Linux-Advocacy Digest #537, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: What's the difference between.... (Steve Harvey)
Re: Is the PC era over? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Is there any money in knowing Linux? ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: You're doin it all wrong..(was you people are full of doo doo) ("Francis Van
Aeken")
Re: Linux lacks (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux lacks (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Johan Kullstam)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: You're doin it all wrong..(was you people are full of doo doo) (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 16 May 2000 12:06:32 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>http://www-cse.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/current/Projects/\
>>corporate-monopolies/government_ibm.html
>
>Whoops....my mistake. Evidently IBM wasn't quite as benevolent
>as I thought.
Not a chance. They were feared and hated at least as much
as Microsoft is now and they controlled both the hardware
and software. AT&T would have been equally bad if they
weren't already constrained by their monopoly status from
getting into the computer business in those days. The thing
to learn from history is that from a consumer standpoint
we absolutely need competition to drive both innovation and
pricing.
Microsoft was handed its current position on a platter by
IBM's anti-trust constraint against bundling their hardware
with their operating systems and AT&T's constraint against
selling unix boxes directly (before the breakup). And
now they'd like us to think that anti-trust action is
a bad thing...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Harvey)
Subject: Re: What's the difference between....
Date: 16 May 2000 17:12:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, anonymous coward wrote:
>I find it very hard to believe the majority of Linux advocates
>actually have jobs in IT support.
Programmer/admin here, though I've done my time in IT support.
Learning Linux a few years ago definitely helped me get a foot in the
door of the industry.
>Real Linux experiences:
>
>You'll have to delete Red Hat and install Mandrake - central computing
>receives CERT security alerts about Red Hat on a weekly basis.
I run mostly Debian machines, but frequent security notifications are
a *good* thing.
>Sorry, I can't find a (bug free) Linux driver for the PCMCIA card in
>your new notebook. We've ordered another card but it won't be here
>until next week. We hope the new card will work.
Yeah, and nobody ever has driver problems with Windows either. There
is something to the philosophy that you should shop intelligently for
hardware, rather than just picking up something off the shelf and
hoping its supported.
>Lost a file? Sorry Mandrake NFS doesn't work and we couldn't backup
>your home directory.
Linux NFS has always worked fine for me; I use it every day.
>You want to use ftp? Sorry, Mandrake disables ftp as it transmits
>passwords in clear text and this is not secure enough.
Then spend 15 seconds re-enabling it. Besides, a system that ships
with a conservative security model is a *good* thing. Less chance for
an inexperienced admin to let something slip through.
>No, you can't run any long jobs yet, we have to take the system down
>and build a kernel that might work properly.
Which takes, say, two minutes to reboot the machine. Or, you could
test the kernel on another machine. Much more convenient then
Windows, where you have to reboot to change your IP address.
>You want to put a Linux box on your NT only subnet? Sorry, we'll have
>to firewall it first. Linux knows nothing about non-routable
>protocols.
NetBEUI? IPX?
>You want to put a Mandrake box in a public terminal room? Sorry,
>someone only has to type ctr-alt-delete at the console and boot with
>the -s option and put in a couple of backdoors. With a bit of
>preparation this takes about 3 minutes. They now have a nice platform
>from which to attack other machines.
As others have said, this is trivial to disable in /etc/inittab.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:12:26 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 12:08:34 -0500, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Intel's x86 architecture may also be approaching the end of its lifespan.
>> > Even Intel seem to think it's in need of replacement.
[deletia]
>Which brings up a good point: The floppy has got to go. That sucker
>does next to nothing, and has for years. 1.44 Meg? In like five
>minutes? Yeah, I care.
>
>The one good thing I can say about the iMac: no floppy drive.
...and nothing to replace it with either.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 19:14:15 +0200
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
8fru2a$2aog$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some snippage </SNIP>
> >Of course, but do you know of sites that big that run on one x86 machine
?
