Linux-Advocacy Digest #653, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Christopher Browne)
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:55:15 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
would say:
>In article <8kjmor$9df$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> >A WHOLE bunch of typos at the Linux documentation project!
>>
>> Oh my. The world will end.
>>
>> >From http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Firewall-HOWTO-5.html
>>
>> From the same HOWTO, right from the very start:
>>
>> 1.1 Feedback
>>
>> Any feedback is very welcome. PLEASE REPORT ANY INACCURACIES IN
>THIS
>> PAPER!!! I am human, and prone to making mistakes. If you find a
>fix
>> for anything please send it to me. I will try to answer all e-mail,
>> but I am busy, so don't get insulted if I don't.
>>
>> My email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> (oh, and you missed some of the more interesting mistakes in the
>section
>> you looked at --- problems with the distinction between singular and
>plural,
>> and the associated verb forms.
>>
>> However, here is an interesting fact --- I set up a firewall a few
>days
>> ago. I worked through most of that HOWTO (albeit a slightly older
>version),
>> because I like understanding what is going on. And you know what? I
>never
>> noticed a single typo, missing word or grammatical screwup.
>> I am quite sure they were there. I am also quite sure that they didn't
>stop
>> the HOWTO from fulfilling its purpose, which was to tell me how to set
>up
>> a firewall.
>>
>> Oh, and one more pointer for you:
>>
>> http://okcforum.org/~markg/mark/Dyslixics.html
>>
>> To quote the first line:
>>
>> If you havn't guess yet, I'M Dyslexic!
>>
>> And guess what the Firewall-HOWTO and that page have in common! That's
>> right --- the author.
>
>Wow! I'm impressed! A Dyslexic person willing publish a document, such
>as a HOWTO, that will be read by so many people. It shows some real
>courage. Thanks for the INFO, bmeyer. That URL is well worth reading and
>I hope redtyrel will take the time.
>
>I also think it shows a real strength of the linux community. We are
>willing to gratefully accept the contributions from anyone who is
>willing to contribute, spelling errors included.
>
>Thanks again, bmeyer.
>
>And thanks Mark, your firewall HOWTO was a great help.
And if people are accepting of some corrections, so that some of us
that _can_ spell and "gram" (what would be the verb for grammar? :-)),
so that some of those "presentation errors" can get rooted out, it's
just _possible_ that we might see documentation that is both:
a) Useful, which is the _really important part_, and
b) "Attractively written," which does count to "pointy haired bosses"
that don't know the technology and need something else to criticize
over.
Some of the HOWTOs _are_ painful to read; I'll only gripe about those
where the problem is either that the material is:
1. Invalid, or
2. Tremendously biased due to some underlying attitude that distracts
the reader from the real material of the HOWTO. (Some of the
database stuff suffers from an over-grandiose vision...)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #28. "My pet monster will be kept in a
secure cage from which it cannot escape and into which I could not
accidentally stumble." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 13 Jul 2000 16:57:32 -0400
On 12 Jul 2000 16:19:21 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>>> A long time ago, back in the K&R days, I fuzzily recall someone
>>> who should have known explaining why a C compiler had to
>>> treat them all the same. I can't do the argument justice
>>> myself, but it involved the steps of turning the string
>>> into a pointer, then turning the subscript operation into
>>> an addition, and it doesn't matter which direction
>>> you add - you end up adding an integer to a pointer either
>>> way and the result is the same.
>>Um... doesn't work on 2["abcd"]
>>because that translates into 2 + 0x41424344 = *(0x41424346.)
>>which ONLY works if "abcd" is stored at 0x41424345 (thats rigth,
>>last two digits are 45, not 44)
>double quoted string into a pointer to the contents
>which are stored in an array somewhere. Which brings
>it back to the addition of an integer and pointer just
>like the other examples. Has anyone found a compiler
>that doesn't return the same character for each
>expression?
EGCS 2.91.66, I think, interprets 2["abcd"] as meaning
2 + (sizeof(int) * "abcd") instead of 2 + "abcd", which
puts you quite a way off from the actual array, hence the
SIGSEGV when you try to dereference it.
--
Microsoft Windows. Flaky and built to stay that way.
------------------------------
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 15:59:05 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8kfke8$18st$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8kefcs$3p2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >
> >
> > And if you couldn't get zero downtime out of a 6000 node load balanced
> > cluster, it would be pretty sad ;-)
> >
>
> And its a defacto victory, such architecture is simply not possible with
> any version of windows.
>
ahhahahahahahahahhhaaa bullshit.
------------------------------
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 15:59:17 -0500
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Drestin Black 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!
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're kidding, right?
> > >
> > > For 5 of the last 6 years, I have worked on Fortune 50 and a stock
> > > brokerage. NONE of them puts webservers on LoseDOS Neutered
Technology.
