Linux-Advocacy Digest #578, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A new low in online auctions (fungus)
Re: A new low in online auctions (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: A new low in online auctions
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
Re: A new low in online auctions (Andrew Carpenter)
OFFICIAL ("TimL")
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? (Jacques Guy)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("TimL")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("TimL")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Microsoft .Net ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:30:52 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:11:36 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>void wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:30:48 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >I've already admitted that Windows is better in buzzword compliance. But
>> >as soon as you have a _real_ argument (with evidence to support it),
>> >feel free to post it.
>>
>> Preemptive multitasking is more than just a buzz-phrase -- it's an
>> important part of the architecture of anything claiming to be a real OS.
>> There's a good reason why it's one of the major marketing points for
>> MOSX.
>>
>> --
>> Ben
>>
>> 220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
>
>Hmmm.. then DOS was not (is not) a real OS, huh? in order to be a REAL
>OS you have to have pre-emtive multitasking huh?, Well, if I dont have a
>REAL OS on my mac, whats controlling it?
No, in order to be a real OS you have to hide the hardware from
the applications. DOS doesn't do that. The whole point of an OS
is to manage hardware resources so each and every apps programmer
doesn't have to.
MacOS actually resembles a real OS REMARKABLY more than DOS does.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:32:14 GMT
On 10 Jul 2000 22:48:19 GMT, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:15:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 9 Jul 2000 04:03:48 GMT, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 01:24:26 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it's simpler than that. In the other post, it seems like his
>>>>friend tried using a SCSI drive on an iMac _without_ a SCSI-USB
>>>>converter.
>>>
>>>He had the proper converter.
>>
>> Would you expect a random PCI SCSI card to work in a G4 Mac?
>
>No, why do you ask? I wouldn't expect a random PCI SCSI card to work
A great deal of Mac ease came about due to 'made for Mac hardware'
in a fashion similar to the common case of 'made for Windows hardware'.
[deletia]
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:34:03 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:59:57 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:30:52 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>You cannot guarantee freedom by removing it.
>>>The GPL provides a nice counter example.
>
>>How does the GPV guarantee freedom by removing it?
>
>I'm sorry, have you been sleeping? The freedom to play with
>derivative works is increased by the GPL, this increase more than
>counters the lose of freedom on the other hand. This is a value
>judgement. This is an opinion. As an opinion, you can share it, you
>can not share it, you can adopt other opinions that directly
>contradict it. However, if you do, doesn't lessen the degree to which
>others might hold the original opinion.
Increase of liberty for the masses vs.
Increase of liberty for the few.
An equality of rights.
[deletia]
Those are common characteristics of what is called 'free' in a
political sense.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:35:01 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I humbly suggest that you either grow a brain or go back to
> > Windows. Your choice of course.
>
> I would humbly suggest that if all you can do is cast insults that you
> leave. The doors over there, close it on your way out.
Why should he leave?
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Harry S Truman
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:42:49 -0400
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Sun, 09 Jul 2000 19:16:12 -0400...
> ...and Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Hint: The Linux port of Corel Office runs on an *emulator layer*, and
> > > > > it's crap.
> > > >
> > > > Wine is an emulation layer?
> > >
> > > Correction: An API translation layer. (A thick one.)
> >
> > Does wine have to translate API's instead of just running them?
> > This might be more of a performance hit than I thought.
>
> How do you "run an API"?
>
> Wine is an implementation of the Win32 API. But it needs to emulate
> the Windows loader to be able to open and resolve Windows EXEs, DLLs
> and such. It also needs to translate GDI into the X11 protocol. Stuff
> like that.
Is the translation of GDI to X11 slow?
I was trying to ask if Wine had to do anything more than Windows
would have to do.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A new low in online auctions
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:47:59 GMT
Andrew Carpenter wrote:
>
> "Microsoft's ... dot.NET will give people access to their data from
> anywhere in the world, via legions of remote servers. And instead of
> buying expensive new software, users will rent it."
>
> "Sun Microsystems last year launched an 'application service provider'
> operation that lets people run office software ... over the Internet..."
>
> "IBM ... says simply: 'Welcome aboard, guys.'"
>
Ahhh, so *this* is the famous "innovation" Bill's always telling
us about?
Umm...one thing though....
Haven't people been doing this on Unix with X for about ten
years now? You know - log into your machine from anywhere
on the Internet and use it just like you were sitting at
home. Moving your mouse across onto your neighbor's screen
and running programs there when he's not using it....that
sort of thing.
