Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:04:13 -0600 (CST)
From:      brian william wolter <bwolter@linux.thesadmachine.org>
To:        Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
Cc:        xavian anderson macpherson <professional3d@home.com>, <questions@freebsd.org>, <advocacy@freebsd.org>, <tagdot57@aol.com>, <mongor@mail.com>, <onybear@aol.com>, <jdx@thesadmachine.org>
Subject:   Re: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disks
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.30.0012011829490.95319-100000@linux.thesadmachine.org>
In-Reply-To: <14888.13097.187777.80105@guru.mired.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > i paid for the right to whine!  i still have a $60 box of software that=
 is
would i have the right to whine if i bought windows and was pissed that it
wouldn't work on my SPARCStation?

> > INTERIX.  THE ONLY REDEMPTION YOU HAVE NOW IS TO WRITE A FREEBSD KERNEL=
 THAT
> > FUNCTIONS AS A DLL OR EXE IN WINDOWS!  if you can make all of the stabi=
lity
what is this redemption you keep talking about?  freebsd has grown
steadily for years.  in fact within the last year it was added to Best
Buy's shelves.  that's pretty good for a UNIX OS as most don't get a lot
of mainstream support.

> > NOLONGER BE ANY ATTENTION PAID TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WINDOWS.  IT WAS =
A
> > HEROIC ATTEMPT AT THE PRESIDENCY, BUT MICROSOFT CONTROLS THE ELECTION! =
 IT'S
> > OVER!!
that's alright, we'll just demand recounts until the vote swings in our
favor. (heh)

> > FREEBSD FROM WINDOWS NT WITHOUT HAVING TO USE BOOT DISKS TO DO SO.  I G=
EUSS
> > QUESTION POSED BY THE EMAIL.  i geuss i was wrong to believe the advert=
ising
you spell guess wrong a lot

> > space.  i am not about to go out and buy a new scsi controller to make-=
up
> > for the shortcomings of one operating system.  freebsd was supposed to =
have
yeah... i'm not going to buy a new computer either just because windows
doesn't run on my IBM 5100 PC (released 1975)

> > it's inception.  maybe i am way off base.  i am often wrong.  but i do =
know
yes you are.

> > it's statements of superiority.  that box should have had a big asteRIS=
K! on
> > it.  with more emphasis on RISK!  as in buy at your own RISK!; the
> > statements made herein do not reflect the qualitites purported to be tr=
ue.
thank you... i didn't catch it the first time.

> > SERVICES FOR UNIX in future releases.  when MS completely integrates un=
ix
> > (INTERIX) into windows 2000, so that any unix application can run on th=
at
> > (win2000) platform, without having a separate unix kernel to provide th=
at
> > functionality, NOONE WILL WRITE UNIX APPLICATIONS FOR ANYTHING ELSE THA=
N
> > WHAT MICROSOFT DECLARES IS THE LEGITIMATE UNIX ENVIRONMENT FOR WINDOWS =
(AND
> > HENCE THE WORLD)!  microsoft has the power to make such a pronouncement=
 for
UNIX people don't like microsoft.  microsoft people don't know how to use
UNIX.  that's how it is and i don't believe the UNIX people are about to
give up competent UNIX for microsoft's interpretation.

> > "Interix 2.2 is a perfect complement to our current UNIX interoperabili=
ty
> > solution, and in the future, we plan to combine this functionality with
> > Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX into one comprehensive UNIX applica=
tion
> > migration and interoperability solution."   DO YOU SEE THE WRITING ON T=
HE
why do i want this when i don't want or need windows?  that makes little
sense.  i'm not going to pay for windows so i can pay for UNIX when it's
free to begin with.

btw, weren't you the one complaining about how *holy shit!* advertisements
stretch the truth?
> > QUESTION POSED BY THE EMAIL.  i geuss i was wrong to believe the advert=
ising
> > on the box.  i had no reason, based on what was purported in the the

> > ANY CLAIM THAT YOU MAKE AGAINST THE LEGITIMACY OF RUNNING UNIX IN WINDO=
WS,
> > CAN BE EQUALLY MADE AGAINST RUNNING LINUX IN FREEBSD.  WHAT JUSTIFIES O=
NE
well to begin, they're both free... and i don't believe the point is to
run linux *in* freebsd, but to have the ability to execute linux binaries.

