Linux-Advocacy Digest #575, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: Linux Sucks
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Dennis Yelle)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Joe Halpin)
Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... (Spicerun)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy (Spicerun)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 10 Oct 2000 16:35:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rv445$utm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology)
>> >>
>> >> This one always irritates me, the Windows people say it about Linux, and
> the
>> > Linux
>> >> people say it about Windows.
>>
>> > Well, the Linux people seem to not understand the difference between
>> > Win9x and WinNT/2K (which only further proves my theme that Linvocates seem
> to
>> > have not much clue about the state of the rest of the computing industry).
>>
>> > WinNT/2K is not based on DOS. Period. DOS (cmd.exe) in NT is merely a tiny
>> > subsystem for compatibility, just like POSIX subsystem and the OS/2
> subsystem.
>>
>> Actually, the POSIX subsystem and OS/2 subsystem dont work at all. Oh sure,
> theyre
>> there for certification sake, but they dont actually do anything.
> You can run most of the GNU utilities with the POSIX subsystem
No, you cant. Not *JUST* with the POSIX subsystem. You can port them with
extreme effort and get them to talk to NT's fake POSIX layer a little; but
alot of their usefulness is lost.
> and you can
> run most OS/2 2.x applications with the OS/2 subsystem (which is what it was
> designed for).
No, you cant. You can however hack and slash OS/2 programs until theyll talk
to the OS/2 layer a little, but god help you if they want direct access to
hardware. (as most useful OS/2 software does; see call managers, video channel
managers, etc.)
> IIRC the POSIX version in NT 4 and also Win2K is something like 1.2. There
> are updated POSIX subsystems for NT/2K from 3rd parties and even from
> Microsoft in their Services For Unix.
Yes, and their services for unix arent bad, not bad at all.
They however would work fine without NT's POSIX layer---highlighting its
uselesness except in the certification department.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:36:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul 'Z' Ewande? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit 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 ?
I'm counting binaries, which is the majority of any feed which includes=20
them.
=====.
------------------------------
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 16:36:49 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:33:01 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > It may not be considered stable, but then win98, by the same standards
>> > isn't
>>
>> 2.4.0-test9 has been much more stable for me than Windows ME (and Windows NT
>> 4.0/sp6 at work). I've never had to reboot my machine running 2.4.0-test9,
>but I
>> have had to restart both the WinME and Windows NT machines more times than I
>can
>> count on one hand last week.
>
>You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic technology) kernel
>built in 2000 to an OS built in 1996 and a psuedo-32-bit OS with a poor version
>of PME (yes, I don't think Win9x is anything other than a consumer OS for
>gaming and small home tasks)?
>
>What about Windows 2000? Afraid to compare it because you know Linux doesn't
>hold a candle to it?
Mebbe his webcam or gaming card doesn't work too well with it.
<chuckle>
>
>Let's try to compare apples to apples, please. NT 4.0 is better than Linux
>2.0 or 1.2, but that's not saying much.
No it isn't.
The only way you can make it appear that way is to use some artifical
configuration like Mindraft did. Besides, what happened to all of those
"free upgrade" service packs?
--
If it ain't baroque, don't phiques it.
------------------------------
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 18:35:48 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> ...all real world experience aside as well.
> >
> >You have examples of Win2K failures while dealing with databases ?
>
> Sure. However they're all covered by NDA's.
Of course. :)
> >> >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 ?
>
> Sure. Unix and AS/400's actually can support enough hardware
> in a single machine to run in the tpc-c top 10 without the
> need to indulge in loosely coupled clustering.
Well, the loosely coupled cluster nevertheless embarrassed IBM enough for
them to set up one and grab first place, to be later beaten by a Compaq
cluster.
> >> 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
>
> Considering that the data is right there in black and white
> on the "top of the pops" chart, there really isn't any need
> to. Any professional with some semblance of objectivity can
I don't believe in objectivity, just conscious subjectivity. And you're
right, i'm no professional, nor wish to be one.