>
> Ftp.cdrom.com has at various times been measured as the biggest single
> source of data on the internet. It has had at least 3000
> connections every time I've used it. It is a single x86 machine
> running freebsd and is rarely if ever down.
I'm aware of ftp.cdrom.com, it's a lone FreeBSD box that can handle up to
3600 connections, but i'm not sure that it can really be compared to active
content sites such as www.microsoft.com , www.dell.com , www.ebay.com.
I can of course be wrong. :)
> Les Mikesell
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 16 May 2000 12:12:08 -0500
In article <nz8U4.316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Name a single non-consumable product that you can jump to a competor
>without
>> > a significant cost.
>>
>> You can exchange any NFS Server for any other for starters. Same with
>> SMTP Servers, same with DNS Servers. And until recently, any Kerberos
>> server.
>
>We're talking about complete products here. Such as moving from one OS to
>another OS.
I think you are the only one talking about products that keep you
locked to a single OS. The rest of us want standard services.
Connect any client to any server and you don't break the world
when you change one without the other.
>> If you use any service which uses a fully documented protocol, and
>> only the documented protocol, you don't have vendor lockin.
>
>If you buy a ford car, you can move to a Chevy, but it will still cost you a
>lot of money.
Heh, not when someone is giving them away.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:50:54 GMT
In article <8fphc1$vl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Angela Kahealani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> : I advocate that you take your personal flames to a flames newsgroup,
>> : and stop crosposting between newsgroups, especially take
>> : anything which has to do with MicroSoft out of
>> : comp.unix.advocacy, which is where I'm reading your flames and
>> : off topic postings. How you appear to me:
>> : <URL:http://www.kahealani.com/kahealani/imgs/clipart/headup.jpg>
>> A UNIX advocate posting from a Macintosh? How interesting.
>Alot more common than youd think. Half the computers in my house
>are macs, and rightfully so.
I was on a G4 at an old Unix client a week or so ago. That OS-X
(they're using it as a server in a beta environment) surely looked
like Unix to me at the command line.
There are Macs and there are Macs and not all of them are the same.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Is there any money in knowing Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:37:43 -0300
Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Francis Van Aeken wrote:
> > It's interesting to see that you know the outcome of your survey
> > already. Why don't you just make up the numbers, it will save you
> > a lot of work and the Linux advocates will love you all the more for it!
> > More proof that Linux rules, yippee!
> No need to make up lies...you do this quite well on your own, Francis (is
> lying God's gift to you, or did your years of MSCE training/investing teach
> you how to lie so blatantly?).
Poor Streamer, I hate to break it to you, but I'm not the one lying here.
I argued that the typical Linux advocate does not question positive news
about Linux. Look at COLA for examples backing up this claim.
I have no ties to MS, own no shares, am not MS certified. What made
you say that? The urge to lie?
Francis.
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You're doin it all wrong..(was you people are full of doo doo)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:45:50 -0300
John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fpvoh$phj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It is strange that some of the Linux advocates in this group seem almost
> ... bitter.
Ha, ha , ha, that is an understatement! Bitching, bitching, bitching, that's
all they know! It must be that OS they are using... :-)
Francis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: 16 May 2000 12:48:49 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Cueto wrote:
>
>> Particular cases are not relevant. I assure to you that ext2 has made me
>> loose more data than NTFS and even FAT32, and it is not a joke. Anyway,
>> mine is a particular case too :-)
>
>So far, you haven't given us any reason to think you've actually even used
>ext2.
Or what really caused the problem. There were bugs in e2fs handling
in kernels from about 2.2.7 to 2.2.10, and even with the robust
kernels it is pretty common for e2fsck to refuse to fix a filesystem
in the automatic mode. In the latter case you just have to run
it by hand (like the error message says) and answer yes to everything.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: 16 May 2000 12:44:00 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unix has antiquated file permissions.
Compared to Win98?
>It uses text files for system
>configuration. Text files are not the native language of a computer.
