Linux-Advocacy Digest #575, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 17:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Disproving the lies. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Craig Kelley)
Re: Giving up on NT (Craig Kelley)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Craig Kelley)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000 (Craig Kelley)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Craig Kelley)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Craig Kelley)
Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown (George Richard Russell)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (George Richard Russell)
Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X) (George Richard Russell)
Re: Which Linux version is best ? (Denis Barthel)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Rob Hughes")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("2 + 2")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 Mar 2000 10:47:16 -0700
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yoOx4.7$py.361@client...
> > Even if you gave away the OS and the database you still don't get even
> close
> > to what you claim.
> >
>
> you have the same opinion of rexes crap as I do... what you wrote above is
> what I've been trying to hammer into the linvocates heads and they just
> don't get it. the price of the OS is insignificant except to single PC home
> users (well, less than middle-class income ones at least). I mean, if you
> can't afford a $300 OS - how can you possibly call youself a computer
> professional?
Oh? So I can install Windows 2000 for all 300 of my users (on the
server, with mail, and on the client) for just $300 dollars? Wow,
they sure have dropped the price recently.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:16:26 -0700
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
> >
> > "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>
> > > Broken apps shouldn't crash the OS.
> >
> > The database needed to pilot the ship was down due to the nasty divide per
> > 0, but was the OS crashed ?
>
> What's up with that? I remember back in the years '91-'93 I used to
> see the `divide by zero' error all the time. I saw this but with the
> Linux version of Opera as well. What exactly are these apps doing
> that they are dividing by zero? Here's one possible solution: set a
> flag in your code that you want the denominator to be unity in the
> case of a divide by zero exception. There could be a provision in
> libc for this.
The fun of writing large systems in a language that lacks exception
handling:
int broken(void *pass_by_kludge) {
if (blah(foo) == ERROR) {
set_lame_flag();
return ERROR;
}
if (bar(blah) == ERROR) { ... }
if (whoa(rah) == ERROR) { ... }
}
if (broken (&my_prehistoric_struct) == ERROR) {
check_lame_easily_clobbered_global_error_code_variable(
"don't even think about a traceback without using a debugger");
}
It's pretty ugly, and not at all surprising that there are so many
error detecting problems. I remember getting /0 errrors when I
programmed in BASIC and C; I'm a better coder now -- but I also have
better languages to use. Even modern languages that lack a real
try/except/finally syntax (like perl) have equivalents and couple
object mentatlity so that it is easy to do without them.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:29:38 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Sheesh, because this company didn't see the need to invest in more
> video ram. And I run my screen at 1280 x 1024. Look up economics while
> you are in the dictionary.
>
> Well, the icons that Windows uses are ugly.
>
> The interesting thing is, when the Mac is in 256 color mode, the icons
> are, well, in 256 colors. I had ASSUMED that the Windows would be just
> as intelligent. HAH! That's what I get for assuming.
I've seen 2-bit icons on a mac using "millions" of colors.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:20:32 -0700
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Arthur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > How does any OS survive this? I can't think it would be too happy to
> > > find its swapped bits are all now zeros.
> >
> > > I'm serious here- I don't understand. Enlighten me.
> >
> > If you really want an OS to do this, it's not that
> > hard. You simply have to detect format requests
> > (independent of the driver), validate them (pass
> > a magic number, respond to a request for validation,
> > only allow trusted code to do a format), and
> > recover gracefully if the request is an error.
> > You may find it easier to implement some of this
> > in hardware (eg memory protection on X86's).
>
> Talk about bloat ware. Now the OS not only has to be an OS, but
> has to constantly watch the drivers to make sure that they're
> not doing bad driver things.
>
> That's ca-ca. Drivers should be well written. It would
> be better if they're verified.
Amen. (and they should be open-sourced as well!)
[snip]
> > Note that you have to design this capability into
> > the OS - no amount of testing will prevent an
> > incompetent programmer from writing a driver
> > with the fault you describe.
>
> Exactly. This is why Symantec should be banned from writing
> software.
And iomega!
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2000 08:35:37 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >The W2K show is over. Put a fork in W2K, it's done. Adios
> >Mr. Gates, it was fun while it lasted. Your closed source
> >OS model is outdated. No one wants a nosey noo-noo snooping
> >through their setup while online.
>
> I'd have preferred that they put a fork() in it.
That's what I thought he was talking about when I first read the
subject line.
With all the UNIXisms in Windows 2000, it won't be long before it *is*
UNIX.
