Linux-Advocacy Digest #529, Volume #29 Sun, 8 Oct 00 21:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Jim Broughton)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast (mlw)
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (mlw)
Re: RAID on Win2k Pro ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Shocktrooper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:48:07 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> > On the other hand the w98 side is for games and my tv card.
>
> Can't your TV card work under linux - if it is based on a BTTV chipset then
> it should work under Linux with no problems.
I have a (to say the least) unusual linux setup. I run xfree86 4.0.1
and the proprietary Nvidia drivers for my Gforce 2 GTS card. They tend
not to play too well with the tv card drivers. (tuner issues) But will
run through a vcr's tuner. (too bad my vcr just died and I have not yet
replaced it).
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 8 Oct 2000 19:49:05 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8roq56$mit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rldv5$ko2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8rfp69$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > But, see that "T" in TCO? It's not "CO" which is what your
describing
> >> > here.
> >> >> > Sure, it cost $0 "CO" for the open sores(tm) version versus >$0
"CO"
> > for
> >> > the
> >> >> > MS solution but you asked about "TCO" - TOTAL cost of ownership.
> >> > Ahhhhh...
> >> >> > see, after you've got these stacks of CDs sitting there and it
comes
> >> > time to
> >> >> > actually install, configure and use these items does the "T"
portion
> >> > kick
> >> >> > in. Try sharing those star office files with anyone, what's the
> >> > performance
> >> >> > of that MySQL database? Need replication? Transactions? full
SQL-92
> >> > support?
> >> >> > stored procedures worth a damn? Did you want security? Compability
> > with
> >> >> > everything? Support for everything? I argue that Windows is much
> > easier
> >> > to
> >> >> > install, configure and use than Linux. It's the "T" portion of TCO
> > you
> >> > need
> >> >> > to focus on, the "CO" part is easy. Remember, Linux (et. el.) is
only
> >> > free
> >> >> > if your time is worth nothing...
> >> >>
> >> >> I need a database that is starts at 1.5 terabytes and is growable to
35
> >> > terabytes
> >> >> with no tweaking, and is also capable of handling 70,000
transactions
> > per
> >> >> second. What would you suggest for hardware, software and OS?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hmmm ok, how about something that does more than that?
> >>
> >> >
> >
http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Compaq/compaq.pl8500.00100601.
> >> > es.pdf
> >>
> >> > Posted today. It beats the previously posted IBM DB2/W2K TPC-C record
> > and is
> >> > cheaper. It has 43 terabytes of storage ... big enough for you boyo?
> > Guess
> >> > what - it's the new king. I don't see Sun or *nix even remotely
close...
> >>
> >> 43TB? Thats it? DB2 has no limit. AIX. Sorry about that.
>
> > Limit? What limit? Did I even remotely suggest that 43 tb was ANY sort
of
> > limit? again, you are twisting the words out of desperation.
>
> Alright then, what is the limit?
>
> >>
> >> And lets see, according to this document, the measurement interval was
30
> >> minutes. The number of transactions completed in this interval was
> >> 33,811,291. Thats with a "ramp up time" (sorry, I work with platforms
> > that
> >> dont use these sorts of terms) of 48 minutes, and a rampdown time of 40
> >> minutes.
>
> > Translation: I have no idea what these terms mean, why they would be
used,
> > how they impact the numbers and what I've gotten myself into
>
> Actually, I know exactly what all of them mean.
>
> Since you dont deal with this sort of system, you dont.
stop making me laugh.
>
> >>
> >> But lets be fair: 33,811,291 transactions in 30 minutes. 30 minutes
> > would
> >> be 1800 seconds, which would give us a grand total of 18,784
transactions
> >> per second.
>
> > So, instead you decide to try to play with your calculator and come up
with
> > some random figures ...
>
> Alright, what would the average of transactions per second be for a sample
> time of 30 minutes during which 33,811,291 transactions were executed?
you miss the point COMPLETELY - sheesh...
>
> >>
> >> Which is about 25% of what I asked for. I asked for 70,000. And thats
> > AFTER
> >> "ramp-up" time.
>
> > and since you didn't define "transaction"
>
> Transaction means the same thing no matter what database application youre
> using, dresden.
um, No. And you demonstrate your lack of understanding with that comment.