Of course not. Text is the language of humans, and the correct
choice for configuration. Note your choice of technique for
discussing it.
>It understands only one network protocol (which was tacked on as an
>afterthought).
Name one that isn't supported on some version of unix.
>It more or less defaults to an 80x25 character mode
>user interface.
Huh?
>Things like KDE, Gnome, Samba and Apache are perfect examples of how
>difficult it is to bring this outdated system into the 21st century.
Difficult? Note that all of the above and many more can be running
at the same time from the same box.
>They are all kludgy and full of seams due to an underlying operating
>system that was more or less designed to be time shared across a bunch
>of tty terminals.
And that still works too. Treating devices, network connections,
and files as streams of data accessed with the same system
calls was a good idea then and it is a good idea now.
>As far as 'logical' is concerned, try this:
>
>ls /etc | wc
> 96 288 3359
>
>Almost 100 files in the same directory, the majority of which are text
>based configuration files. A clear example of how the system has
>suffered from poor foresight by developers. They simply dump the
>majority of system configuration files in the one directory. Even the
>name 'etc' indicates poor design. It suggests the directory contains
>all the things we couldn't find a better place to put.
What are you talking about? Of course a file system is a good
place to put configuration files, and of course it is a good
idea to put the system copies in one place. Note that most
apps also allow for per-user configuration where it is appropriate
and most take command line options for an alternate location
so you can run test instances of a program like sendmail without
disrupting the production copy.
>How man symbolic links are there in a typical Unix system?
As many as you want.
>I'd guess
>in the range of hundreds. A symbolic link represents a patch used to
>make the system function correctly due to poor design and a lack of
>integration. If Unix systems were well designed a clean install would
>not contain a single symbolic link.
Errr, I think you mean if unix systems were to ignore user convenience
and all backwards compatibility for the user's apps, there would
be no symlinks. You are free to break things on your own it
that's what you want.
>You people are in desperate need of a reality check.
Sure... All the apps that have run solidly across varied CPU types
for the last twenty years should be rewritten non-portably on a
less robust OS because you don't like text files.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: 16 May 2000 12:52:50 -0500
In article <X57U4.453$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Cueto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Linux lacks nothing. There isn't a thing you can do with Microsoft you
>> can't
>> do with Linux better.
>> And that's the facts.
>> Try and challenge that statement. You'll find you can't.
>
> The same can be said for Windows NT/2000, just try yourself.
How do I arrange for a scheduled directory sync under win2000
without installing a domain controller and active directory?
With Linux I can use a cron job to run rsync over ssh.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:13:02 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > That's just it, there aren't hundreds of examples of undocumented
API's
> > that
> > > > MS's applications use (which is the subject, not just undocumented
> > API's).
> > >
> > > So Corel knew how to use the IIS Office extensions at the same time as
> > > Microsoft did?
> >
> > Which IIS Office extensions might those be?
>
> Nevermind. You obviously don't want to have a discussion.
Oh, so because I ask you to corroborate your statements, suddenly I don't
want to have a discussion.
That's extremly disingenuous.
I know of no extensions to IIS that are used by Office. You claim there
are, so I'm asking you to give examples.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:17:06 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Todd wrote:
>
> > >Your test is irrelevant - it doesn't include efficiency. The existance
> > >and use of undocumented APIs is proof enough MS cheated.
> >
> > Undocumented APIs do not necessarily give MS an advantage... if they
exist
> > and are not documented, don't you think that MS didn't want developers
using
> > these because those same APIs may not be present in an upgraded version
of
> > the OS??
> >
> > Why is everything a conspiracy to you?
>
> There isn't a conspiracy - MS openly admits they engineer undocumented
> APIs in Windows which is how they innovate on MS Windows.
Then please quote the statement that MS innovates with undocumented API's.
> MS admits that
> many of these APIs originate with the Apps division who invent them, use
> them and are assured these APIs are added to the OS. Competiors get to
> use them *after* MS. MS says this innovation benefits consumers.
