Linux-Advocacy Digest #953, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why use Linux? (T. Max Devlin)
Anyone try SuSE on Power PC yet? (David-James Fernandes)
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: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 25 Jul 2000 12:55:12 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > [...]
> > > > >1. It's EDS, not GM
> > > > >2. That is the size of the Break / Fix team.
> > > > > (First level and 2nd level help desk)
> > > > >Application roll-out is about 5 people.
> > > > >
> > > > >Now, there are *mentors* on some sites, to assist users who are
> > > > >unfamiliar
> > > > >with all of the inticacies of UG, for example, but that has nothing
to
> > > > >do with O/S nor Application failure, so they can be disregarded.
> > > > >
> > > > >Similarly, there are a couple of on-site techs at each facility,
but
> > > > >they do little more than swap keyboards, mice, spaceballs,
monitors,
> > > > >and arrange for hardware support engineers from Sun, HP, etc. when
> > > > >there are serious failures.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Care to put some money on this?
> > > > >
> > > > >Considering that I worked at EDS quite recently, and was in the
heart
> > of
> > > > >all these things, I *AM* an authority in this regard.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Aaron;
> > > >
> > > > I'm working with an EDS help desk now, similar to what you have
> > > > experience with. I'm wondering if you ever worked with HP OpenView,
or
> > > > SunNet Manager, or any similar tools you might have used. It was
always
> > > > mostly phone calls and telnet, no?
> > >
> > >
> > > Haven't worked with either. I saw HP Openview a few years ago (1995)
> > > when it was in 30-day demo mode on some new machines. It's ok, but
> > > all the info is available from pre-existing commands like netstat.
> >
> > HAHAHHAHA - you didn't spend hardly any time with it at all then did
you!
> > "netstat" - hahahaah - dude, you owe HP a huge appology. NOT to mention,
do
>
> Obviously, Drestin the Dork is unaware of how much information tools
> such
> as netstat, sar, etc. give an administrator.
>
> Oh yeah, that's right. Drestin can't comprehend anything that isn't
> drawn for him.
>
> > you consider software that is used on the scale Openview is intended for
to
> > be unchanged since 95? In this field? is this how EDS handles things?
>
> Why pay or EXPENSIVE tools like OpenView when the system diagnostic
> tools provide ALL of the information you need, and in a format out of
> which it is MUCH easier to extract data for report generation.
>
> OpenView is for those of limited expertise, such as yourself.
>
hahahaah spoken as the truely ignorant...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:55:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT, Paul E. Larson wrote:
>>
>> >To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
>> >meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
>> >of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
>> >that fact tell you?
>>
>> One of the following:
>> (a) The admins enjoy rebooting for the hell of it
>
>Could be management policies that are hold-overs from the 70's.
More like "newly acquired in the late 90s." It is the application
software developers who generally call for routine resets. It was
definitely ported to *nix from Windows. Once 80% of the "IT
professionals" get used to something, it doesn't matter if it is stupid
or not. People will consider it the "regular" behavior.
>> (b) The machine requires regular reboots
>
>If case (b) applies, it's due to ill-behaved software (memory leaks).
I haven't yet decided if I'm of the opinion that Microsoft's crap is
ultimately responsible (by force of anti-competitive "competition") for
the *outrageous* decrease in quality/reliability (and attendant feature
bloat) that I've seen in network management software over the past seven
years that I've been counting. I mean, when you have vendors that
literally *destroy* their product because of NT FUD, it is pretty hard
to think "maybe it would have happened even without a predatory
monopoly".
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Anyone try SuSE on Power PC yet?
From: David-James Fernandes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:58:25 -0400
Got a demo of SuSE linux 6.4 for Power PC in Mac Tech magazine - haven't
tried it yet. Any comments from people who have?
------------------------------
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: 25 Jul 2000 12:57:11 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lic4l$1n0v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > If you knew anthing about RDBMs you would know the os makes no
> >> > > difference on
> >> > > the outcome, THe RDBM doesn`t really use the os.
> >> >
> >> > HAHAHA - excuse me? I think that you are completely misinformed. You
are
> >> > wrong. Totally. That's like saying: RDBM doesn't use files or memory.
> >>
> >> Actually, most high end DBMS systems circumvent the file system by
> >> accessing the lowlevel block device directly. Also, they usually
> >> allocate a huge amount of RAM and manage the memory internally.
