The Sixth Sense
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A02ACFA...@yahoo.com...
> >
> > I see Windows users all around me. They're stupid, and they don't even
> know it.
> >
>
> Did someone drop you on your head when you were a child?
No...but apparently, you were.
Hope that helps
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Aaron R. Kulkis
I see Windows users all around me. They're stupid, and they don't even know it.
--
Jacques Guy
> I see Windows users all around me. They're stupid, and they don't even know it.
Oh piss off! I use Windoze (to play games, to print, to OCR). Whereby I am
stupid,
but _I_ know it! I am also shit-scared: when is this going to blow up?
How much of my data is it going to blow up?
Aaron R. Kulkis
I'm referring to those who think that Windows is the end-all and be-all
of computing....you know..those who think that Windows98 is stable
because it only crashes 2x per day.
John Hughes
know it.
>
Did someone drop you on your head when you were a child?
Christopher Smith
"John Hughes" <ma...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fJBM5.7929$mv2....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
I thought Aaron's posting was meant to be humorously ironic.....
gou...@email.com
>
> I see Windows users all around me. They're stupid, and they don't even know it.
>
Windows users are often more ignorant than stupid!
Bruce Schuck
"Christopher Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:8u46c1$uo7$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>
> <gou...@email.com> wrote in message news:3A058EB1...@email.com...
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > I see Windows users all around me. They're stupid, and they don't
even
> know it.
> > >
> >
>
And asleep.
T. Max Devlin
>>
>> I see Windows users all around me. They're stupid, and they don't even know it.
>>
>
Nobody is ever wrong, ignorant, or stupid. Just mistaken. :-)
- This message courtesy of the Church of Hope, a Secular Humanist
Organization -
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Christopher Smith
know it.
> >
>
Unlike Aaron, who has the dubious honour of being ignorant _and_ stupid.
Toon Afish
was savages. Now Gen. Custer and your brain have much in common. Both dead.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A02ACFA...@yahoo.com...
>
Aaron R. Kulkis
> >
>
Most are MILITANTLY ignorant....
And anybody who CHOOSES to remain ignorant MUST be classified as stupid.
>
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> George Custer felt the same way about all those Indians. All he could see
> was savages. Now Gen. Custer and your brain have much in common. Both dead.
>
And yet, I make 3x as much as Microcrash admins.
Why is that?
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A02ACFA...@yahoo.com...
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Christopher Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:8u46c1$uo7$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >
Don't you wish YOU could get paid while you're sleeping?
Toon Afish
salary relate to your original comment? Is there some connection?
FWIW, I don't pay my Eunuchs admins any more than my MS admins. Same job,
same BS, same pay. A competent network admin will get the job done
regardless of whether it's UNIX or Windows.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A06E0CB...@yahoo.com...
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Based on what I read here, it beats the hell out of me. But how does your
> salary relate to your original comment? Is there some connection?
Yes. Sitting at my desk, I can perform administration on machines
downstairs...AND on machines in california and florida simultaneously.
This means that all of those remote locations don't need anybody beyond
basic operator skills.
Meanwhile, back at the NT ranch...every site needs it's own NT babysitter.
>
> FWIW, I don't pay my Eunuchs admins any more than my MS admins. Same job,
> same BS, same pay. A competent network admin will get the job done
> regardless of whether it's UNIX or Windows.
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A06E0CB...@yahoo.com...
> > Toon Afish wrote:
> > >
> > > George Custer felt the same way about all those Indians. All he could
> see
> > > was savages. Now Gen. Custer and your brain have much in common. Both
> dead.
> > >
> >
> > And yet, I make 3x as much as Microcrash admins.
> >
> > Why is that?
.
> downstairs...AND on machines in california and florida simultaneously.
>
> This means that all of those remote locations don't need anybody beyond
> basic operator skills.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the NT ranch...every site needs it's own NT babysitter.
A Microsoft study released today shows NT increases employment
exponentially as computers increase in numbers.
"Obviously this was our intent. We deliberately made the system a pain
in the ass so that more and more people would be recruited into IT jobs
to deal with the horrible OS no-one with qualifications wanted to touch.
To ensure that the NT users appear to know what they're doing, we have
also developed a range of multi-choice exams."
"Here at Microsoft, we take the economy very seriously, because the more
clueless punters are backing our OS, the more copies we sell."
[No offense intended to people who actually WORKED to get their MCSE]
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> A Microsoft study released today shows NT increases employment
> exponentially as computers increase in numbers.
> "Obviously this was our intent. We deliberately made the system a pain
> in the ass so that more and more people would be recruited into IT jobs
> to deal with the horrible OS no-one with qualifications wanted to touch.
> To ensure that the NT users appear to know what they're doing, we have
> also developed a range of multi-choice exams."
>
> "Here at Microsoft, we take the economy very seriously, because the more
> clueless punters are backing our OS, the more copies we sell."
>
> [No offense intended to people who actually WORKED to get their MCSE]
It is intriguing that generating problems generates work, and is thus
good for the economy. This means woe, gentlemen!
Tom Wilson
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A0791A9...@home.com...
I just hope to hell we're in an endless loop and not a recursive function.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:47:34, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Most are MILITANTLY ignorant....
> >
> > And anybody who CHOOSES to remain ignorant MUST be classified as stupid.
>
> through choice but because we have lives to live. We cannot learn
> everything.
If your line of WORK is IT.....and you CHOOSE to remain ignorant of any
system other than the point-click-crashware from MS, then you're a
goddamn STUPID fuck.
>
> -----
> aaronl_consultant_com
Toon Afish
seem to believe that remote admin of NT and/or 2000 boxes isn't possible?
Now that's funny!
So what is the connection to your salary and your original comment?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A073658...@yahoo.com...
> Toon Afish wrote:
> >
> > Based on what I read here, it beats the hell out of me. But how does
your
> > salary relate to your original comment? Is there some connection?
>
> Yes. Sitting at my desk, I can perform administration on machines
> downstairs...AND on machines in california and florida simultaneously.
>
> This means that all of those remote locations don't need anybody beyond
> basic operator skills.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the NT ranch...every site needs it's own NT babysitter.
>
>
>
> >
> > FWIW, I don't pay my Eunuchs admins any more than my MS admins. Same
job,
> > same BS, same pay. A competent network admin will get the job done
> > regardless of whether it's UNIX or Windows.
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A06E0CB...@yahoo.com...
> > > Toon Afish wrote:
> > > >
> > > > George Custer felt the same way about all those Indians. All he
could
> > see
> > > > was savages. Now Gen. Custer and your brain have much in common.
Both
> > dead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And yet, I make 3x as much as Microcrash admins.
> > >
> > > Why is that?
>
>
Toon Afish
Windows machines was even possible?
By your own words, does this make you stupid?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A0800CD...@yahoo.com...