Wait, you just said they were undocumented. How could they be undocumented
if MS documentes them.
You're contradicting yourself. Are you saying they're only undocumented
when Microsoft designs them? DUH! Linux API's are undocumented until
they're published as well, as are OS/2 API's. Don't you think IBM had an
advantage over other vendors when they created DIVE, or Open32?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:20:44 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > You saved money over not buying another car?
> >
> > If you're replacing your cars with other cars, then that's a consumeable
> > useage. If you are throwing away a perfectly good car to replace it
with a
> > different car for no particular reason other than "we want all cars of
the
> > same type" then that's different.
>
> Dealers accept trade-ins or you can sell the car. Look up the terms
> Used-car and trade-in.
And I can sell my computer (and OS) and the applications that go with it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:22:06 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Tue, 16 May 2000 10:46:58 GMT
> <CG9U4.12986$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <Ij0U4.286$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> > And what IIS hooks are there in the OS for applications to use, other
> >> > than the documented ISAPI?
> >>
> >> Nobody knows. They're not documented!
> >
> >Then how do we know they exist at all?
>
> Andrew Schullman, among others (_Unauthorized Windows95_,
> ISBN 1-56884-169-8).
Really? And a book about the internals of Windows 95 talks about
undocumented hooks to an NT application?
Wow.
Did you even read the thread?
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 16 May 2000 13:58:58 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie) writes:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000 01:44:54 GMT,
> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> + i have done that, but i am still not satisfied. how many 19 or 20
> + pixel high, unscaled, monospaced fonts with a full complement of
> + normal, bold, slanted and bold/slant variants are there? none as far
> + as i can tell.
>
> Well, on my system, you've got a choice of Courier (Adobe), Courier
> (Bitstream) and lucidatypwriter.
i used to use adobe-courier but recent emacsen are broken with respect
to this font and add extra space. i think this is due to the slanted
variants being taller than the straight ones.
i do not have bitstream courier. i do have terminal and presige.
neither have slanted variants. bitstream terminal comes in 18 and
36. bitstream presitige comes in 19.
lucidatypewriter also does not have slanted variants.
--
johan kullstam l72t00052
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: 16 May 2000 18:15:28 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:> Second, drive letters have absolutely nothing to do with
:> microcomputers. You are just displaying your ignorance of computer
:> history by stating this. That great microcomputer system known as the
:> VAX used drive letters (labels, actually) when running VMS. So did the
:> PDP-11 operating systems such as RSX-11 and RT-11 (which, if you
:> actually knew the basics of computing history, CP/M, and thus MS-DOS
:> and Windows, were derived from). To continue my compelling attack of
:> your fallacious argument, that great mainframe computer known as the
:> Apple II did NOT use drive letters.
: As if drive NUMBERS are all that different...
: CAT,d1
: Gak, I hated that. Of course the Commodore64 was even worse; It
: started labeling at 8 (because of the biggest kludge in the universe:
: the 1541).
: [snip]
The Apple II also numbered the floppy drives, most of which were
attached to a controller on slot 6 (if memory serves). The scheme
wasn't terribly complicated at the time.
Linux *does* put letters on drive names, but the end user isn't
expected to see them. (hda, hda1, etc.) Still, I think it
would be much better to use the Solaris numbering scheme
(/dev/dsk/c1t0d0s3, etc.) in order to make everything a little
more ordered in /dev land.
In short:
Numbers good. Letters bad. Mount points very good.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:25:22 -0500
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 15 May 2000 18:46:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >Untrue. Microsoft admits that they take application group code and make
it
> >roll it into the OS.
>
> MS needs to get their lies straight. A few years ago, when it suited MS
> in their negotiations with the DOJ over "bundling", there was a "chinese
> wall" between the groups. Now, when it suits them, there is no such wall
> and the existence of one would be detrimental to the company.
A few years ago?
