Linux-Advocacy Digest #595, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? ("MH")
Re: Blatant anti-MS trolling... ("MH")
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. ("MH")
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: The Power of the Future! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: David J. Tholen [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] ("Joseph T. Malloy")
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:15:42 -0400
> > >> Does Win2k run stable enough with a couple of hundred users connected
> > >> without crashing and in the process losing all work being done by all
of
> > >> those users?
> > >
> > >Proven by Fortune 500 companies every day.
> >
> > IOW, you have no clue what you're talking about.
>
> Please. Try to prove that my assertation is incorrect.
You're wasting your breath. 3cpio-fishnet never backs up anything with a
single fact. He's been doing it in here for years. He obviously ascribes to
the basic Hitler tenant that the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be
believed. As does > 50% of linux advocacy.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blatant anti-MS trolling...
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:19:29 -0400
Dump freaking hotmail already. It's the aol of free mail. Don't you get it?
But hey, you think hotmail is bad, try www.linuxmail.com
you'll be up and running just fine and then at least once a week you'll be
unable to get on for hours at a time. EVERY WEEK.
Wonder what server they're running???
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:24:38 -0400
First off.
How many open letters to the Linux community do we need? Seems like there's
a lot of this going on.What seems to be the problem?
Second.
So, you're going to send us all an invitation to read your letter. Clue....
LEARN HOW TO SPELL LETTER. It doesn't do much for your party when you can't
spell the title of the invitation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 13:34:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro=
te:
> "." <[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, =3D?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=
=3DA9?=3D
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit 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 th=
at
>> 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 yo=
u
>> 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 i=
s
> 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...
Dresden, the reason I didnt use the word "cluster" to describe these IBM
computing environments is because it means something *completely* differen=
t
in compaq/W2K computing environments. That is, IBM clusters can function=20
as one enormous machine; sharing one process across several nodes (dynamic=
,
you can change the number of nodes as its running a'la solaris "domains"),
you can allocate ram to a running process from any number of nodes (again,
dynamically, on the fly), etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand, W2K "clusters" are more for "redundancy" than anything
else.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 13:35:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[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?
Its alot harder actually, but they had already bought into that architecture
in an extreme way; there would have been an enormous non-hardware related
cost to switch.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 13:36:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro=
te:
> "." <[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=A9
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message news:
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >
>>> ><SNIP> Part where Jedi admits that the toy OS cluster more than match=
es
>> 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 yo=
u
> 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)
You arent attributing correctly, dresden. Let me know if you need some
help with your outlook express settings.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 13:37:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[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.
I'm sorry dresden, is there a direct competitor with the ASCII series?
Please let me know who they are.
=====.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:40:04 GMT
AFAIK all of the distro's I have used have choices other than
"everything", my point is that newbies like to try as much as possible
and will go for the everything option and will be wide open exposed. I
believe the SuSE book does mention all of this in a pretty good
chapter on security. It should be moved to the front of the book
instead of in the back IMHO though.
You are right when you say any network is vulnerable to attack. We can
only stay one step behind the yo-yo's doing the attacking. Cable
modems and on all the time internet connections in the hands of
average folks at home are providing a breeding ground for these low
life's to practice their tricks.
claire
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:02:05 -0700, joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that the average newbie installing Linux tends to take
>> the Install Everything selection so as not to miss anything, and this
>> typically starts up all kinds of services that leaves her wide open to
>> attack.
>
>Well, Red Hat 6.2 has an install is conservative and doesn't even enable ftp
>for the workstation.
>
>Generally speaking, any system on a network is vulnerable to sucessful attacks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 13:39:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "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 wasnt talking about an ASCII series machine, dresden. IBM makes a couple of
very high end hunks of hardware.
> 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...
You'll never see it. The ASCII series has been around for a number of years;
AFAIK the S/* series alot longer. They have never been put to any of your
tests. They dont need to be; the sorts of people that buy them arent interested.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:46:01 GMT
I'm an old CDE person so I know all about title bars :)
CDE (under aix) never had a Winamp clone.
A dial-up networking clone like Gnome/kde does.
And so forth.
It's more than the look and feel, it's the cloning of the
applications.
Linux movement is trying to go one on one with Windows to woo away
Windows users by providing them with a look, feel and applications
that make them feel comfortable.
Of course there is another Linux movement that seems to be saying
don't dumb done Linux, but keep it and it's target market the same.
claire
On 10 Oct 2000 22:55:58 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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
>: 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.
>
>Why assume that anything with a titlebar and a rectangle is an imitation
>of Windows? That's really ignorant. By that logic, Windows is just
>an imitation of a Mac. (And incedentally, the themes in kde and
>gnome allow it to look like just about anything - Windows, Mac,
>Nextstep, etc. To say that it is a Windows look-alike in light of
>this is pure ignorance.)
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:47:01 GMT
Thank you.
claire
On 10 Oct 2000 23:03:15 GMT, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>In all fairness, all we really know is that it first started
>posting here under the name "Steve". We don't even know if
>that's the real name or if that was also a pseudonym. For
>all we know, it might really be Claire, and it started out
>with the false name "Steve". All we really know is that it's
>the same person, not what this person's real name is.
>
>(And to clarify, I'm not the Steve that Bob was talking about).
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:52:28 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> And pretty much a guess based on very little hard evidence. However, let's
> assume they didn't. So what? Would that be enough to stop interbreeding? Why,
> because they can't ask a chick to go on a date?
Considering you seemed to imply that we should be able to interbreed
with monkeys since we're genetically so close to them ....
> I am not completely familiar with the political platforms of all main US
> parties. And does "main" include the green party and the reform party? I simply
> have no idea on THEIR platforms. So, I was guessing, and I qualify it as a
> probably right guess.
I already excluded everyone but the Republicans and Democrats. And it's
not like the RepDem party's "platform" is at all relevant. What's wrong
with going by the historical record?
> Ok, I pretty much agree with the platform of the Frente Grande, although I tend
> to follow more Ibarra's than Chacho Álvarez' positions. Hope that enlightens
> you. On the other hand, I have much sympathy towards the septiembrista
> movement.
I have passing familiarity with the main British, Canadian, French, German,
Indian, Italian, Mexican, Russian, South African and US political parties.
Perhaps you could pick one of those for comparison?
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David J. Tholen [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:55:22 -0400
Tholen tholes:
> 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.
What, did you get some "advice" from your mythical and completely
ineffective "lawyer" buddy, Tholen? The charter of a newsgroup does not
have the force of law. If you think otherwise, prove it.
Of course, this is incredibly ironic, coming from someone who has violated
the newsgroup
charter numerous times.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:59:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
>
> It shows that you brought up "off-topic posting", Marty,
Irrelevant, as doing so was an act of staying on topic.
> despite the fact that I was suggesting that you practice what you
> preach.
You made no such suggestion, Dave.
> Context, Marty.
Like the thread topic, for example?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
