Linux-Advocacy Digest #128, Volume #28 Mon, 31 Jul 00 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Jen)
Re: Linux can save you money on electricity! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Jen)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux? You're kidding right? Some kind of a joke? (Mikey)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Gnome or KDE (Tim Haynes)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (fungus)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Mike Byrns")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 31 Jul 2000 09:12:47 -0500
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:02:27 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>Mats Olsson wrote:
>>
>> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
>>
>
>
>THAT was the link I was after...thanks!
>From the same site that also said this on their home page:
"We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
opportunity to build high throughput (100,000,000+ transaction per
day) web based commerce systems with extremely low cost per
transactions."
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can save you money on electricity!
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:09:42 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Exact;y. Terminnal's make users tipe UNIX command's and they half to be
> traned. A GUI let's user work without traning them.
Don't tell me, let me guess. Timmay? Are you in management for some
huge company? I've noticed that corporate policy tends to avoid
training whenever they deem it 'possible'. You do realize that without
any training your users are going to sit around all day trying to figure
out what the hell they are supposed to do, right?
Let's see, I know, I know. Let's spend thousands of extra dollars on
Microsoft licensing every year! Then we can save money on training
costs! Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket! Then we won't have to train
users at all! Yeah, they'll just know how to do the job without any
training! And we (the management) can sit in our offices and masturbate
into our bankrolls thinking about what a wonderful job we've done!
Sounds like the last place I worked.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 31 Jul 2000 09:13:53 -0500
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:04:05 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> Win2K can take the heat too. www.tpc.org
>>
>
>http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
"We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
opportunity to build high throughput (100,000,000+ transaction per
day) web based commerce systems with extremely low cost per
transactions."
Strange to see Fungus posting references to a pro COM+ site.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 31 Jul 2000 14:04:27 GMT
In article <uveh5.11098$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest, most
> heaviest tasks.
The PC bus architecture has the I/O throughput for that sort of stuff?
The usual tactic is to get a proper mainframe or Sun Enterprise or
what-have-you[*], and I've never heard of a port of NT to that size of
iron...
Donal.
[* That sort of hardware is far better than PC-like hardware, and damn
well ought to be given how much it costs! ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux? You're kidding right? Some kind of a joke?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 23:22:20 -0400
"%^$&&&&&&&&&&&&"@!!!!!!!!!!!!!.com wrote:
>
> You said it brother. Linux sucks the big one.. We tried it here in a
> dental office and it was a complete disaster. We could not share
> documents with other clients, our insurance carriers would not even
> talk to us due to incompatible formats we were sending them and out
> patients were annoyed because the billing system did not mesh with the
> system the insurance company carriers were running..
Pah! All that says is that you lack the proper clue to operate/set up a
computer. So, you couldn't be bothered to RTFM? Nah, you just figured
"Uhhh... I don't know why it doesn't work? I plugged everything in."
>
> Linux was a complete disaster for us.....
More like *you're* a complete disaster with Linux. :)
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:53:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 26 Jul 2000 22:33:49 -0700, Russell Senior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The costs of maintaining your PATH and related stuff is a small price
>>to pay for `rm -rf' uninstalls.
>"rm -rf" uninstalls are a small compensation for having to track
>what's on your system manually, and figure out what depends on
>what when you go to upgrade (a much more common occurrence than
>uninstalling), and manually make sure everything got installed in
>the right order, and manually resolve conflicts. All of these are
>things a package management system gives you.
>I've never understood the disdain some folks have for package
>management. What's wrong with letting the computer do things the
>computer's good at, like record-keeping?
I'll go along with that. On some commerical systems I supported I
had a disaster with installing some drivers on a serial sub-system.
If anything went wrong on the install the package removed what it
put in - but it really removed a lot more which meant that part of
the OS was removed.
One of my favorite package installation tools came with the SGI
Irix systems. The package would check for all needed dependancies
- much like the ports on FreeBSD - and would give options to
continue - to add the dependencies - etc.
rm -rf uninstalls may have worked well in days gone buy but as
systems grow more complex and interdependancies keep increasing
package management is really a must IMO.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:02:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:55:26 +0100, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Personally, I'd rather package managers be moot and applications
>>> be capable of being treated as a single atomic entity capable of
>>> being more or less completely non-dependent on system files.
>>>
>>..which means shared libraries cease to exist.
> Not necessarily.
> Space versus complexity is a tradeoff that might make sense.
