Linux-Advocacy Digest #713, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Does Code Decay (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (J Sloan)
Getting first W2K server ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The *BEST* advertising! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Games? Who cares about games? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The *BEST* advertising! ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Designed for Windows! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The *BEST* advertising! (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More to an OS than GUI's (was Re: A salutary lesson ...) ("nuxx")
Re: whois microsoft.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Getting first W2K server (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Bob Hauck)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Bob Hauck)
Re: Getting first W2K server ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:15:57 -0500
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes and no. Code itself doesn't decay, but it's associations can.
> > >
> > > For instance, an interface the code uses can be changed, and thus the
> code
> > > breaks despite no actual decay in the program itself.
> > >
> > > Over time, architectures become clouded and brittle when there are many
> > > changes. We've all seen a house that's had addition after addition
> added on
> > > to it, and after a while it looks like a frankenstein's monster. The
> same
> > > is true of code that is hacked or patched but not rewritten.
> >
> > Oh, wait. Lets let just of brief silence punctuate the humor. ready?
> ready?
> >
> > OK, I have code that is almost 10 years old that still compiles and works
> for
> > console DOS and UNIX.
>
> gee, maybe cause console DOS hasn't change in 10 years? And perhaps the
> existance of the same libraries in unix makes that code still operation?
This is exactly the attitude that I would expect a Windows zealot to have. Has
the representation of files changed since DOS 2.0? No, but Microsoft has
several different and incompatible API for dealing with files.
How about memory?
How about starting programs?
How about getting the time?
How about all that sort of crap?
All these metaphors are unchanged for decades, yet Microsoft has changed them.
That is the cause of code rot.
>
> >
> > I have very little code that can be compiled without tweaks for Windows.
>
> strange, even VB1 code will compile just fine under whistler for me.
> Backwards compatibility has never really been much of an issue (holds
> windows back sometimes, if you ask me).
Will your VB code work on Windows 2.1? How about 3.0?
>
> >
> > A stable platform is very important.
> which is why I use W2K
You give an answer, but not one that makes sense. What about 120 days uptime is
stable? Win2K still does not run all applications that run on Windows 95, and
never will.
>
> >
> > One of the reasons Microsoft only makes crap is because they do not design
> > before they write. They hack an interface and change is constantly making
> it
> > virtually impossible to build a stable code base. Most UNIX code can
> remain
> > untouched for a decade or more and still be usable. The same can't be said
> for
> > Windows.
>
> gee, perhaps cause unix is still ancient and hasn't advanced any in a decade
> or more. Text mode is still text mode.
No, almost all of the programs for X, will recompile for the latest versions of
X. I can't think of a single exception, but I put almost in there to be safe.
>
> >
> > Aside from UI and Multimedia, computer technology has changed very little
> in 20
> > years. Yes, the PC platform has grown leaps and bounds but mostly only
> > improvements to existing constructs. If one were to look at a Sun from
> 1984 and
> > a PC today, you would be hard pressed to find many fundamental
> differences.
>
> I guess cars haven't change very much 50 years - just improvments to
> existing constructs...
Cars have changed quite a bit since the 50's.
> so, would you consider working on a Model T the same as working on a 2001
> Corvette?
Absolutely not, and I AM I car guy. I built a stroked, bored out small block
350 and dropped it into my Firebird. Faster than fast. (almost street legal.)
> Do you think you can still compile up some tires for that Model T?
The problem is that your metaphor is incorrect. UNIX has been around for longer
than Windows and does not suffer these problems. UNIX was designed for the
future, Windows was designed for the moment.
>
> > They would look different, and many things would be faster/bigger in the
> PC,
> > but there would be few "new" things.
> >
> > So why has Windows changed so much?
>
> because it keeps improving instead of staying stagnant like unix.
Improvement? Subjective, at best.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:24:28 +1300
> > > > > I don't turn it off every night. It runs constantly, it usually runs for
> > > > > 10-30 day spans before being shut down for one reason or another.
> > > > > Now if my dial up to a Unix server could be so stable. I usually can't
> > > stay
> > > > > connected for more than 48 hrs!!
> > > >
> > > > So you got windoze ppp to stay up as long as 48 hours? bravo.
> > >
> > > I guess you didn't comprehend. The dial up won't stay connected for more
> > > than two days. The local system is fine.
> >
> > How ironic. I guess jjs just didn't know what he was talking about.
