Linux-Advocacy Digest #342, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Is Linux some kind of a joke? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 01:16:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Apparently, it was. What precisely is the analogy? Cable service and
>> OSes? That doesn't make any sense. You weren't drawing an analogy, as
>
>In both situations, there may be a monopoly. There are still options
>available, regardless.
Again, we run aground of the 'popular wisdom' meaning of "monopoly"
versus the actual meaning, the legal one. What makes a company a
'monopoly' is not market share, but use of market share to control
prices and exclude competition. If you're trying in a back-handed way
to say that your cable company is monopolizing, that is a different
issue. Microsoft has broken the law, and has already been convicted.
>> I see it, so much as begging the question. Why are cable services likes
>> OSes? Just because you don't have much choice in either?
>>
>> [...]
>> >> The one where Microsoft has been convicted of multiple felonies.
>> >
>> >The Supreme Court will answer that.
>
>The Appeals Court will do that fine on its own.
So the 'popular wisdom' goes. Have you some real information which
leads you to believe that the Appeals Court will overturn the
conviction? REAL information, not just an assumption based on a lack of
understanding of the MS II decision and the facts of the current case,
which already overcome the MS II concerns?
><snip>
>
>> >What criminal monopoly? Have you ever priced Windows (actual purchase
>> >cost) to the competition?
>>
>> Yes. And it is higher than it would be if they didn't have a monopoly.
>
>How do you know? Their prices have remained the same and are what the
>market will bear.
You confuse "what the market will bear" with "what the customers will
put up with." "What the market will bear" only works when there is
*active* competitions, providing consumers with a number of *convenient*
alternatives. What Microsoft can manage to charge when they have a
pre-load lock-in is irrelevant; it constitutes, in fact, monopoly
pricing, no matter how low it is. The question isn't "is the price
high?" The question is 'is it one penny higher than it would be if the
customer could choose a feasible alternative rather than pay it.'
>>
>> >Have you ever bought Solaris (before the recent
>> >near giveway) or IRIX? The haven't raised prices. If anything, their
>> >prices have dropped.
>>
>> That is not the issue. The issue is would they have dropped more if the
>> monopoly not be artificially controlling prices through non-competitive
>> means.
>
>These prices aren't very much now. At least not compared to the
>applications.
>Price RedHat in the store and compare it to Windows.
Why? RedHat bases their prices on what the monopoly is charging, not on
what customers are willing to pay in a competitive market where one
vendor doesn't control 90%+ of the installed base.
>> [...]
>> >> It sure as hell wasn't 'free'. I don't spend "the company's money"
>> >
>> >Your employer paid for it. You didn't. To you, it was free.
>>
>> It doesn't work like that. If nothing else, I'm a stock-holder.
>
>You, yourself, didn't pay for it. It was a tax deduction for your employer.
A 'tax deduction'? What are you smoking? That's called a "capital
expense". It isn't a 'tax deduction', though it does come off of gross
profit before calculating net.
>If you want to make a change to a different platform, start at home.
Why? That's the most expensive way to do it possible. How about I wait
for the millions of corporate desktop PCs to prove the product and bring
the price down, first?
>> >> without reason. I demanded they buy NT because I refused to use 98 and
>> >> I could supposedly run the products of my trade on it, as well as
>> >
>> >You have a trade, Max? What is that?
>>
>> I troubleshoot.
>
>What profession is that, exactly?
Specifically, it would fall into the 'profession' of "consultant". A
catch-all, obviously. To be even more specific, I go to companies like
Sprint, MCI, and Global Crossing and help them figure out how technology
actually works, in contrast to the vendor's promises and marketing.
[...]
>> No, its the basis of the free market. The free market is the basis of
>> the law.
>
>The free market is one that has minimum government interference.
The free market is the one that has competition.
[...]
>> Anything I can manage to get it to do. In particular, professionally,
>> manage global networks.
>
>Pardon me if I'm not impressed.
That's because you don't believe me.
[...]
>> No, I'm the one who cleans up the messes of the 'network engineer'
>> types, and try to explain how to avoid them in the future.. And the
>> "network admin" types, the 'application programmer' types, and the
>> 'telecom guys', as well. You're trying to convince me that purely on
>> technical merit you 'chose' the crapware that the monopoly is pushing
>
>Purely on the basis that the application support I needed was available on
>it at a FAR lower price than it would have been on IRIX or Solaris. No reason
>to pay the commercial Unix tax. One doesn't just use an OS.