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A new low in online auctions
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:33:40 +0930
fungus wrote:
> Andrew Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > "Microsoft's ... dot.NET will give people access to their data from
> > anywhere in the world, via legions of remote servers. And instead of
> > buying expensive new software, users will rent it."
> >
> > "Sun Microsystems last year launched an 'application service provider'
> > operation that lets people run office software ... over the Internet..."
> >
> > "IBM ... says simply: 'Welcome aboard, guys.'"
> >
>
> Ahhh, so *this* is the famous "innovation" Bill's always telling
> us about?
Who knows? I'm sick of the word, myself.
Some people have pointed to the historical failure of previous NCs, as
evidence that the concept is flawed and will never take off. I think
that's a backwards argument. The NC concept, in its full form, requires
a fair bit of infrastructure that's not here yet. The technology is
available, sure, but it's not very widespread. NCs rely on the fact that
networks can be so fast -- gigabit networks run faster than your IDE bus
-- but most home users are still working with dialup. Things have
reached the point where you can get away with half the concept
(browser-in-a-box), but it'll be a few years before home networking
really takes off. Once that happens, computing is going to look a whole
lot different.
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:04:56 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>> The big problem with the two hour free parking analogy is that "two
>> hour free parking" is generally understood to refer to freedom of
>> cost, not to being libre. I think even the most vocal GPL
>> detractors would agree that GPL software can usually be obtained
>> free of cost.
> Free parking is not an analogy for free software. Free parking is an
> example of a phrase where the word free is used despite the fact that
> the resource is offered under heavy restrictions. It illustrates that
> the presence of such restrictions does not disqualify free from common
> usage.
Still doesn't help your claims.
Remember that GPLists like to claim GPL == free-libre (or freedom from
'slavery'). Freedom from cost says nothing toward that particular
stretch of the imagination.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:06:08 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (You meant to say ... "a licence which can be coopted by it.")
> No, of course not. The original software under its original license
> is just as available as before. Distributing the combined work under
> the GPL in no way affects how the original can be distributed.
But it *has* relicensed the code under the GPL for the whole work --
which means that the licence is coopted.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:06:53 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>> This doesn't work if many people worked on the GPL code. Under
>> those circumstances, the logistics of finding and contacting all the
>> copyright holders makes it in practice impossible to ask for such
>> permission. It doesn't matter how likely the copyright holders are
>> to give special permission if you can't reach them.
> Why not just use the original single-author version?
...which may not be available on any site.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A new low in online auctions
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:15:55 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:33:40 +0930, Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>fungus wrote:
>> Andrew Carpenter wrote:
>> >
>> > "Microsoft's ... dot.NET will give people access to their data from
>> > anywhere in the world, via legions of remote servers. And instead of
>> > buying expensive new software, users will rent it."
>> >
>> > "Sun Microsystems last year launched an 'application service provider'
>> > operation that lets people run office software ... over the Internet..."
>> >
>> > "IBM ... says simply: 'Welcome aboard, guys.'"
>> >
>>
>> Ahhh, so *this* is the famous "innovation" Bill's always telling
>> us about?
>
>Who knows? I'm sick of the word, myself.
>
>Some people have pointed to the historical failure of previous NCs, as
>evidence that the concept is flawed and will never take off. I think
>that's a backwards argument. The NC concept, in its full form, requires
>a fair bit of infrastructure that's not here yet. The technology is
>available, sure, but it's not very widespread. NCs rely on the fact that
>networks can be so fast -- gigabit networks run faster than your IDE bus
...this is only necessary if you are merely equating NC's with
unintellegently configured Xterminals. Design the system with
bandwidth conservation in mind and much of the 'infastructure
requirements' simply go away.
[deletia]
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 18:13:17 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9 Jul 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is one interpretation that apparently the FSF's lawyer holds; I'd
>> personally really like to see a court put this to rest and say that if
>> all you're using of the other code is its API, it's not a derivative
>> work, and the process of combining an executable with a dynamic library
>> on the system is not the formation of a derivative work but rather the
>> execution of two independent sets of instructions, one of which calls
>> the other.
> I happen to agree with you on this, but it significantly weakens the
> FSF's position and the GPL's purported strength. What, then, becomes the
> difference between static linking and dynamic linking?
Quite a bit. You can't redistribute statically linked binaries unless you
meet the redistribution terms for the library itself, since a statically
linked binary clearly is a derivative work of the library as well as of
your program. It includes the code of the library.
A dynamically linked binary is not (or at least should not be) a
derivative work of the library for the simple reason that it doesn't
contain any of the code of the library.
