Linux-Advocacy Digest #943, Volume #25 Tue, 4 Apr 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(George Marengo)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty ("Tim Haynes")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Tim Haynes")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ding Dong!
Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY??????
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading (Tim Kelley)
Re: So where are the MS supporters. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: So where are the MS supporters. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS ("Leonard F.
Agius")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Nigel Feltham")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 20:57:18 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:36:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:51:03 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
>>call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
>>a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
>>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
>>making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
>>regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
>
>
>That is exactly what happened here in NY, especially in the suburbs.
>The "local calling area" has expanded to cover hundreds of miles so
>that despite being called local, it is really a toll call. I can call
>from NY to CA cheaper than I can from Montauk Long Island to
>SouthHampton which is one town away.
That's a local issue. I can call anywhere in the state of California
(where I live) for $0.04/minute while calls outside of California are
a penny more.
Why? Because PacBell not only has competition from MCI, but
from cable companies.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: 4 Apr 2000 21:04:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Boris allegedly wrote:
I see you changed your "From:' field again (to foil killfiles?), anyway,
back in you go.
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
Date: 04 Apr 2000 21:44:37 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>Is splitting them up into a lot of monopolies all specialists in
> >>>several areas (particularly if they're all part of the "M$loth Group",
> >>>or whatever) any good?
> >>If their applications division is separate from their OS division, they
> >>no longer have the same interest in having their applications only run
> >>on Windows; they can maximise their profit by porting them everywhere.
> >And will Orifice 2001 "for linux" be written to use GTK+? (Or QT for those
>
> Perhaps you've misunderstood me; it's not that I think Orifice for Linux
> would be a useful tool for the likes of us; just that, once the apps are
> widely ported, there won't be the same pressure to use Windows; and once
> other software vendors can write just as effectively for Windows, there
> won't be the same pressure to use the Microsoft apps; if that happens,
> they've lost the stranglehold on the market, and that's good.
Yup. Availability of something to do their jobs on all platforms is
good. What I was worried about is "distorting"[1] the underlying OSs by so
doing - either philosophically or in particular by direct-port in the
"style"[2] of star office.
[1] visions of gravity-wells and black rubber sheets at this point
[2] as in, "Volvos are styled for the American market" ;)
~Tim
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 04 Apr 2000 21:51:36 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tim writes:
> > Sometimes I wonder what's so great about this capitalist thing after
> > all. Or about communism. Or any other political Thing.
>
> Capitalism and communism are about economics. Politics is about violence.
LOL! Good one. OTOH C&C are also about 'mindsets' though. But I like the
one about politics :)
~Tim
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:06:47 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:39:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:06:08 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
>>> happens.
>>>
>>> Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
>>> couple of seconds.
>>>
>>> I'm not talking about FastFind either, just the normal find that comes
>>> with Windows.
>>>
>>> Windows wins by a large margin, searching a similar number of files.
>>
>>I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
>>LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
>>and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
>>probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
>>if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
>>everything.
>
>
>Nope. Windows is searching through even more files because of all my
>*mp3 files. It is still so much faster it is not even close.
Why are you bragging about inefficiency? Although, bragging about
how many mp3 files you need to search through rather is silly. mp3's
are rather large and even on 6G the total file count added by mp3's
should be relatively small. This is especially true if you have a
good ear for the way low bitrate encoding can warp music.
>
>
>
>>That said, any comparison of GNU "find" and its pathetic
>>counterpart in windows is, well, naive.
>>GNU find is to windows find like the sun is to a little star.
>
>But the little star finds soooooo much faster.
...only if lie about the conditions of the contest.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Ding Dong!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:09:56 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 19:10:07 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> So they split MSFT up, and some rogue MSFT application sh*ts all over my
>> system. Jolly good. I can hardly wait for this one....
>
>They already do that on my system. Won't be much different if they're split,
>though they might actually have to compete for a change.
>
Today: let's say there's a problem w/ office 97. After spending $180 on
their support number, ya know what they'll tell you? Try office 2k.
It won't change if and/or after the breakup.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY??????
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:10:54 GMT
On 04 Apr 2000 12:22:17 EDT, CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I saw him on tv this morning and he looks different. Any ideas on
>this?
He's getting old and fat?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:17:54 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:46:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:33:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:06:08 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
>>>> happens.
>>>>
>>>> Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
>>>> couple of seconds.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about FastFind either, just the normal find that comes
>>>> with Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Windows wins by a large margin, searching a similar number of files.
>>>
>>>I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
>>>LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
>>>and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
>>>probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
>>>if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
>>>everything.
>>>
>>>That said, any comparison of GNU "find" and its pathetic
>>>counterpart in windows is, well, naive.
>>>GNU find is to windows find like the sun is to a little star.
>>
>> Nevermind, there is always locate. Unix and MacOS have the
>> advantage of filesystem indexes that don't cripple the
>> system necessitating their deactivation.
>
>And there is also FastFind for Windows. Both use a Database concept I
>believe.
...except FastFind rather has a reputation for being unusable
in practice. Otherwise, why wouldn't you be badgering us with
it rather than Microsoft's other, slower method.
