Linux-Advocacy Digest #981, Volume #29 Wed, 1 Nov 00 10:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft == Firestone (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Perry Pip)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Perry Pip)
Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft (.)
Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Perry Pip)
Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff.. (Perry Pip)
Re: Astroturfing (chrisv)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 09:02:41 -0500
Caveman wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jan Vorbrueggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Caveman) writes:
> >
> >I would have thought that such behaviour was grounds for immediate dismissal.
>
> Not necessarily. Think about empowerment and flexibility.
>
> >> you waste cycles in too much spin, but you can have, in my opinion, more
> >> kernel I/O threads running at once in parallel on a Solaris 8 box than
> >> anything short of S/390 or ACP/TPF.
> >
> >Or VMS.
>
> Yeah, VMS is pretty good, but compared to ACP/TPF or S/390 it comes up
> way short, and Solaris is about as good if you intelligently use mutex
> locks.
>
> ACP/TPF will for the foreseeable future kick the living **** out of any
> other OS. The whole thing is written in assembler, and it can restart
> in SECONDS.
>
> I don't support that as a future vision, I think the intelligent approach
> is to use a mid-level language and profile the code and then recode the
> resource hogs at a lower level.
>
> I simply will never support the notion that untalented people can produce
> good code no matter how many tools you give them. Hand many people a
> hammer and they will end up with little more than a severely bruised
> thumb. It's a bad management policy, not a technology issue.
>
> You have to see computing as a tool, not a replacement for human talent,
> intelligence and judgement.
>
> I would not want to live in a world where computers are so powerful to
> do that, and am glad that I am old enough that I will never live to see
> whatever happens when that occurs. I feel it will be very Orwellian.
>
> Tom West said a couple decades ago that computers had made people more
> stupid. I would advise anyone to reflect on the implications of that wise
> statement.
True. But by the same token, the lever makes people weaker.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:05:35 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Milton wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:27:07 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >But then again, I've never took the time to seat down and really study
Unix.
> > >Do you mind telling me what do you think that 2000 (latest version,
after
> > >all) has yet to have in order to be as good as unix? I would like to
know.
> >
> > Stability, reliability, flexibility and most of all -> SECURITY
>
> Stability: Stop changing the code-base so often. We hear that about 50%
> of the code is new in Win 2000. It is empirical that code
> takes quite a long time to become free of bugs, so we probably
> have a few more years of bugginess, if the code-base isn't
> majorly reworked once again.
If you've shitty code base, what would you do? Rewrite it, or just patching
holes?
> Reliability: Learn from UNIX, and see "stability".
>
> Flexibility: Abjure the Registry. Stick with config files in protected
> directories. Untangle the GUI from the rest of the OS.
> Steal a command-line shell from Linux to replace that
> crappy CMD.EXE window.
Please check pre-win95 days, there wasn't a registery then, see how much fun
they had those days.
No-GUI, this I know that they are doing.
Whistler is skinnable OS, one of the options is no GUI.
I don't know why CLI shell from *nix is better than CMD.EXE, except maybe
the lack of applications to it.
> Security: Forget about the fancy features. Don't use JavaScript or
> ActiveX anymore. Provide client apps that the user must
> install, and use tunnelled X-Windows instead of downloaded
> code.
Fancy features?
What do you mean tunneled X-Windows instead of downloaded code?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:10:45 -0600
"Bruce Scott TOK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A big event occurred here: the crash of comet SL/9 into Jupiter in July
> 1994. What made that one new is that due to the speed with which
> observatories were putting up press articles and pictures, much of the
> material was available _only_ via WWW. I had heard of it for a bit less
> than a year before, but this event was what made me install Mosaic under
> my home directory. A _lot_ of people got to know the web during the
> month or so all this was going on.
Hmm.. Are you sure it was 94? I thought it was 95...
> Only to the people slaved to MS. That is changing, now. Had the 386
> been available cheaply 5 years earlier than it was, we'd have had a
> Linux type thing that much earlier and then MS would have been swamped.
> As it happens, we made it just in time so that _we_ didn't get swamped.
Uhh.. the cheap 386 *WAS* available more than 5 years before the first
release of Linux. First release of Linux was in 1991, while the 386 was
released in 1985. And the 486 in 90.
> To me the thing came of age in 1994. Before Win95.
Remember, there were something like 100,000 copies of Win95 "Final beta"
available since late 1994.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:12:50 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Stability, reliability, flexibility and most of all -> SECURITY
>
> Stability: Stop changing the code-base so often. We hear that about 50%
> of the code is new in Win 2000. It is empirical that code
> takes quite a long time to become free of bugs, so we probably
> have a few more years of bugginess, if the code-base isn't
> majorly reworked once again.
