Linux-Advocacy Digest #117, Volume #28 Sun, 30 Jul 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Bill Unruh)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Gnome or KDE (Jim Broughton)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:13:50 GMT
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> >Check out the new tpc-w benchmark. IBM submitted their benchmark using
> >Windows 2000 and SQL Server 2000.
> >
> >http://www.tpc.org/New_Result/tpcw_perf_results.asp
>
> ... And when Sun starts _losing sales_ due to this, we may start to
> conclude that this represents more than successful benchmarketing...
>
> The notion that you can interpret the results of benchmarks by
> counting what position an entry is in is, and has always been,
> highly laughable.
You have an interesting sense of humor. Our VP of Information Services
wanted to know why Oracle was not measured. We had to tell him that Oracle
refused to take part in these benchmarks and would not concent to any
head-to-head media reviews and has done these things for years. He asked us
to look at the performance we are getting from Oracle 8i on our RS/6000
boxes and compare it to "those Windows machines". He was far from laughing
at the results.
> You haven't provided the faintest whiff of technical reasoning for _why_
> the recent benchmarks for SQL Server had as high per-minute rates as
> they do. And the primary reason for actually _using_ a benchmark for
> anything practical lies in looking at the reasons _why_.
Because Oracle can't parallel over clusters. An Oracle instance is on one
hard drive. SQL Server databases can be split over multiple drives on
multiple machines in the cluster. Data can be fetched from dozens of places
at once. This allows SQL server to take much better advantage of the
cluster while still gaining the load balance and failover advantages they
intrinsicly provide.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,alt.os.linux.suse,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.unix,comp.os.unix.misc,comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd,comp.unix.bsd.net
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: 30 Jul 2000 23:15:02 GMT
In <8m1hck$r49$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "m.hoes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]The main purpose is to learn as much of Unix as possible, without spending
](too much) money. Although I simply do not have the kind of cash to go buy a
]RS/6000 and get a license for AIX, getting a semi-free thing like Solaris 8
]for i86 (+/- $75 dollar) is no problem either.
]I know there is no such thing as a "One Unix", and that there a lot of
]differences between Unix versions, especially when it comes to
]Administration. AIX uses smit, HP-UX (i believe) sysadm, and I wouldnt be
]surprised if RedHat actually came with a script named 'setup' for its
]general administration ;)
]Still I would prefer to get a Unix version which is as 'generic' and
]'true-to-unix' as possible.
Uh, there is none. ATT owns the trademark for Unix, so I suppose you had
better get their unix. (Not that I would advise it.)
There is a vast difference also between "unix" and the accoutrements
which come with various distributions. All fo those "administration"
programs are layers on top of the OS to make administration "easy".
Everything they do can also be done on the command line as well.
The improtant thing is to get one and use it. Once you know how to use
it, the rest will come easily.
Since Linux distros are free, get say Redhat or Mandrake and play with
them for a while. Try to do things from teh command line, not via the X
programs.
]'User-friendly-ness' is something which is not important. Although a lot of
]the current linux-distributions come with nifty setup tools like linuxconf,
]they do not actually assist in learning the OS. To illustrate my point: the
]latest RedHat release easily lets you select a printer and everything runs
]ok, but (ages ago) Slackware 3.0 actually forced you to hack the printcap
]file to print even simple ascii files. While not very user-friendly, it DID
]teach me someting about *nix printing mechanisms.
So you have used REdhat and Slackware? They you "know" unix.
]Hardware support is also not important. As long as it runs on Intel it is
]ok, never mind my Voodoo card or USB port.
]Good documentation would be nice though ;)
Well, Linux comes with a few hundreds of megabytes of HOWTO and
mini-HOWTO and man and doc files. Whether that is "good " ducumentation
is another matter.
]So what to choose? I have been told that Debian Linux and FreeBSD come
]pretty close to 'generic' and true unix implementations? Am I better off
]staying away from SCO Unix cause its so Intel focused its almost got a
]Autoexec.Bat startup file? Leave Solaris alone cause everything you learn on
]Solaris is only valid in the land of the SUN?
They are all much of a muchness as far as your purposes are concerned--
they all have their peculiarities and similarities. Just get and use
one. The rest ( though frustrating at times) will all be similar ( and
different). Get a popular version. (eg Solaris or Redhat/Mandrake) so
that you have a large base of machines wich actually run those OS.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:16:32 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Click here...it's all the proof you need:
> >
> > http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/nix/
> >
> > - You'll have to use Netscape as IE masks the useful HTTP error
> > messages. With Netscape it will say:
> >
> > ------------------
> > Not Found
> > The requested URL /nix/ was not found on this server.
> >
> > Apache/1.3.9 Server at msnhomepages.talkcity.com Port 6010
> > ------------------
> >
> > Note the word "Apache".
>
> *CONFIRMED*
TalkCity is not owned by Microsoft. They can run whatever server they want.
This just proves there's no operating system monopoly. You confirm that
TalkCity runs nix. Big deal.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:20:07 -0400
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m2bkg$2rsj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> Uh... the market?
