Linux-Advocacy Digest #647, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Why not just try them both? ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom (Mark Robinson)
Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Disproving the lies. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: which OS is best? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: New MS commercials.. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: New MS commercials.. ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Disproving the lies. ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Why not just try them both?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:54:11 GMT
To those desktop users thinking of switching to Linux from Mac or
Windows I offer this challenge:
Simply try them all on YOUR desktop with YOUR hardware and YOUR
software requirements and see which one works for YOU.
Linux is the great orator in that the act of simply using it speaks
for itself. You are either gonna love it or hate it.
I have given away close to 100 CD's of various Linux distributions to
friends, business clients and so forth and not a single one, not one,
has stuck with Linux. Not even one. I will qualify that last statement
by saying none of these folks are programmers or software people
although many are engineers. I suspect that is what makes the
difference.
Linux simply stalls at the starting line when it is put on the desktop
of someone who is used to using an OS like Windows or Mac and the
MacHeads are even more rabid than the Linux folks!
Joe SixPack really does not give a hoot about Linux and he, for better
or worse, is the driving force behind Microsoft's monopoly of the
desktop. This is where the money in sales is and for every six packer
who needs Windows in order to run Monster Truck Maddness, or every
pre-loaded "Internet system", it's more market share and money in
Bill's pocket.
Linux most certainly has it's advantages but most of them are
economically based and for the most part that doesn't apply to the
home user with 5 TV's and an SUV and the desire to walk into CompUSA
and buy an application for virtually any function he could imagine.
I won't argue with MS's predatory past and shady tactics. I HATE MS,
really I do, but they offer a product which for ME generates quite a
bit of money and it works.
Linux is still dreaming of the things I can do this moment with
Windows 98, not NT but 98.
Win98SE is extortion. Pay for bug fixes? No thanx......
My copy was a comp, but up until that point I would not buy it.
Explorer is full of security holes. Still it is far superior to
Netcrash.
License fees are outrageous. It's like taxing you twice if your wife
gives birth to twins.
No argument from me on the above.
Joe 6-pack could care less though, except when his Visa card is
scammed and then that's a maybe :)
He has one, two maybe three machines and we all know he is running one
copy of Windows on all of them.
Again I say if you are interested in Linux, try it. Give at least 2
distributions a whirl and decide for yourself. For a newbie I would
suggest Caldera and Corel. For a more experienced user (Windows or DOS
is ok) SuSE is great. If you like the mainstream RedHat or Mandrake.
Want to build it yourself? Try Slackware.
At any rate like the SuSE folks say...
Have Fun...
Steve
------------------------------
From: Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:58:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I didn't get any answers to this in the ...setup group, so I'll try
> here.
> I just got a couple of distributions (Corel & Caldera) from
> CheapBytes. Thought I'd check them for viruses just in case something
> could've gotten on while the cdrom's were being created.
> The machine I used was running McAfee on NT4.0. When I tried to scan
> the disk, it worked for awhile, then EVERYTHING crashed and I got a
> blue screen that said something about "starting memory dump"?! Had to
> reboot the computer.
> Was this something to do with the different Linux file system on the
> disk, or does it sound like a problem? I'm almost nervous trying to
> install it now.
> Tom
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Pretty much everything on the CD is either compressed or Linux ELF
format. I doubt there are any anti-virus programs that can understand
either. There won't be any viruses on it if it is from a trusted
source.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:06:53 GMT
Some CD readers (SigmaData, used in many ThinkPads) get sick trying to
run Linux CD's. This is the fault of the PLAYER not Linux.
BTW if you happen to have one of these garbage CD readers call the
toll free number on it and get a new one for free, unless of course it
is working for you (highly unlikely though).
As far as virus sigs are concerned, I wouldn't worry about Linux
having a virus..
Most folks wouldn't know if it did anyway :(
Duck for cover :)
Steve
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:58:41 GMT, Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I didn't get any answers to this in the ...setup group, so I'll try
>> here.
>> I just got a couple of distributions (Corel & Caldera) from
>> CheapBytes. Thought I'd check them for viruses just in case something
>> could've gotten on while the cdrom's were being created.