With today's capacity I'd not worry about space.
It's the shared libraries so that one library update fixes all aps
that use that which seems much more important from my point of
view.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Haynes)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: 31 Jul 2000 15:24:02 +0100
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Schneider, Ph. D.) writes:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:36:45 -0500, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >Do you know that you can have 2 accounts, 1 running Gnome, and the other
> >running KDE? (I run Gnome on 1 account, Motif on another account, KDE
> >on a 3rd account, and Afterstep on a 4th account....because I can.) Set
> >the accounts up, try both Desktops, and decide which you like.
Or even just run two X servers with e.g. gdm, log in with one setup in one
(ctrl+alt+f7, say) and log in with another setup in t'other (eg with
ctrl+alt+f8). Been there, done that... quite enjoyed it, too...
> X-Windows is nice to play around with, but it is much too easy to damage
> Gnome with an "accidental" keystroke or mouse movement. If Linux people
> are really serious about competing,
What about those of us who don't give a disemboweled pigeon for competing?
I use linux because I like it, because I can configure it, because it's
stable, it does what I want it to do, you name it. But if other OSs want to
set themselves up as "competition", let them lose by all means.
> there would be a movement to write setup programs that allow users to
> choose applications and menus without the nuisance of direct editing.
Setup programs? For goodness' sake, the linux world is still cluttered with
arguing the toss over installers, RH's or Mandrake's (with most of the
press putting Debian in the "Related Companies" box, *spit*).
I'm not interested in "the installer". I want to be able to do what I want
with it *after* installing it - in some cases, developing stuff, installing
more toys, reading Gnus.. in short, it's use not installation, that counts.
~Tim
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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, 1 Aug 2000 00:42:18 +1000
> "Dale Lakes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[ugh. In future please post in plain text]
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > If you want to support a claim Win95 is poorly engineered, you either
have
> > to provide some examples of a "better engineered" product that provides
the
> > same services whilst operating under the same restrictions or, at the
very
> > least, give a credible explanation of how it could be done.
> >
> So you're saying that if I decide to build a bridge out of potato chips
but the first
> vehicle that drives over it plummets to oblivion, then it is still a good
bridge
> because it is within my design limitations?
I don't know. What were your design limitations ? If your design
limitation was only "must be made out of potato chips", then _any_ bridge
that you can make out of potato chips has met your design limitation.
Whether or not a car can go over it is irrelevant.
> That's madness.
No, that's engineering.
------------------------------
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$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:39:06 -0500
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > Because Oracle can't parallel over clusters. An Oracle instance is on
one
> > hard drive. SQL Server databases can be split over multiple drives on
> > multiple machines in the cluster.
>
> ...thus increasing what we call "number of points of failure".
You either don't know what you are talking about or intend to mislead those
who read this post. The "minimize points of failure" rule only applies to
infrastructures that are non-redundant. This is a cluster we've been
talking about. Everything is redundant.
> > Data can be fetched from dozens of places at once.
>
> If they stay up and running long enough.
You just hurt your own credibility by saying piffle like that. So what you
are saying is "Yes, you are right. Oracle cannot do that. But all the
machines in your Windows cluster *might* fail all at the same time and then
you'd be out of luck!" Got news for ya -- you'd be out of luck with Oracle
too under those same conditions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 31 Jul 2000 14:33:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
petilon <[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.
Just to fill this out with some (copronumerological) figures:
Suppose you have a "cluster" like that with 30 nodes where each
system in the group has 99.99% reliability and as a whole the group
has $100M yearly throughput. In this case, where any failure takes
everything else down with it (you can't assume that it won't!) you
can expect to have a downtime of about 26¼ hours a year. Or an
*expected* yearly lossage due to downtime of $300k.
It's difficult to say more than that without making some assumptions
about the patterns of failure.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 09:47:13 -0500
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> petilon wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oracle Parallel Server is the only RDBMS that supports
> > > > load balanced clustering.
> > >
> > > Nope sorry. Those are MIRRORS of the same db, not the same db
> > > distributed between.
> >
> > What you mean to say is that data is shared by the machines
> > participating in the cluster. This is how real clusters are
> > supposed to work.
> >
>
> Not since Ballmer has redefined the word.
You get to do that when you innovate! Before SQL Server 2000, databases
could only be distributed or fast. Now they can be both! Even with the
DoiJ's meddling Microsoft can still show the rest of the industry how it's
done!