> clearly see the whole picture once they start drilling down.
Oh certainly. I wonder why they bother with those TPC-C benchmarks, which
are completely meaningless, now that MS has tainted them by taking some top
spots.
> >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.
>
> What's to be embarrassed about?
IBM had to set up a Win2K cluster, and ditch their 'real' OS to grab a
temporary first place, what, in your mind prompted them to use the toy OS to
accomplish that ?
> Compaq still doesn't have a machine that will do 160K TPM.
>
> This is true no matter how much you lemmings squirm.
Did I claim anything different ? If yes, please post.
Since we talk about it, you have it backwards Jedi: 2K cluster allows 500K
TPM, and IBM or Sun don't have a single system which can do that. IBM even
had to ditch its' own OS to use the inferior on a toy cluster to have a
prayer at 440K TPM.
BTW, throwing insults means that you are out of rational arguments, I'll
gladly claim victory on this one.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[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 17:37:28 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:16:33 +0100, Stuart Fox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:47:32 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >can write the greatest OS ever starting with a clean slate, but in the
> >real
> >> >world, things are rarely that simple.
> >>
> >> Why are you excusing "the world's greatest software vendor".
> >>
> >> If they're so great, why didn't they do better. Why didn't they
> >> do more than just what was barely necessary? Why couldn't they
> >> be forward compatible as well as backward compatible planning
> >> for the inevitable when Moore's law would catch up to what would
> >> be their ambition if they had any.
> >
> >Why didn't anyone else? If they did why did they fail?
>
> IBM did. Various emulator vendors have.
>
> None of them failed technically.
Should have specified - on the x86 platform. And why did they fail?
Because
a) MS used devious tactics to force them out (minor)
b) MS are **remarkably** good at getting people to develop on their platform
and getting vendors on side with them
c) IBM et al are complacent and crap at marketing.
So the technically inferior solution still won the hearts and minds of the
consumers (and more importantly the developers), which meant they were left
to support their legacy stuff as well. MS's success has also been the
reason that the Win16/Win9x platform is such shit.
>
> Now will you tell us that a VAX cluster is lesser than
> a quad xeon merely because Digital was able to buy out
> DEC?
Not at all...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:39:22 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:15:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You guys are all so out of your minds it's incredible. Whatever the
>semantics involved (ie:Linux is the kernel), it is a fact that Linux
Linux doesn't represent a single entity.
Get over it.
>is trying to compete with Windows for the desktop simply by virtue of
>the number of Windows program look a likes as well as kde and Gnome.
Or someone just wants a word processor or spreadsheet
that doesn't come with vendorlock attached...
[deletia]
There were GUI operating systems that had application and game
libraries long before Windows was anything but a joke. Were
they "trying to compete with Windows" as well?
The whole world doesn't revolve around you. Get over it.
--
Automobile, n.:
A four-wheeled vehicle that runs up hills and down pedestrians.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:39:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy 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?
Obviously because they have no hope of competing, chad.
> It's simple logic, there should be a simple answer. What is it?
There is a simple answer, as jedi was nice enough to detail, but by the
content and tone of your posts in this thread, it would have gotten nothing
but blind argument had I posted it.
So I didnt.
Besides, the truth is that apparantly IBM is inferior to compaq.
Ahem.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:40:46 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:09:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>And ho many copies have been sold compared to their Windows
>counterparts?
Why is that relevant?
Why does Joe User give a DAMN about how many other people bought
the Linux version of QIII? It plays well enough with gamers on
other platforms.
Your question is only relevant to the lemming trying to make
sure they remain with the "in crowd".
>
>
>
>claire
>
>
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:35:58 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:07:24 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[typical, Linux must do in the future what it's doing already]
>>>never happen until the Linux community realise that users do not give a toss about
>>>technical details, all they want is a OS that works (stable and reliable) and can go
>>>down to Dick Smiths Electronics and buy their favourite game.
