Linux-Advocacy Digest #635, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("Boris Dynin")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS\PL)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS\PL)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (Donn Miller)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Boris Dynin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 22:30:41 -0700
> Bingo. The successor to the E10000 will be along soon, and I expect it to
> outperform the machine it replaces. So what was your point?
We'll have to wait to see. As Sun increases speed of its CPUs, E10000
interconnect switches could become a bottleneck. I must add that I read
posts on comp.sys.dec that E10000 design was derived from Cray designs which
had been sold to Sun by SGI by mistake. The point is: it's not obvious that
there will be a potent successor to E10000 by Sun.
Boris
------------------------------
From: JS\PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 01:46:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 18 May 2001
>>> [...]
>>> >But the reason Windows is so successful is because
>>> >the apps run on it.
>>>
>>> The reason apps run on it is not because of success, though, but because
>>[...deletia...]
>>
>>Just so you know, I stopped reading at "because".
>
> Why? Don't you know what the word means?
>
tee hee
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:10:07 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I think you are having difficulty with the term
> > > "core"; it doesn't mean "what T Max Devlin doesn't like".
> > >
> >
> > micro$osoft's -main- business is first, its OS, then it window$ apps.
> > Core doesnt mean what ever Daniel wants.
>
> I suppose you are trying to exclude
> Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
> and I would too.
>
What "Microsoft Unix"??
> But I still think it's unreasonable to
> dub the vast bulk of MS's product line
> the core of the lineup.
>
> [snip]
> > > > No, you're making up fanciful reasons to deny that it is so firmly
> > > > entrenched for quite precisely the same reasons it was made a felony
> > > > more than a century ago.
> > >
> > > You seem very certain that no explaination but
> > > black magic can account for Microsoft's
> > > dominance.
> > >
> >
> > You dont seem to coprehend the terms anti-trust or predatory. Get a
> > clue. Borrow one, steal one or buy one, but get one.
>
> Actually, it seems to me that you don't seem to
> mean anything by those terms besides "black magic".
>
Your use of "black magic" is no more than your blind denial of wrong
doing.
> Besides, Max was saying it was a felonious
> behavior that did it, and these little antitrust
> things aren't felonies, and weren't a hundred
> years ago either. Witchcraft on the otherhand,
> is a possibility there.
>
Max is correct. You are being totally absurd!
> [snip]
> > > > >Oh, come now. That'll a sure-fire losing strategy, as
> > > > >IBM discovered with OS/2 2.0.
> > > >
> > > > OS/2 is a product IBM continues to make millions of dollars a year on.
> > >
> > > IBM's OS strategy derailed because
> > > OS/2 failed to attract developers. The product
> > > is profitable, sure, but it can't act as
> > > a bridge to the now-canceled "Workplace OS".
> >
> > Oh, the "failure" of OS/2 didnt have anyhting to do with micro$oft's
> > FUD? Bull.
>
> What Microsoft FUD do you have in mind?
>
> I think the failure was that IBM sold it
> to consumers as a better Windows and
> a better DOS. There was no future in
> doing that, ever.
So you think.
>
> Selling it to developers as a better
> platform might have worked, but IBM
> chose not to do that.
>
What are you drinking tonite??
> [snip]
> > > > So why then, would it scare Microsoft so much they will do anything
> they
> > > > can to prevent it?
> > >
> > > They haven't bothered to do much of anything
> > > about WINE and Open32.
> > >
> >
> > I dont know about OS/32. WINE is pretty much useless. And, unless you
> > regularly try to use it, dont try any of your m$ aplopgist crap. WINE is
> > pretty much useless.
>
> Sure is. Open32 is too, same way.
>
Open32,... is microsoft into something new these days???
Their O/S is not open.
> There's no *point* to developing for a portable
> subset of Win32. Never was.
>
> But that's all WINE and Open32 can
> offer.
>
> > > It's Java that scares them, and Java isn't anything
> > > like a Windows-compatibility layer.
> >
> > Any that works scares them.
>
> I think you are missing a noun there. Any *what*
> that works? Any anything?
>
> [snip]
> > > I don't see how it explains why "buy" should have scare quotes;
> >
> > TRhats becasue you are not too bright. Buy imples the seller has a
> > choice. When m$ tries to "buy" something, the seller rarely has a
> > choice.
