Linux-Advocacy Digest #103, Volume #26 Thu, 13 Apr 00 07:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up' (Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Programming Languages (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Programming Languages (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS (Loren Petrich)
Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up' (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS (Loren Petrich)
Re: Bill Gates on T.V. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
question about depmod problem after SMP kernel rebuild (Bartlomiej Jarocki)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (Truckasaurus)
Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story) (Sitaram Chamarty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up'
Date: 13 Apr 2000 08:19:44 +0200
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> good article.
>
> i didn't understand what was that difference between single server and 'all
> servers'. i was expecting that they would look at all the individual
> servers on a site vs. the site as a whole, but whole sites have bigger
> downtime than single servers. does not make sense. did anyone get that?
AFAICT they didn't measure the site as a whole at all. They measured
the individual servers (pinging by IP address, not by name). Even if
one of those boxes fails (which they saw, as they were pinging by IP),
the site as a whole was still accessable (which they didn't test).
If the admins of say gmx.de upgrade kernels of their 18 linux boxes
one at a time (or other scheduled downtimes), which doesn't change the
availability of the site as a whole, these downtimes got counted in
the "all server" figures no less.
Thus if you want reliabilty figures, you should look at the single
server figures.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:39:24 +0200
> I'm a computer scientist.
me too
> I know more about this than you[*], so it
> seems.
Its your job to declare definitions without any proof?
> There are strict limits on what you can do in a language
> without computational power (HTML cannot calculate an arbitrary digit
> of pi, for example.)
of course, but I was asking for the source of your definition of
programming languages
> ISO and ANSI can rule on this to their heart's content, but the
> fundamental truth is deeper than that.
And you define what 'fundamental truth' is?
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:47:28 +0200
> I don't want to defend the 'definition' proposed, but you are
> mischaracterizing it a bit. He said a scritping language is one
> in which the commands are interpeted BY THE SHELL. This is
> possibly an important distinction.
no its not, because you cannot stop a shell to interpret any language
you want to.
A shell is not much more than an interactive command-interpreter, if it
speaks
c,pascal or whatever
> The C interpeter is not a scripting language by this definition.
Why not?
You could use a c-interpreter as shell
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:50:41 +0200
> I can think of a fuzzy difference. A scripting language normally doesn't
> have the power of a programming language
What are scripting languages than?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS
Date: 13 Apr 2000 07:08:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Uman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>PLEASE NO.....
>KEEP MFC OFF OF LINUX... Please...
>I have worked with MFC for quite a long time {since 1993} and I think it is the
>stupidest thing around. ...
>Microsoft... Please don't infect the Linux world with your torturous software.
>I've developed for many major platforms, including MS Win 3.1, MS Win 95, MS
>Win NT, Unix, Linux & Mac. And Microsoft does nothing but get in the way of
>real software development.
Any opinions on the MacOS? True, it has some serious deficiencies,
but in my experience, it is usually stable if one does not do anything
recognizably dangerous. But I do find it very elegant in some ways, and
I'm looking forward to MacOS X's real-OS features. Though I do think that
that Dock could be improved...
One feature I like about the MacOS is resource forks, which can be
used as a mini-database of configuration data. But I've started working
with XML to make an originally-Mac app portable, and XML seems as if the
rest of the world is catching up with resource forks :-) [actually, XML
is ahead in some ways, and Apple itself will be using XML-formatted
configuration files in MacOS X]
>I agree, many MIS support people don't know squat about the systems they are
>supposed to be maintaining. At my company, the last MIS guy didn't even know
>how to configure the DNS servers.
I wonder how that guy got his job -- from being an expert user of
buzzwords?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:07:55 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> http://www.heise.de/ct/english/00/08/174/
Not getting a response from a GET does not mean the server is down - it
can be anything from faulty LAN cards (or any other hardware component)
to the dead link between the Server in front and the actual host.
But, very interesting stats none the less...
Cheers,
Nico Coetzee.
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
FLASH!
