IPCop for Small-Business Network: Web Proxy Usage

It was the only thing I could think of that made any sense about the delusional rantings he has - just reminded me of the one with the unspoken name....

X-No-Archive: Yes

wrote:

Well, Windows may be in your future, if you are still working in IT in 2011. I have heard that Microsoft is coming out with a Unix-based version of Windows, due out in 2011. It will be a Unix/Linux based OS capable of running all existing Windows and DOS software, as well as anything that Unix can compile and run. This future version of Windows will have a Unix/Linux front-end that will be capable of running all Dos and Windows programs. It will be Unix-like, and have all the Windows APIs needed to run all existing Windows and DOS programs, but will be much more secure then any existing Windows release now, including Windows Vista, due out in late 2006 or early 2007. You will get the rock-solid stability of Unix, with the flexibility to run Windows software. Microsoft is apparently taking a cue from Mac OS X and deciding to make a Unix-based version of Windows for the future. The only problem is that all the Windows guys coming out of the colleges now will have to learn Unix/Linux after the Microsoft release scheduled for 2011. If you can run Linux on your PC, then you will be able to ruin the Windows release scheduled for 2011. It will likely run best on a

64-bit machine. If Microsoft is doing this, it will likelye the first 64-bit Unix or Linux system available for Intel/AMD based systems. I would imagine it will probaly be at least 2012 or 2013 before the colleges can re-tool to teach Unix once the Unix-based version of Windows comes out. When I was at CSU Sacramento and they were planning to change the curriculum, they gave two years notice, so that existing students who would not graduate before the changes could get certain courses they needed under their catalog rights, in order to graduate. That is how I know that the CSU system would need at least two years to re-tool thier business and computer science schools to be able to teach the Unix-based version of Windows. In the years I was there, CSUS was getting rid of a lot of the Unix-based machines in its computer science labs in favor or Winodws NT machines. Unix was being phased out in the late 1990s at CSUS. One reason being that the VAX and Sun machines, which Unix was being run on, had the Y2K bug, and would not dsiplay the proper date after Jan 1, 2000, so they were slowly replaced in 1998 and 1999 with Windows NT workstations.

Well, beginning in 2011, you will need employees who understand both WIndows and Unix, as there is rumored to be a Unix-based Windows OS coming out in 2011. It will give the rock-solid stablility of Unix, with the flexibility to run all existing Windows and DOS programs, so when you hire employees during the next 6 years leading up to the scheduled Windows release in 2011, you might want to look for Windows and Unix skills both, in all areas of your company. If Bill Gates and company are coming out with a Unix-based Windows OS, their Unix-based Windows OS will likely become the number one Unix system, and in short order, that is why you will need to hire employees, during the next 6 years, who have skills in both Unix and Windows.

Are you on the board of directors of microsoft, or are you merely parroting what someone you don't wish to cite said because the mere concept you propose is so ludicrous. By the way, I hear that Cadillac will introduce a diesel powered 18 wheeler in 2011 that will run on synthetic fuel created from recycled beef tallow formally used to cook french fries at McDonalds, and that story has more fact in it that your fairy tail.

I know you are unaware of it, but microsoft did have a "UNIX" (actually Solaris) version of internet exploiter. It required several add-ons to run (it needed all of the windoze libraries - because microsoft couldn't figure out how to make it run using the existing libraries, in spite of Netscape having no trouble doing so), and had many of the security holes, and crashed very frequently. Solaris IE resembled a well written UNIX application in the same way that a fish resembles a 1961 Pontiac Bonneville

2-door hardtop. It was withdrawn because it wasn't selling, and the DOJ was on microsoft's case about IE being an indispensable part of windoze.

By the way, microsoft may run into a tiny problem about being a UNIX or Linux based O/S. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group, and to use that term, you need to prove that your O/S meets _all_ of the standards set by The Open Group, and pay a license fee. Linux on the other hand is a trademark owned by Linus Torvalds, and the license is (to put it mildly) _quite_ different, and both differ from the BSD License.

