Linux-Advocacy Digest #218, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Interesting article ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Interesting article ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: Interesting article ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:39 GMT
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:17:26
>Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>>> >You make it to seem like they have a secret army that will invade
>>> >your house if you don't buy their products.
>>> >
>>> >Give me a break. Go back to the looney bin where you came from.
>>> >
>>> I don't think they are particularly "secret" but the SPA qualifies
>>> as an organization which will invade homes and businesses trying to
>>
>>Please show me one bit of proof showing that SPA has ever, or has a policy
>>of, invaded(ing) homes.
We can't show you anything, Chad; the reason it seems so dark is because
you have your head up your ass.
>>> confiscate any computer equipment which has been "touched" by
>>> software which you cannot prove, to *their* satisfaction, was
>>> licensed properly.
>>
>>They only do that to organizations which are rampantly breaking the
>>law. Every time they've investigated an organization, that organization
>>has been found to have millions of dollars in unlicensed software.
>>Law enforment agencies back the SPA because it is crucial in uncovering
>>gross violations of the law.
>
>Note that Max said "cannot prove, to *their* satisfaction, was licenced
>properly".
That was Ed Allen, BTW.
>When the SPA invade your business (homes are unlikely to be
>targets in practice, because the numbers don't justify the effort), it
>matters not a jot how many licences you bought - all that counts is the
>number of stickers on the backs of PCs, or the number of "certificates of
>authcenticity", that you can find. Very, very few people could produce full
>proof of their licences for everything on their PCs, even when everything is
>fully paid for. I have no idea where the licence certificate for my VB3
>is - our company has moved twice since I bought it. In the eyes of the SPA,
>that makes me a theif.
>
>>Are you advocating rampant software piracy?
Nothing in this discussion has anything to do with piracy. Software
sharing is not piracy.
[...]
>Legally, this is piracy, but it is costing the software company nothing.
Since 'piracy' isn't a legal term, I suggest we use the concept "piracy"
to refer to what it always has: producing illegal copies for profit.
Software sharing (essentially, merely ignoring the questionable
interpretations of copyright which have been written by would-be
monopolists) isn't piracy. Which isn't necessarily to say that it is
legal, of course. It shares much the same relationship with piracy as
"plagiarism" does with "infringement", in the classic legal concepts of
copyright.
>When discussing piracy, it is important to think of the *real* costs, not
>the figures MS (and other companies, to a lesser extent) bandy around. Yes,
>piracy is illegal, immoral and a problem for the industry, but it is not
>nearly the problem MS make it out to be.
Software sharing is considered illegal, is putatively unethical, but
cannot be shown in any way to be a problem for the industry. In fact,
it is quite possible that software sharing is of considerable benefit to
the industry, and everyone in it.
>The SPA is just a new trick for MS
>to try to get paid more for something they have already sold (like their
>double-charging for drive image installations).
Actually, an old trick.
>Don't forget that piracy made MS what it is today. If people had always had
>to pay for MS products, they would never have used them in the first place.
They did always have to pay for them; they used them because they didn't
know how much they were paying for them, and didn't have the opportunity
to decline to pay for them, and didn't have any alternatives should they
choose not to pay for them.
--
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.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:41 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:20:16
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:49:19
>> [...]
>> >True to some extent. What I'd like to see implemented is the same system
>> >also managing, reliably, transaction services across divergent platforms
>> >and make such interoperability seamless. An adhered to, yet extensible,
>> >platform-encompassing API being the glue that holds it all together.
>>
>> Congratulations. You've just re-invented middleware. ;-)
>
>I want middlewear that WORKS, Max... :)
Ah. Well, so far, that remains un-invented, I'm afraid. :-/
--
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.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:42 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:06:42
>"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:96ge68$dp3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> : So does every other corporation and large organization. What's your
>> : point?
>>
>> "Just becuse everyone else robs banks, so should I"
>
><sigh>
>
>What is with you guys? Don't you have an attention span beyond
>one post?
>
>That's not at all what I said.
We know what you said. We know what you meant. We know you are full of
shit. Try to keep up.
>You seem to be demonizing Microsoft
>as if they are something special. I assure you, even with the
>Antitrust business, Microsoft has far less lawyers than IBM.
Demonizing another organization doesn't really help, I'm afraid. IBM
doesn't monopolize consumer OSes.
--
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: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:52 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Feb 2001 21:27:10
>OK:
>
>He can't boot from the CD but the CD boots other OSes fine. Uhhuh, like that
>happens.
