Linux-Advocacy Digest #519, Volume #25 Mon, 6 Mar 00 01:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Aaron J Reichow)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Aaron J Reichow)
Re: Darwin or Linux (Re: The decline of VA Linux) (John Jensen)
A little advocacy.. (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (fred)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (fred)
Re: What's GNU/Linux? (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Gary Hallock)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (George Marengo)
Re: Salary? ("Big Circle")
Re: Which Linux version is best ? ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (George Marengo)
Re: BSD & Linux (Robert Yoder)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Mark Hamstra)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 03:19:47 GMT
"dc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:29:17 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> I just installed a basic setup of Win2k Advanced Server.
> It's at 46MB now, after bootup, on my Mac G3/450.
That's Advanced Server, though. Advanced server
is intended to be installed on 8 processor
boxes with 1-4GB of RAM. 46MB is pretty good,
I think, consider it's giga-ram tuning and
all.
> I have 384M of RAM in this Mac. Strangely, I can only
> get VPC to use 128MB of it in the actual emulation itself.
> Hmm....
Sorry to hear about your Mac -er- um... Mac situation =)
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 21:14:19 -0600
On 6 Mar 2000, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >The really interesting stuff is _above_ the kernel; things like Apache,
> >egcs, MySQL, Postgres, KDE and/or GNOME. These are not _linux_ projects
> >as much as they are OpenSource projects. And I'm sure they'll all run
> >on OSX just as well as they run on Linux.
>
> With the caveat that IIRC, Mac OS X ( contrary to it's name ) is not
> using X under its GUI. Unless "OS X server" has an "X server" running
> on it, it'll have a hard time with KDE and GNOME apps.
The was a root-less X server for NeXTSTEP (CubX), there's one at my
machine at work under Windows (Xwin32), and getting one going on Mac OS X
(Server or otherwise) is far from impossible. Given that, one could run
GNOME, KDE, &c apps along side Cocoa, Carbon, and Classic apps, albeit
without the integration and consitency Mac OS X provides.
And the root-less X server thing is an "if." But what we have now is both
a free (Xfree86 derivative) X server being done by John Carmack as well as
a shareware version one should be able to find at the Peak or Peanuts
archives. The drawback to these, is that one would have to switch to the
X environment, not unlike switching to the Blue Box in Mac OS X Server.
But a root-less window hack should be too hard.
Aaron
------------------------------
From: Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 21:17:08 -0600
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Sal Denaro wrote:
> Apple _could_ have done something like MkLinux+X11+Carbon/BlueBox rather
> than Mach/BSD+Quartz+Carbon/Cocoa/BlueBox but I don't see how the prior
> is more interesting than the later. Feel free to point out anything I
> might have missed.
Perhaps they went with Mach/BSD because the NeXT people know/knew it *far*
better than Linux, and because X11 is an obsolete, schizofrenic standard.
Just some ideas.
Aaron
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Darwin or Linux (Re: The decline of VA Linux)
Date: 6 Mar 2000 03:21:31 GMT
dave cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: but what about this?
: http://www.ptf.com/ptf/products/MKLP/
: though of course if you search the current apple pages for mklinux and
: try to go to any page that was listed as <www.mklinux.apple.com> it's
: all error 205. :quite a purge, all in all.
Kind of a crude purge. I went to the Apple front page, and searched for
"linux". I got 75 hits, with snippets of text, but when I click on any of
the first four matches I get an "unalble to locate the server
www.mklinux.apple.com".
There are still some happy Linux stories at the Apple site:
http://www.apple.com/creative/internet/linux/
http://www.apple.com/creative/internet/kai/
John
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A little advocacy..
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:22:16 -0500
I just setup a Linux box for a friend. A mediaOne user that wants his on
local network.
Every question he asked was yes with Linux:
Can all my computers get out to the net? Yes.
Can I share files, you know, like a file server? Yes.
Can my wife's Mac use the files? Yes.
Can I put a printer on it, and share that? Yes.
Can I get a database for it, you know, like SQL or something? Yes.
Can my Windows programs use it? Yes.
Can I use the machine to surf the web? Yes.
Can I receive E-mail to it? Yes.
Can I use it to send e-mail? Yes.
Can it be a web server? Yes.
