Linux-Advocacy Digest #476, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 15:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (5X3)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (5X3)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Chad Myers")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Christopher Smith")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (5X3)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (5X3)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Chad Myers")
Re: JDK1.2.2 performance, Linux -vs- NT (John Harlow)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (Donn Miller)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Chad Myers")
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:35:13 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:29:54 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I know people who crash NT4 on a daily basis & NT5 on a weekly basis.
>
>That's a load of crap and you know it.
No it isn't. I just know people who are hard on systems.
Some people don't treat NT as gingerly as you do. Get
over it.
>
>Coming from a guy who can't do 96/12 and who doesn't even
>know the basic specs of the product, I find it hard to
>believe anything you claim is even remotely clost to the
>truth...
I don't need to know the basic specs of the product
to be told by colleagues that NT5 is 'only' crashing
once a week for them.
>
>> I personally have managed to make NT4 tank more often than I
>> install a new Linux kernel.
>
>Especially stupid stuff like this. What was it? NT4 SP0?
Why should Microsoft be given 4 or 5 chances to finally
get the mere basics right? I had less problems with
kernel 1.3.x and the corresponding versions of Xfree.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:25:27 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 18:51:31 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:05:18 +0100, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>It was the 2 Mar 2000 06:03:29 GMT...
>>...and Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>* Any word processor
>>> >
>>> >Lyx?
>>>
>>> No. Lyx is a front end to a professional typesetting/publishing application.
>>
>>I agree with you that there isn't a free glorified-typewriter word
>>processor on Linux yet. But if one can have what you describe, i.e.
>>professional typesetting with a nice front end, why bother with
>>glorified typewriters at all?
>
>Try embedding a spreadsheet in a LaTeX document. Or even try writing a macro
That's a nice parlour trick but not universally necessary.
Plus it yields a document that is no longer atomic. Not
only are you now an ass for requring your recipient to have
appfoo but they have to have appbar now too.
If components weren't typically payware, this wouldn't be
quite as grievous as it is.
>for LaTeX ( yeah, you can write macros, but the programming capabilities
>of TeX are limited at best. ) Try making a flyer using TeX. Do you get
>the picture? Try installing and using a new font (gasp)
>
>Word processors are much more sophisticated
>beasts than typewriters. And they do things that LaTeX cannot do well if at
>all. Frankly, I'm surprised to hear such a silly comment
>from you. Are you the real guy or a Warkus impersonator?
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium
Date: 2 Mar 2000 19:43:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I know people who crash NT4 on a daily basis & NT5 on a weekly basis.
> That's a load of crap and you know it.
Chad, you are apparantly too stupid to have gotten the point.
How his his anecdotal evidence of the suck factor of NT any different
than your anecdotal evidence of the suck value of linux?
Get it yet?
> Coming from a guy who can't do 96/12 and who doesn't even
> know the basic specs of the product, I find it hard to
> believe anything you claim is even remotely clost to the
> truth...
These are some pretty strong words coming from someone of your
particularly nonexistant qualifications.
>> I personally have managed to make NT4 tank more often than I
>> install a new Linux kernel.
> Especially stupid stuff like this. What was it? NT4 SP0?
Any NT admin will tell you (even the ones who actually LIKE NT) that
it is not incredibly difficult to break NT4, service pack *anything*.
There are some things that NT is simply not made to handle, yet is
attempted anyway by idiotic/overexcited/starry-eyed administrators.
It happens all the time.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:36:44 GMT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:32:30 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:i%yv4.5269$O5.150890@stones...
>> The increasing strange arguements and twists and turns being
>> taken by some to explain why microsoft should of migrated a
>> perfectly good working system they brought from someone else
>> before the time would be ripe for them to do so speaks volumes
>> for you and the other's professional expertise, or lack of
>> it, in networking and systems administration.
>
>But it's not a perfectly working system, that's what I'm
>trying to say, and either you guys aren't listening, or
>it's easier to just not face the truth.
>
>The support costs to keep that thing bandaided must cost
>MS a fortune. If not for the marketing motives, they
>will have to convert it to SOMETHING, SOON so they
>can stop the seive that is hotmail.com
Apparently, those costs just aren't 'motivating' enough.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium
Date: 2 Mar 2000 19:46:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [deletia]
>> >Ouch! Looks like you missed the windows 2000 launch.
>> >You should head to MS and view the video of the event.
>> >You'll see a live demo where they fire up a 16 processor
>> >unisys box and run an application on it with 8 processors.
>> >Then
>>
>> That's interesting.
>>
>> The version of NT5 that was realeased then hasn't been
>> advertising that capability. Neither has the version
>> that will eventually be called 'Datacenter'.