Learn what a TPC-C transaction is and then try to explain how it's "the same
thing" as a SAP or ERP transaction to me... we're waiting...
>
> > you of course have no ruler
> > whatsoever for comparision and hence are not even remotely in the
ballpark
> > for discussion. If you knew what a TPC-C transaction entails you'd know
it
> > wasn't a single operation of any kind, instead, an entire unit of
multiple,
> > atomic steps.
>
> I wasnt talking about a single operation. I was talking about a
TRANSACTION,
> which is why I didnt say "operation" in my original post, brainiac.
your desperation is showing...
>
> >>
> >> And do you realize that compaq is charging over NINE MILLION DOLLARS
for
> >> this product?
>
> > which beats the hell out of the $14,232,696 that IBM charges for it's
lower
> > performing attempt.
>
> Thats actually not how much they charge. You are *sorely* misinformed, as
> usual.
and by the same token butt-wipe, that's not how much MS/Compaq actually
charge - both are listing standard off-the-shelf prices, per the rules
idiot. So, now, lesse, who has the reputation for deepest discounts -
whoops, another IBM loss! Sorry charlie! NO matter how you twist and swing,
you'll never find IBM quoting a cheaper price. I should know, it's something
I do for a living. I never worry about beating their price, I only have to
overcome the dated opinions of entrenched idiots like you who spoon fed
idiot managment types with FUD and lies designed to save your jobs since you
can't function in a Windows world. You have no idea how much squirming my
competitors do when I whip out price/performance comparisions... it's sweet.
>
> >>
> >> I could buy 4 IBM machines/licenses/software bundles which could EACH
do
> > what
> >> I asked for for that price.
>
> > Since you didn't define what you wanted to do -
>
> Hmmm. Ill quote from above:
>
> >> >> I need a database that is starts at 1.5 terabytes and is growable to
35
> >> > terabytes
> >> >> with no tweaking, and is also capable of handling 70,000
transactions
> > per
> >> >> second.
>
> Yep. There it is, right there where I say "capable of handling 70,000
> transactions per second".
>
> Interesting that you only see the things that support your trolling.
what kinds of transactions? What kind of application? you don't know how to
create a RFB (or RFQ for you types). Your definition is too wide open. And,
again, 35 terabytes is too small to be a limiting factor, your fascinated by
the tps - too bad you didn't bother to define the term...
>
> > who knows what you are
> > asking for. And since we'll be riding on the backs of flying pigs the
day
> > IBM (or sun) charges less than Compaq I think it's fair to say that you
are
> > again wrong.
>
> You have no idea what IBM charges, apparantly. You are speaking once
again
> from total lack of experience, yet somehow you expect everyone to believe
> you anyway.
I sure do. probably better than some of their innane clone salesmen.
>
> >>
> >> Again, I think its sweet and kind of funny that compaq/microsoft
believes
> > it
> >> can compete in the heavy server market.
>
> > you are into this sweetness thing aren't you? your boyfriend buy you a
new
> > toy or something? Sun Tzu has a LOT to say about underestimating your
enemy.
> > I encourage you to continue to laugh at compaq/microsoft's first
attempt.
>
> Oh, I shall. And by the way, neither am I gay, nor do I have a boyfriend.
>
> Compaq and microsoft are not my enemy, you binary little tool. Theyre
> simply comic relief.
binary little tool - that's cute. little or big endian?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hotmail has been down for at least 12 hours on the East Coast
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 20:52:56 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What kind of crap is this?
>
> claire
Well, MS has reported that they are moving hotmail to Windows 2000, and
have a good portion of it done, maybe they have finished.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 20:50:13 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 18:42:49 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >This is an obvious flame bait but I give it a shot.
>
> Not flamebait at all, it is the truth, that is why I am repying to you
> :)
"truth" and "fact" are different with respect to perspective, evidently.
>
> >> We don't want compilers.
> >I don't who the 'we' to which your are referring, but me and my friends
> >want them.
>
> You and your friends are programmers... 99 percent of the Windows
> desktop users (your real market ) are not......
So, it is irrelevent, should you now want to use a compiler, by all
means, don't.
> >> We don't need 200 different text editors.
