From: "Robert G Lewis"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C2E466.28327DF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Was this factual evidence created by the same people who created the =
factual presentation of how easy it was to remove IE from Windows for = the
Judge ?
Since MS did falsify that information then why should this be accepted = as Gospel ?
Bob Lewis
"Rich" wrote in message news:3e684a50{at}w3.nls.net...
I didn't argue against your invalid assumptions. You already =
admited you made stuff up. I referred you to a reliable source of =
factual information. You don't appear to have any interest in this. =
Maybe you would prefer to make false statements, which you now claim as =
an opinion only based on a fiction of your own imagination. Of course =
you still haven't acknowledged that when you make up facts on which you =
base your opinions you should be honest and acknowledge that.
Rich
"Robert Comer" wrote in message =
news:3e6835d9{at}w3.nls.net...
> It's not whether or not you are giving an opinion or not that =
was your major deception.
LOL! An opinion is not a deception.
> It was that your opinion was based on assumptions you made and =
not fact.
And again, assumptions you have not argued against.
>You just admitted that you made up what it was that you were =
comparing.
I admitted no such thing.
>Not that it wouldn't do you some good to prefix your opinions, as =
opposed to statements of fact, with "I believe" or "I feel".<
I say it again, *ALL* I say here is opinion. (It may be fact also, =
but it may not be, just not intentionally wrong.)
> In regard you your mention of propaganda, don't you think that =
this is a bit ironic given that your post to which I replied was =
propaganda and as you admitted based on a fiction of your own creation?<
No, I don't as what I said wasn't propaganda -- to be using =
propaganda I'd have to have something to gain, I have nothing to gain by =
what I said. You yourself know I use more Microsoft products than = Linux,
and I like a third platform (the AS/400) the best. As for the = last part,
I created no fiction, I STATED AN OPINION.
- Bob Comer
"Rich" wrote in message news:3e682dfc{at}w3.nls.net...
It's not whether or not you are giving an opinion or not that was =
your major deception. It was that your opinion was based on assumptions =
you made and not fact. You just admitted that you made up what it was =
that you were comparing. Not that it wouldn't do you some good to = prefix
your opinions, as opposed to statements of fact, with "I believe"
= or "I feel".
In regard you your mention of propaganda, don't you think that =
this is a bit ironic given that your post to which I replied was =
propaganda and as you admitted based on a fiction of your own creation?
Rich
"Robert Comer" wrote in message =
news:3e6821ab$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> If you are just making assumptions you should state that you are =
giving an
opinion based on assumptions and not making a statement based on =
facts.<
As I have stated before, when I say something I am stating an =
opinion, no
more, no less, if you want to take everything I say as fact (or =
false
fact,) that is your choice, but I have no energy to argue such. =
This is,
after all, a discussion group, not a scientific journal of some =
kind.
>It will avoid having your false statements pointed out.
You haven't pointed out any...
>If you care about facts, and I'm not sure you do, see
=
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.ms=
px.
<
You're wrong, I'm tired of reading Microsoft propaganda like that.
> As for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability =
for
something other than web server, maybe you should take a moment =
and ask what
the likely purpose is for something called the web edition.<
Well duh -- I was comparing it to Linux and I can do cheaper and =
more with
Linux, that's all I said.
> In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a newsgroup =
or some
infamous IRC channel? Is this what you use to support your =
critical
systems?<
More than just newsgroups, but, that's how I support all our =
systems, even
the AS/400. To phrase it another way, we have no software support =
contracts
on anything in my department. (Not saying I wouldn't want them =
necessarily,
but they didn't have sw support contracts under the old =
manager...)
No IRC or IM though, I loath that kind of thing...
- Bob Comer
"Rich" wrote in message news:3e681879{at}w3.nls.net...
If you are just making assumptions you should state that you =
are giving
an opinion based on assumptions and not making a statement based =
on facts.
It will avoid having your false statements pointed out. If you =
care about
facts, and I'm not sure you do, see
=
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.ms=
px.
As for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability =
for
something other than web server, maybe you should take a moment =
and ask what
the likely purpose is for something called the web edition.
In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a newsgroup =
or some
infamous IRC channel? Is this what you use to support your =
critical
systems?
Rich
"Robert Comer" wrote in message
news:3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?
I just stated my opinion, that's all. I'm not here to list out =
everything
possible.
> It's well known that Linux has less functionality.
I'm not so sure that can be said any more, but no matter I =
wasn't just
talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with that =
specific
version of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no NT
authentication,
files serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain =
capabilities --
that's 4 areas that Windows is strong on and Linux needs to =
catch up, yet
I
can put together a Linux box that does all 5 of these things for =
a LOT
less
money.
>If you want to roll your own it can cost less for Linux, =
assuming your
time
is worth >nothing.
There's actually a decent amount of free support out there, and =
you don't
have to roll your own version, you can use someone's =
distribution.
>If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, =
expect to spend
much more for your annual subscription. They will sell you a =
subscription
to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.<
I would *never* pay Red Hat that much, they don't have enough to =
offer
support wise. I have spent that much on Microsoft products =
several times
over up to now, but things are a changin. I might add that =
Microsoft is
quite costly for aftermarket support and I don't buy that =
either.
