Linux-Advocacy Digest #435, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 22:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("LP")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("LP")
Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Giving up on NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? ("Chad
Myers")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Christopher Browne)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (Christopher
Browne)
Re: IE on UNIX (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Windows on Linux? (Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~})
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:11:55 GMT
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:05:41 -0500,
> Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:897m88$5lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> The above is along the lines of "Although McDonalds claims that the
> >BigMac
> >> >> is the healthiest burger on its menu, 75% of McDonalds customers still
> >> >> buy fries". Or how about "Although Thyssen touts the Transrapid to be
> >the
> >> >> most advanced and most mature of the magnetic levitation trains, 99% of
> >all
> >> >> customers using Thyssen equipment still choose older, rail-bound train
> >> >> transport".
> >>
> >> >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
> >>
> >> Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
> >> *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit address
> >> spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
> >
> >MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs on
> >64 bit processors right now.
>
>
> Strange, everything I can find on Djanews et al, say that W2k/64
> might ship beta in 3-6 months. Where do you hear that it is
> available now? and on what hardware is it available (in beta)
> now?
Um.. in order for beta to ship.. it means that it's gone thru quite a few alpha and
pre-alpha stages.. Those are generally not
released.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:11:56 GMT
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:05:41 -0500,
> Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:897m88$5lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> The above is along the lines of "Although McDonalds claims that the
> >BigMac
> >> >> is the healthiest burger on its menu, 75% of McDonalds customers still
> >> >> buy fries". Or how about "Although Thyssen touts the Transrapid to be
> >the
> >> >> most advanced and most mature of the magnetic levitation trains, 99% of
> >all
> >> >> customers using Thyssen equipment still choose older, rail-bound train
> >> >> transport".
> >>
> >> >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
> >>
> >> Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
> >> *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit address
> >> spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
> >
> >MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs on
> >64 bit processors right now.
>
> And what 64 bit chip would that be?
FYI, Intel has given silicon samples to a variety of software companies, including MS
quite a few months ago.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I want control of my fu&king computer !!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:14:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:20:10 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Brian M wrote:
>
>>
>> So your point is that the only company to write a decent html
>> client for linux makes crap calls in windows, so you thought
>> you would write to a linux advocacy ng to complain .. about
>> Microsoft, because the netscape programmers
>> make crap OS calls, and the OS complies?
>
>In X11 the end user can set a focus policy that overrides
>whatever annoying crap the developers (well corporations, free
>software developers never do that sort of crap) decided to do,
>which is the way it should be.
Pedant point: the focus policy is a property of the window manager. :-)
X11 is merely enabling technology. (But it's tried and true!
Sometimes the old stuff is the best... :-) )
But I'll admit, it's nice to have "focus follows mouse".
Especially if new windows tend to pop up in quasi-random spots -- and
in Microsoft, it seems these new windows almost always take
the focus, which means I'm working away in a document, fire up another
tool (and the tools take several seconds to invoke, especially with
the splash screens), type some more and
then find I'm typing in the wrong window. Growl.
>
>--
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NT. When you absolutely, positively want to get
work done, but not as fast as possible. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:19:48 GMT
comp.sys.mac.advocacy removed from newsgroups. Not that I have
anything against Macs, but this thread doesn't seem to be
going there. :-)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 28 Feb 2000 17:50:07 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:59:16 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>>The design still supports it.
>
>Fat lot of good that does for the consumer.
Most consumers are going to be on x86 equipment.
The power user is going to be the one who will want the
weird, the oddball, the slightly offbeat -- for example,
I have a Sparc running Linux, and wouldn't mind getting
a G4/PPC machine, either. (With a network card, of course.)
But Joe Blow just wants to plug in and go. And that
means Intel-compatible, for the most part.
It will be interesting to see if the IA-64 can run Win2K/64 or
whatever it's called, though. I suspect that Microsoft is
*not* going to abandon the 64-bit server market; too much
money in it! :-) And that's the logical place for that beastie,
short term.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:24:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 28 Feb 2000 16:55:13 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:27:50 +0100, Paul 'Z' Ewandeİ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>internet.fr> wrote:
>>
>>Frankly, it probably depicts any big business company I can think of, but
>>apparently it's okay to bash just Microsoft, after all, they are the evil
>>empire.
>
>While they hardly have a *cough* monopoly on lying, Microsoft does do so
>with astonishing frequency and brazenness.
They do seem to do that, don't they? I'm still waiting for the
revolution that was supposed to come with Win95 (see
_Unauthorized Windows 95_, Andrew Schulman, for details on
how this revolutionary operating system was, well, ordinary :-) ).
Don't get me wrong; Win95 was an OK improvement, technically. But
some of the hype surrounding it was simply ridiculous, and
other improvements was snuck in without anyone noticing in Windows for
Workgroups and Win 3.11.