> Could I not then create a library (say, libEmacs.a or libEmacs.so), put
> a front-end around it [the source for which I don't release], and then
> use that?
You could do that, provided that libEmacs.so were a dynamic library and,
if you distributed that library, you distributed all the source and
modifications needed to make it a dynamic library under the GPL.
I don't see the difference between this and writing a program that forks
off a copy of emacs and sends it commands via a pseudo-tty or some other
mechanism. I don't see the logical justification in making this a
derivative work.
> I understand WHY the FSF does this, but disagree with it. (And, if the
> interpretation is such, the GPL really becomes not much more than the
> LGPL.)
Except that turning emacs into a library isn't exactly a trivial exercise.
I think the work required to turn an arbitrary program into a dynamic
library is sufficient to make it unlikely many people will do this to much
real effect.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A new low in online auctions
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:54:07 +0930
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Andrew Carpenter wrote:
> >Some people have pointed to the historical failure of previous NCs, as
> >evidence that the concept is flawed and will never take off. I think
> >that's a backwards argument. The NC concept, in its full form, requires
> >a fair bit of infrastructure that's not here yet. The technology is
> >available, sure, but it's not very widespread. NCs rely on the fact that
> >networks can be so fast -- gigabit networks run faster than your IDE bus
>
> ...this is only necessary if you are merely equating NC's with
> unintellegently configured Xterminals. Design the system with
> bandwidth conservation in mind and much of the 'infastructure
> requirements' simply go away.
Maybe for a local network. My work's network would probably be fast
enough for NCs as is. But I couldn't run one at home, no matter how well
it was configured... I'm stuck with a 56K modem dialup. Running an
application over the network would require an hour of downloading and
caching before I could get started. I'm currently *way* better off with
a PC.
But in the not-too-distant future, when most net connections are some
form of broadband, and most people have a home network (which could be
blindingly fast), the NC concept looks much more attractive. It ends up
more efficient to load software over the network than from a local drive
-- that's when the true NC becomes a reality.
Until then, of course, simpler devices purpose-built for web browsing
and email fit a niche quite happily.
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OFFICIAL
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:27:12 GMT
Ok it's official(for me).
Windows 2000 is a piece of SHIT!
I have a linux box and a Windows 2000 box.
My Linux box has been up and running for 13 days. I run memory
hog Mozilla from time to time on both. On Linux I always get all my
memory back, moreover, I can always see where ALL my memory is
with GNOME System Monitor or if all else fails "PS -Al". Right now
my Win2000 box shows a MEM usage of 244 MB and I have NOTHING
open and task manager gives NO indication of where all that memory
is spent. From a multi-billion $$ corporation that gets $300 for each
(legit :-) ) copy of this shit this is ridiculous.
Incidentally our network director gave a presentation the other day.
He has chosen a mix of Windows and Unix servers(i.e. I don't know
his bias) but claims MS has said they reccommend NT 4.0 be rebooted
every 4.6 days(probably generous) and Windows2000 every 30 days.
Hey Windows2000 may have all the moola but it ain't got all the smarts.
/TimL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:31:47 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Cihl wrote:
> Jacques Guy wrote:
> > > I wouldn't set Windows as a goal for installation
> > > ease. That's too easily achieved.
> >
> > That's not the opinion of the Chinese fellow who runs
> > the computer shop in Glen Waverley (Melbourne, Australia).
> > He bitches about hardware incompatibilities when trying
> > to install Win98.
> I don't think i quite understand your response. (?)
> Looks to me that this guy would agree with me.
What I meant is: this fellow puts PCs together from
parts from here and there (mostly Taiwan), and, in his
experience, getting Win98 to "talk" to the hardware is
not a piece of cake *at all*
> > Ah... if I could find, and install, a driver for my HP ScanJet 5p,
> > I could *almost* kiss Windows good-bye for good. "Almost" because
> > my laser printer is a Panasonic KX-P6100... ho gia lasciato ogni
> > speranza.
> Ke?
Dante's Inferno: above the Gates of Hell is written "Voi ch'entrate
lasciate ogni speranza" (you who enter [here] abandon all hope).
Ho gia lasciato ogni speranza (I have already left behind all hope)
di uscire (of getting out [of Windoze Hell], since Linux cannot
handle my printer at all). And yes, I found the site with drivers
for HP scanners, mine included, but it's still all too cryptic for
me. There is an improvement though, because, two years ago, all
I could find was a commercial site offering an HP ScanJet 5p Linux
driver for...US$200! (Which is just about what I paid for the
scanner).
