Uh Oh...   IBTL!!



[:D]

Screw Linux- Get a Mac w/ OS X on it. It is MUCH better than Linux, and better than Windows TOO [:D]

Wow..   This thread has really made me reminisce about the "good old days" of computing.

My first computer was a TRS-80, then I upgraded to a way cool CoCo (radio shack color computer)

Goatboy now uses both of those machines for the Equipment Exchange forums.  [:D]


I then bought an IBM PC (NO hard disk / 32KB -- yup KB! of RAM)

Then migrated to a PC-XT (10MB hard disk drive -- woo hoo!)

Then an AT.

Then a PS2/Model 80  (first 386 and it had a 70mb ESDI hard drive -- cost me over $16,000 with peripherals and monitor)

You can buy a computer decked out to the max for a few thousand bucks now.  One that performs at 100x the speed of those old boxes..

We've REALLY come a loooonnnngggg way ! [:)]

maybe we can fix it... I have an abacus, 2 soup cans and a string...

c:\del *.*    mean.... very mean...

I think I need to call in the cavalry...

Jeez, I didn't expect everyone to get their panties in a bunch. I was trying to be helpful, because, given the same hardware, it's usually possible to get better performance out of a Linux system than Windows. Most of the internet runs Apache and some form of Unix. I was trying to be helpful, although, I could have used a better tone. I didn't want to piss anyone off or appear ungreatful. I can't afford to donate now because I don't have a job.

I think it is the people who participate who make this web site great. It doesn't really matter what system is under the hood, as long as it doesn't get in the way.

You know something, everywhere I seem to look, I am always running into one of these 'linux rules the world' folks.  it doesn't matter where, they are everywhere.  and it pisses me off.

i know this since i used to be one of those linux people.  to me, linux was the end all, be all of operating systems.  windows sucked - linux ruled.  bill gates was evil.  blah blah blah

then i entered the real world.  the world where people need more than the trendy operating system and need results.  i learned that there are two platforms that are good.  windows and solaris.   if you have a database that is going to be busy, you use windows with ms_sql.  if you've got a website that is going to get the crap kicked out of it, you use solaris with apache.  i tried the linux thing and to be honest, it doesn't come close to solaris in terms of performance.  sure, solaris costs more, but nothing in this world is free.  

personally, i think goatboy got it right with the windows 2000 config.   keep up the good work

It's "GEEK", not "GREEK"!

And I'm damn glad SOMEBODY speaks it!

First a little about myself, I have worked with Computer systems for over 20 years in DOD. I'm certified by Novell, Microsoft, Cisco, Sco and about a half of dozen Hardware vendor most who are no longer around.

 What it really comes down to is use the O/S and software that gets the job done. I have found Novell makes the best file and print server software. Microsoft makes some of the best desktop O/S and productively software.
Mac's are the best for publishing app's.
NT/2000/NET make great application servers. Linux can be a cost effective O/S for some use's and can perform as well on lower end hardware.

Currently I admin 11 Novell servers, 8 NT servers running 2 different client server apps, 1 NT exchange server, 1 NT server running MS proxy and 1 NT server running both MS SQL and Oracle on it. And 1 Win2K server that is used backup the Novell servers to removable hard drives 200+ gigs a night

But I also use Linux I use redhat to run 2 DNS servers on old zenith desktops P133 with 64 megs, A Webserver for staff that provides them personal websites, a web based helpdesk and other web based services that can not be located on the NT servers on a old Compaq dual ppro 200
server. And Email and websites for 4000+ students on a Amd 1ghz server I built.

I also have several servers running different O/S for development.

 I get some flack from my peers about Novell and Linux being used and I can understand it. Most of the younger IT people used windows in one form or another and their is more training opportunities and jobs with Microsoft products.And because of the same look and feel they get no matter if it is win95 or win2k they are comfortable with it.

 As far as security I have more problems with Microsoft products then others. And I base this on the alerts I get from cert.mil and IAVA which tell me what I have to patch or fix for security reasons. But that is do more to the features and usability that MS has added to their product line then in programing flaws.
That the A&&holes with to much time on their hands try to out do themselves in founding exploits run more to MS is only because the large user base out their. If Linux / Unix was  the top desktop O/S it would be targeted more. The benefit of Linux / Open Source is security holes do seem to be fixed faster then Non-open source.

Personally I don't care what AR15.com is running on, it could be a C64 I'm just grateful that a wonderful group of people with a common interest took the time to do it and are willing to share with rest of us.

Sorry if I seem to rambling but it has been a long day.


Thomas Wells
CNE4 CNE5 MCSE MCP+I CCNA A+
Administrative Technologist
Ft. Campbell Dependent Schools (DODEA)
77 Texas Avenue
Ft. Campbell, KY 42223
[email protected]
(270)-439-1927 ext. 123
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.