That's a good thing. (Although Cutler is probably diappointed)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.app
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2000 08:41:00 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 03:56:44 GMT, Michael Gu wrote:
> >if Steve Jobs think Microsoft Windows is 'absolutely tastless' , i
> >really would like to know what kind of words will he be using regarding
> >X windows, Motif or CDE.
> >
> >-- this is purely fiction:
> >What do you want a big screen(more pixels) for?
> >X windows: Bigger letters, of course!
> >Windows: So you can see more letters at once.
>
> I am not sure what you are trying to complain about. If you are complaining
> that Netscape fonts look too small, quit whining and read my font howto
>
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/font_howto/
An excellent page. Thanks.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Symbolic Links for WinBlows 2000
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2000 08:38:26 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord) writes:
> >Yes. Though changing my_important_file will cause there to be two files,
> >your modified and the original backup.
>
> What happens when you change the file with insufficient disk space for a copy
> to be made? What errors are returned and when? Is the copy synchronus?
Or what about a mirrored database file?
You can probably turn this feature off (I hope); but it sounds pretty
cool for a lot of tasks.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2000 08:44:08 -0700
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > : How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be
> useless,
> > : I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
> > : on two screens really provide?
> >
> > Oh wait, why would you need Multi-Monitor Support on any system except for
> > a multimedia system. Just another proof of Windows bells and whistles
> > vs. Linux functionality.
> >
>
> ahhh... feature envy denial... <grin>
Linux has been doing multiple monitors LONG before Microsoft
"invented" it.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2000 08:51:59 -0700
Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
John Carmack?
Did I miss something? This sounds very interesting; please
elaborate.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2000 08:45:42 -0700
Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 04 Mar 2000 15:43:44 +0100, Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> :
> :> You've never installed an app that required updated libs, and then had
> :> the updated libs cause something to break? WOW!
> :
> :No installer updates the libs without asking me.
>
> Even if it asks, couldn't it break something?
Sure, but you can always have *both* installed at the same time.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2000 09:01:02 -0700
Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Sal Denaro wrote:
>
> Good post. I agree wholeheartedly with you.
>
> > Adopting Linux would not erase Apple's borders. Linux is a kernel not a
> > panacea.
>
> Amen!
>
> > Personally, I think that Apple would have a lot more to gain shipping WO
> > for Linux than migrating OSX into OSlinuX. Not because I think Mach+BSD is
> > better than Linux but because there isn't a big enough difference to matter
> > and "Just being Linux" isn't enough to ensure success.
>
> I think I'd be *great* to see WO (presumably only the deployment version,
> and not development) on Linux, and think it'd be good for them, unless
> they're planning on dropping Solaris and NT support and making it Mac OS X
> only.
>
> Why everyone insists that Apple switch to Linux is beyond me. There would
> be almost no gain in doing so, and would set the whole project back by
> along time. Avie knows Mach like the back of his hand; why bother with
> Linux?
I don't think 'everyone' is insisting that Apple switch to Linux;
it's more of a 'what if' than anything. Besides, as a veteran of 68k
NeXT systems, I can honestly say that it ranks as one of the *worst*
UNIX setups I have ever used.
But I still love(d) it. ;)
I doubt that Darwin/POSIX will be as stinky as those sexy black boxes
were. I could, however, do without some of the wacky #ifdef NEXT
statements in MacOSX. Even trivial C programs needed to check if they
were on a NeXT box -- but then again, I hate C now so this may not be
an issue.
I never thought I'd buy a Macintosh again, but it's looking very
likely.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 11 Days wasted on Linux
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 Mar 2000 22:11:47 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> ????
>
> Linux sucks. It needs to be told...We tell it like it is..
>
> Sorry if you are outnumbered 10 to 1.....
It's more like 10 Steves....
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:21:18 GMT
On 9 Mar 2000 09:12:35 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>As your a previously unseen, anonymous poster, I urge any readers to consider
>>>the fact that you have no established credibility at all, "Gooba".
>>
>>Noone on cola does, bar those in the credits files of major OS components.
>Nonsense George.
So who is credible on COLA, Terry? Linux Torvalds vs Terry, now who's more
credible, especially in regard to Linux?
It takes time to build a rep in cola - those who have done so (positively) tend
to have written code / docs etc and hence appear in the credits files, aka the
great and the good.
>>
>>>> That's all. Linux is
>>>>notoriously choosy about what stuff is supported.
>>>Bullshit.
>>
>>Replace Linux with Xfree86, and its true. Its also true for certain things
>>like printers using ghostscript, parallel port devices, anything not likely
>>to be found on server class hardware.
>No its not true, this is just a gross generalisation.
