Linux-Advocacy Digest #142, Volume #28 Mon, 31 Jul 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("2 + 2")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Marty)
Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:11:39 -0400
Some facts:
IBM 444,000 mark (128 cpus):
http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Compaq/compaq.8500.700.96p.000
72504.es.pdf
Win2000 Advanced server: $4000 per x 32 servers= $128,000
IBM DB2: $2.85 million
Compaq 262,000 mark (96 cpus):
http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/Tpcc/compaq.8500.700.96p.00072504.fdr.pdf
Win2000 Advanced Server: $2400 per x 12 servers= $29,000 huh?
MS SQL Server: $1.5 million
2 + 2
fungus wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
>Jun Nolasco wrote:
>>
>> Jen wrote:
>> >
>> > "We are not planning to do any TPC benchmarking in the near future,"
>> > said Robert Shimp, Oracle's senior director of platform marketing. "We
>> > just don't see the value in it for our customers."
>>
>> Hmm. I wonder why. :-)
>>
>
>Yet another benchmark made worthless by the unscrupulous few.
>
>A few years ago, I remember the benchmarks war between
>Silicon Graphics and Evans and Sunderland.
>
>
>It started out where benchmarks *had* to work. A customer
>who bought a 100,000 polygons/second machine had to be able
>to type:
>
>for (i=0; i<100000; i++) {
> drawPolygon();
>}
>printElapsedTime();
>
>
>...and if it didn't print "one second" then the machine
>would be sent back.
>
>Then E&S started adding footnotes to their benchmarks saying
>things like "[1] Assuming 50% polygon rejection due to backface
>culling". (ie. they simply doubled their figures).
>
>PHBs the world over started comparing the SGI<->E&S numbers
>and buying E&S machines. In order to survive, Silicon Graphics
>was forced to start cheating as well and within a few years
>the whole graphics benchmark waters were so muddied that nobody
>knew what to believe any more.
>
>
>The same thing has happened to things like computer monitors.
>Not so long ago, you could take a tape measure to a 19 inch
>monitor, measure the screen, and it would read 19 inches
>- you got what you were paying for.
>
>Now we're told that the "19 inches" actually refers to the tube
>size (whatever that is), not what we can expect to actually see.
>How much visible area will my 19 inch monitor have? Nobody knows
>any more.
>
>I've got two 19" monitors on the table in fromt of me. The SGI
>"19 inch" monitor actually measures (tada!) 19 inches. The "19 inch"
>monitor connected to my PC actually measures less than 18 inches.
>
>Such is life, benchmarks is benchmarks and Microsoft has just
>flushed another perfectly respectable industry benchmark down
>the pan.
>
>How will the other manufacturers react? Will they throw away
>their integrity, will they try to get the benchmark changed
>so Microsoft can't cheat any more? Only history will provide
>the answers...
>
>
>
>--
><\___/>
>/ O O \
>\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:10:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:20:41 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 01:14:18 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 20:37:04 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >and do everything for me, the stupid user. Unfortunately when something goes
> >> >>
> >> >> ...damn that Intel deciding that the hardware having no real
> >> >> clue or control as to what is going on in system is a bad idea.
> >> >
> >> >Look at Plug N Play and tell me which is better. I prefer labotomized
> >>
> >> Actually, I've never had PCI fail me in this respect.
> >>
> >> I've run out of XT resources but that's a more fundemental
> >> design flaw in PC's rather than a flaw of PnP.
> >>
> >> It's a quite solvable problem if you design with it in mind.
> >>
> >> It's not necessarily a Windows-ism as you seem to think.
> >
> >I was talking about the technology in general, not the implementation in any
> >specific OS. PnP solved a problem for me that I never had. In "solving" it,
> >it created more problems. The RedHat installation does the same thing.
>
> Real PnP doesn't create any more problems.
>
> pseudo-pnp does.
>
> That's a BIG difference.
Real PnP doesn't exist on PC's. That's the problem.
> Besides, there's really not much that Redhat even automates.
> What it does manage to automate is primarily due to the relative
> robustness of PCI.