>
> Oh, cool - bring me up to speed then -
>
> I hear you saying windows gets disconnected, but you
> didn't give any indication that it's anything other than
> just another windows problem -
>
> How did you determine that the fault is on the other end?
>
> And if the disconnect was coming from the other end, it
> could well be ISP policy to disconnect idle users.
Sorry buddy, I wrote the reply, but not the original. This sequence of
events just struck me as funny...
1. <first guy> I can't make my dial up stay connected more than 48 hours
2. <jjs> You got your dial up to stay up nearly two days? Holy shit!
3. <first guy> No, you don't understand, the system is fine, it's the
dialup that doesn't work.
I wasn't taking the piss out of YOU, jjs =)
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:31:58 GMT
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> I think, a website which does not take into account those "other" operating
> systems is NOT worth my attention. If they want to sell something to me,
> bad luck (for them, I will be elsewhere). It's not me, who has to adapt,
> it's them.
> Fuck every page which will not work with a linux-browser.
Well said.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Getting first W2K server
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:31:47 GMT
Posting here because I believe anti-microsfts aremore here then in any
other newsgroup.
New CIO tell us we will convert one of present mission-critical systems
to Microsoft even though vendor doesn't care what we run still it has to
be only Oracle. We are IBM only shop today, having many AS/400 and
RS/6000 only. I and programming and admins are wondering what ugly
surprises is lurking for us in running W2K in this situation. What can
go wrong and what can add cost that we amy not getting told by vendor?
Please Microsoft advocates, please do not waste my time giving good news
as I have sit recently through 10 hours of vendor feelgood shit
presentation and I am not in a good mood.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:44:35 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:42:48 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Too bad CNET doesn't understand the difference between a DNS failure and a
> >server being down.
>
> It wouldn't matter to the Penguinista's anyhow.
>
> Have you ever tried looking at the CNET web site using Netscape under
> Linsux?
God, you're funny. Sometimes I just look at the news group postings to see what
idiocy you write. (I sort of like the term penguinista. It has a cool ring to
it.)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:30:21 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Four of our NT4 boxes are running SQL server 7 and run continuously 24x7
and
> > sometimes running near 90-100% for days on end. We replaced a hotswap
hard
> > drive during that time - THAT is how reliable we've found NT4 to be. How
> > long? Nearly 8 months now - since these are not public facing servers we
do
> > not need to apply security patches so we have no planned reboots. We
haven't
> > upgraded these four boxes because they have been running non-stop for 8
> > months now (and the reason for that reboot was updating SCSI BIOS and
> > drivers).
> >
> > Our two W2K boxes that have never been rebooted since Feb 20th and,
although
> > I'm sure it's coincidence, not even had a hard drive pop yet. We haven't
> > applied SP1 or security patches cause these are internal servers.
>
> You want us to believe you're an NT admin who DOESN'T apply the service
> packs to machines in use? You think perhaps SP1 was designed solely to
> address internet security issues? This, along with some of your more
> rabid claims indicate you are probably talking out your arse.
If the machine is safe from attacks, and if it's stable, why mess with it?
If it was open to attacks, I would disagree, but if it's working and it's
stable, why bother?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:34:19 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94ni84$2kt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's pretty clear that flatfish is beside himself because Linux
> > is threatening windows - why this should bother anyboy is not clear,
> > unless they own ms stock, or getting paid to poison usenet forums.
> It bothers me because there are always 'managers' asking us why we build
> industrial robots using w2k instead of linux. Of course they heard that
> linux is free and stable where w2k is too expensive and unreliable.
> We mostly respond that it is theoretically possible but if they want to
find
> out, they have to hire new programmers.
Ha? What does this have to do with anything?
Any coder worth his paycheck should be able to write code to any platform
that the language was ported to.
I won't get into porting code, which can be a mess, and if you already has a
large code base, I can understand what you are saying.
But to say that you won't code for linux just because you don't like it?
Because you can't be bothered to learn a new set of APIs?
It's not pleasant to break old habits, I know, but it's sure sign of
laziness not being willing to *try*.
I hope you have other reasons, more practicle ones, to favoring Win2K over
Linux than this one.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:50:43 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94nsaj$csj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <94n73s$5oe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam> wrote:
> >
> >"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> --
> >> 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?
> >
> >
>
> I do not know what you are trying to imply.
>
> Linux does not include the GUI as part of the OS.
>
> Are you trying to claim that all the daemons, services in NT,
> are considered part of the OS ?
