Linux-Advocacy Digest #441, Volume #27 Mon, 3 Jul 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
(Neil Cerutti)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
(Neil Cerutti)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux code going down hill (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:30:19 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jp74s$t2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <7iI75.2910$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >> >Not at all, there are way to cope with multiple protocols; using
> >> >them gives you flexibility.
> >>
> >> Exactly - and none of them should involve having to make
> >> changes on the other end of the wire.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Because doing so takes away your choice of ever using anything
> (a) not under your control or
What does this mean?
> (b) not from a vendor that happens to match.
No, this is backwards. If you are allowed to make
changes at the other end of the write, you can support
products that support *none* of your current protocols;
you just add one their do support.
Inconvinient, yes, but better than simply being unable
to communicate at all.
[snip]
> >I don't think I am; I think that it's *Unix* protocols you favor,
> >regardless of 'standardization'; there is as I've mentioned
> >a standards body for COM, but I don't see you complaining
> >about Unix's vendors failure to support it.
>
> DCOM might make sense as a standard, but it has to compete
> head to head with pre-existing ones like CORBA and I
> don't see it winning. If there were a free reference
> library it might have a chance.
Hmmm.. I sense a bit of waffling here. Will you admit that
COM is a standard?
Not "might make sense as a standard". Is it one?
I'll admit that CORBA is, if it helps.
[snip]
> >You haven't given a reason to want to halt progress; you've
> >just asserted that its like telephones somehow.
>
> It is like telephones in that much of the value of my instance
> comes from it's ability to interoperate with any other, regardless
> of the vendor. And it doesn't halt progress, it allows it.
This isn't true of computers. Most of their value is
rather more self contained. Don't get fixated on the
Web.
Further, you have to show that its ability to interoperate
depends on standardisation, as you know I said
that it doesn't. If I'm right, halting progress (in this area)
isn't justifiable.
[snip]
> >> My real complaint about IE is that it puts non-standard HTML
> >> extensions on a majority of desktops, encouraging designers
> >> to use them in ways that break standards-conforming software.
> >
> >Sort of like Netscape, then?
>
> No, Netscape didn't claim to be inseperable from the OS,
That has nothing to do with it.
> but
> your point is correct. Without competition, Netscape would
> have been a problem. Without competition, IE *is* a problem.
I think you meant to say "Without competition, Netscape
was a problem". Right?
[snip]
> >I don't think they do cause trouble for users of competing
> >products; so far I haven't seen an example of this given.
>
> Just incredible... I've posted many, they are in the courts
> over others and you "haven't seen an example".
I have seen things presented *as* example of this, but
there were not actual examples.
There are lots of examples of MS providing some service
for its users that its competitors did not have; I've seen examples
of MS's failing to integrate support the product that its competitors
did have.
But I draw a distinction between "failing to solve a problem" and
"creating a problem".
[snip]
> >You don't. You've no right to take IE away from the rest
> >of us, just because you don't like it.
>
> Who said anything about taking IE away. I want to take
> away the non-HTML that people accidentally produce using
> MS tools.
You want to keep people from *using* IE's addition features.
You've no right to do that.
> >> I have put a great deal of effort to keep them
> >> off the web servers I manage and understand how difficult
> >> it is if you use any of Microsoft's tools.
> >
> >Why should you do this?
>
> People should be able to view web pages with the browser of
> their choice even if someone innocently used an MS product
> to produce it.
Why? Why do you get to dictate to web-page authors what
features they may use?
[snip]
> >Not so. Just spewing an X protocol stream into an
> >arbitrary socket is useless; you need an X server to
> >do anything.
>
> I already have an X server.
That is because you are using Unix or a reasonable
facsimile thereof, not just POSIX.
> >And you can't implement an X server with POSIX alone.
>
> The X server implementation doesn't have to be portable,
> nor does it have to be on the machine where the program
> runs or anything resembling the same OS.
That's nice. However, the fact remains that POSIX (not
unlike the World :D ) is Not Enough.
[snip]
> >Both Windows 98 and NT/2000 have schedulers, too.
>
> But GUI based programs aren't easily automated.
Aren't they? Do you know about WSH?
> Command
> driven programs generally take the same commands when
> run non-interactively as when interactively.
This is not a particularly good thing. It means that
both UI forms are compromised.
However, NT does have a command line schedulre: "AT";
it's not the same as Unix's at, it schedules jobs to run
repeatedly.
[snip]
> >Yes; and scripting provides a way to program the computer
> >to handle well known tasks automatically.