> >
> >No one needs 200 different editors, of course not, but 200 different
> >people may each want their own editor.
>
> But they are there, counted as useful Linux applications....
And they are.
>
> >> We don't need all kinds of freeware libraries and fragmented programs
> >> that do specific functions, most of which are useless to all but other
> >> programmers..
> >
> >Here you are confused. Linux is not Windows, as such, program structure
> >is different on Windows than on UNIX. In UNIX the strategy is to make
> >small libraries and programs which do a specific job. Higher level
> >programs use them as utilities.
>
> Nope... If I go to win.com I find useful Windows applications. If I go
> to freshmeat.net I find a collection of disjointed development
> applications that, quite frankly, are a waste of time for an end user.
This is your perspective, and I strongly disagree with you.
> >> We don't need 90 percent of the software on Freshmeat.
> >
> >Then don't use it.
>
> We can't..That is the point....
There is no reason you can't. You just don't want too.
>
> >> We don't want to return to the 1980's playing with config files.
> >These '1980's' config files are no different, conceptually, than the
> >bloated single point of failure registry in Windows.
> >
> >>
> >> We have gone through Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files ad nauseam with
> >> Qemm and Qualatis, playing with Himem.sys to gain that extra 5k of
> >> free memory.
> >
> >Windows 98/SE/ME still use autoexec.bat and config.sys. Window NT and 2K
> >still read environment settings from autoexec.bat, and maybe (I never
> >tries it) from config.sys.
>
> Boot the cd and it works. How it works I don't know, nor do I care. I
> hae more important things to do, like applications.
Linux is the same way, install it with all defaults, and it works.
>
> >It makes no difference WHERE or HOW you store configuration variables as
> >long as there is a way to modify them as necessary. There are plenty of
> >GUI configuration utilities for Linux.
>
> that's the problem... Why should I have to modify anything? And how,
> exactly to I perform this modification? More FAQ reading? Sorry...It
> just works under Windows...
You need not modify anything unless you want the system to do something
different than the default.
You are very much overstating what Windows is not.
> >> This is 1980's stuff and it is gone, goodbye. We don't want to
> >> resurrect playing around with text files.
> >
> >This is simply MS propaganda. What is the advantage of a binary registry
> >database for configuration over text files? One can still put confusing
> >entries in Windows' registry, just as one can in a text configuration
> >file. At least in the text files one can integrate comments.
>
> The advantage is I don't have to do a thing. I start my mp3 program
> (MMjukebox) and it starts in my default directory.
Provided your Windows program installs correctly.
> >>
> >> We don't want half assed implementations of Windows software either.
> >
> >Believe me, no one in their right mind would implement software on Linux
> >as they would on Windows. Windows is just a poorly designed environment.
> >NT would not be bad if it did not have to be saddled with the idiotic
> >Win32 subsystem.
>
> And Linux ports of such software sucks, despite it's on paper
> technical advantages.
On what basis do you conclude this? Personal opinion? Sure, think
anything you want, but thinking something does not make it so.
>
> >> If you choose to clone it but can't clone it completely, including all
> >> ease of use features, don't bother at all. it will only make you look
> >> silly. The current crop of mp3 players are a good example. Damm things
> >> can't even remember the song directory.
> >
> >I frequently laugh at these "ease of use" claims from Windows zealots. A
> >Windows system administrator, very experienced in Windows, said to me
> >Thurs. last week, "You know Windows, it is probably in their, but its
> >remembering the arcane series of mouse clicks to get you to the right
> >place that sucks." Where as in Linux, I did a grep for the name I was
> >looking for and found the setting in the etc directory.
>
> You spend your time greping I spnd my time running my applications.
Actually, I spend my time working. When I want to change something, it
takes me very little time, and I am right back to work. I spend more
time helping people with Windows get their systems working than I would
wish.
>
> >Windows is idiotware, it trades hierarchical (hieroglyphic) complexity
> >for linguistic complexity. It is for people that can't (or don't) think
> >past a 6th grade level.
>
> Exactly... People who want to run applications, not play with an OS no
> matter how high and mighty it makes them feel.
Computers are tools. Would you really use complex tools with reading the
directions?
I know how my system works, but normal users need not. A linux box runs
without much configuration.
>
> >> We are willing to pay for quality software that works out of the box.