> > their packages, all further unix developement will be windows unix (as
> > defined only by MICROSOFT) developement.  it will nolonger be a matter =
of
microsoft already tried to make unix back in 1981.  it was crap and nobody
bought it.

> > the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite criti=
cal
there are benifits?  what?

> > integrated with the Windows desktop, security model and file system. In=
terix
yeah... windows security is just fabulous

> > preserving the look and feel of UNIX applications, which eliminates the=
 need
> > to retrain users. Interix 2.2 also provides extensive scripting support=
 and
> > enables users to maintain the use of common scripting languages and too=
ls.
i'm just not understanding why you would install microsoft in the first
place if you're just going to run UNIX on it... why not use, um... UNIX?

> > <IF I HAD ONLY KNOWN ABOUT THIS BEFORE, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT FREEBS=
D!!>
i wish you had too.

as a side note... i'm not sure exactly who you think you are that anyone
here would care what you have to say.  frankly i couldn't care less
whether or not you fall out of a high window much less what type of
operating system you use...

i did enjoy the email though... thanks for the laughs.

peace,
brian


=09=09t h e S a d M a c h i n e . o r g

On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Mike Meyer wrote:

> So go whine at the people you gave the $60 to, not the *volunteers*
> who are on the -questions list. You might as well drop me from the CC
> list - the only whining children I have to deal with are mine; except
> they've grown past acting like you do. Once I read the claim that you
> paid for the right, I stopped reading.
>
> =09<mike
>
> xavian anderson macpherson <professional3d@home.com> types:
> > i paid for the right to whine!  i still have a $60 box of software that=
 is
> > nothing more than a doorstop. ironically, the only way that i may be ab=
le to
> > use the software on the freebsd cd's, is to buy a MICROSOFT PRODUCT aka
> > INTERIX.  THE ONLY REDEMPTION YOU HAVE NOW IS TO WRITE A FREEBSD KERNEL=
 THAT
> > FUNCTIONS AS A DLL OR EXE IN WINDOWS!  if you can make all of the stabi=
lity
> > features of freebsd portable to windows, such that freebsd becomes a pa=
ckage
> > that windows users can add-on to their existing platform, to function i=
n the
> > same way as the ANTICRASH and other utilities that i have running on my
> > system, then you may have some sort of redemption in terms of a future.=
  but
> > based on what i have included in this email below, freebsd and everyone=
 elso
> > too) has a very limited term of existance in the face of increasing
> > MICROSOFT encroachment into unix interoperability.  UNIX WILL BECOME A
> > UTILITY FOR WINDOWS.  think i'm crazy?  read (the third paragrph) below=
!
> > THE ONLY THING THAT PREVENTED MICROSOFT FROM HAVING ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE
> > BEFORE, WAS IT'S LACK OF A VIABLE UNIX IMPLEMENTATION.  even APPLE comp=
uter
> > now has a linux platform.  when MICROSOFT does with linux what freebsd =
did,
> > and allows linux to run in windows NT/2000, linux and unix will fall un=
der
> > the single auspices of MICROSOFT.  whether that will be functionally tr=
ue or
> > not is irrelevant.  MICROSOFT ONLY HAS TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION OR
> > APPEARANCE OF COMPLETE INTEROPERABILITY.  ONCE MICROSOFT HAS NEGATED TH=
E
> > ARGUEMENT OF WINDOWS VS UNIX (BY PORTING UNIX TO WINDOWS) THERE WILL
> > NOLONGER BE ANY ATTENTION PAID TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN WINDOWS.  IT WAS =
A
> > HEROIC ATTEMPT AT THE PRESIDENCY, BUT MICROSOFT CONTROLS THE ELECTION! =
 IT'S
> > OVER!!
> >
> > [this paragraph was written before i added everything about INTERIX in =
the
> > paragraph above.  i only leave this here as history, as freebsd will sh=
ortly
> > become.  MS INTERIX may answer all of the questions and aspirations i
> > previously had.]  THE QUESTION WAS, WHEN WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO INSTALL
> > FREEBSD FROM WINDOWS NT WITHOUT HAVING TO USE BOOT DISKS TO DO SO.  I G=
EUSS
