Linux-Advocacy Digest #573, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! (Roberto Teixeira)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2?
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: The Power of the Future! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Simon Palko")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Teixeira <[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 13:23:15 -0200
>>>>> "claire" == claire lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
claire> Not to mention that the average newbie installing Linux
claire> tends to take the Install Everything selection so as not
claire> to miss anything, and this typically starts up all kinds
claire> of services that leaves her wide open to attack.
It depends on the distro. For instance, our distro Conectiva Linux
installs but does not starts the servers. You may install inetd, but
you will have to configure it to start. This was made exactly so that
users don't start things they don't need.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:24:22 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:56:50 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >If you can have 3 times the performance for the same price, seems quite
>> >compelling to me.
>>
>> ...certainly. It's not your data on the line.
>
>Well, if one solution is operating at peak power and the other one is at 33%
>to do the same task, the reliabilty of the second one is likely to better
>than the first one, anti-Microsoft bias aside, of course.
...all real world experience aside as well.
>
>You may wave hands all you like, but the NT toy seems quite competitive next
>to the 'real' OSes.
...except for that little catch about possibly needing to
change the structure of the data.
The fact remains that the only systems in the tpc-c top ten
that require clustering to get there are the Windows boxes.
--
If what they've been doing hasn't solved the problem, tell them to
do something else.
-- Gerald Weinberg, "The Secrets of Consulting"
------------------------------
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:25:29 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
8rua0f$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> News doesnt even cover the bandwidth of a busy webserver.
Don't the alt.binaries.* count ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:27:24 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:43:48 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Microsoft wanted to grab the enterprise market, and to do this, they had
>to
>> ensure that when they release it, it was as stable and bullet proof as
>they
>> could possibly get it. The big difference between Microsoft and Linux, is
>that
>> Microsoft must turn a profit to make the share holders happy, I have
>nothing
>> against this, however, I do think, when it comes to their consumer
>products,
>> they donot put as much effort into ensuring realiabilty as they should. I
>have
>
>It's not that MS didn't care, but Win9x was to designed to support as much
>as possible legacy with old DOS/Win16 software and drivers which needed
...which itself was another example of pisspoor engineering on
Microsoft's part. MS had 14 years to 'fix' DOS and no real
motivation to make Windows 16 bit ever.
[deletia]
--
You will be Told about it Tomorrow. Go Home and Prepare Thyself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:27:54 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:35:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Problem is the wave is dying out :)
Only in your dellusions.
>
>claire
>
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:31:33 +1000, Chris Sherlock
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Sounds to me like Compaq are trying to ride the crest of the newest
>>wave. Good luck to them!
>>
>>Chris
>
--
news: gotcha
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:29:01 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:57:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It seems to matter to the folks that think they are going to make a
>fortune off Linux, Like Redhat, SuSE etc.
Actually, the sorts of things your talking about have little
to no relevance to Suse. They're more relevant to the likes
of SGI or IBM.
>Do you honestly believe they are not trying to take market share away
>from Windows?
>
>Your head is up your *** if you do..
>
>claire
>
>
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:12:48 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
>Warkus) wrote:
>
>>It was the Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:15:47 GMT...
>>...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> And if it doesn't get it's ass in gear it will remain a niche' system.
>>
>>And nobody gives a damn about whether it will or won't except for a
>>certain sad git without a real name.
>>
>>mawa
>
--
I think... I think it's in my basement... Let me go upstairs and check.
-- Escher
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:30:28 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:06:29 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad,
>>
>> We;ve installed tons of Win9X and NT boxes all with
>> that stupid checkbox disabled... the earlier
>> versions a simple portscan would reveal NetBIOS
>> bound to port 139 anyway. The newer versions still
>> bind it but hide it better.
>>
>> Try my little test yourself if you dont believe
>> me.
>
>As I've demonstrated before...
>
>If you disable the workstation service, WINS, and
>uncheck NetBIOS over TCP/IP in Windows NT 4.0,
>port 139 (TCP and UDP) will no longer be open.
>Period. You lie. Please give it up.
No, you just proved his point. You amply demonstrated
that NT is "broken as delivered" and that you have to
know what is broken and how to fix it.
