| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 22.10.99 04:07l 188 Lines 6900 Bytes #-9710 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_264E
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/264E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0CRL<DB0TTM<DB0FP<DB0SRS<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<ON0RAT<
PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991021/2233Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:9541 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_264
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA21774 ; Thu, 21 Oct 99 21:25:12 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016505 ; Thu, 21 Oct 99 18:19:13 MET
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 99 18:16:37 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_264E>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/264E
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
D. Stussy <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.9910180309110.174-100000@dns.bde-arc.ampr.org...
> The original thread of this was: How to make a "gateway." Well, gateways
ARE
> SERVERS (more correctly, run server programs), and therefore, any OS which
is
> more server than client oriented will be better. Windows, being client
only,
> by design is simply going to suck. That's like sticking a beachball into
a
> soda can - it can be done, but only if it's deflated (but then what's
useful
> about a deflated beachball when one can have an inflated one with the
other
> approach?).
Linux bigots. Always the same. Sound like a clueless trollers.
Like the above paragraph, pretty much lacking in useful knowledge.
The original thread was "How to gateway BBS messages and bulletins
to and from smtp/pop mail and nntp articles using Windows."
I'm quite certain of this since I started the thread.
Linux did not enter in until certain Linux Bigots took over the thread.
In any case Linux will not help with the project at hand, since it is
being done in Windows. You (all the Linux Bigots) don't like that,
do it in Linux. Ain't been done yet, even though the Linux Bigots
claim it has. A good deal of progress in Windows, by several
different authors.
Yes, I looked at all the web sites, RPMs, and other references
provided by the Linux Bigots (and those provided by everyone else
as well). Not much there. Nothing there that will do what I am already
doing, much less what I actually want to do.
But the original issues remain, and have not been addressed by any
but two posters to this thread. Pretty useless newsgroup. Plenty
of babblers, very few doers. Got some radios to install and antennas
to put up, and a bit of new software capability to try out. Anyone
interested in actually DOING something? Give it a try.
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 03:16:54 +0000
From: "D. Stussy" <kd6lvw@bde-arc.ampr.org>
Subject: The BBS network and tcp/ip.
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Charles Brabham wrote:
Steve Sampson <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
> news:s0jo95sqr0175@corp.supernews.com...
> > Charles Brabham wrote
> >
> > >I gave LINUX a fair trial, and it turned out to be garbage. I'll give
> > >it another try later on, but not until the problem I mentioned has been
> > >resolved.
> >
> >
> > You want us to believe you are an authority on packet radio, with all
> > the right opinions.... Then you want us to believe that you are an
> > expert on Operating Systems, with all the right opinions.
>
> Oh boy; Another one of Steve's personality attacks he comes up with, when he
> knows he's been proved wrong and has no rational arguement to offer.
>
> Steve, what "us" are you referring to? Redneck drunks? LandLine Lids?
>
> >
> > I've been employed as a Unix administrator for years, and Linux
> > represents what most modern Unix systems use as state of the art.
>
> No wonder it's so screwed up!
>
> > I only run the stable versions, not the development versions.
>
> Uh oh! Steve admitted to the existence of "unstable" versions of LINUX...
> Better watch out, Steve, or the LINUX thought police will be after you!
The "unstable" versions he refers to are beta-tests for new features, etc.
This would be the same as Windows is to the MSDN pre-releases.
However, note that this means that there are also STABLE versions of Linux.
That is something Windows cannot claim to have. Microsoft indicates that
there
are always unforseen "issues" - else there would be no need for the BSOD. The
only "BSOD" Linux has is the intentional parody of M$ - there is no other need
for it.
> >There
> > is no truth to the fact that Linux is unstable.
>
> You just got through admitting it. Sharp as a tack today, aren't you Steve?
>
> >Even IBM ships Linux
> > now with their Netfinity servers (high-end NT server base machine).
> >
> > The only bad thing about Linux, is that it is harder than IBM AIX to
> > administer. But with AIX I have to wait 3 years to afford the next
> > update.
> >
> > My opinion, is that RedHat Linux (I run 5.2) is more stable than
> > Sun Solaris 2.7 on a dual Pentium motherboard I run.
>
> I'm real happy for you. RedHat 5.2 proved to be extremely unstable here, and
> not worthwhile on those occasions where it did work for a few minutes.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, it all looked like stuff you might expect from
> "junior programmer wannabee's". I don't have the patience for "amateur
> software", thank you. Unreasonable as I am, I prefer to work with software
> developed by professionals.
>
> >My other
> > opinion is that Charles doesn't understand Packet radio, and he
> > doesn't understand Operating Systems. Just my opinion...
>
> That's cool. We all have our opinions.
>
> >
> > That leaves us with a question: why the hell do you even subscribe
> > to this newsgroup? DOS and GUI-DOS pro-arguments belong
> > in the fringe alt.* groups...
>
> Is that why you are here now, arguing about LINUX?
>
> >
> > If you are going to do TCP/IP, and everyone will; then you need to
> > use a good platform to develop on.
>
> Is that the same "everyone" you referred to earlier? Redneck drunks and
> LandLine Lids?
>
> If so, then your "everyone" doesn't amount to much, does it?
>
> >Linux is good, DOS would be
> > the third choice after some of the single-board microcontrollers
> > that are available now to TCP/IP anything.
>
> Well, when I see something LINUX is "good" for that I have some interest in,
> I'll be sure and let you know. Until then, I'll stick with software that
> works.
I agree that Windows-based systems make good clients but NOT servers. Linux
systems make great servers and have no real performance penalty acting as
clients either (other than the additional resource overhead for having more
programs running).
The original thread of this was: How to make a "gateway." Well, gateways ARE
SERVERS (more correctly, run server programs), and therefore, any OS which is
more server than client oriented will be better. Windows, being client only,
by design is simply going to suck. That's like sticking a beachball into a
soda can - it can be done, but only if it's deflated (but then what's useful
about a deflated beachball when one can have an inflated one with the other
approach?).
To be continued in digest: hd_99_264F
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