> Aaron Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:47:34, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Most are MILITANTLY ignorant....
> > >
> > > And anybody who CHOOSES to remain ignorant MUST be classified as
stupid.
> >
> > Hm good summary... however we all remain ignorant of many things, not
> > through choice but because we have lives to live. We cannot learn
> > everything.
>
> If your line of WORK is IT.....and you CHOOSE to remain ignorant of any
> system other than the point-click-crashware from MS, then you're a
> goddamn STUPID fuck.
>
>
>
> >
> > -----
> > aaronl_consultant_com
>
>
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Does this apply to a sys admin who didn't even know that remote admin of
> Windows machines was even possible?
Only in cripple-mode for the most trivial of tasks.
Conversely, Unix has had this ability for over 15 years.
Tell us again how you think Microsoft is cutting edge, when they are
just now getting into facilities that have been industry standard for
over a decade.....
>
> By your own words, does this make you stupid?
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A0800CD...@yahoo.com...
> > Aaron Lawrence wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:47:34, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Most are MILITANTLY ignorant....
> > > >
> > > > And anybody who CHOOSES to remain ignorant MUST be classified as
> stupid.
> > >
> > > Hm good summary... however we all remain ignorant of many things, not
> > > through choice but because we have lives to live. We cannot learn
> > > everything.
> >
> > If your line of WORK is IT.....and you CHOOSE to remain ignorant of any
> > system other than the point-click-crashware from MS, then you're a
> > goddamn STUPID fuck.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -----
> > > aaronl_consultant_com
> >
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> I guess you don't really know the Windows system well at all, do you? You
> seem to believe that remote admin of NT and/or 2000 boxes isn't possible?
1. You can only perform a limited set of administration tasks remotely on
Microshaft Neutered Technology and Microshaft 2000 boxes.
2. Unix has had FULL administration since 1983. Why has such a "cutting edge"
company like Microsoft taken 17 years to only partially accomplish what
Unix did in 1983?
>
> Now that's funny!
So is your total miscomprehension of reality.
>
> So what is the connection to your salary and your original comment?
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A073658...@yahoo.com...
> > Toon Afish wrote:
> > >
> > > Based on what I read here, it beats the hell out of me. But how does
> your
> > > salary relate to your original comment? Is there some connection?
> >
> > Yes. Sitting at my desk, I can perform administration on machines
> > downstairs...AND on machines in california and florida simultaneously.
> >
> > This means that all of those remote locations don't need anybody beyond
> > basic operator skills.
> >
> > Meanwhile, back at the NT ranch...every site needs it's own NT babysitter.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > FWIW, I don't pay my Eunuchs admins any more than my MS admins. Same
> job,
> > > same BS, same pay. A competent network admin will get the job done
> > > regardless of whether it's UNIX or Windows.
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3A06E0CB...@yahoo.com...
> > > > Toon Afish wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > George Custer felt the same way about all those Indians. All he
> could
> > > see
> > > > > was savages. Now Gen. Custer and your brain have much in common.
> Both
> > > dead.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And yet, I make 3x as much as Microcrash admins.
> > > >
> > > > Why is that?
> >
> >
Bruce Schuck
> Toon Afish wrote:
> >
> > Does this apply to a sys admin who didn't even know that remote admin of
> > Windows machines was even possible?
>
> Only in cripple-mode for the most trivial of tasks.
Windows 2000 Server has built-in Windows Terminal Services for complete
remote admin capabilities.
But then you've been asleep for the last 12 years (when you thought buffer
overflows were removed from Unix).
Ayende Rahien
> Toon Afish wrote:
> >
> > I guess you don't really know the Windows system well at all, do you?
You
> > seem to believe that remote admin of NT and/or 2000 boxes isn't
possible?
>
> 1. You can only perform a limited set of administration tasks remotely on
> Microshaft Neutered Technology and Microshaft 2000 boxes.
In what way is it limited? Let's hear you say it.
Toon Afish
> Toon Afish wrote:
> >
> > Does this apply to a sys admin who didn't even know that remote admin of
> > Windows machines was even possible?
>
> Only in cripple-mode for the most trivial of tasks.
Not true, although you do need third party utilities for some functions.
Time for you to study up.
>
> Conversely, Unix has had this ability for over 15 years.
Never contested that. Unix is a wonderful OS, and it's history of
development over the years will likely never be matched my MS. Ya can't beat
a time-tested solution. But that has nothing to do with Windows.
>
> Tell us again how you think Microsoft is cutting edge, when they are
> just now getting into facilities that have been industry standard for
> over a decade.....
Hmmm. Where did I draw any comparisons between Windows and anything else, or
make that claim? Windows isn't Unix, and Unix isn't Windows; we all know
that. I made no claims other than that Windows remote admin is possible. But
you saw it, didn't you?
And, if you want another example of MS's "innovating" features into Windows,
look at their recent ability to drive more than one monitor. This feature,
introduced into Windows 98, was already available on the Mac in 1986. They
were only 13 years late on that one. And the recent introduction of Windows
Me, with its innovative digital video feature comes less than 13 months
after Apple introduced the iMac DV! For MS, this is amazing progress.
Toon Afish
Win2K...
He probably didn't even know about Dameware's fine packages.
"Ayende Rahien" <Aye...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:8u9kh2$cub$1...@feedme.surfree.net.il...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Ayende Rahien
"Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services on
> Win2K...
He doesn't seem to know a lot of things, isn't it?
Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Toon Afish wrote:
> > >
> > > Does this apply to a sys admin who didn't even know that remote admin of
> > > Windows machines was even possible?
> >
> > Only in cripple-mode for the most trivial of tasks.
>
> Not true, although you do need third party utilities for some functions.
> Time for you to study up.
Unix has NEVER needed 3rd-party anything for remote administration.
Once again, LoseDOS is more than 17 years BEHIND unix.
>
> >
> > Conversely, Unix has had this ability for over 15 years.
>
> Never contested that. Unix is a wonderful OS, and it's history of
> development over the years will likely never be matched my MS. Ya can't beat
> a time-tested solution. But that has nothing to do with Windows.
Thank GOD!
>
> >
> > Tell us again how you think Microsoft is cutting edge, when they are
> > just now getting into facilities that have been industry standard for
> > over a decade.....
>
> Hmmm. Where did I draw any comparisons between Windows and anything else, or
> make that claim? Windows isn't Unix, and Unix isn't Windows; we all know
THANK GOD!
> that. I made no claims other than that Windows remote admin is possible. But
> you saw it, didn't you?
>
> And, if you want another example of MS's "innovating" features into Windows,
> look at their recent ability to drive more than one monitor. This feature,
> introduced into Windows 98, was already available on the Mac in 1986. They
> were only 13 years late on that one. And the recent introduction of Windows
> Me, with its innovative digital video feature comes less than 13 months
> after Apple introduced the iMac DV! For MS, this is amazing progress.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > By your own words, does this make you stupid?