 

I knew that! In fact, my partner has a copy of a contract he made with MS, signed by none other than Mr. Bill circa 1980. I mixed up the founding with the IPO.

I understand kar98's analogy. However, if you're going to accuse someone of simple-mindedness, you better present a superior argument, which he did not. No offense to the guy, I'm sure he doesn't mean to be condescending.



On the contrary, it's quite easy. If those who recommend technology solutions feel safe recommending a certain product, and purchasing managers agree, then it's quite possible to attain greatness through mediocrity. At one time, IBM was the safe bet. However, in their case, they actually produced a superior product, one MS could never hold a candle to.

Look at the last 80's and early 90's. There were many products far superior to DOS. Dr. DOS for instance. And long before Windows, there was Quarterdesk Deskview? Remember that? A fully preemptive OS 10 years before Windows had the same capability. But MS got the IBM deal...



You speak as if Linux is already dead. This is far from the truth. Again, I am not a Linux devotee, however as IBM is now supporting Linux, and taking ownership of one implementation, the point you make may be moot. I agree the greatest problem with open source is support and business is not keen on committing to technology in which there is no clear ownership, however this is changing.

Remember, long before Bill Gates and DOS there was Digital Research and UCSD Pascal. In every way imaginable these products were superior to DOS. But MS got the IBM deal, and that was that.



You attribute way too much to Microsoft and DOS. There were many microcomputer OSs long before DOS. DOS was not the first. And these OSs ran on the same standardized hardware as DOS. Microsoft had nothing to do with this aspect of the business. I'm surprised you are not aware of that.

Again, MS got the IBM contract. Had it been Digital Research, you probably would never even heard of Microsoft. They only had paper-tape BASIC in those days. They were a joke.



That still doesn't make certification viable, does it? To MS maybe, but not to the poor suckers who got sucked into the MCSE hype.



People consider MS a proven leader because they don't know better. They have never been exposed to really great OSs such as OS/400 and system 370. Look at .NET. It's a rehash of Java, which itself is a rehash of UCSD Pascal. This is 1975 technology! But now that MS is doing it it should be considered innovative? I don't think so! It truly is hype.

I know you think I am being contrarian, but again, I've been in this business a while and I know BS when I see it. I don't impress easily.



People who are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian tend to have little experience in the field. I have quite a lot of experience in the field and the feelings I have towards MS are the result of being shit upon for many years now.

As a VB developer, it may not be as apparent to you, as you work at a much higher level than people such as myself. I've been primarily a systems programmer. Lots of Assembler, C++, device drivers, and more recently TCP/IP and protocols. But a lot of application development as well. I think if you had more varied experience, your feelings toward MS would be a lot different.

Good, then I'll overlook your referring to my post as simple-minded. [:D]



So, you were in the business at that time?



Okay. [rolleyes]



Okay, I just figured you have some experience in the field, being opinionated and all.



I understood perfectly, but your argument was so unrelated to the issue as to not deserve a coherent response.



You must be a pretty recent user then, as there were something like 10 alternatives to DOS in the late 80's. It wasn't until MS got a good market share that they FORCED hardware manufacturers to offer nothing but DOS, or risk losing the right to sell DOS at all. I'm sure you remember that.

You just mean 1/2 a byte, a nibble as they say. The CPU cannot address data at the level you speak of.

Pretty recent, as in a mere couple of decades.



Buy a frigging dictionary sometime and try to understand written language. I said " DOS, Windows, OS/2, Mac and the 10,000 flavors of Unix all had the same chance back then". Does it say "and those have been all the OSs that ever existed" anywhere in my posts? Of course there have been more "alternatives" than those, but did GEOS for instance ever have a fighting chance? Or was I supposed to list every single operating system that ever existed just to make you happy? You've spent too much time in Calif., buddy.



Again you're coming with those "anti-capitalist", overly simplified statements.
But you know that.

And you also know that if, say, Apple, would have managed to hold their market share, we would now be buying hardware, OS, and applications all from one single monopoly.

Is this the thread about roasting dog owners on a spit?

IBTL

NOVELL NETWARE ---- ARGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[:D]

Actually, it was pretty damn stable.

I STILL have a netware 3.12 box running that hasn't been rebooted ONCE since 1995 !  

It runs some of our E-911 stuff.  ROCK SOLID!



Yup.. I will confess.  I was a CNE [:)]

Let that one drop by the wayside when I started picking up Forensics certs.  (CFE / HTCN / LECTC / etc.)


Quarterdeck ... I must be OLD!   I used to use Deskview and their QEMM product for memory management.  

I do typically spend most of my time in higher level environments now. But in 1977, I was working in VMS on DEC/PDP-11s and even ventured into the very first true database environment (TOTAL from CINCOM) on 36s. I also have a lot of experience in the field and in other PC-OS enviroments (CPM and OS/2).