>>
>> You mean like Quake III, Unreal Tournament, Descent III, Majesty,
>> Anarchy Online, Black & White, SimCity 3000 Unlimited, Theocracy,
>> Myth II, Heavy Gear II, Shogo Armour Division, Terminus, or
>> Soldier of Fortune?
>>
>>[deletia]
>
--
There's one fool at least in every married couple.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:42:01 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:10:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I wasn't arguing that, I made a comparison showing a couple of things
>that AIX has and Linux doesn't...
>
>Of course IBM is behind Linux. They are going to make a fortune off of
>it, eventually.
Why not make a fortune off of their own Unix.
It's all compatible after all.
[deletia]
IBM could even support Quake III on AIX if they really wanted to.
It wouldn't cost them that much effort either.
--
It would save me a lot of time if you just gave up and went mad now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:44:05 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:11:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I can't believe you are even attempting to argue support for games. I
>don't even bring games into the same sentence as Linux because it is
>pitiful.
It's a perfect refutation of your absurd idea that Linux
momentum is slowing down. It's not doing that at all and
the current game library is good proof, as is the list of
titles due for ports or being natively developed on Linux.
>
>claire
>
>
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:08:57 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:42:11 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Programs for families like Microsoft Fine Artist and Creative writer, Movie Maker,
>>>Barneys Education games, and other games.
>>
>> Those are educational titles. You said games.
>>
>> The Loki titles more than adequately demonstration of proof
>> of concept for many of the sorts of things that Linux
>> currently gets flak for.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>matt
>>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:07:24 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> [typical, Linux must do in the future what it's doing already]
>>>> >never happen until the Linux community realise that users do not give a toss
>about
>>>> >technical details, all they want is a OS that works (stable and reliable) and
>can go
>>>> >down to Dick Smiths Electronics and buy their favourite game.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like Quake III, Unreal Tournament, Descent III, Majesty,
>>>> Anarchy Online, Black & White, SimCity 3000 Unlimited, Theocracy,
>>>> Myth II, Heavy Gear II, Shogo Armour Division, Terminus, or
>>>> Soldier of Fortune?
>>>>
>>>> [deletia]
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Murphy's Law is recursive. Washing your car to make it rain doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> Excellent time to become a missing person.
>>>>
>>>> Don't read any sky-writing for the next two weeks.
>>>
>
--
November, n.:
The eleventh twelfth of a weariness.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
------------------------------
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 18:44:06 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >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
>
> The 386 dates back to 1985.
Were they the majorities at the time ?
> >can write the greatest OS ever starting with a clean slate, but in the
real
> >world, things are rarely that simple.
>
> Why are you excusing "the world's greatest software vendor".
It is ? :)
> If they're so great, why didn't they do better. Why didn't they
Stop putting things in my mouth Jedi. I don't recall ever calling them that.
> do more than just what was barely necessary? Why couldn't they
> be forward compatible as well as backward compatible planning
> for the inevitable when Moore's law would catch up to what would
> be their ambition if they had any.
Sorry, since I don't recall calling them "the world's greatest software
vendor", I'll leave this rant paragraph alone.
> >Do you beleive that Linux would be where it is today if it was not that
> >compatible/similar with UNIX ?
>
> That compatibility doesn't require treating the machine as if
> it were a PDP/8. This is what sound engineering gets you.
Can Linux run pre 386 apps ?
> It is obscene to require an applications programmer using a high
> level language to be concerned about what legacy addressing mode
> the microprocessor is using.
>
> The whole point of operating systems is to abstract such things.
If you say so.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Dennis Yelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:47:45 -0700
Mike Byrns wrote:
[...]
> It's not so hard when you really understand Windows.
How can one learn enough to "really understand Windows"?
Is there a book available to teach this?
If so, which one?
Dennis Yelle
--
I am a computer programmer and I am looking for a job.
