Linux-Advocacy Digest #156, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 02:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Grant Fischer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux & Winmodem (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Full Name)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The sad Linux story (Christopher Browne)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (TholenBotPro)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: No need to take sides ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 18 Jun 2000 05:08:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:26:07 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Grant Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I prefer to have both. API's for programming, and wire protocols
>> for designing API's on other platforms. The essence of
>> interoperability.
>
>Why is that the "essense" of interoperability? Just because you
>prefer it?
No, because it allows computers of different designs
to interoperate. Stable API's are great for keeping
application compatibility, but a stable wire protocol
is useful for interoperability. Interoperability between
different computers is inherently useful in any largish
computer installation; chances are very good they'll have
different types of installations that need to cooperate.
It is also useful for people connecting to large networks,
such as the Internet.
>[snip]
>> >> You're saying that they had to extend it because it was limited;
>> >> I pointed out that there were other, more complete frameworks.
>> >> Now you're saying it didn't fit right; that's a funny thing
>> >> to say about their design choices.
>> >
>> >I don't think DCE would have fit *better* in this area.
>>
>> Why not? DCE implementations for NT exist. You say the NT
>> framework was flexible. There you go.
>
>If I understand correctly, DCE does the wrong thing- it provides
>a secure RPC mechanism. Fine as far as it goes, but not
>general purpose.
DCE has RPC's, but I'm talking about the security service.
The security service was designed to do both authentication
and authorization.
It was your argument that MS has to extend UNIX protocols
because they are insufficent; for your Kerberos example
I'm pointing out that Kerberos is only one part of a
complete security framework like DCE. What was wrong
with DCE? Couldn't MS work with the Open Software Foundation
to fit their flexible security API's to use the DCE
security service? By the time they are finished dealing
with DCE's security service, they'll have the identity
and the authorization info, just as you need to go
on and use NT's services.
>
>[snip]
>> >Sure, provided you understand identity as a user name,
>> >as Unix does. NT needs a little more.
>>
>> That's what identity is, in a security scheme.
>
>In a *Unix* security scheme.
>
>And that's the unfortunate thing about many of these
>"open standards"; they are really *Unix* standards,
>and encode Unix-isms directly into their 'standards';
>those standards cannot then be used by anyone else
>very effectively.
>
>A good example of such a Unix-ism is the assumption that
>a security identity is just a user name.
That's a common security distinction, and is not
limited to Kerberos. Traditional UNIX does what you're
talking about -- a user logs in and has group privileges
assigned to his login session before he even attempts
to access any files or run any programs.
Kerberos didn't embed the UNIX style groups into the
identity to avoid being UNIX specific. The network standards
I'm familiar with take pains to avoid being UNIX-specific.
You're really stretching.
>> The rest is authorization.
>
>Authorization is the process of establishing your
>identity. The question is, what *is* your identity?
I think this is the real basis of why we're
talking at cross-purposes. We don't agree on a very
basic security term. This terminology isn't specific
to UNIX.
Identity is who a person is. That is established with
authentication. It doesn't change no matter what
the person intends to do on the computer network.
A person is allowed to use certain services; that
is a function of both the person's identity and the
service they intend to use. That interaction is
called authorization.
Kerberos is a secure authentication service. It left
some empty fields for carrying some authorization
info. Other schemes, such as DCE, used this field.
>> MS may have blended them together for
>> convenience, but Kerberos didn't. It was intended that
>> authorization be handled by an upper layer, possibly
>> using some PAC information.
>
>Kerberos *does* do authentication. But it doesn't
>mix authentication with directory services, and I think
>that's what you are getting it- Kerberos will not tell
>you anything *about* a given user, except his username.
>Then you contact a directory server of some sort to
>get the rest of it.
>
>Which is swell. It's not the architecture MS went with. It
>makes no sense to say MS should be restricted to the
>design choice made by Unix designers like this one;
>that would put the kibosh on all progress. You have
>to be allowed to do something different.
However, it is not the design of Kerberos that is causing
problems here. MS chose their own design, and has had
to modify Kerberos to make it work. Fortunately, that
open-style design that you so denigrate was flexible
enough to handle MS's choice.
It doesn't seem to me that the layered approach favoured
by "UNIX designers" is the one that stifles progress.
>[snip]
>> >MS is not obliged to implement things the way Unix does.
>>
>> No, but it would be nice if they documented their wire
>> protocols so that other people could implement things
>> the way UNIX does.