>
> Oh?
>
> What makes you think so?
>
> I have never heard this accusation against
> Microsoft before.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Sock puppets will quibble punctuation, or anything else they can come
> up
> > > > with, as long as it keeps the conversation away from Microsoft's
> > > > continuing criminal behavior.
> > >
> > > Well, sometimes it's all you can profitably discuss.
> > > Rick is not, um, real receptive to argument.
> >
> > Liar. I am receptive to facts. You ignore them or you try to change them
> > to fit your reality.
>
> I dunno. You seem quite unreceptive to the
> facts of development on 8-bit PCs.
>
> [snip]
> > > VB made if very easy to build simple but
> > > reasonable user interfaces. Just point and
> > > click.
> > >
> > > Other development tools existed but they
> > > were much harder to use.
> > >
> > > The only exception I Can think of is
> > > Hypercard and its clones. They were
> > > easy, but the user interfaces they provided
> > > were weird and nonstandard.
> >
> > Weird and non-standard from YOUR point of view only.
>
> No, not really. Ever seen what a Hypercard
> stack looks like?
>
> [snip]
> > More context losing snips.
>
> I buy them in bulk. :D
Phew!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:11:21 -0700
Rick wrote:
>
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > I think you are having difficulty with the term
> > > > "core"; it doesn't mean "what T Max Devlin doesn't like".
> > > >
> > >
> > > micro$osoft's -main- business is first, its OS, then it window$ apps.
> > > Core doesnt mean what ever Daniel wants.
> >
> > I suppose you are trying to exclude
> > Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
> > and I would too.
> >
> > But I still think it's unreasonable to
> > dub the vast bulk of MS's product line
> > the core of the lineup.
> >
>
> I dont really care what you think. m$'s main business is first its OS,
> then its apps.
>
> > [snip]
> > > > > No, you're making up fanciful reasons to deny that it is so firmly
> > > > > entrenched for quite precisely the same reasons it was made a felony
> > > > > more than a century ago.
> > > >
> > > > You seem very certain that no explaination but
> > > > black magic can account for Microsoft's
> > > > dominance.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You dont seem to coprehend the terms anti-trust or predatory. Get a
> > > clue. Borrow one, steal one or buy one, but get one.
> >
> > Actually, it seems to me that you don't seem to
> > mean anything by those terms besides "black magic".
> >
>
> Dont tell me what I think. You continue to deny that m$ is a predatory
> anti-comeptitive company.
>
> > Besides, Max was saying it was a felonious
> > behavior that did it, and these little antitrust
> > things aren't felonies, and weren't a hundred
> > years ago either. Witchcraft on the otherhand,
> > is a possibility there.
> >
>
> They arent "little" (did that scare you?) ant-trust actions. They just
> may result in the breakup of micro$oft. Doubtful, but possible.
>
> > [snip]
> > > > > >Oh, come now. That'll a sure-fire losing strategy, as
> > > > > >IBM discovered with OS/2 2.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > OS/2 is a product IBM continues to make millions of dollars a year on.
> > > >
> > > > IBM's OS strategy derailed because
> > > > OS/2 failed to attract developers. The product
> > > > is profitable, sure, but it can't act as
> > > > a bridge to the now-canceled "Workplace OS".
> > >
> > > Oh, the "failure" of OS/2 didnt have anyhting to do with micro$oft's
> > > FUD? Bull.
> >
> > What Microsoft FUD do you have in mind?
> >
>
> Any/All of it.
>
> > I think the failure was that IBM sold it
> > to consumers as a better Windows and
> > a better DOS. There was no future in
> > doing that, ever.
> >
> > Selling it to developers as a better
> > platform might have worked, but IBM
> > chose not to do that.
> >
> > [snip]
> > > > > So why then, would it scare Microsoft so much they will do anything
> > they
> > > > > can to prevent it?
> > > >
> > > > They haven't bothered to do much of anything
> > > > about WINE and Open32.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I dont know about OS/32. WINE is pretty much useless. And, unless you
> > > regularly try to use it, dont try any of your m$ aplopgist crap. WINE is
> > > pretty much useless.