--
I'll eat ANYTHING that's BRIGHT BLUE!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:33:17 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:10:54 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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.
>>
>> No, really.
>
>Spare me the sarcasm. Please answer the question. Why hasn't IBM
>enterered their top-o'-the-line into the TPC race and annihilated the
>competition? What reason would they have not to?
Perhaps their marketing department is a bit more sophisticated
than that. Perhaps they know that this consumer grade sort of
stinginess is less prevalent amongst customers willing to spend
6 or 7 figures on computing solutions.
Perhaps they don't find any reason to worry about being "outdone"
by massively clustered solutions.
>
>It's simple logic, there should be a simple answer. What is it?
They can read better.
--
Music in the soul can be heard by the universe.
-- Lao Tsu
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:34:38 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:27:00 +0200, =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096 processor
>> mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
>>
>> No, really.
>
>Take that strawman ! And that ! And that !
>
>Now that the strawman has been thoroughly thrashed, will you agree that your
>"Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching IBM in any
>way, shape or form." was a little overenthusiastic ?
Show us the single Compaq that can manage 160K TPM.
[deletia]
--
Some people have a great ambition: to build something
that will last, at least until they've finished building it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:36:16 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:39:21 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm glad. Now if we could figure out how linux can satisfy your spell
>checking needs....
>I think mozilla has that feature...
Emacs has it. There's even a pulldown menu for it.
[deletia]
Although some people might view even that as more effort
than this forum rates.
--
If you took all of the grains of sand in the world, and lined
them up end to end in a row, you'd be working for the government!
-- Mr. Interesting
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:39:37 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:21:48 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8rv41n$utm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Again, the same point... it's *OK* when Linux is way late because they're
>> > "getting it right", but it's laughable when Microsoft is late when they're
>> > "getting it right". Why the double standard?
>>
>> Because microsoft DIDNT "get it right".
>
>Of course they did. What basis for this claim do you have?
Companies running away from NT as a low thruput RDBMS
running and screaming to Oracle on some form of Unix.
[deletia]
--
Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it.
Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it.
-- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:42:11 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:27:00 +0200, =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> >8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> >> You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096
processor
> >> mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
> >>
> >> No, really.
> >
> >Take that strawman ! And that ! And that !
> >
> >Now that the strawman has been thoroughly thrashed, will you agree that
your
> >"Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching IBM in
any
> >way, shape or form." was a little overenthusiastic ?
>
> Show us the single Compaq that can manage 160K TPM.
Take that strawman ! And that ! And that !
Now that the strawman has been thoroughly thrashed, once again, will you
agree that this "Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to
touching IBM in any way, shape or form." was a little overenthusiastic ?
What's with you people, can't you stay on topic ? Or perhaps it's your way
to concede that indeed, Microsoft/Compaq [with a toy NT OS] can come close
to touching IBM since it was in *any way, shape and form* ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Newbie: How do you setup 2 PC's using Rhat Linux 6.2?
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:43:40 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>That's not what jedi told him. I believe he said something about a
>kernel re-compile?
It all depends on what you view as easier, keeping track of
IRQ's or recompiling the kernel. There are a variety of ways
to approach the problem and not just one.
>
>Can't you guys get your stories straight?
>
>FWIW, my NE2000 card worked out of the box with Mandrake 7.1
NE2000 is a CLASS of hardware. It is not a particular
piece of hardware. All you know is that it "might" work
the first time. This is as true for WinDOS as it is for
Linux.
The high likelihood of such a card being ISA also complicates
things and is probably the leading cause of things not being
necessarily simple with such cards even under WinDOS.
>
>claire
>
>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:20:08 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, I have 2 PCs that I'd like to setup together to
>>> learn Apache webserver, printer server and DNS. Can
>>> someone help me please.
>>>
>>> I have 2 NIC cards (NE2000), 1 hub and Rhat Linux 6.2.
>>>
>>> Can someone give me the step-by-step procedure?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Leo
>>>
>>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>> Before you buy.
>>
>>FWIW, RH6.2 comes with the NE2000 drivers working out of the box.
>>Just installing RH6.2 anc selecting the apropriate packages should
>>install a working web server. Just edit /home/http/html.
>>
>>-Ed
>
--
No matter whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, th' supreme
court follows th' iliction returns.