> > YOU DIDN'T READ THE SUBJECT LINE OF THE EMAIL.  I THINK THAT IS WHAT IT=
 (THE
> > SUBJECTLINE) IS FOR.  IT STATED VERY CLEARLY THE INTENT, PURPOSE AND
> > QUESTION POSED BY THE EMAIL.  i geuss i was wrong to believe the advert=
ising
> > on the box.  i had no reason, based on what was purported in the the
> > statement of `professional quality', `for serious internet users', etc.=
to
> > mean that freebsd would offer a LOWER LEVEL OF COMPATABLITY than the li=
nux
> > systems i had previously used.  i brought freebsd because i thought it =
would
> > give me the level of interoperabilty that i wanted.  what i wanted was =
a
> > single OSystem that would run linux and unix on one single platform.  t=
he
> > sad fact is that even if i did get it running, i still wouldn't have us=
e of
> > my cdrom or the scsi disk which i had previously used with both linux
> > versions (and now NT as well) for the exclusive purpose of virtual memo=
ry
> > space.  i am not about to go out and buy a new scsi controller to make-=
up
> > for the shortcomings of one operating system.  freebsd was supposed to =
have
> > been around longer than linux.  why then is it deficient in the area of
> > drivers for ancient equipment that were clearly around before linux eve=
n
> > existed?   this is really not an issue of age or maturity regarding a
> > specific OS.  it is a matter of intent.  linux strove for universality =
from
> > it's inception.  maybe i am way off base.  i am often wrong.  but i do =
know
> > that i wanted a single OS that would handle unix and linux.  (I HAD NO
> > DESIRE TO GO BACK TO WINDOWS!!)  SINGLE SYSTEM INTEROPERABLITY is what
> > freebsd claimed to do.  that is why i brought it.  i thought i would no=
t be
> > without ANY of the functionality i came to expect from linux.  freebsd =
did
> > not deliver on the satisfaction of my expectations which were in fact
> > reasonable, based on the statements i read on the box.  superior is jus=
t
> > that, SUPERIOR!  it is a term of absolutes.  it is was also further cla=
imed
> > in the 800 page handbook (which was my main reason for buying the
> > power-pak), that freebsd had a higher level of developement than linux =
and
> > was therefore more stable as a result.  (based on these claims, why sho=
uld i
> > have expected to not be able to use the equipemnt i was already using i=
n
> > linux?)  i had no reason to think that freebsd was in being selective i=
n
> > it's statements of superiority.  that box should have had a big asteRIS=
K! on
> > it.  with more emphasis on RISK!  as in buy at your own RISK!; the
> > statements made herein do not reflect the qualitites purported to be tr=
ue.
> >
> > now, while you gloat at the apparent triumph the unix community may thi=
nk it
> > gained by MS buying INTERIX and now including it as part of the windows
> > environment, IT IS NOT A TRIUMPH.  the bottomline is that MS is not abo=
ut to
> > go away.  YOU CAN THINK OF THIS MICROSOFT ACQUISITION AS THE ANT OR WAS=
P (i
> > forget which does what to whom) THAT LAYS IT'S EGGS IN THE BODY OF THE
> > OTHER, ONLY TO HAVE IT'S LARVAE EAT IT'S HOST FROM THE INSIDE OUT!!  th=
ey
> > will never forfeit their dominance on the computing community, no matte=
r how
> > infantile you may think their systems are.  MS  will eat you from the i=
nside
> > out.  as i stated in another email, MS  can integrate any opensource un=
ix
> > (and/or linux) into the windows environment it wants to.  and it will. =
 it
> > (MS) has already stated that they are going include INTERIX into the
> > SERVICES FOR UNIX in future releases.  when MS completely integrates un=
ix
> > (INTERIX) into windows 2000, so that any unix application can run on th=
at
> > (win2000) platform, without having a separate unix kernel to provide th=
at
> > functionality, NOONE WILL WRITE UNIX APPLICATIONS FOR ANYTHING ELSE THA=
N
> > WHAT MICROSOFT DECLARES IS THE LEGITIMATE UNIX ENVIRONMENT FOR WINDOWS =
(AND
> > HENCE THE WORLD)!  microsoft has the power to make such a pronouncement=
 for
> > all the world to follow.  and once said, the world will do just that,
> > FOLLOW!  including you!
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/zipdocs/interix_technotes.exe  thi=
