Linux-Advocacy Digest #652, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? ("Alex DeLarge")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Drestin Black")
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Matthias Warkus)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Cihl)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Drestin Black")
A tale of 2 installs part IVVXIV ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:53:58 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:30:54 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:21:28 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:59:17 GMT, Roberto Alsina
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Jedi said there was no likelyhood or necessity of libraries being
>> >GPL.
>> >>
>> >> ...a claim rather well supported by the fact that the one
>> >> trying to undermine it infact works on a large generalized
>> >> framework that is not, which itself exploits many facilities
>> >> that are themselves not.
>> >
>> >Oh, my goodness. Are you drunk or something? You can't create
>> >generality out of examples.
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Just give it up already. You are simply full of shit.
>
>Again, you are confusing me with jedi.
>
>> Now anyone else can make up their own mind if they wish to bother.
>
>Hopefully.
>
>>
>> The vast array of support libraries that come with a Linux
>> distribution, including KDE and those that it depends on are
>> a far more meaningful indication of what is 'likely' with
>> Free Software.
>
>Man, changing what you said can actually make you say something
You're spliting hairs based on an implication. While the
pedantic difference between 1% and 0% may infact exist,
it is considerably less significant than 1% vs. 51% or
1% vs. 90%.
>correct. Amazing.
>
>Brief recap: I made a hypothetical example of what could happen if,
>say, the TCP sample implementation was GPL, in the context of having
...which is absurd.
It doesn't reflect the reality of how most Free Software library
code is actually licenced, INCLUDING THE LIBRARIES YOU YOURSELF
USE.
It's an artificial situtation created specifically to mislead
the ignorant that might not be aware that most libraries are
not licenced using the GPL and that Free Software != GPL and
CopyLeft != GPL.
>sample implementations be copylefted.
>
>You accused me of being a dishonest liar who misrepresents something.
>I still have no idea of why.
You argue based on a false representation of reality.
>
>You said that there was NO LIKELIHOOD of a library being GPL.
>
>Now, you change it to "libraries being GPL is unlikely" and try to
>continue the argument. As long as you know you are not saying the
Actually, I immediately changed my rhetoric to avoid
a gross overgeneralization. I try to avoid those
generally and meant to in the example you cite.
[deletia]
Some KEY facts:
The vast majority of Free Software libraries are licenced LGPL.
Free Software != GPL.
Copyleft != GPL.
Your argumentation depends on misleading the reader into believing
one or all of these to not be the case when infact they are the case.
[deletia]
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Alex DeLarge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:46:47 +0100
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:22:36 -0700, KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Wow. Every reply to my post said about the same thing. I feel like I'm
> >talking to a cult or something :) But I hope to reply to most of the
> >comments in one post---I hope everyone reads this.
GNU/Linux isn't an ideal os for everything. Guven Linux will hopefully put
paid to that one though.
--
Alex DeLarge - Guven Linux at 0.03rc2
'Have a nice day', said the bank teller. So I took the money and ran. And I
did. Which was nice.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:58:57 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Now do you see why I've been saying that I wasn't criticizing you for
> "defending Windows", but rather for your assumption that someone else
> must be to blame (since you knew you weren't, and assumed that
> competence could prevent crashes) when you stated, without even a hint
> of reservation, that competent admin, users, and networks will
> statistically decrease the number of Windows crashes? More important,
> do you understand why you didn't believe me when I said that?
Another re-read of this catches my eye. Do you really think this is
what I said? You have really been stuffing words into my mouth that
didn't come out of them to begin with. I did say that comptent
administration will decrease the number of crashed when compared with
completely incompetent administration. This I have proof of. I have
seen cases where machines completely under the control of a user that
understands Windows (as far as it can be understood) and they don't
crash as much as machines under the control of an admin that is
incompetent with Windows. Now, you are saying that I said, "If Windows
crashes where I work it isn't my fault." I am very curious where you
came up with that. And I will re-state again that with competent
administration, users and solid hardware you will statistically decrease
the number of Windows crashes when compared with a situation in which
there is an incompetent administrator, a bunch of people that don't know
the first thing about Windows as users, and shit hardware. You disagree
with this point. Fine, that's your opinion. But I have seen places
with any one of these factors changing, and any one of these factors
changing, changes the likelyhood of Windows crashes. Putting the three
together would change the likelyhood that much more. Since I haven't
seen a place where all three things happened together I said "I haven't
seen it" which you took to mean I had know idea what I was talking
about. And I will ask again where the hell I said someone else must be
to blame? This just seems to be about someone trying very very hard to
play semantic games out of boredom (or whatever the hell drives you, ego
perhaps?). All I know is we keep saying the same thing over and over to
eachother and you just keep telling me I am wrong, even though we are
saying the same thing. I'm just sick of you telling me that I am trying
to blame someone else. If I fuck up, I take responsibility for it. If
someone else fucks up, I usually take responsibility for that too, but I
will point out the error to the person that did it in hopes they will
learn something and not repeat it. But saying that means I am blaming
someone else is a crock.
