Linux-Advocacy Digest #479, Volume #27 Wed, 5 Jul 00 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Jason McNorton)
Re: which linux is the best (SamIam)
Re: Distribution reviews (SamIam)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (abraxas)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft .Net (Andy Newman)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Re: Microsoft .Net
Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K (Arthur Frain)
Apache Up, MS Down (Arthur Frain)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason McNorton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:01:27 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >BTW, read a few PC magazines for a few thousand more examples.
> >
> > One can say the same about any computer system.
>
> Except Macs--where things just work.
You always scream for evidence, so here's some that you are wrong:
http://www.macintouch.com/dvdproblems2.html
Doesn't sound like things 'just working' to me. Looks like dozens and
dozens of examples of things not working.
------------------------------
From: SamIam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which linux is the best
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:14:13 -0500
I prefer Mandrake 7.1 over anything else out there although Suse 6.4 is
decent as well. You can get the GPL of any distribution over at
cheapbytes.com for $1.99 a pop. I tried several and Mandrake 7.1 is the
one I ended up using.
sylvain hutchison wrote:
>
> I just got RH6.1, it looks really good, but how good is it compared to
> the others, I hear that Mandrake is pretty good too, but Corel however
> isn't. Why is that, is it because it is full of bugs, hard to install,
> or simply a question of interface???
------------------------------
From: SamIam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distribution reviews
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:17:38 -0500
Lynx (I think thats the name) fix's that but then you don't get all the
pretty pictures. But its great if all you're after is speed and the
meat of the web page.
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> Cameron Kerr wrote:
> > PS. The site is designed to be low-bandwidth, without compromising on
> > looks
>
> This is a killer idea whose time is not at an end. I know that
> broadband is available in a lot of areas, but I'm sick of seeing sites
> that take almost a full minute to bring up a page. Not everyone has
> broadband available to them. Many areas don't have it available for
> less than $225/month (current cost here of 56K frame relay, cheapest
> access in our area if you don't live in the DSL availability area). I
> think a lot of web developers forget that not the entire world has the
> same speed internet connection as they do. It's too bad too. There are
> so few sites that are actually viewable at 56K dialup speeds. It makes
> "surfing" the web more like "crawling" the web.
>
> Of course, that's just my opinion.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:21:43 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:53:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:44:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Let me add to the list:
>>
>>1. Canon flatbed scanner. Works on Windows and on my daughters iMac.
>>
>>2. Canon printer. Half works. Never could make it print from
>
> ...this is what USB device standards are supposed to be for...
Well apparently Windows and Mac got it right and Linux didn't because
it works fine on those 2 systems.
>[deletia]
>>3. SoundBlaster Live, still is supported in an abortive manner. No
>>Livewire, no SoundFonts, no effects, no Synth A / Synth B an so forth.
>>Works fine under Windows and Win2k, which also has Livewire.
>>
>>4. USB digital Camera no work. Works under Mac and Windows perfectly.
>
> This is a bit vague considering that there are several USB
> video and still cameras that work under Linux.
Mine doesn't.
Again Windows and Mac got it right because it works on both platforms,
but Linux doesn't even know the camera is there.
>>
>>5. MPU 401 MIDI interface, works on Windows and Mac.
>>
>>6. Motherboard monitoring software (fan speed, temp etc).
>
> Linux does support mobo monitoring standards.
Where are the programs? Only one I found when I looked (back in April)
was Dallas and that was an abortion.
>[deletia]
>>Sorry Charlie but Linux is WAYYYYYYYYYYY behind Windows in just about
>>every way possible.
>
>Nope, all you have described is one "singular" way: 3rd party support.
And you have once again tried to blame the rest of the world for the
fact that Linux doesn't support common hardware and nobody really
cares who is to blame.
Point is either the hardware works or it doesn't.
In the case of Linux, chances are it doesn't work.
And that's without even including Win hardware. Include Win hardware
into the mix and Linux is a dead horse at the starting gate.
You can preach to the choir all you want but until Linux can
immediately upon release of common hardware, support it fully, right
out of the box Linux will lag behind Windows.