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:43:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:06:20 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> put all effort into getting KDE2 out the door. Personally I
think
> >the right
> >> decision was made.
> >
> >Allow me to add a 3.5 item:
> >
> >3.5 No desktop or toolkit, except KDE, Qt and JX, had announced
>
> This is why the 'uberdesktop' concept is so limited.
>
> Drag and drop is orthogonal to making pretty windows. One
> doesn't necessarily need to imbedd the functionality of
> one into the other one.
This is why I know you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's awfully convenient for the programmer, if the DnD support
is done through the toolkit.
It would be just as convenient if it was done by the windowing
system, but X doesn't provide it.
It *could* be convenient if implemented by a independent library,
but the toolkits all provide different abstraction levels, so
convenience would only be avhieved by adding a toolkit level
layer.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:40:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:47:57 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >If you want a simpler way to use it, try something newer, like,
say
> >> >KDE 2.0 beta 2.
> >> >
> >> >> IOW: cite an example.
> >> >
> >> >Done, twice.
> >>
> >> Done never actually.
> >
> >Actually, done thrice: "If you want a simpler way to use it, try
> >something newer, like, say KDE 2.0 beta 2."
>
> That is not an example.
>
> For someone obsessed with mathematically precise definitions
> you have a very crude notion of proof.
Ok, let's try again. You want an example of what, precisely?
Since you deleted everything, I must confess I don't quite remember.
> >> [deletia]
> >
> >Nice of you deleting the piece where you say you use KDE ;-)
>
> I try it out every so often.
Good for you!
> >> When I state that GNOME has Motif legacy support, I can
> >> actually give the end user an example that they can walk
> >> through themselves.
> >
> >Good for you!.
>
> You simply have very restrictive KDE centric blinders
> much like a Windows user.
May I wonder what is it I wrote that makes you say this?
> It would seem that KDE has
> managed to replicate culture as well as form.
Well, at least I am not you. Everything has a good side.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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, 1 Aug 2000 01:05:34 +1000
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:59:12 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> If programs brokenly conform to a broken API, the fault lies with the
> >> provider of the API. If they had a reasonable DLL scheme, then
software
> >> would use it.
> >
> >Lazy programmers.
> >
> >Win16-era DLLs, IIRC, had very little in the way of versioning and
avoiding
> >namespace collisions. AFAIK Win32 changed that, but programmers didn't
take
> >advantage of it.
>
> Microsoft should have made it more difficult to use the old scheme than
> the new. They're good at things like that.
Since legacy support is one of Windows' supposedly most important features,
that probably wouldn't have been a wise idea, as any such efforts would have
had a detrimental influence on old apps.
> >The fact that in Win2k they've had to resort to actually monitoring
system
> >DLLs to make sure application installers don't try to overwrite them,
says
> >loads about the application programmers.
>
> Application programmers will take what they're given. Especially when
> the giver is Microsoft.
>
> >> Instead of explaining unix's shared library technology to you, I'm
going
> >> to ask you to supply a single solitary example of this kind of thing
> >> happening on unix.
> >
> >I find it difficult to believe you've used Linux or Unix for any legnth
of
> >time and never had any sort of shared library problem.
>
> Sure I've had shared library problems, but only when screwing around
> with things I shouldn't have.[0] When using systems as an end-user,
> never in my memory.
>
> I think this is largely because I have avoided Linux.
I'd agree with that. However, if you're going to argue Unix vs Windows, you
*have* to account for Linux, since its about the only thing that comeslose
to competing with the most popular version of Windows.
> >> I couldn't care less.
> > ^^^
> >I'm aghast, someone who actually uses the phrase _properly_. You can't
be
> >an American :).
>
> You're right. I'm from New York City.
Wow, when did they start teaching English ? :).
> >If you want to make statements like "Win95 is poorly engineered" and be
> >believable, back em up. Some examples that are clearly and
unquestionably
> >the fault of Windows, would be useful.
> >
> >Engineering is all about compromise. Think on that.
>
> That's why I don't push my viewpoint on this all that hard -- I'm never
> sure what MS's design goals *really* are, so it's hard to say how well
> they've accomplished them.
Windows 95 design goals were primarily:
Run as many DOS and Win16 apps as possible.
Allow the support of legacy hardware via DOS drivers.
Run in 4MB of RAM.
Provide a "stepping stone" to Win32 and NT.
I'd say they accomplished them admirably. However, this does not make Win95
a "good" OS, it makes it well engineered.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:48:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:55:43 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:24:51 -0400, Gary Hallock
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >You could complain that it is taking too long for KDE2 to be done.