> >
> > Sure is. Open32 is too, same way.
> >
> > There's no *point* to developing for a portable
> > subset of Win32. Never was.
> >
>
> Then why should m$ be scared of them? You used them as an example ofm$
> leaving "compeitors alone".
>
> > But that's all WINE and Open32 can
> > offer.
> >
> > > > It's Java that scares them, and Java isn't anything
> > > > like a Windows-compatibility layer.
> > >
> > > Any that works scares them.
> >
> > I think you are missing a noun there. Any *what*
> > that works? Any anything?
> >
>
> There noesnt necessarily need an anything there, but that is indeed what
> I meant. I also see that you skipped a reply.
>
> > [snip]
> > > > I don't see how it explains why "buy" should have scare quotes;
> > >
> > > TRhats becasue you are not too bright. Buy imples the seller has a
> > > choice. When m$ tries to "buy" something, the seller rarely has a
> > > choice.
> >
> > Oh?
> >
> > What makes you think so?
> >
> > I have never heard this accusation against
> > Microsoft before.
> >
>
> You refuse to listen.
>
> > [snip]
> > > > > Sock puppets will quibble punctuation, or anything else they can come
> > up
> > > > > with, as long as it keeps the conversation away from Microsoft's
> > > > > continuing criminal behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Well, sometimes it's all you can profitably discuss.
> > > > Rick is not, um, real receptive to argument.
> > >
> > > Liar. I am receptive to facts. You ignore them or you try to change them
> > > to fit your reality.
> >
> > I dunno. You seem quite unreceptive to the
> > facts of development on 8-bit PCs.
> >
>
> You havent provided any clear facts on 8 bit development. You want to
> argue developers' point of view when the conversation is from the users'
> point of view. in fact, your credibility continues to erode.
>
> > [snip]
> > > > VB made if very easy to build simple but
> > > > reasonable user interfaces. Just point and
> > > > click.
> > > >
> > > > Other development tools existed but they
> > > > were much harder to use.
> > > >
> > > > The only exception I Can think of is
> > > > Hypercard and its clones. They were
> > > > easy, but the user interfaces they provided
> > > > were weird and nonstandard.
> > >
> > > Weird and non-standard from YOUR point of view only.
> >
> > No, not really. Ever seen what a Hypercard
> > stack looks like?
> >
>
> have you? Habe you not yet figures out I have uses Apple II's?
>
> > [snip]
> > > More context losing snips.
> >
> > I buy them in bulk. :D
>
> Look. Another grinning dolt.
>
> --
> Rick
He's a waste of time and bandwidth Rick. He's just as slimey and as a
used car salesman.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:15:59 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Seriously, they may well buy an app
> > > because their co-workers use it and
> > > they want to share data or otherwise
> > > collaborate.
> >
> > ... they use what everyone else uses.
>
> Well, what their co-workers use anyway.
>
> > > But they buy the OS so they can run that
> > > app.
> >
> > ... they use what everyone else uses.
>
> ... and for a reason. It's the reason that matters,
> but you seem averse to discussing it.
>
> Why is that?
>
> [snip]
> > > Anyway, it's kind of hard for me to search for
> > > them if you can't even give me the machine's
> > > model number, or an author, or something.
> >
> > You profess to be such an expert on things and you dont even know the
> > TRS 80 model numbers? I, II, III, 4, 4P
>
> Those guys weren't CP/M machines. They
> had a thing called TRS-DOS, I believe.
>
> They were kinda weak even for 8-bit computers;
> they certainly were not better than IBM PCs.
>
> > > And the chance that such an old article would
> > > appear on the web is pretty small. I'd have
> > > to, like, use a library or something. :D
> >
> > Too lazy to look, huh?
>
> I really can't, not without more than what
> you've given me.
>
> [snip]
> > Damned typos. I have told you this beofer, but now you seize on the
> > typo.. here's the correction:
> > m$-DO$ was very close to CP/M. Thats why IBM paid Killdal $800,000
> > dollar so he wouldn't sue over the CP/M code in it.
>
> Oh.
>
> Sure, they probably thought that if he hadn't
> patented something in CP/M, we surely could.
