Linux-Advocacy Digest #724, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 05:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY! (David Steinberg)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Producing Quality Code (n@-)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site ("Bobby D.
Bryant")
Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Apache Steamroller. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
(Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux! (Terry Porter)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Bjørnar Bolsøy)
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: 21 Mar 2000 07:10:00 GMT
Terry Porter <No-Spam> writes:
: On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:34:08 GMT,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
: >And your proof of IBM moving Aix to Linux?
: >
: >IBM is running Linux on an OS/390 as far as I have heard they have
: >absolutely no plans what so ever to abandon AIX in favor of Linux.
: >
: >First off Linux does not support Chrp.
: >RAS is not honored. (ie: concurrent maintenance)
: >
: >Proof please?
: >
: >Steve
: Why would you want to know "Steve" ?
: You're just an average, and disgrunled Linux wannabee, who has odd printers
: and soundcards that just don't *happen* to be supported under Linux ?
: Or are you ??
: Perhaps your anonymous persona will prevent us from ever finding out who "Steve"
: the troll really is ?
And yet, while he has made seemingly well-informed comments, you've merely
just replied by taunting him. What are you, about 12?
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Linux on the Desktop...TODAY!
Date: 21 Mar 2000 07:15:16 GMT
piddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On 20 Mar 2000 17:23:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
: Steinberg) wrote:
: <snipped>
: You, sir, are a troll!
You, sir, are jumping to conclusions.
I was ignorant about the state of GNOME. So sue me. The point of my post
was to express excitement about the large number of desktop applications
arriving all the time for Linux. Surely that couldn't be considered
trolling, not in comp.os.linux.advocacy? Not when the most oft-repeated
claim against Linux by the winvocates is "lack of applications."
Geez, feeling a little judgemental today?
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: 21 Mar 2000 07:19:04 GMT
Matt Chiglinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Microsoft making software for someone else's OS? Nothing new. Didn't
: they do that a long time ago with Apple? It will only promote
: standardization. If they would only port Word to Linux then Linux
: would finally be a decent desktop OS.
I wouldn't expect such a thing to happen. Microsoft writes apps for
Macintosh computers, because they don't entirely compete against
Windows... they compete mostly against PC vendors.
Linux on the other hand, is in direct competition with Windows.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: n@-
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 20 Mar 2000 23:11:24 -0800
In article <8b6t9i$5q1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "by" says...
>Also, I think those are the kind of questions they ask you when you go apply
>for a programming job at Microsoft. At least the group who interviewed me
>asked me those kind of questions, and I had to write a bunch of code on the
>spot, including a recursive binary tree walk.
Asking some very specific questions like these do not make sense.
After all, 99% of programmers these days use re-usable library
components where all of these algorithms are allready written.
How many of you actually write a linked list from scratch any more?
how may write hash tables? etc.. if you do, and unless you have a
very good reason to do that, then you are wasting the employer
time and money, becuase instead you should be simply using a
library of those routines.
That does not mean you do not know what a hash table is, or what
a binary tree is, etc.. but the detailes of coding one, once you
have done it once, are not interesting any more, it is more
interesting to ask design issues, general software issue to measure
the maturity of the employee on the technology of interest.
A good programmer knows where to go find the library they need
when it comes time to do it, or knows where to go look it up.
A good programmer does not have to know all the detailes, as long
as they have the brains to find out about it as needed.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:58:25 -0600
Bob Tennent wrote:
> To see how economical with the truth MS has been on this, see
>
> http://AboutLinux.com/art_seeuthere_a.html
This is a must-read article. For example, the fact comes out that they tried to
write their RDBMS from *scratch* for the Linux version of the product, vs. using
existing software for the Windows implementation. There were a few other really
odd technical decisions, but that one absolutely takes the cake.
Who'd'a thought it? Writing an application + RDBMS on Linux takes longer than
writing the application alone on Windows! I'm sure next month's technical
journals will be carrying this *shocking* news on their covers.
The question isn't how long it took them to develop their own infrastructure for
Linux; the question is *why* they decided to do that in the first place.
Once again, Microsoft trumpets a bogus comparison for consumption by its True
Believers, but even a modest amount of investigation by an amateur shows that
all is not what it seems.
And as Bob said (hi, Bob), one has to wonder why Microsoft can't come up with
better anecdotes than this one.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux!
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:03:16 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> The fun begins AFTER the install, setting up everything that Windows
> sets up during it's install. Printers for example.
No, the fun begins after you have everything set up like you want it and Windows
decides it knows what you want better than you do yourself, and so spontaneously
reconfigures itself.
I do spend some time configuring (and customizing!) my Linux installations, but
when I'm done they stay configured. No reinstalls, no spontaneous
reconfigurations.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Apache Steamroller.
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:27:05 -0600
According to the latest Netcraft survey
(http://www.netcraft.com/survey/), Apache has just hit 60% of the
marketshare for servers, gaining nearly 2% last month and (as is often
the case anymore) being the only major player to show any gain at all.
There is other interesting gossip at the site, such as mention of the
alpha version of Apache 2.0 with its performance improvements.
However, the funniest observation, and one that should perhaps be
brought to the attention of Hotmail's management, is this:
"Last month's survey announcement pointed out that compaq.com was
running Solaris. Many people at Compaq noticed this, and compaq.com is
now running Tru64 UNIX."
