Linux-Advocacy Digest #594, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: what defines a paradigm (FM)
Re: welcome to the world of objects (FM)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Shit-head Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows ("MH")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:48:28 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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 Linux isn't late? Nobody, AFAIK, has made any promises about
> time of delivery - and if they did, they could just slap "2.4" on
> whatever they have.
Um... how 'bout...
"The Linux Kernel 2.4 will ship sometime in October 1999"
- Linus Torvalds
If that's not a definitive statement of fact, aka a promise, then
I don't know what is.
> (And of course, you can get all but the most recently discovered bugs
> fixed by applying various patches freely available.)
>
> Besides, I fail to see how Linus and the other kernel developers owe
> it to anybody to follow a schedule. If you want timely updates to
> software, I suggest you find somebody you can pay for them -
> Microsoft, for instance. And then you can bitch about not getting
> them on time, which is, in fact, what people are doing.
Fine, don't follow a schedule, see if I care. Of course, Linux
will lose the little credibility it now has and has worked so hard
to develop.
The fact is, they DID have a timeline and they promised they would
keep it, and now it's way late and probably won't ship until next
year.
Do I care? Of course not, but there are people here who seem to
defend this lateness with the excuse "they're getting it right".
Ok, reasonable argument. However, it's the same argument
Winvocates used and Linvocates bashed and bashed and bashed
Microsoft for.
So, again, I ask... why the double standard?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 07:53:03 -0500
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > "." <[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).
> >
>
> ASCI White. Developed and built in the building next to where I work.
>
> http://www.llnl.gov/asci/platforms/white/
>
> It was delivered a couple of months ago.
>
> Gary
>
That is VERY cool Gary - even the picture is sweet!! :)
(there is a picture of the Compaq cluster than set the new TPC-C record in
e-week this week but it pales in comparison).
And I see it's 8192, not 4096 processors.... I never doubted there is
hardware better/faster/bigger than this compaq cluster - but not as
abracadabra was presenting it and certainly not tested in this fashion. I'll
look forward to more from IBM...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: what defines a paradigm
Date: 11 Oct 2000 12:07:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FM wrote:
>> Any language with a decent type system and natural support
>> for runtime polymorphism is OO, and as such, OO becomes a
>And then you claim to understand paradigms.
>Paradigms aren't delimited by features but by concerns.
Not from a language's perspective. Your irrelevant
ramblings aside, a "paradigm" without features is
meaningless from the perspective of a language. A
language can only supply mechanisms with a model to
relate these mechanisms to its operative semantics.
It can't control how the mechanisms are used.
Therefore, it is only relevant to mark exactly
which mechanisms are necessary to support which
paradigm, though the basic conceptual model helps.
But that's exactly what the OO as a paradigm lacks.
>Anyone who doesn't understand that fact can't understand
>paradigms; what shapes them, what /causes/ them. They can
>only "know" paradigms from a grunt's perspective; they
>may even understand how to *apply* them but that's just
>not the same thing as being able to extend them, or even
>recognize when they're being extended. It's the difference
>between genuine understanding and rote memorization. It's
>the difference between using the term "paradigm" in its
>Kuhnian sense and using it as meaningless marketing hype.
Again, if you understood these paradigms genuinely,
you'd be able to offer some of your own perspectives
without this nonsense. I have provided my own; you
have conveniently ignored it, and then you start
babbling nonsense again. It's quite a sight when
one starts writing free-associatively, and then
starts believing in the rigorous truth of these
resulting assocations.
>The OO paradigm is concerned with updateable state and
>data
No, imperative programming does. OO as an extension
to the imperative paradigm does concern itself with
updateable state, but if you were to see OO as
orthogonal to the imperative-functional dichotomy,
(which some do, and some don't, though if you don't,
there's absolutely no sense in incorporating OO into
FP) you can't possibly see OO as concerned with
updateable state.
>while the functional paradigm is concerned with the
>relationships that apply between data.