>
> However, Slackware was doing ISA pnp in '95. So this phenomenon
> that you attribute to Bughat is not limited to it. Slackware also
> had the first effective network control panel applet as well
> (also by '95 or earlier).
You're nonsensically mixing two separate points I made again. PnP was an
illustration. It got in my way the same way RedHat did. I didn't complain
about PnP in RedHat.
> >> >jumpered hardware myself. At least of the decision making is left up to the
> >> >user, and it's within the user's grasp to fix the problem easily.
> >> >
> >> >Amusing that you are commenting on this as if it were the first time you've
> >> >read it. I guess I shouldn't find that surprising.
> >>
> >> Given the choice between Software Engineering and Electrical
> >> Engineering, I will take the EE solution as that discipline
> >> can at least be seriously refered to as engineering.
> >
> >Finally something we can agree on. Jumpers are the EE solution. PnP is the
> >software solution.
>
> Nope.
>
> PCI is still a EE solution.
PnP is software. PCI is hardware. "Nope" is inappropriate.
> Better living through better EE.
>
> You're still suffering from the false notion that pnp is an
> OS design issue rather than a hardware design issue.
Psst... BIOS is software too.
> >> >> >wrong (not if) there are now 12 more layers of complexity in my way
> >> >> >to work on solving the problem. In the old Slackware days, I used to
> >> >> >find the exact script or configuration file in no time flat, make the
> >> >> >change, and I was done.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you can't do that in Redhat, what happenns the next time you
> >> >> for some reason need to move to a slightly variant other Unix?
> >> >
> >> >Let me put this in a way that makes it absolutely clear:
> >> >I have a day job. I get paid for said day job. I get paid well for said day
> >> >job. What do I do when I'm working at this day job? I write Unix software.
> >> >The software that I write for which I get paid very well has to run on 9
> >> >(that's right NINE) platforms all of which claim to be a form of "Unix". I
> >> >don't have any problem with variants of Unix.
> >>
> >> If that is indeed the case then you have nothing to whine about
> >> with respect to more contemporary ease of use interfaces in Linux.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Other Unixen have their own little quirks and bits where
> they're unlike other Unixen. If you have no problem dealing
> with 9, then a 10th should NOT be an issue.
Where did I ever mention that I had a problem with diversity? Another
strawman valiantly slain!
> >> Your comments and claims are inconsistent.
> >
> >How?
Note: no response.
> >Talk about a lack of articulation...
> >
> >> You must have loads of fun with SCO.
> >
> >Never touched it.
> >
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> I only expect Windows users to grouse about their user interface
> >> being changed in some trivial manner.
> >
> >What does that have to do with anything?
Note: no response.
> >A] I'm not a Windows user.
> >B] I'm not complaining about *my* user interface.
> >C] My user interface has not changed in any manner.
> >
> >> --
> >> The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
> >> was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
> >> likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
> >> not have to deal with DOS3.
> >>
> >> Network effects are everything in computing.
> >
> >Do you often quote yourself? What an ego. I find it's more fun to quote
> >others making asses of themselves, like this gem:
>
> It's not a 'quote', it's a SIGNATURE.
Do you always quote yourself in your signature? What an ego. I find it's
more fun to quote others making asses of themselves.
> >--
> >"You aren't even aware of the basic details of the few things you have
> >demonstrated a vague awareness of."
> > - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Yup, you're a master of script-fu alright...
And you're a master of SNAFU it seems.
--
"You aren't even aware of the basic details of the few things you have
demonstrated a vague awareness of."
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Does VB and SQL work under linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:50:35 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Colin R. Day would say:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>> YAWN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >hi all:
>> >
>> >i am thinking of putting Linux on my laptop (32MB RAM, P200, 2.0GB),
>> >and i am wondering if i can run Visual Basics and SQL in Linux.
>>
>> All LIE-nux have is MY-SQL, which is like a MS-SQL Jr.
>
>There's also Oracle, though most distros don't include it.
Don't bother feeding the troll.
An _honest_ answer would be that the only "top tier" SQL DBMS that _isn't_
available on Linux is Microsoft's version of Sybase.