> >> And Windows has plenty of it.
> >
> >I would not use the word quality. I agree there is plenty of it,
> >however.
>
> You (the Linux world) have not even scratched the surface of the
> number of Windows and Mac applications that run quite nicely right out
> of the box.
> Keep dreaming,,,
You keep repeating this simple claim, but it isn't true. WinAmp,
MSOffice, Photoshop, etc. all crash and burn on a regular basis. How is
this easy?
>
> >> Example: Norton Internet Firewall, BlackIce, Zonealarm (free BTW).
> >> Compare this to trying to set up a firewall under Linux using
> >> IpChains, ipforwarding and such....What a waste of time, as well as a
> >> potential security risk for those setting it up that don't know what
> >> they are doing.
> >
> >Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
>
> And stupidity will get you hacked, despite you wasting all day looking
> for canned firewall scripts.
Yes, and Windows will crash and you'll lose work.
> >>
> >> Sorry but my data is worth $30.00 or so, to have a professionally
> >> designed program that works out of the box and is easily customized.
> >> Also I don't have to scour the net for config scripts that may
> >> actually compromise security. The products I use, and pay for, are
> >> used by corporations everywhere, and if a flaw should arise, and they
> >> do, a fix is released....
> >
> >Yes, but you are in the position of trusting companies without the
> >ability to audit security.
> And you are in the position of trusting nothing...Open Source? So Who
> IS accountable?
What is accountable? If software fails what happens? You get some moron
trying to help you get back up. Professional tech support is a joke.
Microsoft tech support, even Solution Provider support is a big fat
joke. The "engineer" they assign you dosn't know crap.
So, lets turn the question around, what happens when the "accountable"
aren't worth crap? You guessed it, you are in the same position as
OpenSource, your job depends on being up in 30 minutes. No one in the
world can help you in the time frame you need, so you have to know how
to fix it.
I tell you, there is no competent IS person that will tell you any
different.
>
> >> Browsers?
> >>
> >> Netscape, says it all. Even Windows users think Netscape sucks.
> >
> >Netscape really sucks, but if you want to see a sucky browser that
> >frequently takes down the whole OS, just use IE.
>
> Use it every day..You should try it some time instead of the crap you
> are using...
I develop software. IE is a pathetic piece of crap for which I have to
test my software. So, I use it. I prefer Netscape and Linux.
> >> Email?
> >>
> >> Anything like Eudora yet?
> >
> >Lots.
> Yawwwnnn.....How many hours do I have to spend configuring this one?
Not long.
>
> >> Sorry but I don't feel like configuring sendmail today, or any day for
> >> that matter.
> >
> >One does not need to configure sendmail to use e-mail. Sendmail is a
> >replacement for something like "exchange server" only it is better and
> >cheaper.
> And full of security leaks...
Verifyably fewer risks than Exchange Server.
>
> >>
> >> Linux still lags far, far, far, far, behind Windows and this is
> >> evident by the number of sales of Windows ME.... Why would people pay
> >> for what really amounts to a minimal upgrade instead of getting Linux
> >> for free?
> >
> >I just read an article that said sails of MS-ME were dismal, and the
> >sales that are being seen are OEMS that install it.
> Doesn't seem to be altering the number of Linux installs...
I am waiting to see sales of RH 7.0. It should be an eye opener, but
we'll see.
>
> >> They are not interested in Linux, that is why.
> >
> >The word is spreading.
> Yep.. And most of it is negative...
With the exception of you and one or two others, all the stuff I hear,
see, and experience is positive.
>
> >>
> >> Linux has had it's day in the press, let's do every desktop user a
> >> favor and put it out of it's misery once and for all :)
> >
> >There are a lot of people backing Linux and for good reason. It is
> >better than Widows, more stable and faster. Cheaper than MS-ME and more
> >powerful than 2K. The only thing in its way is a criminal monopolistic
> >marketing department. And, of course, it is gaining marketshare.
> Not on the desktop it isn't
You keep saying that, and have you to make a rational defence.
>
> >>
> >> I along with everybody else in the world would LOVE free applicaitons,
> >> but not at the price that running Linux involves.
> >
> >Running linux is not difficult at all. I don't know what your problem
> >is.
