Linux-Advocacy Digest #579, Volume #25 Fri, 10 Mar 00 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X) (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Disproving the lies. (5X3)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Christopher Smith")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ("ax")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Criticism (Robert Canup)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Disproving the lies. (Matt Gaia)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Cliff Wagner)
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Christopher Browne)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Ron House)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:41:35 -0600
I thought that was the case.
On 06 Mar 2000 08:45:42 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: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.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:38:12 GMT
Eerrrr, you're confused. The death of UNIX has already occurred. What
you're witnessing is the resurrection (roll stone away from tomb; cue
heavenly choir...)
Admit it; you're a dinosaur in the fast moving mammalian world of
technology. NT is old, boring shit, and Linux is new and exciting.
It doesn't have to be good. New is good enough. Even if new is really
old. Hey, it works for Microsoft.....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:51:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:29:27 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Nobody is "playing around with Motif" as you put it.
>Motif is long dead. Soon to be followed by Linux!
>
>BUY MSFT!!!
>
>It's your only hope!!!!!
You wish.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- yep, was S, now Zzzzz, still brain-dead
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: 10 Mar 2000 03:52:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1% of 60 million is 600,000.
> You're off (of what I'd certainly admit is a flimsy estimate in the
> first place) by a full order of magnitude.
> Did you flunk math?
Dont forget, this is the same guy who seems to be able to divide
by zero...:)
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:00:11 +1000
"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : 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?
>
> The question is not really can you afford it though. It's more like
> "Unless you're a brain-dead lemming on crack, why would you spend $300 on
> an OS when you can a different, better OS for free?"
Because you can't get a different, better OS for free :).
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:06:24 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8a9mb8$hra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <7oXx4.7656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
> > in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
> > on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
> > in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
>
> Nonsense. Technical expertise is required to use any server operating
> system effectively, be it W2K, NT, or Linux. A business owner could
> care less whether you're an MCSE or an RHCE. They are, by your own
> argument, only interested in getting the job done.
Believe it or not, owners of non-computer businesses
really don't want to spend time learning an OS except
a few simple software applications for accounting, planning
and word processing. If they cannot get Linux installed
with a few attempts, they will give up.
> > If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
> > new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
> > the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
> > current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
>
> Tripe. Business owners are accustomed to the upgrade treadmill. They
> do it every couple of years to support the next behemoth from Redmond.
> It's already in the budget. It is more likely that you will be able to
> tell a business owner that he does NOT have to throw his current
> investment down the drain in order to run Linux. He can take his
> upgrade money and give his employees bonuses.
Small business owners are very sensitive about the cost
since every dollar wasted is one dollar lost from his own
pocket. One small business owner I met lately told me
that he had invested heavily on the latest Microsoft platforms
for his entire offices and he wanted to preserve his latest
technology investment for at least a few years ahead.
He said it's always a painful feeling to upgrade his computer
systems. He implied that his situation is non uncommon.
I guess it will take a couple of years for small business owners
like him to even think about Linux.
> If you're a consultant, you're not qualified. If you're only a troll,
> you're pathetic.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:06:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:01:51 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>10. X-Windows fonts look like shit. Go "borrow" true-type fonts and
>they still suck. Mac looks great. Windows looks good. Linux looks like
>shit. Not to mention X-Windows is slow as shit.
This has nothing to do with Linux, proper. This is an X problem.
As for being "slow as shit", that's a bit too vague to be
troubleshootable.
>
>9. Sound Blaster Live is supported in an abortive manner, if you can
>even make it work at all. Top selling card for over 2 years and still
>semi-supported. Corel announces alliance with Creative to develop
>multimedia applications (ala Sound Forge, WaveLab, Cakewalk etc) and
>yet Corel still can't provide a binary on their website that works.
>Damm shame, but typical "wait till it's obsolete to support it" Linux
>fluff.
Unknown, as I don't have that card. However, reports on this
newsgroup suggest it is partially supported. But only partially.