> > >
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services on
> Win2K...
You mean, windows is JUST NOW getting services which have been STANDARD
for nearly 50 years?
Wow. I'm impressed....NOT.
>
> He probably didn't even know about Dameware's fine packages.
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Aye...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:8u9kh2$cub$1...@feedme.surfree.net.il...
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A082D7E...@yahoo.com...
> > > Toon Afish wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I guess you don't really know the Windows system well at all, do you?
> > You
> > > > seem to believe that remote admin of NT and/or 2000 boxes isn't
> > possible?
> > >
> > > 1. You can only perform a limited set of administration tasks remotely
> on
> > > Microshaft Neutered Technology and Microshaft 2000 boxes.
> >
> > In what way is it limited? Let's hear you say it.
> >
> >
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> > Win2K...
>
You mean, that Windows is playing catchup on components that have been
standard throughout the industry anywhere from 10 to 50 years...?
Toon Afish
understand, and will never will.
"Bruce Schuck" <Br...@Schuck.com> wrote in message
news:zFWN5.124510$47.18...@news.bc.tac.net...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A082D0D...@yahoo.com...
> > Toon Afish wrote:
> > >
> > > Does this apply to a sys admin who didn't even know that remote admin
of
> > > Windows machines was even possible?
> >
> > Only in cripple-mode for the most trivial of tasks.
>
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> > news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> > > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services
on
> > > Win2K...
> >
> > He doesn't seem to know a lot of things, isn't it?
>
> You mean, that Windows is playing catchup on components that have been
> standard throughout the industry anywhere from 10 to 50 years...?
Like featurs that are five years old (or more) in windows which you
displayed absolute ignorance about.
(Default & Alternative file types)
You gave a detailed description on how this should behave, and they accused
windows in not letting you do this.
The fact is that you could do it with win95 quite easily, and I wouldn't be
surprised if you could do the same with win3X
Ayende Rahien
> Toon Afish wrote:
> >
> > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services on
> > Win2K...
>
> for nearly 50 years?
>
> Wow. I'm impressed....NOT.
I'm impressed. Very much impressed.
You want to tell me that ORACLE (one of the best computers in the 50s, but
you knew that, didn't you?) could be remotedly administer?
Wow, I just wonder how you could do it.
Can you give us some detials about it? I would really like to know how you
administered it? I mean, didn't you need a computer of your own to do so?
How did computers talked to each other in that era? I think that modem came
much later, and network cards are quite recent too.
What could you do remotedly on those computers?
Giuliano Colla
>
> Based on what I read here, it beats the hell out of me. But how does your
> salary relate to your original comment? Is there some connection?
>
> same BS, same pay. A competent network admin will get the job done
> regardless of whether it's UNIX or Windows.
The point is that a Unix expert will solve you a problem in a fraction
of the time required by an equally competent Windows expert to do a
sloppy job. Therefore his market value (as measured in terms of the
service he can providing a given time) is much higher than that of a
Windows expert.
A competent manager will not put his informative system in mercy of
Windows unless he's ready to leave the company and wants to laugh at his
replacement.
A competent manager knows that a job which can be done neatly and
quickly with a good OS, may take forever with a bad OS, which has no
provision for what you require.
A competent manager knows that cost is not given by salary, but salary
*times* the time required to do do the job.
A manager telling "I don't care whether it's Windows or Unix, get it
done!" is just a pompous ass.
Giuliano Colla
This goes on only as long as a child doesn't turn up and says:
The King is naked!
Bruce Schuck
>
> "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> > Win2K...
>
There is no evidence he knows anything.
Bruce Schuck
"Les Mikesell" <lesmi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:sZ2O5.14115$Y6.52...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
>
> "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services on
> > Win2K...
>
> extra?
You get two free licenses for admin. If you have Win2k Pro, you also have a
WTS license.
> What if you are somewhere else?
2 anywhere for free. No restrictions.
Plus every Win2K pro install is also a WTS license.
And you can buy more licenses if you need them.
And the Win2K pro WTS licenses also allow the running of any published app
on the server as well.
Aaron Lawrence
wrote:
> Most are MILITANTLY ignorant....
>
> And anybody who CHOOSES to remain ignorant MUST be classified as stupid.
Hm good summary... however we all remain ignorant of many things, not
through choice but because we have lives to live. We cannot learn
everything.
-----
aaronl_consultant_com
Les Mikesell
"Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services on
> Win2K...
How many places are you allowed to have the client without paying
extra? What if you are somewhere else?
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Tom Wilson
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A08616E...@yahoo.com...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> > > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services
on
> > > Win2K...
> >
>
> standard throughout the industry anywhere from 10 to 50 years...?
>
Considering that Microsoft made their mark with a single tasking,
CP-M clone and had to support that legacy, it's not surprising.
In essence, they're still paying for their early success.
David Brown
licence for it. I looked vaguely at WTS when it first became available
(pre-w2k), and at that time if you used an NT workstation to access a WTS
application, you needed to buy a second NT workstation licence for the
client machine!! You had to pay twice, and even then the WTS application
would only run in a tiny window with low colours.
Is WTS actually usable now? I mean, if the client has a 1600x1200x24
display you use server-hosted apps with the same resolutions? And are the
client licences now something reasonable rather than a complete joke?
Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
>
>"Les Mikesell" <lesmi...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:sZ2O5.14115$Y6.52...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
>>
>> "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
>> news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
>> > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services on
>> > Win2K...
>>
>> How many places are you allowed to have the client without paying
>> extra?
>
>You get two free licenses for admin. If you have Win2k Pro, you also have a
>WTS license.
>
>> What if you are somewhere else?
>
Les Mikesell
"Bruce Schuck" <Br...@Schuck.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services
on
> > > Win2K...
> >
> > How many places are you allowed to have the client without paying
> > extra?
>
a
> WTS license.
>
>
Does that mean I can have it loaded everywhere and only run 2 at
once, or would I only be able to load it on 2 machines?
> Plus every Win2K pro install is also a WTS license.
Why should I want to be locked into running something
from only one vendor, let alone a partular version?
> And you can buy more licenses if you need them.
Or, I could avoid the need by running something
developed for remote administration and multiple
platforms instead of requiring an add-on with those
restrictions.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Toon Afish
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A086108...@yahoo.com...
> Toon Afish wrote:
>
> Unix has NEVER needed 3rd-party anything for remote administration.
So what?
>
> Once again, LoseDOS is more than 17 years BEHIND unix.
>
>
<large snip>
So you admit that your initial statements were wrong? Do you also admit
ignorance of the Windows OS in general? Nothing you've claimed has been
true. Time to put up or shut up.
Toon Afish
things. Rome wasn't built in a day, and all that stuff. But you would be
doing yourself a favor by learning the OS before posting messages and
displaying your ignorance to the world. That must be really embarassing!
