Whats even more funy is that acording to Novell, Microsoft demands disabling all disk caching if you are running active directory.
Sorry, but you and Novell are spreading bad information. Disk caching is only disabled for those drives which store the Active Directory information and log files. Since any sane administrator would put the files being served on a drive which is separate from log files and operating system files, this is a complete non-issue.
Which administrative task are you trying to accomplish that doesn't have a command-line equivalent? I keep hearing this gripe at Slashdot, but it seems to be based more on ignorance than on fact. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't make your gripe any more valid than someone buying RedHat Linux and complaining that, because they don't know how to set up PPP, that the tools aren't there.
b) Don't use the gui config tools, then. Seriously, infojack, what configuration are you trying to make that doesn't have a scriptable command-line equivalent?
c) It was a Network World Fusion article, reprinted by, but not written by, CNN. Did you even read it?
d) "They didn't do any testing, they did stuff." WTF?? Try checking out the "How we did [the testing]" link right on the page. Again, did you even read the article?
e) Score: -5, Woefully, and I mean woefully, uninformed.
I wonder if any of Slashdot's massive drive to see that LinuxOne is a failure stems even a little bit from the fact that it seems like Slashdot itself missed the big IPO gravy train. Instead of making the effort to go public themselves, they hitched their wagon to a very questionable Andover.net star. After a 52-week high of 90 in early December, Andover.net stock now trades near its 52-week low of 30.25 -- it's at 31.375 as I type this -- and only seems destined to go lower. It's possible that it might even end up below its opening price before any of the Slashdot guys are able to sell their stock, which would be a snafu of major proportions considering today's IPO craze.
Of course they wouldn't admit it, but I don't think it's so far-fetched that they're taking out their frustration at their own bad decisions upon LinuxOne. That green-eyed lady can be one powerful mama.
It's not a very long document. Since you're so against it, surely you can find some untrue claims by Microsoft in it. Put up or shut up, 'cause your credibility is going down the dumper.
That's because despite all the yipping and wishful thinking by the Linus Torvalds fanboys here, Intel's move has absoutely nothing whatsoever to do with Transmeta. Ever heard of AMD, which has been putting a hurting on Intel lately?
Microsoft's document told us which Novell claims were untrue. Now it's your turn to tell us which Microsoft claims were untrue, and how they were untrue. Please be specific.
I'm talking market perception compared to Linux®, which is the belle of the ball in the media's eyes when it comes to the Unix world. I'm not slamming FreeBSD or debating which came first.
Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Microsoft posted a response to Novell's FUD at http://www.micr osoft.com/Windows2000/news/bulletins/novellpart3.a sp. You can overlook biased claims of "Ours is better. No, ours is!" by both sides, but Microsoft's document really shows how misleading, and in a few cases just plain made-up or wrong, just about all of Novell's claims were.
If that's the case, why does Novell itself promise to fix it? From http://www.zdnet.c om/pcweek/stories/jumps/0,4270,2422644,00.html: "The next revision of NetWare will finally scale beyond a single processor, Novell officials said, but the release date has not been announced."
Hopefully someone here can explain the discrepancy.
I've just gotta say that the attitude of "NetWare doesn't scale because it's so good that it doesn't need it" is a seriously lame way of excusing a shortcoming. It's sounds like a scenario in which Danny Ainge says, "Ya know, I could score 40 points on Michael Jordan every night if I wanted, but I'm secure enough in my basketball abilities that I don't feel the need to do it."
Have you priced systems lately? Frankly, it's a pain in the ass to find anyone who still sells systems that are too low-powered for Win2K.
For instance, the lowest-powered machine listed on the web site of that darling of Slashdot, VA Linux, is a 400Mhz Celeron with 64MB. Considering that my Thinkpad with a 266 Pentium MMX and 64 MB runs Win2K like a champ, I think your fears are unfounded.
If any MS product crashes BIND, then there's nothing stopping any hacker using any OS to send the same sequence to a BIND server to crash it. That would be like MacOS being vulnerable to the Ping of Death and then Apple not fixing it, but instead blaming the operating system which shipped a ping client which could produce it. Oh wait, I think they did do that for a while.;-)
For a product to make a splash in the marketplace, as opposed to just receiving lukewarm acceptance, it needs hype. Take FreeBSD, for example. Despite being much better than Linux, it's Linux that's ridden the hype to become a big name, while FreeBSD has been relegated to "ugly stepdaughter" status, despite its obvious plusses for those who've used it. If you want your product to really take off, you simply cannot ignore the hype factor in the real world.