(I have the same problem with my AWE64; the softwave part of the
card is not supported at all, although that may have been rectified
by now, and I for one don't do a lot of soundwork. Although I
wouldn't mind being musical.)
>
>8. Postscript printers are really the only ones that fully function
>easily under Linux. What you save in dollars on the OS, you will pay
>for on the printer.
Eh?
I use a LaserJet 5L, which is *not* a Postscript printer.
Works fine. (That's what Ghostscript is *for* :-) )
>
>7. Scanners. SCSI scanners still rule in the Linux world although they
>offer no advantage over parallel port scanners, except being supported
>using a crude but appropriately named program called inSANE. This does
>not even touch on the fact that all of that great software included
>with your new scanner (Adobe Photoshop, Cannon Greeting card and so
>forth) won't run under Linux. You pay one way or the other....Just
>make sure to send all of those "useless under Linux" programs to me :)
I for one would think SCSI SANE scanners have it all over parallel
port scanners because of the throughput speed. I could be wrong.
Of course, there is the matter of cost, but in the hardware
world, one does get what one pays for. Buy a cheapie modem,
scanner, or printer, expect bad performance.
(This may be one explanation as to why many Windows machines
are so crash-happy, although the general construction/reliability
of the Win9x so-called "OS" doesn't help an awful lot, either.
NT is better engineered, although it still has problems, and
no OS can be expected to work well on substandard hardware.)
>
>6.Dial up's and Free ISP's as well as AOL. First point AOL does not
>work. That automatically eliminates millions of users from using
>Linux. Secondly, most Free ISP providers require surveys and scripts
>to be run that only run under Windows or Mac. Linux does not work and
>no amount of begging will change anything.
Linux works fine on many ISPs; AOL isn't the only one out there. :-)
However, you're otherwise correct, and I don't know whether
it is something correctable, but then, that's between the Linux
user and AOL. I don't use AOL.
>
>5.Netscape. If you hate Netscape, you'll hate Linux cause you have no
>choice except KDE, a poor substitute or a text based browser, and
>believe it or not there are folks running these. Mostly in the Linux
>community, because that's the best they can do. Opera will be
>out....anyday....anyday......anyday.......
>Mozilla.....anyday.....anyday.....anyday........
I'll admit, the browser situation on Linux is somewhat less than
satisfactory -- today. (Tomorrow never comes.)
Mnemonic still isn't finished, Opera Real Soon Now, and
Mozilla, while workable, is more or less in the "test page"
phase (although it does seem to understand simple HTML/frames).
And Netscape's just crash-happy. Sigh.
If one's adventurous, one can try Arena or Amaya; Arena doesn't
do frames, and Amaya has some weird difficulties with Lesstif.
But both are relatively mature.
And of course there's Lynx, which doesn't do pictures and
therefore may be unsuitable for my favorite activity at times --
namely, the viewing of tasteful pictures of scantily clad
thumbnails. :-)
>
>4.Compatability with the rest of the free world. No Lotus Notes
>Client. Domino server, but no client. Compatibility with Office and
>Lotus is a joke. Some things work ok others die at the starting gate.
>Do YOU want to be the one to tell your boss to send you a Power point
>presentation as a text file? How about begging a software or hardware
>manufacturer to support Linux. Get used to it. It is the Linux way.
Office is part of the free world? Must be some good stuff
you're smoking, there. :-) (For the uninformed, Office is
a Microsoft product, and that's about as far from free as
one can get, although it is very widely available.)
As for Lotus Notes...can't say, although I thought IBM might
have a Linux version. Then again, they might not.
>
>3. No real group ware. Star office is ok for a single user and one
>could hardly argue with the price but it is hardly group ware.
>It also looks crude an boxy, like most Linux applications.
Without a more accurate definition of "groupware", I for one
can't comment.
>
>2. Multimedia is way, way behind even the crudest Windows
>applications. Want to use a far outdated Real Player? Try Linux cause
>that's what it uses. DVD? Coming real soon now...yea right.....
Microsoft's MediaPlayer is the best in the biz, right now.
