Linux-Advocacy Digest #848, Volume #29 Tue, 24 Oct 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
(Goldhammer)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. (Goldhammer)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (sfcybear)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:53:02 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I found it interesting that they actually spent money
> > > >on this one. Who was their Ad man?
> > >
> > > It was a stupid move. It only serves to show that Linux is
> > > legit and M$ is worried about it.
> > >
> >
> > Well, let's put it this way!
> > It was a totally childish move by Microsoft to
> > run a negative campaign ad in Europe.
>
> Yea right. I have have grown to accept that every single article about Linux
> will likely contain at least one slam against Microsoft. The whole Linux
> campaign is built upon negativity towards Microsoft.
>
> To prove my point I'll simply type a URL - Ohh... how bout.... linux.org
>
> Page one at http://www.linux.org , the second text link states "Whats MS
> worried about?"
> But as I jump down to the "People of Linux" section and click the link to an
> interview with Shawn Gorgon, I notice, there it is AS PREDICTED, a slam
> against MS towards the bottom of the page. What do you know... :-(
>
> Who's being childish??
I went to this link and it took me here.
http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/20001023/A2507-2000Oct23.html
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:58:57 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well why?
> >
> > Microsoft OS's almost double in price with every version they
> > put out. W3k is $350 a throw in most places.
>
> What are you talking about? Windows 2000 is the next version of Windows NT
> 4. If you had any sense, you'd notice that Windows 2000's price is
> identical to that of Windows NT 4.
Bullshit!
Windows NT 4.0 was $189 at Comp USA.
Windows 2000 is $350 almost!
Pull your head out of your ass man!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:49:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Windows 9x "DOS/Windows" is not an OS. Windows NT/2K are vastly
> different and are operating systems. Oddly enough, Win32 on NT is not
> the actual operating system, it is an emulation layer on top of the NT
> operating system. Which many experts claim is based on VMS. (and I
> agree)
I find it very interesting to note how you phrased your
final comments here:
"...NT... Which many experts claim is based on VMS. (and I
agree)"
This is very interesting because it reveals that even
for such a knowledgeable, experienced, and well-spoken individual
such as yourself, the issue of NT's relationship to VMS still
(apparently) amounts to some kind of belief or gut opinion.
If indeed this was a known, provable fact, then you would not just
claim to agree with the "experts", but you would simply
state the claim as a fact.
Now, I have used NT since it's inception on Intel, and later
on NetPower machines. I have also used VMS. In fact, VMS was
really the first OS under which I worked as a Dilbertite programmer
many, many years ago. I've forgotted much, if not all
about VMS. All that lingers is a vague recollection of what
I liked and disliked about it.
When I first started to use NT, I was told that in some
sense it had this relationship with VMS. This seems to be
a common folklore. And that's what I started to wonder about.
Just what is it about NT that makes it somehow related to
or a derivative of VMS? The best I could come up with, the
only verifiable[?] facts that I could find, was that some
of the NT programmers at MS were VMS guys. Aside from this,
I simply cannot find anything similar between these
two systems. Perhaps there are some deep connections
which a userland guy like me would never realize. I don't know.
I'd like you to perhaps explain why you feel that NT is based
on VMS. Over the years, I've grown very, very skeptical about
commonly accepted mythology. I took it as a fact that
NT was somehow based on VMS. A little while ago, someone
asked me why I thought so, and I couldn't come up
with a reasonable explanation.
Having used both NT and VMS, and having programmed
under both NT and VMS, I see absolutely no common ground
whatsoever. Perhaps this common ground lies deep in the
kernel or in the file-system implementation. I don't know.
Honestly speaking, if you asked me today to speculate on
the true origins of NT, I would say that it is based on
a hack of Windows For Workgroups, not VMS.
PS. You're one of the guys I follow regularly on
usenet, and I would much appreciate some technical
elaboration on your part regarding this NT/VMS issue.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:50:38 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
>
> 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)
>
> Time to get recalibrated again...
>
Let's actually look at his numbers. For example, according to his
Red Hat, distributors shipped 1/2 million CDs in 1996. But the
linux market as a whole has tripled each year.
12/1991 - 3 thousand (actively participating in Linux project)
12/1992 - 10 thousand (downloads from SLS, Ammo Boxes, CD-Roms)
12/1993 - 20 thousand (SLS and Walnut Creek)
12/1994 - 50 thousand (Slackware, Yddragisil)
12/1995 - 150 thousand (Slackware, Red Hat).
12/1996 - 1/2 million
12/1997 - 1 million (slow growth due to NT)
12/1998 - 3 million
12/1999 - 8 million (slower growth due to Win98)
12/2000 - 24 million
This would be licensed copies sold.
Other metrics back up the growth rates, especially in the last
few years.
The good news is that sales are up. The bad news is that replications
are down. Bob Young estimated that there were 4 copies made for
every copy sold, but that would the total for 2000 at 96 million.
While this may not be inconceivable, it would have to include
global figures. If you include TiVo boxes, it might not be so far
off.
Other IDC and related estimates put the number closer to 30 million
as of last year (<5% of total COE market). This would indicate
replication rates of just slightly over 3 installs per unit sold.
