Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Brasil on LInux/Open Source.....

Reply
Thread Tools

Brasil on LInux/Open Source.....

 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2005
AD. wrote:
>>Microsoft is a company that brought computing to the masses. Without them
>>there would be no x86 platform, no operating system to run on the clone
>>PCs that popularised the architecture.


> You mean that someone else couldn't have bought QDOS? You mean that
> without the IBM PC, someone else wouldn't have made something else a
> success?


was there anyone else in the picture talking to both qdos and IBM?
I dont think that any of us are in a position to answer that, so we may
aswell not comment on it.

> Just because MS was the company that ended up owning the market doesn't
> mean that it wouldn't have happened without them. You make it seem like
> there was no such thing as a personal computer before the IBM PC and MSDOS.
> Personal Computers were coming to the masses anyway.


I would think that we'd probably be using macs, they seem to be one of
the only other dominating companies at that time.

I doubt that the world would be much different.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
whoisthis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Dave - Dave.net.nz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> AD. wrote:
> >>Microsoft is a company that brought computing to the masses. Without them
> >>there would be no x86 platform, no operating system to run on the clone
> >>PCs that popularised the architecture.

>
> > You mean that someone else couldn't have bought QDOS? You mean that
> > without the IBM PC, someone else wouldn't have made something else a
> > success?

>
> was there anyone else in the picture talking to both qdos and IBM?
> I dont think that any of us are in a position to answer that, so we may
> aswell not comment on it.
>
> > Just because MS was the company that ended up owning the market doesn't
> > mean that it wouldn't have happened without them. You make it seem like
> > there was no such thing as a personal computer before the IBM PC and MSDOS.
> > Personal Computers were coming to the masses anyway.

>
> I would think that we'd probably be using macs, they seem to be one of
> the only other dominating companies at that time.
>


CPM68K
CPM86
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
whoisthis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Dave - Dave.net.nz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> whoisthis wrote:
> >>I know of an org that has 70 desktops and 0.4FTE support people

>
> > WOW, I support more than 200 machines and average out at 0.1-0.2 FTE.
> > Oh, yes, and the machines have a varying install base as far as Apps are
> > concerned.

>
> thats pretty impressive... could you tell me what sort of support is given?


I install the OS and the Apps, set up the users, printers, etc, ALL
installs include MSOffice, NAV, some include some of the following
Mathtype, ChemDraw,TexShop, MacromediaStudio, Matlab, vernier software,
Adobe Acrobat Pro, Photoshop CS/Elements, etc

I DO NOT supply much in the way of applications support though I can
fake my way through most issues that people have. I do however keep the
machines running, up-to-date, and generally issue free. I have also had
to do file recovery, etc.
 
Reply With Quote
 
whoisthis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
shannon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:49:39 +1200, whoisthis wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2005.04.05.09.34.37.472876@TRACKER>,
> > Bling-Bling <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:46:14 +1200, Windows User wrote:
> >>
> >> > If you're going to make such claims you will have to prove them
> >> > There is no way you can possibly carry out widespread testing in a
> >> > variety of hardware/software combinations in a meaningful certifiable
> >> > way in just a few hours
> >>
> >> Since when do you have to so any such testing?
> >>
> >> If it works on the platform that you intend it to work on, then all is
> >> well. If not, then patch the bug(s) and release again.
> >>

> >
> >
> > Ahh, yes, a typical reply..."well it works on MY computer, so it must
> > therefore be working on YOURS".... complete an utter *******s.

>
> LOL
> No one tested any of your Apple(TM) software on YOUR computer.
> You obviously have no idea what software testing is.
>


Actually I have a friend who is employed to do software testing and
verification, and the sort of stuff he has to do is WOW material.
 
Reply With Quote
 
shannon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:36:39 +1200, whoisthis wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> shannon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:49:39 +1200, whoisthis wrote:
>>
>> > In article <pan.2005.04.05.09.34.37.472876@TRACKER>,
>> > Bling-Bling <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:46:14 +1200, Windows User wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > If you're going to make such claims you will have to prove them
>> >> > There is no way you can possibly carry out widespread testing in a
>> >> > variety of hardware/software combinations in a meaningful certifiable
>> >> > way in just a few hours
>> >>
>> >> Since when do you have to so any such testing?
>> >>
>> >> If it works on the platform that you intend it to work on, then all is
>> >> well. If not, then patch the bug(s) and release again.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Ahh, yes, a typical reply..."well it works on MY computer, so it must
>> > therefore be working on YOURS".... complete an utter *******s.

>>
>> LOL
>> No one tested any of your Apple(TM) software on YOUR computer.
>> You obviously have no idea what software testing is.
>>

>
> Actually I have a friend who is employed to do software testing and
> verification, and the sort of stuff he has to do is WOW material.