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:25:08 GMT
Yea and when I played audio CD's using X11Amp the CD wouldn't eject
and even after 10 tries if it happened to decide it wanted to eject,
any subsequent CD I put in the player, audio or data, would fail to
read.
Not to mention all the skips and slowdowns just playing an audio CD
and trying to do something else.
This is on a 450 with 256mb, current hardware and Mandrake 7.0
No problems under Windows 98SE or 2k.
simon
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 16:01:27 -0500, Jason McNorton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> In article
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > >BTW, read a few PC magazines for a few thousand more examples.
>> >
>> > One can say the same about any computer system.
>>
>> Except Macs--where things just work.
>
>You always scream for evidence, so here's some that you are wrong:
>
>http://www.macintouch.com/dvdproblems2.html
>
>Doesn't sound like things 'just working' to me. Looks like dozens and
>dozens of examples of things not working.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:20:19 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jv60t$5b1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8jt8ta$ie3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You mean you don't like:
> > char *foo="abcd"; foo[2];
> > and
> > "abcd"[2];
> > and
> > 2["abcd"];
> > to all mean the same thing?
>
> Too right. That sort of programming (along with beauties like
> *("abcd"+2) and its ilk) is abused so much more than it is used
> properly. Hence, you're better off without it.
If you don't like those features of the language, then don't use them. I am
not a proponent of the use of arcane constructs of C or C++. However, I
don't shrink from using them if that is what is required to get the job
done; expecially when the alternate might be even less portable through the
use of assembler. I can't even begin to count how many times I have had to
write functions in assembler code to give other languages functionality that
C has built right into the language.
> I've lost count of
> the number of times someone has done cute address arithmetic because
> it was slightly faster and saved a few bytes on some particular
> architecture (never mind the fact that it blows up in your face on
> others...) Grrr...
There is nothing wrong with "cute address arithmetic" or other arcane
constructs of the C programming language. If a program is targeted for a
particular architecture and the best way for the program to function as
required is through these methods, so be it. Just try to isolate that code
that is architecure specific and be sure to document that fact that it is
architecture specific.
Saving a few bytes or a little execution time may be very important factor
that determines if a program will be able to perform its job or not. This
is what is know as optimization. When you are a real time applications or
other time limited code, this is nessary. You can not always depend on your
compiler to provide the optimal optimization of your code.
All these statement in C have the same meaning which is the increment the
value of the variable x and store the results into x:
x = x + 1;
x++;
++x;
x += 1;
x = 1 + x;
x = x + 2 - 1;
x += 2 -1;
But not all compilers will translate them all into the same set of assembler
or machine code instructions.
Assuming that x is an int and the target host is an 80x86.
Each of these statements could be translated into:
inc x
But I have seen cases were the last example was translated into:
mov ax,2
mov bx,1
sub ax,bx
mov bx,ax
mov ax,[x]
add ax,bx
mov [x],ax
> If a language is so uncontrolled that using a debugger is an everyday
> occurrence, something is deeply wrong. IMHO at least. Trading a bit
> of speed for greatly increased safety from bizarre code is a good
> thing in my view.
Unless you need the bizarre code to save your project, or you need the bit
of speed for your program to be functional.
Just because C permits the "bizarre code" does not mean that you must use
it. That is your choice, and of the authority of shop. I prefer having it
available if I need it and not using it for day to day programming; than to
work in a language where it is not even available under any without having
to fall back on assembler.
> There are good reasons why not many people write in
> assembler any more...
The primary reason that assembler is not in use as much as it was before is
because we now have good implementations of C that will permit us to do what
we used to have to do in assembler and even in machine code.
At one time, I used to do most of my programming in assembler. I used to
hand translate to machine code and entered the machine code into the
computer until I had written my debugger (we used to call them machine code
monitors), editor and assembler. I did have high level languages available
which I had experience with, but they wen't up to the challenge of replacing
my need for assembler.
Once I had a good implementation of C available, my need for assembler has
diminished to only special situations which not even C can handle. Special
situations is why C still supports the goto statement. It is rarely used
but is there if it is needed.