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:34:26 GMT
Shit man, if I liked to aimlessly go throwing my money around I'd probably go
with IIS too. You're a dumbass d00d.
/TimL
In article <5Bma5.9335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
> W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this
> Apache dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
>
> The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making
> ones? Companies that are concerned about their image, product,
> availability, uptime, performance and all that matters cause their
> name/image on-line matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST
> DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
>
> +===+===+===
>
> http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?searchresult=1&ID=6150095626AM
>
> "The dominant position of Microsoft's proprietary IIS in the Fortune 500
> makes Windows NT a lock for the most used operating system undergirding
> the Web servers -- 43 percent. "
>
>
> == and ==
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2817
>
> "According to ENT's survey of Fortune 500 companies and their Web sites,
> IIS
> is the most commonly used Web server, with 41% of the market. In second
> place is Netscape/iPlanet with 35%. And the supposedly dominant Apache
> brings up the rear with only 15% of Fortune 500 deployments. Thanks to
> the success of IIS, Windows NT/2000 is also the most commonly used
> operating system on Fortune 500 Web sites: NT is used on 43% of such
> sites. Sun Microsystems Solaris comes in second with 36%. But the real
> surprise for those people that religiously follow the Netcraft surveys
> is that Linux
> "falls into the noise level," according to ENT, with only 10 companies
> in
> the Fortune 500 using the upstart open source OS to deploy their
> production sites. Even IBM AIX and HP/UX have 15 deployments each, and
> BSD/OS tops Linux with 14. "
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 01:35:34 GMT
Hope they reboot there servers every 4.6 days like MS recommends! :)
/TimL
In article <5Bma5.9335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
> W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this
> Apache dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
>
> The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making
> ones? Companies that are concerned about their image, product,
> availability, uptime, performance and all that matters cause their
> name/image on-line matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST
> DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
>
> +===+===+===
>
> http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?searchresult=1&ID=6150095626AM
>
> "The dominant position of Microsoft's proprietary IIS in the Fortune 500
> makes Windows NT a lock for the most used operating system undergirding
> the Web servers -- 43 percent. "
>
>
> == and ==
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2817
>
> "According to ENT's survey of Fortune 500 companies and their Web sites,
> IIS
> is the most commonly used Web server, with 41% of the market. In second
> place is Netscape/iPlanet with 35%. And the supposedly dominant Apache
> brings up the rear with only 15% of Fortune 500 deployments. Thanks to
> the success of IIS, Windows NT/2000 is also the most commonly used
> operating system on Fortune 500 Web sites: NT is used on 43% of such
> sites. Sun Microsystems Solaris comes in second with 36%. But the real
> surprise for those people that religiously follow the Netcraft surveys
> is that Linux
> "falls into the noise level," according to ENT, with only 10 companies
> in
> the Fortune 500 using the upstart open source OS to deploy their
> production sites. Even IBM AIX and HP/UX have 15 deployments each, and
> BSD/OS tops Linux with 14. "
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:24:37 GMT
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:11:36 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Hmmm.. then DOS was not (is not) a real OS, huh? in order to be a REAL
>OS you have to have pre-emtive multitasking huh?, Well, if I dont have a
>REAL OS on my mac, whats controlling it?
Jedi answered this well.
Allow me to take back my hasty statement. MacOS is a real OS; so is
DOS, to a lesser extent. What I should have said is this: any OS that
pretends to be "state-of-the-art" includes preemptive multitasking. The
only reason anyone uses non-preemptively-multitasking operating systems
is inertia. There are no new cooperative multitasking desktop OSs being
produced today.
A more subjective note: despite its failure to overcome its origins on
cramped microcomputers, MacOS at least shows some signs of pride of
craft. If DOS shows any, it escaped my notice.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft .Net
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:43:21 GMT
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Already many administrators are filttering pages, blocking access
: to Verisign (providing their own signature authorities instead),
: and purging mail containing .exe and .vbs extensions. Microsoft
: released a truly secure patch that plugs ALL the holes, including
: refusal to accept Microsoft Office documents (known to be capable
: of carrying hidden macroviruses).
: Originally, the patch was intended as a way to get itself off the hook,
: and to prove to customers that security was "impossible", but the
: patch actually does work quite well, and many administrators have
: adopted the patch.
Microsoft apparently can't envision a world in which people don't
share proprietary MS Office crap - the online equivalent of dirty
needles and unprotected anal sex - when ASCII, RTF, and HTML would do
just fine.
I can.
And I won't participate in this unsafe (and unethical) behavior just
because lots of other people do.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