> >
> >It's programming, and you can do it in Windows too. Most
> >Windows users lack the skills to do it, though.
>
> Windows programs may have some scripting language, but
> making it different than normal operation makes it require
> a different set of skills to use.
Yes, it does, but that's unfortunately a fact of life. You can't
except users to program as a part of their daily jobs; they
lack the skill, and aren't interested in learning it.
You want to make the system easier to use, even though
it means making it less like a scripting langauge.
However, the *good* news is that if you do this, you might
as well make the scripting language as good as scripting
as possible; there's no longer a need to optimize it for
interactice use (ie, two letter command names and
the like. :D )
[snip]
> >I'm not sure what you mean here. The software depended
> >on a particular modem protocol and the modem didn't follow
> >it; surely *neither* was "generic"?
>
> The hardware it supported correctly used two serial ports
> per modem. One for the data, one for the dialer - a scheme
> used before smartmodems that took dialing commands on the
> data port became popular. It did also accomodate using
> user-supplied expect/send chat scripts, but the problem
> was that it would not open the port unless the modem
> carrier detect lead was already up (the usual mode for
> unix waiting for inbound calls). However, if you configured
> the modem to hold CD up all the time you couldn't tell when
> a call disconnected.
Okay. This is all fine, but "two serial ports" is in and of itself
different from the 'wire protocols' hitherto used. Because
UUCP depended upon that protocol, it had no way to cope.
> >Drivers would solve this problem.
>
> As did a change in the open mode. This is strictly a
> user-level program and the OS already provided the
> needed function.
Sure, it was a user-level program. But you can't expect
real users to alter it when something like this comes up;
it's far better to be able to give them an installer that put
a driver in.
Alternately, you can just stick to your standard protocol
religiously. But realistically, that isn't always an option.
[snip]
> >Admittedly; but you know what I mean: with a (slow!) remote
> >network connection, I don't need to be restricted to telnet.
>
> If you have decent character based programs on the other end,
> using telnet isn't a restriction.
"Character based programs" is a restriction in my book.
[snip]
> >> But for a reasonable comparison
> >> of capabilities, try doing a non-indexed search of a
> >> huge database with a local PC program accessing the remote
> >> file over RAS.
> >
> >That's not a reasonable comparison; that's being deliberately
> >stupid.
>
> There is generally no way to know ahead of time that what
> you are going to try to run is stupid when you use local
> programs accessing remote files over a slow link.
I don't know; I think I can see in advance that *that* one
is stupid, anyway.
[snip]
> >> they
> >> unintentionally break the competitors product by using
> >> the non-standard changes.
> >
> >You do keep saying this. And I keep not believing you.
>
> That doesn't make it any less true.
Maybe so. If it is true, we've got much bigger problems
than Microsoft, though.
[snip]
> I'm saying that MS could easily provide you with a telnet
> that works according to current standards. The fact that
> they don't fits the pattern that they are not interested
> in interoperating with anything else.
MS goes to great lengths to interoperate; the lousy
telnet doesn't seem to fit that pattern.
> >I don't think MS thinks its in their interest to do that; if your
> >software is some awful telnet-based character driver thing,
> >MS software will certainly look good, and MS isn't going
> >to change it.
>
> But they do change it. The cursor positioning doesn't work
> because they lie in the terminal type negotition claiming
> to be ansi when they aren't, and they don't inform the
> other end on a window resize.
That doesn't change the fact that telnet-based software
looks really second rate next to Windows.
> >What boggles my mind is that you think they *should*.
>
> I suppose it is far-fetched to expect them to sell
> something that works correctly.
Yes, it is.
I know, it would be nice to have perfect, bug free software
but MS doesn't sell that, that's for sure!
It's more important to solve the right problem than to be bug-free.
MS's success is based on this simple fact.
> >[snip]
> >> but in the case of HTML editors that produce stuff that
> >> is not HTML and java compilers that produce something other
> >> than java I don't see much difference.
> >
> >You could, at most, claim that MS's product is broken, not
> >that it breaks other people's.
>
> If I thought it was accidental I would claim it was broken,
I doubt you think anything MS does is accidental; no matter
how bad it makes them look, you can find a conspiracy
in it.
> but you don't go to court to defend your right to continue
> to produce something that is accidentally broken.
Absolutely you do! But I don't see anyone trying to make
MS stop bundling telnet, so it's academic.
> They know very well why they want to continue to break other
> interoperability with other vendor's products.
Then why don't they do it? Why do they keep pushing
for more interoperability?
