Linux-Advocacy Digest #625, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future!
Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (mlw)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 03:38:37 GMT
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 10/12/00, 4:33:16 PM, "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
wrote regarding Re: The Power of the Future!:
> "joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > MS itself (microsoft.com) does not use Solaris - hotmail's applica=
tion
> > > server does. Oh, and Solaris is shrink wrap software too putz.
> >
> > 1) It's common knowledge SUN Solaris never was nor is shrink wrap
> software.
> Intersting, wonder what all that plastic that shinks to fit the=20
manual/CD
> box is? Gee, just like Windows...
And like packaged ground beef. =20
So you're wrong - Solaris has never been classified as shrinkwrap but=20
Windows always has been.
=20
> >
> > 2) microsoft.com is a URL. Don't change the subject when your wrong=
-=20
it
> only
> > draws more attention to your misinformation as does name calling.
> I didn't change the subject and was specific to that URL.=20
No the subject was HOTMAIL and MICROSOFT. These are companies, not=20
URLs. =20
> > 3) HotMail is MS - itself.
> When you buy something, is it's history instantly your history?=20
Think...
I am entertained by clowns who think lying about windows and facts=20
helps their business or MS . =20
In fact if it were for this chronic dysfunctional behavior, MS might=20
have won the anti-trust case. It's part of the culture. =20
> > Hotmail and it uses Solaris because it has to use
> > Solaris and it sure seems to piss you off.
> Of course it has to use solaris, Hotmail is written for a custom=20
version of
> Solaris - it has to be rewritten to run under Windows obviously. You=20
have
> heard of porting an application when changing platforms I'm sure...
I've heard about the crummy salability in Windows and how the OS=20
limitations stopped the HotMail migration. You know, Steve Ballmer=20
will admit to these shortcomings now that he has Windows2000 to sell. =20
MS says NT 4.x servers had to be rebooted every 7 days and didn't=20
scale like UNIX. I don't understand how lying helps MS. =20
> > MS built a their NorCal campus to
> > consolidate all their empolyees from WebTV and Hotmail and other
> aquisitions in
> > Muntainview California. They even have a neat billboard "Hiring Now=
" =20
on
> 101
> > at junction 85 becasue of high employee turnover.
> > http://www.microsoft.com/norcal/svc.htm
> Very interesting. Yes, I know of this turnover - they are dumping the =
unix
> deadwood -
Like all good companies, MS wouldn't be so stupid as to let people go=20
because they used or know of UNIX. You really do them a disservice=20
with hate filled advocacy "UNIX deadwood". MS acquires good companies=20
and works real hard to keep talent. They don't hire people based on=20
fanatic loyalty to Windows nor do they discriminate against folks who=20
know UNIX. =20
> Of course, the fact that the solaris app can't scale up to meet=20
hotmails new
> demands and that hotmail's front end is faster now that it's running=20
W2K is
> not news either... so... what was your point again? did you have one?
I was justing pointing out some severe mistakes and prejudices. =20
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~!
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:38:04 GMT
Yes you need a windows connection to get the info which the ISPs won't
give you when you call up.
PS I have been monitoring the flame war you started elsewhere, so I am
well aware of your antipathy towards Linux. I use these boards for
enlightenment of myself and others, I learn alot and sometimes I can
teach others. Please take your vitriol elsewhere.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:53:42 GMT
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8recd9$lr9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7 computers both
> > > booting with RAID1 for high reliability. I am also making use of the newly
> > > GPLed MySQL on both computers.
> > >
> > > One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services. Both also
> > > provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
> > >
> > > To set this all up has cost $0 for the software. Knowing that Microsoft
> > > provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-) I'd be interested to know
what it
> > > would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
> >
> > In the typical enterprise environment, the MS solution provides the lower
> > TCO. For someone at home with intimate knowledge of Linux, perhaps it
doesn't,
> > but it's rather irrelevant. Many have established that Linux is the king of
> > cheap home installations, I don't think anyone's arguing that. It's when you
> > guys start claiming that Linux is ready for the enterprise that we laugh.
> >
>
> No, I would laugh if Microsoft said it was ready to enter the enterprise
market, now
> thats a joke. If I was a admin. I would never install Windows 2000,
especially with
> all the shit surrounding. I would grab a Sun Microsystem Server (Sun
Enterprise
> 3500 Server) loaded with Solaris 8, now thats a server for the enterprise.
The
> great part is that you can disable the GUI to allow even more users to access
the
> server at any one time.
Why would you pay all that money for such poor performance? Check out tpc.org
you'll see how slow those mega-costly machines are.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:45:22 -0500
Cannon Fodder wrote:
> Has anyone tried out the new M$-bought Corel Linux OS
No.
