Linux-Advocacy Digest #943, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 05:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows98
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows98 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Jeff Szarka)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 03:58:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >However, none of this bears on my point: a protocol doesn't solve
>> >the problem of interoperability unless everyone is somehow
>> >made to use it.
>> >
>> >And this, I maintain, isn't really practical to do.
>>
>> The market disagrees with you, in the absence of monopoly force.
>
>I wouldn't say that. You may be fixated on the Internet, where
>Unix's wide acceptance has been able to push some protocols
>down everyone's throat. But this is something of an exception, one
>that only happened because of *Microsoft*'s willingness to
>abandon some of its own technology by way of a compromise.
>
>That is somewhat unusual.
What you just said was so incomprehensibly wrong that I'm quite unable
to figure out how to respond.
>> And
>> since it is the market which is autonomously tasked with "forcing"
>> vendors to implement interoperability, it would be the one to decide if
>> it is practical or not.
>
>I do not say interoperability is not practical; the market *does* pressure
>vendors into providing for interoperability, and they *do* do so. But
>trying to get *other* vendors to implement your protocols is not
>usually a real effective approach; you are better off implementing
>theirs. That, or thinking of something clever.
Uh. Yea. That's the... idea. ?
So why doesn't MS do any of those things? Why do they instead attempt
to force the market to demand that vendors only support Microsoft's
protocols by making their pseudo-middleware "pretend interoperable"
enough to leverage the Windows pre-load monopoly?
>> Surprisingly 'bad' protocols [from an
>> idealistic perspective] are often amazingly successful, in fact, merely
>> because any standard protocol enhances interoperability.
>
>I think you ar eusing "standard" in a differetn sense here
>than earlier in this discussion; I think you are using it to mean
>"widely deployed";
Its a multifaceted word. Deal with it. Standard means standard. Is it
widely deployed because it is a standard, or is it a standard because
its widely deployed? That would be a question for individual
investigation, and I'm afraid you just couldn't keep up.
>ie, you could say that interoperability has been greatly enhanced
>by deploying Windows Everywhere (tm).
No. So much no, in fact, that its a signal to me that a man lacks
intelligence if he declares he knows the meaning of "interoperability"
and states such a thing.
>One can question whether that is really "interoperability", but
>it seems coherent with what you are saying here.
The lack of either intelligence or honesty becomes more noticeable. Go
on.
>> And vendors
>> want to make money by selling products, so they'll adopt standards of
>> interoperability.
>
>They have made great efforts for interoperability. "Standards" are relevant
>in that they tell you what Unix does; to interoeprate with Unix, you need
>to know its protocols. It so rarely will consent to use yours.
Internet standards have nothing to do with Unix. You can implement any
protocol you want on Unix. Microsoft abhors the idea, and that would be
fine. But MS needs to sabotage public protocol standards, in order to
enable them to profiteer on them. It's called "de-commoditizing public
protocols", and for Microsoft its the typical scam to evade any need to
compete on merits.
>> Unless, of course, their goal is to profiteer by
>> maintaining a monopoly.
>
>You say that like profits are bad.
You say that like profiteering is good.
>> Then they won't.
>
>No, here you are mistaking. Interoperability is *helpful* even
>if you want to maintain a monopoly. [...]
I can't go on. You are, I'm afraid, entirely incorrect in whatever your
understanding is of the meaning of the word "interoperability". And
considering how unimpressed I was by your comments, I hesitate, but will
still mention, that I will be happy to start from scratch for you, if
you'd like to learn.
It wouldn't be the first time some sorry person was thrashing because of
a conceptual glitch. Perhaps we've simply misunderstood each other.
--
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: Windows98
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:59:11 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ljfmv$c52$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Or you could apply compression to the backup copy of the image. A
properly
> > created partition image file of a 27 Gig partition that contains only 8
Gigs
> > of data would normally compress down to less than 8 Gigs. Intremental
> > backups could be processed buy other means--also by Linux. But in the
> > example presented, if the data files are stored on a fileserver, the
> > partition image would be sufficient for the restoration.
>
> Sorry, but you're wrong here. If the partition contains only 8 Gb data
> the rest consists of randombits and not for example "null' characters.