>
> MS-DOS and CP/M were just awful close.
> Same problem with Windows NT and VMS.
>
VMS and NT are a million miles apart. Neither are even equivalent.
VMS is at least mature. NT crashes.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:22:15 -0700
Jon Melbo wrote:
>
> The Apple II's graphics weren't very good or advanced compared to
> other 8 bit machines of the day. The C64 was better as was the Atari
> 800 line.
>
> Apple Works was a great package. It would be hard to say it was
> better than Wordstar, 123, and dBASE on a PC though. Still, it was a
> very nice package.
>
> Programs that used compiled (and certainly interpreted) code typically
> were noticeably poorer performers than those written in assembly.
> This is still true today, though there is so little (relatively
> speaking) written in assembly that it is hard to compare. Now only
> critical timing, small procedures / functions, system level type stuff
> is done in assembly anymore. In the good ole' days of the 8-bits,
> entire applications were written using assembly because the
> performance was just too poor without it, or every last byte of memory
> needed to be conserved and hand tweaked assembly was the only / best
> way.
Very true indeed! I used to own one of the original Apple I ... bought
a board and that was it. Then purchased the standard II and I had more
fun with that machine than I do now with all the bells and whistles. I
think it was the challenge to do as much as possible with the least
amount of resources.
V
------------------------------
From: JS\PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:25:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001
>>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>> > > They buy what "everyone else" has. Thats the whole point of
>>> > > monopolizaiont, you know. To make sure you are THE vendor.
>>> >
>>> > I think you need to sit down and think that
>>> > through again. Are you *sure* the whole point of
>>> > monopolization is to appeal to herd instincts?
>>>
>>> Yup. People buy "what everybody else has". micro$oft made sure what
>>> everybody else had is micro$oft.
That's what businesses do (surprise!!) They make sure everyone in their
market uses their product. The one that succeed in this most basic of
business goals is, believe it or not, called a SUCCESS!
>>
>>You sure it isn't to deny consumers any alternative
>>choices?
>
> Whatever pretend grammar mistake you had to make to pretend the point
> wasn't made obviously requires some explanation if you expect anyone
> else to repeat it, Daniel.
>
> In point of fact, people do not buy "what everybody else has", they buy
> what is best for them. Sometimes that is the same choice as others,
> sometimes it is not. Unless there is illegal monopolization going on
> (and, yes, the fact that this happens alone is sufficient evidence for a
> conviction), then everybody makes the same choice.
Everyone making the same choice doesn't have anything to do with your
supposed "monopoly" evidence. It is evidence of nothing. In point of fact -
everyone DOES'NT choose MS. So your lame argument is already voided by the
fact that there are choices and not everyone chooses Microsoft.
Get it?
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:27:04 -0700
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > I think you should stop flinging gratuitous insults
> > > when you lose arguments, Max. That question
> > > wasn't even for you; I know you don't agree
> > > with Rick on this point, and I wouldn't
> > > expect you to defend him here.
> >
> > Just what argument did Max lose?
>
> He seem to have given up trying to defend
> the notion that Windows is inferior for now.
>
It is inferior. What delusional perceptions do you have to think that
it is the best?
> I think he lost that one.
>
> > It looks to me like he calling you on
> > an honesty issue.
>
> Maybe. I don't yet know what "dishonesty" means
> in Max-speak very clearly. I know it doesn't
> have anything much to do with, say, lying,
> but that's all.
--
V
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:29:23 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
"~�~" wrote:
> Now then. Who is spending 'their entire lives posting ..." ????
>
> Idiot.
So why do you give a crap about who posts what? I've never seen you
post anything technical or on-topic in here. Also, nice vocabulary
you've got there. Perhaps you'll get your GED one of these days and
learn a new word other than "idiot".
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:34:32 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <04GN6.2052$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Society wrote:
> >"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Kulkis is an idiot.
> >>
> >> But then I repeat myself.
> >
> >You all do realize that Aaron Kulkis is an operative
> >whose mission is to lure you into wasting your time
> >instead of doing anything that might challenge the
> >"Windows domination of the desktop", don't you?
> >
> >Or maybe you don't. Ha, ha.