Intelligence of mankind decreasing.
Details at ... uh, when the little hand is on the ....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Windows IS the dominant corporate OS
Date: 13 Apr 2000 07:10:59 GMT
[Stuff on a M$-style Internet...]
ROTFL.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates on T.V.
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:21:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 13:41:43 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Microsoft is trying to convince the Supreme Court (through the mass
> >media and popular opinion) that the consumer is better of with
> >the Microsoft Monopoly that it would be in the competitive market.
Let's look at some of Microsoft's other "Contributions" and compare
them to more competitive markets (UNIX).
The Microsoft Monopoly did achieve the ability to dictate hardware
standards. Eventually, even IBM couldn't introduce MicroChannel
without support from Microsoft (which it didn't get). The PC industry
moved in lock-step with each release Windows. The XT came out with
MS-DOS 2.X, the AT came out with 3.X, Windows 3.0 pushed users into
386, and Windows 3.1 pushed them into CD-ROM and 80486 machines.
Windows 3.11 provided support for Novell Netware and Lan Manager.
But did Microsoft push standards or delay their adoption? Compare
this to UNIX.
In the UNIX market - Processors and hardware became progresively
cheaper and produced higher levels of performance at lower cost.
UNIX supported numerous different processors including VAX, Z8000,
68020, MIPS, Alpha, PPC, and about 20 other processors. UNIX
supported graphics resolutions from 640x480 to 4096x3072 and higher.
UNIX supported SCSI hard drives that could easily support 4 terabytes.
UNIX also introduce the RAID array, SMP, TCP/IP, and Clustering years
before Microsoft "introduced" them as "innovations" to Windows.
> >Of course, nearly every economist would say that the consumer
> >ultimately suffers from Monopoly. Usually, the monopoly holder
> >charges more, kills off competition, and gains control of the
> >consumers themselves.
Microsoft demands the right to innovate, but appearantly demands
this as an EXCLUSIVE right. For example:
OEMs are not allowed to alter the boot sequence - this prevents the
installation of boot managers, and alternate operating systems.
IBM was strongly discouraged from distributing Lotus Smart Suite
with Windows, and was punished in a number of different retaliatory
acts including delays in licensing agreemnts and lack of support.
Compaq was offered revenue in exchange for strategic placement of
Netscape on the Desktop - and Microsoft demanded complete control
of the desktop - especially the ability to place or displace companies
like AOL "quick connects".
Microsoft service pack 2 deliberately failed under Cyrix chips,
which were used by IBM who was still promoting OS/2 as their
primary server platform. Eventually, OS/2 deployments dropped from
4 million to 250,000 machines.
Microsoft delayed enhancements to IDE/EIDE until absolutely necessary
to assure that multiple partition installations were not used.
Microsoft still insists on a single partition install with very limited
exceptions.
Microsoft insisted that OEMs install either Office or Works, using
cliff-tiered pricing as a means of punishing uncooperative OEMS.
IBM was changed as much as 7 times more for Windows 95 because they
installed Lotus SmartSuite.
> one way the consumer benefitted was with the winmodem. You buy a new
> computer and pay for a modem that won't work with any other operating
> system and if you stick with windows your systems slows to crawl speed
> every time some program accesses the modem.
Look at other examples:
Microsoft has resisted SCSI which would have made computers more
expandable at lower cost, because UNIX provided better support for
SCSI.
Microsoft took control of the USB standard when Fire-Wire became
an open IEEE standard. Futhermore, the complex protocols used in
cameras, scanners, and storage devices have been protected by
Microsoft NDAs instead of patents and published standards.
Microsoft took control of the DVD standard, fighting the use of
patents and international copyrights (which require public
disclusures). Microsoft also resisted the use of DAT tape for
low-cost backup of Windows workstations. Microsoft's backup
still does not support CD-R and CD-RW systems in it's comprehensive
backup programs (on Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0).
> lucky consumers.