>> The machine I used was running McAfee on NT4.0. When I tried to scan
>> the disk, it worked for awhile, then EVERYTHING crashed and I got a
>> blue screen that said something about "starting memory dump"?! Had to
>> reboot the computer.
>> Was this something to do with the different Linux file system on the
>> disk, or does it sound like a problem? I'm almost nervous trying to
>> install it now.
>> Tom
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>Pretty much everything on the CD is either compressed or Linux ELF
>format. I doubt there are any anti-virus programs that can understand
>either. There won't be any viruses on it if it is from a trusted
>source.
>
>Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 16 Mar 2000 04:12:59 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:24:13 -0500, Jim Ross wrote:
>It's true 99% of the time that CTRL-C will copy, and CTRL-V will paste in
>Windows and Windows apps.
>You can then rely on this being there and that help productivity.
>
>Plus I can think of a good reason for it to be different, knowing the
>confusion it can cause by even one app not doing this.
The mouse mechanism at the very least works consistently with Tk, Athena,
Motif, QT and GTK. It's perfectly consistent, even if you didn't know how
to use it.
BTW, ^C and ^V don't work in my windows telnet client ( that and some other
apps use ^-insert and shift-insert )
Once QT and GTK become more ubiquitous ( in fact they're already starting
to look that way ), we'll see ^C and ^V working on Linux as reliably as
in windows.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 16 Mar 2000 04:15:47 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:43:37 GMT, Pjtg0707 wrote:
Yawn. An obligatory BSD troll.
>The network and server aspects of BSD is better than Linux, IMHO.
>BSD is derived from BSD4.4Lite release, and it is very stable.
>Alot of developers work in BSD partly because it is BSD code and
>partly to get away from the Gnu licensing. Linux's network
>code is also derived from BSD, but not as mature.
Getting away from Gnu licensing, huh ? What compiler do the BSDs ship with ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:11:44 GMT
In article <Q%Nx4.4$py.58@client>,
"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I helped implement some of the earliest LIFE 911 systems, for
> > Computer Consoles - now a division of Nortel. These systems
> > all ran on UNIX. Last I heard about 90% of the 911 market was
> > still running on variants of UNIX. Mainframes also had a small
> > niche. What percentage of the market does NT have?
>
> I don't know percentages, but I do
> know that one of the largest implementers
> of 911 systems is Intergraph Public Safety
> and they only sell NT based systems.
One of the largest implementors? Do you mean to tell me that
Intergraph Public Safety sells over 50% of the LIFE 911 market
(integration of switch, ANI information, search engine, and dispatch
systems). How many communities does it serve? How many million
in the catchment (service) area?
I would be very interested in percentages. I'm not so sure I'm
interested in a company who claims to be the largest implementor
based on the fact that they may have the largest number of
workstations.
> > I should point out that if you put enough redundant servers
> > into parallel, you can make a system appear to be much more
> > reliable. Dell and Barns&Noble both use this approach, as does
> > the Microsoft site. I've heard of some systems which use load
> > balancing routers and firewalls (actually UNIX systems disguised as
> > appliances) to distribute the traffic across as many as 300 servers.
>
> No significant website whether its running NT, UNIX
> or flipping CP/M runs on a single machine.
Probably not. Though there are many UNIX powered sites that use
RAID arrays, and Enterprise 4000 or 6000 servers or RS/6000 servers
that seem to be quite comfortable with a single cage. Of course,
they are all PVM or MPI machines.
Which clustering standard does NT use PVM or MPI?
How about W2K?
> Multiple machines are used for website for many reasons
> including availablity and price,
Running parallel static-page web-servers is pretty trivial,
the transactions are stateless, the context is embedded in
the message, and the client doesn't alter the context.
When you get into complex back-end business integration,
clustering isn't as trivial. You can do clustering with
DCOM, CORBA, RPC, or MQ, and you can add Tuxedo, CICS, CORBA
Transaction Services, or MQ Transaction services to integrate
with XA compliant databases and servers to provide transactional
integrity.