> Try applications that actually do something....
Like, oh, say..
Applix,
StarOffice,
Netscape,
Gimp (the latest version is slick)
FreeAmp
Gnapster (Yes, I occasionally do have time for music)
PostgreSQL
Not to mention all the development tools and little applications.
All of these applications just worked with less configuration than would
be required for Windows equivilents.
> >> claire
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: RAID on Win2k Pro
Date: 8 Oct 2000 19:55:04 -0500
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rp2ba$oa9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Drestin,
>
> > > That's OK. I had wanted to do it with NT4 WS and at that time I found
> > > Microsoft had disabled the feature.
>
> > Not "disabled," "never included" is accurate.
>
> Really? I think it's more likely that Microsoft designs the server edition
> and then spends time crippling it. How do you think the ten client limit
> gets in there? Microsoft has to expend time inserting code/changing
registry
> entries/removing applications/writing extra restrictive license
> agreements/taking useful utilities and making you pay separately for the
> administrative kits/etc.
>
> > > Unfortunately I believe this is characteristic of Microsoft's respect
> for
> > > my data: In this case Microsoft has gone out of its way to make sure
> that
> > > I can't use a system of data protection that would save my data in
event
> > > of one of my hard disks failing. Why? Because they're not happy with
me
> > > just paying for a business OS for my computer.
> >
> > oh, excuse me? so, you believe that ANY OS that doesn't provide RAID
> > natively demonstrates a lack of respect for your data?
>
> NO! Being able to provide software RAID but intentionally "never
including"
> the support does though.
being able to provide a journaling file system but intentionally never
including it in linux demonstrates a total lack of respect for my data too.
>
> > Does your equipment/OS fail you so regularly that the lack of RAID
> built-in to the OS is such a concern?
>
> NO IT'S THE *DATA* THAT IS IMPORTANT DRESTIN. DO YOU GET IT?
I wrote that, quite stealing my lines.
>
> OK I understand. Software RAID is no longer important because you've
> discovered that Windows 2000 Professional doesn't support it.
as I wrote, I'd rather use hardware RAID and important data should reside up
the network on a server where it's not only mirrored but backed up. you'd
know that if you were a network admin ever.
>
> > wow... given that only someone looking to get by cheaply would use
> software raid, only someone who has just a passing care for their data and
> performance would use software raid.
>
> Actually Drestin, with UDMA IDE drives and fast processors software RAID
> performance can be rather impressive. Sorry I should want to save money
and
> not have to rearrange hardware if Microsoft doesn't want me to.
just what I thought, one of those types that seeks to overcome UDMA's
failings with striping. Lots of that on the web lately. Too bad it's mostly
misleading as most desktop apps own't take significant advantage of it...
better spent on mirroring. BUT, again, who cares? Why burden your CPU when
for $30 you can have hardware Raid? Are you that cheap? Your data worth so
little?
>
> > So, you are more concerned that an OS include RAID built-in and to hell
> with performance and features [...]
>
> > Guess MS just ain't perfect. Maybe you should save your >
> > lunch money, buy a cheap promise IDE controller and use the 30
> > minute patch to convert it to their RAID controller and mirror
> > your cheap IDE drives instead. Won't cost you anything
> > more than $30...
> >
> > lame...
>
> LOL. This is truly fun Drestin. I hadn't realised MS wasn't perfect.
Thanks
> for putting me straight.
any time... I don't think anything is perfect - you might try thinking that
way too
------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:57:38 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 10:51:27 -0500,
> Tom Elam, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Tom Elam wrote this reply to Charlie Ebert
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>But that growth spirt in the teenage years is a REAL KILLER!
> > ^^^^^
> >
> >Why can't your mighty, all-powerul, Linsux box even run a spell-checker?
> >
> >HUH?
> >
>
> It's allways amusing to see a spelling flame with a spelling error...
Inndeed
--
How fast is YOUR computer?
Here is my nearly 3 year old Dell Dimension XPSR-400
Unreal Tournament, 1024x768@32bit color,
All visuals and sound quality on highest
Cityintro: Max: 96.95fps , Avg: 62.82fps
Wicked400: Max: 53.21fps , Avg: 39.93fps
Just imagine what a "twice as fast" G3 can do!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