-- Mr. Dooley
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:44:28 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:15:34 -0400, Dan Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Drestin,
>
>If she's refereing to the fact that a hacker can easilly use any share
>on windows if you have netbui installed, check this link:
These wankers also flood local networks with useless network traffic.
>
>www.grc.com
>
>
>
>Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Ah yes... MS says they will stop doing something.
>> > They dont. MS lies and says they did stop. They
>> > didnt. MS finally publicly admits they never did,
>> > and the answer is... "ooh, just turn it off" by which
>> > I presume you mean the machine - good answer for
>> > a server... and since if you install TCPIP and NOT
>> > NetBIOS, it still installs NetBIOS code that is
>> > hard-coded into the stack I know it's not NetBIOS
>> > you mean I should turn off.
>> >
>>
>> Dolly - we have all challenged you - respond please: Document this NetBIOS
>> vulnerability you are talking about. I say it doesn't exist and challenge
>> you to prove your silly claim. DO it or shut up.
--
Fame lost its appeal for me when I went into a public restroom and an
autograph seeker handed me a pen and paper under the stall door.
-- Marlo Thomas
------------------------------
From: [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!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:46:23 GMT
Good move!
Why the others don't do the same is a mystery to me?
claire
On 10 Oct 2000 13:23:15 -0200, Roberto Teixeira
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "claire" == claire lynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> claire> Not to mention that the average newbie installing Linux
> claire> tends to take the Install Everything selection so as not
> claire> to miss anything, and this typically starts up all kinds
> claire> of services that leaves her wide open to attack.
>
>It depends on the distro. For instance, our distro Conectiva Linux
>installs but does not starts the servers. You may install inetd, but
>you will have to configure it to start. This was made exactly so that
>users don't start things they don't need.
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:47:32 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >It's not that MS didn't care, but Win9x was to designed to support as
much
> >as possible legacy with old DOS/Win16 software and drivers which needed
>
> ...which itself was another example of pisspoor engineering on
> Microsoft's part. MS had 14 years to 'fix' DOS and no real
> motivation to make Windows 16 bit ever.
Well, there are things as installed user base to support, capabilities of
the hardware current at the time to take into considerations. Of course you
can write the greatest OS ever starting with a clean slate, but in the real
world, things are rarely that simple.
Do you beleive that Linux would be where it is today if it was not that
compatible/similar with UNIX ?
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:50:48 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:45:24 +1000, Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Here is the part of the article I like best:
>> ********************************************************************************
>> Meanwhile, Linux backer Compaq Computer is taking the open source
>> software to task for not moving beyond its niche status. The
>> UNIX/Linux product marketing manager for Compaq says that Linux needs
>> to show that its being used in more enterprises before it can be taken
>> seriously. "We're definitely at the stage where we need reference
>> [enterprise] sites [using Linux]," Compaq's Judy Chavis says.
>> "Otherwise we'll be in danger of losing all this momentum and it
>> becomes one of those 'just for geeks' things."
>
>So getting the software out in an unstable state because of *marketing*
>reasons is more important to this woman than stability. Hmmm, she is
>more interested in the image of Linux being just for geeks than looking
>at the real substance.
>
>> Chavis says that the
>> delays in the Linux 2.4 kernel will delay her company's plans to
>> release a Linux-based e-commerce site,
>
>Why? If you are *that* desperate to use Linux, the 2.2 series kernels do
>just fine and you can even use the *gasp* pre-release 2.4 kernels!!!
Quite right.
You could even choose to run one of the more stable 2.3.x releases.
It's not like anyone is hiding anything. If you disagree with Linus
in terms of the release schedule, you can act in a contrary manner
any time you like.
[deletia]
This is why Compaq is no DEC.
When you are trying to build a Unix that is going after the glass
room, you DO NOT skimp on the engineering in favor of marketing.
This is what seperates the Small Iron from mere toys. Compaq is
criticizing the kernel dev team for doing EXACTLY what it SHOULD
be doing to address the sort of markets Compaq is refering to.
--
The goal of science is to build better mousetraps. The goal of nature
is to build better mice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 15:54:50 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:42:11 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:27:00 +0200, =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>> >8ru4kt$1du$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>> >
>> >> You're right chad. As right as dresden. Theres no way a 4096
>processor
>> >> mainframe could ever beat a compaq machine.