At a lower level, you can use PVM and MPI to create distributed
calls that can anonymously be routed to other procesessors while
still supporting the context of the calling process/processor.
Beowulf supports both PVM and MPI. Solaris, AIX, and HP_UX use
either or both in their high-end distributed systems. The big
difference is faster message switching equipment on the commercial
platforms.
> it's cheaper high availability and high
> performance in web applications from lots
> of small machines than an
> equivalent performance large machine.
Agreed. Which pretty much leaves the question of which itty bitty
box is cost-effective. With NT you pay for CALS. With Oracle you
may have to pay for cursers/users. With Linux you pay $20-$120 and
then you pay for the support contract. You can do tier-1 internally,
and do tier-2 and tier-3 externally, or have the entire management
work outsourced.
> > Many clusters also use dynamic DNS - a little feature UNIX and Linux
> > have used for years to balance loads across multiple systems.
> >
> Roundrobin DNS schemes are function of the
> DNS for the site and have nothing
> to with the web site itself or the
> platform used for the website.
Of course, UNIX clusters usually do their own DNS. You can
enable DNS on two or three of the gateway nodes and balance
the load across multiple front-ends. The back-ends can balance
queries and requests. I've seen both round-robin, and polling
schemes.
> > Same source I got the 24x7 figures (the company with 3000 servers).
> > I'm suprised Aberdeen didn't include it. But on the other hand,
> > this glowing review WAS located on the Microsoft site. One can
> > guess that some of the more embarrassing results were deleted.
>
> So tell us the source or do we just have to take your word for it.
Go to my web site. http://www.open4success.com, click my picture,
see if you can guess from the resume's or biographies enclosed.
> > There are very few users familiar with multiple operating systems,
> > especially those popular with UNIX who would consider NT uptimes to
> > be superior to an version of UNIX. Furthermore, there is more manual
> > maintainance required (Most of NT administration is only supported
> > from the GUI interface). Most companies at least try to use Citrix
> > to eliminate the need for one console per box.
> This just shows how clueless you are,
> CITRIX would not make this task
> easier, you would be able to admin
> the Citrix box, but you couldn't get to
> the console of a non-CITRIX machine this way.
That was my take, but the company in question decided to use console
switches and CITRIX to reduce the number of consoles.
The Netfinity servers have a nice remote-management console.
> > > > By the way, the industry average
> > > > uptime for UNIX systems is 99.9998%
> > >
> > > Getting even close to "five 9s" availablity
> > > without using highly fault
> > > tolerant hardware is very tough, do
> > > you have any statistics or references to
> > > back this claim up, my BS detector is going crazy right now.
> >
> > Service level guarantees from IBM, HP, and Sun. And yes, you are
> > correct, most of these systems are configured with RAID, TUXEDO, and
> > XA databases. Remember, UNIX systems are designed to be redundant,
> > reentrant, and self-maintaining. The use of cron jobs, distributed
> > processing, and recovering protocols has helped increase the uptime
> > of overall systems.
>
> There are similar levels of service guarantees
> from NT vendors, HP for one
> and they use similar approaches.
Actually, HP drops one nine from NT support that it left with HP_UX.
This is one of the reasons that Microsoft had to make Win2K ten times
more reliable. Microsoft has admitted that reliability was a problem,
this is now a fact of life. What remains to be seen is whether
Windows 2000 is reliable enough to merit painting yourself into
the corner.
A real accomplishment would be for Windows 2000 to be as reliable using
industry standard POSIX Level 3 APIs (fully UNIX compatible) so that
portable programs, languages, and tools could be migrated to UNIX when
the load justified the need. This would also make it possible to
port all of those Linux Open Source applications to NT. This would
be enough to stop Linux in it's tracks (NOW HE TELLS ME - Bill).
Maybe for Windows 2005.
Alas, Microsoft refuses to accept X11, RPC, NDIS, LDAP, Kerberos,
or any of the other standards unless it can add it's own proprietary
modifications. What's worse is that they want the right to demand
that their proprietary extensions are part of the "standard" without
disclosing enough information to implement the standard.