This sort of when on for a bit, and it was kind of fun. The guy had the
look of kid in a candy factory. All the things he wanted to do that were
once so prohibitively expensive with NT, were now free and more reliable
with Linux.
The free UNIX camps and OSS generally, really do provide a complete
suite of applications and services. Except for compatibility with
MS-Office, I can see no reason for Windows NT.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 03:36:13 GMT
On 6 Mar 2000 00:34:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps for one large scale site that is easily partitioned, but not
>>> for tens of thousands of smaller sites.
>
>> You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Tens of
>> thousands of smaller sites are *already partitioned* by their very
>> nature, and thus very easy to load balance across a server farm.
>
>I do, because I deal with this sort of thing every single day.
Then why are you acting like a moron?
Mark Hamstra is right... 10,000 small sites are easily placed across
multiple servers because they're already partitioned.
>From the nature of your statement, I guarantee that you have never
>run tens of thousands of virtual hosts on a single NT cluster,
>because if you had, you would know what an enormous pain in the
>ass *everything about it* is.
Trolling for dollars?
>I'm not saying that it doesnt work; im saying that NT cannot
>compete. You arent understanding what im saying.
Explain microsoft.com
>I'm saying that the reason that NT cant compete in this area is
>because its TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE TO BABYSIT, AND TOO FUCKING
>EXPENSIVE TO BUY. With two or three free alternatives which
>will generally run on identical hardware and require much cheaper
>babysitting, the decision is clear.
Strange, you suggested Solaris. Ever price a Sun server?
Quit pretending you know what you are talking about... it's criminal.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 03:37:20 GMT
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 21:28:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 15:38:43 -0500, "Rick Bestany"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> IIS is *awful
>>
>>
>>Could you clarify please?
>>
>
>Simple. Create a CGI program that allocates dynamic memory
>which terminates without freeing the memory.
Why would you use CGI?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What's GNU/Linux?
Date: 5 Mar 2000 22:00:05 -0600
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> If the FSF had decided to create a Linux distribution, and called it
> GNU/Linux, this would have been well and fine.
[...]
> I think he'd accomplish more by "fighting" other battles.
Slashdot doesn't usually yield a lot of signal, but occasionally
someone says something quotable:
"I call it GNU/Linux. Except the GNU/ is silent."
Ben Reiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: 6 Mar 2000 04:12:49 GMT
Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Sal Denaro wrote:
: > Apple _could_ have done something like MkLinux+X11+Carbon/BlueBox rather
: > than Mach/BSD+Quartz+Carbon/Cocoa/BlueBox but I don't see how the prior
: > is more interesting than the later. Feel free to point out anything I
: > might have missed.
: Perhaps they went with Mach/BSD because the NeXT people know/knew it *far*
: better than Linux, and because X11 is an obsolete, schizofrenic standard.
: Just some ideas.
I think we are in one of those recurring loops that MJP referred to.
Apple's decisions with respect to Darwin and Quartz certainly make sense
in the context of their business plan.
But for those looking to run an open OS and GUI layer on a broad array of
hardware - Quartz and Darwin have a ways to go - not for reasons of kernel
architecture, but for reasons of culture and business priority.
Consider the saga of "The Darwinist" as he waits and watches Darwin and
Linux:
Jan 01 - http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/02/darwinist.html
Jan 27 - http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/23/darwinist.html
Feb 03 - http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/01/30/darwinistthurs.html
Feb 21 - http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/02/20/0221mwdarwinist.html
His most recent comment:
"The open source holding pattern in Apple's orbit had grown increasingly
monotonous."
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:19:44 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
5X3 wrote:
> If you could run W2K on an S/390, which you cant. Though I do admit that
> that would be a helluva trick for IBM to pull...
>
> Seeing as how theyll never get OS source from MS to do it. :)
>
> p0ok
Since Hotmail is currently running on Solaris it wouldn't be that big of a
trick. As far as W2K on S/390 - I did hear of someone recently getting the
first known BSOD on S/390. I think he had a little too much free time - he
managed to bring up Linux/390, run an x86 emulator on Linux and boot up NT.
After a little while there was that BSOD. Of course I can think of better
things to do with an S/390 but I did get a good laugh out of it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [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: 6 Mar 2000 04:50:12 GMT
On Sun, 2 Mar 3900 02:04:50,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
>
> Windows 95 was a much needed improvement, it's just a shame it had some
> odd UI 'features' (Who in their right mind puts the close icon next to
> the maximise icon?!) and was too unstable.
