Linux-Advocacy Digest #123, Volume #28 Mon, 31 Jul 00 03:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (petilon)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (petilon)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (petilon)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ? (Alan Coopersmith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:37:56 -0400
Courageous wrote:
>
> > How is this possible? Because data is shared.
>
> This is formally called "replication". Just FYI.
>
Wrong. Replication is making multiple copies.
Data sharing is multiple machines using the same identical copy.
> C/
--
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: [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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:43:43 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:08:40 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>What's the URL? I'd like to keep a copy of this.
It is from the Findings of Fact. Others involved in this thread have
also quoted from it:
<http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm>
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 05:43:41 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:56:11 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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:
[Section 236, Gateway claims that MS threatened a license audit if they
did not be come more pro-Microsoft. Gateway claims that MS threatened
that their attitude about Navigator might affect the relationship with
MS]
[Section 237, IBM is told that not promoting IE over Navigator could
result in "MDA repercussions"]
[Section 229, Judge finds that MS restrictions on changes to the
desktop are more restrictive than IBM or Apple]
>These are hearsay claims which won't stand up to appeal.
Gateway and IBM's testimony about what they were told by authorized
representatives of Microsoft is "hearsay"? Well, I guess that would be
convenient for MS if it were true, and if the similar testimony from
Compaq is also "hearsay", and if Netscape's testimony is as well. It
would be nice for MS if the whole trial was all hearsay, but that does
seem rather unlikely at this point. I do know that we're hearing a lot
of variations on the theme of "they are all liars" around here lately.
>WASHINGTON, D.C., July 26, 2000 -- Earlier today Microsoft filed its
>Jurisdictional Statement in the U.S. Supreme Court. In this brief, Microsoft
>urges the Court to deny the government's direct appeal and remand the cases
>to the Court of Appeals. Microsoft believes that the Supreme Court would
>benefit from allowing the normal appellate process to move ahead with an
>initial review of this case by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of
>Columbia.
IOW, they want to drag it out as long as possible because they think
the Supremes will _not_ overturn the decision if it goes right to them.
>Microsoft's appeals raise numerous procedural, factual and legal issues.
Yes, Microsoft would dearly love to be able to retry the facts of the
case. They will attempt to do this by claiming that the judge should
not have allowed certain evidence or certain lines of questioning.
That is the normal argument you make on appeal, is it not? They do
need to demonstrate the errors though, eventually.
[snip rest of Microsoft's pleading]
However, none of this addresses the point I was addressing, which was
your assertion that OEMs could "always install any other browser".
While it is true that MS did not write "thou shalt not install Netscape
on the desktop" into the license agreements, and the judge agrees in
the FoF that they did not do this, they did still make it quite clear
to OEM's what was expected of them. Hearsay or not, the OEMs seem to
have got the message. It would not have been very smart to put that
into the license agreements, as it would have been an obvious case of
restraint of trade even to you.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:00:42 -0500
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So what is wrong with dividing up your database among many
> > > machines? If any *ONE* of those machines crash, a portion of
> > > the database is now unavailable, so the system as a whole
> > > becomes unavailable.
> >
> > I don't know if SQL Server does this, but it seems pretty
> > logical to me that you would use a technique similar to RAID
> > arrays.
>
> What are you talking about? I was talking about a machine crash,
> not a disk crash.
Is your mind so small that you cannot understand the similarities between a
redundant disk array and redundant database cluster?
If you have a cluster of 5 machines. You don't need to write all the
duplicate data to all 5 machines. That wastes time, bandwidth, and disk
space. If, instead, you wrote 25% of the data to the other 4 machines, in
the event of a failure of one machine, you still have access to all your
data.
At the cost of losing 25% of each individual machines total disk space for
redundancy, you get to make use of that 75% extra.
Say you have 100 gigs on each machine, and you have 5 machines. 25 Gigs on
each machine is sacrificed for redundancy. You now have 75 gigs * 5, or 375
Gigs of available disk space, whereas if you redundantly stored all data on
all 5 machines, you would still only have 100 Gigs no matter how many
machines you had in the cluster.
The more machines you have, the less is sacrificed on each machine. If you
had 6 machines in the cluster, then you only need to sacrifice 20% of your
disk space. So, 80 Gigs free on each server * 6 = 480 Gigs. Adding one
server of 100 gigs, gave you 105 gigs of extra useable space. In the
completely redundant approach, adding another server gives you... no extra
space.
Do you get the picture now?
+
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:05:40 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:027f2a81.5ce4f074@usw-
> > > So what is wrong with dividing up your database among many
> > > machines? If any *ONE* of those machines crash, a portion of
> > > the database is now unavailable, so the system as a whole
> > > becomes unavailable.
> >
> > I don't know if SQL Server does this, but it seems pretty logical to me
that
> > you would use a technique similar to RAID arrays.
> >
> > RAID arrays store a certain amount of redundant inforomation on all
drives,
> > so that in the case of a single drive failure, you don't lose any data.
If
> > you lose more than on drive, then you're hosed.
>
> We're talking about MULTIPLE MACHINES having access to the SAME DRIVES
> you idiot!
See my response to petilon.
> RAID is a completely DIFFERENT SUBJECT
There are similar concepts involved here.
------------------------------
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$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 00:51:26 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Fo8h5.2902$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP>
> The more machines you have, the less is sacrificed on each machine. If
you
> had 6 machines in the cluster, then you only need to sacrifice 20% of your
> disk space. So, 80 Gigs free on each server * 6 = 480 Gigs. Adding one
> server of 100 gigs, gave you 105 gigs of extra useable space. In the
> completely redundant approach, adding another server gives you... no extra
> space.
>
> Do you get the picture now?