P.S. My two cents worth about C#, if Java is based on the constructs of C
then C# is Java restated as a language based on the contructs of Pascal.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 5 Jul 2000 21:39:21 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niall Wallace) wrote in <8k025t$a0f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Only because all of those things only have Windows and/or Mac Support.
>>
>>If the people who made the things wrote linux support for them (ie
>>drivers) thern they would work.
>
> Even drivers written for things don't always work. I have a wheelmouse
> which doesn't work either. The best I've got is a crazy mouse.
>
My USB wheelmouse works just fine.
> Also, I forgot the WinTV card. Linux never even noticed it was there.
>
My WinTV card works just fine.
> Linux will always play catchup to Windows for device drivers - why? -
> because there's no money to be made in writing device drivers for free, so
> there's no incentive to write them.
>
You're an idiot because you dont know how to get the very simple to work very,
very well.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 5 Jul 2000 16:31:58 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Let me see what does Linux not support on my system...
>
>1. Even though Linux detects my USB ZIP 250 drive, it does not work.
There are reports of working systems at:
http://www.qbik.ch/usb/devices/
I take it you haven't done the Mandrake 7.1 update to get the
2.2.16 kernel yet, since you haven't whined about how you
were too lazy to make a boot floppy first and it made you
system unbootable. (I don't know if it will help, but it
doesn't make sense to complain about less than the latest
version).
>2. Linux notices my scanner (HP 4200C USB) it leaves it alone; no drivers.
You managed to get a wierd one... The 4100 and 5200 are working. Why
don't you do the driver?
>3. I switched to a Voodoo 5 5500 card; Linux has no drivers for this. Even
> though the card is Voodoo 3 compatible, the driver refuses to install.
It's pretty easy to find the vendors that have linux driver on
their web/ftp sites - before buying something that encourages
vendors that don't support Linux.
>So now I have a console only Linux system. End of evaluation.
You probably could get up back with the frame buffer version
of X.
>Windows support all of these products as there are drivers available for
>them.
That's backwards: the vendors of those products support Windows. There
are also vendors that supply Linux drivers or at least the info
needed to write them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:39:47 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:25:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yea and when I played audio CD's using X11Amp the CD wouldn't eject
>and even after 10 tries if it happened to decide it wanted to eject,
>any subsequent CD I put in the player, audio or data, would fail to
>read.
>
>Not to mention all the skips and slowdowns just playing an audio CD
>and trying to do something else.
...yeah, sure.
We're supposed to believe you when you try and tell us that a
process that consists of "Hey CD, start playing" causes load
and concurrency issues.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:55:21 GMT
Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> W2K:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000501-00028.html
>
> Linux (Red Hat)
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000626-00054.html
>
> 3 times faster, right, Pete?
>
> BTW - both machines were running 4 CPUs and
> (get this) **4** NICs. Most people here can
> appreciate how funny that is.
Also the bit about binding the interrupt of each NIC to exactly one CPU
with Linux. Hehehehe.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 21:18:46 GMT
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
> useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
> are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that Windows
> version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE or
> Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
> constructive.
>
> Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
> they?
AFAIK they aren't. To find out for sure you need to ask Linus Torvalds
since he owns the trademark Linux(tm) and therefore should know.
> All current versions of Windows include a GUI user interface, and for
> what
So what, most Linux distributions do too. The equivalent to Windows as
sold by MS is a Linux distro as sold by Redhat, SuSE, Mandrake, ...
> it's worth, it IS easy to use.
As an aside: define "easy to use". Saying something "is easy to use"
means exactly squat.
> Linux is claimed to be "just a kernel" which, in and of itself, is not much
> good. It requires many GNU utilities, at an absolute minimum, and SOME type
> of GUI, to be considered "useable" as a desktop system.
Yes, although the GUI is strictly optional.
> Almost all distributions of "Linux" come with one or more GUI desktop
> environments, and 99% of the people who want to try Linux as an alternative
> to Windows will install one of these desktops. In order to make Linux an
> "equivalent" environment to Windows, you HAVE to say that these GUIs are
> part of the overall operating environment, or "system." If you don't, then
> you leave yourself open to the argument that Linux is just a kernel, and, as
> such, is pretty much useless.
