking about client OS, we're talking about server OS.
Unbeknownst to you, there's not really any difference, at all. This
"client OS/server OS" thing is a boondoggle. The OS doesn't have
anything to do with clients or servers.
>NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server
>have all proven themselves in the enterprise and have what it takes
>in terms of performance, security, reliability, and scalability.
You are *so* full of shit, its really pathetic. Hell, most customer's
are rejecting W2K Server, all by itself, and nobody but sock-puppets are
interested in Datacenter. Perhaps that explains the desperate note we
observe in your recent posting, where the lies have become more and more
strident, and more and more obvious.
>Linux has none of these.
Microsoft will be eviscerated by autumn; deal with it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:18 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:11:05
[...]
>> And by what FACTS did you come to the conclusion that it's not stable?
>
>Well, because it's not the most popular or near the most popular FS for
>Linux, so it's probably riddled with bugs.
Perhaps a little remedial reading on the subject of 'logic' might help
understand why that statement is false.
>We don't know because it's
>never been thoroughly tested except by a scant few brave (stupid?)
>souls who trust their data to a beta, untested file system.
Actually, its being tested, constantly and on an on-going basis,
probably by several tens of thousands of people. So far, there have
been no problems that you or I are aware of, though I'd scarcely say
there have been none. None that would affect all implementations,
obviously, or make it too unstable to use in a commercial environment.
You DID know that its being used in reliable production commercial
environments, I know you did, because it was in the post you're
responding to. Why are you ignoring it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:21 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:24:06
[...]
>Microsoft wouldn't write a hack httpd just to win a single
>benchmark and then claim they're the best web server around.
That's a rather naive assumption, to say the least.
>They're content to write the best non-kernel web server and
>take the market by real-world performance.
That would explain the exclusionary dealings, predatory development, and
monopoly pricing, then, wouldn't it? (sarcasm alert)
>> Say, weren't you one of those who were gloating so
>> obnoxiously back in the days of the mindcraft fiasco?
>
>Hmm, two nics on a web server is a lot more real-world
>than a kernel-based web server.
So let's see Windows head-to-head on NIC cards; I hear the 2.4 kernel
scales well up to 16 NICs. Windows, we all know, can easily have
problems with more than one. Though once you've discovered (through
random trials, generally) a combination that's "stable", I'm sure it
would benefit from at least two or three NICs before it started shitting
the bed.
>You could easily make a case for how a real business would
>use the Mindcraft configuration in their production web
>environment.
Yea; you could easily ignore that it was a supposedly objective test
which was actually financed by Microsoft and manipulated intentionally
to rig the results. Doesn't mean it makes sense to do so.
>You couldn't easily make a case for using a kernel http
>server.
Sure you could; its faster. So long as web serving is a primary
function of the box, and it was rock-solid stable (most of the kernel
is, and I've heard no complaints about TUX), I can't see a case being
made against it. I'd never want it as a default configuration, though,
except for distros intended for this purpose.
Boy, its going to be real nice once the free market starts up again.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:26 GMT
A brief lesson in trolling, from Chad Myers, a master of the trade:
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:04:19
[...]
>Of course, the Linux web server ran in the kernel, which isn't practical
>at all.
Note to class: Chad is a troll, who lies as much as possible in an
attempt to get people mad at him, so he can feel superior by ridiculing
their lack of ability to stop themselves from getting mad at trolls.
Note how affective this is. You just want to punch him in the face,
already, don't you, knowing he's purposefully repeating what is already
known to be a complete fabrication?
>If you look at the real data, Win2K blew away all the competition including
>Apache on Linux.
Observe how the more "straight" he states the lie, the more annoying it
is. This is meant to mimic "calm and reasoned" behavior. It is known
as "passive aggressive" behavior, and is particularly troublesome in
individuals with very low self esteem.
>Please show me one large company who is using a kernel-based HTTP daemon.
>
>You can't, because they don't exist.