MS has denied the existance of a chinese wall since at *LEAST* December of
1991 when Mark Maples (MS's spokesman at the time) stated it didn't exist in
InfoWorld. This was years before any DOJ negotiations.
The Chinese Wall was talked about in the mid-80's, not in the 90's.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:15:28 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 19:06:24 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >Of course, but do you know of sites that big that run on one x86 machine
>?
>>
>> No one said any did. But Charlie was saying that NT machines crater
>> when put under heavly load. These farms you gave as an example do not
>> prove it doesn't.
>
>Ok, fair enough. What about Charlie's _documented_ evidence ?
AFAIK, there is no evidence. It's just Charlie's experience. My point
is that your evidence does not prove him wrong.
>My claim is that some corporation disagree with him, and use NT/2K for their
>big/high availability sites.
>
As I keep saying...examples of companies that have economic ties to Microsoft.
>> But these companies that are "in it for the money" as have ties to
>> Microsoft. I am still waiting for an independant success story for NT.
>
>Did I promise to providse you with one ? I clearly don't remember.
No you didn't. But some independent success stories touting high
uptimes on single machines even under the heaviest of loads would go a
long way in actually convincing the greater IT community that MS
finally has come up with a relative stable OS. So far, this has not
happened yet.
>> >Unless I'm mistaken, the TPC benchmarks stress the platforms [heavy
>load],
>> >and that you wouldn't have high marks if you platform crashed thru the
>test.
>>
>> And how long do these benchmarks run. Weeks?? Months?? Memory leaks
>> are cumulative.
>
>I don't know. It's heavy load, and WinNT/2K apparently manages that load
>just fine to at least finish the test [spanking a few UNIXes along the way].
>Let's just that it postpone the under heavyload croaking.
But the tests do not run long enough to prove long term stability, period.
>> I never said you should believe his blanket statement. But why do you
>> believe corporations that have ties to Microsoft?? You don't get it do
>> you?? When www.dell.com gets BSOD's in their server farm their
>
>I get it all right thank you. What's wrong with that ? Don't you believe
>that major big/high availability sites don't have ties with their favorite
>commercial UNIX vendor ? That's how business is done, AFAICT.
Sure they have "ties", they are customers of Unix vendors, not Unix
resellers. Your example, www.dell.com is a big W2k reseller. You
don't see a difference??
>> engineers call Microsoft Engineers that they know personally and get a
>> level of support other companies don't get. Why?? Dell is selling W2k
>> servers.
>
>I don't believe Dell. I see that they use WinNT/2K successfully on a
>big/high availability site. Period.
I see that too. But it proves very little about W2K vs. Unix for any
corporation that has no reason to favor either.
>Apparently, its bearable enough for some corporation to successfully do
>business on their big/high availability sites.
>
Apparently, bearable enough only for some corporations that have
additional commercial ties to Microsoft, beyond being ordinary
customers.
>Still expecting Charlie's documented evidence.
>
AFAIK, Charlie never claimed to have any evidence. It's his own
personal experience, and you haven't proven him wrong.
I personally am waiting form some objective evidence that W2K can hold
its own under heavy loads for extended periods in the same manner that
Unix does. I haven't seen any yet.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: You're doin it all wrong..(was you people are full of doo doo)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:26:47 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 14:45:50 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8fpvoh$phj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> It is strange that some of the Linux advocates in this group seem almost
>> ... bitter.
>
>Ha, ha , ha, that is an understatement! Bitching, bitching, bitching, that's
>all they know! It must be that OS they are using... :-)
>
Oddly enough, that response is typically only triggered by
slander and misinformation being bandied about...
As far as being 'bitchy' goes: we're consumers, consumers of
a free market. Many of us have money that is just as green as
anyone else's.
We certainly have a reasonable expectation to be able to get
what we want as consumers of a free market economy, rather than
being restricted to seen better products in museums as if we
were living in some sort of Stalinist regime.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
