Linux-Advocacy Digest #337, Volume #35 Sun, 17 Jun 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is Linux for me? (Donn Miller)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Jon Johansan")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed ("Jon Johansan")
Re: The Win/userbase! (pip)
Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Is Linux for me? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Jon Johansan")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:36:38 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
drsquare wrote:
>
> On 16 Jun 2001 23:55:29 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (/p@ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >Windows IE is a much better browser.
>
> Compared to what? Lynx?
Heh! I love w3m myself. Only problem with it is that it doesn't handle
JavaScript. Speaking of which, I really hate those web sites that keep
popping open windows every time you try to quit the damned browser.
With Netscape, it's very simple to disable JS in Edit->preferences.
With IE, you have to screw around with security zones in order to
disable JS (which IE refers to as "Active-Scripting"). Besides,
Netscape 4.77 doesn't crash that much at all. In fact, I get crashes
with IE causing a page fault in KERNEL32.DLL. Boy, you better save all
your work and run for cover if you ever see the word KERNEL32.DLL being
referred to in a pop-up dialog. It's sort of a hint that Windows' lame
memory protection is now allowing apps to chip away at the Windows
kernel.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:45:31 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:23:50 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > I can't believe anyone could really try to defend such an absurd
> > position (that Smart Tags are not hyperlinks).
>
> Perhaps you don't understand what the Smart Tag is. The Smart Tag is *ONLY*
> the underlining of the word and the mechanism to provide a popup. You can
> put anything you like in the popup (with the SDK), and it need not be
> hyperlinks at all. It could just be a graphic image for instance.
So when I hover over a link to Joe's Autos a SmartTag could pop up and say
"Joe's Autos are crap, you want to buy from Acme Motors". Am I correct?
So even if SmartTags never linked anywhere they could *still* be used to
deface a web page and override the original author's creative content. Am I
correct?
But since one of the functions of the popup is to provide a hyperlink to
some other web page then by extension the popup *can* be a hyperlink. Am I
correct?
It walks like a hyperlink. It talks like a hyperlink. Ergo, it IS a
hyperlink. A rose by any other name... Am I correct?
> A Smart Tag need not link to anything, and its still a Smart Tag. A
> hyperlink isn't a hyperlink if it doesn't link to anything, now is it?
A SmartTag that links to something is a hyperlink, by definition.
And Microsoft can and will provide content for the SmartTag popup. For
money, presumably, in addition to cementing their dominance of the desktop.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:45:32 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:56:55 GMT, "Daniel Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <eB0X6.17400$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > But it's very, very relevant to the core issue here.
> >
> > Even if Smart Tags can contain text or graphics, you have an even
> > greater abuse of MS monopoly power. It's just one more way to add
> > content to a web site they don't own.
>
> What I don't get is how monopoly power gets into this
> debate at all. *Any* browser vendor could have done this,
> and I have heard it said that Netscape already has done it-
> "monopoly power" is simply not involved at all.
>
> Regardless of whether this feature is infernal or
> celestial.
>
> > Call them anything you want. They're adding content to the web page no
> > matter what you call them.
>
> IMHO, what people really object to here is not *that*- lots
> of other products do much *more* to the content of
> web pages, and nobody cares.
No other product *adds* content to a web page, content that the original
page creator may never realise is being added, or would sanction if they
knew.
> What some people here find so opressive is that MS is
> improving their products, and this has the potential to
> make MS's product even *more* popular, and even
> *more* universal.
>
> It's my view that if you are scared of MS's influence,
> there are *other* things about SmartTags that should
> disturb you far more than this whole "it put a wiggley
> underline on my page!" sillyness.
>
> Imagine if you will a web where a significant part
> of the functionality available to you is made available
> through smart tags- tags provided by many different
> vendors, and not Microsoft.
Under circumstances such as you describe, I doubt anyone will bother to make
any web pages since they'll realise that the viewer's browser will distort
their work, supplementing their message, personal, political or economic,
with someone else's message.
It will not be worth any company's time and money to publish a web page
promoting their product if their message is going to be corrupted by third
party SmartTags.
> In that web, you'd need Internet Explorer to function.
No. Internet Explorer will have become Internet Destroyer.