s is
> > the link for all the documentation regarding the functionaslity of INTE=
RIX
> > in the windows environment.  of course you need windows to read it. so =
for
> > those of you who don't have windows, i'll download and extract it, and
> > repackage it as a zip file to attach to this email.  even if you don't =
use
> > windows at all, it makes sense to know what MICROSOFT intends to do wit=
h the
> > unix community.  CANNABALISM couldn't be better!
> >
> > "Interix 2.2 is a perfect complement to our current UNIX interoperabili=
ty
> > solution, and in the future, we plan to combine this functionality with
> > Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX into one comprehensive UNIX applica=
tion
> > migration and interoperability solution."   DO YOU SEE THE WRITING ON T=
HE
> > WALL?
> >
> > ANY CLAIM THAT YOU MAKE AGAINST THE LEGITIMACY OF RUNNING UNIX IN WINDO=
WS,
> > CAN BE EQUALLY MADE AGAINST RUNNING LINUX IN FREEBSD.  WHAT JUSTIFIES O=
NE
> > JUSTIFIES THE OTHER!!  Microsoft may get it wrong to start out with, bu=
t
> > that won't be the case for long.  they want absolute domination.  and t=
hey
> > will do whatever it takes to do that.  INTERIX is the "shot across the =
bow"
> > of the unix community.  it serves to give notice of the MS agenda to us=
urp
> > any legitimacy of unix as their own.  when (previously unix) developers
> > realize that they have the absolute standard of windows on which to bui=
ld
> > their packages, all further unix developement will be windows unix (as
> > defined only by MICROSOFT) developement.  it will nolonger be a matter =
of
> > which version of unix is superior to another.  that question will be MO=
OT.
> > it will be as it has always been, a question of profitability and expen=
se.
> > NO, I DON'T REALLU LIKE THE IDEA OF ONLY HAVING MICROSOFT CONTROLLING
> > EVERYTHING.  but there are plenty of things in this life that i don't
> > particularly like.  and my or your disliking the reality of the world i=
n
> > which we live, does not change that world.  only intelligent directed a=
ction
> > will do that.  my statement about writing the freebsd kernel as a windo=
ws
> > dll or exe mayseem reprehensible to you, but ultimately your survival w=
ill
> > depend on that very act of infiltration.  you cannot stop the INEVITABI=
LITY
> > of MICROSOFT porting unix into windows NT/2000.  that is clearly their
> > intent.  noone is going to want to write unix apllications that don't
> > conform to any standards that MICROSOFT imposes by the dictates of thei=
r
> > massive dominance.
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/default.asp
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/Feb00/InterixPR.asp
> >
> > "Interix provided all of the UNIX functionality necessary to efficientl=
y
> > move the code to Windows NT," Klinect said. "One of the key advantages =
was
> > that the code ported to Interix could still be deployed on the IRS' leg=
acy
> > UNIX systems during its transition to Windows NT, maintaining the requi=
red
> > 24x7 full functionality for this mission-critical application."
> >
> > Interix 2.2 eases the migration of existing UNIX applications and scrip=
ts by
> > providing a robust, high-performance environment for running such
> > applications. It allows users with UNIX environments to take advantage =
of
> > the benefits of the Windows environment without having to rewrite criti=
cal
> > applications. In addition, users can immediately use the full Windows-b=
ased
> > application development environment to develop native Win32=AE API-base=
d
> > applications. Interix 2.2 provides over 300 utilities and tools and is =
fully
> > integrated with the Windows desktop, security model and file system. In=
terix
> > 2.2 is a native subsystem to Windows, providing the highest performance=
 for
> > running UNIX applications. The Interix 2.2 Software Development Kit, wh=
ich
> > is included with Interix 2.2, supports over 1,900 UNIX APIs and helps e=
ase
> > migration of existing UNIX applications to the Interix environment.
> >
> > Interix 2.2 provides UNIX users with a familiar environment and set of =
tools
