Linux-Advocacy Digest #688, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Edward Rosten)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Edward Rosten)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Bob Hauck)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (mlw)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("nuxx")
Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (.)
Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("nuxx")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:35:36 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan
2001 22:44:07 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:42 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:03:55
>>>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>>> > I think you mean incompetent system architect for choosing NT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Incompetent NT LoseDOS admin and incompetetant system architects who
>>>> choose LoseDOS products....go hand in hand.
>>>
>>>Of course, then there are idiots like you who would choose a Linux
>>>workstation platform as their choice when you knew what would suffer.
>>>
>>>UNIX on the desktop isn't pretty. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't be in
>>>business.
>>
>>Tada!
>>
>>And out pops Max to remind everybody that Microsoft isn't in business;
>>they're monopolists. That's criminal activity, not business.
>
>Even monopolists have to equate marginal revenue with marginal cost. :-)
No, they don't. They can move both costs and revenues around at will.
In point of fact, most of what Microsoft calls "marginal" is actually
capital development, not cost of goods.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:35:58 -0000
On 23 Jan 2001 21:21:00 GMT, Adam Schuetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 03:03:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> BTW, does anyone know of a good "regular old high end" free
>> wordprocessor? I don't want a suite; just a wordprocessor!
A query against freshmeat.net might not be out of the
question either.
>
>You could try Corel Wordperfect 8 for linux. Standalone word
>processor.
>
>I've had limited experience with it. Once I discovered LaTeX, I
>dumped word processors.
>
>But from what I recall, it seemed to work quite well.
[deletia]
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:38:13 +0000
nuxx wrote:
>
> >
> > So you need to get extra stuff just so you can kill apps. Yeah, really
> > great. And how long has UNIX been shipping with the kill command?
> It's on the W2k CD under support tools. Anyone who admins W2k should know
> this.
Does this come with win2K
For better or worse, IMHO Windows seems to slowly becoming more like
UNIX. Persnally, I think this is a good thing. If anything, despite
always pushing a GUI strongly, MS seem to have increased the command
line abilities of recent Windows versions.
-Ed
> nuxx
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:40:43 +0000
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > While little MiG tries to impress with some brochure sites...
> > >
> > > MediaWave is deploying over 3,100 windows 2000 advanced servers all over
> > > europe to handle multimillions of simultaneous audio and video streams.
> >
> > Oh, WOW!
> >
> > Guess what? Computer use in the WORLD is EXPANDING, so people are
> > installing NEW servers. Some of them are Win2k, most are not. For these
> > 3100 win2K servers installed by these people, there have probably been
> > 10,000 others (or fewer of comparable power) installed else where.
>
> "probably?" - I present facts and you come back with "probably" - whew, what
> a take down!
That is a useless fact when presented on its own with no comparisons.
> >
> > Oh, and Media Wave isn't a Brochure site.
>
> get the players right at least eh? Obviously mediawave isn't a brochure
> site - but the one mig offered is.
What the fack do you call a brocure site? Oh, don't bother replying
because...
> >
> > You are a waste of space.
> >
> > *PLONK*
>
> yea.. right...
*PLOINK*
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:43:41 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:56:12 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(Is IBM in the Fortune 500?)
I would think they'd be in the Fortune 5.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:43:43 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:43:31 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:94j3ba$pef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >2. Word Perfect for UNIX? Did I miss something?
>>
>> Apparently , cause it is out there.
>
>Sure, NOW. Corel did the "buy and port" thing.
I have a copy of WP6 for _Linux_, never mind the other Unix versions
that have been produced since the days of DOS. Yes, WP on Unix dates
back to the character mode versions of the 80's, long predating the sale
of the company to Corel.
They've actually gone backwards in quality since Corel got involved, but
then, that seems to be a typical Corel thing.
>People prefered Works. Eventaully. Word Perfect was everything BUT until
>it finaly came to Windows.
No, people preferred _Office_. Works never did sell all that many.
>Could it have been PRICE?
Could it have been BUNDLING? Could it have been the lousy first Windows
versions of WP? Could it have been MS misleading WP (and other vendors)
into producing an OS/2 version while they worked on a Windows one?
The word processor wars were a lot more complicated than just "which is
cheaper".
>> >3. StarOffice is about as user friendly as a double edge sword. I don't
>> >know many people who would be willing to put up with it, even if it were
>> >given to them for free.
>>
>> Even if it were givin to them for free? Um. Does anybody pay for it?
>What are you talking about? Downloadable doesn't mean free.
Ok, it is $9.95, $39.95 if you want the printed manual. You can order
either kit from Amazon.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:43:45 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:07:59 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yes, actually, you of all people are totaly unfamiliar with the type of
>suffering that would occour.
My kids use Macs at school and Linux at home. They don't seem to be
suffering. The reports get written, the email gets sent, etc. My
daughter did comment on not having as many mouse buttons at school, and
having to reset the computer.
My brother stayed with us at Christmas, and I set him up with an account
so he could check his email and stuff. He figured it out, never having
used Linux before.