Anyway, this whole thing is leading no-where apparently. You have seen
my statements and just keep saying that it is impossible for me to be
correct. My statements and yours are not nearly as different as you
seem to think.
If there's anybody else reading this thread can you help me out? If I
actually see three other people that believe I am totally fucked on
this, then I'll buy it. I just can't believe that what we are saying is
that different. It's a matter of different wording for the same
things. You take that to mean I am shirking my responsibilities by
blaming others for my problems. All because I worded my phrase a little
different than you would. What do you others think?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:22:05 GMT
In article <8kjagd$anq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:49:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:03:38 +1000, Christopher Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> What hardware would that be these days?
> > >> >
> > >> >Try some el cheapo kwung-how hardware, and you'll soon find out.
> > >>
> > >> That's "el cheapo".
> > >>
> > >> That's not non-pnp.
> > >
> > >The two often go hand in hand, which was my point.
> >
> > This is merely supposition on your part.
>
> This is hard, cold experience on my part.
>
>
Well, at least one of the Wintrolls is honest about the junkware that's
pawned off on unsuspecting buyers because it's cheap.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:24:46 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:06:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> > [...]
> >>I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
> >>the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
> >>running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network bound).
> >
> >You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
> >slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND.
>
> So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
> of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
That's a good one.
So the concept that I'm working with some things and not working with
others is "archaid and old-time thinking"?
So you are able to physically work with 100 different tasks all at the
same time?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 20:26:33 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:36:14 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
Thanks for the advice. I installed the user land server. In 24 hours,
I'll know if it's more reliable than the old one (-;
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:33:31 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am not a rabid anything. Rather I was presenting the argument as a tactic
> that I have used to shutdown the constant singsongs of the rabid anti-Linux
> people like Mr. Goodwin. The argument is derived from the saying : if you
> choose not to vote then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Perhaps I worded wrong again. I wasn't trying to accuse you of being
rabid, just saying that his was a common song I heard when I first
joined the Linux crowd from those that were rabid. You seem reasonable
anytime I've conversed with you. I just think that old "make it
yourself" argument is pretty much useless in winning people over. I
know it came close to discouraging me from using Linux for a while. But
then I realized that was just a common theme and easily repeated and got
on with it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 13 Jul 2000 15:43:12 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kefaj$3p2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Rob:
> >
> > I didn't read the code because I have a few questions before I even
begin to
> > think about how to do this in windows.
> >
>
> You didnt read the code because you CANT read the code, dresden.
and again, you provide nothing but an attempt at insult. go mutilate
yourself some more...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:08:25 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:29:53 GMT...
...and Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think it would be a wonderful thing _at all_ to jump into the
> frying pan of emulating DAO, OLE, and DCOM on Linux. Indeed, I think
> that would be a quite _terrible_ thing.
Software AG are doing it; they've got a DCOM implementation for
various Unixes AFAIK.
mawa
--
Gnome with Enlightenment... isn't that Yoda?
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:16:29 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:58:29 -0400...
...and T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Can you find a way to make cooperative multitasking as robust as
> >preemptive multitasking?
>
> No. Can you find a way to make PMT as user-responsive as CMT? Then all
> you're doing is implementing CMT.
Preemptive multitasking can, if decently implemented, do everything
CMT does, and it is more stable because it protects you from buggy
programs. That's the core issue.
> So get rid of them and get other programs. I don't care if "things"
> take longer; I'm the only one with important things to do.
Nonsense. So many things are already client-server or become
client-server on desktop machines (the client and the server being
processes on the same machine) that you can't just say that there is
one mighty foreground application that needs all the performance and
lots of background processes that could just as well be stopped
altogether.