> > to leverage their existing UNIX expertise. For example, the tools and
> > utilities behave exactly as they would on other UNIX systems while
> > preserving the look and feel of UNIX applications, which eliminates the=
 need
> > to retrain users. Interix 2.2 also provides extensive scripting support=
 and
> > enables users to maintain the use of common scripting languages and too=
ls.
> >
> > <IF I HAD ONLY KNOWN ABOUT THIS BEFORE, I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT FREEBS=
D!!>
> >
> > Interix 2.2 brings Microsoft customers one step closer to its vision of=
 a
> > single desktop computer for all uses by providing a complete enterprise
> > platform to run all Windows-based, UNIX and Internet applications. Inte=
rix
> > 2.2 also helps simplify the administration of heterogeneous environment=
s by
> > providing UNIX system administrators with access to Windows-based syste=
ms
> > using familiar tools and management strategies, thus reducing system
> > administration and total cost of ownership. Interix 2.2 also provides s=
ystem
> > administrators with a familiar set of remote administration tools and b=
atch
> > support, enabling efficient system administration.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org>
> > To: "xavian anderson macpherson" <professional3d@home.com>
> > Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
> > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 8:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: installing freebsd from windows nt without using boot disk=
s
> >
> >
> > > I hope you enjoyed writing your troll. I only wish you had been matur=
e
> > > enough to post it to the correct list, or not to post it at all. This
> > > is QUESTIONS@freebsd.org. You didn't ask any. Since your message was
> > > nothing but opinion and ranting, it should have gone to
> > > ADVOCACY@freebsd.org.
> > >
> > > If you don't like FreeBSD because it won't do what you want, either
> > > don't use, or fix it. If you don't have the expertise to fix it,
> > > either hire someone, or ask politely. Coming off like a whining
> > > preschooler won't get you help, it'll just make people mad at you.
> > >
> > > <mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
> > this is an updated version of the letter previously sent.
> >
> > ORIGINAL MESSAGE
> > xavian anderson macpherson
> > http://www.professional3d.com
> >
> > i purchased freebsd about two months ago.  i have not yet been able to =
get
> > it to run.  i went through the trouble and expense of buying the power-=
pak
> > 4.0 so that i would have the 800 page handbook.  (i wanted freebsd beca=
use i
> > thought it would be the last system i would ever need to buy.)  i also
> > wanted the full 10-cd collection of software.  the fact of the matter i=
s
> > that the cd's were worthless to me because freebsd would not recognize =
my
> > multifunction soundcard as a valid scsi device;  which by the way, both
> > versions of linux (suse and mandrake) and windows nt were able to use
> > without any difficulty whatsoever.  i have found the repeated claims of
> > freebsd superiority to be a bunch of crap!
> >
> > i have absolutely no idea how something so superior to windows and linu=
x is
> > unable to recognize the presense of my adaptec aha152x scsi adaptor on =
my
> > soundblaster 16 card.  maybe it's too beneath freebsd to recognize my l=
owly
> > implementation of scsi.  i knew that freebsd claimed to be mature; mayb=
e
> > poor vision is also the side-effect of this protracted maturity.  eithe=
r
> > that or this maturity has imbued you with yet another ailment common to
> > advancing age.  that ailment is arrogance.   that seems to be the only
> > explanation for this;  as the common response that i have received from=
 many
> > but not all, has been one of arrogance and contempt that i would dare t=
o
> > question the godlike qualities of freebsd.  so let me make it personal.
> > there is no problem with my scsi card.  i have had three working operat=
ing
> > system to prove it.  the problem is with the software (and it's develop=
ers)
> > that freebsd uses.  now you may like to claim that linux is a developer
> > system.  but the fact is, that those (infantile) developers seem to be =