That *Windows* won't boot from a CD, but others do, is something that
does not seem incredible to me.
>Next, he claims he had linux on the machine first then tried to FDisk to
>kill the partitions but they were reportedly containing driver letters.
>First, if they have drive letters then he'd be able to see them.
I'm not an expert on fdisk, but I don't believe this is the case, as
"drive letters" only have meaning to DOS, and fdisk is typically at a
"lower level" than an OS, I believe.
>If he could
>see them he can delete them.
If it was working correctly, perhaps. That is a much larger 'if' in the
Windows world than you might believe.
>If it was originally a linux system, Fdisk
>wouldn't report anything other than an unrecognized partition type and allow
>you to delete it without much warning. Linux wouldn't present apparent drive
>letters.
Nor did it. The fdisk which mentioned 'drive letters' was the Microsoft
version.
>In using Fdisk for, what, 10 years? I've never seen this behaviour
>and can find nothing documenting such a condition occuring. Hmm... gee... Oh
>but after he does an Fdisk the CD rom suddenly can boot? Um, yea right!
One presumes that after the fdisk, he was able to get a boot image on
the drive, so he didn't *need* to boot from the CD. Get it?
>Anyone can tell you the ability of a CD rom to boot the system is 100%
>independent of the hard drive. [...]
If its just going to keep on going like this, I'll give up now. Your
claim that the original message was 'unbelievable' seems to be
hyperbole.
--
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 fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:23:29 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 15 Feb 2001 09:39:27 GMT;
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:43:01 +0000,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>>> >I was not gloating over the loss of
>>> >30 peoples jobs. I still do not see how that connection was made, and
>>> >your explanation sheds no light on it at all.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you don't understand the idea of passive-aggressive behavior.
>>> Do some research. More casually, you might consider the concepts
>>> "smarmy", "condescending", and "smart-ass".
>>
>>Irrelevant.
>There you go again Pete, gees sometimes your're such a smarmy, condescending,
>smart-ass!
So apparently not everyone missed it.
>>
>>I do not see anything that I posted as "gloating" over the loss of 30 jobs.
>>Your explaination still sheds no light on this one.
>I'm still waiting for you to admit you FUDDED the original article?
>
>There is NO "Linux business model" !
--
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 fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:24:48 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:43:53
>sfcybear wrote:
>
>> Not with me, you earned your standing as unbievable with the trollish
>> way you post.
>
>I thought it was much simpler than that.
>
>"He's a Windows supporter, therefore anything he says is a lie."
Posting it doesn't make it true, Pete. Perhaps it is this kind of thing
which is the "way you post" that sfcybear was referring to. ;-)
--
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 fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:28:14 GMT
For once, top posting is of benefit, as simply deleting the intervening
blocks of text allows my previous response to again answer Matthew's
statement.
Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Feb 2001
>What I mean, is make the system admin tools more user friendly, not totally
>idiot proof, but easier to use. I have no problems configuring my system etc,
>but if we want people to adopt Linux as their default OS, configuration and
>other tasks have to be made easier.
[...]
>> >> You have it backwards. The GUI issues get fixed when the OEMs have a
>> >> revenue stream to fund improvement. People don't adopt an alternative
>> >> because it improves on what the original was good at; they adopt it
>> >> because it is better in a way that the original isn't good at. IOW,
>> >> Linux is attractive to OEMs and their customers because it is
>> >> inexpensive, easily and completely modifiable (and thus customizable)
>> >> and open source, so its guaranteed that it will never dry up and blow
>> >> away, or become a dead end, not because it has a slick GUI. Still, OEMs
>> >> will definitely put a lot of money into improving the GUI, as will
>> >> after-market end-users.
>> >>
>> >> Its really easy to invert the cause-and-effect in the marketplace, and
>> >> presume that supply causes demand.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:32:53 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch quoth:
> Well, I don't particular agree with his comments in particular,
> though he does have a partial point. Open Source does threaten
> commercial software innovation. Why should a company (not just MS)
> invest millions into R&D when open source peoplewill come along and
> offer a free version?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly what Microsoft did to
destroy Netscape's profit model?
Aside from being generally disingenuous about the nature of the word
"free" as it relates to open source, what I find laughable is the
notion that Microsoft is trying to make an argument that the free
distribution of source code is bad for innovation.
More eyes on code means more opportunity for innovation. If Open
Source did not provide a fertile context for software innovation, it
would not be a threat to microsoft, and Alchin would never make such a
statement.
