Linux-Advocacy Digest #564, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Loren
Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Loren
Petrich)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Loren Petrich)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 04:47:29 GMT
Chris Sherlock wrote:
> > Then start being a little more temperate. It pains me to see Windows folks come
> > across just as wacko as the rabid Mac and Linux fanatics. Think about it --
> > there's really no reason to do so. Windows is the best mix of all they have to
> > offer -- there's no reason to get bent when rebutting these folks. Don't sink
> > to their losing methods. You obviously know your stuff. Why not beat them with
> > facts and logic. It's not any more difficult than getting emotional and quite a
> > bit more satisfying at least for me!
>
> Funny, I say the same thing about Linux.
I've never seen you or any other Linux advocate urge a rabid one of their midst to
back off. Perhaps you could post an example? I'm not trying to be difficult -- I
just don't remember seeing it :-)
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:04:12 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vmwE5.28081$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You mentioned that Linux was pretty stable as long as
> you didn't enter XWindows (which is correct).
It is also stable if you do run X - but having the choice
is a good thing.
> I was attempting to say "so what have you gained then?".
>
> Linux is a really stable beefy version of DOS, essentially?
> heh
DOS was an abomination tuned to particularly wierd hardware
that a certain company milked for way too long.
> Command-lines are at their most useful when they compliment
> a good GUI. Maximum productivity is acheived, despite what
> the Linvocates would argue to make themselves seem more
> important.
Sometimes. There is rarely a need for a GUI on a server,
particularly anything not on your desktop. Trying to use
one remotely is often counterproductive.
> If I want cmd-line that doesn't crash much, I could
> use DOS too, so what have I gained besides having a little
> bit better hardware support?
Networking, multi-user, multi-tasking, secure and reliable
operation. I'm not surprised that a Microsoft fanatic would
not understand or expect those qualities.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:07:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keep ducking and weaving Loren!! You don't like hearing than
> "visionary" Algore is a rich,poluting,beltway boy do you???
Something you right-wingers normally pride yourself on being.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:09:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> > So it's OK if it's broad-spectrum enough? That would make Social
> > Security and Medicare OK.
> Nope. Social Security and Medicare are still INDIVIDUAL WELFARE
> programs, merely implemented on a wide scale.
Pure hairsplitting. Mr. Kulkis would make an excellent lawyer.
> > > AFDC, WIC, Section 8 housing, etc. are INDIVIDUAL WELFARE....which
> > > only benefits lazy free-loaders.
> > Cry me a river.
> He said it again!
> He's STUCK!
Don't you like hearing your own favorite slogan?
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:12:00 GMT
"Frédéric G. MARAND" wrote:
> Can you seriously write that ?
>
> Or add something like "..part of the time" .
>
> John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:25:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
> > 1) Windows works.
> [...]
Windows works for business almost all of the time. Start talking 9s on
the desktop and you'll find that it's the best desktop OS out there.
That's why it's the most popular OS for the desktop. On the server
Windows 2000 has made innovative inroads into the UNIX space at a
fraction of the cost. It will only get better from here. Linux is
great! Only because Microsoft works best under pressure.
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:14:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 05:04:05 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Purdue out-of-state tuition is NOT subsidized, and I wasn't
> >> getting anything from my parents, either.
> > Cry me a river. I presume that you reimbursed the government for the
> >cost of military training also.
> Yes I did, with hard work, sacrifice and months and months away from
> my family, whilst you enjoyed the freedoms I was protecting.
Enjoy feeling sorry for yourself. Did you pay in MONEY???
> >> Thase parents who fail to properly provide for their kids have
> >> only themselves to blame.
> > In other words, kids deserve handouts from their parents.
> So you would argue that handouts should be government regulated, but
> when parents HELP their kids it is bad??
No, I was pointing out what parents typically do with kids -- give
them handouts.
> Guess in your mind it is
> better if you do not have to think, "the government will do it for
> me". Nice way to dodge responsibility too....typical liberal..
Such as run the military so you won't have to organize your own
militia?
> > It must be said that the proper no-handout child raising would be to
> >dump one's kids in the woods when they are born, so they will have to
> >be as self-reliant as members of most other species have to be.
>
> Actually smart one I think you would find that most mammals NUTURE and
> CARE for their young until they reach an age where they can provide
> for themselves. I think you were thinking of the cold blooded
> reptiles..
That "NURTURING" and "CARING" are giving handouts.
And egg-layers give big handouts in the form of the eggs' content.
One has to look to microbes to find any real virtue :-(
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:17:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 05:07:29 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, STATIC66
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Also, dealing in illegal drugs is not living off of handouts.
> >> NO it is criminal and illegal and if it wasn't for you bleeding heart
> >> liberal types, it could be met with SWIFT PUNISHMENT..
