Linux-Advocacy Digest #606, Volume #29 Wed, 11 Oct 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Drestin Black")
Re: The Power of the Future! (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: 11 Oct 2000 17:08:08 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rvoft$nc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <39e2aab3$0$5789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > <snip> >
> > > >W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the application
> > itself
> > > >has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year is
out.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I berated somebody for making an inference about Hotmail's poor
> > > performance lately but now I guess maybe I was wrong. I rarely deal
with
> > > Hotmail addresses but of late the few I've dealt with took 3-4 hours
to
> > > receive mail that I sent. I guess corporate decision making doesn't
take
> > > into account that if something ain't broke, don't fix it.
> >
> > I'm not certain I got this right so if I'm wrong forgive me. Are you
saying
> > that hotmail is slower now that it's on W2K than before? and when you/I
say
> > slower here you mean in the time to deliver mail?
> >
> > If that is so then I think you don't realize that you have further
> > reenforced the nickname for Solaris "slowaris" because it's the Solaris
> > portion of Hotmail that handles the actual routing/delivery of mail -
NOT
> > the W2K/IIS front end server pool.
> >
> > yes, i would agree that the reason they are fixing the hotmail
application
> > is because solaris cannot scale well enough to handle the loads hotmail
> > generates.
>
> Liar.
>
> M$ tried to migrate hotmail FROM Solaris to a wannabe M$-OS, and it
> failed big time (just like on the previous attempts).
>
> Solaris can handle the load
> LoseNT can't
> Lose2K can't
>
> Hope that helps, liar.
>
You are the fool and idiot. You cannot prove anything whatsoever. Prove
their attempt to migrate at any time. Prove their attempt to migrate and
failure at any time. W2K obviously can handle the load because the same
number of servers that ran hotmail under BSD are now running a larger load
under W2K (same hardware, better results). And, look for Slowaris to be
replaced at hotmail before years end...
I can prove that BSD was replaced by W2K successfully at Hotmail - what can
you prove other than your often repeated .sig (and I quote):
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: 11 Oct 2000 17:09:06 -0500
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8rvoft$nc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <39e2aab3$0$5789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > <snip> >
> > > > >W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the
application
> > > itself
> > > > >has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year is
out.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I berated somebody for making an inference about Hotmail's poor
> > > > performance lately but now I guess maybe I was wrong. I rarely deal
with
> > > > Hotmail addresses but of late the few I've dealt with took 3-4 hours
to
> > > > receive mail that I sent. I guess corporate decision making doesn't
take
> > > > into account that if something ain't broke, don't fix it.
> > >
> > > I'm not certain I got this right so if I'm wrong forgive me. Are you
saying
> > > that hotmail is slower now that it's on W2K than before? and when
you/I say
> > > slower here you mean in the time to deliver mail?
> > >
> > > If that is so then I think you don't realize that you have further
> > > reenforced the nickname for Solaris "slowaris" because it's the
Solaris
> > > portion of Hotmail that handles the actual routing/delivery of mail -
NOT
> > > the W2K/IIS front end server pool.
> > >
> > > yes, i would agree that the reason they are fixing the hotmail
application
> > > is because solaris cannot scale well enough to handle the loads
hotmail
> > > generates.
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > M$ tried to migrate hotmail FROM Solaris to a wannabe M$-OS, and it
> > failed big time (just like on the previous attempts).
> >
> > Solaris can handle the load
> > LoseNT can't
> > Lose2K can't
> >
> > Hope that helps, liar.
>
> Why don't you just threaten to shoot him, Rambo?
>
>
cause he can't get that right either... ask his CO
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: 11 Oct 2000 17:11:02 -0500
"Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > yes, i would agree that the reason they are fixing the hotmail
application
> > is because solaris cannot scale well enough to handle the loads hotmail
> > generates.
