Linux-Advocacy Digest #625, Volume #34 Sat, 19 May 01 16:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (Pete Goodwin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Roy Culley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:09:51 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>> Yet I've done a few upgrades with Windows and they appear to work.
> You have to be the most gifted Windows user, and the most cursed
> Linux user I've ever met Pete.
That's what happens for me.
> My daughters old boyfriend tried upgrading Win95 to Win98 about 13 months
> ago .... result was a pc that was unbootable.
Early days for Windows upgrade.
>>> At least with Linuxits as easy as saving your /home dir,then just
>>> installing the new version from scratch.
>>
>> That saves your data... well that's not hard on Windows.
> It also saves *all* my configs, for *all* my applications,
> Window Managers, shell scripts etc.
>
> Can you spell CONFIGS Pete ?
I did say data, did I not?
> Easy saving of all configs, bookmarks, news_posts, etc, are saved
> in the /home directory for a reason, and thats to make upgrading,
> re-installs etc, as EASY as possible.
What about the system configuration stored in /etc? Is that compatible
across different distros?
> Linux makes life easier for its users, in many of ways.
And makes life harder in others, in many ways.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:13:10 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
> It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
> copper wire.
Radio waves are light. The speed of light, including radio waves,
varies depending on the medium. However, usually when one refers to the
speed of light without specifying the medium, the speed of light in a
vacuum is assumed. The speed of radio waves in a vacuum is the same as
light. Perhaps the the 88% of c is the speed of radio waves in the
earth's atmosphere. However, since interstellor space is very close to
a vacuum, the speed of radio waves coming from a distant star would be
traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum (until, of
course, it hits the earth's atmosphere).
Gary
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:11:28 GMT
Brad Sims wrote:
> Of course it all worked out of the box it's linux ( ie: not
> written by the retarded spidermonkeys on crack, that Micky$oft
> hires).
It didn't work for me.
> When I installed my SuSE 7.1 box ; it automatically set up X, my
> network card, my soundcard, and my printer.
SuSE 7.1 had a go at setting up my two network cards and DHCP but badly
failed.
> I love the extensive written documentation, and the _VAST_
> amount of helpfiles available.
Ah yes, I love the documentation in SuSE 7.1, the stuff written in German
in an English book...
--
Pete
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:17:38 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes; it's just not the habit.
> >
> > Although I had an teacher in grade school who INSISTED that we say
> > "lavatory" instead of bathroom (because there are no baths in the
> > school bathrooms).
> >
> > Of course, the typical 3rd graders whom he was subjecting to his
> > inanity couldn't figure out why someone would want to ask to go
> > to the laboratory when all they want to do is take a piss.
> At College, Seventh Form (last year, age 18), we could swear in class as
> much as we wanted, shit, even the fucking teacher swore too. As for the
> link with the post, at high school it (toilet) was either:
>
> 1. Toilet
> 2. Thunder box
> 3. The throne
> 4. Shit house
> 5. The crapper
> 6. The can
whatever happened to
7. the loo
8. the bog
?
or are those pome exclusives?
> Just in line with that. I couldn't believe reading in a newspaper that
> there is a move in the US to ban swearing in the work place. What's the
> fuck up with that?
the US is a nation with a lot of prudes and killjoys.
> Go into a local computer store in New Zealand, and there wil be
> fuck's and shit's flying everywhere. People are casual, and don't
> give a shit what people say. Ring up Telecom NZ, and you have a
> friendly and relaxed person on the other end of the line. I have
> rung up the likes of AT&T and I get this analy retentive twitt on
> the other end that sounds like she has never had any human contact
> for twentry years!
they probably haven't. here in the US, most phone numbers are just a
push button phone maze leading to an endless please hold with muzak.
> Ring up SUN US, and you get some bastard that sounds likes he's
> never had a decent shagg in the twentry years he's been on the
> earth.
see that part about prudes. ;-)
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:13:49 GMT
Michael Vester wrote:
> Linux advocates have known this for a long time.
Must be a very well kept secret then, if it only works for Linux advocates.
>
>> When I installed my SuSE 7.1 box ; it automatically set up X, my
>> network card, my soundcard, and my printer.
>>
> Exactly the same experience I had with Suse. And you don't have to endure
> the reboot everytime losedos detects yet another componenet. Try swapping
> motherboards with losedos. I went through 22 reboots and 3 BSODs with NT.
> Just the motherboard was changed. Same video card, network card, hard disk
> controller and sound card.