Yes, lucky consumers now spend as much as $600/copy for Microsoft
Office, as much as $400 for Windows NT or Windows 2000, as much as
$200 for Windows 95, and as much as $5/user/site for access to
MSN. Microsoft collects as much as 20% of the commissions from
it Car Point, Expedia, and Mortgage Brokerage services. They collect
as much as 20% of the commissions collected by Microsoft Dependent
Brokers.
Microsoft also owns controlling intrest in at least 2 networks and
influences the coverage of the three broadcast industries -
especially to divert attention for coverage that would result in
negative publicity.
Microsoft also collects priviledged information about user activity,
especially with it's ActiveX controls.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:37:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 19:49:25 -0400, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8cl3u2$cei$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8ck0i7$q3b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> >> >
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> Ha ha...You can't!
> >> >>
> >> >> The Linux crowd runs and hides ever time the word "benchmark" is
> >> >> mentioned.
> >> >
> >> >This is a benchmark using NetBench 5.01 in a typical configuration
> >> >of both Linux and NT.
> >> >http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2196106,00.html
> >> >
> >> >Microsoft spent 6 months trying to come up with a benchmark
> >> >that favored Microsoft and came out with the mindcraft benchmarks.
> >>
> >>
> >> We are going to be seeing fewer and
> >> fewer of these benchmark comparisons
> >> bettween Linux and Windows in the future
> >> as Linux ports on hardware likethe
> >> S/390's become widespread. Companies
> >> like Mindcraft and magazines like PC
> >> Mag don't have the knowlege or the skills
> >> to deal with Linux and this kind of hardware.
> >>
> >
> >oh - that is funny - that is REALLY funny.
> > And, say, I thought linvocates
> > tell us that any system running
> > Linux is so much cheaper (cause according to
> >them the cost of the OS makes up 92% of the TCO
> > of the system) that I'm sure
> >PC Mag and Mindcraft can afford the hardware.
For Linux 2.2, your minimum system, to be useful as a
graphical Workstation or server, (according to Slackware 7)
is a 486/50 with 8 meg (16 meg reccomended), and a 500 meg
drive. In a network environment, you can even get away
with a 200 meg hard drive (mounting the remaining files
on a remote server).
At the other end of the spectrum you have the S/390 port
and a cluster of 256 4 proccessor Netfinities that has been
officially clocked as the 16th fastest computer system in the
world.
> >And as for the knowledge or
> >skills - the last time Mindcraft
> > invited the best Linux people to it's own
> >labs linux STILL lost huge.
Keep in mind that the retest was with Linux 2.0.3x
Which was known to have some SMP latency bottlenecks.
Microsoft - an any other college freshman - could see
the source code, identify which bottelnecks would have
the greatest impact, and then tuned the benchmark to
exploit this advantage.
> > Who do you need to tune linux before it'll work;
> >a personal visit from linus?
Actually, that's exactly what happened! Linux released Linux 2.2.xx
and fixed the NIC card spin-locks in the 2.2.12 release.
Keep in mind that even UNIX vendors have written off SMP as a losing
proposition. In most cases, with 1.5 gigabit ethernets and ATM links,
it's easier and cheaper to use message passing such as MPI, PVM, or
CORBA to distribute "real world loads".
--
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: Bartlomiej Jarocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: question about depmod problem after SMP kernel rebuild
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:41:28 +0200
I have unresolved externals depmod problem after kernel rebuild with SMP enabled
- __global_cli, __global_sti are missing though they can be found in kernels
System.map. I dont have a clue what may be wrong (I guess it's something wrong
with my modutils modutils-2.3.9-6, binutils-2.9.5.0.22-6 or egcs-1.1.2-30) if
any one has solved or understands what may be wrong please help (my dual pentium
board stay unused :(((( ).
Best regards and TIA
Bartek
PS
I'm not quite sure if I post it to the right group (couldnt find a groups FAQ)
so please let me know if its misaddressed here.
