Linux-Advocacy Digest #843, Volume #29 Tue, 24 Oct 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Astroturfing (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Tim Kelley)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Gallup site down, Call Microsoft support (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux "Family Edition" (Tim Kelley)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Michael Meissner)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Protect yourself and your computer get Evidence Eliminator (Andrew)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. (Aaron Ginn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:54:41 GMT
In article <39f4d388$0$1075$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8t2feb$qva$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>--
> > Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
> > Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
> > http://www.open4success.com
> > Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> > and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
>
> Say - did you notice this from that site?
>
> http://counter.li.org/estimates.html
Yes, I have read his site. He has a number of resources which he
used, and makes references to other information offered by Bob Young
of Red Hat.
> This guy estimates 15 million linux users ...
> (and he doesn't presume to be
> psychic and determine if they are
> satisified or if they downloaded it and
> never finished installing it)
He also bases his estimates exclusively on the count from the Linux
counter. Of course, I've been tracking Linux counter for several
years (almost since it's inception) and am acutely aware of a number
of problems related to that site. There have been times when the
server was down, when the site rejected submitted registrations, and
counts actually went backward (restoration of a backup?).
IDC actually counts Licenses shipped and came up with 12 million
last year. Given current growth rates of roughly 200% or tripling
every year, that would put the actual shipping at around 36 million
copies. Given the ease of legal replication, 40-60 million is a
reasonable estimate. This is still less than 10% of the installed
base and less than 25% of annual global shipments. And by revenue,
Linux license fees are less than 2% of the market. The money is in
support.
> Time to get recalibrated again...
I have received various reports and access to NDA market numbers
that I can't publish (IDC, DataQuest, Gartner, et al) that indicate
that Linux is enjoying healthy growth on a global basis. It is
worth noting that much of this 40-60 million is global, with strong
presence in Europe (SuSE offers German, French, and Polish among
others). Asia (TurboLinux offers Japanese, Chinese, Cantonese, Korean,
among others. And South America (the Mexico City public schools
started with 150,000 computers 2 years ago).
A United Nations NGO has taken on a project to provide 10 million
Linux powered computers (obtained from U.S. and Canadian corporations
who are discarding "obsolete" machines) to 38 3rd world countries
each year.
As to my clairvoyance. I'm assuming that 200% growth indicates that
there are enough people who like what they see to tell others about
it. Linux still depends heavily on word of mouth for promotion and
advertizing. Since consumers still can't go into CompUSA and
test-drive a Linux box to help them make an informed decision,
one can only assume that someone else has helped them get started.
Sure, it's very likely that some portion of people purchase Linux
have a really horrible installation experience, never attempt to
get assistance, and simply let the copies sit on the shelf. But
then there are the kids 10-30 that seem to want to "share the joy"
and help their friends get Linux installed and configured.
Post what you've got. I look at the information, study the collection
methods, and correlate it with other known information, and factor
it into the overall prognostication effort.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[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: 24 Oct 2000 11:02:12 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Relax wrote:
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > No its not: it allows graphicsless computers to use graphics. i
remember
> > > running some CFD software with a GUI on a cray without a graphics
card.
> > > That is a good thing.
> >
> > You still need the X Client subsystem - some sort of (remote) graphical
> > device interface - for your app to run. So, actually, there IS a graphic
> > subsystem on the server in your example. The only problem is that it is
> > pixel based and completely device dependant, GDI is not.
>
> There is not OS graphics subsystem. The graphics is done simply via
> socket calls.
It *has* to be a little more than that :) The libraries certainly provides
things such as drawing surfaces in memory etc.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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, 24 Oct 2000 13:11:09 -0300
El mar, 24 oct 2000, Relax escribió:
>"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8t475k$63c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <39f4ee2e$0$32684$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So how, other than the large dose of NIH syndrome, does this differ
>> from printing using PostScript on UNIX?
>
>It's not really different. Just that from an app point of view, rendering on
>screen or on paper is exactly the same thing. I don't know what it takes to
>generate a PostScript file similar to what you draw on the screen on Unix.
If you use a sane toolkit, it takes creating a printer graphic context and
drawing into it. At least in Qt, you can even "record" the drawing you do to a
screen context (or pixmap, whatever) and replay it on the printer.
Ditto if you use the X printing extension.
>Using Windows, you talk to GDI in pretty much the same way for all kind of
>rendering devices.
Same thing.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:11:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 04:08:00 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8_dI5.975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Mike Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Amazing isn't it? And the windows weenies have the balls to even
>> > > argue the point?
>> > >
>> >
>> > What's amazing is that with hundreds of millions of users of their
>> products,
>> > Microsoft actually pays people to advocate it. The mind boggles at what
>> > this implies.
>> >
>> > jwb
>> >
>>
>> What's even MORE amazing is that you know there are hundreds of millions of
>> users of MS products who are obviously not paid to use those products,
>
>Oh, yes they are.
>
>When I'm at work, I am ***PAID*** to use MS-Office, even though I am
>fully convinced that nobody in his right mind would pay for it.
>
One wonders who paid for MS-Office at your workplace (and at mine).