Hmm.. diff'd the 2.2 and 2.4 kernel's lately?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 13:56:48 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
<SNIP>
> > What are you talking about? My statement was that there is no evidence to
> > suggest that there are more Linux boxes on the internet than Win2k boxes.
> > And that is in fact true.
>
> There is plenty of evidence. Netcraft reports 3 times as many sites
> hosted by Apache than by IIS.
APACHE, not LINUX. You do know the difference, right?
If you looked at the OS running all those SITES (note that there are far
LESS servers running those sites than in the IIS numbers), a majority
would be Slowaris and BSD, not Linux.
> There is no reasonable argument that states that the ratio between "many
> to one" sites (multiple servers per site) and "one to many" (multiple
> sites per server) is vastly different across systems. Although I think
> that it is more likely that the "many to one" case weighs in Apache's
> side because it is almost trivial to manage a 100 apache servers behind
> a load balancer.
How is it not trivial for IIS? I suppose it's a little more difficult
because IIS servers typically serve up dynamic content pointed at a
database, whereas a majority of those Apache servers are on hosting provider
sites and only serve up static html, which is all Apache is good for.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft == Firestone (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:12:42 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You forget something: MICROSOFT's TWENTY YEARS of unethical behavior.
You forget the trial, MS is going to look *real* bad in the appeal, the DoJ
can say, "See, here is one of the (many) reasons why Ms should be chopped to
little pieces."
The last thing MS want is to give the DoJ more ammo.
And you forgot to shorten your sig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: 1 Nov 2000 14:12:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:26:10 -0800,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:21:56 -0800,
>> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:B08L5.12299$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:QF1L5.116842$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> > > > The real lesson is: Say NO to VPN's. Say NO to dial-up access
>from
>> >> > outside
>> >> > > > the secure LAN.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > DO NOT TRUST ANY MACHINE OUTSIDE YOUR FIREWALL.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hey! The real lesson here is don't trust Microsoft!
>> >> >
>> >> > Everyday the Linux source is checked in and out of the software
>source
>> >> code
>> >> > repository and worked on. And most of those computers are at home.
>They
>> >> > aren't behind a firewall. They could be just as infected as that
>> >Microsoft
>> >> > employees computer.
>> >> >
>> >> > Makes you feel all safe and cozy with Linux. Right?
>> >>
>> >> You do understand that the most serious hacking comes from
>> >> inside, don't you? Disgruntled employees, industrial spies,
>> >> and the like....
>> >
>> >And someone else said there were 200,000 open source programmers. Scary!
>> >
>>
>> 200,000 open source programmers looking at the code.
>
>Please let me know how many lines of code there are in all the software on
>all 20 or 30 or 40 Linux distros there are.
Let's say 30,000,000. That's only 150 lines per developer. How many
developers are looking at W2K code??
>
>Then tell me which decade you PERSONALLY used to review the code line by
>line.
I don't need to personally check every line of code any more that I
need to personally check the new designs for Firestone tires. I just
need to know enough decent people have.
>The big myth of Open Source is that it all is reviewed. Thats a big fat lie.
Every single line of code need not be reviewed by every single
developer for the code to be "reviewed". All of the more commonly used
open source code is looked at my multiple independant developers. If
you ever participated in an OSS project you would know that.
>Only small parts at a time of the kernel code or some of the sexier / trendy
>bits of code are constantly under review.
Wrong. Any commonly used code ends up getting looked at sufficiently
enough. If you ever participated in an OSS project you would know
that.
And let's take note of the rest of my post that you snipped out, shithead:
>>no open source programmer even thinks of
>>putting a trojan in the code, becuase he knows it would be there for
>>the public to see, he'd get caught, and no one would ever let him
>>contribute to an OSS project ever again, not to mention he could go to
>>jail.
So even if the code isn't reviewed, it's likely to be cleaner because
the developer knows he's releasing it publicly.
>Look at the security advisories.
No shit moron, becuase people are looking at the code, finding the
holes, and releasing patches. You just proved yourself wrong.
>Get real.
You get real, moron. You are saying it is better to have an entirely
closed product that can not be independantly reviewed by anyone then
it is to have something in the public eyes. As I stated to you in
another post, crackers don't need source code to find holes, and
developers need source code to fix them. You never responded to that,
of course.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 1 Nov 2000 14:12:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:46:06 -0800,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:YLxL5.508$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:NdmL5.118310$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > >> Because of the OPEN source model the GNU/LINUX system is
>> > > >> light years ahead of Microsoft.
>> > >
>> > > > Yup. Anyone can download the source. Modify it. Compile it.
>> > Distribute the
>> > > > original source and the new binaries and call it a distro.