> *That* is the threat an MS-hater should fear, and not wiggley underlines.
No, it's a threat to the very purpose of the WWW.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 17 Jun 2001 13:52:02 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9gdtug$kt1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9gdd68$e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "JS \ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> I wasn't aware that netcraft was counting physical servers. When did
> > that
> >> >> start happening?
> >> >> The way they count has nothing to do with server market share.
> >> >> No more than counting houses shows the amount of cities.
> >>
> >> > Netcraft has never claimed nor is it even capable (or anyone for that
> >> > matter) of counting physical servers.
> >>
> >> > So, a mom&pop ISP running a single BSD box using Apache with 2000
> > virtual
> >> > hosts (those little 5 meg sites that joes diner and franks car repair
> > puts
> >> > up their one or two pages created in dreamweaver or frontpage)
> >>
> >> Apparently youve never had to deal with such a box. Heres an example:
> >>
> >> I can run 3500 of those websites *easily* on a dual PIII 600 w/1 gig of
> > ram
> >> and freebsd 4.3.
>
> > Um, thank you. You've even further proven my point. 3500 of _those_
sites
> > easily - I believe that because I've seen it. Some are name only virtual
> > hosts. Only 3500?? I've seen more.
>
> So have I, I was talking about *small* machines, dipshit.
wow - what a come back, of course it's the small ones - but who cares if
your box can run 3500 or 5000 single page sites?
>
> >>
> >> IIS cannot handle 3500 websites, no matter what kind of hardware its
> > running
> >> on, and never has been able to. Microsoft likes you to pile em on
> > lightly,
> >> or buy one box per site.
>
> > "That is completely untrue. Here is a little tool from MS that will
assist
> > you in creating and managing up to about 5000 virtual hosts on a single
> > server (Scalable Hosting Solutions):
>
> > http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/IIS/shsover.asp
>
> Which doesnt, and has NEVER worked. Never actually tried it, have you?
Personally no. Someone I've asked about it, yes. Over 5000? no, about 2700
is what he is running on a single box but they sure are tiny dipship
accounts that's for sure... just like what the majority of tiny ISPs host on
their apache general web account boxes. These are not figures or specs to be
proud of on EITHER platform - you do realize that? I'm sure you don't - you
seem to think that bigger is always better.
>
> Try running 500 high traffic coldfusion sites on one W2K box of ANY size.
Coldfusion sites, nope, never did run that many on a single box. Got me
there. Don't have any idea how they'd do. But then again, who'd want to run
500 high traffic sites on a single box anyway? Ever heard of load balancing
and not putting all your eggs in one basket? Sounds like someone is trying
desperately to improve a slim profit margin and cheating his customers... If
my "high traffic" cold fusion site was on a server shared by 500 others - I
would be VERY pissed.
>
> Never done that before either, have you?
Nope but I'm sure I could name something you've never done before and it
would prove... that you've never done it before. so?
>
> > Depending on the application, a single IIS 5.0 server can host up to
5,000
> > sites due to the amount of storage required in the Metabase for each
> > additional site.
>
> Which is generally seen (even by microsoft engineers, ask paul salada) to
> be the biggest braindeath of IIS. Next to its allowance out of the box of
> random writings to the registry of course.
Why not have Paul post his comment here then?
<yawn>
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 17 Jun 2001 13:54:03 -0500
"Michael Vester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > >>"That is completely untrue. Here is a little tool from MS that will
assist
> > >>you in creating and managing up to about 5000 virtual hosts on a
single
> > >>server (Scalable Hosting Solutions):
> > >>
> > >
> > >>http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/IIS/shsover.asp
> > >>
> > >
> > > Which doesnt, and has NEVER worked. Never actually tried it, have
you?
> > >
> > > Try running 500 high traffic coldfusion sites on one W2K box of ANY
size.
> > >
> > > Never done that before either, have you?
> > >
> > >
> > >>Depending on the application, a single IIS 5.0 server can host up to
5,000
> > >>sites due to the amount of storage required in the Metabase for each
> > >>additional site.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Which is generally seen (even by microsoft engineers, ask paul salada)
to
> > > be the biggest braindeath of IIS. Next to its allowance out of the
box of
> > > random writings to the registry of course.