For me, the biggest reason why it reminds me of DOS is that using more than one processor is useless. The current version of NetWare still, in the year 2000, doesn't scale past one processor. Of course they promise it will in the next version, but good luck.
For Mindcraft II, the Linux team was invited to make all the hacks they wanted, and NT still beat it like a drum. Also, from the job titles, it sounded like everybody on the Microsoft team was a marketroid. Ouch.
Sure, a weather crash sounds odd, but it's happened to me before, so I can relate. The reason why it doesn't sound suspicious to me is because there were times when the server crashed due to bugs, poor sample configurations, and DoS attacks, and the Win2K guys didn't seem to have any trouble admitting these. If they're going to admit the other problems, why bother making up the weather/router one?
No, it was a case of putting HTML tags into the guestbook, namely javascripts to redirect the viewer to a different web site. When someone went to the site, their browser would parse those tags and act accordingly, which in this case was to go to a different site. The guestbook originally didn't filter these out. Same thing happened to the LinuxPPC site, too, actually. Neither were server hacks.
We're talking e-commerce here, not pages for family pets and innumberable "How to set up PPP under Linux" pages. NT is slaying Linux when it comes to e-commerce, even Netcraft's SSL statistics show this.
I'm not sure if your only knowledge of computers is how to use a web browser, but you seem to be under the impression that the only servers out there are web servers. When I said that they're using Win2K internally, I wasn't talking about just Win2K Professional (formerly Workstation) -- they're also using Win2K Server (probably Win2K Advanced Server as well, but that's one detail that I don't remember from the article), just not for their web site, for the reasons I stated above.
As far as which trade mag, I really don't remember, since I probably receive over 40 of them, and the article wasn't important enough for me to save. I know it was in the last month or two, if that helps, and if I come across it again, I'll post the URL or issue number.
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Which is longer and more rambling?
on
Author Unknown
·
· Score: 5
(a) The Unabomber Manifesto
(b) An average Jon Katz article
One of the trade mags had an article about Barnes and Noble recently. They are using Win2K internally and on the back end now, but not for their web site. The thinking being, if they ran into issues due the beta status of Win2K on the shipping side of things, they can take the time to sort the problem out. On the web site, however, they can't afford to run into any such slowdowns, because people expect to be able to place their orders immediately, and if they ran into a problem, might switch to another bookseller. This was especially relevant during the Christmas shopping season.
Other than stock traders, I still don't see any companies making decent money from Linux®. Are there any Linux® companies even making a profit? Like the internet stock boom, it seems like the bill will eventually be due whereby investors will eventually start demanding some profits. It's just hard to imagine the stock of all these companies, along with all the new ones yet to be launched, continuing to go up and up while so few are actually turning a profit. Just like all markets, you'd think that there'd be a shakeout evenutally.
Linux® is a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds.
Actually, "Slashdot zealot crew" is a simple recognition of a common attitude around here. Deal with it.
Secondly, I obviously don't say things to please the cult fanatics which dominate the discussion around here, so I have no problem using my normal login to complain about moderation if I felt like it. (It was junk moderation -- if you notice, even the guy to whom I was responding agreed with my point about zealots -- but pretty typical and I'm used to it, so I wouldn't have said anything.) On the other hand, you hide behind the Anonymous Coward to make your accusation. Hopefully you'll be able to appreciate the irony.
Well, I don't think you can ever come up with one single line and say "OK, here's where the OS ends and the outside stuff begins." It's always gonna be arbitrary, but it can be annoying when people change their definition to suit their particular side in an argument.
As far as the One Microsoft Way goes, I just can't agree there -- there's just way too much 3rd party stuff for anyone to be limited if they don't want to be, and that includes a lot of GNU software.
Whoa, this looks like typically shoddy ZDnews reporting, all right.
Those early visitors were using Netscape's typically horrible browsing software, which gacked on the Win2K front page. Opera and IE users didn't have this problem because their browsers generally do a reasonable job of interpreting HTML 4.0. It was kinda funny listening to all the Netscape users complain about the site and then seeing it dawn upon them that it was because the use a junk web browser. Guess ZDnews was too busy to find this out, though, even though it was pretty much common knowledge, even here at Slashdot.
I'm not sure about that conflicting report thing, though. IIRC, it was down the first day because of the router failure due to the storms, and following days just plain ol' DoSsed.
No, it was not hacked, just DoSsed out the yingyang. Look at it this way -- if someone hacked it, don't you think they'd have claimed it? (Not to mention posted to Slashdot that he's auctioning off on eBay the keyboard with which he did the hack.;-)).