As far as running "all existing Windows and DOS software", even you should know that's a bald faced lie. Windoze can't even run all existing Windows and DOS software. On the other hand, quite a number of old DOS and early windoze applications can run under WINE - a free part of a number of *nix distributions.

and so, only need 24 Gigs of RAM for the base install, a 10 Gigahertz processor (and will still run slow) and a 270 Gig hard drive

See, now this statements proves that this whole thing is a lie. Microsoft and it's supporters would NEVER admit that windoze isn't secure.

Is that a date slippage already? Only last week, you were promising that Windows Vista would be in the stores for Christmas 2006.

Never heard of VMWare?

They did have a good base system called VMS, that they "improved" into NT. Virtually all of the security features had to be removed or disabled, because they got in the way of "ease of operation". What makes you think anything would be done differently if they tried to copy *nix?

Perhaps you should try to get a head start. Go to

for under ten bucks you can have your pick of a dozen or so distributions that run on your 64 bit AMD box - it was actually available since the announcement of that chip - well before the hardware was actually in stores.

That typo is absolutely beautiful.

64 bit Linux for Intel and AMD has been available IN STORES for over a year. The O/S that Intel used to _test_ prototypes of the IA-64 architecture was Linux which you can verify on the Intel web site. Yet another example of how microsoft is YEARS behind the times. 64 bit Linux on other architectures such as the DEC Alpha, Sun Ultra Sparc, and PPC64 has also been available for years - but I guess because microsoft can't run anything on those platforms, you weren't aware they existed. Now that I think about it, the Alpha was running Linux in 1995, BEFORE microsoft tried to provide limited 32 bit support.

As for a 64 bit branded UNIX - try Solaris, it's been out for a while too. And while it doesn't run on Intel/AMD, you might try to guess how long Compaq Tru64 (aka Digital Unix, formally DEC OSF/1, now HP Tru64 UNIX) has been available, and why it has the digits "64" in the name.

That is probably going to be earth shaking news down at Berkeley, never mind San Jose State or even Foothill/DeAnza.

Except that it doesn't and won't exist. You really ought to learn how to use google as a search engine. Here's a hint: "UNIX Trademark" makes a wonderful starting point.

What is "the Y2K bug" ? Kindly provide citations from someone like CERT or NIST identifying this. No, not press accounts - they're all as accurate as your fairy tail. I remember seeing (in _several_ major retail stores) power cords labeled as Y2K Certified - that buzzword was a market-droids bonanza. Oh, and I still have some early 1990s Sun boxes running SunOS 4.1.1 which is an early 1990s release - it's keeping perfect time.

I don't seem to be having a problem with the Suns. Sorry Charles - that's a C library function called time_t, and the library call you are looking for is

[compton ~]$ whatis ctime ctime (3) - transform binary date and time to ASCII [compton ~]$

'time_t' on a 32 bit system has a problem in that it will "roll over" on January 18, 2038. A quick fix would be to redefine a 'long' as 8 bytes rather than 4 on a 32 bit system, as has been the case on 64 bit systems for twenty years. But then, I don't know how many people will be running

32 bit systems in 2030.

Old guy

Didn't you understand that Charles?

And you still can't answer that statement?

But you are still missing the point - we don't need windoze. Therefore, there is no need for windoze "trained" personnel.

rumors with absolutely no basis in fact.

See the other post

see above. By the way, when are you going to try to learn "UNIX"?

The reason your fantasy (or maybe it would be a nightmare for you - having to learn all this new stuff) can't happen is in there. Remember, UNIX would be to hard for you to use, and microsoft would have to make it "user friendly" which would eliminate any possibility of it meeting XPG4, POSIX, and the ISO version of C.

Old guy

Hey - not a bad idea! I want one! sounds even bigger/more annoying than the Escalade!

They used to have a version of Unix as well. If I recall correctly, they used to own Xenix.

Apparently MS has. What the hell is their vmware wannabe thingee called? Windoze virtual server or something like that... and they DO support running Linux under it.

LOL. I once had Linux running on a 386sx with 16megs of ram. So is this new windoze supposed to run on that?