> and Do. You. Like. It.?
Irrelevant, per above.
> Do you dare let this NG know?
Irrelevant, per above,
> Are you afraid to
> try it out, because it may exceed your wildest expectations about
> Linux?
No.
> How do do we advocate linux now that M$ is selling it?
We interpret M$ as damage and route around it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:58:35 GMT
If you can't take advocacy and rebuttal I suggest you take your thin
skin somewhere else.
Maybe alt.flower.arranging
And if you really want to learn, an advocacy group is absolutely the
LAST place to look....
But I suspect you already knew that...
Bye...
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:38:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yes you need a windows connection to get the info which the ISPs won't
>give you when you call up.
>
>PS I have been monitoring the flame war you started elsewhere, so I am
>well aware of your antipathy towards Linux. I use these boards for
>enlightenment of myself and others, I learn alot and sometimes I can
>teach others. Please take your vitriol elsewhere.
>
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:47:22 GMT
In article <8rupti$rmi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rtr5m$1bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> > Unfortunately, the MPAA is doing everything they can to prevent this
> > thing from coming to market.
> > Furthermore, they are allowing Microsoft
> > to do exactly what they are trying to prevent LinDVD and DeCSS from
> > doing.
> >
> Rex
>
> You've posted this many times before,
> and have yet to provide any evidence
> to your claim. I would be interested
> to see your answers to these
> questions:
Keep in mind that the standard Microsoft alliance contracts
allow Microsoft to control when, and if, it's name can be
used in relationship to the venture. This includes giving
Microsoft the ability have the partner to remove all references
if Microsoft so chooses.
As recently as 2 weeks after the initial filing of the complaints
against those associated with DeCSS and LiVID, Microsoft was listed
as the primary software partner in the DVD-CSS consortium. The other
was a "second banana" whose name was neither memorable nor impressive.
(probably controlled by Microsoft anyway).
Furthermore, a list of "approved" software was included which included
software exclusively for Windows 9x and NT (Win2K hadn't been released
yet).
Unfortunately, I didn't bother to print hard copy (I read over 500
web pages/day and author about 20 pages per day, and have done so
for 10 years, by now I'd fill a small public library if I saved
everything to hardcopy). And web pages are designed to be difficult
to save (to prevent massive piracy).
Some more interesting notes
http://wirednews.com/news/politics/0,1283,33922,00.html
Lawyers representing the DVD industry got caught in an embarrassing
gaffe when they filed a lawsuit and accidentally publicized the
computer code they wanted to keep secret.
The DVD Copy Control Association included its "trade secret" source
code in court documents, but forgot to ask the judge to seal them
from public scrutiny.
Which means that it is now in public domain.
Here's the reference to the case.
http://www.protectmicrosoft.com/bib.html
This one reference was culled (for those of you - like me- who AREN'T
using Internet Explorer, or have disabled the trojan horses.
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/12/27/194216.shtml
> Cheers
>
> Stu
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advocacy NGs == Trollvilles
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 03:01:09 GMT
Corel Linux was brain damaged long before MS bought into the program
and you know that full well.
Maybe MS will fix it.
It can only get better.
claire
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 20:45:22 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Cannon Fodder wrote:
>
>> Has anyone tried out the new M$-bought Corel Linux OS
>
>No.
>
>> and Do. You. Like. It.?
>
>Irrelevant, per above.
>
>
>> Do you dare let this NG know?
>
>Irrelevant, per above,
>
>> Are you afraid to
>> try it out, because it may exceed your wildest expectations about
>> Linux?
>
>No.
>
>
>> How do do we advocate linux now that M$ is selling it?
>
>We interpret M$ as damage and route around it.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:20:59 -0400
Daniel Berger wrote:
>
> Are there any free benchmark utilities out there that we, the casual
> user, can compile and run on our favorite (and not-so-favorite) OS's to
> specifically benchmark the OS?
I'm sure there are, but I am not aware of any off the top of my head.
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > HI,
> > >
> > > 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;
> > > }
> > >
> > > What I get is 5 seconds on Linux 2.2 and it takes 2.30 minutes to
> show all
> > > the
> > > 100000 numbers.
> > >
> > > Yours Truly,
> > > Rizwaan
> > >
> > > ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via
> the Web -----
> > > http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to
> 60,000+ groups
> > > NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other
> posts
> > > made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > What you are testing is a combination of "console" handling and the
> C++
> > iostreams (which are, IMHO, at best, a bad idea.)
> >
> > This is not that consoles are not faster in Linux than in Windows, the
> > question is is it important. Did you run this program in an Xterm?