And who exactly would give jack shit about such a debating technique?
You seem to confuse sloppy everyday language use (Linux used to refer to
any distro) and exact technical use (Linux is the kernel). Depending on
who you are talking to "Windows" may mean completely different things
too. Heck, it may even mean the holes in the walls of my flat which are
usually closed by means of some device made mainly of glass.
Context, you know?
> I think it's time we took ownership of the various GUI desktops that ship in
> GNU/Linux distributions, even if it means acknowledging certain flaws in
> each. After all, to be really "useable" as a desktop environment, a GUI must
> be installed.
So? Says who?
Anyway, AFAIK some of the desktop environments are portable to other
Unices too. Some (uhh, window managers at least) may even have been
created before Linux. "Taking ownership" of all of them that happen to
run on Linux too would be highly inappropriate. Remember that Linux is
not about the 3 big 'E'.
[M-x snip]
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:44:03 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:21:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:53:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:44:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>Let me add to the list:
>>>
>>>1. Canon flatbed scanner. Works on Windows and on my daughters iMac.
>>>
>>>2. Canon printer. Half works. Never could make it print from
>>
>> ...this is what USB device standards are supposed to be for...
>
>Well apparently Windows and Mac got it right and Linux didn't because
>it works fine on those 2 systems.
It's not at all apparent that "mac and Windows" got it right.
It might be more accurate to state that Canon bothered to
accomdate those particular systems.
[deletia]
IOW: it's a 3rd party support issue.
If you have a Mac, you might be a bit more lucky with who has
decided to be nice.
If you have NT, you might be a bit more lucky with who has
decided to be nice.
If you have any of them including WinDOS, you still have to
be wary against buying a overpriced paperweight. Plus,
you have to put up with WinDOS.
IOW: caveat emptor still applies for PC hardware in general.
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 5 Jul 2000 21:47:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Where are the programs? Only one I found when I looked (back in April)
> was Dallas and that was an abortion.
>
With an lm78 module enabled, there are literally dozens. I like the
windowmaker docapp ones particularly, since windowmaker is my favorite
window manager.
In short, you didnt look very hard.
You dont WANT linux to work, therefore you put no effort at all into
it. (lm78 modules have existed for a number of years, and linux monitoring
software along with them)
You should probably just stick with windows and stop complaining. It
suits your intellect a little better than something that requires
a little work.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Microsoft .Net
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:55:52 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aravind Sadagopan wrote:
> They a relying heavily on XML backend to facilitate sharing among
> different people. Is that what its all about.?
Sounds 'bout right. All data encoded in XML, transfered via
XML-encoded COM. All data able to be presented via the same
engine (XSL et al). Stored in a big backend so you can get at
it from everywhere. Reasonable idea if they can pull it off
(it's Microsoft, they'll mess it up somehow). One trick would
be to make it easy to construct XML processing filters a la Unix
linear text filters. Dealing with tree like (even graph-like if
you want to follow the links) structures is much harder. XSL
provides a general framework for this but it is too much for
many uses.
Of course they'll make up more acronyms to cloud the whole thing.
Or better yet, steal other people's acronyms and change the
meaning - DNS, "X" in everything - it reduces the strength of the
existing names in people's minds and after sufficient exposure
people associate the old names with mimickry. But I digress.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:47:26 GMT
On 5 Jul 2000 21:39:21 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Niall Wallace) wrote in <8k025t$a0f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[deletia]
>> Also, I forgot the WinTV card. Linux never even noticed it was there.
Linux noticed my WinTV card was there 2 years ago. It also
happily allowed me to fully exploit it 2 years ago as well.
(WinTV 401 to be precise)
>>
>
>My WinTV card works just fine.
>
>> Linux will always play catchup to Windows for device drivers - why? -
>> because there's no money to be made in writing device drivers for free, so
>> there's no incentive to write them.