Which 50 year old OS are you referring to? I admit I'm not familiar with
many operating systems in use four years before I was born. And, since there
were only a handful of digital computers in the world, not many people were.
But an expert like you must have a full command of every OS every produced,
dating back to the BOS (biological operating system) used to run the first
computer in the 1600s. Or maybe the BOS used to run the abacus. Please.
Enlighten us.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A08616E...@yahoo.com...
>
> You mean, that Windows is playing catchup on components that have been
> standard throughout the industry anywhere from 10 to 50 years...?
>
> --
<Self Promoting Tag Line Snipped>
> http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
>
>
> Assinine fluff snipped>
Toon Afish
"Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE...@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3A087845...@iol.it...
>
> The point is that a Unix expert will solve you a problem in a fraction
> of the time required by an equally competent Windows expert to do a
> sloppy job. Therefore his market value (as measured in terms of the
> service he can providing a given time) is much higher than that of a
> Windows expert.
I'd love to see the data to support this.
>
> A competent manager will not put his informative system in mercy of
> Windows unless he's ready to leave the company and wants to laugh at his
> replacement.
I guess that's why Staples and E-Bay use Windows, as well as Compaq and
Dell. They have no use in reliable machines for their web business, do they?
> A competent manager knows that a job which can be done neatly and
> quickly with a good OS, may take forever with a bad OS, which has no
> provision for what you require.
Here again, you assume that Windows is a "bad OS." It isn't. Naturally, you
can prove this claim, can't you?
> A competent manager knows that cost is not given by salary, but salary
> *times* the time required to do do the job.
> A manager telling "I don't care whether it's Windows or Unix, get it
> done!" is just a pompous ass.
Thank god I've never said that! But it sounds like you're familiar with it.
Bruce Schuck
"David Brown" <dav-no...@westco-nospam-ntrol.com> wrote in message
news:8ub6bt$t7q$1...@news.netpower.no...
> If you have a Windows machine connected to a WTS server, you need a client
> licence for it.
Yes. However, if your machine has Win2K Pro, that IS the client license.
> I looked vaguely at WTS when it first became available
> (pre-w2k), and at that time if you used an NT workstation to access a WTS
> application, you needed to buy a second NT workstation licence for the
> client machine!!
False. Never true.
>You had to pay twice, and even then the WTS application
> would only run in a tiny window with low colours.
False. Never true.
>
> Is WTS actually usable now?
Very.
> I mean, if the client has a 1600x1200x24
> display you use server-hosted apps with the same resolutions?
I've never had a resolutionproblem.
> And are the
> client licences now something reasonable rather than a complete joke?
Yes. They are now reasonable. Win2K Pro = WTS CAL
And of course you cn buy completely separate CAL just for WTS.
And you can buy the Terminal Service Connector
etc etc
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/pricing/terminal.asp
>
>
> Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <lesmi...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:sZ2O5.14115$Y6.52...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
> >>
> >> "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> >> news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> >> > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services
on
> >> > Win2K...
> >>
> >> How many places are you allowed to have the client without paying
> >> extra?
> >
> >You get two free licenses for admin. If you have Win2k Pro, you also have
a
> >WTS license.
> >
> >> What if you are somewhere else?
> >
> >2 anywhere for free. No restrictions.
> >
> >Plus every Win2K pro install is also a WTS license.
> >
> >And you can buy more licenses if you need them.
> >
Bruce Schuck
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <Br...@Schuck.com> wrote in message
> news:fv4O5.124627$47.18...@news.bc.tac.net...
> >
> on
> > > > Win2K...
> > >
> > > How many places are you allowed to have the client without paying
> > > extra?
> >
have
> a
> > WTS license.
> >
> >
>
> once, or would I only be able to load it on 2 machines?
2 at once.
>
> > Plus every Win2K pro install is also a WTS license.
>
> Why should I want to be locked into running something
> from only one vendor, let alone a partular version?
Why anyone would want anything other than Win2k pro on their desktop or
laptop is beyond me ... but Win2K Pro is the freebie WTS CAL. You can buy
WTS CAL for many different machines.
>
> > And you can buy more licenses if you need them.
>
> Or, I could avoid the need by running something
> developed for remote administration and multiple
> platforms instead of requiring an add-on with those
> restrictions.
WTS is not an add-on. Its a service built-in to every W2K Server that can be
activated if you need it.
Big bonus!
Why would you want an add-on?
Giuliano Colla
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE...@iol.it> wrote in message
> news:3A087845...@iol.it...
> >
> > The point is that a Unix expert will solve you a problem in a fraction
> > of the time required by an equally competent Windows expert to do a
> > sloppy job. Therefore his market value (as measured in terms of the
> > service he can providing a given time) is much higher than that of a
> > Windows expert.
>
> I'd love to see the data to support this.
>
Just try and you'll know. But I may give you a hint. Just
figure out the difference between working on a system which
is fully documented, and a system whose internals are kept
secret.
> >
> > A competent manager will not put his informative system in mercy of
> > Windows unless he's ready to leave the company and wants to laugh at his
> > replacement.
>
> I guess that's why Staples and E-Bay use Windows, as well as Compaq and
> Dell. They have no use in reliable machines for their web business, do they?
>
Give a look to the uptime statistics (you may get some at
www.netcraft.com) then maybe you'll revise your opinions.
> > A competent manager knows that a job which can be done neatly and
> > quickly with a good OS, may take forever with a bad OS, which has no
> > provision for what you require.
>
> Here again, you assume that Windows is a "bad OS." It isn't. Naturally, you
> can prove this claim, can't you?
I have posted a very long explanation on this subject a just
a few days ago, and I won't repeat it. You may trace it
because it is quite recent.
>
> > A competent manager knows that cost is not given by salary, but salary
> > *times* the time required to do do the job.
> > A manager telling "I don't care whether it's Windows or Unix, get it
> > done!" is just a pompous ass.
>
> Thank god I've never said that! But it sounds like you're familiar with it.
Not addressed to me, because my line is more on writing
special purpose OS's and applications for those, but yes, I
heard it more times than it would be reasonable. The outcome
has never been the desirable one.
Mig
> This goes on only as long as a child doesn't turn up and says:
> The King is naked!
No no no.... Its the Emperor and not the King
And no he's not naked.. he has no clothes on
--
Cheers
Bruce Schuck
"At online auctioneer eBay Inc., a major Sun customer, the memory problem
initially resulted in one to two big-system crashes every month, says
Maynard Webb, president of eBay Technologies."
"with Sun's fixes in place eBay can now go "months" without seeing a
problem. "
Months?
"Sun's current servers lack sophisticated error-correction software that can
often catch such errors on the fly, and as a result can crash when they
occur. "
"Sun initially required customers who reported the problem to sign a
nondisclosure agreement..."