> > >
> > >
> > >>SHS however, is designed to support many more sites because
> > >>all virtual site subdirectories share the same configuration of the
root
> > >>directory web site. Therefore, with SHS, you can create and maintain
tens to
> > >>hundreds of thousands of parked and/or virtual sites."
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, thats what the whitesheet says. So microsoft created a product
to make
> > > IIS work just a little bit more like apache---and it doesnt even work.
> > >
> > > Thats lovely.
> > >
> > >
> > >>http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/IIS/shsadmin.asp
> > >>
> > >
> > >>Beats apache any day ...
> > >>
> > >
> > > It does? Proof please.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > DO you run a webserver? maybe you should give YOUR account of what
> > happens. What Microsoft/other vendor says and what happens in the real
> > world are two totally different things.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
>
> We only run 5 dynamic web sites per IIS server. Even with that light
> load, they rarely run for more than a week without freezing. Perhaps
> IIS could run more static web sites without failure.
>
Now that just cracks me up. Do you expect anyone except a penguin to believe
that? I'm running more than a few dozen on a little 1U server without a
concern for months on end and you just spue off some clap trap like that -
silly...
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 17 Jun 2001 13:55:02 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >>>>>for some sustainted advertising dollars)
> >>>>>
> >>>>That's rich. Oh, that's precious. A linvocate trying to talk about
> >>>>"going-out-of-business" and trying to make some dollars? given the
> >>>>"performance" of EVERY single "linux" related company you can think
> >>>>
> > of -
> >
> >>I
> >>
> >>>>find that laughable.
> >>>>
> >>>Like IBM and Oracle?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>What precentage of IBM/Oracle resources is directed at Linux?
> >>
> >
> > Then ask; what percentage of income do they derive in return for these
> > resource expenditures...
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> HP, $100million last year, in linux based servers sold. They hope to
> get it up to $150-$200million by the end of this year.
Can you document this in any way?
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 17 Jun 2001 13:55:03 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >>"Hello, Gartner? Yeah, Miller from Microsoft again. Look, we'd like
you
> >>to do another independent study for us. You know, call up a bunch of
> >>system administrators and ask them if they've bought any Linux servers
in
> >>the last year. Oh, no, not at all, we'll be more than happy to provide
> >>you with a cold-call list. Just don't tell anybody we culled it from
our
> >>MSVP and MCSE mailings. Good enough. Pleasure talking to you again."
> >>
> >
> > "Hello Netcraft? Yea, Linus here. Look, can we jigger those figures
again.
> > You know, publish some really high numbers for Apache, low ones for IIS,
> > jigger then around a little up and down and since there is no
independent
> > verification and no one else is even trying I'm sure no one will mind.
Of
> > course I won't be paying you anything, I don't have any money, but I can
> > guarentee you'll get mentioned on Slashdot again this month. Great ...
and,
> > please, wear that aftershave I sent you, it really turns me on."
> >
> > sheesh...
> >
>
>
> Accussing a person of that sort of number tampering, then later proven
> incorrect, he could sue you for defimation.
We agree ... I'm sure the original commentor would like to retract his silly
comments then...
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:55:11 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Jun 2001 09:28:05 -0500, Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.. you may think you control the smart
> > tags, but micro$ft really does. They can add anything they want, in ways
> > you wont find. They can remove the optioin to turn the damn thing off.
> > They can add links to send people from yahoo, AOL or anyplace else to
> > MSN. They could add linke that sends people to competitors from my
> > pages. And you have no choice in the matter. Get a clue. Buy one if you
> > have to.o
>
> They can. They could. They might.
>
> They haven't.
Of course they haven't - yet.
Stage 1 - introduce the product. Option "off",
Stage 2 - lull the user into a false sense of security,
Stage 3 - introduce "new improved" product. Option "on",
Stage 4 - introduce other improvements, remove Option altogether.
So by IE6.5 SmartTags are on permanently. Few notice, the other 99.99999%
accept things as they are, and M$ rely on that. Happens all the time
elsewhere.
OK???
> You sound more than a little paranoid.