> >
> > Does Oracle bypass the file system entirely? Does SQL Server?
> >
> > yes, they do manage their own memory but bypassing the OS and it's file
> > system (and security)?? I do not believe that is true for DB2, Oracle
>
> Wrong, wrong,
>
> > or SQL
> > Server -
>
> Correct.
>
> Though DB2 really is the only system you mentioned which is actually
> worth mentioning.
>
> I find it odd that you would be interested in DB2 and anything else, let
> alone DB2 and "SQL"...
>
> Oh thats right, you dont know anything about the way computers actually
work.
>
keep trying - keep trying. unlike you I actually put facts and information
in my posts - unlike you I actually use things I talk about. DB2 is OK,
Oracle is crap and quite dated - but it has it's hangers on - 99% of them in
the *nix world - no suprise.
------------------------------
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: 25 Jul 2000 12:59:16 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > If you knew anthing about RDBMs you would know the os makes no
> > > > > difference on
> > > > > the outcome, THe RDBM doesn`t really use the os.
> > > >
> > > > HAHAHA - excuse me? I think that you are completely misinformed. You
are
> > > > wrong. Totally. That's like saying: RDBM doesn't use files or
memory.
> > >
> > > Actually, most high end DBMS systems circumvent the file system by
> > > accessing the lowlevel block device directly. Also, they usually
> > > allocate a huge amount of RAM and manage the memory internally.
> >
> > Does Oracle bypass the file system entirely?
>
> Yes, if the DBA so desires.
>
> > Does SQL Server?
>
> Don't have a clue. I don't administrate trivial installations like
> that.
hahahaah - you can't even pretend believably. trivial eh? TPC-C - choke on
it boyo - I guess you are used to the unix way: Spend more, work harder,
produce less results and then scream till blue in the face to get notice and
cry when "notice" reveals the inefficient, more costly, less productive
results...
SQL server does it 3 times as fast for half the price as Oracle. And that's
Oracle on it's best day...
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:02:40 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >> >You have a very narrow view of "desktop", one that is quite antiquated.
> >>
> >> It was invented by the market, not me.
> >
> >Markets can be created, or modified. Hence the existence of marketing
> >and advertising people.
>
> Don't get me started, please. Markets can only be created or modified
> by *the markets*.
Now, just how did you manage to separate marketing and advertising
people from "the market"?
> They cannot be manipulated by producers any more than
> they can by consumers, ethically.
'Ethically'? Is that your limit?
Markets can indeed be manipulated by producers. The most obvious form
of manipulation is to introduce a new product.
> Modern 'marketing' practices and
> advertising is, in fact, successful at manipulating the market.
Why contradict yourself?
> What
> does that say about the such practices?
That they are highly effective.
Lacking the numbers, I cannot determine efficiency . . .
> Marketing is supposed to be about finding out what the market wants,
Nope. Marketing is not just a glorified form of polling.
Marketing includes teaching. Sometimes, you manipulate a market by
*teaching* the consumer about what they need, and why.
> >What was silly about the statement?
>
> I don't know, it was snipped. What was the statement?
I pull a Max'ism on you here: just cause you didn't understand it,
doesn't mean that the statement was silly.
> >No, PMT's benefit is that it optimizes the return on your CPU cycle
> >investment.
>
> PMTs benefit is that it provides the optimum *average* return on your
> CPU cycle investment.
No. PMT's benefit is that it optimizes the return on your CPU cycle
investment.
Period.
"Average" doesn't enter into it.
Before learning "subtlties", you must first learn "the obvious".
CMT produces both a lower instantaneous, *AND* a lower average return on
your CPU cycle investment.
Period.
> >Such statments are code phrases tossed around by trained individuals.
> >They are not meant to be taken literally, nor should they be directed at
> >the ignorant or incapable.
>
> Well, they are.
Blame the speaker.
> Millions of computer consumers probably heard some
> person say that in the great PC/Mac holy wars.
I seriously doubt that. The market for information that contains terms
such as CMT or PMT is so limited that reaching even 10's of thousands
would be a miracle.
> And it isn't a
> code-phrase, by my understanding, but the fact of the matter, in some
> perspective.
"Fact of the matter", only if you accept a simplified and ambigous
statement as "fact".