>
>
> Do you know what the odd thing is? UUNet uses Solaris, and
> at one time had ONE server handling mail - 4 as of 1.5
> years ago.... and with 4 it was very fast. The server
> handled mail for UUNet, WorldCom, and a large variety
> of other customers.
and this compares how to W2K? It doesn't and you didn't and you can't. So
your point is moot.
>
> UUNet also does all of MSN's backbone and dialins.
> Guess what OS does all the computer back end for
> that? Solaris. They flat out told MS no when the contract
> was set up (re: using NT - for anything).
So you say - but can you prove a word of it? I didn't think so...
>
> Seems to scale quite well, huh?
Nope, doesn't.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: 11 Oct 2000 17:14:05 -0500
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > "Mike Byrns" <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
> > news:5azE5.125728$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > <snip well written reply>
> >
> > > My position exactly!!! Keep it up but realize that to beat the
opponent
> > you
> > > must ARGUE better not only have the best position. Many campaigns
have
> > been
> > > lost by better opponents with lesser debate skills.
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for your time and reply Mike. I have taken your comments to
heart.
>
> Thanks Drestin and I hope ther are no hard feelings. You are obviously
just as
> much an experienced professional as I am. Maybe moreso. I just want to
make
> sure the Dolly's in the crowd get rebutted. PS how much you wanna bet
s/he's an
> out of work Linux admin?
>
No hard feelings. I get worked up and come out swinging often. I've been in
the trenches for 20 years now and just can't stand those like "Dolly"
either. Lies just burn my botton...
Linux admins get paid? Thought it was information for free for everyone!!
------------------------------
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: 11 Oct 2000 22:15:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can prove that BSD was replaced by W2K successfully at Hotmail
Then do so.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 22:18:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s1qbu$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
> Gee, you mean like moving from BSD and Solaris to W2K ala Hotmail - now...
> lesse, why was it they had to wait and it took some time? Funny how you
> can't make that connection when it's good for MS but when it saves unix it's
> OK?
Idiot, there is an enormous difference in replacing SOME pc hardware with
OTHER pc hardware and swapping operating systems;
And losing 4,000 computers and replacing them with an utterly different
(in every respect) platform. If you cannot see the difference immediately
then you are a fool and a retard and should get the hell out of this industry
at once.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 22:19:38 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s1qff$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
> Oh, I see - so you create a machine which has no competition - therefore it
> must of course be the very best in it's class. Nothing can touch it in it's
> class. It's the ultimate in it's class. Great! except... what if something
> in a different class performs better on the same task? i.e., "The best
> compact car in it's class" vs "The 3rd best sports car in it's class" - now,
> which of these do you think is going to win on the skip pad or acceleration
> or in top speed?
I'm sorry dresden, did you have an example of something in another class that
out performs an ASCII white?
> or are you trying to claim that these are the best computers in the world.
> bar none. Is that your claim?
They are better than anything to which you have access (or have ever heard of
most likely).
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 11 Oct 2000 22:23:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8s1qj7$tn7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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 wasn't talking to you.
No, but you were talking *about* me. The 4096 figure was mine, and it was
from a different machine. Your inane attempt at misdirection is pathetic.
>>
>> > 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.
> I love it: "We here at IBM have machines SO powerful you don't even need to
> test them or have our claims independently verified.
Thats not what I said. You're twisting words again.
> You don't need to know
> how we compare to others. We say it's good and we charge you good enough so,
> damnit, don't use your own brain, just trust us, give us your money. We say
> it's great! Honest! No, REALLY it is. Testing? Bah! Benchmarks? Who needs
> them? We're IBM - we can't do anything wrong..."
I'm sorry, did you have an example of something that can compete with an ASCII
white?
I'll help you out here, dresden, by telling you that there are one or two other
machines in the same class that are made by different companies. I'm not going
to tell you what they are or what their architecture is like, instead im going
to ask you to use that enormous brain of yours to go find them and tell the
class all about what operating systems they run, what kind of hardware they
use and what kind of benchmarks they run.
And then tell the class the same thing about the ASCII series (at least the
white) after youve found all of its benchmark results.
=====.
k
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