"Paul McGuckin, an analyst with Gartner Group who deals regularly with major
corporate customers, said that roughly 60 major Gartner clients have
reported problems with as many as several hundred Sun servers."
A question for sleepy "Unix Engineer" Aaron. Did you or your company sign a
nondisclosure agreement to hide the fact that Sun boxes spontaneously crash?
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3A08616E...@yahoo.com...
> > >
> > > "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> > > news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> on
> > > > Win2K...
> > >
> >
> > standard throughout the industry anywhere from 10 to 50 years...?
> >
>
> CP-M clone and had to support that legacy, it's not surprising.
> In essence, they're still paying for their early success.
In essence, they're still clinging to an 1970's 8-bit 8080's machine
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> If you have a Windows machine connected to a WTS server, you need a client
> licence for it.
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!
> I looked vaguely at WTS when it first became available
> (pre-w2k), and at that time if you used an NT workstation to access a WTS
> application, you needed to buy a second NT workstation licence for the
> client machine!! You had to pay twice, and even then the WTS application
> would only run in a tiny window with low colours.
>
> Is WTS actually usable now? I mean, if the client has a 1600x1200x24
> display you use server-hosted apps with the same resolutions? And are the
> client licences now something reasonable rather than a complete joke?
>
> Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <lesmi...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:sZ2O5.14115$Y6.52...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
> >>
> >> "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> >> news:SUYN5.6$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> >> > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services on
> >> > Win2K...
> >>
> >> How many places are you allowed to have the client without paying
> >> extra?
> >
> >You get two free licenses for admin. If you have Win2k Pro, you also have a
> >WTS license.
> >
> >> What if you are somewhere else?
> >
> >2 anywhere for free. No restrictions.
> >
> >Plus every Win2K pro install is also a WTS license.
> >
> >And you can buy more licenses if you need them.
> >
> >And the Win2K pro WTS licenses also allow the running of any published app
> >on the server as well.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Ayende Rahien
> In essence, they're still clinging to an 1970's 8-bit 8080's machine
You *really* need to update your knowledge, Aaron.
Unix still has buffer overflow problem.
No computer could be remotedly administer in the 50s.
Windows 95 and upward can actually handle alternative applications per file
type.
Windows 2000 can be remotedly administer.
Windows 2000 can be easily made cross platform.
You know, all those things that you keep tripping on.
I would start in:
www.linux.org
www.microsoft.com
www.bsd.org
www.learn-how-not-to-be-an-idiot.com
www.I-shall-be-a-troll-no-longer-.com
Ayende Rahien
"." <get.f...@go.to.hell.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14748ae91...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > Why anyone would want anything other than Win2k pro on their desktop or
> > laptop is beyond me ...
>
> is beyond me.
Why would someone care who make the application as long as it works, is
beyond me.
> It's also beyond me why anyone would so proactively advocate everyone
> using Win2k... Win2k is simply not suitable for a large number of
> people. You'd think that someone as familiar with it as you appear to be
> would understand this, but I guess it's just another case of "I picked
> the right thing for me, everyone choosing something else must be wrong.
> I must convert the heathens."
I must agrees with both you and bruce opinions.
I don't see any reason whatsoever to not use w2k for any purpose you can
think of.
In fact, I know that I would go into greats lengths just to use it.
But I agrees with you in that everyone choosing something else have the
right to choose ( to suffer :) ).
> I don't try to advocate linux or *BSD as the sole solution to operating
> systems, why should you with 2k? (I do like to point out the advantages
> though... there are many people running blind who don't even realise
> alternatives exist...)
LOL.
Actually, the same goes for me (or at least I like to think so).
Ayende Rahien
"Bruce Schuck" <Br...@Schuck.com> wrote in message
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/487061.asp?0nm=N13G
>
> "At online auctioneer eBay Inc., a major Sun customer, the memory problem
> initially resulted in one to two big-system crashes every month, says
> Maynard Webb, president of eBay Technologies."
I can get better performance from an out-of-the-box NT.
> "with Sun's fixes in place eBay can now go "months" without seeing a
> problem. "
>
> Months?
So much for "my machine is up for three decades and I only has to reboot for
kernel updates."
> "Sun's current servers lack sophisticated error-correction software that
can
> often catch such errors on the fly, and as a result can crash when they
> occur. "
Sound familiar?
> "Sun initially required customers who reported the problem to sign a
> nondisclosure agreement..."
Sound familiar?
> "Paul McGuckin, an analyst with Gartner Group who deals regularly with
major
> corporate customers, said that roughly 60 major Gartner clients have
> reported problems with as many as several hundred Sun servers."
Even linuxens admists that even MS fixes a problem if a lot of people
complains about it.
> A question for sleepy "Unix Engineer" Aaron. Did you or your company sign
a
> nondisclosure agreement to hide the fact that Sun boxes spontaneously
crash?
Of course not, you plug a unix box to the power, and it automatically reads
your mind, configure itself according to your wishes, and make you coffee,
all in the time ME boots.
Giuliano Colla
Give a look here, just for fun
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.microsoft.com&find_site=GO
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.bbc.co.uk&find_site=GO
http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise to readers.
An optional exercise is to compare knowledge of British Broadcasting
Corporation employees of Sun Solaris, with Microsoft's employees
knowledge of Windows system.
Cheers.
Bruce Schuck
The beauty of using clusters of boxes is that you can take a box out of the
cluster, upgrade it with new software (like SP1) or hardware and reboot, and
then take the next box down.
The disadvantage of spontaneously crashing Sun boxes is the lack of
foreknowledge.
Bruce Schuck
<Roy.C...@switzerland.org> wrote in message news:n86du8.b6b.ln@gd2zzx...
> In article <8ud0k7$mi4$1...@feedme.surfree.net.il>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <Aye...@softhome.net> wrote:
> >
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.bbc.co.uk&find_site
> > =GO
> >
> > BBC.co.uk being the X most views site in the world?
>
> I remember when first using netcraft to see what the bbc used
> and it was Microsoft. Now it is Sun Solaris. Why did they change? :-)
The love the excitement from spontaneously crashing Sun boxes.
Christopher Smith
"Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
You're wasting your time trying to have any sort of discussion with Lord
Signess and should killfile him immediately. He has absolutely nothing
useful to say. Really. Just Say No.
.
>
> So what?
So it's nice to pay one price only?
> > Once again, LoseDOS is more than 17 years BEHIND unix.
>
> Nothing you've claimed has been true. Time to put up or shut up.
I disagree. For example, he said earlier:
> > Unix has NEVER needed 3rd-party anything for remote administration.
I think that's fairly true. How about you provide some evidence of
everything he's claimed being false? In other words, put up or shut up.
.
> laptop is beyond me ...
Why anyone would want to contribute to Microsofts domination of the world
is beyond me.
