Linux-Advocacy Digest #680, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:49:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer in
comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Then other than buggy applications, there's no benefit to PMT, right?
>>Except its easier for the engineers, and doesn't work the way I want
>>when I *don't* have any idle time. What happens in PMT if I *don't*
>>have idle time?
>
>OSes without PMT are therefor useless for developers? Also
>useless for multiuser. Runaway processes happen far too frequently;
>I wouldn't want to reboot for them. CMT is also more expensive for
>the CPU; it is constantly polling the OS whether it has something else
>to do.
I am neither a developer nor multiple users, and so don't understand why
that would come up in the discussion of a computer that is built for me,
the desktop customer. I'm sure it will be greeted with more anger and
derision, but I don't believe that whether a behavior such as you
describe can be treated as a mathematical issue, with a simple
calculation using abstract assumptions providing a useful judgment of
whether spending this overhead giving the OS a chance to do something
else (for the user), is effective. It is a math problem to engineers.
But the answer to the math problem matches the abstract assumptions, not
the real world in any one individual case. I don't want a computer that
does things the "right" way. I want a computer that does things a way
that I find useful. If that means "wasting" a lot of time polling the
OS and thus requires overhead which is "more expensive for the CPU",
then so be it.
>Solaris assigns a higher priority to applications that have the input
>focus; this is what you could call the "foreground" application.
>A PMT system can be made to change priorities automatically, giving you
>the benefits of CMT without any of the disadvantages.
Except one: it is automatic. Granted, CMT would be even worse, it being
limited in this way (but also more flexible, because the scheduling
algorithms are *cooperative*). But something more responsive to the
user and both their general *and specific* requirements, which can
change on a dime and in a way that can't be automatically detected,
instead of simply covering all the mathematical basis, could very well
be more efficient. And efficient in a free market means it is worth
money....
Let me try one more analogy. Many engineers in telecommunications might
have argue prior to Bob Metcalf's Ethernet, that building such a system
is stupid for almost precisely the same reasons that CMT is being run
out on a rail here. Like CMT, it requires that each component
autonomously cooperate with its counterparts *without having any
knowledge of whether they're even there*, or knowing anything about
their requirements. Yet Ethernet is, for all intents and purposes, the
most successful local transmission system ever developed.
I'm no Bob Metcalf. But maybe some of you are just a bit too sure that
what you learned in school was supposed to be memorized and assumed to
be correct. In case you weren't aware, college is not for memorizing
what's "stupid" and what's not, but for learning how to synthesize value
judgements into the details of your chosen field. A good test of
whether or not you can do that is to see if you can explain yourself
without frustration to someone who is not in your field. If you can't,
there's at least some chance that a normal person wouldn't notice if you
are using assumptions, and since I figure everyone is a normal person,
according to some definition or other, most would not want to continue
believing in ignorance what they would more usefully benefit from
actually understanding, and even possibly being able to occasionally
contradict.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares
about.)
Date: 14 Jul 2000 16:51:38 -0400
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:42:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was going to post a humorous reply to this, but then I realized it
>would be attacked by a bunch of losers defending a dying operating
>system from a has-been company run by a geek and changed my mind.
Niether Bill Gates nor Steve Ballmer is a geek. They are marketroids
masquerading as geeks, real geeks are slowly starting to realize
this, and some of them don't like what they realize.
--
Microsoft Windows. Never had it, never will.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:49:21 -0500
John Hughes wrote:
>
> "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:396f2dc3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:W3qb5.3702$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Which is better:
> > > > a) server that run MULTIPLE functions and can stay up for a year or
> more
> > >
> > > wow, like our NT4 servers!
> >
> > A game of Solitaire while running as a WINS (yeech... NetBIOS) server
> > doesn't count.
> >
>
> Our NT4 main NT4 server serves up a web site and a 20GB database for a
> client server application. We do 1000's of transactions per hour and its
> NEVER went down.
You do realize that Muphy's law states that now that you have said this
it will probably go down tonight?
Just kidding, although I am interested at how this happened. I haven't
ever seen the same myself.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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: 14 Jul 2000 15:53:06 -0500
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > > 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!
>
> In your dreams. If those boxes were doing only one thing, then they
> were either not setup right, so old it's pitiful, or seriously
> underused.
Oh, I see. So it's just simply impossible that any Sun box could possibly
crash or be anything but perfect but every NT box is crap? My what bias we
have here... Look, it's a FACT that my company replaces sun boxes with NT
boxes because our clients are unhappy with their performance/$ and/or the
software costs and availablity. The TCO is a joke ... I won't bother going
on. There are plenty of great Sun setups, of course. But to imply that there
is no such thing as a bad sun server or good NT server is... just plain
dishonest.