Microsoft has tried to lock Linux out of USB, DVD, PCI-PnP, and
several of it's other key technologies. Eventually, the proprietary
content was either disclosed or hacked.
I suppose that you are NOW going to tell me that Microsoft supports
Open Standards.
> To suggest that this is an industry average
> is laughable.
>
> --
> Nik Simpson
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:25:16 +1000
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:29:58 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What children learning software and games are there for your children
> >> > on Linux?
> >> >
> >> > What do they typically use the computer for? Learning? Playing games?
> >> > Browsing the web?
> >> >
> >> > What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
> >> > your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
> >>
> >> Yeah, the guy is "overly biased" probably cuz he doesn't want to
> >> buy from an organized crime gang, which is all M$ is. Actually
> >> I have found that the more ignorant a person is, the more they
> >> think Crimosoft is a cool corporation. That's the way I was
> >> until I ran Losedoze for a while and went on the Internet and
> >> found out about how wicked and terrifying this corporation
> >> really is.
> >
> >Yep, that paragraph really paints you as a rational and objective
> >individual.
> >
> >> Chad, you may be interested to know that that is why a lot of us
> >> hate M$. We don't hate them cuz they are "too successful." We
> >> are not fans of excessive government regulation. We don't hate
> >> them cuz they make lousy products. We don't hate them cuz they
> >> are a monopoly.
> >>
> >> We hate them cuz they are an organized crime gang that, through
> >> an illegal monopoly, killed a bunch of superior products, set
> >> computing back 5-10 years, and then rammed their lousy,
> >> overpriced crap down our throats. Why is that "overly-biased
> >> and ignorance-founded"?
> >
> >Uh huh.
> >Please explain which superior products they killed (and how).
>
> OS/2 : Forced IBM to not preload their own OS. This
> was is a matter of public trial record.
False. IBM sold machines with OS/2 preloaded.
> Desqview/drdos : Forced OEMs into contracts that charged
> for ANY machine that was sold regardless
> of whether or not it went out with MS product.
Partly true, however not all OEMs were involved in such contracts. Or did
the machine I bought with DRDOS and OS/2 but not MSDOS not exist ?
> Public record: first DOJ consent decree against MS.
>
>
> >Please explain how they set computing back 5 - 10 years.
>
> They sat on their asses from 1985 to 1995 not bothering
> to fully exploit the IA32 instruction set and not
> bothering to fully deploy gui based systems.
I guess OS/2 and Windows NT don't exist, then ?
> >Please explain how they rammed anything down your throats.
>
> They conspire like Coreleone's to make it impossible to choose
> anything else. Part of it is a fundemental nature of intellectal
> monopolies. Part of it is legal manuvering specifically intended
> to prevent other companies from doing business.
The large part is generally called "common business sense".
> Undermining any other company's ability to derive a revenue stream
> from http clients while being able to fund the development of their
> own client, force bundled with the natural monopoly product they use
> to fund that development.
So because MS gave away their browser like pretty much everyone else except
Netscape, that was bad ?
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New MS commercials..
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:46:26 -0600
"W. Kiernan" wrote:
> I imagine that MS
> ads on TV would have to be pretty much uniquely awful.
Clearly you don't watch much PBS. The IOmega commercials they used to run
on NOVA night were offensively lame, but lately they've been running CNET
commercials that look like the employees all went down to the basketball
court and made them during lunch hour. (Hint: when I say "look like", it's
supposed to be a joke, because I think that really *is* what they did.)
They *almost* provided a redeeming factor by playing an old Jethro Tull
tune that you could groove on during your trip to the refrigerator, but
unfortunately the sound quality makes it appear that they also solicited
the employees to bring along a boom box and play a tape while they rolled
the video.
Truly disgusting. And doubly so for sandwiching NOVA.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: New MS commercials..
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:49:34 GMT
I agree completely Bobby. Thos commercials, especially audio wise, are
a joke. Even on a 12 inch portable TV they sound like crap.
Even the IBM commercials with that old guy in India (I think?) walking
on the beach with the laptop were better produced. Much better in
fact.
