Linux-Advocacy Digest #703, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
ADSL, Alcatel, BT and Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...) (Aaron Ginn)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("JS/PL")
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Shane Phelps)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ADSL, Alcatel, BT and Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:36:22 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16343.html
One reason I'm not with BT. I'm with The Cable Corporation (i.e.
Telewest) and I'm getting a Cable Modem soon.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:54:38 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94loru$c3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
>
> > Doesn't matter.
> > Word will open the document, I'm not sure how it does it, but it doesn't
do
> > it by the extention.
>
> Actually, it does in some cases.
>
> > If you try to open an RTF document with doc extention in word, it will
open
> > it just right.
> > Try & you'll see.
>
> I understand this.
>
> > The reason for this is that extention is quite easily changable.
> > That is why most programs relies on file contents to identify the data
> > format the document is stored as (document mean here anything that is
inside
> > a file).
>
> Changing the extension of a natural .doc file will not change its format
or
> encoding.
Well, duh!
You don't understand how it works.
When you change the extention of a file, you change the way Windows will
open it.
.doc will cause word to open, with the file path.
Now, Word doesn't trust the extentions (and indeed it shouldn't) it checks
for the data formats, one by one until it find one that fits.
If there isn't one that fits installed, it will give you an error message,
but it will open and RTF document with a .doc extention just right.
> By your logic, you could change an .mp3 to a .rm and be able to see a
movie.
If the application that handle .rm can handle mp3, then it will play the mp3
file, yes, you won't see a movie, because the file's data contain no movie,
only audio.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...)
Date: 24 Jan 2001 10:25:37 -0700
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That's what I don't get. The purpose of fancy GUIs with DnD is to
> appeal to the lowest common denominator of computer user. It's an
> interface which tries to appeal to the common people. But once you've
> experienced what unix can do for you, and you make that step up to a
> better OS (which is Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris, BTW), you find that you
> don't need to rely on DnD or GUIs. The only place where GUIs are
> absolutely necessary, IMO, are web browsers and games. Otherwise they
> just function as glorified eye candy.
To some extent, I agree. I use Sawfish as my WM, but I have KDE and
GNOME installed as well, even though I rarely use anything GNOMEish.
However, I have to say that the Konqueror file browser is pretty
sweet. The ability to run a Web browser, an FTP session, and a
rendering of a local directory all in the same split window is pretty
wild. Also, the ability to DnD an app from a remote server into your
home directory is something that Explorer doesn't even do. That's
often easier than doing an ftp session via the command line.
All in all though, I'm a CLI guy through and through. I guess I see
the need for a GUI in certain instances, but most of the time, they
simply get in the way. I also prefer to use the mouse as little as
possible, and with a GUI, this is simply not realistic.
I'd be interested to hear from the Winvocates, or anyone who uses and
likes GUIs, what instances a GUI is better solution than the CLI.
Inexperience with the CLI is not a good reason, IMO. Just like a CLI,
a GUI takes time and experience to master.
I suppose I can see why Winvocates would despise the CLI so much,
considering the sucky shell that comes with Windows. If all I had
seen is DOS, I'd be pissed too. Bash is another story, however
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:03:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:43:10 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 23 Jan 2001 19:53:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote
>>> on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:08:52 GMT
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>nuxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> W2K Advanced Server is an excellent choice for this application.
>>>>
>>>>it might be made to work, but they could have saved themselves
>>>>a ton of money, and gotten better performance, reliability, and
>>>>remote management capability by using Unix.
>>
>>> What streaming server would they use?
>>
>>Pretty much everything is available for solaris.
>
> <nelson muntz>
>
> Ha Ha...
>
> </nelson muntz>
Should I even ask? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- sounds like something from Benny Hill
EAC code #191 1d:19h:36m actually running Linux.
This space for rent.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:02:12 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <em7b6.13456$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On 22 Jan 2001 18:53:18 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> >> >
> >> >Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
linux?
> >>
> >> You mean besides RealVideo and Quicktime?
> >
> >RealVideo is pathetic. That is the biggest pile of crap software I've
ever
> >seen.
> >
> >Quicktime... eh, not too bad. Certainly nothing on the order of WMT,
> >but not too bad.
> >
> >Not to mention that you can only get the Darwin version of the streaming
> >server for Linux which isn't supported necessarily and is only in Beta.
> >
> >Oh yeah, and the QuickTime client really sucks big time on both Windows
> >and Mac. How do you play QuickTime 4 media on Linux? Is there an
> >OSS port? I thought the QT4 stuff was proprietary?
> >
> >-Chad
> >
> >
>
> If they port OSX over to Linux, and all of a sudden Linux can
> install and use any windows app, then what?
OSX? You mean MacOSX? Do you even know what you are talking about that you
make such statements?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:15:01 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a6ec814$0$45740$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> wrote in message
> news:94lg5j$rm0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Vfqb6.5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Ehhh, actually that's not quite true when you say that Terminal
> Services
> > > > are slow, the protocol (RDP (I know nothing about ICA)) actually
uses
> > less
> > > > bandwidth then X, especially trafic from the client to the
> > > > TerminalServer is kept to the minimum. The result is that TS is
faster
> > > > than X on slow connections, on a 10+ Mbps network X feels much
faster
> > > > than TS. Ofcource telnet/ssh requires even less overhead if it was
> > > > possible to do anything on NT in a CLI.
