Linux-Advocacy Digest #108, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 23:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight ("Colin R. Day")
Re: What UNIX is good for. (pac4854)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis)
Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Otto")
Re: What UNIX is good for. ("Rich C")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("Colin R. Day")
RE: Boring ("Jorge Cueto")
Re: The Trolls, oh The Trolls... (pac4854)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Otto")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Rich C")
Re: Alpha vs Intel (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:52:40 +1000
"Karl Knechtel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <talk.bizarre removed and follow-ups set. Crossposting is naughty! :P>
>
> Christopher Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> <snip>
> : Stick with the multilevel piping type scenarios, it's one of the few
things
> : left a CLI really *is* vastly better for (and will probably remain so).
>
> I've been thinking about this one actually. How about having
> key-combination-click-and-drag on (some widget of a window which contains
> data) to (the window of another app/process) set up a pipe, such that all
> data output to the widget in the first window is sent to the
> (gui-equivalent-of-stdin) of the second? Or else, pipe between two
> (compatible) widgets?
>
> Then we just need to have apps designed to take that sort of input.
> Ex.: BBEdit could have an option added to the "Find" dialog, "act on each
> line of stdin when received". Since BBEdit already does perl-like (very
> similar anyway, dunno if it passes all the regression tests) regexping,
this
> would simulate the effect of "| perl -e <one-liner>".
>
> No reason a GUI shouldn't be able to do what a CLI can. I wouldn't mind
> having a CLI added into MacOS, but IMO any shell language used to
> communicate with MacOS ought to be significantly 'higher-level' than DOS
> or Unix shell commands. I nominate Applescript; with modifications (i.e.
> lots more keywords - and OS-interaction dictionary, basically) I'd expect
> it could do the job *very* nicely. I would have the 'command line' be a
box
> like the Message box in Hypercard, except possibly with some history -
> better yet, a scrolling windoid which behaves like the MPW shell, only
with
> Applescript-like commands.
>
> Commands might go something like "select <files|folders|items> of front
> window matching <regexp>" (the command line should be a *windoid* so as
> not to interfere). Now *that* would be cool. (Although I don't know what
> legal problems they might get into for using regexps in that way - any
> Unix experts happen to know if Apple would be paying large sums of money
to
> AT&T et al. to do that?)
>
> I chose the above example for a good reason: it's a helluva lot faster to
> get files which match a regexp using a CLI, but once you have the items
> *selected* it's IME faster to drag them somewhere than type out what it is
> you want done with them.
You _could_ do, without a doubt, but the real question is would you want to
?
I can think of several reasons why not:
1. There just aren't many tasks that have you filtering data through
several applications often enough to dedicate an entire subsystem to them.
For the few there, scripting and temporary files/data storage already meet
the need.
2. It'd be a UI nightmare to try and implement in a functional manner.
The reason CLIs are generally seen as a "power user" thing is because most
of the stuff you'd do in one because it really was the best way to do, just
isn't especially common for the vast majority of people.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:50:31 -0400
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:42:10 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:43:03 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> "Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >>
> >> >> And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
> >> >
> >> >Because you *thought* it was mounted.
> >>
> >> In which case you should get a permissions error.
> >
> >Not in all cases. It just might copy.
>
> jedi@dementia /tmp >cp *txt /cdrom
> cp: cannot create regular file `/cdrom/LICENCE.txt': Permission denied
Of course, I'm running as root.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:51:31 -0400
Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >jedi@dementia /tmp >cp *txt /cdrom
> >cp: cannot create regular file `/cdrom/LICENCE.txt': Permission denied
>
> There's that bravery again (or was it foolishness, I forget <G>)
> claiming that because it doesn't happen for you it can't happen for
> anybody.
>
He wouldn't expect someone to do that as root.
>
> On that basis, I now claim the Mac OS to be stable because my machine
> hasn't crashed in the past 3 weeks. Or perhaps you begin to see the
> fallacy in such thinking...