I changed my motherboard recently, and swapped sound card. Windows had to
reboot about four or six times (your '22' seems laughable). Linux had no
propblems - except it left the old setup for the old sound card and I had
to manually intervene to fix it. The installation/detection stuff still has
a way to go.
> And the huge online source and newsgoups (not this one) and local user
> groups. The resources for help are far more accessable than what you can
> find for losedos.
You mean fanatical user groups.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:16:02 GMT
GreyCloud wrote:
> I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
> wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
> than the speed of light. And if the radio waves are coming from many
> million light years away I'd say it was very old news we would be
> receiving. But I doubt they will get anything from it as they advertise
> they are looking for. All I know is that the end user gets a block of
> data to crunch... do we really know what this data is? Could it be
> entirely something else?
Fair enough. The search for extra terrestrials is either a waste of time or
valid research. I don't know which. I thought it was a valid comparison.
The Intel one is for Cancer research. I assume you don't think that one is
farce?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:18:39 GMT
worlok wrote:
> You are using the example of SETI wrongly. It is a distributed job made
> up of many OS's, Windows being the largest merely due to the desktop
> monopoly.
I don't think so.
> I run SETI on my Sparcs and my Linux boxes, and they are in no more a
> supercomputer than the Windows machines.
Individually, I'd agree with you. Together, it makes an enormous
supercomputer.
> I never agreed with calling a large distributed thing like SETI as if it
> was one computer. That is descriptive for what it does but hardly
> correct.
It's a loosely coupled supercomputer. I had no idea this topic was
restricted to tightly coupled supercomputers.
> Now, if you mentioned Linux's beowulf clustering, where although they are
> seperate machines but connected in such a way that they are more like a
> large machine because they are running the clustering software and all are
> controlled from a central node (I think), then yes.
That's a type of tightly coupled supercomputer.
> Try to run Beowulf clustering on Windows and make a cost effective
> supercomputer out of it. I dare you.
There was clustering on Windows - was it on the DEC Alpha? That died a
death unfortunately.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:20:25 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> A computer is a computer, and Linux is more advanced, technologically,
> than Windows.
Windows 9x maybe, but not so Windows 2000.
Can Linux do 3D sound yet? It's built into Windows but not so easy on Linux.
>>Something that is better than Windows.
>
> So you will admit that a) Windows sucks, and b) Windows has no
> competition, but not c) Microsoft illegally monopolizes. Is that it?
Nope.
> Please stop putting words on the newsgroup.
Why should I?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:21:39 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> For anyone who wants stoneage computing maybe.
>
> Or a great compiler, superior networking, reliability,
> and much better security. Or a heritage of modular
> tools to which Microsoft can only aspire to.
Superior networking? Ah yes, that makes sense. Linux can't handle two
network cards and DHCP on my machine.
As for a heritage of tools... tried Delphi or Kylix yet? Oh, they're not
Microsoft tools by the way.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:23:43 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>The desktop is about as *real* as you get.
>
> Why is it that you always claim you are responding to the subject line,
> when someone points out that you are literally ignoring what they
> specifically said in the post you are responding to?
Like you do?
> Linux beats Win2K easily on the desktop, and everywhere else. The only
> place where Windows doesn't entirely suck is monopolization. Too bad
> for Microsoft that is illegal.
I see. That explains why Windows is on 80% or more desktops than Linux.
It being illegal (and the court case is still pending) doesn't seem to made
much difference yet.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:25:06 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> And they're in the majority, are they?
>
> Sounds like you're suggesting "majority rules" as the
> best way of making technical decisions.
>
> Fascinating.
>
> Let's get one thing straight. The power users use
> supercomputers, not pissy little Intel boxes. And
> the supercomputers don't run Windows. Maybe some
> run Linux, but more likely some proprietary version
> of UNIX.
Yet these pissy little Intel boxes together in their millions makes a
machine that is ten times bigger than the biggest supercomputer (except for
IBM's one).
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:26:28 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>> Interesting! And what OS is that running? Linux?
>>
>> AIX, IBM's proprietary implementation of UNIX.
>
> You are such a wanker. You love snipping so as to quote people out of
> context.
>
> Idiot.
About the level of response I've come to expect.
So, how come the world's biggest supercomputer (bar one) consists of
primary Windows desktops?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:27:52 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
>> Interesting! And what OS is that running? Linux?
>>
>> AIX, IBM's proprietary implementation of UNIX.