>Our Sun workstations do plenty of stuff all the time. We
> even use LSF so that every workstation is used to it's fullest
> potential: All spare cycles are used as part of our compute farm.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:53:11 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> You seem to have made my point, and lived up to your namesake, both
> admirably.
>
I have been quietly following this thread with mild amusement. You really
seem to have no understanding of CMT or PMT. As far as I can tell your only
objection to PMT is that it is less responsive than CMT for the user
interface. But, as has been explained to you many times, that is simply not
true. PMT, by its very nature, can respond faster than CMT. This is
because, when the user clicks on the mouse, a PMT system can grab control
away from the currently running process and give it to the user interface
process. With CMT, the user interface process has to patiently wait for
whatever process currently has control to voluntarily give it up. The only
way CMT could be faster is if you kill all other processes, but then that
wouldn't be CMT anymore - it would just be T. Where did you get the idea
that CMT is more responsive than PMT and what experience do you have with PMT
systems?
Gary,
------------------------------
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: 14 Jul 2000 15:55:27 -0500
You are just a little too hyper to play with...
remember, it's just an OS, it's just an OS...
(oh, and just because you were once upon a time (gee, but not anymore,
wonder why they don't want you anymore?) one of how many thousands of random
gm employees doesn't mean you speak for GM nor does your word carry GMs
weight behind it.)
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip before flames shoot out his ears>
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:52:33 -0500
Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:58:08 GMT, ne... wrote:
> > >Prepare to be flamed... sorry I can't help you tho.
> >
> > As an advocacy veteran, I have asbestos skin (-; Anyway, it looks like
> > a few people helped out. THe userland NFS server's still working like
> charm
> > after a few hours an several logins/logouts from me ... fingers crossed
> (-;
>
> The kernel nfs works well, provided you use a relatively recent Linux
> distribution: in particular, a recent kernel + nfs-utils-1.6.0 (or newer).
> More information regarding the nfs-utils package can be found at
> sourceforge:
> http://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=14
>
> I'd personally recommend against using the userland nfs daemon. It's not
> been supported a long time, and it is fairly non-compliant to NFS specs. I
> will concede that it works pretty well in a Linux-only environment.
>
> --
> Rex Dieter
> Computer System Administrator
> Mathematics and Statistics
> University of Nebraska Lincoln
Um, I thought the Linux NFS kernel based server was newer than the
userland version. Am I mistaken on this?
If I remember correctly I've had userland NFS servers ever since I've
been running Linux, but I've only had the option of kernel based NFS
servers in the last year or year and a half.
Just curious.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:55:14 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:34:41 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
>>> Then other than buggy applications, there's no benefit to PMT, right?
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>Couldn't you just say "you're mistaken"? Or maybe skip it entirely and
>merely address the point, as you do below?
Why? It's flat wrong, obviously wrong, and stupidly and foolishly
wrong. We don't pull many punches here, and you've bungled a LOT of
things in this CMT/PMT discussion. That's not good. Add to the fact
that the entire computing industry disagrees with you (for general use
systems) and *explicitly* disagrees with you for desktops, and I would
think even you would realize you have an incredibly weak case. So, do
more to support it - look up a few things, give some concrete
examples, or do *something* to lend some strength and weight to your
case.
>>> Except its easier for the engineers, and doesn't work the way I want
>>> when I *don't* have any idle time. What happens in PMT if I *don't*
>>> have idle time?
>>
>>That's where a PMT system really excels.
>>
>>CPU time is still dealt out according to task priority, and, as has been
>>pointed out, user interface processes tend to accumulate priority
>>because they don't do anything most of the time. And what you have to
>>realize here is that we're working on such small time scales that even
>>if you're typing away like mad, from the computer's point of view the
>>time between keystrokes is so long that you're not doing anything most
>>of the time. Why shouldn't it be using that time to get other things
>>done?
>
>It should, but the assumption that any set of algorithms is the same
>thing as "smart" is what makes a lot of crap available in computers
>today. I recognize that process scheduling is a VERY low level issue,
>which certainly doesn't seem appropriate to this kind of
>double-checking, but obviously I'm not the only one who thinks so, as
>the link that Ed sent me in email will show:
>
>http://www.uk.research.att.com/~dmi/linux-srt/wm.html
Uh...it's a way to change process priorities on the fly, just like NT
has, just like AmigaDOS has, just like Unix has, just like ... well,
most OSs have. Your point?