Open Source *IS* a threat to Microsoft because it leads to true
innovation. Open Source *IS* a threat to Microsoft because it
threatens their long term business model. Microsoft will fight true
innovation in the software industry with every fiber of its corporate
being because true innovation will put them out of business.
> On a side note, why is it that the words of one man are always taken
> as the
> official word of MS? When Jim Clark sent a letter to MS begging them
> to buy Netscape, Barksdale dismissed it as not being an official
> statement of the company, yet he was the president, not just a VP as
> Alchin is.
Alchin was speaking to the press on behalf of the company. Barksdale
was making a recommendation to the company. Big difference. If
Alchin's view is not company policy, which I find difficult to believe
given the extent to which Microsoft has stepped up the FUD campaign
against Open Source and Linux on their corporate web site, then what
business does he have speaking openly to the media on the topic?
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:25:35 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:49:31
> [...]
> >But Linux has come from being a
> >system that looked about as friendly as DOS to a system comparable to W2K
> >for the desktop user, in the space of around 4 years max. Windows took
20
> >years to make the same changes.
>
> Let's be reasonable; Windows took closer to 10 years. But, of course,
> it had the 'benefit' of a monopoly from the get-go, so it hasn't really
> "developed" AT ALL. Though it has *changed* quite a bit.
And Unix is still no where near this, 40 years afterward.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:59:01 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yvLh6.1345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'll say this much, Chad...
> You, unlike a few others touting it, actually appear to have a working
> knowledge.
>
> The multi-platform CLR idea is good. But whether or not this will be yet
> another JAVA is a question that begs to be asked. Neither Sun nor MS were
> able to do much with JAVA for understandable reasons. How do you think
this
> will be any different?
There is one thing that MS has that Sun can't even hope to achive in the
next decade or so.
A *very* large consumer base.
And a *huge* developer base.
There are far more programmers writing programs for Windows then there are
for Sun.
Probably more than all the Java programmers as well.
MS has a lot of VB developers that, while might be somewhat angry about the
changes in the language, are also happy because they finally won't have to
be ashamed about their job.
I bought a book about C#, as well as one about Java, I intend to learn them
both at once, I'll comment about it when I'm on beginner programmer level on
those languages.
The C# book called C# MS' Java, and they are very similar.
However, AFAIU, Java was marketed at first as client - side language, at the
time, it wasn't appropriate. At the time, workstations didn't had the power
to make Java fast enough.
There was no good JIT, no good implentation. (What does it says to you about
Sun's implentation of Java when MS' implentation is better?)
Netscape's attempt to rewrite parts of their browser in Java, and the
reversal of this desicion is evidence enough of that.
At the moment, Java is used primarily on servers, where "write once, run
everywhere" is good, because you can write on NT and move to a Unix server
without (much?) trouble.
For that matter, most of the uses of C# are on servers at the moment, on
ASP+ machines.
But C# is a (very) new language, then.
I think that the main difference between Sun & Java and MS & .NET is in the
level of commitment of those companies.
MS defaintely putting a lot more resources on .NET than Sun did on Java.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:22:47 +0200
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:39:57 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
> >Go to http://www.1000hot.com take the tops sites and input URL to
> >http://uptime.netcraft.com/.
>
> I seriously doubt that you entered all 1000 websites one URL at a time
> and compiled the results to arrive at your claim that "most of the big
> names are running Apache on Solaris or IIS on NT/2000". Surely you
> have a more valid basis for that conclusion?
I did.
He is right.
Check deja for the post.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:56:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
> Or how about this one...
> Little fairies manipulate scientific experiments for their infinite
> amusment and joy. These little fairies are from the 5th dimension
> and feel their greatest acomplishment is that they have faked out the
> humans who now believe that all objects fall at the same rate.
> All smart little fairies know that heavy things fall faster.
> Prove it.
We don't have to. The burden of proof is on you. You'll find it
rather hard, mind you, because your theory has no testable
consequences that I can see. You can believe it if you like, but
it's a nontheory; its predictive power is nil.
> We are all asleep in little pods. We are hooked to a virtual reality
> program called the Matrix...
Ditto. If you can think of a test for this, fine, propose it, and test
it.
> My point is that Science is based on some fudemental principles
> that can not be proven, such as the belief that repeatability
> means something.