> Yes, both of them have.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/server/features/
> default.asp
> (URL wrapped for readability, sorry)
> Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
> Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
> Windows 2000 DC Server supporst 16GB (I believe?) and
> 32 processors
Now, the question must be asked at this point:
Since the difference between NT workstation and NT server is a
few registry lines (believe it, ive witness the switch, its
hilarious), I wonder if the difference between w2k server
and w2k DC server is also registry-based...
If thats the case, it could possibly be concieved that microsoft
has released a free OS whether they realize it or not. :)
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:48:00 -0600
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >The support costs to keep that thing bandaided must cost
> >MS a fortune. If not for the marketing motives, they
> >will have to convert it to SOMETHING, SOON so they
> >can stop the seive that is hotmail.com
>
> Apparently, those costs just aren't 'motivating' enough.
<sigh>
C'mon, quit dicking with me. It's obvious, and if you
can't see it than either you're too blinded by your
anti-MS hate, or you just aren't that observant.
It's going to cost lots of money to migrate anyhow.
It's costing them lots of money to operate in its
current, bandaided state.
They have to migrate to something, sometime.
Obviously, they want to migrate it to Windows2000.
When they got hotmail, Win2K wasn't too far off
in the distance.
It doesn't make any sense to migrate it to NT,
only to turn around and move it to Win2K.
Well, now that Win2K is out, why not move it?
Well the biggest and best Win2K has yet to be
released: Win2K Datacenter server.
Likewise, the Itanium is close to release, so
why not hedge the best until both are released,
migrate the whole sucker to the best, and baddest
platform and be done with it?
It's common sense, really.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:46:17 +1000
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:04:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:52:34 -0000, "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
> >>Something that several UNIXes have been doing for years.
> >>Still, whilst you MS zealots continue to pay I guess NT might
> >>catch up (although its taking its time).
> >
> >Linux is NOT UNIX...
> >
> >Linux always seems to be playing catch up in some form or another.
>
> If I ran 16 CPU's on my home machine I might be worried.
>
> HOWEVER, when it comes to desktop Unix, the commercial vendors
> are the one's playing catchup.
Eh ? When it comes to "desktop Unix" what commercial vendors are even
bothering ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium
Date: 2 Mar 2000 19:48:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yup, cause Linux is so much better at 3D, Graphics, Multimeda and productivity apps
>then say Irix
> or Solaris. Oh wait.....
You're pretty uppity for someone who cant wrap lines with netscape
under windowsNT.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: 2 Mar 2000 19:49:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> That may or may not be. It all depends on how well Windows is
>> managing the device access. The problem with X & svgalib is
>> that you've got two things that think their are the device
>> manager both accessing the hardware.
>>
>> Considering that the whole point of DirectX for games programmers
>> is to allow them to bit bang with reckless abandon, I wouldn't
>> necessarily expect two Direct3D games to play nice with each other.
>> DirectX trades robustness for speed.
> Actually, it handles it very well. If you attempt to grab a lock on
> an area of the video memory that another application currently has a lock
> on, your program will error.
Oh no! You mean two direct X apps trying to access the *same hardware*
at the *same time* wont work?
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 19:53:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 17:52:16 GMT,
Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:20:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
[2038]
> > I am not sure that I care about this one, it is 37 years away. In 37
> > years, 64 bit computers will be obsolete.
> This is precisely the logic that *created* the Y2k problem.
Yep, but it's not applicable ...
> Thinking that the problem will go away by itself due to software
> or hardware obsolesence is a huge mistake.
How many machines do *you* know that are in active use today
*and* were so 15,20,30 years ago?
Also the 2038-problem differs because it is Not There on 64bit
machines with any semi-well written software (which uses the time
struct). Thus, repair means just a recompile on a 64bit machine.
Since you'll have to recompile anyway, there's no problem.
There's no such fix for 00-stupidity and 101 incompatible ways
of comparing times.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: 2 Mar 2000 19:53:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
>and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
>reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
>servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
>pretty stable to me. Then, when I went to www.microsoft.com, the web
>site seemed extremely responsive. This is pretty impressive, because
>we all know what kind of traffic www.microsoft.com gets. I've heard
>that W2k may have borrowed parts of FreeBSD 3.2's TCP/IP stack.
>
>I can't really confirm this, though, unless anyone else wants to
>debate this. Of cours, MS probably didn't incorporate the code
>verbatim, just borrowed bits and pieces of it.
>
>W2k is scaring me. My manhood is being threatend, because I'm a unix
>guy. Being a guy, well all of us guys have this "my dick is bigger
>than yours" complex. My dick is pretty big, because I run unix.
>However, I'm afraid that it will shrink/go limp when we see that W2K
>is indeed a unix killer. Livocates have been writing this thing off,
>and that's what's extremely dangerous. It's a lot like a really good
>football team (in this case, Linux), who goes in against another team
>with the attitude "Sheee-it, we can kick those guys' asses, no
>problem." You know what happens next -- that's right, that team ends
>up being the kick-ee.
