Quoting Mike Barton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Nobody answered your post probably because they couldn't guess from
not having any luck why you couldn't just compile the module along
with whatever kernel version you're using.
I included shell output from both an attempt to load the module and an
-Original Message-
From: David Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 9:06 AM
To: Mike Barton; debian-user@lists.debian.org
Cc: David Wright
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Quoting Mike Barton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I suppose you just forgot to post an even minor
Apparently Mindcraft and MS(we don't really know this) has pulled this
act before.
Take a look at the response Netware has when MC did a comparison with
netware.
http://www.novell.com/advantage/nw5/nw5-mindcraftcheck.html
Philip Thiem
--
PENQUIN-LOVER-CODER ALERT: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All
Quoting Mike Barton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
I suppose you just forgot to post an even minor semblance of proof? Please
correct the error and let us all in on it. Better yet why not answer my
iBCS anyone post of a few days ago.
Seeing as the modules in -2.0.34 and -2.0.35 compare equal, and that
Christopher J. Morrone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
[snip]
| You guys need to read your Slashdot (http://slashdot.org). I've heard
| that this particular benchmark was commissioned by Microsoft. Anyone
| who pays attention to a benchmark commissioned by
On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
| Well, while I agree with that, this is already being read and believed by
| managers and suits. What we need are numbers to the contrary, not it was
| commisioned by Microsoft.
Again, any logical person would conclude that the test was biased
On 1999-04-14 18:14, Christopher J. Morrone wrote:
Of course, its not likely that anyone in the free software movement will
be able to verify the results, because they used pretty expensive
machinery. A four processor Xeon as the server, and 144 pentium test
nodes with ethernet switches.
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: MICROSOFT BS FUD
Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a
benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux.
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
===
Amateur Radio, when all else fails!
http
Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a
benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux.
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
===
Amateur Radio, when all else fails!
http://www.qsl.net/wa2mze
Debian Gnu Linux, Live Free or .
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a
benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux.
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or flawed, or
Rick Macdonald wrote:
Well it finally happened. Microsoft has paid someone off to fix a
benchmark showing that Windows NT is actually better than linux.
http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
This doesn't look good. Are the results cooked or flawed, or the
There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this.
It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out
in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up Linux. IE:
use of a kerenl with know network bugs, none of apache's optimizations
turned on...
Kenneth Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this.
| It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out
| in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up Linux. IE:
| use of a kerenl with know network
On 14 Apr 1999, Gary L. Hennigan wrote:
Kenneth Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| There already has been feedback on the web (and this list) about this.
| It does appear that a great effort was made to pull all the stops out
| in configuring NT, and little care was given to setting up
14 matches
Mail list logo