Hmm, where is linux most used, and doesn't Linuxes support concentrate on areas
where it is extensively supported? Your going to find Ethernet drivers easier
than USB ones. Thats a nice server / desktop split right there.
>George your a troll mate.
Gosh.
I just thought I was me.
>>
>>>> Linux is competing with Windows.
>>>No its not.
>>
>>In certain areas, any OS on compatible hardware are competing. You can only run
>>one at a time, bar VMware or IBM's virtualisation on mainframes.
>Therefore ...
You run the one you like most / or which does the needed task / and the other
is neglected, and eventually discarded. I have Win 95A, and Linux 2.2.x, and
I know which I upgrade most often.
>>
>>>> It may not
>>>>be agressively competing with Windows, but it is competing. A giraffe and an
>>>>elephant compete for the same waterhole, how often do you see them fight?
>>>Linux and Windows aren't competing for anything.
>>
>>Mindshare, developer time, end users attention, third party vendor support,
>>driver support, etc....
>Green eggs and spam ....
Calling Dr Seuss...
>>
>>>> Having to code new drivers for yourself?
>>>Sure
>>>> Reverse engineer or
>>>If needed, np.
>>
>>Want to write one for either my printer or scanner? Its only been several years
>>and its not be written yet.
>No George I do not, *your* printer is your problem.
And a few other thousand users, yep, who have to reboot to use all their
hardware.
>Besides you Wintrolls only use the *latest* hardware, where Linux may
>not have one available (yet). Get a new printer.
Disagree with Terry's opinion, become a wintroll. How droll.
This post brought to you courtesy of Linux 2.2.12, slrn, and vim.
HAND.
>>>>apply for licenses for every new piece of hardware?
>>>No Free Software does NOT do deals with proprietary information owners.
>>>If you had more than a passing introduction with it, you'd know that.
>>
>>Xfree86, obfuscated video driver code. Go look for it.
>You look for it.
Matrox driver, caused controversy, featured in an old Linux weekly news. Look
it up.
>>>> I think not, this is why
>>>>Linux needs to compete, it needs a certain base number of users/developers
>>>>to remain a viable, modern OS.
>>>Your totally, completely 100% *incorrect*.
>>
>>What, If everyone walks away, Linux will remain perpetually up to date and
^^^^
>>viable? Nup. Other people could make it so, but people still need to do so.
>This statement shows scant knowledge of Linux George.
How so, Terry?
>Linux developers are NOT walking away, we flocked to Linux in droves, as it
>GAVE us the tools we always wanted. Look at the new apps that appear on places
>like Freshmeat every day!
See the IF terry?
>>
>>Without developers. adaptation ceases. Without users, who will become
>Linux is not short of developers, I assure you Geoege.
Well, I know that, yet somehow every major project asks for more volounteers to
code, test, document, create artwork, package and so one, and progress is not
made equally well in all areas. How late is Xfree 4 ? / Kernel 2.4.x ?
>>disatisfied enough to change something?
>Linux exists, its NOT Windows, your model does not fit.
Yet, after it left the disc of Linus for the ftp site, there were users, who
were dissatisfied (IDE only? No net drivers?) and wrote them. No users, no
developers. Simply really.
>>Things get done for different reasons, still they get done.
>Ans the sun still shines George,... your point ?
Linux is not inherently better than any other software because of its license
or development model, not is any other inherently worse than Linux becuase of
their model of development.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:21:19 GMT
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:26:56 +0000, Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Well, there is one point here: RH distributions contain unproven
>>experimental rubbish that hasn't had its raw edges knocked off.
>
>For example?
Glibc 2.0.5 , Gnome 1.0.40 (the beta test release for October Gnome), Anaconda
i.e their rushed GUI installer, broken compilers (Redhat 5 on Cyrix chips),
the GUI GTK Linuxconf.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:21:20 GMT
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 19:48:12 GMT, William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donn Miller wrote:
>Not only that, but if you want to do commercial development, Qt is much
>more expensive than Motif.
No run time fees, and available at no cost to your users. So no more static
binaries (Netscape, Nedit, anyone?).
I would like Motif, but to buy CDE / Motif / free with a commerical X server
is too much for a replaceable widget set.
>You can get a license for OSF/Motif from companies like Metrolink for
>only about $150. And the commercial Unices include Motif, so an
>application written for Motif is very portable.
And most (all?) free Linuxes come with Qt, so likewise. Apps are portable
between Commercial Unixes, or Free ones, but not both till Motif dies or
is freely and completely reimplemented.