Values, in an abstract sense. There's no concept of
data in the functional paradigm. The above is also
completely not representative of what functional
programming is. Either you don't understand the
functional paradigm, or you weren't able to think
straight and hard when yuo wrote the above.
>> matter of whether instances of user-defined types can be
>> made subject to runtime polymorphism. A "purer" OO approach
>> would include applying the same principles to the primitive
>Whatever. You claim to understand OO yet you use the term
>to refer to something completely different from what its
>inventor had in mind and what legions of people still have
>in mind.
Which is? You still have no idea what OO is, nor do you
ever seem to able to define it in terms that you alread
know. It's you who seems completely unable to define OO
without nonsensical usage of other abstract terms you
don't understand. I already offered my own explanations
of what OO is, in several different ways. And you
decided to attack my operative definition (what it means
for a language to be OO), and miserably so.
>Runtime polymorphism hardly qualifies as a paradigm.
>Even if it did, it would be a piss-poor one and hardly
>worth the massive vomit-inducing hype it has generated
>among the hordes of C++ losers. Hey, even Stroustrup has
>admitted that much.
Point out where I said runtime polymorphism is a paradigm.
It of course isn't a paradigm, but given a decent type
system, it's about the only thing you need to program OO.
You should definitely start distinguishing between
paradigms and mechanisms that support a certain paradigm.
>> What is this "procedural paradigm" that treats objects and
>> functions equally? You mean your assembler?
>C treats functions and data types on an equal basis. It
>treats them both like crap but it treats them equally.
>Both primitive types and procedures are treated as special
>cases. And both are equally powerless implementation-bound
>low-level horrors.
More nonsense flowing in. Functions are NOT considered
as data types in C. And you know all this because you
programmed so much in C, right? And C isn't even an
ideal procedural language. Pascal is probably a far
better example and the extent to which you can use a
function is even more limited.
I'm wondering whether you have any experience in programming
at all. I could've probably written most of what you've
written with regards to paradigms before I ever learned to
program. And much more correctly too. You really sound like
a guy who read a casual guide to computational paradigms and
started toying with the abstract ideas without having any
feel for what they really mean.
>In OO, the data side is raised to a new
>level while the function side is left behind. In functional
>programming, it's data that's left to wither and die.
>You can't even begin to imagine what an ideal language
>that combines both OOP and FP would be like if you think
>in terms of "what happens if we add this feature to that".
>Maybe they're incompatible because they cross-cut each
>other and to someone who can think on that level, AOP
>provides a tantalizing hint of the answer. Or maybe not.
I can't even begin to imagine the nonsense you had
in mind to have written what you just have above. I
understand these paradigms both at the abstract level,
and at the practical level. As far as I can tell, you
don't understand these at any level and are just
making vague statements to pretend that you do. The
confirmation that one understands an abstract concept
comes when one is able to apply this concept to
concrete examples. It doesn't take much to see, for
example, that for whatever elusive definition of OO
you have, a decent type system with runtime polymorphism
is what allows OOP in a language. A language itself is
not a paradigm and a paradigm isn't some ideal to be
achieved. I don't think you understand these things,
and from your complete inability to keep the subject
straight, I'd have to conclude that either you're a
complete non-programmer who unfortunately had too much
exposure to CS literature that was way over his head,
or a programmer who hasn't programmed in more than one
style and has an abstract *view* but not understanding
of the other paradigms. What I really don't understand
is your arrogance and boldness in light of such obvious
shortcomings.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: welcome to the world of objects
Date: 11 Oct 2000 12:21:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fine, whatever. There's a certain point where terms
>become so far abstracted from their real-world connections
>that communication becomes a mushy, messy sea of confusion.
>Your posts have reached that point. I'm tired of it. I'm
>done. I don't fully "grok" philosophy for the same reason.
>After a while the debates are about words whose connection
>to real pragmatic things is impossible to trace.
Well it's quite an insult to the philosophers. The level
of vagueness he introduces to his arguments is way beyond
anything I've seen from a reasonable adult. There's a
difference between abstractness and vagueness, and the
latter is Richard's downfall, not the former.