>> >>
>> >> No, really.
>> >
>> >Take that strawman ! And that ! And that !
>> >
>> >Now that the strawman has been thoroughly thrashed, will you agree that
>your
>> >"Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching IBM in
>any
>> >way, shape or form." was a little overenthusiastic ?
>>
>> Show us the single Compaq that can manage 160K TPM.
>
>Take that strawman ! And that ! And that !
>
>Now that the strawman has been thoroughly thrashed, once again, will you
>agree that this "Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to
>touching IBM in any way, shape or form." was a little overenthusiastic ?
>
No it hasn't.
Partitioning the data, signficantly alters the problem.
[deletia]
My comment is on topic: the top 10 tcp-c scores.
All of the non-windos scores are for single systems that are
less constrained in the sorts of tasks you could assign to them.
ALL of the NT systems in the top 10 are only there because of
loosely coupled clustering.
They might as well be using Beowulf.
You just choose to ignore views of the data that undermine
your little agenda. These are issues that REAL admins cannot
simply sweep under the carpet.
So, again: where is Compaq's machine that can do 160TPM?
--
Swipple's Rule of Order:
He who shouts the loudest has the floor.
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:54:11 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll include comp.sys.ms-windows.nt.advocacy since it may be of interest to
them.
> >Well, if one solution is operating at peak power and the other one is at
33%
> >to do the same task, the reliabilty of the second one is likely to better
> >than the first one, anti-Microsoft bias aside, of course.
>
> ...all real world experience aside as well.
You have examples of Win2K failures while dealing with databases ?
> >You may wave hands all you like, but the NT toy seems quite competitive
next
> >to the 'real' OSes.
>
> ...except for that little catch about possibly needing to
> change the structure of the data.
That what makes NT a toy OS ?
> The fact remains that the only systems in the tpc-c top ten
> that require clustering to get there are the Windows boxes.
What prevents the real OSes vendors to cluster their mighty boxes ? In
price/performance and top perfomance, they are currently thoroughly
embarassed by this little toy OS. All your twisting, turning and squirming
won't change that simple cold fact.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [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 15:55:52 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 08:00:07 GMT, Mike Byrns <@technologist,.com> wrote:
>Gary Hallock wrote:
>
>> John Lockwood wrote:Let's see:
>>
>> >
>> > 1) Windows works.
>> > 2) Notepad works on NT, Win98, Windows 3x, etc.
>> > 3) Notepad is a trivial windows application. (Defined as an
>> > application a good Windows programmer could complete in a week or
>> > two).
>> > 4) Notepad and thousands of other working applications are coded to
>> > the Windows API.
>> > 5) Notepad doesn't work on WINE.
>> >
>> > Therefore WIN32 is a piece of crap?
>> >
>> > Well, I've never used WINE, but the conclusion I'd be more likely to
>> > reach given the above is that your premise that WINE emulates Windows
>> > is false.
>> >
>> > John
>>
>> Well, this whole discussion seems to be based on a false assumption.
>> Notepad does work on Wine. And I run Lotus Notes under Wine every day at
>> work.
>
>Where's the link ?
Office was running under Wine years ago.
Starcraft under wine is also popular in some circles.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:42:21 -0400
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:44:16 GMT...
> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Is of course Linux.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. The future is BeOS!
> > >
> > > Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> > > incapable of.
> >
> > Provide a stable, reliable GUI?
>
> I don't know which reality you live in, but in mine, Linux has a
> stable, reliable GUI which I use every day.
>
> Mind you, it's stable and reliable even though I run the CVS version
> of most of the components. For people who simply run Helix GNOME or
> such, I imagine the stability is yet better.
I don't think I've ever seen someone refer to XF86 as "stable" before.
Unless you're running some other X server? I've never had much luck with
XF86, myself, especially 3.x. Now, I can't comment on 4.x, since it
wouldn't even RUN on my hardware (voodoo3), with the TDFX driver giving some
odd memory error every time I tried to start it. One of the reasons I gave
up on linux, for the moment. That, and my hardware ISA modem being not
supported.
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