_______________________________________________________________________
Bartlomiej Jarocki | Instytut Techniki i Aparatury Medycznej
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Medical Technology & Equipment Institute
tel/fax:(+48 32) 271 60 13 | ul.Roosevelta 118, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 09:50:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm a computer scientist.
> me too
Really? Which field?
>> I know more about this than you[*], so it seems.
> Its your job to declare definitions without any proof?
You can't prove a definition. You can show its consistency with other
definitions/axioms, and you can take a bunch of these and show some
notion of completeness, but definitions are a priori unprovable. They
are not concepts that admit proof.
>> There are strict limits on what you can do in a language without
>> computational power (HTML cannot calculate an arbitrary digit of
>> pi, for example.)
> of course, but I was asking for the source of your definition of
> programming languages
Observation and experience. I have observed that the most general
definition that people use is that of TM-equivalence. I have also
observed that there are useful input languages to computation systems
that are not TM-complete (regular expressions are a good example.) I
conclude from this that programming languages do not need to be as
powerful as TMs to be useful, and the natural description to use then,
according to my experience which is more effort to quantify in this
forum than I can be bothered to go into right now, is that of a stored
organized collection of instructions to a computing device.
>> ISO and ANSI can rule on this to their heart's content, but the
>> fundamental truth is deeper than that.
> And you define what 'fundamental truth' is?
Are you an alias for Dave Tholen? I'd have expected someone who knows
CS to at least comprehend that without hand-holding...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:02:01 GMT
In article <8d38o5$v2k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8d1lqt$6lf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snippity snip>
> > > you missed the sarcasm becuase of a previous thread. I know what
su
> > defaults
> > > to but ... never mind, it *was* funny once...
> >
> > Can you *prove* that it was sarcasm, and not pure ignorance?
>
> Oh No! Please don't get that lame thread about proving a negative
> started again! It bored most of us to tears the first time around,
and
> its been resurrected a half dozen times since then.
You claim it bored most of you... I do not believe so; can you prove it?
> If it was sarcasm, it was funny. If was ignorance, it was equally
> funny. The difference between a fool and a clown is that the clown
> knows he's funny. And a mere spectator can't tell the difference.
I would really like to see you prove that there is a significant
difference between a fool and a clown; for doesn't a clown make you
laugh by *making a fool of himself?*
> So let's drop this one and move on....
Erm... Nothing here to prove...
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sitaram Chamarty)
Subject: Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:37:51 GMT
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:15:02 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My final point is: I can't imagine those so-called
>"Wintrolls" who are all over the newsgroups having
>a lot of experience in using Linux at all. I don't
>think *anybody* could go back to Windows
>permanently after having used Linux for a while. I
I have found from 3+ years of evangelising Linux that there are
such people. Prejudice (should be spelt pre-judice to bring out
its meaning more clearly :-) is an amazing thing.
There will always be small-minded people who refuse to see the big
picture and focus on little things - during the early days of my
evangelism I (sadly) pissed off a Winvocate in my office (actually
I showed him up on something [1]).
For this guy it's now personal. Once the human mind makes it
"personal", it can prove anything to itself, and will try to prove
it to the world. Nothing you say or do can change it.
So Linux folks - be careful who you piss off :-) It takes a big
man to forget a real or perceived insult and accept the facts
instead of digging deeper and deeper into his foxhole!
--
Sitaram (much wiser after that) Chamarty
[1] long before we had a PS printer, a manager using MS Project
wanted one. It seems MS Project would print a certain view of the
chart *only* to a PS printer; it wouldn't print that particular
view to any other printer (go figure!) The IS guy said he'd have
to order a PS printer, and he and the manager started down that
pricey path.
I overheard them, made some config changes to my smb.conf, and
showed the manager how he could install a "PostScript" printer
served up by my Linux box (the magic of GhostScript - and this was
RH 4.1 or 4.2 at the time!!)
This IS guy was considered the "answer man" around there at that
time, and boy was he pissed!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