You're comparing the wrong OSes; one uses Solaris for reasons other than
price. If you want cheap, you go with Linux.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:35:17 -0500
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:12:13 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>machine available, (note: my wschool is an exception) so cahcing is even
>@>more pointless. Further, keeping a different version of a profile for
>@>every single login from the beginning of time makes even less sense,
>@>since all these versions can get completely out of synch in a worse case
>@>scenario. In that case, finding out what version of your profile you're
>@>going to be using is nearly impossible.
>@
>@So get management software that can automatically clean out profiles
>@every six weeks, if it's THAT much of an issue for you. Frankly, I
>@really doubt it is, but hey - the choice is yours.
>
> The choice is not mine--I don't own/run the machines. Why does
>Windows need a third party utility to do something that makes perfect
>sense?
You don't. In a real enterprise system (like I've seen, but you
haven't) typically software to do that is at the very bottom of the
food chain - ie unimportant.
>@> I can't see my C drive. So I can't see profiles, or %username%, or
>@>any verwsion at all of my profile. Further, why should I have to resort
>@>to cut and paste. Shouldn't the login prompt let me choose from a list
>@>which profile I'd like to use? Seems like that would make more sense
>@>than having a user muck around w3ith the directory structure.
>@
>@Users can't be depended upon to always make the right choice; it's far
>@better to have a default choice that handles the decision that will be
>@correct in the vast, vast, VAST majority of cases. Hardware profiles
>@do exist, so if you have, say, a laptop with 2 NICs it's easy to
>@switch between the two; that's the typical use of the login "Which
>@setup do you want to use?" question. Bear in mind that's -completely-
>@different from user profiles.
>
> OK, you lost me here. Please explain in smaller words.
I suggest ExamCram's NT Server and NT Workstation books. Available at
a local bookstore for $25 or so each. Just check out the computer
section; surely they'll be there.
>@>But, hey,
>@>what do I know?
>@
>@Agreed. You have no or little experience with NT and managing a
>@network.
>
> Correct.
>
>@>@All of this really, really depends on what your admin staff did. I'm
>@>@telling you *one* way it can be done.
>@>
>@> Sorry, I thought you were telling me several ways it could be done?
>@
>@One way in that paragraph. If you only wish to be difficult, don't do
>@it here. Instead, go see your desktop staff and ask them to fix it.
>@I promise you it will get fixed a lot faster than just bitching in
>@here.
>
> I spend a fair amount of time bitching at them, thank you very much.
>But I like to argue in here. It's relaxing.
:)
>@>@Do you not understand what "guessing" means? That's all I'm doing.
>@>@You've essentially provided me with -zero- serious information; I am
>@>@simply guessing as to what could be one of many hundreds of reasons.
>@>
>@> Right now I'm trying to figure out what you;re saying. This started
>@>when you were trying to describe to me the way w2k handles profiles.
>@>You went on to contradict yourself.
>@
>@How so?
>
> I'm not doing your homework for you--reread the thread.
>
>@>I'm trying to find out what you
>@>really meant to say.
>@
>@I think it's been very obvious to anyone with even passing knowledge
>@of 9x/NT.
>
> Well, it's not.
It is. It's merely that you don't have that passing knowledge that
you find it difficult.
>@>@> And why are they saving copis of my password all over the place?
>@>@
>@>@Sigh. "Copis" of your password aren't being saved anywhere except the
>@>@SAM database, a far, far more secure method than Win95's .pwl files.
>@>
>@> Sorry, tyop. What's a SAM database? Does each machine have one? I
>@>would assume so in your "laptop" scenario.
>@
>@System Account Manager database. All NT boxes have 'em.
>@
>@If you really want to learn, read a book like ExamCram's Windows NT
>@Workstation and Windows NT Server. They're small books, reasonably
>@cheap, and they go over the topic in enough detail that someone
>@familiar with computers already can learn quite a bit in a short time.
>
> I'll look into it. I'l bet there's a copy or two floating around the
>library here.
They're a great read. I strongly suggest them.
>@>@Sure. Now, do you typically have thousands of users logging into a
>@>@single machine *locally*?
>@>
>@> No, just about thirty. Argument still holds, just with fewer users
>@>and more data per user.
>@> So, quotas don't help? Then why did you bring them up?
