Linux-Advocacy Digest #563, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 23:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! (GreyCloud)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st (GreyCloud)
Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS (Greg Copeland)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?)
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:51:02 +1200
> I take it that you hereby imply that projects like Gnome, apt and rpm
> are not worthwile?
>
> My only objection is that they too, ride on the back of GPL developers,
> while _actively_ preventing their (freely downloadable) distribution of
> being redistributed.
> IMHO the political motives behind the GNU system are pretty important,
> whether you agree with them or not. Not considering that aspect is doing
> GNU a disservice and not acknowledging the immense work they have been
> doing in the last two decades.
> I think SuSE represents the GNU system by bringing out a GNU based
> distribution and I think their policies make this a misrepresentation.
> I would have a lot less problems with their policies if they would base
> their distribution on a *BSD flavour. Those people don't share the GNU
> view of software freedom and actually encourage the reuse of their code
> in non-free projects.
Take away the YaST two installer, then you will be fucked. YaST is an inhouse
produced app, hence, they have no obligation to hand it out for free. By all
means, download the other stuff if you so wish, however, don't expect to get a
free copy of YaST 1 or YaST 2.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:50:59 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > If it's old news then Charlies right... you've been spreading FUD for
> > > > quite a while now.
> > > > But charlie has already provided you Trolls the correctly dated
> articles
> > > > ... and you still can't read.
> > >
> > > No, apparently Yahoo fucked up an reposted an old article as new. If
> you
> > > notice, the article does not appear on the front page.
> > >
> > > This *IS* the > 1 year old vulnerability, and it wasn't a backdoor,
> despite
> > > MS originally thinking it was. They later retracted it saying that the
> > > message was not a password at all, but simply embedded into the code
> while a
> > > buffer overrun vulnerability did in fact exist.
> > >
> > > Yahoo is the *ONLY* news service that has this story, and guess what?
> It's
> > > disappeared. It no longer is on the link. You'd think someone, even
> the
> > > register would have picked this up. But they didn't. In fact, the
> register
> > > posted a story about how Yahoo fucked up.
> > >
> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18975.html
> >
> > Then ya better tell that to Sun Microsystems then. They say its a new
> > one!
>
> They do? I can't find the link. Please provide it.
>
> This is not the double decode bug that was recently discovered.
>
> Further, how much evidence does it take? Now you won't even believe the
> register, the place so many of you Linux advocates love to use as your
> source of information.
I've read all of the previous links you have provided. It looks to me
nothing more the MS spin doctoring.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:54:39 -0700
Todd wrote:
>
> I basically agree with you.
>
> I love W2k and I don't care much for Linux ( I don't think it begins to
> compare ) ...
>
> BUT
>
> I really do resent MS for this product activation thing with XP. It is a
> pain in the ass and why can't I put windows on two machines that only I use
> at home ??
>
> This is bullshit on MS' part and they are going to alienate their most
> ardent supporters.
>
> Hmmmm... maybe I will start to use Linux someday after...
>
> -Todd
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You know, I've been a Windows user since 95 first came out. But more
> > and more, the product, and the actions of Microsoft (MS) anger me more
> > and more.
> >
> > Now with all I'm reading about XP, I've had enough and I'm checking
> > out all my hardware and I'm putting linux on my machine. The more I
> > learn about linux, the more I'm impressed.
> >
> > I feel though we should all encourage others to do the same. It would
> > be negligence on our part to let MS's treatment of consumers to go
> > unchallenged. To remain silent and not take action would be an
> > endorsement of MS's actions.
> >
> > I think we should begin a simple campaign, encouraging people to be
> > "Microsoft Free by October 1st" (the release date of WinXP).
> >
> > With this, people knowledgable in Linux should simply keep making
> > themselves available to newbies like myself (everyone in the
> > newsgroups, and in other user groups have been very helpful to me,
> > thank you guys) who might have questions and need help along the way.
> >
> > Take action against monopolies and unfair treatment of consumers.
> >
> > (I know I sound silly, but I've just been pissed off at the latest
> > articles I've been reading out MS and XP.)
> >
> >
> > Comments? Flames? Hurrahs?
> >
> > ________________________________________________________
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.geocities.com/sugapablo
> > (To email me, remove "Sugapablo-" from my email address)
Fine. Now go troll somewhere else.
