Monitoring highly redundant operations

Thu Jan 25 04:29:15 UTC 2001

On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 09:32:04AM -0600, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 08:09:19PM -0500, Henry Yen wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 02:31:20AM -0800, Sean Donelan wrote:
> > > Not to pick on Dave, since I suspect he is going to have to face
> > > the Microsoft PR department for re-indoctrination for speaking out
> > > of turn, I'm glad to see someone from microsoft made an appearance.
> > 
> > out of curiosity, how do you know he's really from microsoft,
> > whether unofficial or not?
> > (he might be one of those LIENUX ZeAlOtS.)
> > 
> > perhaps he might face re-indoctrination over the mail client he
> > is (apparently) using, as well as the mail server software he
> > is (apparently) using:
> 
> This is getting a little stupid now, don't you think(and if you don't
> think so maybe you're one of those M1CR0S0FT Z34L0TS h0h0h0h0h0)?

i hope you'll note that i just tacks onto sean donelan's thread, where
he states '... suspect he is going to face ...', and i added an
observation prefaced with '... he might face ...'.  pick on sean, not me.
also:

> #1) He works for microsoft. I can personally attest to that.

that's fine.  i've been lurking on this list for a long time and don't
remember seeing much traffic from this person.  that someone else
will vouch for him is the correct response.

> #2) He seems to want to sincerely state that:
> 	a) microsoft acknowledges the problem
> 	b) microsoft is working on the problem
> 	c) microsoft isn't globally affected by this
>     ... even on a possibly unofficial basis. Information is good.

i only partially agree.  it is a fact that many things from big
companies (microsoft being only yet another big company) are guesses,
projections, wet dreams, and/or FUD.  especially since his response
contained almost no information other than a)/b)/c), above, all not
particularly useful to {na}nog-ers, IMHO.  and topped off with
"i wish i could disclose more but i can't".  perhaps better not
to say anything instead of seeding suspicions or raising expectations.

> #3) Just because a person may work for one Evil Empire or another
>     doesn't mean that they are forced to use their operating system
>     or MUA. I work for a company that has a mail product that a
>     considerable amount of people use, and I don't use it. This is
>     an acceptable practice at a lot of companies.

it's probably not a secret that i'm not microsoft's biggest ally.
nevertheless, i find it curious that you appear to be implying that
you think i said he works for an evil empire.

as far as mail software
is concerned, your statement is factually correct, but how often does
it apply to companies who make/manufacture/distribute an e-mail product
(especially *their own*), as it is in this case?

> #4) He is as furthest from a linux zealot as you can possibly be.

obviously, i was insensitive by not adding a smiley to the following
characters:
     LIENUX ZeAlOtS

i humbly apologize.

you would be advised to note that i am, as far as i can remember, one
of the only 2 (or 3) people who've defended microsoft in the role of
aggrieved network operator (on nanog), at least until we all find out 
what really happened.  if we get a complete, accurate, and verifiable
(inasmuch as that's possible) report from microsoft backed up with
additional personal insight from dave at sneakerz.org, then we'll all
be richer for the experience.  let's see if that happens...

-- 
Henry Yen                                       Aegis Information Systems, Inc.
Senior Systems Programmer                       Hicksville, New York