>If you want their supported enterprise level web server you are =
going to
pay another $395 to $895 annually. That's more than four to six =
times
more
expensive than the Windows Server 2003 solution.<
I got it beat -- I have a server here at home (always learning) =
that cost
$0
for the Linux and about $200 for the hardware. (I also have a =
Linux
client
PC here that I paid $99 for and I'm not going to do that again, =
at least
not
this distribution.)
- Bob Comer
"Rich" wrote in message news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?
It's well known that Linux has less functionality. If you =
want to roll
your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your time is worth =
nothing.
If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, expect =
to spend
much more for your annual subscription. They will sell you a =
subscription
to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year. If you =
want their
supported enterprise level web server you are going to pay =
another $395 to
$895 annually. That's more than four to six times more =
expensive than the
Windows Server 2003 solution.
Rich
"Robert Comer" wrote in message
news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...
Less functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, but it =
would
have
to be even cheaper just for a web server.
- Bob Comer
"Rich" wrote in message news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...
By what criteria and how so?
Rich
"Robert Comer"
wrote in message
news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
That's not good enough to compete with Linux.
- Bob Comer
"Geo." wrote in message
news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html
>
> There will be no price increases (as such) when =
Microsoft ships
its
next
> server OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but there =
will be a
new
> budget-priced version of the product aimed squarely at =
the web
server
> market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client =
access
licences, with
a
> 2gig limit on memory, 2-way SMP, and is $399.
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C2E466.28327DF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Was this factual evidence created by =
the same=20
people who created the factual presentation of how easy it was to remove = IE from=20
Windows for the Judge ?
Since MS did falsify that information =
then why=20
should this be accepted as Gospel ?
Bob Lewis
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e684a50{at}w3.nls.net...
I
didn't argue against =
your invalid=20
assumptions. You already admited you made stuff up. I =
referred you=20
to a reliable source of factual information. You don't appear to =
have=20
any interest in this. Maybe you would prefer to make false =
statements,=20
which you now claim as an opinion only based on a fiction of your own=20
imagination. Of course you still haven't acknowledged that when =
you make=20
up facts on which you base your opinions you should be honest and =
acknowledge=20
that.
Rich
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote=20
in message news:3e6835d9{at}w3.nls.net...
> It's not whether =
or not you=20
are giving an opinion or not that was your major =
deception.
LOL! An opinion
is not a=20
deception.
> It was
that your opinion =
was based=20
on assumptions you made and not fact.
And again, assumptions you
have not =
argued=20
against.
>You just admitted
that you made =
up what it=20
was that you were comparing.
I admitted no such =
thing.
>Not that it
wouldn't do you =
some good to=20
prefix your opinions, as opposed to statements of fact, with "I =
believe" or=20
"I feel".<
I say it again, *ALL* I
say here is =
opinion. (It may be fact also, but it may not be, just not=20
intentionally wrong.)
> In regard you your =
mention of=20
propaganda, don't you think that this is a bit ironic given that =
your post=20
to which I replied was propaganda and as you admitted based on a =
fiction of=20
your own creation?<
No, I don't as what I said wasn't =
propaganda --=20
to be using propaganda I'd have to have something to gain, I have =
nothing to=20
gain by what I said. You yourself know I use more Microsoft =
products=20
than Linux, and I like a third platform (the AS/400) the best. As =
for the=20
last part, I created no fiction, I STATED AN OPINION.
- Bob Comer
"Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message =
news:3e682dfc{at}w3.nls.net...
It's not whether or not you are =
giving an=20
opinion or not that was your major deception. It was that your =
opinion=20
was based on assumptions you made and not fact. You just admitted =
that you=20
made up what it was that you were comparing. Not that it =
wouldn't do=20
you some good to prefix your opinions, as opposed to statements of =
fact,=20
with "I believe" or "I
feel". In regard you your =
mention=20
of propaganda, don't you think that this is a bit ironic given that =
your=20
post to which I replied was propaganda and as you admitted based on =
a=20
fiction of your own
creation?Rich
"Robert =
Comer"=20
<mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com"> =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>bobcomer{at}mindspring.com> wrote=20
in message news:3e6821ab$1{at}w3.nls.net... > If you are just making
assumptions you =
should=20
state that you are giving an opinion based on assumptions =
and not=20
making a statement based on
facts.< As I have =
stated=20
before, when I say something I am stating an opinion, no =
more, no=20
less, if you want to take everything I say as fact (or =
false =20
fact,) that is your choice, but I have no energy to argue =
such. This=20
is, after all, a discussion group, not a scientific =
journal of=20
some kind. >It will avoid having
your false =
statements=20
pointed out. You haven't pointed out =
any... =20
>If you care about facts, and I'm not sure you do,
see =20
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/d=
efault.mspx.