> Normally only the reference to the file is deleted from the FS so the
> actual data is still around and so it wouldn't compress that much.
>
> There are programs around (ghost comes to mind) that have sufficient
> knowledge of the filesystem (afaik ghost only supports FAT and NTFS) to
> make a real effective diskimage (never used it although since my
> partitions are exts of reiserfs). Maybe a simple thing like creating a
> file in the emptydisk space that contains only the same characters would
> make a (dd if=/dev/sda | gzip > image.gz) a good alternative.
Sorry, But I was not wrong, I just did not go into enough detail.
When I mentioned "A properly created partition image file" I was referring
to: Defragment the partition and packing all the data near the beginning of
the partition, since we were considering
a Windows disk partition. Then filling the entire freespace of the
partition with a single byte value. A Window or Dos free disk wiping
program could do that, or under unix, in this case Linux, "cat /dev/zero
>/win95/allzero; rm /win/95/allzero" could do the job. If the partition has
so much free space that Linux can not create a file large enough to consume
all of it, then it would be nessary to create multiple zero fill files until
the disk is full before using rm on them. Then the partition will compress
just fine.
Here is a the screen message generated by "gzip -9v allzero" when
compressing an 80 Meg file containing nothing by zero bytes.
allzero: 99.9% -- replaced with allzero.gz
Before compression the file consumed 81,920,000 bytes while after
compression the file consumed 79,535 with "compress" the compressed files
was only 20579. Since the 8 Gig of data files that was being discussed
would also be compressed somewhat so that is why I stated that the 27 Gig
partition with 8 Gigs consumed would normally compress to less than 8 Gigs.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:06:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Considering that the entire purpose of these protocol's existence is to
>> support interoperability, that is the same as tacitly agreeing with the
>> opposition to your argument. Are you sure you're willing to agree to
>> that proposition?
>
>Last I checked, the protocols he was talking about where
>the ones for *email*; their entire purpose is, well, email.
Based on this response, I suspect you might not be seeing something
about how you use the word "interoperability" and how you use the word
"email". There's definitely either a missing link or a conflict of some
type.
Unless you're just lying. I've been fooled before.
>[snip]
>> It is not Unix's protocol. Unix merely has consistently implemented it
>> for more than a decade,
>
>Sort of the way NetBEUI isn't Window's protocol, but Windows has
>consistant implemented it for almost a decade?
No. "Unix" isn't a single product. Neither is "TCP/IP", in common
usage. Windows hasn't even been terribly consistent in implementing
NetBEUI, NetBIOS, NDIS, and SMB, which make up the entirety of its
"network API" set. None of these are "protocols"; they're not even
standard specifications.
[...]
>What do standards bodies have to do with using
>things "without pre-arrangement"?
>
>Have you folks redefined "pre-arrangement" *too*?
No, but apparently you have. Without pre-arrangement means you already
know what "just email" means.
>> >Windows works well for it what it is for, you know.
>>
>> Yes, we know MS has quite a bit of cash, but that's beside the point.
>
>LOL!
I'm not laughing.
>> As an OS it sucks. As an interoperable server, its not and
>> interoperable server.
>
>Well, Windows 98 is a very interoperable *client*; Windows 2000
>is a somewhat less interoperable server. But it's not that bad,
>really. It does support a number of 'foreign' protocols.
We've again hit the point where you fail to grasp the abstraction of
"interoperable" entirely.
[...]
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:08:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Well, I dunno, telling Leslie to prove his claims might be considered
>"shifting the burden of proof", but I think it's a little bit of a stretch,
>don't you?
No, that's precisely what it was.
>I mean, he was the one who impugned MS for breaking other
>companies' dialers; he's yet to provide a shred of evidence
>or argument to uphold that. I'm betting that he doesn't believe
>it himself; I think it was a throw-away line, meant only to
>ensnare the gullible.
I think he finds it incredible that you would pretend to know anything
about the subject and not be aware, as everyone else in the affected
industries is, that this is precisely what occurred.
>The reason I think this is that he switched from arguing that
>MS *broke* other people's dialers to arguing that MS didn't
>*support* those dialers, which is an entirely different thing.
>
>Unless you redefine "broke" creatively, of course. :D
I've come to the conclusion that you're an astroturfer.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:08:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I disagree. He's not showing any "constant and menacing
>predaction on all interoperability with Microsoft systems".