>
>I don't need to use FastFind at all. Regular find works rather well
>for me and still is a hell of a lot faster than Linux find.
Not in my experience. This is especially true if a particular
part of the filesystem has been cached.
>
>> Plus, Unix is actually ORGANIZED. Thus, you should never have
>> to do a raw find against a mountpoint like /usr. Actual user
>> files should be tucked away in a relatively small part of the
>> disk.
>
>Yet another complication. I'm looking for last years taxes, Click on
Yet another MS shill fantasy. Restricting the user to a small
portion of the disk actually simplifies things dramatically.
You don't have to search through a lot of irrelevant stuff.
>find, type stevetaxes98 and in 10 seconds or less I have it's location
>despite Windows being on C: and my data on drive H: and also despite
>there being a gazillion files in between.
>
>Try finding /etc/ppp/options using find from the root directory and
>see how long it takes.
It takes less than a second on my box, even using find.
>
>I have my data before a newbie can even finish typing it in without
>any syntax errors.
That's what shiny happy gui tools are for, and they do exist
for Unix so your implication that they don't is a willful lie.
Mind you, "locate <something>" is neither difficult or unintiutive.
A Newbie just might stumble upon that before they found the winfind
applet.
>
>And right from the find pane I can copy, launch. and so forth.
>
>Steve
>
>> On Unix, you will have less files to search through. The end
>> result (based on all relevant characteristics, rather than
>> just the one that artificially makes M$ look good) will favor
>> Unix.
>
>Artificial?
>
>How is it artificial when it is faster, by a large margin, every time?
Actually, it's not. I just tried your singular verifyable example.
Besides, such tools are only necessary in a system that suffers
from a complete lack of organization that carelessly muddles the
boundaries between system files and user data. That aspect of
WinDOS applications always annoyed me.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:19:31 GMT
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:57:18 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
>> > happens.
>> >
>> > Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
>> > couple of seconds.
>> >
>> > I'm not talking about FastFind either, just the normal find that comes
>> > with Windows.
>> >
>> > Windows wins by a large margin, searching a similar number of files.
>>
>> I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
>> LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
>> and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
>> probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
>> if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
>> everything.
>
>So Linux is so bloated that it's search is slow despite being super
>efficent?
No, the shill is just abusing the system to the benefit of
his little agenda. The sort of find he's doing on Windows
should never be necessary on Unix.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:21:19 -0500
Christian Gustafson wrote:
> Microsoft will regroup and refocus again, as it has before, and recover from
> yesterday's decision.
Ahhh, the "battleship that turns on a dime" myth.
The more accurate metaphor is "the lumbering battleship that
turned is guns on everyone".
Microsofts products are so deeply mired in backwards
compatibility that they can't possibly extricate themselves even
from the lurid UI mistakes they made in 1979.
They have soured more business relationships than one can count.
There really is no hope for them, the gig is up.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:24:29 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:23:29 GMT, Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Believe that MS has done more for the home computing market than any
>> > corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
>> > computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>>
>> Actually, anything and everything you think Microsoft "has done" for the
>> PC was really done by Apple for the Macintosh, first.
>
>Except make the damn things cheap enough for "the rest of us" to afford. Do
>you REMEMBER the ungodly sums Apple used to charge for Macs in the early
>years? Can you IMAGINE what they would have charged and would still be
>charging if there was no Microsoft and Apple was the dominant vendor of both
>PC hardware AND operating systems? And are you forgetting that the current
>Linux phenomenon is really only possible because of the low-cost,
>standardized hardware that is a byproduct of the Wintel hegemony?
Actually, in those days, the hardware was considerably better.
It wasn't JUST price gouging. You also got better hardware and
a decent OS. Furthermore, the more brand name clones have always
been priced somewhat like Apple's. It's the cheap obsolete-when-
built Packard Hell clones that were dramatically cheaper.
It was the Atari's and the Amiga's that really made Macs look
expensive...
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:26:53 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 20:37:40 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Weaver wrote:
>
>> Except make the damn things cheap enough for "the rest of us" to afford. Do
>> you REMEMBER the ungodly sums Apple used to charge for Macs in the early
>> years? Can you IMAGINE what they would have charged and would still be
>
>Yes, and Apple did hurt themselves doing this... but remember the only reason
>that PCs have been cheaper is due to the whole reverse-engineering of the
>orignal IBM models and the clones that followed. It was this competition that
>drove down prices. MS had nothing to do with it other then being in the
>position of owning the rights to the OS (which they bought) that drove them. If
>IBM hadn't used off the shelf equipment and had gone proprietary, the home
>computer market would be a completely different story.
Well yeah... you could have Packard Hell put together a cheap
8088 system for a grand that would make a Mac look bad despite
the mac having better graphics, some sound and a 32bit CPU with
flat memory addressing.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:34:04 GMT
On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 21:49:35 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:21:57 -0600...
>...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > "Programming" means creating a program.
>> > >
>> > > Yep. As in, for example:
>> > >
>> > > First, I'm gonna click on that button to do X, then I'm going to use
>> > > that slider to do Y, then I'm going to save this file as Z . . .