Is Win2K really what it's cracked up to be, or just more hype
packaged with a pretty screen interface? Will Windows ME
satisfy me?
I doubt it.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:28:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:45:58 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>: I agree - which is why MS is moving hotmail to W2K "soon"
>
>So by the MS standard of soon (now + 3 years), it will be moved by 2003,
>right?
For all I know, they're moving it right now. They'll switch
everything over one weekend and you won't notice the difference.
Personally, I'll believe it when I see it. But it would be a
major coup for Win2K if a stock installation of Win2K on a
Hotmail x86 cluster can do as well as the old Solaris stuff,
and the user migration goes so seamlessly nobody notices until
someone either pokes around, or Microsoft issues a press release.
(Of course, there's also the possibility that they'll move it,
and then everyone will start complaining when emails get lost,
connection times increase, and hackers infiltrate and
ruin data -- I rather doubt MS wants that!)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Win2K. The new, improved, non-crashing NT.
Maybe.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 11:29:32 +1000
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill
> Vermillion) wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
> > >
> > >There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any
> > >plans to put W2K on.
> >
> > And the sad part is that there are 64bit processors out there that
> > MS did support - but no longer.
> >
> > Remember when MS promoted NT as being cross-platform. Four
> > supported processor families. Down to one now.
>
> And that one doesn't make sense.
Sure it does. You don't throw moeny into a black hole, which is what
supporting all those other platforms basically was, even though a great deal
of the support burden fell on the hardware developers of those platforms.
The costs of developing and supporting NT+associated essential software for
four different platforms simultaneously would be enormous, even when shared.
Trade this off against the practically nonexistant sales of NT on those
platforms and dropping support for them makes sense.
> MS had already done the hard work by getting NT running on 4 different
> processor families. And, if they did their homework up front, it's
> portability should have made it easy to maintain.
The cost would not be insignificant, even with a portable design.
> Yet they dropped the others. I wonder why?
Because no-one was buying them. Mostly due to lack of apps and a reason
(why would you buy NT for anything except x86 and maybe Alpha ? What would
be the point ?).
> Sure, they probably didn't
> make money on them, but when did MS let P/L get in the way of extending
> their monopoly? It doesn't make sense.
Er, almost all the timee. I'd imagine even from a legal perspective they
couldn't just throw money away by supporting nonexistant platforms.
> And, before anyone jumps in with stupid comments, I said the same thing
> about Apple with OS X Server. They should have released the Intel
> version IMHO.
They may yet, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Even so, that's only two
instead of four.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:31:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 28 Feb 2000 16:54:20 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:17:31 -0500,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Answer #1 - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
>Question #1: Why then *ever* change to MS, unless what you got is
>broken in first place?
>
>Question #2: When does MS-Marketing learn Answer #1?
Question #3: Can one apply #1 even if one's competitors have
far more functionality with NT than one has with the old system?
Personally, I think that's why NT wins some accounts; the reliability
is questionable, but it has the appearance of beau coup capability
with all of the neat demos and nifty "new stuff".
Whether said demos help to get one's work done is an interesting
question, of course. On servers, it's a big problem, but on
desktops, it just means an occasional reboot. (One hopes of
course that the reboots come at convenient times.)
And some of that "new stuff" isn't all that new. It just looks new.
>
>-Wolfgang
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:51:26 GMT
LP writes:
> ZnU wrote:
>> HDTV is 1920x1080.
> And looks great sitting 1' infront of the screen?
Irrelevant, given that HDTV isn't designed to be viewed from 1' in
front of the screen. Why do you think television screens are so
much larger than computer monitors? Do you sit 1' in front of a
42" computer monitor?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:08:44 GMT
"Jaro Larnos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > oh I see, Redhat doesn't have to actually pay any programmers working on
> > Linux -- they just volunteer.
>
> Linux is almost fully based on voluntarity, speaks for itself doesn't it?
> Windows isn't.
It's obvious, by how crap...er well Linux works, too.
Let's see... couple guys working in the evening after a hard days work,
with no social life, or a guy who works at a company with stock options,
wonderful working environment, a team of peers for review, quality
assurance, etc etc.
> > See the silliness?
>
> Yes, I see the sillyness on MS-part of the question, MS-workers
> are paid employees, they do get paid. As to what they get paid
> for is another question. If they code IE, they still get paid for it
> no matter how MS tries to imply it's free. Somehow the users
> of it still get to pay for it, in a form or another.
Oh Christ, not this again. How many times do we have to cover this?
IE pays for itself many times over. The time MS spends on IE is time
that is saved in about 100 other different projects. The way in which
IE unifies everything in Microsoft saves then bundles.