(Of course, there are rumors that it's being ported....gee,
now why would they do that if their OS is so good? :-) )
>
>1. Fragmentation of the various distributions. Red hat, Corel, SuSE
>and others are all competing for press and that coveted best
>distribution award. As a result RPM's don't work with deb's, libraries
>are incompatible and you will find yourself spending hours if not days
>trying to make even the simplest of tasks working under Linux. Don't
>let the Linowacko's deceive you into thinking you are stupid, for they
>are the foolish ones running an OS from the stone age.
This is in work. Of course, there's also the little problem of
fragmentation within Windows: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT 3.51,
Windows NT 4, and now Windows 2K. Also, if one wants to support
embedded apps, Windows CE, which, as I understand it, doesn't
even run on an x86 platform.
Yeah, Windows is so unified. (snicker)
>
>Linux sux, it always has, it always will and we will make certain
>everyone we come in contact in the computer field knows that.
>
>The organized assualt has begun. Shields up cause we're gonna blow
>this baby wide open!!!
>
>Good Luck LinoNuts cause you will need it. We are out there to
>disprove each and every idiotic claim you make to try and support that
>miserable OS called Linux.
Good luck supporting *your* position. You'll need it more than
we do. (Besides, sounding like a total idiot with only half
a brain cell doesn't exactly further one's cause any. It appears
that you're up to about 2 1/2 brain cells, in this post. :-) )
>
>
>z
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- counting his brain cells to make sure he hasn't
lost any :-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 22:13:21 -0600
David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That's a combined "Server years" figure, adding up all time in all
servers.
>
> So how does that relate to true uptime? I can state that my three
> linux servers that I administer have an uptime of three months and this
> would prove nothing. Why not? Because one of the boxes just came online
> and the uptime numbers are insignificant. With NT 4.0 server, it would
> take more than the 4.18 years of service time to equal the uptime figure
> quoted.
I didn't say it had anything to do with anything. I was just answering the
question as to why it had an uptime of years when Win2k hasn't been out that
long.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:09:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:55:40 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:13:29 +0200, "James McLaren"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
>>the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
>>they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
>>calling it a day.
>
>
>You only wasted a day on Linux? Most people waste months before they
>finally give up....
And some people waste their entire lives stuck in a GUI... :-)
>>How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
>>don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure :)
>
>
>Ain't no support in Linux. Everybody has an answer but so few of them
>are correct.
And you'd know a correct answer?
>
>>James <- Asbestos jox in situ
>
>Fuck Linux...It plain suxs
Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess. Personally, I prefer
willing, attractive women. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Robert Canup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Criticism
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 21:29:53 -0600
Robert Canup wrote:
>
<deleted>
A few points: I did not assert that no one had a LEGAL right to
criticize Free Software - people do have a LEGAL right to do so. What I
said was that no one has a MORAL right to criticize Free Software. There
is a substantial difference between those two. I will give an example
illustrating the difference.
My mother will be 84 years old this month - she is quite frail - having
had a heart attack, and her artificial hip is wearing out - causing her
much pain. I have a LEGAL right to be ugly toward her in her declining
years; there is nothing in the law requiring me to be caring and loving
toward her. I choose to be caring toward her because I have no MORAL
right to be ugly toward her.
Just because something is legal does not mean that it is MORAL.
Conversely there are things which are MORALLY correct which are illegal.
Example: it would be morally correct to beat the crap out of Charles
Manson - it is however illegal to do so.
This once again is an outgrowth of the Yin and Yang nature of reality.
Most immoral acts are illegal, most legal acts are moral - however some
moral acts are illegal, and some legal acts are immoral.
Criticizing Free Software is a LEGAL act which is IMMORAL.
Broadly speaking animals are divided into two groups: Herbivores and
Carnivores. (And yes, thank you, I know that there is such a thing as an
omnivore). Emotionally humans can be divided into similar categories:
emotional herbivores - who wish to be left alone to 'chew the cud' of
their own happiness - and emotional carnivores who wish to destroy the
happiness of others. By far the majority of humanity is emotionally
herbivorous - only a small fraction of humanity is emotionally
carnivorous. This small segment is responsible for most of the problems
of humanity.