< You're wrong, =
I'm tired of=20
reading Microsoft propaganda like that. =
> As=20
for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability =
for =20
something other than web server, maybe you should take a moment and =
ask=20
what the likely purpose is for something called the web=20
edition.< Well duh -- I was
comparing it to Linux =
and I can=20
do cheaper and more with Linux, that's all I =
said. =20
> In regard to free support, do you mean
posting to a =
newsgroup or some infamous IRC channel?
Is this what =
you use=20
to support your critical
systems?< More =
than just=20
newsgroups, but, that's how I support all our systems, =
even the=20
AS/400. To phrase it another way, we have no software support=20
contracts on anything in my department. (Not saying I =
wouldn't=20
want them necessarily, but they didn't have sw support =
contracts=20
under the old manager...) No IRC or IM
though, I loath =
that=20
kind of thing... - Bob
Comer "Rich"=20
<{at}> wrote in message news:3e681879{at}w3.nls.net... If
you are just making =
assumptions=20
you should state that you are giving an opinion based on=20
assumptions and not making a statement based on facts. It =
will=20
avoid having your false statements pointed out. If you care=20
about facts, and I'm not sure you do,
see =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/d=
efault.mspx.
As for your =
comments=20
regarding the web edition's suitability for something =
other than=20
web server, maybe you should take a moment and ask what =
the likely=20
purpose is for something called the web=20
edition. In
regard to free support, =
do you=20
mean posting to a newsgroup or some infamous IRC =
channel? Is=20
this what you use to support your critical =
systems? =20
Rich "Robert
Comer" <mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com"> face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>bobcomer{at}mindspring.com> wrote=20
in message news:3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Can you be specific =
instead of=20
hot air and hand
waving? I just stated my
=
opinion,=20
that's all. I'm not here to list out =
everything =20
possible.
> It's well known =
that=20
Linux has less
functionality. I'm not so
=
sure that=20
can be said any more, but no matter I wasn't =
just =20
talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with that=20
specific version of Windows
Server -- with no =
Cal's,=20
that means no NT
authentication, =
files=20
serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain capabilities=20
-- that's 4 areas that Windows
is strong on =
and Linux=20
needs to catch up, yet
I can put =
together a=20
Linux box that does all 5 of these things for a LOT =20
less
money. >If =
you want=20
to roll your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your =
time is worth =
>nothing. =20
There's actually a decent amount of free support out there, and you=20
don't have to roll your own
version, you can =
use=20
someone's
distribution. >If
you want to =
use a=20
supported version, like from RedHat, expect to =
spend =20
much more for your annual subscription. They will sell you a=20
subscription to red hat linux
advanced server =
for=20
$1499 per
year.< I would
*never* pay =
Red Hat=20
that much, they don't have enough to
offer =
support=20
wise. I have spent that much on Microsoft products several=20
times over up to now, but things are a =
changin. =20
I might add that Microsoft is
quite costly for =
aftermarket support and I don't buy that =
either. =20
>If you want their supported enterprise level web server you are =
going=20
to pay another $395 to $895
annually. =
That's=20
more than four to six times
more =
expensive=20
than the Windows Server 2003
solution.< =
I got=20
it beat -- I have a server here at home (always learning) that=20
cost $0 for
the Linux and about $200 =
for the=20
hardware. (I also have a Linux =
client =20
PC here that I paid $99 for and I'm not going to do that again, at=20
least not this=20
distribution.) - Bob=20
Comer
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in =
message=20
news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
Can you be =
specific=20
instead of hot air and hand=20
waving?
It's well known =
that=20
Linux has less functionality. If you want to=20
roll your own it can cost less
for Linux, =
assuming=20
your time is worth nothing. If
you want to use =
a=20
supported version, like from RedHat, expect to =
spend =20
much more for your annual subscription. They will sell you a=20
subscription to red hat linux
advanced server =
for=20
$1499 per year. If you want
their =
supported=20
enterprise level web server you are going to pay another $395=20
to $895 annually.
That's more than four =
to six=20
times more expensive than the
Windows Server =
2003=20
solution. =20
Rich
"Robert Comer" =
<mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com"> face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>bobcomer{at}mindspring.com> wrote=20
in message news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...
Less functionality, =
higher=20
cost. Ease of use is a draw, but it would =20
have to be even cheaper just for a web=20
server.
- Bob=20
Comer
"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
wrote in message news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net... &nb=
sp;=20
By what criteria and how=20
so? =20
Rich
=
"Robert=20
Comer" <mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com"> =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>bobcomer{at}mindspring.com> wrote=20
in message news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
= That's=20
not good enough to compete with=20
Linux.
=
- Bob=20
=
Comer =20
"Geo." <mailto:georger{at}nls.net"> =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>georger{at}nls.net> =
wrote in=20
message news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
=
>=20
">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html">
face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html=
> =20
>
> =
There=20
will be no price increases (as such) when Microsoft ships =20
its =20
next
> =
server=20
OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but there will be=20
a =20
new
>=20
budget-priced version of the product aimed squarely at the=20
web =20
server
=
>=20
market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client=20
access licences,=20
with =20
a
> =
2gig limit=20
on memory, 2-way SMP, and is=20
$399. =20
> =20
=
>=
------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C2E466.28327DF0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/1.45)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 633/267
|