It's also beyond me why anyone would so proactively advocate everyone
using Win2k... Win2k is simply not suitable for a large number of
people. You'd think that someone as familiar with it as you appear to be
would understand this, but I guess it's just another case of "I picked
the right thing for me, everyone choosing something else must be wrong.
I must convert the heathens."
.
> > is beyond me.
>
> beyond me.
Well, because in our commercialised world the only way I can hope to make
any kind of difference is by voting with my dollars, and encouraging
others to do the same.
I was treated rudely by an employee at a local store... when nothing was
done about it, I informed the owner that I would never again visit his
store, and I would be sure to pass on word of my bad experiences.
A local ISP here treats its employees badly, and cares about it's
customers even less... I will not do business with that company any
more.
MS are not competing fairly. They are a dirty underhanded company, and I
consider it a matter of conscience to not fund them (intentionally) in
any way.
That's (another reason) why I don't like MS.
.
> > initially resulted in one to two big-system crashes every month, says
> > Maynard Webb, president of eBay Technologies."
>
> I can get better performance from an out-of-the-box NT.
[ignoring the rest, since I don't use and have never used solaris]
I don't think anyone can get better performance from out of the box NT.
Out of the box NT is almost completely useless unless you customize it
and tune it, as it should be with ANY server software. Serving is a
tailored activity for each case... to suggest a server OS can be
installed fresh off the CD and be running usefully for months is just
bizarre.
Oh, and months and months of endless service from NT SP1? Bwahahahaa =)
Ayende Rahien
The problem is that Apple's actions, to take an example out of the blue, are
just as morally flawed, and it's not even being condemned about them.
"." <get.f...@go.to.hell.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1474b55ad...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Ayende Rahien
Okay, i was wildly off here, I was trying to make a point here.
A Solaris that crush twice a month? That *isn't* good.
A unix production machine that crash, that is... unheard of.
And now we know why.
Ayende Rahien
"Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE...@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3A09E418...@iol.it...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Of course not, you plug a unix box to the power, and it automatically
reads
> > your mind, configure itself according to your wishes, and make you
coffee,
> > all in the time ME boots.
>
> Give a look here, just for fun
>
>
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.microsoft.com&find_
site=GO
Microsoft.com being the second most viewed site in the world.
(What
>
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.bbc.co.uk&find_site
=GO
BBC.co.uk being the X most views site in the world?
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
>
> Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise to readers.
> An optional exercise is to compare knowledge of British Broadcasting
> Corporation employees of Sun Solaris, with Microsoft's employees
> knowledge of Windows system.
An optional exercise is to compare the load on British Broadcasting
Corporation site on Microsoft.com site.
I edited a list of the 100th most viewed sites in the world, microsoft was
second, I don't think that bbc.co.uk was even on this list.
Chad Myers
"Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE...@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3A09E418...@iol.it...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > news:8mjO5.124837$47.18...@news.bc.tac.net...
> > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/487061.asp?0nm=N13G
> > >
> > > initially resulted in one to two big-system crashes every month, says
> > > Maynard Webb, president of eBay Technologies."
> >
> > I can get better performance from an out-of-the-box NT.
> >
> > > problem. "
> > >
> > > Months?
> >
> > So much for "my machine is up for three decades and I only has to reboot for
> > kernel updates."
> >
> > > "Sun's current servers lack sophisticated error-correction software that
> > can
> > > often catch such errors on the fly, and as a result can crash when they
> > > occur. "
> >
> > Sound familiar?
> >
> > > "Sun initially required customers who reported the problem to sign a
> > > nondisclosure agreement..."
> >
> > Sound familiar?
> >
> > > "Paul McGuckin, an analyst with Gartner Group who deals regularly with
> > major
> > > corporate customers, said that roughly 60 major Gartner clients have
> > > reported problems with as many as several hundred Sun servers."
> >
> > Even linuxens admists that even MS fixes a problem if a lot of people
> > complains about it.
> >
> > > A question for sleepy "Unix Engineer" Aaron. Did you or your company sign
> > a
> > > nondisclosure agreement to hide the fact that Sun boxes spontaneously
> > crash?
> >
> > your mind, configure itself according to your wishes, and make you coffee,
> > all in the time ME boots.
>
> Give a look here, just for fun
>
>
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.microsoft.com&find_site
=GO
>
>
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
>
> Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise to readers.
> An optional exercise is to compare knowledge of British Broadcasting
> Corporation employees of Sun Solaris, with Microsoft's employees
> knowledge of Windows system.
I find these Microsoft.com numbers hard to read. I can't remember a time in
the last couple years where I've ever gone to that web site and it's been down.
And I would go to it quite often when I was in the consulting business
downloading
patches and whatnot. And that was even when it was NT 4.0!
Besides, they measure in "time since last reboot". Since MS has quite a few
servers
in round robin, I find it hard to believe they have ANY downtime at ALL. Maybe
a server tanks here or there for whatever reason, but there are still any army
to back it up.
How can this be explained?
-Chad
Javaduke
Windows users are all around me. They're are so misguided that they are
missing out on the Linux revolution, it is so sad, but one day this may
change.
javaduke
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A02ACFA...@yahoo.com...
>
> I see Windows users all around me. They're stupid, and they don't even
know it.
Ukifah Heef
one is a monopoly and one isn't. Remember, MS wasn't found guilty of simply
being a monopoly, but of abuse of monopoly power. Apple isn't a monopoly,
with under 10% market share. So their actions, while similar to MS, just
aren't the same.
"Ayende Rahien" <Aye...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:8ud07m$m8e$1...@feedme.surfree.net.il...
Russ Lyttle
>
> > Why anyone would want anything other than Win2k pro on their desktop or
> > laptop is beyond me ...
>
> Why anyone would want to contribute to Microsofts domination of the world
> is beyond me.
>
> It's also beyond me why anyone would so proactively advocate everyone
> using Win2k... Win2k is simply not suitable for a large number of
> people. You'd think that someone as familiar with it as you appear to be
> would understand this, but I guess it's just another case of "I picked
> the right thing for me, everyone choosing something else must be wrong.
> I must convert the heathens."
>
> I don't try to advocate linux or *BSD as the sole solution to operating
> systems, why should you with 2k? (I do like to point out the advantages
> though... there are many people running blind who don't even realise
> alternatives exist...)
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
.
> The problem is that Apple's actions, to take an example out of the blue, are
> just as morally flawed, and it's not even being condemned about them.
Well, I don't buy apple stuff either =)
But I'm not aware of Apple's nasty tactics... most likely since it
hasn't had any effect on me (I loathe macs).
What have apple done? I'd like to know in case I ever have to tell
someone why I wont buy a mac ;)
.
> > > laptop is beyond me ...
> >
> > Why anyone would want to contribute to Microsofts domination of the world
> > is beyond me.
> >
> Well. people eat at McDonald's and buy lotto tickets don't they?