Note that for sufficiently limited values of the word: "world", and
"flat", the statement: "The world is flat." is a statement of fact.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft, Linux and innovation
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:02:28 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:37:21 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 25 Jul 2000 08:19:27 -0500, Jenny-poo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:36:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:46:44 GMT, Mike Byrns
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>You go ahead and plug every PnP card and peripheral into your BSD box
>that
>> >>>Windows 2000 supports and have it work as well. Then you can talk
>about PnP
>> >>>support.
>> >>
>> >> Keep your red herrings to yourself.
>> >>
>> >> The issue is PnP, not whether or not there is vendor
>> >> support for a particular bit of hardware under a
>> >> particular OS.
>> >>
>> >> Linux did ISA pnp (for non-isapnp hardware) before Win95
>> >> was around to do so. Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD have all done
>> >> PCI & SCSI pnp for years and now handle USB.
>> >
>> >Are you saying that you can plug ANY ISO PnP device into Linux and it
>> >will work?
>> >
>>
>> The PnP aspect of it will.
>>
>> That's rather the point of genuine PnP.
>
>Um, actually, PnP is threefold:
>
>(1) Interrupt arbitration (to get around the IRQ mess)
>(2) Device identification
>(3) Automatic driver location & installation
Nope.
PNP is just the first two.
>
>Sure, the device might pop up correctly, but it won't actually work without
>the drivers. Which means it's rather pointless.
Not at all.
The device is fully configured and identified allowing the user
or the OS to be aware of what needs to be done.
Having the OS execute the equivalent of "modprobe bttv" is a
remarkably trivial part of the whole process.
>
>Never mind the fact that recently, a PCI NE2000 clone card I had would NOT
>work under Mandrake 7. It required several hours of futzing with the
>configuration stuff to get it to work.
Even with PCI, some cards still can manage to make themselves
a nuisance. There are also limitations of the XT architecture
itself that can be encountered such that the pnp qualities of
PCI are rendered moot. So, the significance of this anecdote
is disputable.
Besides, even manual configuration via jumpers and trial and
error IRQ/baseaddress assignment shouldn't even take that long.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:23:41 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > Oh god. This is so stupid. The main reason why most areas have
> > > Electricity monopolies is BECAUSE OF the government, as they
> > > GRANTED MONOPOLIES to the various power companies.
> > > Every place where such officially sanctioned monopolies have been
> > > overturned, the price of electricity drops IMMEDIATELY when a
> > > competing company comes into the local market.
> > Just happen to have my electric bill handy. I pay:
> >
> > $0.021 per KWh for the first 2000 KWh
> > $0.027 per KWh for the next 2000 KWh
> > $0.0285 per KWh after that.
> >
> > This is not only from a monopoly utility company,
> > it's a government (county) owned monopoly utility
> > (but I do get to vote for the officers of the
> > company). There is no government subsidy for this
> > utility; in fact it returns money to the community
> > in the form of parks, waterway improvements,
> > irrigation (fee-based), flood control, and other
> > things. Oh yeah, they have a really nice local
> > history museum in the dam with free admission too.
> Hydroelectric power is inherently "cheap" no matter what
> the corporate structure.
So what? Your assertion was monopoly == expensive,
competitive == cheap, and my example counters your
simple-minded assertion. If in fact hydro is cheap
(which is another simple-minded assumption you would
have great difficulty proving in the present case),
it just further undermines your assertion, since cheap
electricity can be created by hydro independent of
whether a monopoly exists or not.
But I'll give you an equally simple-minded assumption
that's valid for both cases: utilities which respond
to customers have lower rates. Competition is one
possible way to achieve this, legislation/democracy
appears to be another (and appears to be more effective).
Works for both cases, which your assertion doesn't.
My real point is that you can't take a variable like
the cost of electricity, which is dependent on a large
number of complex factors, and assume it is dependent
on a single variable (like competition), just because
it supports your religion. This is no different than
the rooster claiming he makes the sun rise. It's
a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy unless you can
demonstrate causality between (and in your assertion
*only* between) cost and competition.
Prices may be lower in some situations where competition
is present. Might be higher too. I pointed out a
lower priced case where competition is absent. You
have a lot of work to do, unless you choose to
remain intellectually dishonest and largely ignorant.
> > And bunnies (lots of 'em) on their lawn. And they're
> > in the process of building a fiber optic
> > infrastructure throughout the county.
> When I pay for electricity, I have no interest in it being
> used as an indirect tax for parks, museums, nor bunnies.
I like the bunnies. And I like living in this community.