>
>Basically, because I agree with Stephen S. Edwards that I'm a loser
>because I run an OSS. The real reason I run an OSS (in my case, it's
>FreeBSD, but Linux is good as well), is because I'm a low-class idiot
>who can't afford a real OS like W2K. Hey, it's worth shelling out
>$149 for. For one thing, it was developed by real programmers, not
>snot-nosed high school punks who always yell shit out of car Windows.
>(Huh huh huh - hey Beavis, I said "Windows".)
>
>I also agree with Boris that I "stink" because I can't afford
>Windows. Oh, if I only could have a really classy job like Stephen
>Edwards so I could afford a real OS like W2K. Oh please, guys, have
>pity on me, for I cannot afford the OS of the gods that is W2k.
>
>Of course, with $149, I could buy a pretty nice old machine, such as
>an older SPARC or DEC to put {Free,Net}BSD or Linux on. Of course,
>that would be like a homeless man who uses a cardboard box for
>shelter. I'm just a poor, hungry fool, who stinks, because I can't
>afford Windows 2000.
>
>Windows 2000 is really cheap for what you get. Here's a list of the
>goodies:
>
>1.) excellent graphics. Also, X windows looks like shit, and the
>Windows GUI is much better looking. Also, you really only have to
>learn one widget set under Windows, compared to X, which has several
>thousand.
>
>2.) excellent tech support. Hey, MS is offering tech support +
>customer support. Those alone are worth, what, $100?
>
>3.) Supported HW. - Almost all HW vendors support Windows NT, 98, or
>any of its variants better than Linux or FreeBSD ever will. Where the
>hell are my Netscape RealVideo plugins under FreeBSD's version of
>Netscape? Also, since I'm a low-class scummy OSS user, I sit home,
>drink beer, fart, and watch pornos and football all day long. A lot
>of porno sites need VivoActive plugins, dammit, so I can't drink beer,
>eat pretzels, and watch pornos. So, it's a chicken-and-egg problem.
>Also, those streaming video java porno flicks work like shit under
>unix netscape. Both FreeBSD and Linux have this problem, because I've
>tried them both. Internet Explorer doesn't have this problem.
>Ironically, Windows 2000 users are classier, so they have no need to
>watch pornos on the computer while simultaneously watching football on
>the "idiot lantern".
>
>4.) More jobs. Look in the want ads, and tell me what kind of
>experience companies want. That's right - Windows
>administrators/programmers are in demand. When do you ever see a
>FreeBSD programmer administrator in there? Not in Pittsburgh you
>won't.
>
>5.) Windows users are very intelligent and high class. Check out
>Stephen S. Edwards - he's an excellent example of this. If you run
>Windows, you won't be poor, stinky, or low-class like me, but rather,
>an intelligent, classy stud like Edwards (who also probably has a big
>dick). I'm pretty much a white-trash piece of shit compared to
>someone like Edwards. In fact, all of us unix, FreeBSD, and Linux
>users are white trash piles of shit compared to Edwards. Oh, and we
>also have little dicks, and we always masturbate while we compile our
>kernels like Boris says. Also, we always, always stink, because
>that's what Boris says. Boris is the man -- he is very intelligent.
>
>
>- Donn
CNN just reported that trucks filled with what appear to be
giant seed pods have been seen near Pittsburgh, PA and many
other American cities. They reportedly originate from
Redmond, Washington.
Stop! Stop and listen to me! These people who're coming
for us are not human!
Look, you fools. You're in danger. Can't you see?
They're after you. They're after all of us! Our wives,
our children, everyone!
They're here already! You're next!!
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:59:43 -0600
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >That's a load of crap and you know it.
>
> No it isn't. I just know people who are hard on systems.
> Some people don't treat NT as gingerly as you do. Get
> over it.
Um... gingerly? Quit the bullshit, Jed. You know you're
I beat the hell out of my machines (at work an home)
more than most.
I have only had one crash, faulty nVidia drivers for
my TNT2 Ultra at home.
I have known no one, nor read in any newsgroup, nor
on any discussion board (ars technica, etc) for support
anyone who has had crashes that weren't related to faulty
drivers.
One exception, on certain systems with certain SCSI
configurations, Win2K will not install properly. This
was in another thread, and it was found that many OSs
don't install in this situation, yes, including Linux!
As far as stability, on the x86, the only thing that
rivals Win2K's stability is *BSD. Linux is a joke
compared to it.
> I don't need to know the basic specs of the product
> to be told by colleagues that NT5 is 'only' crashing
> once a week for them.
Oh come on, stop the bullshit, ok. We're all adults
here and there's no need to make stuff up.
> >Especially stupid stuff like this. What was it? NT4 SP0?