> > > >
> > > You can do most admin tasks in a Telnet session to a W2k server. Use
> the
> > > supplied support tools, W2k server resource kit utilities and WSH
> (Windows
> > > 2000 Server Resource Kit should be required reading for any serious
W2k
> > > administrator). WTS or VNC and the RPC utilities do the job for the
few
> > > things you can't do from the CLI. I _very_ rarely touch any of my
> > servers,
> > > some are a long distance away :-)
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to argue that W2k is as good as Unix for remote admin
> from
> > > the CLI, because it isn't by a fair distance. MS have recognised this
> as
> > a
> > > serious weakness (finally) and are working towards fixing it. I
believe
> > > that you will be able to unload the GUI in Whistler(?) so they are
> > hopefully
> > > improving the CLI.
> >
> > How?
> > Now this is something that I would like to know how it can be done.
> > I've Whistler beta 1, pro. How do I unload the GUI?
> > How much overhead does this remove? (Now this is interesting question.)
>
> IT's a server only option called "Headless Server" - it boots the server
up
> without the GUI and you manage through Telnet and HTTP.
I'll be getting the server version soon, I'll be sure to check it out.
Any improvement with CLI?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:16:54 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
>
> > "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:i_rb6.10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > serious weakness (finally) and are working towards fixing it. I
> > believe
> > > > > that you will be able to unload the GUI in Whistler(?) so they are
> > > > hopefully
> > > > > improving the CLI.
> > > >
> > > > How?
> > > > Now this is something that I would like to know how it can be done.
> > > > I've Whistler beta 1, pro. How do I unload the GUI?
> > > > How much overhead does this remove? (Now this is interesting
question.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I haven't tried it but read they were working on it somewhere. Can't
back
> > > it up so it remains a rumor. As far as the overhead - very little RAM
and
> > > virtually no CPU so it's almost a moot point anyway. My main point
was
> > that
> > > I hope they are improving the CLI to Unix levels.
> >
> > Then there would need to be something like clregedt.exe
> > Command Line Registry Editor (which should take a compotent coder about
an
> > hour to write, I did, it looks a bit like DOS).
> >
> > All in all, I agree that it's a Good Thing(tm).
>
> So let me get this straight: You want a command-line tool that
> manipulates data stored in a heirchical format, with different mount
> points for different items?
No, I've already built it, why would I want it.
The Good Thing(tm) refered to improving CLI functionality.
> Sounds like a filesystem to me....
The Registry *is* a file system.
Take a look at the way the Registry is built, and then at the way most FS
are built, there are *very* similar.
> (I *knew* the day would come when Microsoft advocates would finally
> demand a filesystem for NT's configuration data)
No, why would I want it? It took me about an hour to build something that
does it (basicly UI for API calls, but it works very well).
ck - change key
mk - make key
rk - remove key (require empty key)
del - delete a value
delkeys - del keys recusevely
set - set a value
setbin - get binary data into a value from a file
dir - list keys
pwk - print working key
HKLM: - move you to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE
HKCU: - move you to HKEY_CURRENT_USER
There are few other commands, and REG_MULTI_SZ was a little trickier to make
(set /m, end with ^Z), but all in all, it wasn't very hard to do, and it is
nice to be able to work on the registry from telnet or other remote cli
interfaces.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:18:11 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 24 Jan 2001 06:16:11 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:14:09 +0800, nuxx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> >>
> >> This is the Moron's Server OS. Why should they "need to know"?
> >> Applets this tiny should just plain be installed by default.
> >> Or, at the very least there should be a "admin server from
> >> telnet session" option.
> >
> >Perhaps because we never need the kill command - Just pick the process
from
> >the task manager and bingo it's gone...
>
> ...assuming you're in the same room, or even the same
> state as the server in question...
Then do it remotedly, what is your point?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:20:02 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:14:09 +0800, nuxx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> > >
> > > This is the Moron's Server OS. Why should they "need to know"?
> > > Applets this tiny should just plain be installed by default.
> > > Or, at the very least there should be a "admin server from
> > > telnet session" option.
> >
> > Perhaps because we never need the kill command - Just pick the process
from
> > the task manager and bingo it's gone...
>
> Unfortunately no.
>
> If you had ever had to deal with NT on a regular basis, you would have
> seen the "You dont' have privileges to end this task." dialog all the
> time (even if you're logged in as 'Administrator'). Many services
> start up with SYSTEM privileges, and it is difficult to login as the
> SYSTEM user.
>
> The kill.exe program from the resources CD solves this problem,
> although I couldn't tell you why the system doesn't allow you to do it
> from the tasklist, but *does* allow you to do it from the command
> line. (Any NT apologists want to handle that one?)