And I like the fact that the utility district's support
of things like parks and bunnies and irrigation helps
my neighbors (ag and tourism are the major industries
here - most people probably don't realize that WA State
apples are grown in the desert - this isn't Seattle).
And the fact that my neighbors' economic situation is
improved reduces crime, helps schools, and does lots of
other things that are in my self-interest. All of this
would be the first thing to go in a competitive situation,
IMHO.
> Although, at least this is a consumption tax, which is a heck
> of a lot better than income taxes, so, I'll allow it.
Twaddle.
> > Please point me to a private electricity provider
> > who has lower rates - I'd seriously like to see
> > if there is one. I'd even be impressed with a
> > utility whose rates are only double what I pay.
> As soon as you can show me a competitive market where
> each competitor is able to use hydro-electric power.
I've provided more concrete data than you have.
I don't have to make this stuff up to prove
my point, as my point of view is based on the
data, not the other way around.
This *is* a competitive market (you should really
investigate things before you pontificate about
them). First, we're as subject to utility
de-regulation as any other area - there is
a lower cost producer on the other side of
the river, who charges about a penny less
per KWh than I pay; second, the main reason our
rates are low is *not* hydro - it's because we
have 3 dams and a population of around 100K.
That means we have enormous surplus capacity
which is dumped into the the power grid at
competitive rates, in competition with other
producers. We're simply more efficient than
other producers. Deal with it.
I'm not sure if there are any competitors
using hydro, as all of the private attempts
at hydro in this area (prior to 1940) failed,
despite the fact that they had access to the
same water power and same markets as the
government owned utility currently does.
There is no separate barrier for private
hydro. This is a county owned facility,
and we get no slack from state or federal
regs. This is painfully obvious, as were
in the middle of a 3 or 4 year relicensing
process.
> > OTOH, if you can't do that, I'd seriously doubt
> > you know what you're talking about.
> Do a study of those areas where coal-fired plants are the only
> option, and check local monopolies vs. competitive markets,
> and get back to me.
Ah, so competition is only viable when restricted
to coal fired plants. Doesn't work for nuclear, gas,
oil or hydro. I see now. IOW, any thing which runs
counter to your assertion is an unreasonable
exception. That does make it easier for you to
always be right.
I prefer cheap electricity to politcal dogmatism.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [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 13:08:29 -0500
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:51:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:53:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>-- snip --
>
>> >But "what you've found" is irrelevant to Joe and Jane Average
>> >Consumer, because they still shop at the "easy stores" (your words)
>> >which, as you have admitted, MS has "sewed up pretty tight." (See
>> >above)
>>
>> The choice is out there. There are plenty of stores they can go to
>> (granted, not the big stores) if they want. And you have not shown
>> that BB can't bring in a Linux box or a BeOS box if they wanted to -
>> if it would sell. I believe they haven't because it wouldn't sell,
>> and it's a simple and fair business decision.
>
>Why are you still arguing? You have ***ALREADY ADMITTED*** that MS has
>the retail channel "sewed up pretty tight." What this means is that
>it's very hard to get retail shelf space in the "easy stores" --
>including "penguin powered machines."
Did you miss the part where I said CompUSA can add whatever machines
they want and put any OS they want on them? Next paragraph....
>-- snip --
>
>> >What part of "retail channel" has *you* confused? Do you seriously
>> >think that CompUSA and Wal-Mart and Best Buy decide which OS gets
>> >installed on those Compaqs, Packard Bells, HPs and IBMs they sell?
>>
>> Do you seriously believe CompUSA couldn't call up LinuxCare (or
>> someone that makes Penguin-powered machines) and have a few thousand
>> delivered to their markets? There's NO DEMAND for it. CUSA, BB, CC,
>> etc. are all very powerful retailers. If they wanted it, they can get
>> it. If there was demand for it, they would have.
>
>Chicken and Egg; there is "no demand" (actually there is demand,
>otherwise, why would Dell, IBM, etc, be offering Linux?) in the "easy
>stores" because Joe and Jane General Consumer don't know they have a
>choice, because, as you have ***ALREADY ADMITTED*** MS has the retail
>channel "sewed up pretty tight."
Chicken and egg isn't MS's problem; it's Linux's problem. CompUSA can
sell any PCs they want in their store; the fact that MS software is
sold at these stores isn't MS's fault or problem. Now, if you can
build a case that CUSA *cannot* sell a Linux box in their own stores,
please do so.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