DB/2, Oracle, Sybase, Informix, all are available, and that's just the
"top tier" of "high premium, high priced" DBMSes.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #63. "Bulk trash will be disposed of in
incinerators, not compactors. And they will be kept hot, with none of
that nonsense about flames going through accessible tunnels at
predictable intervals." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:58:37 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8m04ol$ktp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Drestin Black wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> Does it have this ability if a user recieves it in the mail?
> > >>
> > >> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
> > >>
> > >> The *ONLY* way that can work is if root runs it.
> > >
> > > It would take more than just that.
> > >
> > > If it were emailed as a C source code, it would have to be packaged as a
> > > shar that when executed would extract the C source. It would have to
> run
> > > the C compiler and linker. The shar would then run the program becoming
> > > root first assuming that it was not root who executed the shar. At some
> > > point before that last step, the shar to behave as an email virus would
> have
> > > to determine the mailer software on the host and the "address book
> format".
> > > It would mail itself to those addresses it discovers.
> > >
> >
> > In short, dresden once again has no idea of what hes talking about.
>
> you didn't even take the time to realize that I didn't write the above you
> attribute to me. I never mae any e-mail such claim and aaraon is a fucking
> idiot who doesn't knw how to reply or quote (or did it intentionally) to try
> to make it look like I said something about e-mai. I didn't and wouldn't. I
> know what this code does and I got it from lwn.com by the author of some
> linux low level IDE routines - he knows more about it than either of us.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Speak for yourself, moron.
--
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: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 21:59:40 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bob Hauck wrote:
> > >
> > > On 29 Jul 2000 11:57:44 -0500, Drestin Black
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Remember how we always laughed at people when they'd stay stupid things
> > >
> > > I'm laughing now, at the advocate who does not think before posting.
> > >
> > > >well, it turns out that Linux onces again "innovates" - it's now
> possible to
> > > >actually, physically destroy your hard drive using some simple code
> (link
> > > >provided)...
> > >
> > > But not by accident, and not unless you are root, and not just on
> > > Linux. This being a problem with the IDE _hardware_, it would affect
> > > all other systems that support IDE. Some of _them_ do not have any
> > > security at all so any user can do this.
> >
> > And...of course...who keeps promoting IDE instead of the far
> > superior SCSI....Microsoft, of course.
>
> No fuckhead - I promote SCSI, always have always will, don't even have an
> IDE drive. MS promotes SCSI, only a confused trolling fudster like yourself
> would think otherwise. How pathetic.
Oh really, then why does MS always spearhead the drive to "update"
IDE protocols every time they become obsolete.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm????
--
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: Linux can physically destroy your hard drive!
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:00:31 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> you missed the point - this doesn't just trash partion tables or make data
> inaccessible - it actually physically destroys the firmware - as in, IDE
> drive => brick.
And you are alleging that IDE controls codes are available only in
Linux and Unix?
Are you insane?
>
> "Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > Andre posted a thing he called disk-destroyer.c (see below) which
> > > will use an IDE command to trash the partition table on a disk, thus
> > > rendering all data inaccessible.
> >
> > Windows has had this feature for years. I've
> > had Win95 destroy it's partition table several
> > times, all by itself, with no input from me.
> > I've even had scandisk do it.
> >
> > If you don't want to wait for Windows to do it,
> > all you have to do is type "format c:" at a
> > DOS prompt, or run fdisk.
> >
> > The only reason I can see for posting this is
> > that you're surprised Linux *could* be made to
> > perform as poorly as Windows if someone wanted
> > to make the effort.
> >
> > > Apparently, however, there are other
> > > variants possible which will cause the drive to wipe out its firmware,
> thus
> > > turning it into a true brick.
> >
> > Seems to be a problem in the ATA/IDE spec that
> > allows this. There's no reason Windows couldn't
> > do it either. Note that Linux doesn't actually
> > do this - you have to write and run code to make
> > it happen.
> >
> > You are getting desperate aren't you? Is it just
> > that W2K sales aren't very impressive, or are
> > you still upset that people choose Apache over
> > IIS 3:1, or is it the "Good Times" virus enable
> > feature that *actually exists* in Outlook?
> >
> > Arthur
--
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
******************************