Slashdot Mirror
Whats even more funy is that acording to Novell, Microsoft demands disabling all disk caching if you are running active directory.
Sorry, but you and Novell are spreading bad information. Disk caching is only disabled for those drives which store the Active Directory information and log files. Since any sane administrator would put the files being served on a drive which is separate from log files and operating system files, this is a complete non-issue.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Which administrative task are you trying to accomplish that doesn't have a command-line equivalent? I keep hearing this gripe at Slashdot, but it seems to be based more on ignorance than on fact. Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't make your gripe any more valid than someone buying RedHat Linux and complaining that, because they don't know how to set up PPP, that the tools aren't there.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
a) Kerbos? KERBOS?? Good God.
b) Don't use the gui config tools, then. Seriously, infojack, what configuration are you trying to make that doesn't have a scriptable command-line equivalent?
c) It was a Network World Fusion article, reprinted by, but not written by, CNN. Did you even read it?
d) "They didn't do any testing, they did stuff." WTF?? Try checking out the "How we did [the testing]" link right on the page. Again, did you even read the article?
e) Score: -5, Woefully, and I mean woefully, uninformed.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I wonder if any of Slashdot's massive drive to see that LinuxOne is a failure stems even a little bit from the fact that it seems like Slashdot itself missed the big IPO gravy train. Instead of making the effort to go public themselves, they hitched their wagon to a very questionable Andover.net star. After a 52-week high of 90 in early December, Andover.net stock now trades near its 52-week low of 30.25 -- it's at 31.375 as I type this -- and only seems destined to go lower. It's possible that it might even end up below its opening price before any of the Slashdot guys are able to sell their stock, which would be a snafu of major proportions considering today's IPO craze.
Of course they wouldn't admit it, but I don't think it's so far-fetched that they're taking out their frustration at their own bad decisions upon LinuxOne. That green-eyed lady can be one powerful mama.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It's not a very long document. Since you're so against it, surely you can find some untrue claims by Microsoft in it. Put up or shut up, 'cause your credibility is going down the dumper.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
That's because despite all the yipping and wishful thinking by the Linus Torvalds fanboys here, Intel's move has absoutely nothing whatsoever to do with Transmeta. Ever heard of AMD, which has been putting a hurting on Intel lately?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Microsoft's document told us which Novell claims were untrue. Now it's your turn to tell us which Microsoft claims were untrue, and how they were untrue. Please be specific.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I'm talking market perception compared to Linux®, which is the belle of the ball in the media's eyes when it comes to the Unix world. I'm not slamming FreeBSD or debating which came first.
Linux® is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Microsoft posted a response to Novell's FUD ata sp. You can overlook biased claims of "Ours is better. No, ours is!" by both sides, but Microsoft's document really shows how misleading, and in a few cases just plain made-up or wrong, just about all of Novell's claims were.
http://www.micr osoft.com/Windows2000/news/bulletins/novellpart3.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
If that's the case, why does Novell itself promise to fix it? From
Hopefully someone here can explain the discrepancy.http://www.zdnet.c om/pcweek/stories/jumps/0,4270,2422644,00.html: "The next revision of NetWare will finally scale beyond a single processor, Novell officials said, but the release date has not been announced."
I've just gotta say that the attitude of "NetWare doesn't scale because it's so good that it doesn't need it" is a seriously lame way of excusing a shortcoming. It's sounds like a scenario in which Danny Ainge says, "Ya know, I could score 40 points on Michael Jordan every night if I wanted, but I'm secure enough in my basketball abilities that I don't feel the need to do it."
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Have you priced systems lately? Frankly, it's a pain in the ass to find anyone who still sells systems that are too low-powered for Win2K.