The 3 installs per copy seems to be justified from year-over-year
growth. The Linux sales seem to be growing at about 200% (tripling)
which one can assume is driven by replications. If you assume that
4 installs are made but 1/4 are not happy campers, then you can
figure both attrition and growth for a net yield of 200% growth.
Estimates seem to range from 185% (IDC) to 240% (LinuxCare et al).
--
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: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:01:12 GMT
2:1 wrote:
> > Oh, I still don't think so. You could have just upgraded the entire thing
> > and been happy anyway.
>
> I didn't want to upgrade the entire thing because I wanted to keep all
> my settings ans scripts working -- not that my plan worked. Also, I had
> the CD as an ISO image on my HDD, and I'm flat out of CDRs st the
> moment.
>
> Also, I only wanted to upgrade what I wanted.
>
We could go on like this forever!
And I have to ask what the point is?
Run Slackware and get happy.
Okay.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:03:56 GMT
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:10:08 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What are you talking about?
>Windows 2000 is the next version of
>Windows NT 4.
Really? Is that how we are to imagine
it? Then it shouldn't be a problem
replacing some servers on an NT
network with Win2K. I should expect
seamless integration, right?
Let me know how it turns out.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:07:01 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8t2feb$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
>
> 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)
>
> Time to get recalibrated again...
Drestin,
The guy ballparked it from 15 million all the way to 90 million.
Pull your head out of your asshole for a minute and just listen to
me son.
It's not the TOTAL count I care about. It's the FACT that of
the few people they had check in, Linux was showing a tremendous
growth rate. Lot's of former window users.
The Linux colony in this study indicated change in the percentage
balance between Linux and Windows proving Linux is growing
at a tremendous rate, 40% of better that of Windows.
This can't be denied no matter what other bullcrap you come up
with.
And Microsoft knows this otherwise they wouldn't be
whacking off spending money on Ad's for Europe showing
a Penguin with an Elephants head.
And if you dis-agree with me, then I guess you think
Microsoft is full of crap also.
Perhaps everybody at Microsoft is having a cocain high
this month?
Wait! Don't answer that.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[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: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:09:30 GMT
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
> 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 - 200 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.
There. I fixed your signoff Rex.
Now your not lying anymore.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:56:18 GMT
<snip>
> > Most of the
> > stuff is hard coded into the kernel (meaning its faster than any
> > Windows 9X/NT/2k counterpart and more intergrated into the system)
>
> So wrong. Try the nVidia or 3dfx drivers on linux and compare to 98
or
> 2000.
>
Another thing that has to be remembered is that the manfacturers often
times don't want to give the specs about thier hardware. When they
finally do, they have released another card. And all that time you
spend trying to get the specs, and hardware information is lost.
> > I
> > am not going to say that either is better than the other.
>
> Windows is better.
>
Is MS Windows a multiuser system (can you log in to the same computer
many times)? You have to buy all this third party support. The truth
is that Bill Gates (former CEO) did not want to migrate onto the
Internet. Thats why windows networking sucks (my opinion). It can be
improved with third party software (means more on top of the $100 to
$1000 you spend just on the OS itself). You can get better network
support in a Red Hat box for less than $20.
Imagine being able to do PC anywhere, WITHOUT PC Anywhere. Only nix
systems running X can do that. You can run an X server, and over any
TCP/IP network pop up another session (even under Windows). Something
you can't do under Win9X/NT/2k with just the OS itself. Perhaps MS
should add on some more networking support to Win and make it multi-
user. Until then I won't be happy. Linux was originally designed from
start to finish to run on a 386+ core (with more plats available now)
and designed with TCP/IP built in (just write a PPP script). You don't
need all that winsock garbage.
> > Linux is
> > unarguably faster,
>
> Wrong. Post a faster graphics card result.
>
I don't have one. However I'm not just talking about graphics. And if
the system itself is not faster, it sure as hell more stable.
Case Study: (my company)
================================
My company wrote a software accounting suite for a restaurant (a
Windows NT 4.0 system w/SP 5 w/SQL server). The software was written
in C++, using MSVS. It worked fine, but then a weird bug started
occuring.
The system would crashed about every 24 hours. Now we went back
through the code, and found nothing wrong. All our pointers were
freed, and we closed all the unused handles and still it would crash.
The customer complained, and we tried to explain, but because the
restaurant owners would not understand (they were not computer
literate, and they are customers you know), we lost the account.
Later on, we traced and found the bug was actually in SQL server! My
VP called Microsoft and they at first denied the existence of the
problem. He insisted and they checked on it. After MS spent three
days of re-creating the problem, they admittred the problem was (as we
thought) in THIER software (SQL server).
After that we exclusively banned the use of all Microsoft products for
our customers, and exclusively use RH for our customers now. We
haven't had any problems since!
I web design on a (shall I dare say it) a MAC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (please
don't murder me!)
> > but Windows is unarguably more compatible (and more
> > people write drivers for Windows).
>
> Because it's profitable.
>
That is what is the software industry is based on sadly. =(
> But so much slower due to minimal acceleration support.