We have a whole department that tests software for an application suite
that typical clients pay 80 grand for.
Its a formal documented process, fixing bugs is done immediately, testing
does take less than a few hours, because thats the level of service we are
committed to.
We have every version of Windows to test on concurrently.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Windows User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:35:23 +1200, Bling-Bling
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:12:26 +1200, Windows User wrote:
>
>>>If "the binary in question" (AKA "a particular binary") is patched in such
>>>a way that a security issue is resolved without affecting intended and
>>>published functionality, why should an upstream developer test all
>>>downstream developers' products to see if the fix breaks any downstream
>>>functionality based on a flaw/security issue in the upstream developer's
>>>product?

>>
>> Well that's a highly qualified statement which is not the situation I
>> was referring to

>
>Well who said *I* was referring to your particular situation!!


It is normal in a reply to address yourself to the original question
Instead of going off on a tangent

 
Reply With Quote
 
Windows User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 07:05:30 +1200, "Shane (aka froggy)"
<slacker@192.168.0.22> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:12:28 +1200, Windows User wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 21:23:21 +1200, Bling-Bling
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:00:33 +1200, Windows User wrote:
>>>
>>>>>What a huge risk that is!
>>>>
>>>> Not all that much. The core OS components are protected by Windows
>>>> File Protection.
>>>
>>>LOL - and Linux has no such protection at all from the root user. Indeed
>>>NO Unix system has that sort of protection from the root user. *nix
>>>assumes that the root user knows what s/he's doing - and that includes
>>>even deleting the kernel itself.
>>>
>>>*nix is a system designed for people who know what they're doing. Windows
>>>is a system designed for clueless idiots.

>>
>> nix is a system designed for people who enjoy spending all their spare
>> time on computers. We call them "geeks" or "nerds"
>>

>are you inferring that windows users (such as yourself) are complete
>idiots, that never try to work out how there OS works?


I do windows user support all day long
Why should I want to spend my leisure time all of it on a PC

>> Windows is a system designed for end users - people who spend their
>> spare time much more usefully
>>

>unlike sys admins, ISP tech staff, programmers, and any number of other
>IT. related staff


Work time and leisuretime
Two different things



 
Reply With Quote
 
Windows User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:45:34 +1200, Bling-Bling
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:12:30 +1200, Windows User wrote:
>
>> When has Samba been specifically built to be installed on a Windows
>> Server?

>
>Samba is a *nix programme that implements a reverse engineered version of
>the SMB protocol, due to a lack of documentation from Micro$oft.


Answer the question instead of sidestepping

When has Samba been specifically built to be installed on a Windows
Server?

By the way - Netware works perfectly well with Windows - yet doesnt
use SMB

You don't need SMB documentation to network Windows computers

 
Reply With Quote
 
Windows User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:19:09 +1200, "AD." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:19:59 +1200, Windows User wrote:
>
>> Microsoft is a company that brought computing to the masses. Without them
>> there would be no x86 platform, no operating system to run on the clone
>> PCs that popularised the architecture.

>
>You mean that someone else couldn't have bought QDOS? You mean that
>without the IBM PC, someone else wouldn't have made something else a
>success?
>
>Just because MS was the company that ended up owning the market doesn't
>mean that it wouldn't have happened without them. You make it seem like
>there was no such thing as a personal computer before the IBM PC and MSDOS.


There were a number of PC platforms

But key to the clone market was the parallel licensing of MSDOS
alongside PCDOS

>
>Personal Computers were coming to the masses anyway.


Oh sure they were. The Sinclair ZX80 with 1 KB of RAM and a plastic
keyboard was coming to the masses
Funny how all those toy computers have gone now

 
Reply With Quote
 
Windows User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2005
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:48:52 +1200, Bling-Bling
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:20:00 +1200, Windows User wrote:
>
>> Windows Update Services

>
>Impossible on *nix...


Who cares

>
>
>> Active Directory integration

>
>useless on *nix...


Who cares

>
>
>> Remote Install services

>
>remote maintainance of *nix has been possible for decades.


Any idea what Ris is

>
>
>> All very useful stuff

>
>Nope - wrong. Only some of it is useful on *nix.


Who cares about unix

I'm talking about Windows

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VAGA programador ASP.NET Brasilia/BRASIL =?Utf-8?B?UHJvZ3JhbWVyIEJyYXNpbGlhL0JSQQ==?= ASP .Net 0 08-05-2004 11:41 PM
Brasil goes Open-Source steve NZ Computing 47 11-19-2003 06:08 PM
Re: BRASIL: ESTUDE MCSD COM 30,00 (70176 70175 70100 70029) IT4ALL MCSD 0 09-05-2003 05:11 AM



Advertisments