I don't feel shit on by Microsoft.

I remember character-based windows shell environments on both DEC and HP nearly 10 years before Windows. I still don't feel shit on by Microsoft.

It's doubtful that I will EVER feel shit on by Microsoft for one reason alone.

Microsoft and Microsoft's technology have helped me personally earn a lot (and I do mean a lot) of money in the past 18 years. No other vendor has even come close. I have forged personal friendships with people in the company and almost went to work for them at one time.

How can I think anything but good things about the company who has supported my for my entire working career?

Your post is so incoherent, I don't even know how to reply. Anti-capitalist? Do you have any knowledge of MS's background at all? I really think you do not.

And your knowledge of this subject is so superficial, I feel like I am speaking to a child.

I don't know what to say. I think my conversation with you is finished.

I understand what you're saying. And I agree in some ways as the majority of my income has come from DOS and Windows development as well.

The problem I have is being forced to adopt new technologies which are of dubious benefit simply because MS proclaims this is the new way. And if you followed what has been happening over the years (you have, I'm sure), you will see that MS never develops technology for the sake of making things better. They are much more concerned with maintaining their monopoly and propping up technology they feel you should be using, not what you think will help your business. And they want you using technologies that are not easily portable to other platforms. They want to keep you in the MS world, never straying afar from home.

Look at COM and ActiveX for instance. Overly complicated and in many ways not superior at all to a simple DLL. DCOM is no better than RPC. Instead of adopting superior standards such as CORBA, they tweak COM, producing DCOM, with all the needless complexities associated with its use. They are only interested in supporting technologies in which they have complete control.

And it's self-propagating. It takes months to master the basics of COM/DCOM, and perhaps years to really become an expert. Thousands of man hours have been wasted by people trying to learn this BS. Of course, once you're an expert, you tend to promote what you know, so you recommend COM for your next project.

And now MS has turned their back on COM developers, stating it is a deprecated technology soon to be replaced by .NET. I'm sure that makes a lot of COM developers happy.

How about Java? I recall the greatest complaint Mr. Bill had with Java was that it could not invoke ActiveX objects. Why the hell should it? It's supposed to be a portable language and ActiveX is MS proprietary technology, right? Undaunted, Mr. bill developed his own version of Java, only to be sued by Sun. Mr. Bill lost the case, so what does he do? He abandons Java entirely, removing the Java runtime in his latest OS (XP). So now, he has .NET and C#, which C#, btw, is almost a verbatim clone of Java. Why would he steal, I mean, invent C# when he could have used Java? There are thousands of Java developers available, right? It's obvious he wants to keep developers from straying too far from MS land.

And don't get me started with WEB Services. The majority of businesses are saying there are some important concerns with this technology, security and robustness for one, and they are waiting a couple of years before they consider using the technology at all. Of course, MS touts it as the savior of man. One question no one has considered is what happens when the net takes a crap, like it does from time to time? It's one thing to not be able to surf ar15.com, but if your WMS system goes down and you cannot ship product, you're in major trouble.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I could go on for hours.

BTW, for years MS has complained about Java being too slow because it's a p-language. Is not .NET based on a p-language? Why would MS's p-code interpreter be any better than the Java runtime? Or UCSD Pascal for that matter? I wish someone would answer that question.

How fscking nice of you to prove the points I've made in earlier posts in this thread. Your reaction is almost verbatim as paraphrased by me a couple of pages back.

ARMAGEDDON!

I'm gonna dazzle you folks with [i]my[/i] system expertise concerning Linus and MicroScrap as soon as I figure how to load the paper in my Lexmark Z55.

FWIW- I wrote and enveloped (now it's a verb) a child support payment to Goatboy.  $5 a month just doesn't seem like a fair amount for the work I know is involved.  Thanks guys!!

In this month's issue of MSDN magazine, in the Editor's Note section, I quote:

"There are numerous new technologies and products that will be vying for our attention over the next year. We're actually looking at one of the most interesting stretches since the general public got its hands on Windows 95 more than seven years ago. (Remember how exciting it was the first time you loaded it? All of a sudden, your desktop made sense. And unlike the [b]Apple[/b] your neighbor had, you didn't need to reboot it once a month by pulling the power cord out for 20 seconds.)"

That's true, with Windows 95 you had to reboot three times a day.

And some of you expect me to take Microsoft seriously?

Finally a classic linus bashing thread!  

Thanks for the entertainment.

IBTL!

Dang...

I just read through 3 pages of dribble-drabble, and still don't understand a goddamned thing you guys said...

I learned to dislike computers when I was playin on a Texas Instruments TI99-4A...
Didn't like the Commodore 64 either...

By the sounds of this thread, computers have become a bit more powerfull over the years...[rolleyes]

Now I know what I sound like to people when I talk about the inner workings of a race engine...[:D]