You don't stop services from the task manager, you stop them from the
services panel.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:23:48 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:21:28 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:34:50 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:59:08 +0200, Ayende Rahien
<Please@don't.spam>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >They don't need to have special support to 2000, they need to treat
it
> >> >like
> >> >> >ME (actually, it's the other way around, but it doesn't matter at
the
> >> >> >moment.)
> >> >> >It should go like this:
> >> >> >A> Log on as administrator
> >> >> >B> Go to Start>Settings>Network & Dial Up Connection
> >> >> >C> double click Make New Connection
> >> >>
> >> >> ...wait for Win2K to dial the phone and waste quite a bit
> >> >> of time fetching the local "approved" ISP list for your
> >> >> area.
> >> >
> >> >Ha? What are you talking about? I've *never* seen it happening.
> >> >What are you talking about.
> >>
> >> That's part of the dialup networking connection wizard for
> >> the OEM version of Windows2000 Pro/SP1.
> >
> >Not on my machine, or any of those that I've seen.
> >Perhaps your OEM changed something.
> >Can anybody else comment on this?
>
> It's not a "Dell" version.
>
> It's an "OEM" version, the kind you can get with
> new hardware if you buy from a small scale
> operation not addicted to Windows bulk rates.
Do me a favor, go to Start>Settings>Network & Dial Up Connection, click on
make new connection, and see what happens.
Then report, what you describe sound very much like first time trying to get
into the net without having a connection establish.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:25:59 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94lqic$8tg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I pity you.
> >
> The life of a sock puppet is a hard one.
>
> --
> FYI. When you do type "make" on the Windows NT source tree, it takes
almost
> 38 hours for it to complete on a 4-way 400 Mhz PII System, as opposed to
> about 5 minutes on Linux. Linux is not Doomed!!!!!! -- Jeff Merkey
> http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/1999/1999week26/0787.html
Iterensting, exactly what are you compiling?
The whole OS in NT case and just the kernel in Linux case?
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...)
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:37:11 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donn Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
>> The speed with which linux, thanks in very large part to a heretofore
>> much-maligned troll-tech, has gained on windows as a desktop OS is
>> remarkable. In doing so, at least with the mandrake release, they have
>> made all the usual FUD ( tough to install, people don't want to edit
>> config files, ugly gui, no dnd, etc ) that we hear from people like
>> yourself, the other chad, and claire, very badly out of date.
>
> That's what I don't get. The purpose of fancy GUIs with DnD is to
> appeal to the lowest common denominator of computer user. It's an
> interface which tries to appeal to the common people. But once you've
> experienced what unix can do for you, and you make that step up to a
> better OS (which is Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris, BTW), you find that you
> don't need to rely on DnD or GUIs.
> The only place where GUIs are
> absolutely necessary, IMO, are web browsers and games. Otherwise they
> just function as glorified eye candy.
Not quite. I use LaTeX without xdvi (ie without a GUI) I would have
wasted a lot of paper by now. Also, one off image manipulation is
probably best done in a GUI.
-Ed
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:49:11 -0500
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Linux has less than one percent in the Desktop market (See Erik's
browser
> > statistics from a debate on this very topic a few months ago).
> > The only OS it's a threat to would be OS/2 or Solaris in that market, I
suppose.
>
> Browser statistics from a windows centric site do little
> except amuse the wintrolls.
They're not from a windows centric site. They are the combined stats from
about 500,000 different sites. Nice try though.
http://www.thecounter.com/stats
But you can console yourself in the fact that Linux market share hands down
KICKS ASS over Win3x, OS2, and Amiga. And as soon as Linux users double in
number WebTV is in for a world of hurt!
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:04:14 +1100
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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.
> >
> > And your point is?
>
> That W2K is obviously stable and powerful enough to do the job.
>
Let's see now.
MTTF of 2893 hours (*), 3100 servers.
I make that >1 crash / hr on average ;-)
I don't think *I* would like to be supporting them, even with TS
* http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html
(as used by MS in new W2K advertising)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Talk about demanding! Is there even a streaming server available for
> linux?
> >
> > Unix would do the same capacity with 300 servers.
>
> HA! what a comment "nah nah, I can do that in 1/10th what you can" and
> nothing to support it. I mean, what a worthless comment. You have no
> fucking clue what you are talking about let alone what figures support such
> a claim. Give it up looser
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:10:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:34:11 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, kiwiunixman
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:07:39 +1300
>> <94jafv$j3o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >using such a poofter OS as WIndows, fuck, what a waste of time! use
>> >something with a bit of bite like a SUN Starfire or IBM s/900z for
>> >christsake!
>>
>> PC doesn't stand for "pathetic compatible" anymore. :-) A 1Ghz
>> Athlon sitting on a user's desktop isn't a mere toy, although it's
>> not going to serve gigabytes of information per hour, either.
>
>Why not? 5 years ago at GM Powertrain, I had 50 MHz HP-UX machines
>serving hundreds of megabytes per hour.
Is that a PC or a Unix worstation? :-) I've used an HP-UX C360
myself; good machine, good OS.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:20h:57m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