[snp]
> >It would seem to me that that isn't the case I was talking
> >about; I meant things like MS's telnet, which is no better
> >when pointed at an NT server than at a Unix one.
>
> Is there a lot of stuff on NT that needs ansi terminal
> control to work?
There's not a lot of stuff on NT that uses a terminal *at all*;
telnet is if anyting even more useless with an NT server.
> >[snip]
> >> Hmmm, what OS isn't weak at interoperating with undocumented
> >> and rapidly changing protocols?
> >
> >Microsoft's. :D
> >
> >Really, you can change your protocol every second tuesday
> >without any serious problem; you need only distribute a new
> >plug in with your new protocol.
>
> If you have to replace a component on every client to
> make it work right, why not just replace the whole thing
> with one that works in the first place?
Then you're locked in to a single protocol. That's no fun.
And in practice you don't have to do the 'update-every-client'
thing except in extreme cases, cases where the
standard-protocol approach just would not work at all.
[snip]
> >Plug ins are a means of interoperating; I was just outlining
> >why it's a *better* means (in my view) than trying to get
> >everyone to use the same protocol everywhere.
>
> And your source of plug ins for an assortment of non-Intel
> CPU's and non-Microsoft OS's would be???
The vendor of that OS. Note that MS provides plug ins
for their own OS for the stuff that's in demand. NetWare
*could* do their own, for instance, but interoperability is
important enough for MS that they do it anyway.
[snip]
> >> When an unmodified windows client can interoperate with a
> >> a non-Microsoft version of Active Directory services, or an
> >> equivalent to the Kerberos-domain-controller, we can talk
> >> about interoperability.
> >
> >They can. They come with plug-ins for other peoples networks;
> >maybe not *yours*, but they do support NetWare and Windows
> >2000 has added support for vanilla Kerberos, though vanilla
> >Kerberos doesn't offer the same features Active Directory does.
>
> That's not even close to what I said.
Then I didn't understand what you said; perhaps you could
rephrase it?
[snip]
> >This does not help; aside from being way too slow to keep up
> >with more normal software development, this does nothing
> >to upgrade your existing computers- the ones you insist you
> >can't change in order to accomodate a new machine.
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. SMTP has changed
> dramatically over the years yet there has never been
> a version that would not continue to work with older
> versions. Please show how Microsoft's mail products
> have been more flexible across all versions.
You said you wouldn't be willing to touch each client; how
are you going to support new version fo SMTP without
doing that?
Your strategy only avoids touching the clients when the
protocol *coesn't* change.
> >[snip]
> >> >Copy the source and recompile works only between very
> >> >closely related OSes, like the different Unixes and the
> >> >different Windows.
> >>
> >> Then why did we have the misleading claims about subsystems when
> >> NT came out?
> >
> >What misleading claims are those?
>
> The posix subsystem was supposed to run all your old unix
> programs.
When did MS say *that*?
> 'Better unix than unix', etc.
They did say that, but I don't think they were talking about
*subsystems*; I think they were saying that NT would
do what Unix did better than Unix did it, and would Take
Over The World (tm) consequently.
NT was supposed to be a Unix-killer, not just another
Unix.
[snip]
> >http://www.opengroup.org/comsource/
> >
> >Why isn't this an open standard? Is it just the
> >lack of design-by-committee?
>
> What's open about it?
The *name*! It's the *Open* Group!
But seriously; why isn't this a standard? If you mean
to say "its not a standard because its not open";
then please tell me what it means to be "open", and
why it matters.
> I suspect it will have the
> same fate Motif would have had if it had been
> offered commercially after better alternatives
> already existed with free implementations.
What fate would that be, then? Motif tanked pretty
hard as it is. Could it be worse?
[snip]
> >".. should generate standard-conforming HTML" just amounts
> >to "no new features- it makes MS's competitors look bad"
>
> It makes correctly working browsers look bad. A user
> no longer has the choice of continuing to use these other
> correctly working browsers.
"Correctly" for you, as always, means "standard conforming,
no extensions".
And they *do* have the choice of using other browsers like
that; they just aren't as good. But that MS should be brought
down to their level hardly seems reasonable.
> >"...should generate real java" is nonsensicle; Java
> >compilers emit .class files, or executables, or something,
> >not more Java.
>
> It fails to work under correctly operating JVM's. A user
> can no longer choose to use those JVM's.
Again, I don't see why MS shouldn't be allowed to
create Windows-specific development tools;
I think that Sun's efforts to prevent this has cost Java
one of its more influential supporters. It's too bad.