>
>I don't agree. I think that to be worthwhile you must not only
>document the wire protocol but also make it stable- so it wont
>change between versions. And you have to commit to it- commit
>to not replacing it with something else.
An extensible wire protocol is essential to interoperability
between different computers, and gives the best shot of having
different application versions talk to each other. Before
MS deigned to implement SMTP in their mail products,
how were other vendors expected to design products
to echange mail with an MS Mail system?
>Otherwise you can't rely on it, documented or no.
>
>But if you do that you've lost the benefits of having an API
>and plug in modules in the first place. You can't use
>a different protocol even if its better, or even if you need it
>for interoperability with someone else. If you do, you
>are violating your own rules.
I didn't say it was easy to develop an extensible wire protocol.
Imagine how small the internet would be if it was based
on non-extensible wire protocols. Everyone would have had
to upgrade simultaneously from Internet V1 to V2.
>> Don't bother to talk up interoperability
>> without at least that.
>
>Why not? MS's appoach seems to work; you support plug
>in modules that let it support whatever wire protocols you want.
Creating a closed system without the wire protocol. You can
talk, but only to yourself. That's easy. That's not
interoperability.
>[snip]
>> >True. But there do not seem to be any advantages to doing it
>> >that way; you don't gain any interoperability. NT clients need
>> >a server with that extra protocol, that's all.
>>
>> I would argue that you do; you can flexibly choose to put
>> authentication on a different platform than your NT server.
>
>That's what you are doing if you have your NT server doing
>Active Directory *now*. Having a separate Kerberos server
>doing only the 'username' part of it is useless if you are
>going to have Active Directory anyway.
>
>Mind you, it is possible in theory with the plug in architecture
>to do what you want. I don't think it'll happen- no point.
No point for you maybe; I'm trying to convey that others have different
needs than your own. A more flexible design helps meet more
people's needs. MS pumps up their Kerberos use as laying
the foundation for interoperating with other Kerberos
installations, but it is a one-way street.
>> >"Simple principle names" are the problem. NT's principles are not so
>> >simple.
>> >
>> >NT security ids contain a list of user ids, groups, and other attributes
>> >that can be compared against ACLs. Some are dynamically
>> >generated, but others must be sent over the wire at *some* point.
>>
>> By combining NT authorization information into the principal,
>> they screw up the idea that a Kerberos principal identies
>> a user, no matter what system they're going to attach to.
>
>Hmmm. It seems to me that it adheres to that notion; Kerberos
>still identifies a user. The extension just provides enough information
>to identify the user to NT, as well as Unix.
>
>Unix still works as before, no?
Yes, that's what they're doing now. You can slave a UNIX Kerberos
client to an NT kerberos server. The UNIX client will ignore
the NT PAC (hey! an extensible protocol! what a concept!), and
go do authorization using other means.
However, the NT systems cannot handle slaving off of a non-NT
server (unless the vendor has licensed the code from MS to make
this work.) The PAC hasn't really been published, and the
active directory service needs to run on the same server anyway,
from what I understand.
>> A Kerberized application running on a mainframe would have no
>> use for the NT authorization info; it is a waste of time
>> to even try to look it up.
>
>That is so. But I doubt it is a very large sort of waste of time, and
>the mainframe can ignore it and just use the user id.
Suppose that you've got a variety of different computing domains?
You should try to look up all the possible authorization information
and package it up to send it to each service to let it pick and
choose? Suppose you don't want Service A to know what permissions
the user has in Service B?
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:22:45 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> 1. It scails down
>
> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on todays
> computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer
>from 1991
> doessn't mean shit.
Think Palm Pilot.
>
>
> 2. It's multi-user
>
> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that I
>have to
> remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
> done, not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that
>can't
> even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time somethign
>goes
> wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to support through VT100 terminals
>can get
> the're own computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail,
>news, bin,
> sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
>
Should a family of four have four different computers? Hmm. Would they
all need separate printers? Separate phone lines?
>
> 3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>
> And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows is. There is
>NO REASON
> to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off the desktop, and NO REASON to turn
>off the
> Window manager. These are all useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos
>for halvign
> them. Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
>"feature". Now
> THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
>
[root@localhost /]# cd /etc
[root@localhost /etc] emacs inittab
change id:3:initdefault: to id:5:initdefault: and then save and exit.