>@
>@Quotas help. Do you not understand how quotas help? What part of
>@"quota" didn't you understand? Yes, too many profiles can overwhelm a
>@hard drive, but that's not a likely scenario at all.
>
> It seems to have happened. Yes, I understand quotas, but you implied
>that they can solve this problem. They cannot.
Of thousands of people logging into a single machine? No. Of a
typical scenario of one user clogging up his profile with a 50MB .MOV
file? Yes, it can solve that.
>@>@>@> So it can be configured to not accumulate shit on the local
>@>@>@> machine?
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@
>@>@>@Turn off caching profiles.
>@>@>
>@>@> You said it's off. Is it miracuously on again?
>@>@
>@>@How could I know? I'm -guessing- based on incredibly incomplete
>@>@information that you've been completely unable to provide. I'm simply
>@>@stating how it -can- work.
>@>
>@> I think I've been more than able to provide incredibly incomplete
>@>information.
>@> BTW, caching profiles, as you've described, is still insane.
>@
>@..to someone new to the concept, sure. There are a lot of things that
>@are mysterious until you learn them and why they were made that way,
>@and then you say "Oh! That makes sense!" once you learn why and how
>@it works.
>
> If you say so....
>
>@>@>@>Why isn't that the default?
>@>@>@
>@>@>@Because it's a bad idea in a multiuser, multimachine environment.
>@>@>
>@>@> Why? This exact setup worked fine under win 95/98 with no cached
>@>@>profiles. This is certainly a multiuser, multimachine environment.
>@>@
>@>@In a completely insecure manner, sure. Personally, I'd rather that
>@>@other people -not- be able to trivially read my profile information,
>@>@thank you.
>@>
>@> Did I say anything abnout security? Do I give a fuck about security
>@>when I can't even access my profile? Probably not. Of course, when you
>@>think about it, what could be more secure than a profile even the suer
>@>can't access?
>@
>@Call your desktop support staff.
>
> ...a bunch of monkies.
:)
>@>@>@>It would make more sense. [i'm assuming
>@>@>@>the "let shit accumulate" system is the default since the labs are
>@>@>@>using
>@>@>@>it]
>@>@>@
>@>@>@Let me guess - you've never run a LAN/WAN of over, say, 5000 users,
>@>@>@have you? Or a LAN of any kind?
>@>@>
>@>@> Hmm, 5000 users. Let's see, I'm a college student......welll, NOPE!
>@>@
>@>@Do college students no longer have internships? Surely at least some
>@>@students must run UNT's domain structures, right?
>@>
>@> Yes, they do, but they don't have a lot of power or responsibility.
>@>A high esitmate of the number of w2k machines at UNT would be 1,000.
>@
>@So it's a small to midsize campus. That's fine; it's still a good way
>@to get some experience.
>
> Actually, we're pretty big--nearly 30,000 students. But mostly
>commuters, and mostly music/theatre/art majors. Fair number of CS and
>BC majors, but not a majority.
>
>@>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
>@>@>
>@>@> Yes.
>@>@
>@>@At what, exactly?
>@>
>@> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two machines.
>@>Two users: root, and me.
>@> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
>@
>@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something that
>@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires no or a
>@very light technical skillset; administrative experience would be
>@doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week, setting
>@up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP, and
>@other 'stuff' day in and day out.
>@
>@By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up OS X
>@beta. That's silly.
>
> You asked: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?" I
>said, "Yes." Did I lie? Nope, you just asked a bad question. How am I
>supposed to know you meant, "Do you have any administrative experience
>that I would consider impressive?"
Don't be silly. By that logic anyone running Windows 95 is an account
operator / administrator (because hey, you can have a "multi-user"
(heh) Win95, too!)
>@>@>@No? Thank you. Please stop calling established systems' methods,
>@>@>@essentially, "shit".
>@>@>
>@>@> Why? It isn't working. What we had before did. It's a big waste
>@>@> of
>@>@>space. It's slower. It's more goddamn money UNT pissed away. Some of
>@>@
>@>@1. It isn't working because DT Support hasn't fixed it. We don't
>@>@know why - for all we know, the hard drive went bad and NT's superior
>@>@disk management is shielding you from seeing the massive cluster
>@>@failures on the disk. In short, every time you open your mouth,
>@>@you're guessing.
>@>
>@> "NT's superior disk management...." What, w2k can't even report
>@>errors in a sane manner? It has to tell me the disk is full, and that's
>@>somehow preferable to telling me the disk is damaged?