Notice the rather blatant intent to redirect the discussion immediately
after stating a purposeful fabrication. The intent is to frustrate,
again, in the hopes of causing someone to lose their temper. The
childish troll then giggles in his corn flakes.
>> Win2K datacenter? At what price per processor? At what price for
>> support? Don't make me laugh.
>
>Datacenter for a web server? Don't make me laugh. Do you even know
>what the word "enterprise" means?
The lack of technical capabilities is actually an advantage to the
troll.
[...]
>> Active Directory is an ugly, proprietary hack of an ancient Novell idea,
>
>Not really. If you'd look at it, you'd see it's far superior to NDS in
>a number of ways. But then, you've never been interested in facts, or
>intelligence, you just want to blindly bash whatever you fear.
>You probably don't even know what a large-scale Directory Service does.
This 'subjective ignorance' is even more valuable when combined with
more forceful, less passive, aggressive statement. And it never hurts
to repeat what you read in press releases, since they're not allowed to
lie in press releases.
>> and of course it's designed to be incompatible with everything else.
>
>Again, another BLATANTLY false statement. It was designed using all
>available standards (X.500, LDAP, SMTP, etc). It can interact with
>NDS, StreetTalk, Microsoft Exchange (which is another X.500 directory
>service) and several other X.500 compatible directory services.
>
>It can replicate to partners using X.500, SMTP, and other standard
>protocols.
Note to Chad: Active Directory is not interoperable with any standard
protocols. It does, of course, seek to re-proprietize the interface to
those standard protocols from any system locked in to monopoly crapware.
>Clients can authenticate to it using standard Kerberos (yes, MS'
>kerberos is 100% krbv5 compliant. They use the "vendor-specific"
>field set by MIT for exactly the way MS is using it to communicate
>with Windows clients to take advantage of Windows features. If you're
>a unix machine authenticating to ADS, you wouldn't have use for these
>Windows features anyhow, but you can still authenticate just like
>anyone else).
>
>Please, stop the lying.
We can't, as we have no control over whether you post to Usenet or not,
Chad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:24 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 Jan 2001 20:53:12
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <j0P76.148$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> >Doesn't seem to be an issue, as NT has regularly beaten linux in all sorts
>> >of performance tests.
>>
>> Name the test which showed NT beating Linux in anything?
>
>Mindcraft I, Ia and II just to start the ball rolling :)
Those aren't valid tests; they were marketing scams.
>Too bad Linux can't compete in the TPC game... that would be another to
>point to.
It can; it doesn't.
>I remember some ZDNet tests that had IIS smoking Apache on linux but can't
>find the link handy.
LOL! Was this the one where Microsoft forced ZDNet to put up a web
page, where they posted some sort of bogus claims? (Wasn't it the
reporting of the mindcraft "study"?) And then when they were found out,
ZDNet swore that it was actually Microsoft's cite, just embedded in
theirs, and so the false representations on the page weren't ZDNet's
fault? Microsoft changed the pages, trivially, *after the fact*, to try
to hide the lie.
Unfortunately, the link I had to the reporting of this mess isn't handy.
How ironic, eh? While your's doesn't exist because it was removed in an
effort to obscure the evidence, mine is just buried somewhere in my
bookmarks. Yours is unrecoverable because Microsoft is dishonest, and
mine is unrecoverable because of the very large number of links which I
have showing how dishonest Microsoft is. I get one or two dozen new
ones a week, mostly from Ed Allen, and I'm not really very good about
keeping them organized.
>Funny... I can't remember hardly anything that has linux beating NT... 2.7%
>"victory" in a web test is hardly much to look it, and it wasn't really an
>OS battle as much as an HTTPD one...
Well, considering MS, I'm told, put a cache in front of their server,
and *still* couldn't beat Linux, I'd say a 2.7% victory is rather
telling. The original study had Linux well up over 100% faster, I hear.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