With anything to do with Microsoft it pays dividens to be paranoid.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: 17 Jun 2001 13:57:03 -0500
"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3b2a5db8$0$1882$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
> >
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9gdcm3$e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave
Martel"
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 12 Jun 2001 11:48:13 -0500, "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Yes, I know the study was partially sponsored by MS (someone has
to
> >pay
> >> >> >>for these things) so please don't fire off stupid replies implying
> >that
> >> >> >>MS purposely contaminated it's own results by 'buying the study' -
> >> >> >>that's just preposterous.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not at all preposterous, given their past history of sponsoring
> >"flawed"
> >> >> > studies.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Hello, Gartner? Yeah, Miller from Microsoft again. Look, we'd
like
> >you
> >> >> to do another independent study for us. You know, call up a bunch
of
> >> >> system administrators and ask them if they've bought any Linux
servers
> >in
> >> >> the last year. Oh, no, not at all, we'll be more than happy to
provide
> >> >> you with a cold-call list. Just don't tell anybody we culled it
from
> >our
> >> >> MSVP and MCSE mailings. Good enough. Pleasure talking to you
again."
> >>
> >> > "Hello Netcraft? Yea, Linus here. Look, can we jigger those figures
> >again.
> >> > You know, publish some really high numbers for Apache, low ones for
IIS,
> >> > jigger then around a little up and down and since there is no
> >independent
> >> > verification and no one else is even trying I'm sure no one will
mind.
> >Of
> >> > course I won't be paying you anything, I don't have any money, but I
can
> >> > guarentee you'll get mentioned on Slashdot again this month. Great
...
> >and,
> >> > please, wear that aftershave I sent you, it really turns me on."
> >>
> >> Are you accusing Linus Torvalds of bribing netcraft to skew results?
> >>
> >> You realize he does actually read this newsgroup now and then, dont
you?
> >
> >Just as you accused MS of bribing Gartner (and whomever happens to print
> >something favorable about MS or disfavorable about Linux)?
>
> It's more subtle than that. Gartner have been presenting FUD on
> Microsoft's behalf for years. This isn't an issue of accusation, it's
> a very well known fact. Like most analysts, they'll say what they
> believe will get them most paying work in the immediate future. Since
> it will be a while before Microsoft lose their current economic
> dominance, it will be a while before Gartner consider presenting any
> different line.
>
> But then, I'm sure you're not so naive as not to be aware of this.
Oh, I see, so if Gartner is in MS's pocket - we can therefore safely
disguard ANYTHING _negative_ they say about MS as being a sneaky tactic
right? I'll remember this when some penguin head throws out some Pro-Linux
Gartner report... that'll be interesting. Just like how TPC benchmarks were
useless until Linux did reasonably well in one ... hehehe - stay in the game
long enough and it really pays off in laughs.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:59:27 +0100
drsquare wrote:
> You think Word is comparable to Lyx?
No I don't. I think it's better. Lxy has it's place though.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags
Date: 17 Jun 2001 14:00:02 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dave Martel wrote:
> >
> > On 15 Jun 2001 14:04:09 -0500, "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I gave some examples. Tell me ANYTHING about a printed copy that is
better
> > >than the electronic version.
> >
> > You don't need electricity to read it.
> >
> > And have you ever tried to balance a notebook computer on your lap
> > while sitting on the toilet?
>
> Hehehe... especially if it accidentally falls into the toilet or gets
> wet.
> You can just dry off a book.
If I dropped a book in a toilet, I doubt I would chase after it, and hold it
in my lap again - ewwww
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags
Date: 17 Jun 2001 14:02:02 -0500
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 15 Jun 2001 14:04:09 -0500, "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I gave some examples. Tell me ANYTHING about a printed copy that is
better
> >than the electronic version.
>
> You don't need electricity to read it.
Amazing! Remember when someone said: "Who needs lightbulbs when you've got
torches, don't need no stinking wires!"
How about, "You gotta put gas in it? Can it just pull up to a field and eat
some grass?"
Who needs a new OS when we've got a 30 year old one that works like it did
30 years ago!
>
> And have you ever tried to balance a notebook computer on your lap
> while sitting on the toilet?
yes. problem?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:03:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glitch wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter K�hlmann"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> /p@- wrote:
>>>
>>> you guys keep living in a dream world.