This is analogous to setting BootGUI=1 in Windows. And unlike Windows, where
a user could boot into DOS, a user can not override this.
Also, CLI in Linux is far more useful than DOS. Do any browsers work in DOS?
>
> 4. You can logg in remotely
>
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And since it's a
>feature that
> only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need a password
>(see #2)
> to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if they run Windows.
>
> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to
>most
> users. Windows still wins.
>
How would Windows win? At worst it would be a draw.
>
> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking is only
>usefull to normal
> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
>
Why is multitasking only useful to people using GUI's?
>
> 7. It gives you "choice"
>
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's "choice" is
>MS Windows
Choice? Then why does Microsoft resort to cliff-tiered pricing?
>
> and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never give up all
>that just to
> run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps
WordPerfect 2000 is hardly a beta-test app. And at least beta-test apps are labelled as
such in Linux.
> except if they were tricked into it.
>
> 8. It's "free"
>
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring the
>installation, and
> then more and more time after the installation as one thing after annother goes
>wrong.
>
But things don't go wrong after the installation.
>
> 9. It's Open-Source
>
> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they can just
>run Windos
> like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
>
What world-class software is available for Windows?
>
> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy shipped
>with UNIX
> to beagen with.
>
My HP Pavilion didn't come with UNIX.
>
> Yawn.
>
> :
> :post
> The post command is unknown.
> :exit
> The exit command is unknown.
> :close
> The close command is unknown.
> :quit
> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
> :save
> The save command is unknown.
> :s
> No previous regular expression.
> :Oh darnit!
> The Oh command is unknown.
> :?
> No previous regular expression.
> :quit
> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
> :!
> Usage: [line [,line]] ! command.
> :! quit
> File modified since last write.
> bash: quit: command not found
> quit: exited with status 127
> :?
> No previous regular expression.
> :DIE YOU PIECE OF LINSHIT!!!!!!
> The DIE command is unknown.
And what shell is this?
Colin Day
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:44:26 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:02:42 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Secretly Cruel wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:15:58 -0400, John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >This is how people get pissed off about Linux. The modem thing is easy
>> >to solve, but what about the 'win-printer', 'win-scanner', 'win-camera',
>> >et al?
>>
>> People need to be pissed at the cheap bastards that manufacture the
>> Windows-only stuff, not pissed at Linux.
>
>
>While I agree with this statement completely, what people "should" do
>and what people actually do are usually two completely different
>things. People will look at the situation this way.
>
>My hardware works under Windows, it doesn't work under Linux. Therefore
>there has to be something wrong with Linux.
No, that's simply infantile.
The vendor supports the OS, not the other way around.
>
>I can't tell you the number of times I have had to explain to a couple
>of my computer illiterate friends that you can't expect to load the
>Windows drivers for new hardware under Linux. They have dual boot
Your computer literate friends would not likely be able to deal
with loading Windows drivers off of external media. So, the rest
of anything you have to say on the matter is rather suspect.
>machines, they go buy a new piece of hardware without even thinking
>about compatibility, and it works under Windows. Then they try loading
You simply can't get away with being an ingorant consumer. This
is true in general as much as it is true for computing devices.
[deletia]
Not even the relative ease of a Macintosh will allow you to
forego the 'burden' of being an informed consumer. Otherwise
you end up with crap and you end up perpetuating crap.
This sort of consumerism is simply assinine.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:21:38 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Want to see slow?
Try copying some files to a Mandrake NFS server. We finally patched
the kernel so NFS appeared to work. We later found it still pauses
inexplicably after a few minutes of copying.
Advocating a variant of a Unix operating system which cannot properly
function as an NFS server is at best unprofessional and at worst
criminal.
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:30:30 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
[snip]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 03:54:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
<8ht408$pba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Right, Windows did *exactly* 1,000,000 per second. Given
>a variation of 10%, there's about one chance in 100,000 of
>that happening. How do these guys expect us to believe
>their phony, made-up numbers if they don't take the time
>to make them look real? He should have said that Windows
>did 1092647 dhrystones per second. You just poke your
>fingers randomly on the digit keys; that number looks much
>better!
Those were the numbers I got, despite your rantings.
>Doesn't Microsoft's PR department give these people any
>training? You'd think with all the money Gates has, he'd
>allocate enough to buy a smarter class of liar. Maybe he
>doesn't think Usenet is very important.
I don't work for Microsoft. Microsoft has no software engineers in the UK.