>In other words, I'm not replying to your points because I
>can't figure out what they even are supposed to be.
Well for one thing, I don't think they had any meanings
when they were formed in his head. Vagueness doesn't
come out of nowhere.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 07:56:03 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s01jh$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
>
> > I don't consider that more sophisticated, I think it's stupid. If it
WERE
> > such a thing that was "below" IBM - they wouldn't have entered at all
> > (instead of several 100 times) and certainly wouldn't have spent
$millions
> > to achieve 1st place (now second).
>
> >> 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.
>
> > I think that is very unlikely. If someone can spend a low 8 figures and
> > smoke the pants off someone in the higher 8 figures - there is a
difference.
>
> >>
> >> Perhaps they don't find any reason to worry about being "outdone"
> >> by massively clustered solutions.
>
> > Perhaps they should be worried if bottom lines mean anything to anyone
at
> > IBM sales..
>
> Perhaps they know that they are the only competitors in the market in
which
> the machines in question exist.
>
> Idiot.
oh yeah, THAT makes sense. "We are SO good that we don't even have to prove
it." I'm sure that's the kind of smart marketing that assumes that everyone
else is "smart" enough to ignore published results and just *magically* ...
know... that an IBM solution is faster/better than anything else because..
well... just because.
Damn! why didn't we all think of that?!
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 07:57:03 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s0249$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:10:02 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> ><SNIP> Part where Jedi admits that the toy OS cluster more than matches
> the
>> >'real' OS single servers </SNIP>
>> >
>> >> Where is the single NT based server that can do 160K TPM?
>> >
>> >No where to be seen.
>> >
>> >Where is the real OS cluster that puts out more than 500K TPM ?
>>
>> Just partition your data.
>>
> Gee - I wonder why IBM or Sun didn't do that when they lost? I guess you
are
> smarter than all of IBM and Sun - silly then not thinking to partition
their
> data so they could effortless beat MS/Compaq... IBM had to drop AIX and
run
> W2K
Ummm...
Its an intel platform, dresden. :)
Ummm.... no duh! think... you'll get it... (maybe, ask someone while
delivering coffee if you still don't)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:57:28 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>>>>>>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>>>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing such
>>>>>>> postings.
>>>>>> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow up",
>>>>>> Marty.
>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>>>> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
>>> Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
>> I'm looking at what you wrote, Marty.
> Of what relevance is this self-evident remark?
It shows that you brought up "off-topic posting", Marty, despite the
fact that I was suggesting that you practice what you preach. Context,
Marty.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 07:59:03 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s01oc$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >>
> >> So, again: where is Compaq's machine that can do 160TPM?
>
> > So, again: who cares?
>
> Apparantly you only care about performance up to and including the very
top
> of compaq's product line.
No - I just don't care for the comparison. I don't see the value anymore of
a large, expensive, monolithic uni-server solution any more in todays
models.
>
> > Do we say: "Ah, Google with Linux is so pathetic, they
> > have to use clusters! ahahhaha." then add: "Show me the single linux box
> > that can run Google"?
>
> An IBM S/390 64x64. Theyve even got cool light up blue stripes down the
side.
Again... if the choice is SOOoooOooOoo obvious - Google must be pathetic
idiots not to take the simple route then eh? I'm sure it's not easier to
manage thousands of linux boxes intead of one pretty shiny IBM?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Shit-head Tholen
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:58:56 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> Marty wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>>>>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing such
>>>>>>>> postings.
>>>>>>> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow up",
>>>>>>> Marty.
>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>>>>> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
>>>> Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
>>> I'm looking at what you wrote, Marty.
>> Of what relevance is this self-evident remark?
> Tholen is a shit-head.
And lacking a logical counter-argument, as you obviously do, you
immediately turn to invective.
> Literally.
Obviously you don't know the meaning of the word.
> His head is not merely filled with shit....it IS shit.
Illogical in the extreme.