> >
> >And all your wasted time is keeping you out
> >of circulation with the good lookers, too.
> >
> >--
> > Too many Americans can't laugh at themselves anymore.
> >
> > #35 in Rush Limbaugh's "35 Undeniable Truths"
> >
>
> Considering the state of the economy now as opposed to last year,
> I wouldn't care if Clinton had sex with a collie twice a week
> if we could have him back.
>
> Bush sucks and Linux is the #1 fastest growing OS in the world
> for the 4th straight year in a row now.
>
> Only deal in FACTS! Don't quote Rush Limbaugh.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
Well Charlie, the economy was already heading for the shit can before
Bush got in anyway.
I cashed out of the stock market back in march of 2000. If alan
greenspan had'nt put the brakes on, the economy would've burst like a
big bubble... aka 1929. Bill was too busy fucking Collie dogs... Monica
for one.
Linux is the fastest developed O/S in the world. #1!
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:38:26 -0700
"Dr S.J. Cornell" wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dr S.J. Cornell) wrote:
> > <>If you had been paying attention, you'd know why this is irrelevant:
> > <>homosexuals can, and do, have children.
>
> Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Only if they engage in heterosexual behavior-it would seem that for
> > a person to father or bear children they would at the very least be
> > bi-sexual.
>
> Elsewhere you say:
>
> > I could buy that-it would explain why
> > otherwise heterosexual men become homosexual while in prison.
>
> So, heterosexuals can `become' homosexuals. Therefore, if they had
> children before they became homosexuals, they would be homosexuals
> who have children.
>
> So, if such a person is a `deviant', would you also say that a
> heterosexual man who had some children, then had a vasectomy, is also
> a deviant? Surely he is more so that the homosexual, who can at least
> go back to being reproductive.
>
> My point is that attempting to argue morality from some misguided
> ideas about what is `natural' is actually no more than a smokescreen
> for prejudice. There are many examples of behaviours that are not
> commonly regarded as `deviant', but which nevertheless are
> `nonreproductive'. What counts as moral behaviour in modern society
> has very little to do with ideas about what people ought to be doing
> to maximize their reproductive success - if it were, we would applaud
> bigamy, rape, theft, and murder.
>
> I take it you are a christian, so I suppose you believe God has told
> you what's right and wrong. Fair enough - but don't pretend that your
> principles are also founded upon rational arguments.
>
> --
> Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
> University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
I think the same-sex thing goes a lot deeper into the psychie than what
the common consensus thinks. Deviancy?? A strange word for personal
choices. Doesn't mean anything to the one that feels totally natural
for being what they are.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:41:07 -0700
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "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]
Bias is all too obvious. Propaganda has certain forms and patterns.
Jan / Jon is predictable... an agenda.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 23:47:37 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 18 May 2001 20:19:05
> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > matt - you are late to the tread and missed the point.
> >> > however, gee, you have to ask - got 24 heat producing devices with no
> >> > cooling and when you come back it's warm? Gosh ! How could THAT happen!?
> >> > That does not address the difference between how warm it is when there
> >are 8
> >> > processors versus 12 processors in a single box.
> >> >
> >> > then again, visit any colocation center, examine their cooling capacity.
> >> > their cooling costs are in 5 digits a month - do you really think a few
> >> > bucks more anyone would notice?
> >>
> >> Is that between the ever increasing black outs that are occuring in
> >California?
> >
> >If the hippie anti-nuke paranoids in CA would have permitted the
> >construction of nuclear power plants as was often proposed but never
> >permitted they wouldn't have the problem they themselves created. Nothing to
> >do with cooling...
>
> Nonsense; the only thing that's caused any current problems is
> price-gouging by energy producers. Profiteering, plain and simple;
> de-regulation is a scam, not a matter of fiscally conservative politics.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
I couldn't agree more! Deregulation has been a shrouded (sp) scam by
the liberals to jack up the taxes indirectly... if price didn't go up,
neither would the % of taxation!
(Liberals and Conservatives are both guilty of this... ask about the
CAFR ... combined annual financial report, of any city or local
government... you will find a big scam and fraud!)
New Jersey is in the black by $1.3 trillion.
Most of it is in the slush fund.
--
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
******************************