doing
> > a much (indisputably) better job of handling the developement of driver=
s
> > than freebsd.
> >
> > i was forced to use the ftp server as my source of installation; negati=
ng
> > the very purpose for which i purchased the power-pak (as everything tha=
t is
> > in the power-pak can be had on the net).  after installing the system f=
rom
> > the net, it ran just long enough for me to try to install the XFREE86 4=
=2E0,
> > which then made my system inoperable.  after that i was never able to g=
et it
> > to run again.  quite some time later after all of this, i tried to crea=
te
> > bootdisks for the latest version of freebsd.  when i went to reboot my
> > system with these new disks, the system said that there was no kernel o=
n the
> > floppies.  you make sense of it.  i created the disks using a commandli=
ne
> > instruction within NT.  the first disks that i made were done with linu=
x.
> > as i nolonger have a running linux system, i cannot revert to it to mak=
e the
> > bootdisks for freebsd.  so either i have a freebsd installation system =
which
> > runs from NT  without rebooting, or it's unusable.  i mean let's get re=
al.
> > if linux can (and does) allow for it (linux) to be run on a windows (no=
t NT)
> > formatted disk, what the hell is the reason that freebsd can't do the s=
ame
> > and better (as you so fraudulently claim).  and don't tell me how poor =
of a
> > solution the UMSDOS is.  certainly if freebsd is so advanced, there is =
no
> > excuse for there not being an even better system available from freebsd=
; and
> > especially for NT.  since NT is the highend of the windows system, it o=
nly
> > makes sense that freebsd should be directed towards providing REAL SOLU=
TIONS
> > for NT.  i don't want to hear excuses.  I WANT RESULTS!
> >
> > NT has something that the standard UFS does not have.  it has an integr=
ated
> > compressed filesystem.  with it, i have increased my storage space by n=
o
> > less than 35%.  if you had the same feature, i would have 5GB's  of
> > effective space instead of only 3.7GB's available for freebsd.  but at =
this
> > point in time, i am not willing to install freebsd until the aforementi=
on
> > criteria are met.  if someone knows of a single package that i can inst=
all
> > on my existing NT platform, that will allow for the seemless operation =
of
> > unix programs as though they were native windows applications, i for on=
e
> > would like to hear about it.  i just went to the windows site and found
> > something they call WINDOWS SERVICES FOR UNIX 2.0.  i don't know how lo=
ng it
> > had been around or how good it is.  i found it by simply typing `window=
snt
> > unix' into my browsers address bar to get a search on those keywords.
> >
> > http://shop.microsoft.com/Products/Products_Feed/Online/WindowsServices=
forUN
> > IX[759]/ProductOverview.asp
> >
> > i just found what may be the very thing i was asking for.  after writin=
g the
> > above paragraph, i went back to the link above and did further reading.=
  i
> > came across something called INTERIX.  so once again i did a net search=
 and
> > came up with a site that sells it.  in reading, i found that it is now =
a MS
> > unix-product.  it seems to provide the unix components to windows NT cl=
ass
> > environments.  i will do more reseach on this.  and if i find it to be
> > usable, i'll buy it.  putting an end to any further questions about fre=
ebsd
> > or any other variant of unix or linux.  let's face it, MS is in a much
> > better position to employ unix components such as freebsd than the reve=
rse.
> > you might as well look at the writing on the wall.  the very openness t=
hat
> > allows anyone to use freebsd and linux source code, allows MS to add it=
 to
> > their own systems without anyone having any right to complain about it.=
  as
> > long as MS uses an open source version of unix, they could do anything =
they
> > want to integrate it into the existing windows environment.  and all th=
at
> > any of you can do is sit back and wipe your eyes.  WHIMPER WHIMPER WHIM=
PER!!
> > you have basically written your own obituarary.  because windows can fr=
eely