Steve
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:46:26 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"W. Kiernan" wrote:
>
>> I imagine that MS
>> ads on TV would have to be pretty much uniquely awful.
>
>Clearly you don't watch much PBS. The IOmega commercials they used to run
>on NOVA night were offensively lame, but lately they've been running CNET
>commercials that look like the employees all went down to the basketball
>court and made them during lunch hour. (Hint: when I say "look like", it's
>supposed to be a joke, because I think that really *is* what they did.)
>
>They *almost* provided a redeeming factor by playing an old Jethro Tull
>tune that you could groove on during your trip to the refrigerator, but
>unfortunately the sound quality makes it appear that they also solicited
>the employees to bring along a boom box and play a tape while they rolled
>the video.
>
>Truly disgusting. And doubly so for sandwiching NOVA.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:52:53 GMT
Last time I looked, 911 in NYC was using
a 9672 (IBM CMOS) based system with all of the bells and whistles as
well as AIX based servers.
My information might be dated however as budgets change by the day
around here.
I have NEVER heard 911 and NT mentioned in the same sentence in NYC
anyway. It's all IBM blue as far as I know.
Anyone?
Steve
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:11:44 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <Q%Nx4.4$py.58@client>,
>"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I helped implement some of the earliest LIFE 911 systems, for
>> > Computer Consoles - now a division of Nortel. These systems
>> > all ran on UNIX. Last I heard about 90% of the 911 market was
>> > still running on variants of UNIX. Mainframes also had a small
>> > niche. What percentage of the market does NT have?
>>
>> I don't know percentages, but I do
>> know that one of the largest implementers
>> of 911 systems is Intergraph Public Safety
>> and they only sell NT based systems.
>
>One of the largest implementors? Do you mean to tell me that
>Intergraph Public Safety sells over 50% of the LIFE 911 market
>(integration of switch, ANI information, search engine, and dispatch
> systems). How many communities does it serve? How many million
> in the catchment (service) area?
>
>I would be very interested in percentages. I'm not so sure I'm
>interested in a company who claims to be the largest implementor
>based on the fact that they may have the largest number of
>workstations.
>
>> > I should point out that if you put enough redundant servers
>> > into parallel, you can make a system appear to be much more
>> > reliable. Dell and Barns&Noble both use this approach, as does
>> > the Microsoft site. I've heard of some systems which use load
>> > balancing routers and firewalls (actually UNIX systems disguised as
>> > appliances) to distribute the traffic across as many as 300 servers.
>>
>> No significant website whether its running NT, UNIX
>> or flipping CP/M runs on a single machine.
>
>Probably not. Though there are many UNIX powered sites that use
>RAID arrays, and Enterprise 4000 or 6000 servers or RS/6000 servers
>that seem to be quite comfortable with a single cage. Of course,
>they are all PVM or MPI machines.
>
>Which clustering standard does NT use PVM or MPI?
>How about W2K?
>
>> Multiple machines are used for website for many reasons
>> including availablity and price,
>
>Running parallel static-page web-servers is pretty trivial,
>the transactions are stateless, the context is embedded in
>the message, and the client doesn't alter the context.
>
>When you get into complex back-end business integration,
>clustering isn't as trivial. You can do clustering with
>DCOM, CORBA, RPC, or MQ, and you can add Tuxedo, CICS, CORBA
>Transaction Services, or MQ Transaction services to integrate
>with XA compliant databases and servers to provide transactional
>integrity.
>
>At a lower level, you can use PVM and MPI to create distributed
>calls that can anonymously be routed to other procesessors while
>still supporting the context of the calling process/processor.
>
>Beowulf supports both PVM and MPI. Solaris, AIX, and HP_UX use
>either or both in their high-end distributed systems. The big
>difference is faster message switching equipment on the commercial
>platforms.
>
>> it's cheaper high availability and high
>> performance in web applications from lots
>> of small machines than an
>> equivalent performance large machine.
>
>Agreed. Which pretty much leaves the question of which itty bitty
>box is cost-effective. With NT you pay for CALS. With Oracle you
>may have to pay for cursers/users. With Linux you pay $20-$120 and
>then you pay for the support contract. You can do tier-1 internally,
>and do tier-2 and tier-3 externally, or have the entire management
>work outsourced.