>
> Why should Microsoft be given 4 or 5 chances to finally
> get the mere basics right? I had less problems with
> kernel 1.3.x and the corresponding versions of Xfree.
And what could you do with kernel 1.3.x? Just about nothing.
How was 1.3.x's SMP support? Scalability? Clustering?
high-volume web application support?
How about it's multithreading in the network stack?
How was it's performance?
You know, DOS was pretty stable if you never used it
too, but DOS sucked, and so does linux.
Spare us your FUD and lies, it's really annoying.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: John Harlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: JDK1.2.2 performance, Linux -vs- NT
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:47:48 GMT
Thanks for the advice. Based on this response (and another pointing out
the green-threads issue in Sun JDK vs Blackdown) I was able to
significantly improve performance. I haven't benchmarked it yet, but
it 'feels' almost as fast as the HotSpot version running in VMware NT
session.
Once Linux gets HotSpot, it should really cook.
John
In article <89k8bu$ja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Sikes) wrote:
> In article <89j8md$l2q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> John Harlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm using the Sun JDK (1.2.2) in two environments. Both environments
> >run at the same time, on the same system (Dell Latitude, p3-450, 512
> >mRam.)
> >
> >The primary environment is RH 6.1 (2.2.14) kernel with XIG
commercial X
> >drivers. The second is NT4SP5 running in a virtual machine (VMWARE
2)
> >under linux. So it is sharing the memory, processor, X drivers, etc..
> >as a task under linux.
> >
> >The curious thing is that the performance of java (running apps) is
> >significantly better in the Virtual NT session, than it is native to
> >linux. The obvious conclusion here is that the JDK for NT is more
> >efficient than the linux release.
> >
> >My question is whether or not the difference is HotSpot? Does the
> >latest NT release have it. I know that the linux release does not.
>
> I believe the NT VM has HotSpot, but a more important point is that
> the current Linux JDK doesn't even ship with a JIT. You can get one
> from www.inprise.com.
>
> HotSpot is coming in the Linux 1.3 release (due pretty soon I think),
> and IBM is supposed to ship a 1.3 VM by 2Q.
>
> HTH,
>
> Terry
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
John R. Harlow
United Systems Inc.
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:24:51 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
> > and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> > reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
> > servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
> > pretty stable to me. Then, when I went to www.microsoft.com, the web
>
> That would sound stable to a MS user. To a Unix user 1 or 2 MONTHS is
> NOTHING! We Unix and Linux users expect and get up-time in YEARS!
Actually, it would be in the decades. However, us unix guys have to
replace the machines with newer ones! So, when you run unix, you
basically have the OS running the entire life of the machine. =) To
be serious, though, weren't there some cases of people running a SPARC
IPX for the entire life of the machine with SunOS?
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:01:36 -0600
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89mgl5$1n6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> That may or may not be. It all depends on how well Windows is
> >> managing the device access. The problem with X & svgalib is
> >> that you've got two things that think their are the device
> >> manager both accessing the hardware.
> >>
> >> Considering that the whole point of DirectX for games programmers
> >> is to allow them to bit bang with reckless abandon, I wouldn't
> >> necessarily expect two Direct3D games to play nice with each other.
> >> DirectX trades robustness for speed.
>
> > Actually, it handles it very well. If you attempt to grab a lock on
> > an area of the video memory that another application currently has a lock
> > on, your program will error.
>
> Oh no! You mean two direct X apps trying to access the *same hardware*
> at the *same time* wont work?
First, you said crash, moron, not work. And yes, two apps
accessing the same hardware at the same time will work.
If they access the same BYTE in the video ram at the same time,
one has to wait until the other process is done. This wait is
usually unmeasurable.
What happens when X and svgalib access the same byte in video
ram at the same time?
*CHOKE*
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:04:15 -0600
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89mgf7$1n6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows 2000 server supports 4GB memory and 4 processors
>
> > Windows 2000 Adv. Server supports 8GB and 8 processors
>
> > Windows 2000 DC Server supporst 16GB (I believe?) and
> > 32 processors
>
> Now, the question must be asked at this point:
>
> Since the difference between NT workstation and NT server is a
> few registry lines (believe it, ive witness the switch, its
> hilarious), I wonder if the difference between w2k server
> and w2k DC server is also registry-based...
One registry tweak will make Pro appear as server (in NT 4.0,
it's different in Win2K) but it will not a.) function as well
as a fully installed server, and b.) not have any of the
products that ship with server. Even if you had them, it wouldn't
run them as well.
The kernel base is nearly the same, but they are tuned very
very differently. You also pay more for server because the
other applications come with it as well (ADS, DHCP, DNS, etc
etc).
As far as Advanced server, they are very different indeed.
Of course, you wouldn't know or care, because it fits your
FUD better if you generalize and make stuff up, so I won't
bother detailing what's different.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