OS/2 Warp already had done it the 'right' way: [ Close > Minimize
>FullScreen ]
so naturally Win95 had to do it wrong.
VR
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:17:58 GMT
On 6 Mar 2000 00:07:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
<snip>
>> So only remotely exploitable bugs are serious? Then I know why
>> Windows usually does *not* have a telnet server running, for
>> example. Must remember your argumentation.
>
>Did you forget? NT's C2 certification does not allow networked connections.
The European certification, E3/F-C2, did test a networked config.
In MS's press release:
Windows NT is the first and only PC-based server
operating system to receive a fully networked C2
or FC2 security evaluation from either ITSEC or
the NSA, further establishing it as the most secure
PC-based server operating system available.
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/security/exec/feature/SecEval.asp
Whether is has or hasn't passed C2 seems quite silly to use as
an argument since there are several non-C2 certified OS's which
are quite secure.
Before banging on NT too much for their non-networked C2
certification, can you name any PC-based OS which has
passed C2 certification while in a network configuration?
I'm not saying there aren't any --- I don't know if there are.
------------------------------
From: "Big Circle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:17:18 +0800
Can you tell us your duties and daily works?
Any vacancies in your company?
Peter Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Underpaid? That's interesting because whenever I've talked to people
> about working in the USA, they've always quoted less that I was
> earning in UK.
> I'm currently an A/P earning over US$100K. 35hr a week but admittedly,
> no benefits.
>
> PAM.
>
> __________ Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __________
> >In comp.os.linux.misc Peter Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: Having said that I'd guess that as you've left school and it's an
> >: admin job I'd go for about GB20K which would be about US$30K which
> >: works out at about ....oh dear, US$10.27/hr. Perhaps I have my sums
> >: wrong.
> >
> >IT folk are underpaid in GB or overpaid in US :) Starting admin job in
CA
> >40-60k, depending on experience (maybe more for high-power jobs) and
> >depending on stock options/benefits. less than 40 is crazy - especially
in
> >California.
> >
> >--
> >Tim Hockin
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >This program has been brought to you by the language C and the number F.
>
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:39:37 +0400
Simon Buehring wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I am not that bothered if I choose a Linux version which is not
> necessarily the easiest to install.
I would recommend Mandrake 7.0 .It's got some options to setup the security
level you
wish during install time. Neat feature.
> I am prepared to spend the time doing
> the nitty gritty of installation as a learning exercise in itself.
Wanna get dirty? Slackware or Debian, so they say. But you'llhave lots of fun
if you don't mind about sleepless nights.
>
>
> Any suggestions greatly appreciated.
>
> thanks
>
> Simon
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:41:33 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:04:46 GMT, "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 00:40:43 GMT, "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>> Utter bullshit... the "Dell hardware drivers" had been flushed long
>> ago in a previous installation of NT because the computer came
>> with Win98 pre-installed.
>
>Well then, you are using drivers that are not written for the specific
>hardware that you are running. You are using drivers written for the
>retail versions of the hardware, which many times ARE different.
Good grief... give it up... your excuses are getting lamer and lamer.
In _my_case_ they are not different -- I checked the hardware and
the drivers and the drivers are designed for the hardware that I have.
If you go to the Adaptec site it specifically mentions the 2940 models
which are designated OEM versions, and my card is not on the list.
It was simply a 2940UW that Dell installed.
>> Now that we've gotten that out of the way... do you have a cite for
>> the "SP6 is specifically not recommended for the Dell hardware
>> drivers" comment and the "degradation in your disk cache"
>> comment? What in the world are you talking about?
>
>www.dell.com
>
>You'll notice that they only offer SP4 and SP5 installs on all their NT4.0 systems.
And you think that means that "SP6 is specifically not recommended" ??
Given your penchant to grasp at straws, that doesn't surprise me.
http://support.dell.com/docs/software/ntsee50/
Microsoft® Windows NT® Server, Enterprise Edition 4.0,
Service Pack 5 or Later Information Update
Notice the OR LATER part? Did it ever occur to you that Dell might
be waiting for input on SP6 before offering it? Like, it's now SP6a
because MS screwed up SP6?
>Your post merely illustrates the possible problem of using drivers from
>one vender, which are not written for the particular hardware you are using.