>
> AIX. But it would be interesting to run Linux on it. Linux runs on the
> RS/6000, which is the base of the system.
How easy would it be to install, I wonder. How many changes would be needed
to make it work... I guess we'll never find out unless someone has the
money.
Curious that IBM are using their AIX not Linux.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:32:17 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3aff6582$0$78355$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Abit BX-133 Mb w/current bios
> > > Pentium III 500
> > > 256 Mb PC-133 ECC
> > > Four 40 gig Seagate 7200 rpm ATA100 drives stripped and mirrored in
> hardware
> > > (onboard HPT370 dual channel RAID controller)
> > > 2 x Intel Server NICs
> > > generic CD-ROM and floppy
> > > aopen case, no extra cooling
> > > generic SIS AGP video card cause we use terminal services for remote
> admin
> > > so we almost never login locally.
> > > APC 1400 UPS connected via serial cable
> > >
> > > EVERYTHING without exception loaded using the standard Windows 2000
> Server
> > > CD, I upgraded the NIC adapter driver cause there were some neat
> features in
> > > the intel driver instead of the one from MS, but that was unnecessary.
> > >
> > > Works perfectly solid, we started at 128 megs but upgraded to 256 when
> we
> > > decided to run active directory on this machine after that department
> was
> > > moved to a different floor. It's backed up over the network so no
local
> > > backup device.
> > >
> > > Thats it. Nothing special.
> > >
> > > CPU utilization is practically nothing - we only used the 500 cause it
> was
> > > the best price break at the time of purchase.
> > How much ($) for 144 licenses? had you used Linux, or if you used a
> > commercial UNIX, Solaris 8 x86 or UNIXWare 7.1.1 you wouldn't have those
> > issues.
>
> Have what issues? I have no issues. yes, I paid for the CALs - yep, sure
> did. But everything works perfectly. I get what I pay for and it works
> BETTER than anything else with the Windows desktops it supports. You have
> given me no reason why I'd want to switch to using unix to support windows
> desktops other than the upfront, one time purchase cost (and forgetting it
> costs more to support a unix server cause it's harder to configure and
> operate)
Haven't you commented earlier that you should try something before
expressing your opinion about it? Tell us about your experience
with unix and why you imagine it is harder. The real difference
in operation of unix and windows is that you could have learned
unix once 20 years ago and still use the same knowledge, where
windows intentionally changes everything for no particular reason
every few years.
Before commenting on the difficulty or expense of using a unix
server to support windows users again, please try the following
so you can back it up with experience:
Follow the 'download' link at http://www.e-smith.org for a
copy of their CD image. Load it, answer the questions, then
use a web browser for the rest of the setup. After doing this
you might be able to make a reasonable comparison with
Win2k as to which is easier and which works better. (Unless,
of course you have some hidden agenda and want to remain
biased...).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:29:15 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
> Right. I even gave Pete some suggestions on why his printer doesn't
> work under Linux, and got no response. I figure that if he did actually
> read some of the suggestions, his configuration would work. Then, he'd
> have nothing else to bitch about. He's just another Windows Whiner.
You didn't read what that was all about, now did you? I fixed the problem
by changing a setting in The Gimp. My whole point througout that thread was
I that I shouldn't need to.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:31:17 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>In one small percentage of the whole market. Not enough.
>
> I would guess that you're the kind of wintroll, Pete, who would claim
> the world would be a better place if there was only one company
> producing everything.
And a committee deciding standards works, does it? Sometimes standards like
that lags behind the market. So whilst the standards body is agonising (or
arguing) over a small point, the market is moving onto something bigger and
better.
You are, as usual, putting words into my mouth.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:34:56 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>You could put "Linux beats Win2K in terms of scalability". Instead you
>>put the more inclusive version and added "again".
>
> Well, that's because the reality is that Win2K really really sucks.
> Just for you, he didn't put that in the subject line, though.
Probably because saying Win2K really really sucks is about as meaningless
as saying Linux really really sucks.
>>It's millions of desktop machines, 80% of which are running Windows of
>>one form or another. That's the *real* world.
>
> In the real world, those are separate desktop machines, not one big
> machine.
Yes. Your point?
> Nobody said a Windows computer was incapable of being a computer. Just
> incapable of being reliable or high-performance.
Yet 1 million desktop machines (which includes a large majority of Windows
machines) produces one that is bigger than only one supercomputer in the
world.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:38:44 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>> You could put "Linux beats Win2K in terms of scalability". Instead you
>> put the more inclusive version and added "again".