There is no cost passed down to users, in fact, users are saving money
because MS doesn't have as much time invested in products because using
IE as a common interface saves them much time.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:08:39 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donovan Rebbechi would say:
>On 28 Feb 2000 18:09:16 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: I find nothing wrong
>>: with having a law that is mostly unenforcable, but exists to establish social
>>: norms.
>>
>>The problem with this line of reasoning is that, regardless of
>>original intent, fascist rat-bastards will sometimes attempt to
>>enforce these "unenforceable" laws, perhaps very selectively, leading
>>to massive violations of civil liberties.
>
>The main problem is criminal sanctions where they are innappropriate.
Indeed.
>>Another problem is that it makes _de jure_ criminals out of nearly
>>everyone. An example is the very widespread (at least in the U.S.)
>>practice of setting speed limits artificially low.
>
>Actually, people drive artificially fast. Whatever you set the speed
>limit at, you have people driving faster.
>
>BTW, speeding is *not* a criminal offence at least not in most countries.
>So the law certainly does not "make criminals" of everyone any more than
>fines for overdue library books.
>
>>Laws that are not necessary to protect life, liberty, or property are
>
>It can be argued that copyright law protects property. Speeding laws
>are necessary to protect life.
Speeding laws appear to be *more* necessary as a means of
supplementing police force tax revenues.
There are certainly cases where people drive dangerously fast; the
only ticket I have gotten was a result of accidentally "moving up to
speed" on a parkway where one would *expect* the speed limit to be
50-60mph, whilst they *posted* a speed limit of 35.
There's a spot on the parkway where there's a sign that indicates that
someday they *might* build a school there; that's presumably the
excuse.
But reality is that much of the ticketing comes as a convenience to
bring in money, rather than as a mechanism to diminish accidents.
--
"It's like a house of cards that Godzilla has been blundering through."
-- Moon, describing how system messages work on ITS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:08:40 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:40:37 -0600, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >of course everyone will replace their apps. M$ will just release a new
>> >version of office that runs better on win2k.
>> >
>>
>> And since the old versions will run slower under W2K, they'll get
>replaced.
>
>Amazing that you would try to spread such a lie. Considering that every
>single version of windows ever released (including every incremental change)
>has ALWAYS been faster than the version preceding it - to even suggest that
>it's suddenly not true is ludicrous.
It has *always* been true that successive generations of *computer
hardware* have been vastly faster than the preceding generations.
It is *not* so clear that versions of Windows have increased in
performance; if they had, people would be recommending buying the
*slowest* systems available rather than indicating a need for the
*fastest* ones.
--
"Purely applicative languages are poorly applicable." -- Alan Perlis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:08:37 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donovan Rebbechi would say:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:22:09 -0800, JCA wrote:
>>crashed wrote:
>
>> This is a very commendable feeling but, unfortunately, not the way things
>> have
>>historically worked out, the egregious example being that of home VCR formats.
>
>There are more to "merits" than the product quality. There are very good
>reasons why home VCR formats worked out the way they did.
>
>>Any tactic within the law should be used in order to kill the Redmond beast,
>>least it kills Linux and the open source movement first.
>
>When you talk about "history", think about all the great revolutions -- the
>(Chinese) cultural revolution, the Russian revolution, the French revolution
>... and also think of their aftermaths. Once the means become corrupted, the
>end follows suit.
Indeed.
For instance, after the French revolution came Napoleon.
This was neither an unalloyed benefit nor an unalloyed bad thing;
Napoleon had some "aspects of enlightenment" so that whilst there was
"tyranny," there was also established a code of law that is still used
to this day.
But to take things more directly back to the times of the revolutions,
there was great bloodshed and even corruption amongst those that
established the revolutions.
>> This is a kind of >Alliance vs. Empire struggle.
>
>Put your light saber down, buddy. The only "struggle" is that to offer
>good quality software to the users.
Indeed.
And even if we go along with the "Star Wars" characterization, it's
not obvious that when the Rebel Alliance wins, that everything turns
into hugs and kisses for everyone. [Which is why I consider Dune to
be *great* literature, and Star Wars to be silly fantasy.
<http://www.kithrup.com/brin/starwars.html> explains the problems with
Star Wars further...]
The Rebel Alliance is left with picking up the pieces of a political
economy, including dealing with:
a) Establishing a just judiciary across the Alliance;
b) Establishing trade agreements between worlds;
c) Establishing policies that may involve tax powers, which might mean
that they have to board smugglers' vessels to collect import duties
or to interdict transport of illicit goods;
d) Establishing a "peace time" military;
None of which are trivial matters, and *all* of which would involve
establishing policies that people formerly downtrodden by the former
regime will find disquietingly similar to what they used to have.