I'll admit, it's a useful tool, but not as much for those who work at home.
(And the openness to viruses doesn't help, either. I couldn't begin
to imagine infecting elm or pine... :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:22:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:06:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>So prove to me that FreeBSD runs applications faster than Linux.
>
>You said it, now PROVE IT!
I wouldn't mind variou various benchmark information on this as well.
The FreeBSD community isn't as visible as the Linux one, but it's clear
that, if there's an advantage to FreeBSD, it should be touted.
And this looks like an advantage. :-)
>
>I also noticed you snipped that part out of your reply. I've saved the
>original, if only for the purpose of EXPOSING you once again, as a
>BULLSHIT ARTIST.
>
>I can see how Drestin walks all over you. It is just too damm easy.
>You screw yourself everytime.
You could be nicer about it, you know. :-)
>
>
>claire
>
>
>On 23 Oct 2000 19:19:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
[snip]
>>http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/x18762.html
This is not a benchmark, but it does look interesting.
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:18:07 -0500
2:1 wrote:
>
> Noone's really awnsered these questions. Can someone, please, since I
> want to know:
>
> 1 How is deb better than rpm*. Lots of people say it is, but noone
> really gives any details.
deb's contain the dependency information so you don't have the stupid
problems you have with rpms when trying to install a complex package (such
as kde or gnome) ... dpkg automatically installs the packages in the proper
order ...
debs also have several "states" that rpms do not have ... a deb can be
"installed" "unconfigured" "half-configured" etc. ... rpms can only be
"installed". This gives some extra flexibility.
apt-get is a better updating tool than rpm. you just add the sources you
want to use to your /etc/apt/sources.list and use apt-get in a cron script
to keep your system updated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:24:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 02:34:51 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Read his statement.
>
>He said applications run faster, and offered 0 proof.
It would be interesting to see if Win2k can run both Linux
and FreeBSD binaries faster than Linux and FreeBSD, respectively... :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Gallup site down, Call Microsoft support
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:42:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, lyttlec
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:18:47 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Nigel Feltham wrote:
>>
>> > Build under gcc on linux gave me the expected results. VC++ under
>> >windows 95 gave me the *runtime* failure message of "Program
>> >C:\...\testaloc.exe Invalid allocation size: 4294967295 bytes." So I
>> >guess Windows can't recover from memory allocation errors (suprise!).
>>
>> What is the result under NT and Win2K or even win98 and winme - maybe it's
>> been fixed since 1995 (unlikely but you never know) - also what does it do
>> on a 1995 vintage linux (pre 2.0 kernel probably in those days)?
>I tried it under NT. Same results. I also found that it would claim to
>successfully allocate 469,762,048 bytes of memory on a system with 128M
>ram. It takes a while and every thing hangs until it is done. This led
>me into finding lots of new (for me) ways to crash NT :)
Two questions.
[1] How big is the paging file?
[2] Is it dynamically resizable? If so, how much free disk space?
In Windows NT, for better or for worse, the paging file (NT's
name for the swap, and yes, it is a file: C:\PAGEFILE.SYS on
most systems), can be set to be static or dynamic in size.
You can imagine what that can do to disk fragmentation. :-)
In Linux, one has to work at fragmenting a disk; swap either has
to be dedicated to a partition, or the file created beforehand
and "signed" prior to use using commands like:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/usr/tmp/swap1 bs=1024 count=1024
mkswap /usr/tmp/swap1
swapon /usr/tmp/swap1
(this creates a 1MB swap file and enables it).
I don't know the maximum number of swap partitions allowed on a system.
I suspect 15. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux "Family Edition"
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:50:36 -0500
Sponge wrote:
> http://www.firstworld.net/~smcdonal/trailerpark.html
>
>
> Now does that family have Linux written all over them or what!!
No, look like windows advocates to me. I always imagined Tim Palmer as
looking like the main guy. Windows advocates are the biggest no-life dorks
in the universe (unless they're getting paid, in which case they're just
snivelling little whores), as can be seen by the volume of idiotic posts
they write in non-windows usenet groups.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:25:04 GMT
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:22:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>I wouldn't mind variou various benchmark information on this as well.
>The FreeBSD community isn't as visible as the Linux one, but it's clear
>that, if there's an advantage to FreeBSD, it should be touted.
>
>And this looks like an advantage. :-)
I was simply asking him to prove his statement, I don't know if it is
true or not.
>
>You could be nicer about it, you know. :-)
He chose to BS ( in another thread) and unfortunately he got caught
tossing around terms he knows nothing about.
I don't try to argue programming, or network servers, because "hello.c
was as far as I got.
Even Ebert at least post's proof, albeit sometimes a little stretched,
of his comments.
yttrx lies, lies and lies again. He gets caught all the time.
claire
>>
>>
>>claire
>>
>>
>>On 23 Oct 2000 19:19:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/x18762.html
>
>This is not a benchmark, but it does look interesting.