[...]
Then you are ignorant of the industry, or are lying.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:09:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>That's right- it takes *tools*; but Microsoft will gleefully sell
>you the tools you need.
>
>> It also requires trade secret knowledge
>> about both products.
>
>Well, it make take trade secret knowledge about the IBM/390,
>I don't know, but what you need to know about Windows is
>available on the Web. MSDN rocks.
You're pathetic.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:14:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Max, again, demonstrates that he hasn't the first clue about the
>reality of software, either development or anything else. (Hint: the
>list of ingredients aren't copyrightable because they are *simply* a
>list of common ingredients with measurements. There's nothing
>'functional' about them -- you can't use the list of ingredients
>without the instructions, at least to make what the recipe calls for.
>The instructions are both the literary and functional part of a recipe.
>Recipes provide instructions to humans; software to computers.)
I'm sorry, Austin. But apparently you might now much about software,
but you don't know how to cook. Anybody that knows how to make bread
can use a typical list of ingredients. But if all you have is the "now
add the eggs", and no list of ingredients, all you can do is *learn how*
to make bread. You can't make bread.
The fact that the description is the "procedural steps", and the
ingredients are metric amounts is contrary to my characterization of
them as intellectual and functional. Possibly. But if so, it is still
an adequate analogy.
[...]
>It is irrelevant; the vast majority of programs are not mere
>command-line or GUI wrappers around libraries provided by third
>parties. For those few that are, copyright law *does* have an answer
>already.
Then why on EARTH has everybody spent weeks (or months or years, for all
I know) arguing such cases?
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:17:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Software, however, is entirely and exclusively
>>functional. So why is it copyrightable?
>
>Perhaps because Congress said it is?
>
>If you're looking for consistent treatment of different types of works,
>then don't look at the Copyright Act. It is a series of compromises
>and special rules, for things like juke boxes and cable television and
>computer programs.
I find this entirely incorrect and misleading. It may be a series of
approximations, but in being applied to non-functional works, it was
provided, or at least failed to inhibit, which is good enough, the
greatest boom in science and useful arts in the history of mankind.
There is nothing arbitrary, or flagrantly political, about copyright
laws.
Except for this software thing. And not even really because of that.
The only reason the GPL brings up the issue of software and copyright
law is to try to negate the profound harm that trade secret licensing
has done to the science and useful art of software.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:18:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said jmw in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Gees... the whole idea of Windows and the mouse is CONVENIENCE!
Hyea. Maybe when you first get started.
>Using DOS is the answer for those who prefer the keyboard.
Or want to stay as unskilled and slow as when you first started.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:29:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Spud in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >In general, if Windows dies - which can happen;
>>
>> Can it ever. Windows dies all the time; almost routinely.
>
>Twaddle; my Win2K box has gone down twice in the last year, and in
>neither case was the OS at fault.
You mistake what is common for what is likely.
>> >I had a
>> >server keel over and die last night, actually... thanks to a faulty
>> >drive.
>>
>> Thanks to faulty design and a possible bug in a driver.
>
>Nope; thanks to a hardware failure. Here, tell you what - I'll set up
>Linux on an HD, make sure it all works... then pull the cover off the
>HD and fry it. If you're going to tell me Linux will keep working
>reliably, well, sorry, you're just lying through your teeth. Linux
>won't - nor will Windows.
Sorry; I thought you said "driver". :-}
[...]
>Downtime minimization is _not_ simply a matter of installing software;
>it involves a lor more. MSI manages the installation portion of
>that... along with some other handt bells and whistles - but it is
>_not_ the totality of the picture of network management and downtime
>minimization.
You're diverting. We were discussing installs, not downtime.
[...]
>> Drop an identical computer from the same OEM batch with identical
>> hardware and firmware on the desktop, or your "drive image" is going
>> to make you want to drop another bomb on a client PC. "Oops."
>
>Twaddle. We do it with different boxes regularly. Oh, yes, that's
>right, I forgot... you have to have a netadmin with a half a clue...
>something you apparently seem to be in short supply of. Well, when
>you get one, you'll witness the wonderful world of reduced downtime.