> > What a lover of government STATIC66 is! If it wasn't for those he
> >sneers at as "liberals", he'd be slaving away in an Alaskan prison camp
> >for making disrespectful remarks about our President.
> Respect is not given lightly, Mr Clinton has done nothing to earn it.
> He is a lying scoundrel. And should be made to pay for his numerous
> crimes.
And why must respect be earned? Any parent will tell you that
respect from offspring is not to be earned.
> > C'mon, wouldn't *you* steal if you had no other source of income? It
> >beats starving, doesn't it?
> NO I wouldn't. I have to much respect for myself and others.
I wouldn't be too sure...
> Furthermore, if they are able-bodied enough to break into my home and
> steal from me, why can't they get a job?? Seems to me they should go
> to work..
However, they might not be able to find one. Unemployment happens,
y'know.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 00:19:15 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rt870$t84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip> >> And how much ingress do you think a news server that carries a
full feed
> >> is doing?
> >>
> >> I'm watching one right now. Lets see how close you can get.
>
>
> > I wrote my reply to the wrong sentence. I believe the INGRESS is 13 gigs
and
> > 350,000 articles a day OR SO.
>
> Wrong. Its around 60. That would be drivespace.
>
<snip>
> Actually no. 60 gigs is alot of DRIVE space. As any news admin will tell
you,
> the biggest problem in day to day news server operation is the fine
tweaking
> of expire; you need to use the most space possible without ever running
out.
how is it you figure 60 gigs is a lot of "DRIVE" space (why your emphasis I
don't know). Given that 40 gig HD's are under $200, and four of them would
give you a nice 80 gigs of stripped/mirrored storage - what is your hang up
with that? Now, move this 60 gigs in under 12 hours - how much bandwidth is
that going to cost (metered for most ISPs). Try telling me again what's
cheaper, HD space or bandwidth ...
>
> Again, this is a drivespace issue. The problem isnt that its expensive to
> build larger and larger news arrays, the problem is that its a huge pain
> in the ass. The idea is to get a bigger one than youre going to need for
> at least a couple of years and use it to its capacity the entire time.
Again,
> a drivespace issue.
Why on earth would that be the case? Doesn't the SO you use allow you to
dynamically add more drive space to existing volumes? Hell, with W2K I can
just add more partitions to a volume and grow it without so much as a few
clicks. Add in storage from other servers using mount points without
breaking a sweat. You seem to act as if 60 gigs was a significant amount of
space? It isn't today and wasn't 2 years ago - is your gear that dated?
>
> Bandwidth is negligable. A full-feed spooler is going to pull about
2megs/sec
> average whether kulkis has a long sig or not.
We were talking about costs, cost to store on hard drives vs. cost to move
across the net. Not only in the raw cost of the bandwidth but also in what
it takes from the share your clients want to use. I know as a simple ISP
tech you don't get into the administration end of things, billing and stuff,
but when you do you'll learn that hardware is cheap, it's intangebles like
bandwidth (and talent) that isn't.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 00:22:09 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rtqq8$1lap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >> >> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you. IBM's
4096
> >> >> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a candle to
W2K
> >> >> running on 32 processors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yep.
> >>
> >> > Then why hasn't IBM entered this beast into the running and nuked
> >> > all the competition?
> >>
> >> Because its not a "web solution", though it can be used as such.
>
> > TPC doesn't meter "web solution"s, it meters transactions for all
> > sorts of things. Namely, financial transactions, manufacturing
transactions,
> > just about any type of transactional processing etc. What exactly do
these
> > beasts do if they do not process anything? Granted some due science
> > and mathematical calculations, but is that all? Why would transactional
> > processing metrics not apply to them.
>
> >> There are alot of companies which make enormous machines that are fully
> >> capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely away.
>
> > But they haven't?
>
> You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096 processor
> mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
>
Perhaps it could. But has it yet? Does IBM have a 4096 processor machine up
and running and able to actually perform a benchmark so we can compare it to
something useful? I mean, if IBM has this killer rig out there - why don't
they fire up a TPC score and completely utterly blow both MS and compaq (and
sun) so far outta the water that we'll all just cringe at the mere mention
of it's name (which you've never stated, by the way).
I still have seen you produce absolutely no facts or evidence of ANYTHING to
support ANY of your claims - while we've given you hard facts. Do you wish
to continue to embarress yourself?
------------------------------
From: Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:23:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> > Responsibility can mean giving others handouts, it would seem.
> It's called CHOICE, retard.
> Can you comprehend the idea of DECIDING to give something to a particular
> person, as opposed to having the fruit of one's labors CONFISCATED and
> distributed to shiftless and lazy drunks, drug addicts and whores, and
> their demon spawn.
You sure have a vivid imagination, don't you?