[Timothy Zahn's series "Heir to the Empire," "Dark Force Rising," and
"The Last Command" provide a politically-plausible aftermath to the
destruction of the Imperial Emperor...]
Bringing this back from "Sci-Fi" to relevance, in a "world where Open
Source Is King," there would be a *need* for organizations and
political structures that are disturbingly similar to what was true in
the "bad old days" of Microsoft.
--
... it's just that in C++ and the like, you don't trust _anybody_, and
in CLOS you basically trust everybody. the practical result is that
thieves and bums use C++ and nice people use CLOS. -- Erik Naggum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/sf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:08:42 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Chad Myers would say:
>
>"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > is really just an enhancement, ext3 and the like are pretty much completely
>> > new filesystems.
>>
>> Funny you should say that, as ext3 is "really just an enhancement" too. It is
>> _not_ a completely new filesystem. It's basically a jfs on top of ext2. If
>> you'd bother to read about it, you'd see that ext3 is completely compatible
>with
>> ext2. You can mount an ext2 fs as ext3 and have journalling, then umount the
>> ext3 and remount it again as ext2 (as long as the umount was clean, i.e. you
>> can't hard reboot while ext3 is mounted then mount it ext2 without an ext3
>> fsck).
>
>Journaling, support for >2GB files, larger address space-- those are some
>fundamental changes in the FS.
As it turns out, *none* of these items represent "fundamental" changes
in ext2.
- Support for >2GB files *ALREADY EXISTS.* People have been using ext2
to address big files on non-Intel platforms for YEARS.
- "Larger address space" isn't a filesystem issue, so the idea that it
is a "fundamental change in the FS" is nonsense.
- It turns out that journalling doesn't *forcibly* have to represent a
fundamental change to the FS *format.* There are journalling FSes
that involve redesigning the FS format, but that is not the case for
ext3.
>Reguardless if they mount as each other (what happens to the journal
>then? It'll get grossly out of sync if you write while loaded in ext2
>mode, won't it?) there are fundamental design differences between
>ext2 -> ext3, that's my point.
I think you don't understand what journalling means. No, it won't get
"grossly out of sync." What will happen is that you *won't be
journalling,* and thus won't gain the benefit of fast fscks.
>> Reiserfs OTOH, _is_ a completely new FS. It's supposed to be much
>> faster then ext3 too.
>
><Off topic and Genuine curiosity>
>When is Reiserfs due (approximately)?
>
>What are the caveats of using Reiserfs to ext2?
></Off topic and Genuine curiosity>
Ah. So when you ask *other* questions, they don't involve "genuine
curiosity.* Interesting.
I believe that MP3.com, one of the sponsors, is using Reiserfs in
production *right now.*
--
"I'm thinking of having my whole body surgically removed."
-- Lintilla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linuxkernel.html>
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:15:23 GMT
In article <89eske$sjh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:13:23 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >Is it Microsoft's fault that 3rd party vendors didn't support the
> > >other platforms?
> >
> > Probably. When Microsoft says "jump", developers ask "how high?"
>
> heh, you guys just don't quit. I suppose that Microsoft kill Jon Bene
> <sp?>
> too, huh?
>
> Even with that false logic, why didn't they jump on Alpha, Microsoft had
> pretty decent support for Alpha. If any ISVs started porting to it,
> Microsoft
> would've upped it's already good support for Alpha.
>
> All the service packs, hotfixes, BackOffice products, and many of the
> little add ons and features that you can download from Microsoft.com
> are available for Alpha.
>
> The fact is, no one wanted alpha. MS hung in there for a long time, and
> then finally dropped it.
>
> Microsoft is a corporation, they have to make money. If there was money
> to be made in Alpha, they would've kept it.
Really?
Then perhaps you can explain why they gave MSIE away when their costs
were very, very real. They obviously didn't care whether they made money
on MSIE or not.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free -- no strings attached. Just sign up.
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web:
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~})
Subject: Re: Windows on Linux?
Date: 29 Feb 2000 09:57:47 +0800
>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Croxen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kevin> The best thing, of course, is not to run Windows at
Kevin> all. Developers, however, may be attracted by the
Kevin> possibility of doing their developing on a virtual machine
Kevin> that, when it crashes, takes down only the single X-session
Kevin> running the VM, and not the whole OS requiring a
Kevin> reboot.
A VM crash doesn't take down an X-session. It only crashes the
X-client -- i.e. the VMWare processes for that particular VM. (VMWare
spawns a few processes for a VM. Crashing in one VM doesn't affect
the VM's.)
An X-session begins when you login via the X logon window, or when you
"startx". It ends when you "logout" or kill the window manager.
--
Lee Sau Dan $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