>>Linux 877,912 - 909,090 dhrystones per second.
>>
>>With Linux I used gcc -o dhrystone dhrystone.c -O3;
>
>Is that optimized for the pentium?
Is what optimised for the Pentium? The compiler? Is there a switch I
missed?
If you're asking is the code optimised for the Pentium, what difference
does that make? It's the same code on Windows and Linux.
>This is Goodwin's latest line of bullshit. Where does it
>say that Linux runs three times as fast as MS-Windows? The
>speeds are generally similar, except that Linux multitasks
>better. What GNU/Linux/OSS is famous for is reliability,
>scalability, and an abundance of software at no cost. Plus,
>you can see inside it, so if problems do arise, they're much
>easier to diagnose and fix.
People here in COLA have claimed Linux is two or three times faster than
Windows. There's even a reply here stating Linux is twice as fast as
Windows.
>As of a few years ago, at least, Microsoft's C compiler emit-
>ted horribly buggy code if you told it to optimize. Even
>if compute-bound programs do run 10% slower compiled by gcc
>than VC, who cares? I'd rather have them work correctly.
>Anyhow, the difference is imperceptible. If it matters, you
>can spend $25 more and get a 10% faster CPU.
I've been using Visual C++ for about six years or more. I've never seen any
problems with the optimised code it produced. Contrast that with Borland's
Delphi (my favourite RAD tool) I descovered a couple of optimisation
problems.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:10:56 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Craig Kelley would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>> However, in a few months/years Linux is going to completely destroy any
>> remnants of any other system, and there literally won't even be a
>> possibilty of using VMS (or any other non-Linux system): my only choice
>> in software will be Red Hat, Corel, or Debian.
>
>I hope (and believe) you're wrong.
>
>NT will not be going away any time soon, neither will (unfortunately)
>DOS. Amiga just released their SDK for Elate/Tao, but it lacks memory
>protection *by design*, so I doubt it'll even take off. Be recently
>came out with version 5, but they use the BSD userland tools.
>Speaking of which, MacOS X will be even more invested into UNIX.
I think the claim is incorrect for _another_ reason, namely that the
floodgates appear to have reopened, and operating system research
seems to be back under way, after the "Microsoft Hiatus."
During the 1990s, Microsoft spent a lot of stock options buying out
whatever competive research groups that they could. Notably:
a) They eliminated the VMS group at Digital;
b) They eliminated the Mach group at CMU/IBM. WorkPlace OS was the
most enormous failure that practically nobody ever heard about...
Side-effects appear to include:
c) Discouragement of proceedings on Plan 9 and Inferno at Bell Labs
d) Slowed progress of efforts relating to FluxOS at University of
Utah
e) What's up with the L4 group in Dresden?
f) I'm not 100% clear on how the BSD research efforts wound up dying
g) Novell never really leveraged into anything _truly important_ after
Netware 4.
While the "side-effects" are not unambiguously MSFT-related, it is
quite sure that the juggernaut of Microsoft lumbering around spreading
FUD and stock options in the direction of anything "disagreeable" to
NT Domination had considerable effect all around.
Some of the above projects were UNIX-related, but involved different
kinds of directions, from which useful things could be learned, and
which would certainly have led to a _bit_ more diversity than [SuSE |
RedHat | Debian].
The encouraging thing is that with the _MAJOR_ fear over Microsoft
mitigated by the "Linux effect" as well as DOJ action, some of the OS
research projects have been emerging from the ashes.
-> FluxOS has had some new releases.
-> Plan 9 recent released Version 3 in an "Open Source" form.
-> Hurd is lumbering on, albeit slowly.
-> You might be able to compile EROS soon, although it is unlikely to
be self-hosting terribly soon.
It seems to me that the "death of diversity" is overestimated.
The problem seems to me _NOT_ to be that Linux represents a
devastating destroyer, laying waste to diversity, but rather that
_WINDOWS_ was purposed as such, and with a significant _BUDGET_ to
that end that doesn't exist for Linux.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html>
We all live in a yellow subroutine, a yellow subroutine, a yellow
subroutine...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:32:06 -0400
From: TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > tholenbot
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ask Chris Pott, it's his balderdash garden.
> > > >
> > > > Typical incorrect illogic, laced with invective. How predictable,
> > > > coming from you.
> > >
> > > Liar.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> See what I mean?
Typical erroneous pontification.