I wonder if this is the way that Mr. Kulkis does accounting for
system resources of the computer systems he administers. If so, then
it's a miracle that he has not gotten seriously purged.
> Modern day "Liberals" have been responsible for more censhorship
> and speech codes than any other movement in American history.
News to me.
> > for making disrespectful remarks about our President.
> As opposed to teeling the wrong joke on a college campus....
Seems like some right-wing urban legend.
> > > Advocating theft as an alternative to welfare is hardly a responsible
> > > arguement. But nothing much about liberalism is responsible..
> > C'mon, wouldn't *you* steal if you had no other source of income?
> Note the weasel-word "if"
Don't be too sure that you will always have some other source of
income. **** happens.
--
Loren Petrich
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Happiness is a fast Macintosh
And a fast train
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 00:24:33 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rtqq8$1lap$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rt8c6$t84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8rr995$17l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:8roql5$mit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Where is it again? [Windows 2000 Data Center]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > It's released and in use already.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Where?
> >> >>
> >> >> > <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> > did you even read further down where you replied before you wrote
> >> > "Where?"
> >> >> > See, you KNOW it's been released but you play stupid (it's comes
easily
> >> > I
> >> >> > understand)...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> > small starting point:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ah. Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to
touching
> >> > IBM
> >> >> >> in any way, shape or form.
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Let me requote this again: "Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not
even
> >> > come
> >> >> > close to touching IBM in any way, shape or form."
> >> >>
> >> >> > OK, lets go here (you said ANY way):
> >> >> > http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
> >> >>
> >> >> > Lets see: IBM's ultimate very best attempt ever: 440,879 tpm/C for
> >> >> > $14,232,696.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Wait, what's ABOVE it (in 1st place): microsoft/compaq: 505,302
tpm/C
> >> > for
> >> >> > only $10,445,169.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Why, what's this? ms/compaq 15% faster and 36% less expensive.
> >> >>
> >> >> Youve missed something rather large here, which I have no intention
of
> >> >> teaching you, but has something to do with this: The compaq machine
> >> > tested
> >> >> is the absolute top of the line piece of hardware that they make.
Its
> >> >> compaqs flagship model. It doesnt get better than that.
> >> >>
> >> >> The IBM machine tested, on the other hand, is an ultimately upgraded
> >> >> representation of their intel-based webserver product.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > So, does this actually make sense? IBM decides to test their NOT best
> >> > product against everyone elses best?
> >>
> >> > I mean, think about it. What sense does it make for IBM to not use
their
> >> > best possible performer? Why are they holding back, if you are to be
> >> > believed. Why would they allow themselves to be beaten? I don't think
so.
> >> > AND, while it is the best Compaq they have available today - no one
suggests
> >> > it's the end of the road for thier developement. Compaq has 32
processor
> >> > beasties coming out that run W2K datacenter which will eat the
previous best
> >> > scores for lunch.
> >>
> >> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you. IBM's 4096
> >> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a candle to W2K
> >> running on 32 processors.
> >>
> >> Yep.
>
> > Then why hasn't IBM entered this beast into the running and nuked
> > all the competition?
>
> Because its not a "web solution", though it can be used as such.
TPC has NOTHING to do with the web. Nothing at all. You have not a single
clue do you?
>
> There are alot of companies which make enormous machines that are fully
> capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely away.
and I see that they keep them hidden from the public... they are so
amazingly amazing that mere mortals like us simply cannot know of them.
Heck, I'm am positive of the existance of computers that utterly blow the
best Compaq offering away... sure... but, are we talking apples and oranges?
The fighters the Air Force fly beat the pants off any comercial offering -
but do you hear anyone buying a lear jet cry cause the F16 is faster?
If IBM has a better solution - why don't they use it to destroy utterly the
competition?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 00:27:34 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rt8c6$t84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rr995$17l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8roql5$mit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Where is it again? [Windows 2000 Data Center]
> >> >>
> >> >> > It's released and in use already.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where?
> >>
> >> > <snip>
> >>
> >> > did you even read further down where you replied before you wrote
> > "Where?"
> >> > See, you KNOW it's been released but you play stupid (it's comes
easily
> > I
> >> > understand)...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> > small starting point:
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah. Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to
touching
> > IBM
> >> >> in any way, shape or form.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > Let me requote this again: "Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even
> > come
> >> > close to touching IBM in any way, shape or form."
> >>
> >> > OK, lets go here (you said ANY way):
> >> > http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
> >>
> >> > Lets see: IBM's ultimate very best attempt ever: 440,879 tpm/C for
> >> > $14,232,696.
> >>
> >> > Wait, what's ABOVE it (in 1st place): microsoft/compaq: 505,302 tpm/C
> > for
> >> > only $10,445,169.
> >>
> >> > Why, what's this? ms/compaq 15% faster and 36% less expensive.