>
> I recall hearing 30 million lines of NT5 code as opposed to 3047024
> in the 2.4 kernel. That includes the code for all supported CPU
> types.
>
> I think that demonstrates why putting the GUI into the OS was a
> mistake.
I'm asking what you are compiling, are you compiling the kernel alone or do
you compile other stuff with it as well?
Regardless of what *is* in the kernel, that is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:00:46 +0000
<snip>
> I object to the term `toy computer' re: macs. The OS may be a bit of a
> toy OS (not OS X, though) but the hardware is very good. A Linuxified
> mac would make a pretty decent workstation.
<snip>
Maybe MacOS is a bit of a toy, but at least it works (Bill Gate$, take
note!)
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:59:28 GMT
AGENDA ALERT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ono wrote:
> >
> > > It's pretty clear that flatfish is beside himself because Linux
> > > is threatening windows - why this should bother anyboy is not clear,
> > > unless they own ms stock, or getting paid to poison usenet forums.
> >
> > It bothers me because there are always 'managers' asking us why we build
> > industrial robots using w2k instead of linux.
>
> Pretty good question.
>
> Why are we paying so much for equipment that is built on an expensive,
> buggy, proprietary system when you could get better results using a
> free, stable, open system....
>
>
> > Of course they heard that
> > linux is free and stable where w2k is too expensive and unreliable.
>
> All of which is true.
>
>
> > We mostly respond that it is theoretically possible but if they want to
find
> > out, they have to hire new programmers.
>
>
> Translation: We're too lazy to replace our shit-head LoseDOS programmers
> with people intelligent enough to invest their time learning
> how to program reliable, efficient Unix/Linux systems.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Designed for Windows!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:06:15 +0000
> > Fantastic!
> > I have a Microsoft Optical mouse. Under windows it is a bit jerky,
> > which at first worried me - optical mice aren't meant to do this. I
> > tried it under Linux, and it was unbelievably smooth. Seems windows
> > doesn't like MS hardware too much...
>
> And this surprises you?
>
Of course it doesn't, I was just stating fact.
Although you would expect MS might have tested...what am I SAYING! MS?
Test?
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: The *BEST* advertising!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:06:21 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:94ni84$2kt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It's pretty clear that flatfish is beside himself because Linux
> > > is threatening windows - why this should bother anyboy is not clear,
> > > unless they own ms stock, or getting paid to poison usenet forums.
> > It bothers me because there are always 'managers' asking us why we build
> > industrial robots using w2k instead of linux. Of course they heard that
> > linux is free and stable where w2k is too expensive and unreliable.
> > We mostly respond that it is theoretically possible but if they want to
> find
> > out, they have to hire new programmers.
>
> Ha? What does this have to do with anything?
> Any coder worth his paycheck should be able to write code to any platform
> that the language was ported to.
> I won't get into porting code, which can be a mess, and if you already has a
> large code base, I can understand what you are saying.
> But to say that you won't code for linux just because you don't like it?
> Because you can't be bothered to learn a new set of APIs?
> It's not pleasant to break old habits, I know, but it's sure sign of
> laziness not being willing to *try*.
> I hope you have other reasons, more practicle ones, to favoring Win2K over
> Linux than this one.
Maybe they checked the wrong web page and found it not so easy:
http://www.redflag-linux.com/login.po
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:08:58 +0000
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >mlw wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is that out of
> >> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
> >>
> >> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
> >>
> >
> >'cos Linux runs the chess program "Crafty". Nintendos can't compare
>
> Atari ST ran Psion chess, which played to FIDE 2000, had beautiful 3D
> graphics, let you pick up a piece and put it down very naturally with
> the mouse, and fit into something like 100-200 kB.
>
> Pretty amazing by today's standards... I would bet they didn't program
> it in C/C++
>
Sounds almost worth getting my hands on an old Atari ST then
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[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: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:10:39 +0800
>
> 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.
>
Aaron,
The are many circumstances where a visual representation speeds the desision
making process (after all the human brain works better this way). For
example, a complex network routing problem is easier and quicker to
diagnose when you have an image in front of you, showing exactly where a
problem may exist. Rather than sifting through pages of text and building
an image in your mind. In my opinion anyway, others may differ.