>
>> > Many clusters also use dynamic DNS - a little feature UNIX and Linux
>> > have used for years to balance loads across multiple systems.
>> >
>> Roundrobin DNS schemes are function of the
>> DNS for the site and have nothing
>> to with the web site itself or the
>> platform used for the website.
>
>Of course, UNIX clusters usually do their own DNS. You can
>enable DNS on two or three of the gateway nodes and balance
>the load across multiple front-ends. The back-ends can balance
>queries and requests. I've seen both round-robin, and polling
>schemes.
>
>
>> > Same source I got the 24x7 figures (the company with 3000 servers).
>> > I'm suprised Aberdeen didn't include it. But on the other hand,
>> > this glowing review WAS located on the Microsoft site. One can
>> > guess that some of the more embarrassing results were deleted.
>>
>> So tell us the source or do we just have to take your word for it.
>
>Go to my web site. http://www.open4success.com, click my picture,
>see if you can guess from the resume's or biographies enclosed.
>
>> > There are very few users familiar with multiple operating systems,
>> > especially those popular with UNIX who would consider NT uptimes to
>> > be superior to an version of UNIX. Furthermore, there is more manual
>> > maintainance required (Most of NT administration is only supported
>> > from the GUI interface). Most companies at least try to use Citrix
>> > to eliminate the need for one console per box.
>
>> This just shows how clueless you are,
>> CITRIX would not make this task
>> easier, you would be able to admin
>> the Citrix box, but you couldn't get to
>> the console of a non-CITRIX machine this way.
>
>That was my take, but the company in question decided to use console
>switches and CITRIX to reduce the number of consoles.
>
>The Netfinity servers have a nice remote-management console.
>
>> > > > By the way, the industry average
>> > > > uptime for UNIX systems is 99.9998%
>> > >
>> > > Getting even close to "five 9s" availablity
>> > > without using highly fault
>> > > tolerant hardware is very tough, do
>> > > you have any statistics or references to
>> > > back this claim up, my BS detector is going crazy right now.
>> >
>> > Service level guarantees from IBM, HP, and Sun. And yes, you are
>> > correct, most of these systems are configured with RAID, TUXEDO, and
>> > XA databases. Remember, UNIX systems are designed to be redundant,
>> > reentrant, and self-maintaining. The use of cron jobs, distributed
>> > processing, and recovering protocols has helped increase the uptime
>> > of overall systems.
>>
>> There are similar levels of service guarantees
>> from NT vendors, HP for one
>> and they use similar approaches.
>
>Actually, HP drops one nine from NT support that it left with HP_UX.
>This is one of the reasons that Microsoft had to make Win2K ten times
>more reliable. Microsoft has admitted that reliability was a problem,
>this is now a fact of life. What remains to be seen is whether
>Windows 2000 is reliable enough to merit painting yourself into
>the corner.
>
>A real accomplishment would be for Windows 2000 to be as reliable using
>industry standard POSIX Level 3 APIs (fully UNIX compatible) so that
>portable programs, languages, and tools could be migrated to UNIX when
>the load justified the need. This would also make it possible to
>port all of those Linux Open Source applications to NT. This would
>be enough to stop Linux in it's tracks (NOW HE TELLS ME - Bill).
>Maybe for Windows 2005.
>
>Alas, Microsoft refuses to accept X11, RPC, NDIS, LDAP, Kerberos,
>or any of the other standards unless it can add it's own proprietary
>modifications. What's worse is that they want the right to demand
>that their proprietary extensions are part of the "standard" without
>disclosing enough information to implement the standard.
>
>Microsoft has tried to lock Linux out of USB, DVD, PCI-PnP, and
>several of it's other key technologies. Eventually, the proprietary
>content was either disclosed or hacked.
>
>I suppose that you are NOW going to tell me that Microsoft supports
>Open Standards.
>
>> To suggest that this is an industry average
>> is laughable.
>>
>> --
>> 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
******************************