>
>[snip]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
From: Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Oct 2000 13:48:19 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Caveman) writes:
> As for giving things away as a business strategy, AT&T was pretty
> smart about giving away UNIX. What's on your desktop if you're
> not running NT? Once USL entered the picture, they got really
> ugly about it, sort of like Unipress now, but at least you have
> to admit that UNIX was about the only marketable piece of intellectual
> property USL had as startup capital, so they held it pretty dearly.
> Like McKusick, I hated this but I also can understand it from a
> management perspective. I think the product was simply overpriced.
Ummm, at the time AT&T (well Bell Labs really) started 'giving' away UNIX, they
(AT&T in this case) were under a consent decree that they wouldn't get into the
computer business and if memory serves, IBM was under a similar decree that
they wouldn't enter the phone business. Also, unlike current Linux and *BSD,
the UNIX code was covered by trade secret laws, where legally you could only
exchange UNIX source code with other UNIX source code licensees (biggest damn
trade secret I ever saw). UNIX seems to be the beast that just won't die, no
matter what internal roadblocks come up. Over the years we've seen PWB vs. V7,
AT&T vs. BSD, OSF vs. AT&T/SUN, Linux & *BSD vs. the commercial vendors.
--
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +1 978-692-4482
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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, 24 Oct 2000 17:54:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Relax
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 23 Oct 2000 18:34:17 -0500
<39f4ca67$0$32654$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> No its not: it allows graphicsless computers to use graphics. i remember
>> running some CFD software with a GUI on a cray without a graphics card.
>> That is a good thing.
>
>You still need the X Client subsystem - some sort of (remote) graphical
>device interface - for your app to run.
Actually, it's a library and an open socket; the other side (the X server)
does all of the heavy lifting regarding drawing things and such.
>So, actually, there IS a graphic
>subsystem on the server in your example. The only problem is that it is
>pixel based and completely device dependant, GDI is not.
It might be pixel based at that, how is it device dependent?
After all, I can direct the graphics from that system onto an X terminal,
a workstation running X/Unix (or Linux), a workstation running NT
with an X server package such as Hummingbird's eXceed package,
or Mi/X (from microimages, IIRC), or XWin32, or any of a number
of such things, permissions and resolutions permitting.
I could even use a NeXT box, which also had an X server as an add-on.
Or an Amiga. Or even a dummy frame buffer.
There is one big difference between Windows and X, though. X doesn't
have "metafiles", which is a bit of a limitation. (However, Postscript
largely takes care of that, and is text-based to boot, thanks to
Adobe.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Protect yourself and your computer get Evidence Eliminator
Date: 24 Oct 2000 18:17:26 GMT
Merlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Evidence Eliminator
DANGER!
DANGER!
This is a spyware trojan that reports your activities to the FBI.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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, 24 Oct 2000 18:43:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paul 'Z' Ewande©
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 24 Oct 2000 15:03:21 +0200
<8t41b4$hvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff <SNIP>
>
>> > Wouldn't it be nice to be able to telnet/ssh into the box and remotely
>work
>> > on it to restart/fix the webserver ? After all, I've constantly heard
>people
>> > boasting about this capability for Linux boxen. With a tanked Tux box,
>> > well... :)
>>
>> Use a watchdog card and telnet in to it when it reboots itself.
>
>What are those ?
I don't know the specific card/device/etc., but a watchdog timer has
been an idea that's been around for awhile; basically, the OS (or
perhaps a designated representative thereof, e.g. a daemon) pings
something every few seconds, and, if the device detects a problem
("no pings in the last X seconds"), it initiates a hard reboot
by pulling a reset line.
It's a hardware device so that it can be guaranteed to work;
obviously, a software daemon could be pressed into service, but
that isn't guaranteed.
>
>> No real problem---you only have to wait a couple of minutes.
What if it plays "reboot...reboot...reboot"? One hopes for
an emergency rescue disk in that case (and good luck inserting
said disk if the node is in remote Siberia, and you're not :-) ).
>
>> -Ed
>
>Paul 'Z' Ewande
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: 24 Oct 2000 11:21:13 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8t02uh$5b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : Where is your evidence that this study was paid for by Microsoft?
> >
> > : Or is your thinking that anything pro-MS must have been paid for by
> them?
> >
> > Given Microsoft's proven track record of unlawful and unethical
> > behavior, the shoddiness of most of its products, its well-known past
> > attempts to purchase "impartial" reviews, and the universal contempt in
> > which it and its products are held by all knowledgeable people, I
> > don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Indeed, I don't
> > see how any honest person could take any other.
>
> You'd make a terrible juror.
>
> "Given the black populations proven track record of unlawful and unethical
> behavior, well known attempts to purchase "impartial" hearings, and the
> universal contempt in which they are held by anyone that knows anything, I
> don't think it's unreasonable to say that this black person is guilty."
>
> An honest person would only make judgements based on facts.
>
Microsoft is a corporation, not an individual, and as such, is not
entitled to the same rights afforded to a person accused of a crime.
Given that marketing is everything to Microsoft, I agree with Joe that
it is not an unreasonable position to take.
Your analogy is insulting, BTW. How can you in your right mind
compare the plight of a minority group that was oppressed and enslaved
for a few centuries to one of the largest and most powerful
corporations in the world? I think you need a reality check.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