> (That
> > is closer to Windows)
> >
> > There are three types of benchmarks, ones which test hardware, ones
> > which test I/O, and ones which test the OS.
> >
> > A benchmark must be designed to focus on the particular aspect you are
> > testing. If you want to test the OS, you need to test the parts of the
> > OS that directly impact performance of a running program. Memory swap,
> > IPC, semaphore handling, task scheduling, device driver
> sychronization,
> > etc.
> >
> > --
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
> >
>
> --
> In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:11:21 -0500
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s5a1s$jctt3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
> >Really? That's the best test?
> >
> >How about instead, I give you a budget of $10,000,000.00, including your
> >time and the time of any other people involved in the project. Now,
build
> a
> >web site that will generate $1 billion dollars in revenue.
> >
> >How much are you saving with Linux?
>
> Or how about building a website that generates that $1 billion dollars
> revenue per year.
>
> How much money will you waste in lost revenue whenever that MS based
server
> needs it's regular reboot?
You really think a 1 billion dollar web site will not have redundancy?
Geez, you people are so shallow minded.
> Isn't it better to save the cost of the MS solution and spend it on a
second
> or third machine to use in a linux cluster where even in the unlikely
event
> of one of the linux machines going down the other 2 can carry on
seamlessly
> serving transactions for the few minutes it takes to bring the downed
> machine back online?
And you don't think Windows can do the same?
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 03:57:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> On 10/12/00, 4:47:15 PM, "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote regarding Re: The Power of the Future!:
>
> > I worked with IBM's, DECs, Magnuson's, HPs. Got really into it about
> 89 when
> > I did my first contract and thought: "Damn! This sure pays well!" :)
> FYI: I
> > never used Windows prior to 3.1 and even then it was just playing
> around. In
> > fact, I didn't get into Windows 95 much when it first came out,
> crashed too
> > much and was slow. All my work was networking offices using either
> Novell or
> > LANtastic. I was mostly programming in the early 90s. Finally scored
> big on
> > an application I sold to F500 company and opened my own and have been
> doing
> > mostly upgrades and conversions since. About 80% of what I do is
> replace
> > unix or novell networks with NT networks which is why I guess I'm the
> way I
> > am :) MAN, people are SO used to paying huge box for unix boxes and
> > UNBELIEVABLE support prices for unix personel that the profits are
> still
> > juicy in this sector. Trying making money on someone who already has
> NT and
> > wants to go to W2K and it's tough - they are already savvy to the fact
> the
> > TCO on NT is so low. Funny, I've never seen a NT to Unix migration,
> not in 7
> > years.
>
> Never seen a NT to UNIX migration? Funny, they do happen.
Of course they do but not nearly as often as UNIX to NT/2000 migrations
and not in so many high profile organizations. UNIX does what it does
very well, but at a very high cost of labor, hardware and software when
compared to Windows 2000. Linux is changing that somewhat but only at
the expense of UNIX and Netware. Please post some Fortune 500s or other
high profile organizations that have switched from NT to UNIX.
> W2K migration from NT is slow due to customer fatigue
Customer fatigue? What does that mean and what source are you citing?
Truth is that any major enterprise migration is slow due to the
inherently slow process in place in typical corporate IT departments.
My company is being driven to upgrade by our top executives who all run
high end notebook computers. Windows 2000 is the absolute best
operating system for these machines due to it's extensive hardware
support of ACPI. The execs have read about being able to swap drives
while it's running and such and are drooling for it. The problem is
that once the execs get it the VPs will clamor for it whether they are
issued desktops or notebooks and that will filter down to middle
managers and such. It's just been word of mouth from the top down
instead of from the bottom up as is often the case with Linux adoption.
Guess who wins in corporate IT? :-)
> and the high
> costs associated with deploying unproved software. Gartner et al
> advised waiting and the customer base is - waiting.
Gartner advised waiting until the first service pack is out. Guess
what. It is. Now the IT folks are moving to where Windows 2000 is.
Why? It's just plain better and easier for them. See
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1104965. Without your IT folks where do you
stand?
> BTW There's been a revolt over high Windows prices - enterprise
> customers refused to pay MS for the privilege of writing over the OEM
> Windows image with their own configuration. Mid and small sized
> customers lack the clout so they're paying.
Refused to pay? Enterprise customers aren't stupid enough to buy ala
carte. Post some proof. We license machines. The only way you get
stung on this is if you have been using your old OEM licenses on new
machines or machines that were running 9x. That was "legal" since you
owned the disk and were not running NT on that box anymore. This OS
recycling ended up with folks "upgrading" from NT to 2000 for a few
bucks while reinstalling the OS on the 9x boxes -- installing the old NT
licenses. Ala carte allowed that and it required a change.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