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Analysis of the Linux Report from MS
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2001 21:59:29 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) writes:
> Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Following a link from slashdot, I was interested to see an MS document
> >entitled Linux in Retail and Hospitality. A converted document can be
> >found at http://www.iglu.org.il/linux_report.html, the originals are at
> >http://www.microsoft.com/europe/industry/retail/strategicwhitepapers/2523.htm
> >
> >Some quotes from the paper (I've tried not to take it out of context,
> >please repost if you feel I have!):
> >
> >"Numerous Installation Versions
> >
> >There are over 188 different distributions of Linux available today,
> >with the number growing all the time. You have to first decide which
> >distribution and graphical user interface to use. Next, you have to
> >deal with the limitations you will be faced with. For example, there is
> >no guarantee that any software you develop on one distribution will run
> >under another distribution. Nor is it guaranteed, or even likely, that
> >an application you develop for one GUI will run under a different GUI,
> >even on the same distribution. You do not have this problem with
> >Microsoft�s platform, since there are only a few different versions, all
> >with a common user interface."
> >
Doesn't sound like they understand UNIX, let alone X or GUI's as they work
on the previsouly mentionened environments. Let's see, I can run X, with say,
FVWM, Blackbox, ICE, etc. While I'm running anyone one of those (which is a
very short list), I can run Motif, Gnome, or KDE applications. Not to mention
FLTK and old Xt apps. Doesn't sound like I have a problem. What, concerned
about running Gnome apps while running KDE or the other way around? Shouldn't
be. I can run Gnome with, say, Enlightenment WM and still be able to run KDE,
Motif, Gnome, Xt, and FLTK apps without problem. The only catch is that I
need to have the required libraries. Hardly a problem. In fact, this sounds
more like a pro than a con. Hmmm....wish I lived in the make believe world
that Microsoft lives in. Sounds like pure stinky stuff on the bottom of a
shoe.
> ></quote>
> >
> >Microsoft makes: Windows 2000, Windows ME (soon to have Windows XP for
> >consumers) and Windows CE. In the Windows 2000 stable they have: Windows
> >2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 2000 Advanced Server and
> >Windows 2000 Data Centre. This is a fair range of products, which is a
> >fair enough thing to do: each has it's own strengths and capabilities.
> >However, this is no different than from the various Linux distribution.
> >
> >I would also dispute the fact that their are 188 distributions of Linux.
> >Perhaps they would care to list these distributions? If you look at the
> >Linux distribution market fairly then you will find that their are only
> >a few key distributions: Debian Linux, RedHat Linux, Turbo Linux,
> >Caldera Linux, Mandrake Linux and Slackware Linux. As you can see, their
> >are not so many as Microsoft say. To put it bluntly, saying that their
> >are 188 different distributions of Linux is ridiculous, as there are
> >many hobbiest distributions (where someone has put together their own
> >distribution: just because they could or just to see how the different
> >components go together in Linux).
I have no doubt that there are that many. It's not the first time that I've
heard a count that high. A huge number of distros are specifically targeting
niche markets (embedded systems, firewalls, routers, web servers, etc). At
the same time, the number that are generally available and that target a
broad audience is *MUCH* smaller. It's more like what, 6-12 distributions.
> >
> >When Microsoft writes "For example, there is no guarantee that any
> >software you develop on one distribution will run under another
> >distribution", this is a fair enough comment until you realise that all
> >of the main Linux distributions keep up to date with packages and
> >release upgrades to main programs as soon as they can package them.
> >There is also a filesystem standard that most distributions adhere to
> >fairly well; Linux development is incredibly portable as standard
> >libraries are used and if you can compile on one system cleanly then you
> >will be able to compile on another system. From here it is just a matter
> >of "packaging" the developed program to the required distribution.
This is correct. Developing using Win32 APIs is tricky at best. In many
cases, just because it says that it will work, doesn't mean that they
were serious about it. In many, many, many cases, I've had to test
applications on both NT and Win95/98 to find out what did and did not
work. On the other hand, as long as the Linux distro is running a semi-
recent kernel and standard set of libs (most qualify here), running apps
on different distros is not a problem at all. Unlike Microsoft platforms,
the difference, if they exist, can be addressed by getting a more recent
library version for the required application. This is not, normally an
option with Microsoft because they do not share a common source base
or 1:1 ratio implemented functionality. Furthermore, in some cases,
on Microsoft platforms, some functionality on one platforms works slightly
different on another platform which makes for platform specific kinks and
quirks.
> >
> >Microsoft also writes: "Nor is it guaranteed, or even likely, that an
> >application you develop for one GUI will run under a different GUI, even
> >on the same distribution." This is not correct. I can run all KDE
> >programs under GNOME so long as I have KDE installed correctly. Any
> >GNOME programs can be run under KDE so long as GNOME is installed. Any
> >Motif program can run so long as the Motif libraries are installed. Not
> >only will it run under another GUI, but it will run on the same
> >distribution. Clearly Microsoft are mistaken, and I feel that they
> >should not be publishing such wildly inaccurate information.
Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that even if this were not the case,
because X is in the picture, if you even had a single machine that the
application could run on, you could remotely display it on any X capable
box. This, of course, is transparent to the user.
> >
> ><quote>
> >
> >"Lack Of Available Software
> >
> >Software for the Linux operating system has a long way to go. There are
> >not very many well-known or enterprise-wide software packages available
> >for Linux today, especially for POS. There is also a huge void on the
> >Linux platform in server side software, like database, message queuing
> >services, and transaction servers. The present limitations of software
> >for the front end, middle tier, and server on Linux represent additional
> >costs you need to factor into your TCO model. You do not face this
> >limitation with the Microsoft platform, which has thousands of products
> >available to create a complete end-to-end solution."
I seriously doubt that. I do know that a number of middleware solutions
are available as are POS solutions. Od course, Linux has as many databases
available as you have a need. That point is simply bullets from MS's gun!!!
> >
> ></quote>
> >
> >While Microsoft may have a very advanced and mature POS system, I again
> >feel that they are not accurate in some of the statements in the comment
> >"There is also a huge void on the Linux platform in server side
> >software, like database, message queuing services, and transaction
> >servers." At least on the database front, Oracle has release products on
> >the Linux platform, IBM released DB2 on Linux, and there is MySQL, mSQL
> >as well as PostGres. IBM has also released their MQSeries of products
> >(see http://www-4.ibm.com/software/ts/mqseries/), so there are message
> >queuing services for Linux. Level8 also have a product, called Geneva
> >Message Queuing http://63.111.55.182/gmq/
Yes, I completely agree. I do know that many of the other middleware
vendors were looking to support Linux. That was about six years ago. I'm
sure by now, there isn't much lacking now.
> >
> >
> ><quote>
> >
> >Lack Of Formal Development Schedule, Research, and Standards
I think they are talking about every Microsoft product that exists to date.
This is surely a joke. Almost everything that happens in Linux is based
on standards which directly evolves from research (public and private).
The lack of a formal development schedule is also a huge joke. They are
proving that they don't understand the Open Source model. On top of that,
since when did it mean that because Microsoft is using a formal development
schedule they will have everything they say they will when they say they
will have it. I can't remember this being the case, EVER, with Microsoft.
Let's rehash. Microsoft avaerages 2-4 years in tardiness using their
formal process and delivers, what, 6-8 millions lines of code short of
what they said they would have (if memory serves)? Linus on the other
hand, delayed Linux for what, 1-year because they wound up adding and
changing more than what they originally offered and/or committed to?
Hmmmm...sounds like Microsoft needs to learn something from Linus.
Likewise, when 2.4 was released, it actually worked. Please notice I
didn't have to upgrade all of my applications when doing so. Hmmm...
what an odd concept. ;P~
> >
> >With Linux, no formal development schedule or set of standards exists.
> >There are thousands of developers contributing to it from all over the
> >world, with no accountability to the retail industry. Linus Torvalds
> >makes the final decision about what gets included in the latest Linux
> >release, and he has no accountability to the retail industry. There is
> >no formal research and development process with Linux. Microsoft plans
> >to spend over $4 billion in R&D in 2001 and listens to the retail
> >industry.
> >
> ></quote>
Read the above. As far as the R&D goes, what do they spend it on? Please
tell me. I'd really like to know. Seriously. Since they have *NEVER*
innovated anything in the companies life (not counting sales and marketing),
what are they spending $4 billion on???? Everything they have and are,
are technologies that they implemented from standards and modified (hardly
R&D) or outright purchased (again, hardly R&D). I'm guessing that they are
counting future acquisitions into this number. It's the only thing that
makes since. Someone, please tell me *ANYTHING* that MS could be spending
*REAL* R&D dollars on?!?!?! Seriously. Opaquely fading windows, I think,
hardly falls into pure R&D, nor does marketing R&D.
> >
> >Microsoft states that Linus Torvalds makes the final decision about what
> >gets included in the latest Linux release. This is also incorrect. Linus
> >controls the kernel development, not the developement of distributions.