What goes on in news groups such as this one is jousting between
emotional bulls - an attempt to test one's strength against other
emotional bulls to establish one's place in the hierarchy. This is very
different from what the trolls who frequent the groups are doing: they
are emotional carnivores who attack the herd - hoping to destroy the
happiness of a weaker participant.
Pay careful attention: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A RIGHT TO THE PURSUIT
OF UNHAPPINESS.
Trolls have a legal right to do what they are doing - it is not against
the law. What they lack is a MORAL right to do what they are doing:
pursuing unhappiness.
Please note: NOT ONE OF THE WINDOWS TROLLS WHO FREQUENT THIS GROUP
ANSWERED MY ORIGINAL POST. They understand what they are doing, they
aren't confused about what is going on, and they know they have no moral
right to do what they are doing. They know what they are doing is wrong
and indefensible. It is those of you who defend them who have no CLUE
what is going on. What these people are doing is very different from
what the rest of you are doing. Look at how much unhappiness, confusion
and doubt they cause you.
There is another word for emotional carnivores: EVIL. This is an issue
of good versus evil. You people need to carefully decide which side you
want to be on - I have.
Young people see the ferocity of carnivores and think "I want to be
powerful like that". But a lion only thinks it is powerful until it runs
into its first bull elephant - then it finds out what power really
means.
Much of the problem in the animal world is that the Elephants don't go
around stomping on Lions. That is exactly what I am doing. You haven't
seen that before - and so you are unfamiliar with what is going on. You
think that I want to restrict your rights. Nope: I can tell the
difference between a Bull and Lion. The rest of you need to learn the
differences also.
There is a huge difference between the constructive peer review
criticism that goes on in the development of Free Software and the
destructive criticism that a Windows Troll spews out. The former is
moral - the latter is not. Constructive peer review criticism is part of
the "Fix what is wrong" process and it is NOT the criticism I was
talking about.
I repeat my assertion: NO ONE HAS A MORAL RIGHT TO CRITICIZE FREE
SOFTWARE. Fix what is wrong - or keep your mouth shut.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:21:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 10. X-Windows fonts look like shit.
Then you don't know how to set up a font server properly.
> 9. Sound Blaster Live is supported in an abortive manner, if you can
> even make it work at all.
Mine works fine, thank you.
> 8. Postscript printers are really the only ones that fully function
> easily under Linux. What you save in dollars on the OS, you will pay
> for on the printer.
Whatever money you save should go towards surgery to correct your
cranial-rectal inversion syndrome.
> 7. Scanners.
Mine works fine. Cost me $30 US to do it. Details would be beyond your
level of understanding.
> 6.Dial up's and Free ISP's as well as AOL.
I don't consider a lack of AOL to be a disadvantage.
> 5.Netscape.
As rock solid as IE. Minus the security exploits and virii, of course.
> 4.Compatability with the rest of the free world.
Proprietary compatibility is a filthy joke. Try using Open Standards;
something your favored OS likes to subvert.
> 3. No real group ware.
I'm running Domino Server and HP OpenMail. Exchange is a joke.
> 2. Multimedia is way, way behind even the crudest Windows
> applications.
In a business environment, this means diddly.
> 1. Fragmentation of the various distributions.
Last week I loaded a copy of Netscape from a Caldera CD on a Debian box
using Redhat's Package manager, and it works just fscking fine. What's
your point?
> Linux sux, it always has, it always will and we will make certain
> everyone we come in contact in the computer field knows that.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all the idiots in the world had to wear a
sign hanging from their neck that proclaimed that the wearer was an
idiot? E-mail me for your sign....
> The organized assualt has begun. Shields up cause we're gonna blow
This is organized? Blow me.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:29:44 -0500
: Because you can't get a different, better OS for free :).
*looks at his linux box* Hasn't crashed in four months, free OS, very few
bugs, easy to configure.