No, I take that back -- this one is even funnier:
"On a related note, it's notable that the Linux evangelism bandwagon is
bringing in people more prepared to envangelise the operating system
than run it themselves. At the last Linux Expo in London, more of the
exhibitor companies were running Microsoft-IIS than Linux on their own
sites. Recently queried sites on our server query form include;
linux.ora.com which runs Solaris, while linuxbeacon.com is an early
adopter of Windows 2000 along with the shortlived www.linuxanswers.co.uk
and the parody domain names www.slashdot.org.uk and www.freshmeat.org.
However, contrary to what one might expect, www.linuxsucks.org runs
Linux."
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What are the limitations of using Linux on your server (if there is one)?
Date: 21 Mar 2000 09:28:33 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> My company is planning on hosting roughly 200 web sites on a single
> Linux box (I am unsure as to which flavor), using Apache server. The
> server will have roughly between 500 megs ~ 1 gig of memory. These
> sites will by dynamic and primarily database driven on a separate
> server which will be using MYSQL as the back end and Perl to access the
> data. Is this a feasible notion, can a single Linux box coupled with a
> database server with the previous stats be capable of hosting and
> handling approximately 200 dynamic web sites?
> Thanks in advance
It depends on the hardware :-) Take a look at
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/1532/1/
They talk about Linux on a Mainframe under VM. On this animal you can
give each customer his own Linux Machine root access included without
compromising the others. One guy reportedly started Linux 41400 times
on the same box in parallel - while running full production tasks
under OS/390 no less.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Another Box Dominated by Linux!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Mar 2000 16:36:41 +0800
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:03:16 -0600,
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> The fun begins AFTER the install, setting up everything that Windows
>> sets up during it's install. Printers for example.
>
>No, the fun begins after you have everything set up like you want it and Windows
>decides it knows what you want better than you do yourself, and so spontaneously
>reconfigures itself.
>
>I do spend some time configuring (and customizing!) my Linux installations, but
>when I'm done they stay configured. No reinstalls, no spontaneous
>reconfigurations.
Well said Bobby!
My dam Win95 install would occasionally decide I had "new hardware" and go into
safe mode for lemmings, to protect me from this new and non existent hardware.
All the 800x600 icons would be nicely smeared over the 640x480
safe mode desktop, what a mess, what fun.
Naturally, Linux NEVER does this, and its bliss, sheer bliss.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 hour 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bjørnar Bolsøy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: 21 Mar 2000 09:02:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>For realtime systems AmigaOS won't do the trick as it isn't a
>realtime kernel. (Neither, of course, is Linux, Solaris,
>NT/W2000/98/95, etc, etc)
Of course depending on your definition of and requirement from
a realtime application. :)
Regards...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:40:57 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YxCB4.4307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You seem to confuse the desire for privacy as a desire to hide
something --
> you would be a good candidate for the federal government! My reasons for
> wanting anonymity are my own; you're free to disagree with them. I tell
> people my real name when they need to know it; you do not need to know.
No, I do not confuse privacy with hiding anything.
You are espousing that people put their jobs at risk and to stand up for
themselves. They cannot do this anonymously in their corporations. Yet
here you sit behind your fake name, telling people "Go ahead, stand up for
yourself" when you refuse to take the same risks you are asking others to
take.
That's why I call you a hypocrite. If you are afraid to associate your
words with your name, why should anyone else rise above the anonymous nature
of being a face in a cube?
You are asking others to throw off their "privacy" for the greater good. I
say, don't ask others to do what you yourself will not.
> Regarding jobs: if all you're looking for is a sinecure where you can
while
> away your days in safe anonymity, timidly hoping no one will ask your
> opinion about anything controversial, there are plenty of those to go
around.
> I prefer to make a difference and enjoy my job as much as I can. I prefer
> to have a voice (even if, in this forum, it is an anonymous one).
Well, you seem to prefer safe anonyminity, hoping no on will associate your
real name with the controversy you are trying to generate. You seem to
prefer to get others to make a difference, while hiding behind a mask so
that you cannot feel the backlash of your own actions.
> Principles are not a luxury. They are the framework upon which the self
> is built. I happen to believe that writing computer software is like
taking
> up any other craft: you can choose to do it well or choose to do it badly.
> If you choose to do it badly, be honest enough to admit that it was a
choice
> you made and not an obligation that was thrust upon you.
I refuse to accept any kind of moral argument from you, since you refuse to
take responsibility for your words.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:43:17 -0600
I can prove my "realness". I've been quoted in industry publications and I
have a record on Usenet going back almost 10 years.
My argument has nothing to do with credibility. My argument is that
"mr_organic" espouses the very thing which he himself refuses to do.
Gooba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0IEB4.2468$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This branch of argument is worthless. We don't know you are who you
> claim to be. Whether you use Ditchdigger350 or Bill J. Smith, it doesn't
> matter. In Usenet we're all essentially anonymous for purposes of
> credibility. Unless you actually intend to go meet the person face to face
> and verify every aspect of their life is what they claim it is, there's no
> need for you to get a "real" email, name, addy, anything.
>
> His post is a start in the right direction, whatever name he signed to
> it. If his post convinces someone to do as it recommends then it's a Good
> Thing, regardless of whether he himself does so. This attempt to sidetrack
> the argument and attack him instead of his argument is really not the way
to
> go about this.
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