>It's called USER INTERFACE, and UNIX
>inherently has poor ones.
Inherently? Why do you say that? What prevents a good UI being written
for Unix? Apple seems to have managed it, as did NeXT.
>They are inutitive.
No they aren't. Not any more than Konqueror is.
>Do you see America driving down the highway in a stock car? They don't BUY
>stock cars. They buy gas guzzeling monster SUV's because of one, simple
>factor; They like how they LOOK.
You say that as if it is a good thing.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:45:18 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:55:16 +0500, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> You can't read.
>>
>> He doesn't need the CD to install under Windows either he could have
>> called them as well, but he has that CHOICE now doesn't he.
>>
>> And when the CD arrives he can just update anyway.
>>
>> Under Linux what CHOICE does he have?
Find an ISP that actually DOES have Linux support and
use their documentation as a template. AT&T Worldnet
is just such an ISP. They have docs for every OS under
the Sun.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:49:12 -0500
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Name just one product from Microsoft which is stellar enough to warrant a
> good
> > review.
>
> Internet Security and Acceleration server
And what makes this product better than others?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:51:18 +0800
> This is the Moron's Server OS. Why should they "need to know"?
> Applets this tiny should just plain be installed by default.
They "need to know" because as an NT administrator, it's their job to know a
bit about the OS they are using. It's also designed to stop dickheads who
use W9X and all of a sudden think that qualifies them NT experts from
damaging the system. Like you perhaps.
> Or, at the very least there should be a "admin server from
> telnet session" option.
There is.
nuxx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:51:22 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:13:13 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:38:51 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:28:59 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:37:32 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:59:19 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:20:49 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>[deletia]
>>>> ...strange that you would prefer the proverbial Elephant gun then?
>>>
>>>As I said, speed was the main issue. MS Office runs with quite
>>>reasonable performance on a 32Mb Windows system. Star Office did not
>>
>> ...yeah, right.
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> If speed were really your paramount issue than msword would
>> not even be an option.
>
>I'm just relating my experience. All the things I use Linux for right
So am I.
>now are an order of magnitude better than anything similar offered in
>the MS arena. I'm on your side, I would really like to see Linux move
>from the server world into the desktop world, but _in my experience_
>the desktop applications don't measure up.
>
>From what I've read here, and from what I've heard from others who are
>just as keen to see Linux succeed as I am, I'm not alone in these
>experiences.
Nor am I.
OTOH, I've actually seen Windows users stick up for the Win32
version of StarOffice and it actually performs more sluggishly
than the Linux version.
I'm also curious what exactly you do to make Applix crash.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: 24 Jan 2001 01:53:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a better suspicion. Your O2k install is damaged, or corrupt, and the
> document conversion engine is malfunctioning, causing the hard lock.
Its not my install, its IT's install. And its not my workstation.
And yes, I tried it both under VMware on my home machine and on another
W2K machine at work. Hard lock with the same document.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: 24 Jan 2001 01:54:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't bother, I couldn't reproduce the problem.
Interesting. Did you use frames and bullet points in your document?
This is a document which was originally written under word2000, saved as
a word6.0 document under staroffice for solaris 7, then opened again on
a W2K (workstation) machine under word2000.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:56:29 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:28:01 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:36:52 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:35:34 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>It's a P200, and when I tried it I had 32Mb. I now have 64Mb so I may
>>>give it another try.
>>
>> I don't recall office 4.2 being particularly nice with a mere
>> 32M, nevermind what a current version of office must be like
>> on such a machine...
>
>The machine I've been given on my current contract is a crappy old
>compaq P166, with 32Mb RAM, running Windows 95. It struggles with
>Access, but it runs MS Word and Excel quite smoothly (after waiting
>about 5 minutes for them to start up, I admit). Most of the time
<nelson> Ha Ha! </nelson>
>though it runs as an X terminal with Exceed so I don't have to see any
>of that win 95 nastiness.
>
>>>I also have done absolutely nothing with regard to kernel tuning and
>>>disk tuning (too many projects, not enough time!), so doing that might
>>>speed things up a bit.
>>
>> Clean the sofa and go buy a decent amount of memory.
>
>One of the things I've always liked about Linux, and other Unixes, is
>the fact that you can often do twice (make that three or four times!)
>as much as Windows in half as much memory. Now that bloatware like
>Netscape and Star Office is appearing, that no longer seems to be the
>case.
[deletia]
That's what happens when you opt for the Microsoft
way of doing things. Although, it's not like RAM is
$50/M any more.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:01:03 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:51:18 +0800, nuxx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This is the Moron's Server OS. Why should they "need to know"?
>> Applets this tiny should just plain be installed by default.
>
>They "need to know" because as an NT administrator, it's their job to know a
>bit about the OS they are using. It's also designed to stop dickheads who
What's this VMS-think that's seeping in here?
>use W9X and all of a sudden think that qualifies them NT experts from
>damaging the system. Like you perhaps.
Nope, I've been running Unixen for over 10 years and
administering them for 5. Occasionally, I even hack
the odd kernel driver.