> 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
>
CLI is much more useful for scripting thousands of user account updates,
diagnosing TCP/IP issues etc etc etc. This is from an NT user.
nuxx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: whois microsoft.com
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:14:44 +0000
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
>
> For some this is old news :). But todays set is pretty funny :)
>
> bash-2.04$ date
> Wed Jan 24 20:33:27 CET 2001
> bash-2.04$ whois microsoft.com
>
> Whois Server Version 1.3
>
> Domain names in the .com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
> with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
> for detailed information.
>
> MICROSOFT.COM.WILL.LIVE.FOREVER.BUT.LUNIX.SUCKS-BYBIRTH.ARTISTICCHEESE.COM
> MICROSOFT.COM.SHOULD.GIVE.UP.BECAUSE.LINUXISGOD.COM
> MICROSOFT.COM.SE.FAIT.HAX0RIZER.PAR.TOUT.LE.ZOY.ORG
> MICROSOFT.COM.OWNED.BY.MAT.HACKSWARE.COM
> MICROSOFT.COM.N-AIME.BILL.QUE.QUAND.IL.N-EST.PAS.NU
> MICROSOFT.COM.MUST.STOP.TAKEDRUGS.ORG
> MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SOON.GOING.TO.THE.DEATHCORPORATION.COM
> MICROSOFT.COM.IS.SECRETLY.RUN.BY.ILLUMINATI.TERRORISTS.NET
> MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NOTHING.BUT.A.MONSTER.ORG
> MICROSOFT.COM.IS.NO.MATCH.FOR.THE.UEBER-GEEKS.AT.JIMPHILLIPS.ORG
> MICROSOFT.COM.IS.GOD.BUT.LINUX.SUCKS-FOREVER.ARTISTICCHEESE.COM
> MICROSOFT.COM.IS.BORING.COMPARED.TO.TEENEXTREME.COM
> MICROSOFT.COM.IS.AT.THE.MERCY.OF.DETRIMENT.ORG
> MICROSOFT.COM.INSPIRES.COPYCAT.WANNABE.SUBVERSIVES.NET
> MICROSOFT.COM.HAS.NO.LINUXCLUE.COM
> MICROSOF.COM.HACKED.BY.PSYKOJOKO.ON.A.ROOT-NETWORK.COM
> MICROSOFT.COM.HACKED.BY.HACKSWARE.COM
> MICROSOFT.COM.GUTS.NL
> MICROSOFT.COM.FAIT.VRAIMENT.DES.LOGICIELS.A.TROIS.FRANCS.DOUZE.ORG
> MICROSOFT.COM.ER.IKKE.NO.I.FORHOLD.TIL.LATHANS.NET
> MICROSOFT.COM.AINT.WORTH.SHIT.KLUGE.ORG
> MICROSOFT.COM
>
I did one of those, and got 'no entries found for selected sources'
Is this a glimpse of heaven?
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:13:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Posting here because I believe anti-microsfts aremore here then in any
> other newsgroup.
>
> New CIO tell us we will convert one of present mission-critical systems
> to Microsoft even though vendor doesn't care what we run still it has to
> be only Oracle. We are IBM only shop today, having many AS/400 and
> RS/6000 only. I and programming and admins are wondering what ugly
> surprises is lurking for us in running W2K in this situation. What can
> go wrong and what can add cost that we amy not getting told by vendor?
All sorts of things can and will go wrong - sorry to
have to confirm your fears, but it sounds like your
CIO has been bought off. Probably time to look for
a new job, it's probably going to get worse.
Windows 2000 seems to be more stable than 95/98,
but if you are coming from a Unix background, w2k
will likely still seem flaky and unstable.
On the bright side, however, the Unix job market is
in very good shape these days.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:43:58 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:17:18 -0800, salvador peralta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ya gotta learn how to smile, Steve. There are simply not enough
>opportunities in life to bash texan and californian drivers.
Put 'em on the road with some Boston drivers and they will flee in terror.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:44:00 GMT
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:59:00 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, VBScript is incredibly easy to learn and use. For people just
> starting, and who don't want to use Windows/IIS for the web server,
> ChilliASP is a good way to get started.
You are insane.
> Learning Perl, Python, or PHP has a steeper learning curve and, in
> some cases, doesn't provide as many features.
Why is the PHP learning curve steeper than VBScript? What features do
these languages lack? Have you ever used any of them or is this just
more Chad Bullshit (tm)?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:48:30 GMT
Where is good sight to post CV? I have IBM certifications, published
author, and the like.
This deciding of buyiong W2K was made by CIO out of town, with none from
technical group specially not invited, is this regular for Microsoft
sellers to do this sneak attack?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