> >
> > Care to name it (them)? And, so what, so for 5 of the last 6 years you
>
> EDS
> General Motors
> Ford Motor Company
> Kmart Corporation.
name dropping? oh man, there is a game you'll lose with me. I won't even
waste time playing. I used to work for someone somewhere, now I work for
myself, whereever they pay me to and I WANT to. I've seen a lot more than
you'll get outta a quick 5 years... ha!
>
>
> > worked in A company that's a fortune 50 company and it doesn't use NT -
so
> > what? Check yourself, do your own netcraft What is it running tests and
see
> > who's lying/wrong? I mean, every company I've worked at for the last 8
years
> > runs NT without exception - guess using your logic that means I should
>
> i.e. companies who's management isn't smart enough to see through
> Microsoft's lies.
>
> Which is better:
> a) server that run MULTIPLE functions and can stay up for a year or more
wow, like our NT4 servers!
> b) a server that can only do ONE thing (mail, webserving, file serving)
> and even then crashes every 45 days or less.
like the sun boxes we replace often!
>
>
>
> > conclude that NONE of them puts webservers on free (you get what you pay
> > for) apache? silly...
> >
> > only 5/6 years? A fortune 50 and a stock brokerage? Is this supposed to
> > impress me? I've installed at over 40 of the fortune 500 - ever single
one
> > NT 4 and now W2K. We push the unix boxes out faster than we can deliver
new
> > ones (fortunately it takes fewer new W2K boxes to replace the unix
clunkers)
>
> Obvious lying here.
ha
>
> fewere W2K boxes to replace equivalent functionality of Unix boxes.
>
> What are you pushing out...10-year old machines with 800M drives?
something from your list of companies you obviously have experience with?
------------------------------
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 16:01:15 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 11 Jul 2000 00:35:23 -0500,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >only 5/6 years? A fortune 50 and a stock brokerage? Is this supposed to
> >impress me? I've installed at over 40 of the fortune 500 - ever single
one
> >NT 4 and now W2K. We push the unix boxes out faster than we can deliver
new
> >ones (fortunately it takes fewer new W2K boxes to replace the unix
clunkers)
> >
>
> Well I work for the LARGEST and MOST POWERFULL organization in the
> ENTIRE WORLD!! Our revenues are TEN TIMES HIGHER than that largest
> Fortune 500 company!! We are so big in fact, that we gave ourselves
> (2) three letter TLD's when we CREATED THE INTERNET!! Most of our web
> servers run APACHE, with NETSCAPE ENTERPRISE coming in second, and IIS
> coming in DISTANT THIRD!! So there. HAHAHAHAHAHA:)
>
so... she tells you size matters eh?
Being the first to do something, or the one who created something, very VERY
rarely ends up being the one who does it best. Review the names of computer
companies (hardware and software) from years gone by... ask yourself, where
are they today? Some are still there but... do some math, play a little
history...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:56:36 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:38:30 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Agian you are TOTALLY ARROGANT. If you don't want to produce code for
>> the community that's fine. But then DON'T WHINE AND BITCH ABOUT THE
>> CODE OTHERS DO PRODUCE FOR THE COMMUNITY!!!
>
>If people code inferior products for the community, should I not point
>it out?
>
If you really feel that open source products are inferior you may
offer some constructive criticism, but definitely not in the arrogant
condescending way that you do, Pete.
I strongly disagree with however that open source products are
inferior, at least in terms of meeting my needs. And my needs are
important to me. Can you respect that??
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:57:15 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:42:59 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Right now you are airing your opinions to the community, at great cost
>> in time to yourself. Does this pay your bills? Does this help you with
>> your
>> mortgage? Can you buy a car off the proceeds of any of those of your
>> opinions which you are not only giving away for free, but paying for
>> the privilege of giving away? Hmmm???
>
>What has this got to do with the price of beer?
>
You completely avoided his question. He is saying instead of spending
your time arguing with people on this newsgroup you could be writing
some code making Linux better. Wouldn't that be more fun and relaxing
for you??
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:57:51 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:52:34 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
>> BUT like I said before,
>you
>> forget the time you needed to spend to understand the inconsistencies
>in
>> windows, just 'cos Linux WM's are different, does not mean that once
>> mastered they are less "powerful" in terms of usability than windows.
>> GUI is a problem across all platforms (yes, even the MAC).
>
>I've had a few people here agree with me when I say Linux WM are not as
>well developed as Windows.
You've also had many people disagree with you. Like I said, UI is subjective.
Perry
------------------------------
From: <[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 13:51:30 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have been on the sidelines reading this thread, I have been reluctant to
get involved considering the crossposting of this thread. However, I now
think for me to enter the fray, and try to bring some moderation o the
situation.
Here is my reinterpretation of Nathaniel's statment that you seem to have a
problem with is:
Microsoft Windows just as any other operating system will perform more
reliably, if it is run on quality hardware; is installed, configured, and
maintained by skilled and responsible andminstrators; and used by a sensible
user base that won't tamper with setting they don't understand or that could
upset normal operations. Lacking these attributes, the reliability
dimminshes.