>
> > Looks
> > BETTER than windows in my opionion,
>
> Looks like shit compared to Windows 200 IMO.
>
Opinions, opinions...
> > and you can use a simple interface
> > like QT to program for it! (C++)
>
> Or right to Win32/64 or MFC or Java or whatever else in Windows.
When I programmed for Windows I used pure Win32 API. I don't like MFC.
Its cleaner with the API.
>
> > The truth is that Linux is a very good
> > system, and has many features that Windows does not have.
>
> Name a few.
>
See above...
> > It is true
> > that in the past Linux was very incompatible,
>
> Still is.
>
> > however, over time, this
> > has change,
>
> Nope. Not as much as Windows.
>
Windows really didn't have change much. You have to remember that
Linux is the underdog.
> > and Linux has become very viable (however it was only able
> > to detect 4MB of the 16MB VRAM in my Riva TNT [RH ver6.2] =< )
>
> Or the 256 MB RAM in myBP6 mobo. Sad ain't it.
>
That is true. Video cards are a bitch, you can thank the manufacturers!
> > However
> > the graphics were still wonderful for a Linux Machine!
>
> And shitty for a Windows 2000 machine!
>
> > And Linux has
> > full OpenGL support.
>
> Windows has better.
>
Well Linux is still working on it, but remember OpenGL wasn't even
originally developed for Windows.
> > Please don't bad mouth Linux, it is a great
> > operating system, and was developed by a great many programmers all
> > collaborating and giving there skills.
>
> Most are college students. Great is relative. My hat is off to the
> Trolltech crew and the KDE folks. Gnome isn't too bad too. Just
don't
> think they are up to Windows desktop standards 'cause they are not.
They
> still have to deal with X.
>
X is a large scale project, its going to be a while before it gets
REALLY good. From what it was its GREAT!
> > At least the linux programmers
> > can develop stable versions before release (something Microsoft has
> > never been able to do with Windows because of market pressure).
>
> Post proof of X being more stable than Windows 2000 please.
>
Well honestly I haven't dealt w/Win2k all that much, but from the
aforementioned story you can decide.
> > Odd
> > versions are unstable with even releases being the betas.
> >
Correction to myself. Even versions are stable, and odds are betas
<snip>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[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: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:00:56 GMT
In article <39f60a3f$0$26317$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8t31nh$902$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > > Time to get recalibrated again...
> >
> >
> > It also does not account for the users that have burned thier own
CD's
> > and installed Linux on MANY machines!
>
> 45 million of them? ha!
well, about 50 were I work, a small shop of about 200 people. And there
is a good chance that the rest will convert over the next year. Sorry
dressindrab, Linux is growing strong and getting better every day! THe
new KDE2 is sweet(including a reasonably good office suite)! The
improvemets in the Mandrake distribution (inlcuding Cups for better
printing) is closing the very few areas that were behind MS products.
Your gonna have to do better than this!
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[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: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:10:27 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://counter.li.org/
> >
> > GEEZE look at this thing.
> > Look at the growthrates!
> >
>
> > They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up that
> > 21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
>
> I did and no where did it mention 21% anything.
> I did and no where does it mention "several commercial firms" backing up
> anything.
> I did and even if it did I would suspect it flawed because every single
> other measurement I've ever encountered anywhere has shown Windows as the
> most popular web browsing OS and IE as the most popular browser. Period. By
> HUGE margins.
Well,
We are all very sorry you can't read.
Perhaps in your next life then Drestin.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:11:50 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> 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
Ha ha, shit!
Give Bill Gates another 10 years and Windows will probably
be another NIX if he had it his way!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:15:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
>
FreeBSD is the FASTEST OPERATING SYSTEM in the WORLD.
It just runs away from Linux 2.2 kernels.
It still walks away from a linux 2.4 kernel but not fast enough for
me to give up all my driver support for the hardware.
FreeBSD is limited on hardware support where Linux practically
supports everything Windows does today. There is little left
Linux doesn't support.
FreeBSD just has that hangup BSD license which would theoretically
allow BSDI to close the source and that's why I don't trust it.
Linux uses GNU/GPL and you can trust that license.
It's just that simple.
Now if somebody would just explain to me WHY Yahoo is dumping
FreeBSD in favor of Linux then I would know everything....
Why the Google contract?
>
> >
> >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]
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:16:55 GMT
FM wrote:
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> It's been quite a long time since the
> >> last time I compared the distributions and I would appreciate
> >> any information/opinions on this.
>
> >Why don't you go to http://www.debian.org and just put in on your
> >machine.
>
> Well, it would take a considerable amount of time to
> get used to and stabilize/customize. It might not, but
> that's not something I want to bet my time on while
> I'm still fairly busy. I also need to use the system
> in the meantime. Also, the extent to which I can
> determine the relative worth of a system in a short
> perid of time is very limited.
It doesn't take anymore time to install and use Debian than
any of the others. And Debian is the STAR of Linux with
the best LSB rating next to Suse's.
Redhat is like #4 and Mandrake is way back there on
the LSB tests.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