Java coulda been a contendah. :D
> >"...should make it as handy to use as exchange address-book
> >services" is just weird; I don't know if it means that MS shouldn't
> >try to go beyond what LDAP offeers, or that they should
> >kludge LDAP to do what they want.
>
> It is a lookup and doen't need a kludge. While a user can
> still use LDAP instead of exchange, it is unecessarily
> inconvenient.
What you said was that they should keep their own product
at the same level as LDAP- or else the other way around,
and it's not clear to me what you meant.
[snip]
> >They *don't*?
> >
> >Surely they dominance in some markets- like the Linux
> >compiler market- is just overwhelming.
>
> And how does this compare to the number of seats using
> visual c++?
No idea, but that's a different market, one with substantially
different needs.
> Or encouraged to use MFC?
MFC is not comparable; it is just a class library, and it
does not use any language extensions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: 3 Jul 2000 13:37:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi posted:
>Monitor: They all work. I wouldn't get less than 17" nowadays.
>If X doesn't work on your machine, it's your video card's fault,
>not the monitors.
Make sure it's a multi-sync monitor. Monitor's without multi-sync
can be easily damaged by Xfree86 with improper settings.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: 3 Jul 2000 13:56:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Sokos Family posted:
>I don't think linux is ready to dethrone windows as the primary
>operating system for the PC. First of all, linux is a form of
>unix, and unix is not user friendly (the old joke is that unix
>is very user friendly, it's just particular about who its
>friends are...). The command prompt is much more powerful than
>the dos command prompt, but it's also significantly less
>intuitive.
I remember the first time I saw a DOS prompt as being the single
most confusing experience I ever had with a computer. I grew up
on the TRS80, Aquarius, TI/994A, C64, Apple II, and Amiga. I
though almost all computers came with a BASIC interpreter for a
shell (not that I knew what a shell was). I was similarly
dumbfounded by the Amiga CLI, which I never did learn to use.
The DOS prompt can't compare favorably to good ol' bash -- I've
certainly never seen anyone call it intuitive before.
>Emacs takes a little getting used to, and you do NOT want to use
>VI (the default editor) to muck around with configuration files.
>Linux is getting a lot easier to set up than it used to be, but
>it's still a long way from point and click like windows.
There are some good clones of DOS Edit that might be useful for
those with DOS experience.
>Linux works very well for e-mail and web. It works for business
>stuff as long as your business isn't standardized on Microsoft
as long as your business isn't *non*-standardized on Microsoft :-)
>(word format for documents, etc) as the linux apps available
>aren't microsoft compatible.
Some are.
>Game support is poor. There are very few games that run under
>linux.
There are a lot of games that run under Linux. The overlap with
Windows isn't very great though.
>My linux box dual boots linux and win98. Do NOT, under any
>circumstances, use LILO. I used to use LILO all the time on
>older versions of linux, but on this last install LILO F***ed up
>my disk drive so bad that only an FDISK/MBR made the system
>bootable again. I personally use the loader that runs from DOS,
>and I made a shortcut to it on my Win98 desktop (make sure you
>check the little box that says run this in MS-DOS mode). All I
>have to do is double click on it to boot linux.
I love LILO and haven't had any trouble with it. I have to keep a
custom boot disk around though for when Windows needs
re-installing.
>I wouldn't complain about getting a reasonable set of
>documentation for your operating system. You should be bitching
>to microsoft about the fact that they DON'T document their
>operating system. My documentation for VMS (which is roughly
>equivalent to unix in terms of complexity) fills an entire
>bookshelf. How's that for intimidating? :-)
I couldn't believe the skimpy book that came with Windows 95.
Very little information. My pet peeve with Windows though is that
they include many legacy apps and console applications with
little or no documentation. Anyone know how to work the Windows
98 version of emm386.exe, for instance? Do you have to sign a
non-disclosure agreement to find out? It sure doesn't work the
same as the DOS 6.2 version. I pray for man pages on command.com
programs all the time.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:38:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:55:26 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >>What happens when LoseDOS suddenly has yet anoter epileptic seizure
>> >>and BSOD's, then, after it comes up, it lost the driver for your
>> >>printer, and you can't find the install disk?
>> >
>> >And Linux doesn't lose file system changes after a crash does it?
>>
>> Only if it crashes within seconds of writing the change. However
>> I've experienced the lost printer driver syndrome on Windows95
>> several times where it had just run out of disk space doing
>> something unrelated to printing.
>>
>> >>I'll tell you what... you're COMPLETELY up a creek.
>> >
>> >And if Linux blows away the config file, I guess you just type
>> >it in from memory.