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
> wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
> bottom of that cupboard."
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:58:58 -0400
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:50:42 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:03:35 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
> >> >> Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
> >> >> Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
> >> >> filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
> >> >> hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
> >> >> directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
> >> >> and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
> >> >> but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
> >> >> again!
> >> >> Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
> >> >> focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
> >> >> of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
> >>
> >> ...and would you even have the permission to do so?
> >
> >An ordinary user would only have such permission for removable
> >media, but it could happen.
>
> Actually, no they wouldn't. A root owned subdirectory would yield
> a permissions violation and a 'virtual' directory simply wouldn't
> be there for the user to mess with.
Doh.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:01:09 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> Linofreaks don't run games. All they run is text fillters and C compialer. Real
>"powerful" stuff.
>
And how would you know this? I've wasted many a CPU cycle on Eric's Ultimate Solitaire.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:01:27 -0700
Shit like this has got to be an embarassment to the sincere
Winvocates. Makes one wonder if this isn't a Linvocate doing a
bit of reverse trolling, its so intentionally bad. On the other
hand, if this moron represents the state of the Windows
community, Linux is headed for world domination on a very fast
track indeed.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:05:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> UNIX is very good at shuffelling
^^^^^^^^^^^
you misspelled processing
> text aroumd.
^^^^
You misspelled "data"
> LinoNuts call that "powerfull". I call it "pointless".
This is why you are classified as an uneducated fool.
>
> However, doing annything else with UNIX is a chalange. It's not fast enough to be
>any kind
Which is why nearly every single enterprise-level database in this
country is on a Unix platform, and not a single one is on LoseDows.
> of server, so if you realy want to shuffel text around and then send it out to
>Windows 2000
> sevrer where it can be axcessed by users, you still nead 20 UNIX boxes just to keep
>up with the
> servor. You can save the money you would spend on the 20 UNIX boxes (and the days it
>would take
> just to figure how to make it shuffall text and send it to Windos) just by doing
>everyting on
> the Windos 2000 server.
Blatant lies.
>
> You can barely do anything with graffics in UNIX. The Gimp is a joke when you
>compare it to Adobe
> PhotoShop (by it and see for yourself if your not to chepe), or even a good LOGO
>interporator.
> And if you do anything with grafix, you can only save a JPEG or PNG (forget GIF's!
>their
> "pollitacolly incorrect", like everything ealse that doesn't work on UNIX!) and
>immbedding or
> intergrating anything is a no-no (un-P.C. again), so you halve to have the text in
>one file and
> the graficks in another fial, or use HTML (another joke excuse for what you can do
>in Windows
> with Office, or even WordPad, and the text and graffix still half to be in different
>fials),
> and NO ANIMATIONS OR ANYTHING THAT CANT BE REPARSENTED BY TEXT OR A BITMAP!!
>
> So what is UNIX good four? Prettending its' the 1970s, i gess. Look mommy, I'm the
>Sysadmin! You
> can be my user. Type "elm" if you wan't to rede your e-mial, e-mails you write get
>sent once a
> week thru UUCP, and look at this it's real kewl! If you want to chat, with the other
>users you
> can type "write", but you'll always be the only user logged in anyway. Oh, and the
>CD drive,
> sound card, scanner, printer, modem, graffics card, and floppy drive arent' working
>annymore
> like they did when we had Windoas, but thats' only because they were all propietrary
>and bad
> and stuff. We just half to get new ones, thats' all.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:49:40 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news groups by
the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not reconcile
with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss one of
them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system, since
there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is nothing more
than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating system.
I have seen it stated here that Microsoft has made support for preexisting
software a priority in their design of Windows. I find all the too
unbelieveable when faced with what I have experienced in working with the
Windows environment. The ability to run dos software is often cited as
proof of their efforts to not make our investment in existing software
obsolete.
Support for dos applications is simple enough considering that so many
versions of windows up to an including 95 and 98 require the dos operating
system to run. The best way for Microsoft to prove their conmitment to
supporting preexisting applications would be for any version of windows to
support any applications that were written for previous version of Windows.