Perhaps I'm having a bad day, but I don't quite see the point...?
MicroDonalds - Plastic food that bluescreens before you finish eating.
Roy.C...@switzerland.org
> =GO
>
> BBC.co.uk being the X most views site in the world?
I remember when first using netcraft to see what the bbc used
Ayende Rahien
You hate MS for vendor lock?
You can hate Apple for this too.
Hardware lock too.
Check the PPC-Compatible market, Apple pull the plug on them.
In a hurry now, would find some more later.
JS/PL
site=GO
>
>
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph?display=uptime&site=www.bbc.co.uk&find_site
=GO
>
>
> Drawing conclusions is left as an exercise to readers.
> An optional exercise is to compare knowledge of British Broadcasting
> Corporation employees of Sun Solaris, with Microsoft's employees
> knowledge of Windows system.
>
starbucks.com just did a 215 day stint between re-boots on their Win2k
server. I've been using Windows 2000 server since February and it has never
crashed. The IIs servers on Win2K arent getting re-booted due to crashing as
far as I know. Show otherwise....
Giuliano Colla
The topic was of Sun server crashing. You can't tell why a
site did reboot, but you may tell for certain that if it
didn't reboot it didn't' crash.
AFAIK there's only one service pack for Windows 2000 so one
wouldn't expect for a Win2k server more than one reboot due
to software upgrading.
Giuliano Colla
How do you explain their uptime if spontaneous crashing
occurs so frequently?
No system I know of is perfect. Reliability is MTBF related.
If uptime is high, MTBF is high, therefore the crashing
problem must have a very low probability to occur.
Ayende Rahien
"Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE_...@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3A0A778B...@iol.it...
>
> How do you explain their uptime if spontaneous crashing
> occurs so frequently?
> No system I know of is perfect. Reliability is MTBF related.
> If uptime is high, MTBF is high, therefore the crashing
> problem must have a very low probability to occur.
Tell this to ebay.com and the NDA that Sun had them sign.
Ayende Rahien
> JS/PL wrote:
> > starbucks.com just did a 215 day stint between re-boots on their Win2k
> > server. I've been using Windows 2000 server since February and it has
never
> > crashed. The IIs servers on Win2K arent getting re-booted due to
crashing as
> > far as I know. Show otherwise....
>
> The topic was of Sun server crashing. You can't tell why a
> site did reboot, but you may tell for certain that if it
> didn't reboot it didn't' crash.
> AFAIK there's only one service pack for Windows 2000 so one
> wouldn't expect for a Win2k server more than one reboot due
> to software upgrading.
To say it frankly, only an asshole waits for the service packs.
Sure, when it is out you install it, but you also need to keep track of MS
bullteians and hot fixes.
Remember that security hole hotfix that MS didn't apply to its server and
allow the hacker to get it?
You don't get it in a service pack, because SP2 has a long way to go yet.
You get it in as a nice little executable, and patch the security holes in
your system ASAP.
Waiting for the Service Pack mean that you are a *bad* admin, and should be
sent to stand in the corner.
Currently there are about 22 hot fixes for security holes or bugs in windows
2000.
Some of them are included in SP1, some aren't.
The one that used to hack into MS wasn't in SP1, btw.
Giuliano Colla
The topic was about Sun spontaneous crashing. There's no way
that I know of to avoid a reboot if a system crashes.
Therefore the uptime between reboots value gives an
indication of the frequency of the problem.
I used microsoft as a reference because one could assume
that it's the place where MS crapware is used at best,
with minimal reboots due to unskilled setup or usage.
No mention about workload. If I'm not wrong (Max could help
on this subject), a site should be designed in such a way as
to carry its normal workload.
Therefore different sites, carrying different workloads
should be comparable.
Giuliano Colla
> > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > >
> > > <Roy.C...@switzerland.org> wrote in message
> news:n86du8.b6b.ln@gd2zzx...
> >
> > How do you explain their uptime if spontaneous crashing
> > occurs so frequently?
> > No system I know of is perfect. Reliability is MTBF related.
> > If uptime is high, MTBF is high, therefore the crashing
> > problem must have a very low probability to occur.
>
> Tell this to ebay.com and the NDA that Sun had them sign.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.ebay.com
No comment!
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Tell this to ebay.com and the NDA that Sun had them sign.
>
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.ebay.com
Downtime of ebay while using solaris?
Downtime of ebay while using win2k?
Giuliano Colla
> > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > >
> > > <Roy.C...@switzerland.org> wrote in message
> news:n86du8.b6b.ln@gd2zzx...
> >
> > How do you explain their uptime if spontaneous crashing
> > occurs so frequently?
> > No system I know of is perfect. Reliability is MTBF related.
> > If uptime is high, MTBF is high, therefore the crashing
> > problem must have a very low probability to occur.
>
I forgot a small detail:
what you didn't mention is that what you're referring to is
a hardware problem in the cache memory affecting approx. 1%
of Sun boxes, which are missing the sophisticated error
detecting software required to cope with such a problem.
How is implemented the sophisticated error-correction
software in Windows in order to cope with cache memory
errors?
I'd suggest you to read the full article referenced and
compare Sun attitude with MS attitude.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/487061.asp?0nm=N13G&cp1=1
Maybe also the NDA will result less Microsoft-like.
Toon Afish
capable of remote administration. It is. Terminal server and the Dameware
utilities are two examples. He has only displayed his ignorance to the
world, nothing more, nothing less. If you want more information on Terminal
Server, visit MS's web site. I don't have time to conduct classes.
"." <get.f...@go.to.hell.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.147489067...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Toon Afish
remark.
"Christopher Smith" <drsm...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:8ucdqr$qf8$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>
> "Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> news:h8eO5.8$a07...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com...
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A086108...@yahoo.com...
> > > Toon Afish wrote:
> > >
> > > Unix has NEVER needed 3rd-party anything for remote administration.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > >
> > > Once again, LoseDOS is more than 17 years BEHIND unix.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > <large snip>
> >
> > So you admit that your initial statements were wrong? Do you also admit
> > ignorance of the Windows OS in general? Nothing you've claimed has been
> > true. Time to put up or shut up.
>
> You're wasting your time trying to have any sort of discussion with Lord
> Signess and should killfile him immediately. He has absolutely nothing
> useful to say. Really. Just Say No.
>
>
Toon Afish
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A09BE8D...@yahoo.com...
>
>
> In essence, they're still clinging to an 1970's 8-bit 8080's machine
Giuliano Colla
>
> Downtime of ebay while using solaris?
> Downtime of ebay while using win2k?
Can't tell, I made my homework, and ebay turned out NOT to
be using Sun, which I found quite amusing, in the light of
the fierce discussion which was going on. If you can locate
relevant data we may discuss the subject further.
Toon Afish
the answer, since there were'nt any networks or modems back then. Of course,
"remote admin" could mean a phone call to someone sitting near the computer,
couldn't it?