*looks at his Win box* Crashes about once a day, expensive OS, bugs in
some programs, especially Microsoft ones, would have to pay an arm and a
leg to get source code for.
<sarcasm>
*thinks* wow, I guess I really can't get a good OS for free, huh?
</sarcasm>
--
Matt Gaia, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University Webmaster, Youngstown State University
Vice President, YSUWeb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 10 Mar 2000 04:34:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 03:36:13 GMT, fred typed something like:
>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.
Yes, they are partitioned, but that's the least of the
issues in a virtual hosting environment.
First off, with that number of virt sites, you best be
using some form of hardware based disk array (no, Compaq
does not count). My experience with a large hosting
company was at the same place pooky started, so we used Network
Appliance.
Now, we'll have to talk about the configurations.
IIS, Ok, we're setting up quite a few virtual hosts per
machine. That's all well and good, however, how do we
handle fault tolerance? Well, we have to have some form
of load balancing I suppose. There are a few ways of doing
that. One would be to duplicate the entire multiple server
set up *ouch*, or another would be using a load balancing
server, and configuring the sites to have a spare server
config somewhere....still somewhat painful.
The solaris solution was quite nice. The clustering worked
exactly as advertised.
If you want to see an example of how painful virtual NT
hosting can be, check out hiway.net sometime.
Also worked with BSDI hosting. Not bad, but couldn't handle
even a decent load when bungie.com released Marathon
(I believe that was the correct title, I know it was pre-Myth).
>>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?
Please answer the question. If you'd done this, I'm curious of
the hardware configs and the traffic on the sites.
Even DressedIn admitted that IIS 4 is not the most elegant of
virtual hosting platforms (although they've made a lot of
strides).
>>I'm not saying that it doesnt work; im saying that NT cannot
>>compete. You arent understanding what im saying.
>
> Explain microsoft.com
1 site on multiple machines.
Does not apply to 10,000 virtual hosts on a
single machine.
Having seen a scale-up vs. scale-out approach at
one of the largest web hosting firms in the world,
scaling-up (and out mostly for redundancy) definitely
worked out to a lower administrative cost per site.
>>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?
Ever try scaling NT web hosting w/ SQL (not talking about
ANY other aspect other then IIS + SQL) to over 1,000 sites?
>Quit pretending you know what you are talking about... it's criminal.
He does know what he's talking about actually (albeit, sometimes
a little mistaken in his claims).
-c-
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:37:34 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Roberto Alsina would say:
>#include <qapp.h>
>#include <qpushbutton.h>
>
>int main (int argc, char **argv)
>{
> QApplication a(argc,argv);
> QPushButton *b=new QPushButton("Hello World!",0);
> b->show();
> connect(b,SIGNAL(clicked()),app,SLOT(quit()));
> a.exec();
>}
Hey! This is an advocacy group! No source code allowed!
Only mindless flames!
>11 lines, and it even exits when you click the button.
>
>It can be done shorter, of course.
Perhaps, but that would only show the pointlessness of this.
Comp.lang.lisp has similarly been suffering flame wars over benchmarks
of null programs in various languages.
It's *stupid* to fight over who's best at doing *nothing.*
Consider it stipulated that it's rather nicer if one can avoid the
need to manually manage:
- fonts
- memory allocation
- window location
- colour scheme
...
but the merits should *not* be based on "How easy is it to write
Hello, World!"
The merits of languages and toolkits need to be based on how well
their abstractions fit with applications of at least some moderate
degree of complexity.
--
You know that little indestructible black box that is used on
planes---why can't they make the whole plane out of the same
substance?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:37:55 +0000
[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?
RH5.2: Zillions of missing man pages (diff comes to mind).
RH6.0: Bunged up UID numbers that conflicted with lots of software,
premature version of g++ and all libraries, hopelessly bug-ridden Gnome
shell.
RH6.1: Installation foul-ups (e.g. if you forget to install all compiler
libraries and components and install some later, include paths never
search in the right places).
And these are things I have come across in the normal course of events;
I am not employed as any sort of RedHat guru.
--
Ron House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Never fear the truth.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