------------------------------
From: [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: 11 Oct 2000 12:59:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2000 04:41:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Static66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 10 Oct 2000 21:21:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>
>>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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???
>>>>
>>>>> Loren, you owe every serviceman a LOT more than what you have paid
>>>>> them. If it was not for us, you would be the impoverished subject
>>>>> of some totalitarian regime.
>>>>
>>>>Hah. If it wasnt for you sitting in a comfortable chair in front of
>>>>some kind of 'communications' console? You arent FIGHTING, friend, you're
>>>>(if youre in the reserves, especially) wimping out. You are a coward
>>>>and an idiot.
>>>>
>>> No you sir are an idiot.
>>
>>> You do not have the faintest clue. A man with a rifle is just that. An
>>> army without logistic services and communication is worthless..
>>
>>> I happen to be what is know as an " F.O." forward observer. I (part of
>>> a 4 man team) am dropped ahead of the front line by helo (or put on a
>>> beachhead and then hike my ass and 200 lbs of gear inland) Then I sit
>>> on a hill and rain steel down upon the enemy. that is to say
>>> coordinate air strikes, call artillery strikes, adjust their fire
>>> until the target is DEAD. Call in navel guns, etc etc.
>>
>>> so do not talk to me about cowards.
>>
>>I wasnt talking to you in the first place.
>>
> Some of my best friends were field radio operators, and part of my 4
> man team. I won't have your know nothing punk ass talking shit about
> them...
I wasnt talking to them either.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 08:01:04 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s01hj$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in 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>
>> >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]
> Your point? I didn't even look to see if there were but... so? Would you
> prefer putting all your eggs in one basket or, as most do, enjoy the
safety
> of clusters?
Oh I see. It doesnt MATTER that ibm kicks compaq's ass in this arena,
because no one would want to buy ibm machines in the first place because
they all fit in one basket.
Or something.
I'm not entirely sure that even dresden understands what his last point was.
(and btw, he would have known that 160K TPMs can be sourced in clustered
environments if he knew anything at all about ibm's product line; this is
proof positive that hes been lying; he indeed does not)
lost... you are completely lost... now you've come full circle back to
clusters environments in IBM's lines... hehehe this is amusing...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 08:02:04 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8rfm9h$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:8rd6gr$26rc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> > I'm sorry dude, but sometimes you hear something so silly you
> > can't
> > > > stop
> > > > > >> > from laughing...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > I'm sure he'll post the tux results ... it's all they've
got...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Dont you have something better to do?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yup - it's what I do the rest of the time... right now I'm
laughing
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > sun rep who tried to sell some 10000s to one of my clients...
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh I remember you, youre the one that thinks (incorrectly) that
> > microsoft
> > > > > can compete in the heavy-server market. We've all been laughing
at
> > you
> > > > > for some time.
> > > >
> > > > One name: "w2k data center"
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, now show us one that actually works.
> > >
> >
> > start here butthead
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
>
> Big fucking deal.
>
> Microsoft's definition of "working" is "doesn't catch fire and roast the
> adjacent equipment when you plug it in"
>
>
Allow me to simply quote from your own sig:
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
<snip>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
I think that sums it up perfectly - thank you for reminding us all of this
every single time you post
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:03:32 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes [about David T. Johnson]:
> He has revealed an ignorance of, and numerous violations of, the
> newsgroup charter as well.
How incredibly ironic, coming from someone who has violated the newsgroup
charter numerous times.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:07:46 -0400
> > If you are a c++ programmer, then try this program both on windows and
on
> > linux and observe the time taken to display 1,00,000 numbers
> >
> > #include <iostream.h>
> > main()
> > {
> > for(int i=0; i<=100000; i++)
> > cout << i <<endl;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
Now I've seen it all!! This is a test of OS speed?? Are you some sort of
retard? C++ 101 stdout program usually learned in the first week of a class
being used as such a test!
And you folks moan about the Mindcraft benchmarking!!!! This is F'n
hilarious!!!!!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