No it doesn't -- you just have a hard time with facts and will make
up your own to fit your purposes.
>You may, or you may not have any problems. It's a crap shoot. But don't
>whine and piss about losing that bet.
Who's whining and pissing? I simply disagreed with the position
that if you use qualified drivers that you WILL NOT have a problem.
Using WHQ drivers will certainly improve the odds that you won't
have problems, but it's no guarantee.
I've noticed that the guy who originally made that claim hasn't even
bothered to dispute me, yet you foolishly jump in...
------------------------------
From: Robert Yoder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:52:11 -0700
Bill Moran wrote:
>
> by wrote:
>
> > Today I'm just wondering about various BSDs I've seen mentioned. My
> > company's servers run NetBSD and they run fine. Can someone explain the
> > difference between freebsd, netbsd, openbsd, bsd-lite ? I've also seen
> > 4bsd and bsd4.* mentioned. What are the major variants of BSD today and
> > what are their differences ?
> >
> > Also, how are various BSDs compared to Linux ?
>
> 4.4BSD-lite is what the others are derived from. Although you can
> probably get it from somewhere, 4.4BSD-LITE is more or less obsolete.
> It's no longer under development.
> FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD (and I think BSD/OS) are all derived from
> 4.4BSD-LITE. They are all currently under active development and the
> strengths have been explained in other posts. The best way to understand
> what each is about is to go to the respective web sites and read the
> project goals. This will tell you a little bit about where the software
> is going.
>
> While the BSDs are based on code that's been around for many years (and
> pretty closely descendended fromt the original UNIX) Linux was written
> to supply a UNIX-like OS during lawsuits in the early 90s. During this
> time, BSD code was tied up in a lawsuit where AT&T claimed that they
> owned it and it must no longer be given away. Thus Linus wrote Linux to
> fill the gap.
Everything I read was that Linus wanted to expand upon Minix.
I think he would have written Linux REGARDLESS of the legal
issues around *BSD.
> Linux is good, but IMHO it's still a UNIX-like system, whereas the *BSDs
> ARE UNIX.
If it looks like a duck;
Walks like a duck;
And quacks like a duck;
Then it's a duck.
(Legal trademark issues aside)
If an OS provides standard POSIX API's,
Utilizes standard network protocols,
And provides the usual commandline utilities,
Enabling it to interoperate with the other Unix variants,
Then it's a "Unix".
ry
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Unix: The Solution to the W2K Problem."
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 06 Mar 2000 00:44:58 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps for one large scale site that is easily partitioned, but not
> >> for tens of thousands of smaller sites.
>
> > You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Tens of
> > thousands of smaller sites are *already partitioned* by their very
> > nature, and thus very easy to load balance across a server farm.
>
> I do, because I deal with this sort of thing every single day.
>
> From the nature of your statement, I guarantee that you have never
> run tens of thousands of virtual hosts on a single NT cluster,
> because if you had, you would know what an enormous pain in the
> ass *everything about it* is.
I know enough about the pain of NT that I would never attempt
such a thing; however, I thought we were talking about Linux --
or did you think you could sharpen your aim by picking off an
easy target on the side?
> I'm not saying that it doesnt work; im saying that NT cannot
> compete. You arent understanding what im saying.
You don't understand what you are saying. Your claim was that
Linux couldn't compete. What does that have to do with NT?
> I'm saying that the reason that NT cant compete in this area is
> because its TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE TO BABYSIT, AND TOO FUCKING
> EXPENSIVE TO BUY. With two or three free alternatives which
> will generally run on identical hardware and require much cheaper
> babysitting, the decision is clear.
Nice irrelevant rant there, although I happen to agree with
its general thrust.
> >> > For such an approach, Linux works very well.
> >>
> >> I didnt say that it didnt work, I said that it couldnt compete.
> >> IMHO, solaris and freebsd to a much better job.
>
> > And I think you're making this up as you go along.
>
> Have you ever even used solaris or freebsd?
Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, AIX, HP-UX... I've done development
work on all of them (as well as NT). Your point?
> Freebsd is a *dream* to use. I can uncrate a brand new machine and
> have it up and running and serving thousands of websites in an
> HOUR. Do you understand the importance of that statement? Have
> you any idea?