Time to go back into hiding, Aaron.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A086141...@yahoo.com...
> Toon Afish wrote:
> >
> > Shhh! Be quiet! He doesn't know about the built-in Terminal Services on
> > Win2K...
>
> You mean, windows is JUST NOW getting services which have been STANDARD
> for nearly 50 years?
>
> Wow. I'm impressed....NOT.
Ayende Rahien
Well, general knowledge only:
Currently it's using win2k.
In the past it's used Solaris.
ebay.com is being redirected to www.ebay.com by freebsd, btw.
Chad Myers
"Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE_...@iol.it> wrote in message
news:3A0A958F...@iol.it...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <copecaREMOVE_...@iol.it> wrote in message
> > news:3A0A7D07...@iol.it...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > > Tell this to ebay.com and the NDA that Sun had them sign.
> > >
> > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.ebay.com
> >
> > Downtime of ebay while using solaris?
> > Downtime of ebay while using win2k?
>
> Can't tell, I made my homework, and ebay turned out NOT to
> be using Sun, which I found quite amusing, in the light of
> the fierce discussion which was going on. If you can locate
> relevant data we may discuss the subject further.
Um... perhaps you should do your research a little bit before
claiming any victory.
It's very well known (especially since the story of their
Sun boxes spontaneously crashing made most of the major press)
that ebay runs their backend database servers on Sun boxes.
These are the boxes that puked regularly.
-Chad
Ayende Rahien
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Tell this to ebay.com and the NDA that Sun had them sign.
>
> I forgot a small detail:
> what you didn't mention is that what you're referring to is
> a hardware problem in the cache memory affecting approx. 1%
> of Sun boxes, which are missing the sophisticated error
> detecting software required to cope with such a problem.
Honsetly, I can't tell.
The point is that with win2k, you don't relay on one/two machines for
anything.
If one machine fail, then the other ones takes its place, seemlessly.
And Win2K can cluster just as well as Solaris, and be remotedly administered
almost as well.
> How is implemented the sophisticated error-correction
> software in Windows in order to cope with cache memory
> errors?
> I'd suggest you to read the full article referenced and
> compare Sun attitude with MS attitude.
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/487061.asp?0nm=N13G&cp1=1
"Sun initially required customers who reported the problem to sign a
nondisclosure agreement because of the large quantity of internal technical
information the computer."
Allow me to express my opinion about this statement: pure bull.
The way I see it, Sun tried to cover up the facts until it was too big to
hold. Do you think that they suddenly don't care about the "large quantity
of internal technical information" that they share?
"(Sometimes a cosmic ray can be at fault.) [of the fault]" - It sound all
too much like "Aliens has invaded the computer!"
Please, spare me the SF. If it's a cosmic ray fault (exactly how, btw) build
a protection against it.
Ketil Z Malde
>> "At online auctioneer eBay Inc., a major Sun customer, the memory problem
>> initially resulted in one to two big-system crashes every month, says
>> Maynard Webb, president of eBay Technologies."
> I can get better performance from an out-of-the-box NT.
I wasn't aware that NT had any particular support for ECC. Does it?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Les Mikesell
"Chad Myers" <cmy...@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8txO5.938$PI5....@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> Um... perhaps you should do your research a little bit before
> claiming any victory.
>
> It's very well known (especially since the story of their
> Sun boxes spontaneously crashing made most of the major press)
> that ebay runs their backend database servers on Sun boxes.
>
> These are the boxes that puked regularly.
Yes, a large Sun box crashing is one of those 'man bites dog' stories
that makes the news. Unlike that other vendor's product...
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Les Mikesell
>
> Honsetly, I can't tell.
> The point is that with win2k, you don't relay on one/two machines for
> anything.
> If one machine fail, then the other ones takes its place, seemlessly.
> And Win2K can cluster just as well as Solaris, and be remotedly
administered
> almost as well.
Note that you pay several thousand extra for the Advanced Server version
on every box for this capability, plus some exotic hardware if you
want them to see the same disks. Don't give the impression that
normal Win2k has cluster capabilities.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Les Mikesell
"Toon Afish" <n...@this.time> wrote in message
> So which computers in 1950 were capable of remote admin? I'd love to hear
> the answer, since there were'nt any networks or modems back then. Of
course,
> "remote admin" could mean a phone call to someone sitting near the
computer,
> couldn't it?
I don't know what equipment actually worked in the 50's but all the
old stuff I remember seeing had no concept of a dedicated console
to run it. Most just had a serial port to a tty device of some sort
with a keyboard and printer built together, so all access was
as remote as you wanted the serial connection to be.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Bruce Schuck
> > > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <Roy.C...@switzerland.org> wrote in message
> > news:n86du8.b6b.ln@gd2zzx...
> > >
> > > How do you explain their uptime if spontaneous crashing
> > > occurs so frequently?
> > > No system I know of is perfect. Reliability is MTBF related.
> > > If uptime is high, MTBF is high, therefore the crashing
> > > problem must have a very low probability to occur.
> >
>
> No comment!
Ebay runs Oracle on Solaris for the database. They run IIS on thier
webserver.
Bruce Schuck
"Les Mikesell" <lesmi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:iLyO5.15187$Y6.54...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
>
> "Chad Myers" <cmy...@nospam.austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:8txO5.938$PI5....@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> >
>
> > Um... perhaps you should do your research a little bit before
> > claiming any victory.
> >
> > It's very well known (especially since the story of their
> > Sun boxes spontaneously crashing made most of the major press)
> > that ebay runs their backend database servers on Sun boxes.
> >
> > These are the boxes that puked regularly.
>
> Yes, a large Sun box crashing is one of those 'man bites dog' stories
> that makes the news.
Lately it's been man bites thousands of dogs because of sunspots and a lousy
design.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> > In essence, they're still clinging to an 1970's 8-bit 8080's machine
>
> Unix still has buffer overflow problem.
> No computer could be remotedly administer in the 50s.
I never said that remote administration was possible in the 1950's.
However, how long did it take Microsoft to implement printer spooling,
something that was industry standard in the 1950's? Not until 1995.
Why is that?
> Windows 95 and upward can actually handle alternative applications per file
> type.
And your point is?
Unix NEVER had this problem to begin with.
> Windows 2000 can be remotedly administer.
ONLY if you pay extra money.
Unix has had this capability since the very beginning of Unix networking...
EVEN allowing remote administration from NON-UNIX machines.
> Windows 2000 can be easily made cross platform.
Yeah, and I have several bridges around Manhattan for sale.
>
> You know, all those things that you keep tripping on.
>
> I would start in:
>
> www.linux.org
> www.microsoft.com
> www.bsd.org
> www.learn-how-not-to-be-an-idiot.com
> www.I-shall-be-a-troll-no-longer-.com
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.