The only picture he needs to have is the one Oracle showed us in training
last month.
The one that shows that Oracle databases CANNOT SPAN DISKS!
BTW -- you are so right but they don't understand new technology. This is
the first RDBMS that does this. Just keep this in mind when :-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:09:58 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> However, none of this addresses the point I was addressing, which was
> your assertion that OEMs could "always install any other browser".
> While it is true that MS did not write "thou shalt not install Netscape
> on the desktop" into the license agreements, and the judge agrees in
> the FoF that they did not do this, they did still make it quite clear
> to OEM's what was expected of them. Hearsay or not, the OEMs seem to
> have got the message. It would not have been very smart to put that
> into the license agreements, as it would have been an obvious case of
> restraint of trade even to you.
Why is it that Toshiba was shipping Navigator on their desktop for almost 3
years with it's laptops? I bought one in early 1998 with both IE and
Navigator. My company had bought a bunch a year earlier, also with
Navigator.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:01:11 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Say you have 100 gigs on each machine, and you have 5
> machines. 25 Gigs on each machine is sacrificed for
> redundancy. You now have 75 gigs * 5, or 375 Gigs of
> available disk space, whereas if you redundantly stored
> all data on all 5 machines, you would still only have
> 100 Gigs no matter how many machines you had in the
> cluster.
This is too simple minded because you are assuming only
one machine can go down at any one time.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:05:23 -0700
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The only picture he needs to have is the one Oracle showed us
> in training last month.
>
> The one that shows that Oracle databases CANNOT SPAN DISKS!
Oracle stores data in tablespaces. Tablespaces consist of one
or more datafiles. Datafiles can be on different disks. Also
check out the partitioning feature.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:09:57 -0400
Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Fo8h5.2902$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <SNIP>
> > The more machines you have, the less is sacrificed on each machine. If
> you
> > had 6 machines in the cluster, then you only need to sacrifice 20% of your
> > disk space. So, 80 Gigs free on each server * 6 = 480 Gigs. Adding one
> > server of 100 gigs, gave you 105 gigs of extra useable space. In the
> > completely redundant approach, adding another server gives you... no extra
> > space.
> >
> > Do you get the picture now?
>
> The only picture he needs to have is the one Oracle showed us in training
> last month.
>
> The one that shows that Oracle databases CANNOT SPAN DISKS!
Wrong. Oracle can use ANY raw device, INCLUDING a logical volume
which spans disks.
GAME
SET
MATCH
YOU LOSE!
--
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: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:15:10 -0500
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Say you have 100 gigs on each machine, and you have 5
> > machines. 25 Gigs on each machine is sacrificed for
> > redundancy. You now have 75 gigs * 5, or 375 Gigs of
> > available disk space, whereas if you redundantly stored
> > all data on all 5 machines, you would still only have
> > 100 Gigs no matter how many machines you had in the
> > cluster.
>
> This is too simple minded because you are assuming only
> one machine can go down at any one time.
Most common scenario in IT situations when one box goes down only once in a
great while (at least with Windows 2000 :-) So you are saying that your
argument does not apply to reality. I see. Just like nixers. BWAHA. Just
react like Microsoft then and get better. Then you can compete. Or just do
what the desktop OSs have done and give up. Maybe get the DoiJ (Department
of inJustice) to sue MS again to support your incompetance. People will get
tired of this after awhile and accept that Microsoft can execute better than
nix vendors. You might not know this but Microsoft works best when
threatened. And you nixers were instrumental to this current Microsoft
victory!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 23:19:17 -0700
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You might not know this but Microsoft works best when
> threatened. And you nixers were instrumental to this
> current Microsoft victory!
The Microsoft division that includes SQL Server posted a
negative growth in revenue for the first time in Q4 2000.
Yes, I agree Unix (mainly Solaris and J2EE) is responsible
for this.
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
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$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:23:09 -0500
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The only picture he needs to have is the one Oracle showed us
> > in training last month.
> >
> > The one that shows that Oracle databases CANNOT SPAN DISKS!
>
> Oracle stores data in tablespaces. Tablespaces consist of one
> or more datafiles. Datafiles can be on different disks. Also
> check out the partitioning feature.
Sure but not on differing computers using different controllers. That's the
point of redundancy now isn't it. If that power supply fails I want my
data. But I STILL want to benefit from my investment in the cluster when
there is no failure. Windows and SQL server 2000 win on both points.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 01:26:50 -0500
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You might not know this but Microsoft works best when
> > threatened. And you nixers were instrumental to this
> > current Microsoft victory!
>
> The Microsoft division that includes SQL Server posted a
> negative growth in revenue for the first time in Q4 2000.
> Yes, I agree Unix (mainly Solaris and J2EE) is responsible
> for this.
You are reaching here (yet again) :-)
These folks were waiting for SQL Server 2000 or unjustifiably worried abour
the DoiJ indecision. What was the GROWTH decline? A: less than a percent
according :-)
But it's still growing over nix and will grow faster towards the end of this
year and faster in the next and so on.
------------------------------
From: Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.solaris.x86,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Learn Unix on which Unix Flavour ?
Date: 31 Jul 2000 06:31:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) writes in alt.solaris.x86:
|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.)
AT&T sold the trademark, with the rest of Unix Systems Labs, to Novell
in the early 90's. Novell gave the trademark to X/Open (now part of
the Open Group) for use in defining UNIX standards, and then sold the
rest to SCO.
Officially, any OS that gets certified as meeting the standards set
forth by the Open Group can be called "UNIX(TM)" - currently that list
includes Solaris, AIX, Tru64 (aka Digital UNIX), IRIX, UnixWare, HP-UX,
and even IBM OS/390.
For full details see http://www.unix-systems.org/
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://soar.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/ aka: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