Uh, repeatability is the basic minimum required for anything to be worth
troubling with. If you can't repeat your bug, I'm not going to
bother with it (unless it is a really disastrous bug). COme back when
you can, but until you can, I'm going to call you a charlatan, and it's
up to you to prove me wrong.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:00:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>>
> The only problem with your tirade is the fact that the
> only reason you even exist now is because of such
> "religious" beliefs.
Perhaps, although humankind existed for 100,000 years without
formal science... 3 or 4 hundred years is probably not enough time
to see if this science stuff is better for the species.
By the way, tirade is defined as a "long haranging speech". It is
a word usually used by a person who avoids the question.
I proposed several hypothesis as to why the Scientific Method
appears to work. No speach... just some questions.
>>Science comes up with stuff that works... but it does not lead to
>>truth.
> No one with any clue claims that it does. It suffices that
> it works remarkably better than following church doctrine.
It appears so, for matters of the five senses.
It fails miserable when it comes to ethics or phylosophy
or religion.
That's where I came in... Discussions about the existance of
God cannot be rationally disscused using the 5 senses.
> However, being a process that allows for self-correction at
> least holds out the hope that you will progress to something
> that more resembles the true nature of the universe.
I personally have this faith also. It's why I study Science.
All I'm saying is that it is of kind with other faiths.
> [deletia]
> "truth" is unecessary.
> However, those that can abandon the truth of yesterday for
> the truth of tomorrow will more likely get to it. If your
> faith is wrong, it will always be wrong. The nature of
> faith is adverse to improvement.
Exactly! This is what I've been trying to show. Blind faith in
Materialism may be incorrect. Keep your mind open.
Remember, faith is a belief that is not based on proof and
faith in Materialism could be wrong. "If your faith is
wrong, it will always be wrong."
I dissagree however, that faith is adverse to improvement.
I try (and often fail) to improve my understand of things seen
and unseen.
> Personally, this is why I abandoned faith. Those that advocated
> it most strongly were actively opposed to any attempt to apply
> the intellect to the persuit of enlightenment.
I think you mean you abandon a faith based on the belief in God.
I've shown that you do have many "faiths" ... beliefs in things not
proven.
Secondly, I've spent my life attempting to apply the intellect to the
persuit of enlightenment. All the time understanding it's limitations.
Many great scientists are both people of great faith and great
intellect.
Please do not judge us by the "Moral Majority". In my opinion
they are neither.
> --
> Freedom != Anarchy.
>
> Some must be "opressed" in order for their
> actions not to oppress the rest of us.
>
> |||
> / | \
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:01:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>>science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>>is not science.
> This not accurate. Science is based on *consistency*. A theory need not to
> be repeatable to be considered science, but it need to be consistent with
> other theory and observations.
> Therefore having an idea of god is not only Ok, but even scientific, as
> long as that idea is proven to have no inconsistency with all other
> scientific theory and observations. :-)
Good point.
> Thanks for reading.
> --
> S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
> _____ _____ _____ _____
> /____ /____/ /____/ /____ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> _____/ / / / _____/ http://www.arifsaha.com/
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:40:32 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CkLi6.72581$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:kCAi6.125230$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:mY6i6.71632$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > > Microsoft implementations are done according professional rules as
> far
> > > > > as programmer salaries go, but not as far as good programming
> > practices
> > > > > go, therefore they do not deserve the "professional" appellation.
> > > >
> > > > You have no idea what the programming practices are at Microsoft any
> > > you've
> > > > never seen the code so you have not grounds to judge.
> > >
> > > That's the point. We can tell the code is broken by the fact that the
> > > machines
> > > crash and the event logs fill with nonsense like:
> > >
> > > "The World Wide Web Publishing Service terminated unexpectedly.
> > > It has done this 454 time(s). The following corrective action
will
> be
> > > taken in 60000 milliseconds: Restart the service.
> >
> > Sorry Les. It doesn't ever say that. The IIS error strings are
> documented
> > on MSDN. Go look em up.
>
> It did say exactly that, or as close as I could retype it. The bizarre
> event log viewing interface doesn't let you copy and paste and is
> basically useless compared to a text file.
Yes it does.
And if you like text file so much, export it.
> > BTW, I don't consider Apache to be part of Linux any more than IIS is a
> part
> > of Windows. It's another product. Where is your evidence and
> documentation
> > of Windows NT code and failure?
>
> Why do they charge extra for it as a part of win2k server vs. workstation
> if it isn't part of the product? Why does a reinstall change core dll's?
Win2K Pro comes with IIS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