> >> >
> >> >The market seems to have decided that it likes bundled
> >> >products and that it likes web browsers as part of the
> >> >software bundled with a computer.
> >
> >> Huh? The market has shown that most people will accept
> >> just about anything shoved down there throat by being
> >> tied to another monopolistic product. Fortunately
> >> not quite everyone accepts it and perhaps we will
> >> eventually get to see what the market would do if
> >> people are given a choice.
> >
> >We've already seen what the market will do, now we need to see what the
> >market will do with a judge making the choices for everyone.
>
> Yes, we have. The last time the users really had a
> choice, a majority chose to use Netscape even though
> it was still harder to get. The finding of facts
> explains how MS took away that choice - thus killing
> the company that could be giving us a better alternative
> today.
Trial testimony states that Netscape managed to place their product on
something like 100 million computer screens in a 1 year period following
Microsofts enforcement of their software license banning the removal of the
IE desktop shortcut.
People have always been able to get Netscape browsers if they wanted them.
Until recently they came on virtually every OEM computer sold. That
is....until Microsoft came out with features people liked such as Auto
Complete, and faster page retreival, as well as quicker opening of the
program itself. When opening Netscape, you just about have time to go make a
sandwich, opening MSIE takes less than one second on my machine, Netscape
takes about 15 seconds shy of eternity. Not to mention a lot of websites are
a.) hand coded or
b.) made with a flavor of FrontPage
the "b" method isn't too Netscape freindly. Netscape should have made the
browser more compatible with MS's proprietory html tags.
I for one am happy as fuck that there's basicly just one browser, regardless
of who makes it.
> >No one ever had to purchase anything to obtain a browser. As soon as you
> >sign up for internet access they are more than happy to send you any
browser
> >you choose, well... except maybe AOL or one of the other sad excuses for
> >direct access.
>
> Many, perhaps most, machines are on a corporate network with
> routing to the internet. There is no 'signup' for internet
> access.
Wasn't the case in "95/96". The internet was relatively new and not a lot of
corporations had widespread internet access on the desktops.
Colleges and libraries mostly used Netscape. Probably still do.
> >I had Win95a and it came with Netscape2.x I believe.
>
> I take it you mean that your hardware vendor added it, since
> it was certainly never part of win95. Is that vendor one
> of the ones that supplied depositions during the MS trial,
> and if so, did you read it to find out why they stopped?
>
> >It also had MSIE 1.x
> >or 2.x buried on the Master disk, but clicking the "Get on the Net" icon
on
> >the desktop opened up Netscape.
>
> It sounds like the system vendor made a good default for you. Running
> IE before version 4.0 was a bad idea in general. Again, you should
> question why they stopped.
They're out of business. I can't bring myself to admit I ever bought one of
their products so I won't say who it is. Needless to say they didn't make
too many good choices, hence.... bye bye..
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:31:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pig wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
> I am a newbie of Linux and using the SUSE linux 6.3.
> I've tried different GUIs.
> I think the Gnome and KDE are the best.
> So, which one is better? Pls. suggest.
This is a Really HOT topic sure to cause a massive religious
war but so be it.
Install BOTH one can run programs built for use under the
other with NO problems. I have both installed and primarily
use KDE (I like the look and feel (my subjective opinion)).
I also like a few of the GNOME apps as they have been very usefull.
The menus to one are accessable from the other. A nice feature.
So both are installed and can be switched between in less than
a minute. Watch out though some things like the respective file
managers when run under the other system will cause a dualing desktop
configuration. Ever have both GUI's panels and icons accessible
at the same time? (very weird) BTW this is under RH6.1.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:33:44 -0400
Jim Richardson wrote:
> >>
> >> The Sherman was cheap, but that's about it, (oh, and the hydraulically
> >> stabilized turret was better, it could shoot reasonably accurately whilst
> >> moving.) But it had a myriad of flaws. It used radial aircraft engines, they
> >> used gasoline,
> >
> >The US was the world's largest oil producer at the time, so why is this
> >a problem?
> >
>
> Gasoline burns way too easily, diesel is a lot harder to ignite, this means
> that taking a hit in say, a Panther with the Maybach diesel, or a T34 with
> it's diesel, was a lot less likely to result in a conflagration.
>
Doh! I recall reading that, but I will not plead beer deprivation.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:43:41 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:08:16 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Microsoft never dictated what other icons an OEM could place on a
>desktop by default, they merely said that OEM's cannot remove any value
>added icons and features that come with the OS.
Well, sure, as long as they didn't appear to be less than fully "pro
Microsoft" and didn't install that one browser that MS was afraid of.
>From the Findings of Fact:
236. In February 1997 a Microsoft account representative told
his counterpart at Gateway that Gateway's use of Navigator on its own
corporate network was a serious issue at Microsoft. He added that
Microsoft would not do any co-marketing and sales campaigns with
Gateway if the firm appeared to be anything but pro-Microsoft. If
Gateway would replace Navigator with Internet Explorer, Microsoft would
compensate Gateway for its investment in Netscape's product. If Gateway
refused, Microsoft might be compelled to audit Gateway's internal use
of Microsoft products. Gateway was separately told by Microsoft
representatives that its decision to ship Navigator with its PCs could
affect its business relationship with Microsoft.