> >>
> >> Youve missed something rather large here, which I have no intention of
> >> teaching you, but has something to do with this: The compaq machine
> > tested
> >> is the absolute top of the line piece of hardware that they make. Its
> >> compaqs flagship model. It doesnt get better than that.
> >>
> >> The IBM machine tested, on the other hand, is an ultimately upgraded
> >> representation of their intel-based webserver product.
> >>
>
> > So, does this actually make sense? IBM decides to test their NOT best
> > product against everyone elses best?
>
> > I mean, think about it. What sense does it make for IBM to not use their
> > best possible performer? Why are they holding back, if you are to be
> > believed. Why would they allow themselves to be beaten? I don't think
so.
> > AND, while it is the best Compaq they have available today - no one
suggests
> > it's the end of the road for thier developement. Compaq has 32 processor
> > beasties coming out that run W2K datacenter which will eat the previous
best
> > scores for lunch.
>
> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you. IBM's 4096
> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a candle to W2K
> running on 32 processors.
>
so, tell us about this 4096 processor. Tell us how much it costs, when it's
available and just how does it perform? Just because it has 4096 processors
doesn't tell me they solved concurrency issues. Perhaps it doesn't scale
even close to linearly? Who knows cause you haven't told us anything about
this mythical machine and whether it even exists for the public to purchase
or not. and at what price. Perhaps this sucker can do 10 times the best
Compaq performance - but perhaps at 100 times the price? Too many guesses
cause you have none of the facts...
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:29:11 GMT
chrisv wrote:
> Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote:
>
> > Votes on this from COMNA?
>
> I vote that you're scumbag
Aww, Chris. You're making me blush :-)
> who, since you make a nice living with
> Microsoft products,
Actually we use AIX on the server and NT on the desktop. I'm changing
that slowly to the delight of the business in most cases, in migrating
those business systems that have stagnated due to the costs of UNIX
administration and development, to Windows 2000. Once we get the first
core business application moved we will be able to reduce our costs
(after retraining only the best UNIX admins since we won't need them
all) by using Windows 2000.
> will defend the evil empire to the end, despite
> the overwhelming evidence of their illegal activities.
Not every judge rules as Jackson has. The anti-trust experts in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia including Douglas H.
Ginsburg and David Sentelle have voiced other opinions. See
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article.asp?aid=31283. Jackson was
overturned the last time and public sentiment continues to grow.
> As long as you get yours, right?
As long as I get a fair solution at a fair price. IBM hasn't done it
and when we looked at Sun we just laughed.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:31:19 GMT
Jason Bowen wrote:
> In article <0rcE5.120448$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote:
> >joseph wrote:
> >
> >Actually many are but not the masses of "mom and pops" that cut costs by using
> >Linux. Lycos and several others can be found to be using Windows 2000 if you
> >check them with the Netcraft tool.
>
> Netcraft is hardly a infalliable tool and you don't know much about
> networking if you believe the front door is representative of everything
> behind it. www.hotmail.com reports Win2k, it must be all Win2k right? It
> is common knowledge that it is FreeBSD doing most of the serving there
> even though Microsoft has started to roll out Win2k their.
So present the better tool then...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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: 10 Oct 2000 00:32:42 -0500
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On another off topic note... guess what database/commerce
> solution manged to get C2 security? IBM's. MS has applied,
> but like their last attempt at C2 with NT, they will fail.
> YES, MS failed in the C2 rating for NT on a network, so
> they reapplied with no network card or modem to get the
> bogus rating they weasled out which is of course useless
> in the real world).
>
Guess which database solution managed to get C2 security? MS SQL 2000
Guess what rating NT4 has ON a network: C2
You were wrong 2 outta 2 times.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 05:35:16 GMT
One admin for two-thousand five-hundred AIX systems?
You must have made a bit of a typo there or something. What hardware are they
running on anyway?
There's more than one HARDWARE tech required for that many computers no matter
what the OS.
"Frédéric G. MARAND" wrote:
> Supporting various systems...
>
> Considering our cost structure, it takes:
> - 1 full-time person for 100-200 PCs with NT
> - 1 full-time person for 30-50 PCs with Win3.x / DOS
> - 1 full-time person for 1-5 Solaris / Linux systems
> - 1 full-time person for 2500 AIX systems
>
> So I can't really say Windows works. Not when compared with AIX, especially.
> Not that Solaris or Linux fare any much better, for that matter.
>
> Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> B3lE5.27928$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Frédéric G. MARAND" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rsl0l$dtf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Can you seriously write that ?
> >
> > Yes. Where have you been for the past 5 years or so?
> >
> > > Or add something like "..part of the time" .
> >
> >
> > All of the time.
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> > > John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:25:25 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > [...]
> > > > 1) Windows works.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