> > integrate open source systems, but the same is not true of the open sou=
rce
> > community.  hence there will ultimately be no justification for your
> > existance.  you will be relegated to the status of footnote; and frankl=
y the
> > sooner the better.  the system that MS ultimately chooses for their
> > integrated environment, will become the status quo.  if you thought tha=
t
> > windows was dominant before, wait until they put unix interoperability =
into
> > the windows NT/2000 framework.  your only choice is to set the lead, by
> > beating MS to the punch.  and that can only be done if you make freebsd=
 and
> > linux operate from within NT/2000 before MS does.  because mock my word=
=2E  it
> > will happen.  and you will be left out in the cold with the tears froze=
n to
> > your face.  ; )
> >
> > ALL OF WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN in the paragraphs BELOW IS NOW MOOT.  I HAVE
> > FOUND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS I HAD ABOVE.  INTERIX 2.2  the only t=
hing
> > that you will possibly have over MS is price.  yes their prices are
> > rediculous.  but then, based on my experience with freebsd and linux, t=
hat
> > old saying of `you get what you pay for', has never been more truthful.
> > don't bother bitching about my remarks.  as i have already seen that i =
am
> > not the only one who has made them.  i simply represent your best hope =
of
> > survival.  i am a windows user that tried linux and then freebsd.  and =
i
> > have done so at an expense that is completely unrecoverable.  if you do=
n't
> > like my attitude, just remember that there are thousands of prospective
> > users just like me who will be no more tolerable of your shortcomings t=
han i
> > have been.  and your arrogance will be your destruction.  something i w=
ill
> > greatly revel in.  you purported to be the final solution to my and
> > everyoine else's problem with regards to internet computing systems.  t=
hat's
> > a lie.
> >
> > http://www.provantage.com/scripts/go.dll/-s/fp_47736
> > http://www.provantage.com/FC_MCSB.HTM
> >
> > quite frankly, if i find the means to compile XFREE86-4.0 and gnome for=
 NT,
> > i would probably never look back to linux or freebsd.  i have already f=
ound
> > numerous unix components to run under windows.  and once i have learned=
 how
> > to use all of them, that will probably settle once and for all the ques=
tion
> > of which system to use. ATT and others make various products which allo=
w for
> > the running of unix programs in a windows environment.  i had some of t=
hem
> > installed before i reinstalled NT and thereby erased those systems.  i =
am
> > now deciding which ones to reinstall.
> >
> > so the bottomline is this.  when i am able to install freebsd from a ru=
nning
> > windows nt system without the use of bootdisks (which supply the means =
to
> > create and write to UFS, then and only then will i be willing to use
> > freebsd.  i installed NT (six days) after becoming thoughroughly frusta=
ted
> > with freebsd.  i need to have a completely functional heterogenious
> > operating environment.  one which runs windows nt and freebsd on the sa=
me
> > computer (preferably with only one filesystem; NTFS COMPRESSED).  if fr=
eebsd
> > is not capable of being installed from a running NT-environment without
> > having to be rebooted, that is an absolutely indisputable indicator tha=
t
> > freebsd cannot operate cohesively within an NT-system. it's not up to
> > microsoft to provide the means to read and write between NTFS and UFS
> > without the question of damaging either system.  freebsd is the alien, =
not
> > MS.  when freebsd generates the code that allows NT to write to UFS and=
 UFS
> > to write to NTFS COMPRESSED, then and only then will freebsd be a legit=
amate
> > addition to my NT environment.  until then, it's just crap!
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>=09=09=09http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
> Independent WWW/Unix/FreeBSD consultant,=09email for more information.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
>



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.30.0012011829490.95319-100000>