>There's at least one engineer at AT&T who isn't blinded by assumptions,
>and realizes that the value of a desktop computer, regardless of *all*
>other considerations, is entirely based on the user's ability to make it
>work the way he wants it to work.
Which doesn't contradict PMT at all. In fact, I argue PMT is far more
like what the user wants than CMT.
>Even PMT systems give a nod to what I've been talking about by providing
>re-prioritization via nice or the NT task manager. The idea that this
>issue is dealt with by, again, an automatical algorithm which uses a
>rule that user interface processes should "tend to" accumulate priority
>because they don't do anything most of the time is not enough to
>dissuade me of the notion that there is an issue here. Apparently these
>scheduling algorithms are deep magic, as this is the closest I've ever
>seen to a cogent explanation of their behavior for non-engineers.
Why do you say "even" PMT systems ... ? This is the norm for PMT
systems. It's -not- the norm for CMT systems.
>Your "forever between keystrokes" idea is also disconcerting. Because
>it hints that the inverse is also true; while I'm sitting their for the
>CPU to get something *which requires CPU processing* done, the reason it
>is only at 30% utilization is because it is wasting more than two thirds
>of the time not getting it done.
In English, please?
If your frontmost task is waiting for human input in a CMT system, the
rest of the tasks get very little CPU time, and end up starving.
That's the major flaw in CMT.
If your frontmost task is waiting for human input in a PMT system, the
rest of the tasks get the vast, vast majority of the CPU time, and the
system continues to run cleanly. That's the major benefit in PMT. A
background render will continue in the bg and will get almost 100% of
the CPU time and the user will never know the difference.
If the frontmost task requires CPU time in a CMT system, it will get
it - to the exclusion of (nearly, depending on implementation)
everything else. If that's what you want, wonderful. If it isn't,
you don't have the leeway (in MacOS, at least) to do a whole lot to
change that. A render put in the bg under MacOS generally dies or
gets very poor performance, and the system can become (depending on
software) jumpy or 'uneven' as a result.
If the frontmost task requires CPU time in a PMT system, it will get
it - and everything else that's sleeping will get no CPU time, and the
system's idle time indicator (Hi, Chad!) will not increase anymore as
the system devotes all CPU time to the active app, and anything else
that also required CPU time would "share" the CPU time cleanly;
depending on process and priority levels, you might automatically get
a 50/50 split, which could be changed at will (I can effectively get a
CMT system in W2k/NT by making a fg task 'real-time', which is a
misnomer but gets the point across). The user will freely be able
to switch between applications with little or no impact to the
processes that require CPU time, while also being able to interact
freely and without penalty with apps that don't need much CPU time
(like, say, a newsreader). That's a MAJOR advantage of PMT.
You seem to completely ignore all of these issues, or else you are
blissfully unaware of all of them. Why?
>Please let me know if this is not a
>valid assumption. I am aware that CPU is not the only bottleneck. I am
>also aware, most specifically, that engineers who work with the
>technical details of a system can be surprisingly blind to the way that
>system actually behaves in the real world. The situation seems similar,
>for instance, to a discussion between a frame relay and a router guy,
>with both sides being able to explicitly "prove" that its the other guy
>who is the bottleneck, and not them. And neither of them are even
>aware, often, until I explain it, that when a "network" is at 50%
>utilization, YOU CANNOT TELL if it is because you only needed 50% of the
>bandwidth, or if it is because you could only get 50% of the bandwidth.
>Because both are dealing only with their system, and not with its
>interaction, end-to-end, with the human beings who ultimately decide if
>something is efficient or if it works.
If we're talking about human interaction, PMT should win every time.
Being able to freely switch between tasks without delays or 'jumps' as
the CMT system decides which tasks get what percent of the CPU's time
is a wonderful, wonderful benefit of PMT.
>>Additionally, GUI PMT systems typically give priority bonuses to the
>>foreground app. This means everything tends to stay nice and responsive.
>>
>>In a CMT system with no idle time, you end up with apps fighting over
>>the CPU. A heavily loaded CMT system can literally take _minutes_ to
>>respond to a user interface event as simple as registering a mouse click.
>
>As can, at least a bad, PMT system. I've had Unix boxes behave that
>way, too, but I've no idea what in particular caused the issue. Only
>that rebooting fixed it. ;-)
You shouldn't need to reboot a Unix box, especially not to fix
niceness issues.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:56:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" 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. I don't *need* it right
>> now.
>
>Just because a job doesn't need your direct attention doesn't mean that
>the computer your take its sweet time with it. After all, you may have a
>client waiting.
What part of "desktop platform" didn't you understand?