>@
>@Are you the administrator on that machine? No? So there are some
>@things you may not be able to see. Your hostile attitude has become
>@annoying. I'm trying to give you some ideas of the many things that
>@could have happened.
>
> So, the system gives the users bad information.
It does? Please tell - how so?
>They relay this bad
>information to the admins. The admins can't fix the problem. And this
>is the fault of the admins? Sorry, but I don't see how this is a good
>setup.
You haven't the foggiest idea HOW it's set up. We keep going over
that same basic fact....
>@> Didn't you say you were the one guessing?
>@
>@Yes. That is just a guess, but it is a (remote) possibility.
>@However, given that you're unable to have desktop support look at it,
>@that's about the best we've got.
>
> Very true. I'm about to throw the machine out the window just to see
>if THAT will get a response.
>
>@>@2. Win98 and "working"? C'mon. I want privacy and security in a
>@>@multiuser environment; Win98 doesn't offer that.
>@>
>@> I want to edit my report during class instead of 7:00 AM. To hell
>@>with what you want.
>@
>@Then it looks like you'll have to talk to those desktop support folks,
>@won't you?
>
> I have, and I will continue.
>
>@>@3. Waste of space? How so?
>@>
>@> It takes at least as much space as 95/98, but doesn't work.
>@
>@How do you know that? Are you prepared to guarantee that the machine
>@is configured *exactly* the same way? No? Then stop guessing.
>
> I didn't say anything about configuration--I said it didn't work.
You said it takes at least as much space as 95/98, and you have no way
of knowing that for a fact. I suspect I could construct scenarios
where it took -less- HD space than Win98, for example.
>@>@4. Slower? Sure, on machines without enough RAM. Otherwise, it's
>@>@fine.
>@>
>@> WTF? It's logging into a server, showing a GUI, and running Word.
>@>Just how much more memory would be reasonable?
>@
>@NT needs RAM. Boy...take a hint, and don't look at OS X anytime soon;
>@you'll have a heart attack; it makes NT svelte in comparison.
>
> Further, it's beside the point.
Still, NT is hardly a RAM-heavy monster compared to today's OSs....
>@>@>that money is/was mine. I can't get any work done in class. I have to
>@>@>come in at odd times to do something I should be able to do in class.
>@>@>But last semester, before this "upgrade" nobody had to deal with this.
>@>@> So, since it's having a direct, measurable impact on me, I am more
>@>@>than qualified to call it a piece of shit.
>@>@
>@>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
>@>@'shit'. Since you have no idea what's wrong with the machine, any
>@>@other analysis you could make would be silly.
>@>
>@> 1. My support staff IS shit.
>@
>@That, folks, is the root of the problem.
>@
>@> 2. They did just fine with 95/98.
>@
>@Immaterial. See #1.
>
> Very material. 95/98--OK, w2k--failure. Staff hasn't changed,
>hardware hasn't changed, usage hasn't changed, even the damn weather
>hasn't changed. All that's changed is the OS.
...according to you, who isn't an administrator, can't look at the
machine in question, and generally is clueless about NT / Microsoft
OSs. Sorry, but that's not an authoritative answer.
>[...maybe...]
>
>@> Old profiles must be removed manually; there is no automated
>@>mechanism in place for removing old/rarely used/small profiles, even
>@>though that's perfectly OK since there's a server around with every
>@>version of every porofile ever.
>@
>@Not in NT itself, but third party tools exist.
>@
>@> Quotas will not alleviate this problem as eventially it is possible
>@>for so many profiles to accumulate that the machine still runs out of
>@>space.
>@
>@See immediately above if that's an issue for you.
>
> A failing of NT.
To you, perhaps. To people with a background in the subject, it's
immaterial.
>@> The local machine might or might not also host multiple versions of
>@>profiles. From the info you've given, I would think so, but I don't
>@>want to assume.
>@
>@You've ASSumed so much all along; why stop now? :)
>
> Trying to make you feel better. (:
:)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Is Linux some kind of a joke?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 05:50:19 GMT
Is Linux some kind of a joke or something?
I mean I instaled Redhat and it looks like shit. No games, no support
for my video card. No support for my soundcard or any of my USB
devices...
This has to be a joke?
Why should I return to the 1980's just to run Linux?
Linux is a piece of shit....
The Whore...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