> >But this is a
> >> >massive effort and is free open source. You could always
volunteer
> >to help.
> >>
> >> I don't contribute to proprietary vendorlock.
> >
> >Wouldn't making KDE 1 support Xdnd be going AGAINST vendor lock?
> >You don't contribute to anything but usenet noise.
>
> Nope. It would still be encouraging QT.
I would expect it to be encouraging of Xdnd, which is an open
standard, and of, say, GTK+, since it would allow GTK+
apps to interoperate with Qt apps.
You know, you should take into account ALL effects, not just
"oh, I don't like that effect, let's drop it".
If you believe the encoragement of Qt would be greater, say that,
but what you said is, well, shallow.
> I was interested in Harmony until RMS conditioned the FSF support
> of the project (in terms of potential legal attacks from Troll)
> on the project adopting the GPL rather than the LGPL.
In the months before that (BTW, I didn't knew RMS did that, do you
have a reference?), what were your contributions?
Just interest from afar, as usual?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: 31 Jul 2000 14:50:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
>
> "We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
> centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
> opportunity to build high throughput (100,000,000+ transaction per
> day) web based commerce systems with extremely low cost per
> transactions."
Congratulations on the selective reporting. Keep it up!
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:23:21 GMT
Jen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:04:05 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> Win2K can take the heat too. www.tpc.org
> >>
> >
> >http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
>
> "We are particularly interested in Microsoft's COMWare architecture,
> centered around COM+, because we believe it offers companies the
> opportunity to build high throughput (100,000,000+ transaction per
> day) web based commerce systems with extremely low cost per
> transactions."
>
> Strange to see Fungus posting references to a pro COM+ site.
Strange, that. I searched all through that page and couldn't find
that quote. What exactly were you reading?
If I wasn't such a gentleman I might start shouting "liar liar!"
at this point. As it is, I'll cut through your ad-hominem and
instead ask for your comments on what it has to say about the
TPC benchmark.
Day 1 of asking
===============
Jen,
what are your opinions on what that page has to say about
Microsofts widely publicised TPC benchmark results?
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 10:02:40 -0500
"1$Worth" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If that represents "ease of use", I can do without it, thank you.
>
> You are only hearing what you wish to think I am saying. You do so with
> the attitude that I wish to dispel.
>
> Let me re-state:
> I put it that it depends on the task in hand. The combination is VERY
> powerful *yet I am not saying that one needs to be removed*, just
> improved. No dumbing down, just getting better.
>
> I have never said that GUI is best all the time. I never would. If I do
> then call me on it to explain.
>
> Let me be quick fank: a lot of M$ stuff is SH*T. If you use this as your
> marker then no wonder you think as you do.
Unfortunately, many in the world equate "ease-of-use" with MS just
because to date MS has been considered (in the popular computing press)
as the top of the "ease-of-use" curve. While I agree with your
statement that MS is shit, and I do not feel that they have a solid
grasp on "ease-of-use", most people coming in here and complaining about
ease-of-use are actually complaining that Linux isn't "Just like
Windows" and asking why Linux can't be made "just like Windows". This
causes the reactions you are witnessing from the group. Asking for
ease-of-use, and saying it can only be achieved through GUI and saying
you are trying to attract Windows users is tending to come across like
you are trying very hard to say "Linux needs to be just like Windows"
without coming right out and saying it. While I don't think that is
your intention (and I hope I am right on that), it is sort of a
'background noise' sort of issue that seems to come across in the way
you word things.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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 10:07:13 -0500
"Mats Olsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8m40bk$5t8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <_9Vg5.1363$N5.68299@stones>,
> Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >[...]
> >>
> >> Microsoft is very well-known for following "the letter" of any
> >> document, while completely mutilating the spirit of same.
> >
> >Then you or Fungus should have no problems posting a link to a unbiased
> >report of what exactly the problem is supposed to be here (unbiased means
> >from a reputable source, not another advocate whining on their personal
> >website) should you?
> >
> >So perhaps you can either put up the link he asked for, or explain why
> >neither of you can not do this? Because right now all I see is people
> >behaving like schoolkids.... "please Miss, Microsoft broke the rules..
but I
> >can't tell you how, they just did"
>
> http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_27.htm
That's a competitor from IBM rebutting the findings of
http://www.objectwatch.com/issue_26.htm.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