>>>
>>> IE is the best browser. numbers talk for itself. I used all of the
>>> browser, and IE is the best of them all.
>>>
>>>
>> Eat shit. Millions of flys can�t be wrong. Numbers talk for itself, like
>> you said. So, what kind of shit would you prefer?
>>
>
>If Netscape was bundled with EVERY copy of Windows your argument would be
>reversed. As such, your argument can NOT be used b/c of the very fact the
># of users of IE only exist BECAUSE IE is bundled with every computer.
>You can't go by numbers when this happens.
I think the point IS that IE IS bundled with EVERY COMPUTER SOLD.
When Netscape was being bundled, it wasn't available with EVERY COMPUTER
SOLD. Just like worthless VIRUS SCANNERS are not buldled with EVERY COMPUTER
SOLD much less somebody's WORTHLESS VIRUS SCANNER BRAND...
FURTHER, Microsoft owns and MAKES IE. Netscape IS a different company
now owned by AOL.
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:04:22 GMT
In article <3b2cfc17$0$2457$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
>
>Now that just cracks me up. Do you expect anyone except a penguin to believe
>that? I'm running more than a few dozen on a little 1U server without a
>concern for months on end and you just spue off some clap trap like that -
>silly...
>
>
Well, since we are in agreement that spewing crap is a worthless thing
to do, quit being worthless and stop this...
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags
Date: 17 Jun 2001 14:05:02 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You are mistaken and underestimate me if you think I blindly worship MS
and
> > think Gates is god - equally wrong if you believe I think Linus is satan
and
> > linux is hell. I just call them like I see them, I don't do so blindly.
>
> Thank you. I'll bring up a pertinent issue that I find not to my
> liking:
> Beta testing by unqualified people.... I have a family friend in Seattle
> that is beta testing XP. Her only experience with computers is just
> home use, with no computer education in regards to testing software. I
> feel that independent testers that are qualified should be doing the
> testing to find and report legitimate bugs. I do not believe that
> unqualified people can give a good testing of XP or any other large
> software package.
We totally agree. What is the value of giving out beta copies to people who
are not going to actually test and report the results to the propery people?
They should immediately stop this silly pay $20 to get a test CD stuff - and
just listen closer to their legit beta testers.
What is as stupid is when little one man web sites get a warez copy of a
early beta of XP and then feel they are quality to write about it after
using it for a few hours/days. Even those writing nice things like; "it's
so much more stable than xxx" - uh, you've used it for a day - how would you
know??
Stupid
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: 17 Jun 2001 14:06:08 -0500
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 15 Jun 2001 14:07:08 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> >> What if the modem drivers were on the same disk!
> >> >
> >> >Hayes Generic Modem - nothing to download.
> >> >Perhaps, more likely, your modem is already on the list of thousands
> >> >supported.
> >>
> >> Not if it's a winmodem.
> >
> >Hmm... if it's a winmodem then it's designed to work with Windows only
and
> >it's acknowledged that if you don't have the disk then you are, indeed,
> >hosed UNLESS it's one of the several most popular brands that have
drivers
> >included on the CD already.
> >
> >And, tell me, how well does Linux work with a winmodem even with a disk
> >handy?
>
> How well does Windows work with a linuxonlymodem even with a disk
> handy?
Ask me when there is one...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 19:06:35 GMT
In article <3b2cfcf4$0$2496$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
>
>Oh, I see, so if Gartner is in MS's pocket - we can therefore safely
>disguard ANYTHING _negative_ they say about MS as being a sneaky tactic
>right? I'll remember this when some penguin head throws out some Pro-Linux
>Gartner report... that'll be interesting. Just like how TPC benchmarks were
>useless until Linux did reasonably well in one ... hehehe - stay in the game
>long enough and it really pays off in laughs.
>
>
Yes exactly. You've got it. Anybody who sides with Microsoft is a
worthless being who's commentary is stupid.
Took you a while to figure this out didn't it.
But what goes with this is if you put an IIS server alongside ANY
brand of Linux server working to serve web pages, the IIS server
would require dual channels and dual cpu's to accomplish a heavy,
heavy load!
And thus this is the reason they didn't make zepplins out of lead.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