> > I wonder how the Square Lens Polishing Astrologers Assistants Local No. 246
> > would react to the information that you're forging posts again, Eric.
>
> Illogical.
On the contrary, quite logical.
--
"You're erroneously presuming that I'm being pedantic."
-- Dave Tholen
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:04:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>If your going to write a test, the test should run for at least 10
>minutes duration. The test should include File I/O both sequential and
>random writes and reads, which over 3 files of varying sizes where these
>three files are exercised at least 6 times. Then the test must include
>video diplays of some kind, simple text scrolls would be nice with
>colors. Then the test should compute the prime numbers between say
>1,000,000 and 3,000,000, just for a good math exercise and store the
>results into tables in memory. You could produce one of the 3 test files
>using the results of this math.
Just to keep you happy, I ran a scene called chess2.pov through POVray on
both Windows 98 SE. This ran for 22 minutes 51 seconds on Windows 98 SE and
32 minutes 42 seconds on Linux.
In both cases I chose an image size of 640x480 with antialiasing of 0.3.
Do you see the trend here? Linux is _still_ slower than Windows 98 SE.
Oh yeah, before I forget. I cheated. I biased the test in favour or Linux.
The Windows version is a full blown editor with a POVray engine. It
generated an image as it ran on Windows.
The Linux version I ran straight from the shell. No X-windows running, also
no image rendered as it ran.
Linux still came out slower than Windows 98 SE!
>You MUST give the machine an exercise in order to determine who has
>the best OS.
Is 30 minutes long enough for you?
>We had a comprehensive insurance industry standards test which lasted
>almost 4 days and that's why we've proven Linux is 2 times the speed of
>NT in handling 200 applications doing this kind of testing running
>simultaneously.
Well, the results I'm seeing from my perspective tells me Linux is not a
good solution for doing intensive floating point operations. If the ray
tracer takes longer to run on Linux, then any scene I create that takes,
say 22 hours on Windows might take 32 hours on Linux.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 04:11:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I did say VC didn't I?
>
>You didn't make the same change on both. GCC does have time() so you
>could have. So the two programs weren't exactly the same. This is
>basic error #1 in benchmarketing.
Ah but I did. I used the same source code on both machines. They both used
time(); I didn't allow the Linux version to use times().
>I thought I saw six zeros in your number (meaning I read "five
>million", not seven. Sorry if I misread it. The fact that it came out
>to a nice round number and the Linux one didn't seemed suspicious too.
I'm not responsible for your suspicious. They're yours. You deal with them.
>>Your 68331 or 68hc11 are irrelevant to my Intel box.
>
>The fact that one compiler is very portable and can generate code for a
>huge number of platforms, and the other isn't and can't, _is_ relevant
>to a fair comparison. Especially since your test is cpu-bound and
>makes no system calls except to get the time. It is really testing the
>compiler rather then the OS.
I'm testing on Intel hardware. How is multiple platform support relevant to
that?
Yes, you're right, I'm testing the compiler. The same compiler that builds
the OS, right?
>It is very hard to show that one OS is "faster" than another,
>particularly since there are lots of ways to interpret that. Is it
>faster at task switching? Interrupt response? Interactive response?
>What? If some fanatic said that Linux is "3x faster" without any
>qualification as to _what_ is faster, well, nobody with a clue is going
>to pay any attention to that. It is just so much sales talk.
Somebody did say Linux is three times faster than Windows. Someone else
here in this thread has said they've demonstrated an industry standard
insurance test running twice as fast on Linux as on Windows.
I did my own tests based on my own interests, and I find Linux is slower
than Windows. Not one test, but three seperate ones. How many more do I
need to do before I can make the conclusion "Linux is NOT faster than
Windows"?
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:14:49 -0400
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Use the Robber Baron's product or "become Amish" is no choice at all.
To use MS products or not to use MS products is "no choice at all"?
Pretty lame for a linux advocate.
Francis.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:11:04 -0400
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jeff Szarka wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 19:13:26 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I've said it before and I'll say it again. Installation is not usability
>>or reliability.
>>
>>Yes a user may find installing these particular devices easier, but the
>>fact that the OS hangs all the time, has to be rebooted constantly. The
>>first words out of the mouth of the help desk is to reboot.
>
>That's simply not true of a well configured NT system.
HA. What planet are you from?
What do you use NT for anyway? A nightlight to find the pottie?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