237. Similarly, in early 1997, Microsoft tried to convince the IBM PC
Company to promote and distribute the upcoming release of its new
browser, Internet Explorer 4.0. At a meeting with IBM executives in
March 1997, Microsoft representatives threatened that, if IBM did not
pre-load and promote Internet Explorer 4.0 to the exclusion of
Navigator on its PCs, it would suffer "MDA repercussions."
There is also a lengthy discussion in the FoF about Microsoft's motives
for prohibiting the removal of icons. Suffice it to say that the judge
did not believe the MS explanation that this was done to avoid
confusing consumers:
229. Finally, it is significant that, while all vendors of PC operating
systems undoubtedly share Microsoft's stated interest in maximizing
consumer satisfaction, the prohibitions that Microsoft imposes on OEMs
are considerably more restrictive than those imposed by other operating
system vendors. For example, Apple allows its retailers to remove
applications that Apple has pre-installed and to reconfigure the Mac OS
desktop. For its part, IBM allows its OEM licensees to override the
entire OS/2 desktop in favor of a customized shell or to set an
application to start automatically the first time the PC is turned on.
The reason is that these firms do not share Microsoft's interest in
protecting the applications barrier to entry.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,alt.os.linux.suse,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.unix,comp.os.unix.misc,comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd,comp.unix.bsd.net
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:44:26 -0400
Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> In <8m1hck$r49$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "m.hoes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ]The main purpose is to learn as much of Unix as possible, without spending
> ](too much) money. Although I simply do not have the kind of cash to go buy a
> ]RS/6000 and get a license for AIX, getting a semi-free thing like Solaris 8
> ]for i86 (+/- $75 dollar) is no problem either.
>
> ]I know there is no such thing as a "One Unix", and that there a lot of
> ]differences between Unix versions, especially when it comes to
> ]Administration. AIX uses smit, HP-UX (i believe) sysadm, and I wouldnt be
> ]surprised if RedHat actually came with a script named 'setup' for its
> ]general administration ;)
> ]Still I would prefer to get a Unix version which is as 'generic' and
> ]'true-to-unix' as possible.
>
> Uh, there is none. ATT owns the trademark for Unix, so I suppose you had
> better get their unix. (Not that I would advise it.)
Nope. ATT sold the name years ago.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:45:31 -0400
Woofbert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:11:49 -0400,
> > Colin R. Day, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > But from what I have read, the Sherman was more rugged, which is
> > >> > important when you're fighting on another continent.
> > >>
> > >> Cost to build is important; the German Tiger tank was a very good
> > >> tank, but was so expensive to make that it couldn't be made in
> > >> sufficient quantity. "Better is the enemy of Good, and Best is the
> > >> enemy of them both." A *very* instructive phrase that! Thanks ACC!
> > >
> > >The Tiger was also a gas-guzzler, but perhaps not as bad as
> > >the Elefant. Of course, immobile tanks are vulnerable, and the
> > >Germans didn't always have enough fuel.
> > >
> > It was also too heavy to pass over most bridges in France, making it a
> > poor
> > choice for fighting there after D-Day. Helluva nice main gun though.
>
> Who has the most and most recent experience in tank combat? And whose
> design did they base their own R&D on? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> I once saw video of an Israeli battle tank galoomphing along the desert
> at 65 MPH or something. The main shell was bouncing along on what must
> have been a hella rough ride for the driver ... but the cupola and
> cannon seemed to be just floating along, completely oblivious. Scary.
You should see an M1 when they take the governor off the engine!
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:49:29 -0400
Woofbert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:11:49 -0400,
> > Colin R. Day, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > But from what I have read, the Sherman was more rugged, which is
> > >> > important when you're fighting on another continent.
> > >>
> > >> Cost to build is important; the German Tiger tank was a very good
> > >> tank, but was so expensive to make that it couldn't be made in
> > >> sufficient quantity. "Better is the enemy of Good, and Best is the
> > >> enemy of them both." A *very* instructive phrase that! Thanks ACC!
> > >
> > >The Tiger was also a gas-guzzler, but perhaps not as bad as
> > >the Elefant. Of course, immobile tanks are vulnerable, and the
> > >Germans didn't always have enough fuel.
> > >
> > It was also too heavy to pass over most bridges in France, making it a
> > poor
> > choice for fighting there after D-Day. Helluva nice main gun though.
>
> Who has the most and most recent experience in tank combat? And whose
> design did they base their own R&D on? Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> I once saw video of an Israeli battle tank galoomphing along the desert
> at 65 MPH or something. The main shell was bouncing along on what must
> have been a hella rough ride for the driver ... but the cupola and
> cannon seemed to be just floating along, completely oblivious. Scary.
>
M-1's have a computer-controlled active suspensionm, with reaction
times on the order of 10 micro-seconds, so even the hull sails along
pretty smoothly.
Having a "stable" turret doesn't do much good when the loader is
down in the hull being thrown around all over the place...so, the
two primary goals are
1) stable GUN
2) turret doesn't move erratically in relationship to the hull.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