For instance, the lowest-powered machine listed on the web site of that darling of Slashdot, VA Linux, is a 400Mhz Celeron with 64MB. Considering that my Thinkpad with a 266 Pentium MMX and 64 MB runs Win2K like a champ, I think your fears are unfounded.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
If any MS product crashes BIND, then there's nothing stopping any hacker using any OS to send the same sequence to a BIND server to crash it. That would be like MacOS being vulnerable to the Ping of Death and then Apple not fixing it, but instead blaming the operating system which shipped a ping client which could produce it. Oh wait, I think they did do that for a while. ;-)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
For a product to make a splash in the marketplace, as opposed to just receiving lukewarm acceptance, it needs hype. Take FreeBSD, for example. Despite being much better than Linux, it's Linux that's ridden the hype to become a big name, while FreeBSD has been relegated to "ugly stepdaughter" status, despite its obvious plusses for those who've used it. If you want your product to really take off, you simply cannot ignore the hype factor in the real world.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
For me, the biggest reason why it reminds me of DOS is that using more than one processor is useless. The current version of NetWare still, in the year 2000, doesn't scale past one processor. Of course they promise it will in the next version, but good luck.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
For Mindcraft II, the Linux team was invited to make all the hacks they wanted, and NT still beat it like a drum. Also, from the job titles, it sounded like everybody on the Microsoft team was a marketroid. Ouch.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Sure, a weather crash sounds odd, but it's happened to me before, so I can relate. The reason why it doesn't sound suspicious to me is because there were times when the server crashed due to bugs, poor sample configurations, and DoS attacks, and the Win2K guys didn't seem to have any trouble admitting these. If they're going to admit the other problems, why bother making up the weather/router one?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
No, it was a case of putting HTML tags into the guestbook, namely javascripts to redirect the viewer to a different web site. When someone went to the site, their browser would parse those tags and act accordingly, which in this case was to go to a different site. The guestbook originally didn't filter these out. Same thing happened to the LinuxPPC site, too, actually. Neither were server hacks.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
We're talking e-commerce here, not pages for family pets and innumberable "How to set up PPP under Linux" pages. NT is slaying Linux when it comes to e-commerce, even Netcraft's SSL statistics show this.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I'm not sure if your only knowledge of computers is how to use a web browser, but you seem to be under the impression that the only servers out there are web servers. When I said that they're using Win2K internally, I wasn't talking about just Win2K Professional (formerly Workstation) -- they're also using Win2K Server (probably Win2K Advanced Server as well, but that's one detail that I don't remember from the article), just not for their web site, for the reasons I stated above.
As far as which trade mag, I really don't remember, since I probably receive over 40 of them, and the article wasn't important enough for me to save. I know it was in the last month or two, if that helps, and if I come across it again, I'll post the URL or issue number.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
(a) The Unabomber Manifesto
(b) An average Jon Katz article
Pencils down!
Cheers,
One of the trade mags had an article about Barnes and Noble recently. They are using Win2K internally and on the back end now, but not for their web site. The thinking being, if they ran into issues due the beta status of Win2K on the shipping side of things, they can take the time to sort the problem out. On the web site, however, they can't afford to run into any such slowdowns, because people expect to be able to place their orders immediately, and if they ran into a problem, might switch to another bookseller. This was especially relevant during the Christmas shopping season.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Other than stock traders, I still don't see any companies making decent money from Linux®. Are there any Linux® companies even making a profit? Like the internet stock boom, it seems like the bill will eventually be due whereby investors will eventually start demanding some profits. It's just hard to imagine the stock of all these companies, along with all the new ones yet to be launched, continuing to go up and up while so few are actually turning a profit. Just like all markets, you'd think that there'd be a shakeout evenutally.
Linux® is a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Actually, "Slashdot zealot crew" is a simple recognition of a common attitude around here. Deal with it.
Secondly, I obviously don't say things to please the cult fanatics which dominate the discussion around here, so I have no problem using my normal login to complain about moderation if I felt like it. (It was junk moderation -- if you notice, even the guy to whom I was responding agreed with my point about zealots -- but pretty typical and I'm used to it, so I wouldn't have said anything.) On the other hand, you hide behind the Anonymous Coward to make your accusation. Hopefully you'll be able to appreciate the irony.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Well, I don't think you can ever come up with one single line and say "OK, here's where the OS ends and the outside stuff begins." It's always gonna be arbitrary, but it can be annoying when people change their definition to suit their particular side in an argument.
As far as the One Microsoft Way goes, I just can't agree there -- there's just way too much 3rd party stuff for anyone to be limited if they don't want to be, and that includes a lot of GNU software.
Oh yeah, and I *was* surprised. ;)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Whoa, this looks like typically shoddy ZDnews reporting, all right.
Those early visitors were using Netscape's typically horrible browsing software, which gacked on the Win2K front page. Opera and IE users didn't have this problem because their browsers generally do a reasonable job of interpreting HTML 4.0. It was kinda funny listening to all the Netscape users complain about the site and then seeing it dawn upon them that it was because the use a junk web browser. Guess ZDnews was too busy to find this out, though, even though it was pretty much common knowledge, even here at Slashdot.
I'm not sure about that conflicting report thing, though. IIRC, it was down the first day because of the router failure due to the storms, and following days just plain ol' DoSsed.
No, it was not hacked, just DoSsed out the yingyang. Look at it this way -- if someone hacked it, don't you think they'd have claimed it? (Not to mention posted to Slashdot that he's auctioning off on eBay the keyboard with which he did the hack. ;-)).
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com