That concept is hopelessly outdated. Consider component object models;
consider asynchronous I/O...
>
mawa
--
Gizzards Cove, Tennessee | Bugtussle, Texas | Looneyville,
Zu Zu, Tennessee | Chocolate Bayou, Texas | Texas
Lick Skillet, Texas | Ding Dong, Texas |
-- U.S. placenames
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:49:45 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> =
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> =
> >Oh yeah, your Voodoo 5 is now supported. Get XFree86 4.0.1.
> =
> Yes I know.
> =
> I also got the Windows 2000 drivers. I installed it, it worked.
> =
> I installed XFree86 4.0.1 and, it took a while to get working. Using th=
e
> config program generated a duff XF86Config file, I had to make some sma=
ll
> changes to make it work.
> =
> With Windows 2000, dead easy.
> =
> With Linux, a little effort to get working beta quality software.
Huh? What do you mean?
1) Download XFree86 4.0.1. Takes some time if you don't have a
high-speed connection, but it's definitely not difficult.
2) Run install-script.
3) Run configuration. (xf86cfg)
4) Run X.
Now you have an entirely new graphical system. Not just a little
driver.
Oh, by the way. Do you really think the Voodoo5-drivers made for
Windows are more stable than the Linux ones? You're fooling yourself.
Heck, even the Voodoo Banshee drivers are STILL not stable in Windows.
You don't want to know how many times i got bluescreened over those
d*mned Banshee-drivers! In the middle of a game, during movie
playback, you name it. Yuck! (Come to think of it, this might be why i
use Linux more often these days)
> >What's wrong with minimalist desktops? :)
> =
> They're a bit lacking.
=
What do you mean exactly? Sometimes i like having a completely clear
desktop and a little more resources available. I'd like to have that
option. Oh, and for Gnome/KDE: please try to keep in mind that it took
Microsoft about ten years do develop something of a decent desktop.
Gnome and KDE did the same in about two years.
Hey, by the way, have you seen Xfce? It's fast, lightweight, and still
carries enough built-in features for all the clickfans. I think it
resembles Gnome a little. Look at http://www.xfce.org for some more
details. Especially the snapshots :)
-- =
=A8I live!=A8
=A8I hunger!=A8
=A8Run, coward!=A8
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 13 Jul 2000 15:50:19 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Help me understand something. You've got your linux box here, but it's
not
> >on a always-on connection. You didn't say so but are we to assume that it
> >dials up your ISP every so often and downloads your e-mail? And then this
> >script looks for e-mail from you and reads a coded line to determine when
> >you'd like your PPP to go up/down?
>
> Correct.
>
> >A quick thought, I'd have Outlook set to check my e-mail every x hours,
> >disconnecting after retrieval. A message rule would look for e-mail from
> >adress xxx, containing string zzz in the body and perhaps also subject
equal
> >to yyy. The rule would write the text of the message body to a file. A
VBS
> >script that was running would look for this file, open and parse the
start
> >and end times and then connect to the ISP at the appropriate time and
wait
> >until the final time and disconnect.
>
> Fair enough, but frankly I already expected this would be possible. What
> does interest me, is how you would handle erroneous messages and
> security. How would you prevend me from sending you a similar email that
> would keep your line open for two days?
> I think the question boils down to: is PGP scriptable in Windows?
Honestly, I do not know. I've never tried it and do not know what functions
PGP for Windows exposes. Would you HAVE to use PGP specifically. You just
need a digital signature to make sure it's really the right message.
>
> >But, actually, I'd probably just telnet to my provider and run mail on
the
> >shell account?
>
> For me this is not an option, because bSMTP mail is only present in a
> queue on the ISP's mailserver and not accessible via a shell account
> (yet, they're in the process of fixing this).
Gotcha...
>
> >Why not just have the box connect every hour for 15 minutes.
>
> 15 minutes may not be sufficient for getting onto the net :-(
> Hey, there's wonderful nature in Suriname, but one really sh*tty telco!
> And leaving my line open 24/7 for 6 weeks is a bit too much IMO.
15 minutes not enough time to connect? Hmm... that's pretty nasty...
>
> >I think I now fail to see why you bothered writing this script at all?
What
> >did I miss?