>> >
>> > Pointless. By your definition, feeding my cat is programming, too.
>>
>> Is your cat a computer?
>
>No. However, your argument is still pointless. Programming is creating
>the implementation of an algorithm, that usually is then stored in and
>executed by a computer.
>
>In your abovementioned example, would you care to explain where the
>algorithm is and how it is implemented, stored and executed?
>
>Using a GUI involves executing an algorithm with your own *brain*,
>just like very much everything you do. You're trying to explain me
>that everything you do is programming if you do it to a computer.
>Well, if that is so, why isn't it programming when I do it to a cat?
Well, if you can manage to get your cat to follow the same
precise set of instructions, deterministically, over and
over again then you will have programmed your cat.
All algorithms are ultimately the product of the human mind.
The fact that an algorithm is expressed in terms of X+Y
rather than "move hand to x,y and click mouse" doesn't matter.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: 4 Apr 2000 21:42:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>And how many people are using this great package?
Actually a lot...
>There are 2 issues here. The end user using $69.00 Quicken or such,
>and the CPA who is probably using vertical commercial level accounting
>packages in the $2k range.
No the whole idea about real accounting software is that it is actually
simple... I do my own accounting for my bussiness and have the accountants
audit them ones a year. I can tell you that double entry bookkeeping is
actually not that difficult ones you have it set up. i.e. I had an
accountant friend of mine do it ones and I asked a few questions on how I
should enter x,y,z. and went on from their. The biggest problem is figuring
out the legislation surrounding deductions, etc. but for the rest it is
childsplay. Most poeple are dounted by the legal issues but they are quite
simple really ones you figure it out for your bussiness.
Michael
---
Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
------------------------------
From: "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:47:43 GMT
George Marengo wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:36:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:51:03 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
> >>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
> >>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
> >>call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
> >>a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
> >>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
> >>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
> >>making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
> >>regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
> >
> >
> >That is exactly what happened here in NY, especially in the suburbs.
> >The "local calling area" has expanded to cover hundreds of miles so
> >that despite being called local, it is really a toll call. I can call
> >from NY to CA cheaper than I can from Montauk Long Island to
> >SouthHampton which is one town away.
>
> That's a local issue. I can call anywhere in the state of California
> (where I live) for $0.04/minute while calls outside of California are
> a penny more.
>
> Why? Because PacBell not only has competition from MCI, but
> from cable companies.
Eventually we're supposed to have that competition here, too, but so far, it
hasn't materialized. And frankly, I don't think it's going to have an impact
here, yet, because my metropolitan area is so fragmented. That fragmentation in
who-has-what cable franchise is going to make it take a LONG time to create any
real competition. In the mean time, the local phone company enjoys a fairly good
share of the market, and we pay for it.
For the cable companies and even some of the long distance providers to create
any real competition, they will have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
they can provide the same reliable service as the company who has had the market
until now. As one cable internet tech told me, phone service is a critical
necessity (for emergencies, etc.), cable TV and cable internet aren't critical.
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:50:22 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:06:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:39:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 10:06:08 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
>>>> happens.
>>>>
>>>> Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
>>>> couple of seconds.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about FastFind either, just the normal find that comes
>>>> with Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Windows wins by a large margin, searching a similar number of files.
>>>
>>>I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
>>>LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
>>>and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
>>>probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
>>>if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
>>>everything.
>>
>>
>>Nope. Windows is searching through even more files because of all my
>>*mp3 files. It is still so much faster it is not even close.
>
> Why are you bragging about inefficiency? Although, bragging about
> how many mp3 files you need to search through rather is silly. mp3's
> are rather large and even on 6G the total file count added by mp3's
> should be relatively small. This is especially true if you have a
> good ear for the way low bitrate encoding can warp music.
So Windows find is faster and you call that inefficiency? You Linux
guys have a strange way of thinking.
The mp3's just happen to be there along with a gazzilion other typical
files and several drives that Windows has to search to find the file.
Those drives are not mounted under Linux.
Linux is searching one, count em, one 8 gig SCSI drive with a full
install of Corel Deluxe and a mostly full install of SuSE.
Slow as a snail by comparison.
>>
>>
>>
>>>That said, any comparison of GNU "find" and its pathetic
>>>counterpart in windows is, well, naive.
>>>GNU find is to windows find like the sun is to a little star.
>>
>>But the little star finds soooooo much faster.
>
> ...only if lie about the conditions of the contest.
You are the one distorting here not me.
Anyone in the group is free to try it for themselves and I'll bet they
will have similar results.
I just did a find for the file slime.exe (no such file on my system)
and it searched all files, drives and folders a total of about 46 gig
of storage (12 gig of actual data) in 15 seconds. This is on my
smaller, and slower system BTW.
Steve
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:51:29 GMT
STD DIALUP wrote in message ...
>It is much slower than a UNIX based web server.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>: There's a reason MS software is very rarely used for websites.
Not only that but Unix machines don't need to be rebooted at least every 2
weeks to stop them crashing. Lets see - NT uptime under 2 weeks, Linux (or
any other unix) uptime of at least 3 years.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