Yet the leading consumer video and audio card manufacturers
have decided to start supporting linux for some strange reason
as have the major scsi card vendors and several of the network
card vendors.
>>
>
>You're an idiot because you dont know how to get the very simple to work very,
>very well.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:51:37 GMT
On 5 Jul 2000 16:31:58 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>2. Linux notices my scanner (HP 4200C USB) it leaves it alone; no drivers.
>
>You managed to get a wierd one... The 4100 and 5200 are working. Why
>don't you do the driver?
...a bit peculiar dontchathink. He takes one of the vendors
that are actually providing some support to the USB developers
and finds their more proprietary device.
>
>>3. I switched to a Voodoo 5 5500 card; Linux has no drivers for this. Even
>> though the card is Voodoo 3 compatible, the driver refuses to install.
>
>It's pretty easy to find the vendors that have linux driver on
>their web/ftp sites - before buying something that encourages
>vendors that don't support Linux.
Actually, 3dfx has had linux drivers on their site for some
time. They might be 'forthcoming' but at the very least the non
anaceleptic should be able to aprise themselves of the situation.
>
>>So now I have a console only Linux system. End of evaluation.
>
>You probably could get up back with the frame buffer version
>of X.
>
>>Windows support all of these products as there are drivers available for
>>them.
>
>That's backwards: the vendors of those products support Windows. There
>are also vendors that supply Linux drivers or at least the info
>needed to write them.
It is no particular quality of merit with respect to Windows that is
responsible for a particular device being better supported under that
system.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Microsoft .Net
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 21:54:53 GMT
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 07:55:52 +1000, Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aravind Sadagopan wrote:
[deletia]
>Of course they'll make up more acronyms to cloud the whole thing.
>Or better yet, steal other people's acronyms and change the
>meaning - DNS, "X" in everything - it reduces the strength of the
>existing names in people's minds and after sufficient exposure
>people associate the old names with mimickry. But I digress.
You know, this is rather the entire point of trademarks
and the whole legal apparatus available to mark holders
to sue the bejezzus out of people.
It's a crying shame that Microsoft hasn't been held accountable
for it's intent which is diametrically opposed to whole notion
of trademarks.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:44:37 -0700
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8jvfmd$8m0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 3 times faster, right, Pete?
> > Pete who?
> > The title of your post says "Linux 3X faster than W2k". A better
> > description would be "Linux 3D faster than W2k in tests XXXX" and
> > replace XXXX with the actual name.
> > Otherwise people get the mistaken impression you're claiming Linux is 3
> > times faster than W2k in everything.
Let's see ---
Pete says Linux is the same speed as W2K or
slightly slower on some idiotic benchmark he
made up, and SPECweb99 results show Linux
nearly 3X faster than W2K on comparable
hardware.
And you're claiming that I'm being misleading?
Are you claiming that Linux is *not* 3X faster
than W2K? Do you have a reference to support this
from an objective third party benchmark?
OTOH, I'm not claiming anything - I don't
believe benchmarks, and I don't know if
Linux is 3X faster than W2K. I'm just
pointing to some interesting links, mostly
for the humor of the situation. And I
didn't invent or run the tests - this isn't
my bias I'm pointing out here.
Arthur
PS: The same set of tests
( http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/ )
show Linux on a 2 CPU/2 NIC machine running 50%
faster than W2K on a 4 CPU/4 NIC machine.
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Apache Up, MS Down
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:46:12 -0700
According to the latest Netcraft survey
( http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ ):
Apache - 62.53% of 17M+ sites sampled
and still increasing.
MS - 20.38% of sites sampled and
decreasing (pretty steadily since
the W2K intro, too)
Favorite quote:
"However, many of the Windows magazines avoid running
NT on their own sites. MaximumPC run Apache on Linux
and PC Magazine run Apache on Solaris, as does Windows
Magazine. ZDNet publish a number of PC magazines, but
use Netscape-Enterprise on Solaris to run their web
site, just like PC World. while Win98 Magazine run
Apache and BSD/OS. The exception that proves the
rule is Windows NT Magazine which loyally runs
Microsoft-IIS on NT4."
Arthur
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