>
> So it was requires for you to read the post before understanding it. Well
> are you really suprised about that?
No. However, you could pick a better title.
> I am suggesting that a benchmark setup is not an example of *real* world
> scalibility. No one uses benchmark setups to get work done.
True.
> I am suggesting a supercomputer is an example of *real* world scalibility
> becuase people use supercomputers to do real work.
True.
> Spot the difference.
Then change the title.
>> What's the biggest computer out there at the moment?
>
> Thje biggest sigle computer is the one at the top of thee top500.
> Unsuprisingly enough, it's a huge IBM monster capable of many thousands
> of gigaflops.
And the two not mentioned are the ones by SETI and Intel.
> Correct. I have no idea what OS it runs. It's not a Linux cluster.
It's AIX, IBM's version of UNIX. Curiously, not Linux.
> A couple of good examples, but are there any for profit making
> organisations, ie businesses.
>
> Nope.
So now you only consider profit making organisations!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:40:30 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
> Not too original, are you, Pete?
That's a requirement is it?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:43:01 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dkm74$h8j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dkhal$87t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > But Microsoft has never made an OS that approached the reliability of
> > Linux or UNIX. Never.
>
> *Cough* Xenix *Cough*
A). MS didn't 'make' Xenix, they licensed AT&T code and ported it.
B). It wasn't all that great compared to other unix versions, but most
of the problems related to the toy hardware it targeted.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:44:16 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9djfkn$qqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Then why isn't there a mass movement from UNIX towards Win2k? and how
> > come SUN has been having some fab quarters? so much for a dying OS.
>
> Slow acceptance rate due to MS' past reputation, mainly, give it time.
You make that sound like MS's reputation has changed. Did I miss
something? I still see new security issues almost daily. They are
still up to their old tricks at forcing upgrades instead of delivering
stable products with long lives. What could possibly make someone
think anything has changed?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:42:07 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> ZZZZZZZZZ
Now who's not being original.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:48:50 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3afdd75e$0$82782$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Actually I couldn't care less. I've heard no such testimonials in the
real
> > world where people actually work with it as opposed to talk about it.
>
> Funny - that's exactly the sort of testimonial I've just given and that I
> hear constantly. I am hearing from EVERYONE at every conference or show I
go
> to - wow, W2K sure is solid. No one even seems to care when SP2 comes out
> for it cause it works so perfectly fine right now.
Yes, I'll bet they were just thrilled with that security hole that let
anyone
deface their web site....
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 20:10:08 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001 03:26:26 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
<snip>
> The whole scenario looks to me like a combination of the drugs underworld
> and a protection racket. Get the user base hooked on a product, then mug
> them if they fail to pay up monthly. The sole difference appears that
> Microsoft's rackets are legal, else how are they getting away with it?
This is an excellent analogy. As to its legality that has been determined
by the DoJ trial v Microsoft which is now in appeal.
>> > Face it Erik, *nobody* trusts Microsoft on their word anymore. Well, you
>> > do, obviously, so I'm curious if you can give a reason for that? You seem
>> > to be too intelligent to trust anything on faith alone.
>>
>> I don't trust them in the way you mean, but I can use common sense. Simply
>> using the OS gives them the opportunity to do whatever they like. If i'm
>> going to do that, there is no extra risk in activation.
Don't be so naive. If I use an OS / application which has no reason to
transfer any data for normal use then I will be alarmed if I see such
activity. With XP you expect this and so will ignore the fact that it
sends data to microsoft.com when you use it. Microsoft can hide anything
they like in that data as it is encrypted. And going by their past record
I wouldn't trust them an inch.
> There is certainly a logic in that, but why let them away with introducing
> a system that virtually invites them in your front door and inventory your
> property? There are umpteen reasons why millions of machines need never be
> connected to a network, let alone to the Internet and Microsoft, or may be
> connected to an internal network that has no external router. Why should
> you have to risk your company's security just to "activate" a product
> you've purchased anyway?
>
> The whole concept is aimed at the ultimate control of every computer and
> every bit of company data by Microsoft (and who knows who else...?), pure
> and simple, nothing else. A permanent revenue stream completely under
> Microsoft's control, plus unlimited power. A Gates nirvana.
Any company that accepts XP deserves everything they get in much the same
way as those that use IIS, with its appalling security track record, for
their e-commerce business. You just can't trust Microsoft.
--
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