Providing that support would be childplay compared to providing multiple
concurrent "dos boxes" with in the Windows Environment. Unfortunatly,
Microsoft seems to have gone out of their way to make preexisting Windows
software obsolete.
Windows 1.x software no longer ran under Windows 3.x. Most Windows 2.x
software still ran under Windows 3.x (with warning to upgrade the software),
by Windows 3.1, most of them were non-functional, by Windows 95, none that I
have tried would run at all anymore. Only some of the Windows 3.x software
would run on Windows 95, i can only imagine what would happen if I tried to
run them on Windows 98 or 2000.
There is the all too frequent incompatibility between Windows 9x and Windows
NT software. How hard would it have really have been for Microsoft to
provide a standard API for the Windows Environment that would support real
portability across all the varations of Windows? You could say that since
one varation of Windows runs on one operating system and another varation
runs on another and the programs need access to the features of the
operating system which prevent their portability. This is not a resonable
response considering that a standard Windows API could provide wappers for
access to the operating system. So that reguardless of the varation of
Windows that a program was written on it would be able to run on any other
varation as well. If a given operating system has no support for a given
feature then the standard API of Windows could provide the feature and the
API "wrapper" would call the "emulation library" rather than the operating
system. As long as you run a Windows program on a processor that is able to
execute the machine code of the processor that was used and the target of
the compiler package the generated the program's executable, it should be
portable across all varations of Windows.
Given all this, how can anyone claim that Microsoft has made support for
preexisting (old) software or portability a priority in their design of
Windows?
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:07:31 GMT
"Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: If a product has increasing market share each year (which Linux has
: achieved in the server os market), they are taking over.
And if you look at which platforms were loosing market share during the same
time periods, then you have the looser platforms. Hint, it's not NT....
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:11:44 -0400
Plus it has a pretty good spell checker.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:10:02 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
Tim, you've posted several messages twice. Are you doing
this on purpose?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Jorge Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:34:05 GMT
> The OS of the future will need to be hard real time. Multimedia and
> embedded applications need a real time OS to be any good. For example,
> serious audio work on standard Linux is impossible. Extensions exist but
> Linus doesn't want to incorporate them (they are too messy - Linux is not
> conceived as a real time OS).
Isn't there RTLinux ? Anyway, I have a friend that has modified kernel to
leave 30% CPU free for real time and rest for normal OS operation ... do
not ask me how, just saw it working and it was good.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Trolls, oh The Trolls...
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:10:31 -0700
I'm beginning to get the impression that there's really only one
individual behind all the trolling here, and that it spends most
of its time getting new throwaway acccounts on free servers. All
these anti-Linux diatribes are beginning to sound exactly the
same, as if they were all generated from a fill-in-the-blanks
script. And what's even worse, the script is outdated and
contains obvious errors that keep showing up over and over....
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:14:40 GMT
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: On 15 Jun 2000 22:28:56 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
: >Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: >: Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
: >
: >1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
:
: Crashes less.
The above does mean that it crashes....
: Less prone to self destruction.
In another word, it does self destruct also. Might not be as many time as
others, but does....
: Cheaper.
That's a good one.
: Easier & more standard remote admin.
That could prove to be counter productive, one could say it's easier to hack
using the native tools.
All in all, you are not saying that Linux is good. Instead, you're saying
that Linux might be marginally better than the other.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:19:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:53:47 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:13:30 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:35:54 GMT
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:10:55 GMT, Michael Marion
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> PC anywhere blows the pants off some stupid-ass shell script.
>>>
>>> ...not on a 2400bps connection it doesn't.
>>
>>How about a 56k or 384k DSL?
>>
>>I for one would be mildly surprised if anyone still uses 2400bps.
>>On the other hand, I'm mildly surprised people are
>>still using Win3.1. :-)
>
> There are plenty of people still using crappy serial connections.
