When Longhorn will come out, will you say W2003 was shit too?
You said that w2k not good. You said that XP was
not good. You said NT was not good. That's by your *own* admission my friend.
I'm quoting you : "
Windows 2000 and XP, on the other hand, are a different story."
and later: "I have had a lot of problems with both 2000 and NT in the past.."
If i told someone publicly that W2k was not that good in 2001. Was i spreading FUD? No?
take a look at the past versions of linux and then get back to me. Comparing them to the versions of today show you that something can improve considerably over time. Sendmail, bind, and mysql are also good examples.
I grant you that. Software is improved. But sendmail, bind and mysql aren't charging me license fee after license fee to get the security and stability i should have. That's my point since the start of this discussion.
Why do i get the feeling i hear this before?
Before Windows 2003, You would have said:
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2000 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT and 98, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2000 is actually very stable.
Before 2000:
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running NT 4.0 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT 3.51 and 95, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows Nt 4.0 is actually very stable.
and so on..
Slashdot Mirror
Axioms are obvious, self-evident recognized truth.
God can only be an hypothesis.
Why run? It's an AC for god sake.
When Longhorn will come out, will you say W2003 was shit too?
You said that w2k not good. You said that XP was not good. You said NT was not good. That's by your *own* admission my friend.
I'm quoting you : " Windows 2000 and XP, on the other hand, are a different story." and later: "I have had a lot of problems with both 2000 and NT in the past.."
If i told someone publicly that W2k was not that good in 2001. Was i spreading FUD? No?
take a look at the past versions of linux and then get back to me. Comparing them to the versions of today show you that something can improve considerably over time. Sendmail, bind, and mysql are also good examples.
I grant you that. Software is improved. But sendmail, bind and mysql aren't charging me license fee after license fee to get the security and stability i should have. That's my point since the start of this discussion.
It seems MS fanboys always praise the latest as the greatest hence the time warp i put on your comment.
I was told the same that you just told me about W2k. Before that i was told the same about NT4.
By your own admission, what i was told was not the truth. W2k was not very stable nor was NT4. Why would it be true for W2003?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me as they say.
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running 2000 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT and 98, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows 2000 is actually very stable.
Before 2000:
I know you were trying to be funny, but this is FUD. I have been running NT 4.0 on many of my servers for a year now and it's never broken. Windows NT 3.51 and 95, on the other hand, are a different story. Windows Nt 4.0 is actually very stable. and so on..
i Dunno how he can say that it's mistranslated, did he take compare to the original hebrew?
There is the one case of General Benardotte that got asked by the swedish peoples to lead them in the Napoleonic era and became King Charles XIV.
There is profit and there is greed.
It always amaze me when i negociate a contract in my line of work and the guy in the other side cannot understand that we can both win from it.
Quebec's grid is connected to other grids via DC powerline. Which is why it didn't go down.
THe irony of it is that it was done that way so that the Quebec grid wouldn't take down the other grids.