(Sorry, I'm just teasing. Yes, it is an assumption that the desktop OS
won't be responsible for serving remote clients.)
>> down the *foreground* netscape from rendering.
>
>How many people really need this?
I would LOVE to have more control over my computer, it whatever useful
ways that can be provided. One of the coolest utilities I've seen for
handling Internet stuff is a download app called GoZilla. This handy
little database inserts itself in the way whenever I click a link in a
browser that would start a download. It keeps track of my downloads and
makes managing them in all sorts of ways much easier. But that's not
why I got it. The thing I love is that each download window for each
separate file has a little slider in it, which enables me to
individually and directly control (as well as set defaults and policies
with download categories) how much of my available throughput that one
particular download is allowed to take. Sometimes I just move them
around to play, but often I am optimizing and balancing my resources.
No algorithm could possibly produce or mimic the benefits of this
mechanism. Most of the time I don't use it, so its automatically
handled. But when I find it useful, it is because it is useful, not
because the alternative is wasteful of resources; it just can't know
what "waste" means, because it can't make value judgements. It can make
trade-offs, sure but only based on math, not knowledge or reasoning.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
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: 14 Jul 2000 15:57:04 -0500
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> >
> > like the sun boxes we replace often!
> ^^^
> What, do you have a mouse in your pocket??
>
> You said you work for yourself and now claim `we` ?????
I work for my own company. Correct. My company has almost 100 employees. I
typically refer to it and the things I/it does as "we"
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:59:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:05:40 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>us who are ignorant of the technical details to
>>wonder what difference it makes what kind of multitasking the OS uses,
>
>Stay ... right ... there.
>
>OK -- now that you're ignorant, and wondering, why don't you ask all of
>the non-ignorant people around here why things are done the way they
>ware, AND LISTEN TO THE BLOODY ANSWER.
Because I'm not the least bit interested in why things are done the way
they are. All I'm concerned with is why things aren't done the way they
aren't. No wonder you are confused and can't figure out how to answer.
LISTEN TO THE BLOODY QUESTION.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:19:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>so, they need 6000 linux boxes to achive zero downtime and perform text
> >>searches? oh yea, you are REALLY impressing me now...
> >
> > Nope --- but they do a hell of a lot of cross-indexing.
> >
> > http://www.internetwk.com/lead/lead060100.htm
> >
> > Google's search algorithm requires massive computing power. Google
> > weights each Web page for importance by analyzing the pattern of which
> > pages link to others over all 300 million pages the search engine
> > indexes. Google's process entails 500 million variables and 2 million
> > terms to index every month, resulting in about 1 terabyte of data to
> > index.
> >
> > The whole article is worth reading.
> >
>
> Dresden will swear up and down that windows can do it too (and will of course
> be lying, as usual).
Please don't insult Dresden. It is a nice german city and would never
say anything positive about Windows or lie about something.
MGri :-)
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:41:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >2.) It actually surveyed the "brochure sites" (their term) of those
> >companies. Hmm, wouldn't their e-commerce sites be somewhat more
> >important? If those companies actually have one.
>
> "Brochure sites"? LOL.
Actually I should have read the complete original article
<http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?ID=6150095626AM>. My bad. As
was pointed out somewhere else (Heise newsticker) the reason the
headline said "Fortune 500" was -
wait for it -
Because up to the top 100 actually Netscape's server was used most
often.
Umm. Yeah. Right. IIS is the leader. If you choose your criteria
very carefully. How embarrassing.
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:02:04 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:35:20 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>The user can't control CPU scheduling manually. That isn't an option.
>>The choice is either to let the apps do (CMT) it or let the OS do it
>>(PMT), and the OS is much more qualified.
>
>Not the scheduling, no, but the weighting, preference, or priority of
>scheduling. My theory is that with CMT, the market handles whether the
>end result is valid and useful, and with PMT, it was the engineer who
>insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that tenet.
What is your fixation with "the engineer" (who is this guy?) anyway?
The market has decided, and we've basically shown CMT the door.
>>There's no way to write an app that is "friendly" under all conditions
>>in a CMT system.
>
>Yes, I'm sure there is, you just haven't figured it out, yet. ;-)
No, there isn't. How can an app know whether to take 50% or 10% or 5%
of the CPU's time?
How can you not see this?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:05:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>> >
>> > "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...
>>
>> It's only an insult because it's TRUE!
>
>
> oh really? prove it. How do I know you are a "unix systems engineer" - cause
> your overlong sig says so? I mean, it's obvious abracadabra is a lying sak
> without computer skills beyond peck and pray - but you are even more
> undocumented...
>
I bet he knows what 'su' means.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