> >I find it very suprising that Microsoft say that their is no formal
> >research and development with Linux - universities LOVE Linux and often
> >use it to research various things. To say that no formal research is
> >going on merely shows the author to have not done their research (or
> >perhaps they haven't gone to Uni lately)
> >
> >I find it amusing that Microsoft feels that they have to mention that
> >they are spending over $4 billion in R&D - IBM alone are spending $1
> >billion dollars on Linux alone (refer to
> >http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2000/flat/toc/2_3_1_intro.html) to say
> >nothing of the money being spent on it by other companies in developing
> >for it. It's commendable that Microsoft are spending so much money, but
> >try to remember that they aren't the only one spending vast amounts of
> >money.
Of course, you are correct. Linux is getting lots of both, public and
privately funded research. The cool thing here is that Linux gets private
research that is made public. Unlike MS, which is often private research???
kept private. You tell me which is better research. Everything for me,
or everything for everyone.
> >
> ><quote>
> >
> >Less Secure
> >
> >�Open source� means that anyone can get a copy of the source code.
> >Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The
> >same is not true with Microsoft Windows.
> >
> ></quote>
This true.
> >
> >Where do I start? What about the number of IIS holes that have needed to
Ahhh....IIS is not part of the OS anymore than Apache, Zues, or any other
web server is Linux. Not fair. Keep with apples and apples please.
[snip]
> >I'll leave the last word to Microsoft. To quote them:
> >
> >"The information contained in this document represents the current view
> >of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of
> >publication. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market
> >conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part
> >of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any
> >information presented after the date of publication."
> >
Not only does this sound like they are scared, but it sounds like they are
very concerned about loosing developer/corporate mid and high-end momentum,
which is *REQUIRED* for their future revenue models. Good! Think about
it, the "meat" of their *stuff* here is they are trying to prove that Linux
doesn't work for mid and high-end solutions (database, middle-ware, multi-tier
applications) or for a general corporate OS (different distros don't work
together?). Hmmm...sounds like they are either loosing ground here, or
are very fearful that it's heading that direction because DC and their
clusters are a flop.
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:01:37 -0700
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dave Martel wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 16 May 2001 19:21:22 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2760874,00.html
> > > >
> > > >Explains it in detail. What was actually being tested was a
> pre-release, and
> > > >not the full version. Wait until the it is actually released in October
> before
> > > >you give your so-called expert opinion. By that time, Linux version
> 2.4.5 or
> > > >2.4.6 will be already released and provide even better performance.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So now it's Microsoft's turn to try to hit a moving target?
> >
> > Now its time to see what Microsoft will do. If a beta runs at around 3/4
> to 1/2
> > the speed of optimised code, a full version, fully optimised version would
> be a
> > site to behold
>
> Really?? 3/4 to 1/2 for a beta?
>
> Then I guess that means the copy of XP I've been playing with which is in
> beta 2 format (not even RC format like the DB2 used in this test) has been
> posting equal or better benchmark results to released W2K will be even
> faster yet? OH MAN!
>
> >, thus again proving to the big-wiggs that Linux is a viable
> > solution, and whats even better is that it is cheap, and their
> shareholders will
> > be happy to know that they have saved a few million by moving to Linux.
>
> Saved a few million? Which results did YOU read? The ones I read show the
> cost for the linux solution being nearly a million dollars while the cost
> for the W2K solution was only a quarter that much. 1/4th.
>
> So - if you want better performance, less heat, less maintenence (single vs
> cluster of servers), and save a bundle of money - go MS.
If you really want less heat ... stay away from Intel! Go Sparc!
Go Linux or UNIX! You'll hire fewer people as they don't have to
administer to BSODS all day long.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:03:48 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9du0tl$gol$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Jon Johansan wrote in message <3b0274d0$0$97230>
> > >MS hasn't bother to post a better result since it owned the category. Why
> >
> >
> > Interesting choice of words - "owned the category". It's amazing what you
> > can do with enough money and the influence it brings - you can buy all
> sorts
> > of benchmark results. One aspect is that lower-end Linux solutions just
> > cannot compete because they can't pay the entrance fees - $10k is a drop
> in
> > the ocean for MS, but a great deal more for cash-strapped free software
> > companies. The other aspect is that the companies with the money make the
> > rules. MS (and other big commercial companies) prevent publication of
> > benchmarks that do not go their way, and they also heavily influence the
> > conditions of benchmarks to improve their own standing.
>
> 10K US$ is nothing, the *hardware* cost alone for the kind of machines that
> are in those benchmarks would cover this many times over.
> The Linux machines cost 1 *million* dollars! The benchmark fee was 1% of the
> price!
>
> This is exactly the kind of benchmarks where you can throw hardware on the
> problem.
$10,000 is nothing?? Hey my good friend and buddy... would you give me
some??