>
> I think I'll read my mail once or twice a week, so I want to be able to
> plan it. And it was fun doing too ;-)
>
> >(oh, any I LOVE how you couldn't resist but add: "So even if a Windows
> >solution would be possible technically, it still would not be an
option..."
> >Nice how you just throw out any windows solution (which is what you are
> >asking for in the first place) without giving a viable reason? Why should
> >9600 baud make a windows solution necessarily unviable but not for linux?
> >doesn't make sense)
>
> Because with Windows you either have to telnet in (and we all know that
> the functionality of a Windows system is quite limited with just CMD.EXE
um, CMD is not exactly what I'd call limited. Honestly, there is a LOT you
can do from the CLI but most people do not spend any time learning cause
it's slower and more complicated than from the GUI and becuase some of the
tools you might require have been moved to the Resource Kit (but are freely
available). I think you'd be suprised just how powerful the CLI is in
Windows, especially W2K.
> available), or use a graphical remote access tool, or pull over the mail
> to your present site. Neither of these three sound attractive to me with
> such low a bandwidth. ssh OTOH, gives me full funtionality where only
> the data amount of compressed text is passed through the line. Viable
> enough for you?
I didn't complain about ssh at all. TS is lightweight but certainly not as
lightweight as ssh.
> BTW, as the subject line clearly indicated, the question stems from
> curiosity. It was by no means a request for help because I don't have a
> problem, I have a solution. :)
I know..
>
> >p.s., thanks for reminding me why I hate perl - YUCK!
>
> You're welcome. But... is there any [1..3]GL language that you do not
> hate?
>
I am not a big fan of C++, Java or PERL - that leaves quite a bit... I tend
to favor VB (in it's variations) becuase it's easy, fast and universally
understood and available. And cause I have little time to code like I used
to.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A tale of 2 installs part IVVXIV
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:51:23 GMT
I just bought an iMac for my "flower child, anti-establishment,
computer challenged" 14 year old daughter as a graduation present from
middle school. My wife says the child was born 2 decades to late as
she has a lot in common with the 60's generation.
Anyway the iMac is a fantastic machine in that you plug it in and it
just works. All the typical programs that a student would use are
there and are easy to use. I have always seen Macs in virtually every
studio I have been in but never really took to them. I regret that now
because they really are quite intuitive.
So while I'm at the store plunking down $1200 or so, my 9 year old
finds this program called "ClueFinders 5th Grade Adventures" by The
Learning Company for Windows/Mac so I buy that as well.
He installs the software on the family Windows 98se system (k6 450,
256 meg, etc) and starts playing the game.
Dammed thing keeps blue screening on him so I go and take a look. I
de-install the program reboot, regclean and so forth and try a fresh
install to a different directory just in case.
Install takes a couple of minutes, requires a re-boot and I start the
program again. Sure enough at random points in the program, the thing
will BSOD on me. It also seems to be accessing the CDROM when it dies,
so suspecting a defective CD (I tried cleaning it first) I exchanged
it for another. Same problem.
At this point I discovered the CD also had the Mac version on it,
which I was not initially aware of. He installed it on the iMac (I
watched him do it), the install took about 20 seconds vs minutes for
the Windows version, the graphics looked better and the program worked
perfectly.
Just for kicks I tried the program on my DAW which as a rule NEVER
gets subjected to games etc and it BSOD there as well and that system
is completely different being Intel instead of AMD.
So now my 3 kids are fighting like the hammers of hell over the iMac
and none of them will go near the Windows machine except for running
Catz 3, so they can care for their virtual pets :)
DP
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 13 Jul 2000 15:53:03 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kefcs$3p2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8kd23a$288d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy 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!
> >> >
> >>
> >> Google is just finishing up their 6,000 node linux cluster. Google is
the
> >> only existing search engine which has had zero downtime since its
> > inception.
> >>
> >> You do not know what youre talking about.
> >
> > so, your reply to these articles is something to do with google needing
such
> > a huge cluster of boxes and your unsupported claim of zero downtime
since
> > inception?
> >
>
> The reason that theyve had zero downtime since their linux cluster
> approach is because of "redundancy". I dont expect you to know what
> that means.
>
so, they need 6000 linux boxes to achive zero downtime and perform text
searches? oh yea, you are REALLY impressing me now...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