No sensible person with any experience person would ever argue that it would
be possible to have Windows operate flawlessly stable. Its very design
prohibits that possibility, and I know that Nathaniel didn't say or mean
that
You both seem to appear to have been championing the same point of view. It
is time to acknowlede it and move on.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:59:33 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:02:26 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Well then how is Pete creating balance when he has repeatedly made the
>> statement "Linux lags behind Windows" like a broken record, many times
>> without any qualification, and many times in regards to things that
>> are subjective, such as user interface? If Pete were to say "Linux
>> lags behind Windows in terms of meeting my personal needs", that would
>> be reasonable and I could respond with something like "In terms of my
>> needs Windows lags behind Linux, but our needs are probably
>> different". Then there would be some balance. But Pete is not doing
>> that. He is instead defining reality in terms of his needs, without
>> regard for the needs of others. Under those circumstances, there
>> can't be any balance.
>
>This all started because I got fed up with the rather obvious problem in
>COLA. Everyone seemed to refer to Windows, but nobody referred to
>Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000. Problems with Windows 98 were referred to
>as Windows problems, tarring Windows 2000 with the same brush.
And you use the same ambiguity when you say "Windows" in regards to
hardware support (you mean win98) or "Windows" in regards to stability
(you mean W2K). That's a double standard. Live up to your measure
yourself before you apply it to others.
>Also, I did not think people had a problem comprehending me with I said
>"Linux", instead "KDE desktop on Linux" because I thought the context of
>a sentance/paragraph ought to inform a reader of that. I have started to
>change my statement from "Linux lags behind Windows" to others, but it
>is annoying to still see statements like "Linux is three times faster
>than Windows" - which Windows and under what circumstances?
And now you say it's OK to use this ambiguity with Linux. Because
Linux is much more diversified, such ambiguities are even more
misleading.
>Also, there is a lot of rudeness in peoples replies to many posters. I
>get called quite regularly "idiot" or "troll" or whatever. Does anyone
>think this will make me change my stance?
Well...when a person makes double standards, and is arrogant and
condescending, sometime others don't react to it in the best way. I'm
not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's going to happen when
someone is arrogant and condescending.
>> Look at the threads he has started. I think it will become very clear
>> that he's frustrated trying to use Linux, and then instead of politely
>> asking for help in one of the support newsgroups, he's venting in
>> c.o.l.a. If that's his personality, Linux is not for him.
>
>I figured out most of my problems myself, thank you very much. I'm
>coming to COLA because I thought this was a Linux Advocacy group - I'm
>asking why they are advocates of something that needs improving!
>
Are you implying Windows doesn't need improving?? Is there any
software anywhere that has no room for improving?? So why would one
advocate Windows, or any other software?? I can tell you why. Because
even though some software my have room for improvement, it can still
be usefull in it's present state. Such is the case with both Linux and
Windows: people find it usefull (in it's present state) for themselves
and believe it can be usefull for others.
But you seem to be anti-advocating Linux, not advocating Windows.
Perry
------------------------------
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 16:07:09 -0500
"Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 11 Jul 2000 00:44:04 -0500, Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Mathias Grimmberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > gee, now this guy is sure an impartial observer eh? Yea, I'll listen to
his
> > unbiased reviews....
>
> And this does not make you a hypocrite because...
>
Oh come on darren, I never say shit just like that.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 13 Jul 2000 16:07:19 -0500
show us the URL to this recommendation, liar.
"TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GRua5.2124$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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: "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 16:07:24 -0500
and the basis for your bs is?
"TimL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BQua5.2123$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:00:12 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:07:16 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Becuase it isn't doing shit.
>
>About the level of response I expect.
You said yourself the machine wasn't doing anything. Sorry for
translating that to American language. I forget you Brits are so
sensitive:)
>> Installing an deinstalling programs?? NOT.
>
>Not what? I've installed a ton of stuff on two machines, and neither
>have need a wipe and reinstall for over a year.
>
But you said the machines aren't doing anything...why install all
these apps? It's hard to believe your stories, Pete.
I will concede windows can be stable_in_a_controlled_environment. But
the real world often does not cater to that.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:00:59 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:10:40 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8kird4$chj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote:
>
>> Right. You say this when this case is clearly isolated for you, but
>most
>> of your claims against the Linux desktop boil down to "it's different
>from
>> Windows."
>
>Different? If it was different, I'd be happy.
>
>However...
>
>SB16 doesn't work I have to massage the configuration files to make it
>work.
>
>AHA152x doesn't work, I have to add a string to LILO.
>
>Voodoo 5 doesn't quite work, I have to massage the configuration file.
>
>These are all examples of the way Linux lags behind Windows.
>
>Windows installed all these products without batting an eyelid.
>
However your experiences aren't universal. There are horror stories
with Windows too, and sucsess stories with Linux as well. So one
person's experience is not enough to reasonably conclude one OS lags
behind another, execept in regards to that one person's needs.
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