>>
>> Linux config files are small text files that are easily backed up
>> if you don't want to fill out the setup form again. Under
>> MS-windows you have no way of knowing what it takes to save
>> a particular configuration or installation, or how to paste
>> in the information from a similar working system.
>>
>> >>Conversely under Unix, you just edit the config file, and resume
>> >>as normal.
>> >
>> >If you can remember the settings. Oh yes, you could go and read
>> >the HOWTO's etc. If you can make sense of them.
>>
>> For a printer, you can usually trace the cable over to the computer
>> port if you have forgotten the port, and read the name on the front
>> panel.
>
>Hey, Les...Let the computer do the work!
>
>Just
>echo "/dev/tty0" > /dev/tty0
>echo "/dev/tty1" > /dev/tty1
On ix86 Linux at least, these are the VGA consoles, except for
/dev/tty0 (I've no idea what that is, although it may be the
"current console" -- my attempt to write thereto vanished into
the luminiferous aether :-) ).
If this is a serial printer (rather rare AFAIK, although not unknown),
/dev/ttySn, n=0 to 3 (on most x86 equipment; some have multiport
serial boards that can take more than 4 ports).
Parallel interfaces are /dev/par0 through /dev/par2, or maybe
/dev/parport0 through /dev/parport2.
(This on a RedHat 6.0 system.)
Still, your idea is a straightforward one.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- so simple, even Windows could do it :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 3 Jul 2000 09:34:59 -0500
In article <8jpg2i$2qo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8jlqhs$m5u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Many of the incosistancys your are whining about come from legacy
>> applications. KDE and GNOME are both new. Applications are in
>> developement that will take advantage of the desktops you are using.
>
>So, Linux is still playing catchup then?
Huh? What do KDE or GNOME have to do with Linux? NIS doesn't
seem to work very well on MS-windows, is windows still playing
catchup?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:42:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 3 Jul 2000 14:33:16 +0200 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It was the Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:34:24 -0400...
>...and Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > UNIX systems typically do not cope well with the power being interrupted.
>
>That's because UNIX systems are supposed to run 24/7, and nobody in
>their right mind runs a system 24/7 without a nicely supported UPS.
Oh, I dunno; I've been running my systems 24/7 for awhile without
a UPS. Of course, there are those who claim I'm not in my
right mind :-), but my power problems are very few here.
Rarely, somebody runs into a tree or something and our power is out
for several hours, but that's about it.
>
>Now is this a good or a bad thing? Remains to be proven, my machine
>does not run 24/7 anyway.
>
>mawa
>--
>ES GEHT BERGAB
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- then again, there are threats of rolling blackouts
on hot days... :-/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:46:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paul Colquhoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 03 Jul 2000 10:43:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip for brevity]
>What defing charateristics do you use to determine whether or not
>a Unix-Like system is BSD or SYSV ?
Well, there was at one point a certification available for
$190 or something from www.unix98.com, if memory serves... :-)
There's also the POSIX specs; I don't know where they live.
Of course, POSIX AFAIK doesn't know anything at all about X
(that's Software Open Group).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- It's nice to have standards; there are so many
to choose from :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:35:54 GMT
In article <8jpfrq$2o1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > When W2K bluescreens you have to re-boot. When 98 bluescreens, you
> re-boot.
> > When NT blue screens, you re-boot.
>
> When an application dies on Windows 98, it may cause a BSOD. When an
> application dies on Windows 2000, you get an error dialog but not a
> BSOD.
That's a crock of bullshit Pete. I sent you this URL a couple of weeks
ago:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP
Your response to my post was that Linux is suceptable to fork bombs. A
number of linux advocates showed this is not true if you set system
limits properly.
In fact, NT is very poor at handling process forking. This is why
running apache, which uses processes instead of threads, on NT can
easily crash it. NT is designed to handle a lot of threads but can't a
lot of processes.
Here are some more examples of NT/W2K instability:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q245/1/12.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q260/9/56.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q232/9/48.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q254/6/11.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q257/8/13.asp
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q259/1/44.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q128/6/30.asp
People running Linux servers have had uptimes of a year or longer. I
have never heard of such uptimes with NT/W2K.
> > There's no way to re-start anything on windows without re-booting
it.
> > Even applications which DIE and leave the OS intact OFTEN leave you
> > re-booting the OS anyway due to the thrash and left over .DLL's they
> leave
> > lying
> > around in memory.
>
> Which Windows are you talking about here?
I beleive he's talking about memory leaks in NT/W2K.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