Then again, at least Unix has /proc.
>
>> Or, at the very least there should be a "admin server from
>> telnet session" option.
>
>There is.
WHERE. Do be precise.
Some of us have MSDN subscriptions.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:02:51 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:49:12 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>>
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Name just one product from Microsoft which is stellar enough to warrant a
>> good
>> > review.
>>
>> Internet Security and Acceleration server
>
>And what makes this product better than others?
Cream filling!
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:07:49 -0000
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:43:31 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:94j3ba$pef$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> >2. Word Perfect for UNIX? Did I miss something?
>>>
>>> Apparently , cause it is out there.
>>
>>Sure, NOW. Corel did the "buy and port" thing.
>
>I have a copy of WP6 for _Linux_, never mind the other Unix versions
>that have been produced since the days of DOS. Yes, WP on Unix dates
>back to the character mode versions of the 80's, long predating the sale
>of the company to Corel.
>
>They've actually gone backwards in quality since Corel got involved, but
>then, that seems to be a typical Corel thing.
One summer, my wife clerked at a law firm that used the VMS
version of WP6. There was about an hour of downtime during
the 3 months.
[deletia]
>>Could it have been PRICE?
>
>Could it have been BUNDLING? Could it have been the lousy first Windows
>versions of WP? Could it have been MS misleading WP (and other vendors)
Nah. WP wasn't THAT bad. AmiPro had them both beat and it
never got anywhere. Meanwhile, msoffice that "the trademark"
on it. I think this was the heydey of Microsoft's reputtation
and people were just deciding to "go all microsoft" for some
strange reason.
My company did and I never understood why...
>into producing an OS/2 version while they worked on a Windows one?
>
>The word processor wars were a lot more complicated than just "which is
>cheaper".
...we all know that most people were pirating the bejeezes out
of this stuff anyways.
>
>
>>> >3. StarOffice is about as user friendly as a double edge sword. I don't
>>> >know many people who would be willing to put up with it, even if it were
>>> >given to them for free.
>>>
>>> Even if it were givin to them for free? Um. Does anybody pay for it?
>
>>What are you talking about? Downloadable doesn't mean free.
One is legally authorized to download it and install it far
and wide without paying a single cent. There isn't even a
need to pay for commercial use anymore.
IT IS GRATIS.
"it is downloadable" doesn't mean that it's available at
Sharkey's Warez Emporium...
>
>Ok, it is $9.95, $39.95 if you want the printed manual. You can order
>either kit from Amazon.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:08:38 GMT
Said Donn Miller in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:34:36
-0500;
>Martin Eden wrote:
>
>> If you want to get technical: Solaris 8 is also known as Solaris 5.8, which
>> is also known as SunOS 2.8. SunOS 1 (which was BSD based) was called Solaris
>> 4.x but only after Solaris 5.x was released but while SunOS 1.x was still
>> popular.
>
>Sun has these screwy ways of versioning. Take JDK. JDK-1.2.2 was
>called JDK 2, etc. Damned confusing. I suppose JDK-1.3.0 is really JDK
>3, then.
Actually, Martin got things a bit turned around.
Its really very simple though. Sun had SunOS, an OS. It went through
versions one through four. Around version four, Sun began selling a
package, a combination of the OS and a GUI environment (sound familiar?)
called Solaris. This was SunOS plus their desktop, originally
OpenWindows, then CDE. Anyway, Solaris was numbered from version 1,
which was SunOS version 4. The thing that got everyone confused was
when Sun changed their OS from "a BSD variant" (see related thread) to a
System V 'flavor'. This caused grief among the user populace, as well
as software problems. The first release of the System V SunOS was
version 5. This was most commonly purchased in a package, Solaris 2.
So it became common to call SunOS 4, the BSD SunOS, "SunOS", and to
refer to the SunOS 5, SV variant, "Solaris", thus making it easy to tell
if one was using the 'classic Sun' OS, SunOS4, the 'new Coke' Sun OS,
Solaris, without having to keep track of version numbers.
So Solaris 2.8 is SunOS 8, which is the version of SunOS following SunOS
5.7, which is Solaris 2.7, though many people mistakenly refer to it as
"Solaris 5.7". Get it?
What's up with JDK's, I have no idea.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:10:12 +0800
>
> Does this come with win2K
>
Ships with w2k and has been in the NT resource kit for as long as I can
remember. There lots of useful command line utilities in the resource kit,
many now ship with the core product. They all should as far as I'm
concerned.
> For better or worse, IMHO Windows seems to slowly becoming more like
> UNIX. Persnally, I think this is a good thing. If anything, despite
> always pushing a GUI strongly, MS seem to have increased the command
> line abilities of recent Windows versions.
>
I agree and think that MS have realised the big mistake they've made in
pushing the GUI so strongly and not keeping the CLI up to scratch. Dumbing
down the system helped them get market share early on, which was good thing
for them but people are now finding it's limitiations in large systems.
They are definately improving things with Windows Scripting Host and the
like.
> -Ed
nuxx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