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 20:05:16 -0700
Jon Johansan wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > >
> > > I had to blink and look twice: Linux has finally made it's appearence at
> > > tpc.org and it's in first place!
> > >
> > > http://www.tpc.org/tpch/results/h-ttperf.idc
> >
> > Who cares? I don't trust benchmark results anyways, and especially if
> > I'm not personally involved in them. The only thing that matters is
> > that: Linux is open source. Linux will get better. There's a variety
> > of operating systems out there that can outperform each other at certain
> > tasks, yet are strikingly similar in other areas. It's all about using
> > the best OS for the task. Hell, I've seen moronic executives order that
> > their company use NT 4.0, just because they saw the hype and fell for
> > it. But I trust the security of Linux and unix systems, and it's much
> > easier to set up scripting on a unix box. So, even if Win 2K can
> > outperform at pumping out certain types of data, you have to look at
> > other factors in your decision. There are other things to consider than
> > how well an OS can pump out packets, like how stable the NIC works with
> > the server. Certain OS releases don't like certain NIC's, depending on
> > the driver issues.
> >
> > For one, I think that unix and Linux are easier to configure for a
> > server. It's much simpler to add users and secure down a Linux box than
> > it is Win 2000. Also, there's the uptime factor. Factor in what type
> > of HW you have, and what type of server task you want to do, and you
> > might find one OS better suited than the other at certain things.
> >
> > Yes, I do believe Win 2000 can outperform Linux at certain tasks. But,
> > it depends on how you can deal with what you have, not necessarily with
> > what you've got. IOW, it ain't what you've got, it's the way that you
> > use it. I've seen Linux boxes that were not very optimally configured
> > for the task at hand, but yet other admins were able to make better use
> > of a Win 2000 box, because they were more fully aware of its strengths
> > and limitations, and what it can do.
> >
> > Personally, I could care less about benchmarks. If you show me a
> > benchmark, I'd tell you to stick up your you know where, because I know
> > what kinds of software/HW I'm dealing with, and if I can configure the
> > thing to do what I want to do with it or not. I'm a Linux and unix
> > advocate, and I try to make the best use out of HW running Linux. If
> > Linux couldn't cut it, though, I wouldn't necessarily recommend running
> > Win 2000 by default, because there's so many other capable server OS's,
> > like FreeBSD, Solaris, etc. Win 2000 would be at the bottom of my list,
> > simply because I advocate unix-based systems. But if all else failed, I
> > would use Win 2000. But the likelihood of that happening isn't too
> > great, because, well, there's so many other OSes that I know I could get
> > to work, because I know the limitations of those OSes.
>
> So, if I read your right:
>
> No matter what, in every case, you prefer Unix simply because it's not
> Windows 2000. You would rather use a unix solution every time rather than
> Windows 2000 because you know the limitations of various Unix OSes.
>
> If an independent test shows some result you ignore it.
>
> The only thing that matters to you is that Linux is Open source. i.e., Open
> Source=Better than everything else. Simply by the virtue of the fact that
> you have the code in your hands means that it's better than anything else.
> Hmm... and if you had the code to Windows in your hands, just suppose, would
> that make it better than everything else and tied with other open source
> OSes? Beginning to see some holes here Donn...
>
> You are biased towards what you know and dislike what you don't. OK, I can
> understand that. But don't you think you are being unfair? how would you
> know scripting is easier on unix than Windows if you've never done it,
> really tried it seriously. I find scripting on windows to be effortless but
> don't often need it cause it's just as easy to fire up VB and write a quick
> app there as it is to use vbscript in wsh.
>
> It's flat out not easier to add users in linux, W2K has a command line
> version for practically everything you would want to admin and you can add
> users from the cmd line too, as easily as any other OS. W2K uptime is rock
> solid. Anyone tells you different is lying. W2K is not NT and definately not
> W9x. None of those uptime stories applies. Please don't reduce credibility
> by trying to assail W2K uptime, cause it just won't fly with EVERYONE using
> it.
>
> Allow me to quote back some things, with a word swap, to see how weak they
> are:
> >I've seen W2K boxes that were not very optimally configured
> > for the task at hand, but yet other admins were able to make better use
> > of a linux box, because they were more fully aware of its strengths
> > and limitations, and what it can do.
>
> >Hell, I've seen moronic executives order that
> > their company use Linux, just because they saw the hype and fell for
> > it.
>
> >Certain OS releases don't like certain NIC's, depending on
> > the driver issues.
>
> Oops, I didn't have to change that last one - cause it's true for EVERY OS.
Nothing more than MS fixing the benchmarks for spin doctoring.
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