>I wish Linux developers would quit looking down on Motif so much, and be
>more tolerant of other toolkits. For an example of a developer having
>to defend himself from toolkit bigots, here's a quote from the XEphem
>homepage (http://www.clearskyinstitute.com/xephem/xephem.html):
[snip "I wrote it with Motif, and the GUI is large and boring, compared
to writing cool new stuff." Fair enough] Otoh, Motif is not the toolkit of
choice for new stuff.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:40:30 -0800
From: Denis Barthel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux version is best ?
darling,
if i'd have an as/400 or a mainframe, i wouldn't run linux on it.
linux/unix is the best you can use on a microcomputer-level, but leaving
this level should mean to leave this os-world ( not talking about
smp/clustering ).
denis
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : Actually AS/400 and OS/390 is a far better approach than Linux..
>
> Since when are those mutually exclusive choices? Linux can run on
> AS/400, alongside OS/390. (Since the bizarre AS/400 archetecture uses
> virtual machines implemented in hardware, you can run both at once.)
>
> --
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
> Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 15:40:46 -0600
You should have qualified that statement in the same way that they did. In
other words, if you lower your standards some, then its enterprise ready.
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8a7gq1$kac$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote in message ...
> > >It's a very long read but it is very well documented and detailed.
> >
> > You got that right. It's much too long to read.
> >
> > 2 + 2
>
> I understand...
>
> I'll summarize: W2K is enterprise ready for any mission critical
> application.
>
>
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 16:41:21 -0500
Nik Simpson wrote in message ...
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8a7038$ihe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> It will be interesting to see how Win2k $/TPM-C actually translates
>> in the real world.
>>
>> It will be even more interesting to see what Linux $/TPM-C looks like.
>> (has anyone published a "legal one" yet?). The last unofficial one
>> I saw was $2/TPM-C on a 30,000 TPM system based on P-II/300s and Linux.
>
>Utter bullshit, care to provide a reference. PII-300 are limited to dual
>processor systems with a maximum memory of 512MB, it's simply not feasible
>with any operating system to get within an order of magnitude of 30K TPM/C
>on that configuration. I might just possibly beleive 3K on such a
>configuration but given the nature of the benchmark's demands for memory
I'd
>be very sceptical about the results. If you don't beleive me, try asking
>about the plausability of the result on one of the database groups, anybody
>with even a passing familiarity with TPC/C and the hardware limitations of
>PII-300 systems will laugh so hard they'll take days to type a reply.
>
>The numbers mean that overall price of the system is 60K (for your
>$2/transaction.) Just look at the numbers, a 30K TPC/C result is going to
>need:
>
>The server, lets be generous here and allow your 2-way P-300 with 512MB of
>memory: Rough guess 4K
>(but for the record the 33K result that HP announced last week was 6x550MHx
>XEON & 4GB of memory.)
>
>Now we get on to the hard part and a part that is OS independent, the disk
>subsystem, you'll need in the order of 2.2TB of storage for this result,
>thats a function of the number of transactions. And this 2.2TB is not going
>to be cheap IDE drives, the HP result used 240x9GB (10K) and another
14x18GB
>(10K) drives. For the sake of argument, lets price this drive configuration
>using HPs numbers from last week:
>
>9GB 10K drive $508 each ~$136Ktotal (for 268 drives which includes
>spares)
>18GB 10K drive $799 each ~$13K total (for 16 drives which includes
>spares)
>12bay disk housing 1890 each ~43.5K total (for 23 chassis including
spares)
>
>So, just for the IO subsystem needed for a 30K result we are in the 200K
>range, hard to see how you can do a 60K result, unless you have access to
>some of the finest weed on the planet.
He was referring to the TCP benchmark, and then you go on and on about the
TPC benchmark. :)
2 + 2
>
>
>
>> Unfortunately, it was not approved, not properly sponsored, and the
>> TPM review committee demanded that all references to these results
>> be removed.
>
>
>How convenient! No shit it wasn't approved, for the simple reason that it
is
>not possible with current technology or even close to being possible. The
HP
>result was ~$13/transaction, the only difference would be the cost of the
>OS, on a configuration that cost ~500K. If you know anything at all about
>TPC/C you'll know that the vast majority of the costs are in two areas:
>
>Hardware
>5 years maintenance
>
>Even if you gave away the OS and the database you still don't get even
close
>to what you claim.
>
>>They appearantly didn't disagree with the results, only
>> that the results couldn't be published without the permission of the
>> entire membership.
>
>More unsupported bullshit, at this point we are knee deep in the stuff.
>
>>Since the membership included Oracle, Sybase, IBM,
>> HP, and SUN, there weren't any votes that wanted to see these results
>> published.
>
>ROTFLMBFAO
>--
>Nik Simpson
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