Yeah, it means you've developed a good deal of dexterity with
FreeBSD. Of course, if you want to do the job right, you'll
put those thousands of sites on virtual servers that are load
balanced across multiple machines, thus giving you better
performance and availability.
In the context of your claim about the suitability of Linux
for large site service, I also understand the importance of
that statement to be nearly zero: you've provided no well-
informed comparison.
> We used to have load races with solaris at a previous place of
> employment. The first to ONE THOUSAND and BACK won. Do you
> the importants of THAT statement? Have you any idea?
Yeah, it's about as important as the previous rant.
> >> Absolutely--if an IBM S/390 is in your budget.
>
> > It is in the budget of a large site,
>
> Hahahahahahaaa...
>
> Oh my dear god...Sweetie, do you know how much an IBM S/390,
> fully loaded costs?
Who said anything about fully loaded, Sourpuss? S/390 is not
a thing, but a family of similar hardware. The low-end of the
S/390 line can be very competetive with full-blown, n-tier
e-commerce configurations running Solaris, FreeBSD, or any
other Unix-like environment.
If that doesn't match up with your notion of the budget for a
large site, then I'm sorry, but your "large" is rather small.
> I admit that being able to run 63,000 virtual
> linux machines on one of the newest IBM S/390s fully decked
> (before running out of memory) is pretty cool, and that being
> able to host about a thousand medium-traffic sites on each one
> is pretty cool too. Thats alotta sites. (or virtual interfaces,
> etc). Real neat.
>
> Now think about the sorts of companies who would need such a
> thing, and think about what theyre running already, and how
> much THAT cost.
Yes, I'm thinking.... Know what I'm thinking? I'm thinking that
it is not at all clear what you mean by "large web site hosting."
It seems that you don't want to talk about large web sites, but
instead want to go on about co-location of a whole lot of little
sites. In general, a whole lot of little sites don't add up to
the demands of a big site, either in terms of hardware or software.
Yes, a mainframe setup would likely be overkill for most co-
location facilities; but it could be put to very good use in a
large e-commerce site. The very fact that your "large" sites don't
need hardware and software on the scale of such e-commerce sites
pretty much leads me to the conclusion that your "large" isn't.
Know what else I'm thinking? The addition of Linux into those
mainframe using companies' systems looks very appealing, in a
way that FreeBSD or Solaris can't compete with.
> > and is at least as good an
> > option for such a site as Solaris or FreeBSD -- arguably, the
> > mainframe approach is much better than the traditional Unix server
> > approach.
>
> "Arguably". I think im going to remember that you said that
> when I read your next line:
Go right ahead.
> > Therefore, your claim that Linux cannot compete for
> > large site hosting is false.
>
> "Arguably" does not seem to jibe with your "therefore" there
> bub. At best, you could say that my claim that linux cannot
> compete for large site hosting is "arguably" false. You
> should have stayed in school.
You should have gone to school... here, let me do it for you:
my statement began with "is at least as good an option for
such a site as Solaris or FreeBSD" and concluded with "arguably
...better." "Cannot compete" is not consistent with "at least
as good as" (which is virtually the definition of competetive)
regardless of whether you accept the "better" argument.
Therefore, "therefore". Try learning basic rhetoric before
attempting to analyze someone else's argumentation, bub.
> And it cant. In the real world, it DOESNT. Show me how many
> large scale sites (lets start on the order of Exodus and Verio)
> use linux for webhosting.
You're making the claim, you do the queso search.
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:07:29 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89uss2$2eqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Wolfgang Weisselberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:17:13 GMT,
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> "George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> > Quota limits can be bypassed is another. Create as many 0 byte
>
> >> Yeah, this one will have to be dealt with, but it's unlikely that
> >> someone on the local LAN will start doing things like this.
>
> >> It's not a remoteable exploit of any kind.
>
> > So only remotely exploitable bugs are serious? Then I know why
> > Windows usually does *not* have a telnet server running, for
> > example. Must remember your argumentation.
>
> Did you forget? NT's C2 certification does not allow networked
> connections. Any bug in windows2000 (which of course could allow
> the same certification, as chad has said a couple of dozen times)
> which would be remotely exploitable doesnt count and therefore
> wont be mentioned.
That is incorrect. NT3.51 was not network C2 rated but NT4 IS network C2
rated.
W2K is even more secure than NT4 could ever dreamed of being.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