Indeed; I'm one of 'em. :-)
(It's not too bad. I've got a hack that looks for "RING" on the modem
and sends my IP addy to my work E-mail. :-) I now can call up
and talk to myself. :-) )
>
> Infact, one of the Lemmings was harking upon the lack of support
> for AOL under Linux.
This is a bad thing? :-)
Mind you, I'd be curious as to whether AOL can support ppp/kppp/etc.
Do they do anything weird in their authentication scheme that would
prevent that? Ditto for AOL, Prodigy (if they're still around),
MSN (hmm...interesting thought), etc. I know Verio works :-).
(Not that I use AOL myself, admittedly. But it does seem to be
the McDonald's of the Internet. Or maybe that's WebTV...)
> Add Winmodems to the mix and you've got a
> pipe that would be painful for any network GUI.
>
> Plus even with a fatter pipe, you might not want to hog all of
> it for remote admin.
Indeed.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:19:11 -0400
Gary Hallock wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Does Windows even come with a compiler?
> >
>
> Good point. To be fair, if the compiler that comes with Linux is going to be
> used for performance comparisons, then it should be compared against the
> compiler that comes with Windows. That would be Mr. Goodwins brain. He will
> have to manually generate machine code.
The compiler? You only got one?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:33:15 -0400
"Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <394853fe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8i8drh$oet$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > What, 20 seconds vs 10 ? Hardly important for an operation that
> > > woulnd't
> > be
> > > *that* common in interactive use.
> > >
> > > I certainly hope you're using all the appropriate keyboards
> > > shortcuts instead of going Start -> Find -> Files ?
> >
> > Hmmm.....keyboard "shortcuts".........that should tell you something
> > right there. Why do you think they are called "shortcuts"? If GUIs
> > were so great, why should there even BE keyboard shortcuts? True,
> > they are more intuitive than command lines (UNLESS the command help
> > is properly included) and they are great for drawing programs, but
> > certainly slower to a trained individual. So when you are learning a
> > new OS or program, you use the GUI, then when you become more
> > proficient, you "graduate" to the keyboard shortcuts, then to the
> > command line. (At least that's the way I did it.)
>
> Following your logic, "Hmmm....."GUIs........that should tell you
> something right there.... If CLI's are so great, whe should there even
> BE a GUI?" Yet 99&44/100ths% of desktops have 'em. I wonder why?
>
As I said, GUIs are more intuitive, but less efficient. That's why there are
keyboard commands _in addition_ to the graphical (point/click) commands.
Also GUIs are far superior when graphical programs are being used, such as
CAD, graphics manipulation, and other visual programs.
The thread is discussing the _efficiency_ of the GUI vs. the command line,
and Mr. Smith was asking if the graphical commands (clicking of buttons and
so forth) were being augmented with keyboard shortcuts, which is subverting
the idea of using a GUI. Mr. Smith obviously realized that using keyboard
commands would be faster and more efficient.
So, following MY logic, the GUI has its uses, but for experienced users, and
for certain applications, the really useful GUI also incorporates certain
features of a CLI. Once these commands are learned, the GUI sometimes gets
in the way.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
> --
> Jim Naylor
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.admin,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix,linux.redhat,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Alpha vs Intel
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:33:26 GMT
Mark Rafn wrote:
>
> Ben Chausse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I build a Intranet WebServer on Linux with Apache 1.3.12, mod_perl 1.49
> >and PHP4 and I would like to know what will the best between a server
> >with 2x667 MHZ Alpha Processer and a 4x700 MHZ Xeon Processer ??
>
> Lordie! What are you doing on your intranet that you need such power?
> Unless you've got a pretty specific task that's very processor-intensive,
> you'll bottleneck on I/O long before CPU on either of these platforms.
>
> In general, for webserving, you'd rather have multiple
> load-balanced/redundant machines over one monster machine.
> --
> Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
A few cheapie Linux boxes ought to do it! Google uses about
4000 little linux boxes.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