There is a link to my resume here:
http://table.jps.net/~vert/
------------------------------
From: Joe Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 10 Oct 2000 11:40:14 -0500
John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10 Oct 2000 06:45:24 -0500, Joe Halpin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Please try to be careful. It's no big deal in this case, but actually
> I didn't write what you quoted above.
Sorry, I'm having some trouble with the gnus quoter thing.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:48:54 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 02:22:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:46:40 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 10:24:43 +1300, Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I am not really bothered if I have to pay for software. I am also sick and tired
>>>of the old argument, "Linux is free", argument, Linux, essential, is just the
>>>kernel, nothing more, nothing less. Joe bloggs does not care whether it is free
>>>or not, joe bloggs just wants his computer to work without any hassles.
>>
>> Don't be an idiot.
>
>Name calling again?
>
>> Of course Joe Bloggs cares if Linux is free (or rather gratis).
>
>Evidently he hasn't gotten the message. I don't see Linux taking over
>the desktop from Windows, despite it being free.
Monoplies aren't built or undermined overnight.
Although according to IDC, Linux is still doing quite well
on the desktop compared to the rest of the commercial
competition.
>
>
>> The perception that DOS is free or that WinTel is cheap has
>> always been one of DOS's key strengths against better
>> engineered competitors.
>
>Nope. People want applications. Windows has them and Linux doesn't,
>and I'm not talking about geek stuff.
You are a liar to try and claim that Linux is limited to
geek stuff. That's just a part of your FUD arsenal you
use to try and keep from feeling foolish.
>
>claire
>
>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> Besides, WinDOS is the essense of hassle.
>
>But it sells a hell of a lot of games.
...and people say that Unixers dis the novice end user.
Although you're wrong even on that point. Consoles sell
more games. So, where there is some freedom of movement
real consumers actually do avoid WinDOS.
>
>> That's why console gaming is a more lucrative market than PC gaming.
>
>Wrong again.
Go back to the sanitarium.
>
> Console gaming overall is cheaper for the person playing the game. No
It's also more profitable for the company making the games.
You can check the annual reports for yourself.
[deletia]
--
grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.
------------------------------
From: Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:03:23 -0500
Jacques Guy wrote:
> Remember how it started. Someone writing:
> > We don't want compilers.
> > We don't need 200 different text editors.
> etc, etc.
>
> Judging from what this someone has been
> occupying her time, really all she wants
> is:
>
> a newsreader
Several newsreaders are available for Linux, and you don't need any
compilers for them either.
>
>
> I believe the latest mobile phones let
> you access the news. You Linux folks really
> just don't get it, do you:
Oh we do get it.....It's just that we're not buying the argument that
you can only use a newsreader on Windows. And we really don't buy that
Windows is the only way for a beginning computer user to easily use a
newsreader. And if she (which is a Steve impersonating a woman) wants
to use a mobile phone to access the news, she may pay for it through her
Sprint PCS/ATT/etc. service (its not cheap). So, if she wants to only
use a cellullar phone, why is she (and you) on this newsgroup
complaining about newsreaders?
------------------------------
From: Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:13:47 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You mean you have been posting Linux advocacy here for months and you
> just got Linux online?
Hey, you're the person who has been advocating Windows for months in the
Linux advocacy group; yet you still haven't found the correct windows
advocacy groups to post into. All this time and you still haven't
figured out how to make Outlook Express find the windows advocacy
groups?
HINT: Linux advocacy groups is for advocating LINUX!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:53:07 -0000
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:22:15 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >> 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.
>
>Look, the Compaq cluster, which is a way, shape or form of computing as far
>as I am concerned, thoroughly spanks the IBM uni-server solution 505302 to
>163775.
>
>> Partitioning the data, signficantly alters the problem.
>
>Does that magically diminish the TPC-C scores of the 2K systems ?
Depending on what you do, yes.
[deletia]
Where is the single NT based server that can do 160K TPM?
--
I'd never join any club that would have the likes of me as a member.
-- Groucho Marx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