Hey, just because you're stupid doesn't mean you ain't lucky. I don't
have problems with downtime; I only have problems with Windows. And I'm
never in short supply of expert-level netadmins. For Unix. There's no
such thing, on Windows.
[...]
>Only if your netadmin is an idiot; otherwise it shouldn't take more
>than a minute or two, tops.
I recall I mentioned something about 'shifting the blame'. I thought
that enraging poor Nathanial would have been enough for some people to
have noticed that "bad admin/stupid user/network" stability was not an
adequate explanation for Window's horrendous design failures.
[...]
>> Could have done that thirty years ago with Unix. Still can.
>
>Whoopee; you can do it with Unix, you can do it with Windows, you can
>probably do it with other platforms. Some silly fart, though, was
>suggesting that somehow Windows falls down in these areas.
I never said that Windows could do it. As far as I know, it still
can't. I base that mostly on my experience that when they said that
every previous version of Windows could do it, it turned out not to be
able to, either. After half a dozen times, at least, I'm not going to
hold my breath waiting for *anything* on W2K to work.
[...]
>What, like Mnadrake's inability to configure something as basic as a
>sound card without locking solid? Oh, yeah. I forgot, Linux has _no_
>bugs or issues at all. The whole argument here is pathetic; "Windows
>is bad... because it offers solutions to problems which other
>platforms offers, and has some bugs, like other platforms."
Windows is bad because its crappy software implemented to profiteer on a
monopoly; that's the only argument I've ever stated on the matter.
>If you want to play this game, at least _pretend_ that your arguments
>don't attack Linux just as readily as Windows... or you end up looking
>silly.
My arguments that Windows is crappy software are not dependant on the
relative level of bugs in Linux. As it stands, Linux has a critically
admirable record in that regard, but that is beside the point. Even a
much buggier Unix would make Windows easily identifiable as crappy
software.
--
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: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:31:01 -0400
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:35:47 -0700, dakota
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
>>those ports and several are in stealth mode.
>
>Winshit 98 has a badly broken TCP/IP stack (not to mention the
>plethora of shutdown and APM problems) as does Windows 95/NT/Win
>2000.
How is the NT TCP/IP stack "badly broken"?
Exact details would be useful.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:39:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said DeAnn Iwan in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On 9 Jul 2000 09:07:02 GMT, Steve Mading
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
>>: endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
>>: Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but I
>>: find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
>>: push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
>>: Shame on you MS!!!
>>
>>What the hell is "13 times less reliable" supposed to mean? How do
>>you attach numbers to a concept like "reliability"?
>
>
> I guess it means that instead of crashing several times a
>day, it only crashes a few times a week. Or, perhaps it means instead
>of crashing frequently when using Word, Netscape or Canvas, it only
>crashes frequently when using Netscape or Canvas.
It means, given any particular circumstance, you are 13 times less
likely to have anything go wrong. It isn't necessarily going to crash
less often once something *does* go wrong. But something always goes
wrong, doesn't it? Like *you* want to be number 1,483? "Oopsie!"
@(*^#$K*^
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:40:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Arthur Frain in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Given my (brief, unhappy) experience with Win98, I
>would not be eager to purchase something which was
>only 13 times as reliable - several orders of magnitude
>more would seem to be necessary before claiming
>this as a benefit.
Amen.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:47:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Arthur Frain in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Sorry - I didn't see your reply until today.
>You're absolutely right - I've only done this
>with semiconductors and systems, not with
>software, but the principles are about the
>same.
[...]
Well, I certainly can't go along with that. Software isn't hardware.
It doesn't "wear out". Bit rot isn't subject to MTBF metrics.
It seems to me that you aren't dealing with a million random monkeys,
you're just dealing with *every possible* monkey, if you're going to
test 'reliability' of software. Which means the possible glitches in
the path of the little white balls through the black box are going to
give you a mean estimate of how many bugs are in there.
It seems quite possible, don't you think, that Win98 being "13 times
less reliable than W2K" might be a bit of statistical trickery. There
are 13 times fewer bugs. But isn't W2K well over 15 times the size of
98? Wouldn't that mean there's more bugs per unit? And that would mean
that W2K is actually *buggier*, and announcing that it is 13 times "more
reliable" than 98 could be a true statement, but a false representation.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