>> > >
>> > > Anyone can put rat poison in a bottle, add water and food coloring,
>> > > call it "Bob's Coca Cola" and sell it on the street corner.
>> > >
>> > > Expecting to compromise Linux or any other piece of Free software
>> > > this way is just as silly.
>> > >
>> > > If you're stupid enough to use an OS that you received from someone
>> > > you don't know or trust then it's your own fault.
>> >
>> > Yup. I agree. I don't know or trust anyone making Linux distros.
>> >
>>
>> You don't know anyone making Windows distros, either. You just made the
>> arbitrary choice to trust them.
>>
>> The fact is that you're wrong about your hypothetical "security threat" to
>> OSS. To quickly recap, here's your scenario:
>>
>> 1) Download Caldera's source code
>> 2) Alter the source. Put in a back door.
>> 3) Compile
>> 4) Burn a copy of Caldera's distribution with original source and altered
>> binaries.
>> 5) Sell cheap copies on EBay or at computer swap meets or at a local
>> computer store you own etc etc. Make sure you use forged Caldera labels.
>>
>> That's quite a bit of trouble to go to, but it is not an impossible
>> scenario.
>
>My guess is that it's happening already.
Proof please??
You are going to extremes to make open source software look less secure,
whilst every security expert on the planet seems to disagree with you.
>Why break-in to so many computers (even though it seesm relatively easy to
>break root in a Linux box) when all you have to do is distribute compromised
>versions?
>
Well aparently, according to attrition, it's much easier to break into an
NT box than any Linux box. Could MS have put a backdoor in??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why Red Hat is as bad as Microsoft
Date: 1 Nov 2000 14:13:54 GMT
Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Roberto Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "JB" == Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JB> Slackware uses an UNMODIFIED kernel directly from kernel.org
> JB> in distro 7.1.
> >> Then you are missing lots of great features like larger files,
> > No, you arent. Larger files is supported in a bonafide torvalds
> > branch, and Reiserfs can be done modularly.
> But those modified kernels are simply patched, right? For example,
> they add a feature of kernel 2.4 into a more stable kernel 2.2. The
> kernel is still a linux kernel, now isn't it?
It sure is. Except in Mandrake, where the headers were completely
re-written.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once agian: Obscurity != security (Was: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Date: 1 Nov 2000 14:14:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 02:47:44 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9HJL5.1627$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><SNIP>
>
>> The reality is open source software is more likely to be secure than binary
>> only software.
>
>LIE
Nearly every security expert on the planet disagrees with you.
>Linux has now taken the lead in exploits.
These exploits are being found and patches released before they are
exploited, becuase it's open source.
>It seems that Open Source has produced more security holes than closed source.
>
No the OSS ones get discovered and fixed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Software companies better than tire companies?? Please. (Was: Tuff..
Date: 1 Nov 2000 14:14:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:58:21 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 08:21:14 +0200,
>> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Well, for a start, they are going to have unaffected copies of the source
>> >code, remember?
>> >They've change logs.
>> >They can simply run a doc compar of the code and check only the portions
>of
>> >it that changed.
>>
>> Sure, they can do this to assess the damages. But what if they find
>> something really bad?? Suppose they discover that a trojan was put in
>> W2k updates, and tens of thousands downloaded it?? Would they announce
>> it to the public?? Or would they try to cover it up?? What did
>> Firestone try to do when they found out their tires were flawed and
>> people were dying?? Why would MS be different from any other large
>> corporation with a mistake to hide.
>
>To do so you need a lot more than a mere access to the code.
All the cracker would need is read/write access to the code, some fake
reasons to log the code into the CM system, and lot's of time to study
it.
>So they would release a critical update?
Probably not right away. That might clue people in. That's why
Firestone was so hush hush about recalling tires in South America.
>BTW, I've checked, they didn't take down any of the updates they released
>for w2k.
>And the last critical update they released was in 07/10, for "Multiple LPC
>and LPC Ports"
>I think that it's clear that MS, even if it won't publish it, would try to
>fix it ASAP.
See above. They wouldn't want to clue people in.
>None the less, the PR damage that MS took can't be that bad if they would
>admit that something like that happenned and released a patch.
>The PR damage if they would hide it and someone else find out about it (and
>they will, after all, CS doesn't mean that you can't find the exploits) will
>be devestating.
Tell that to Firestone. Corporations don't always act with common
sense.
>> >Please, this "we can never trust MS s/w now" is total bull!
>>
>> No it's not. Fact is you can't trust any corporation that can hide so
>> much information from the public. By using any closed source product,
>> you are placing a blind trust in the company, it's employees, and
>> their security policies.
>
>This is so stupid.
>So they are close source, big deal.
So they can (accidentally or intentionally) put code on your computer
that does just about anything without your knowing it.
>That doesn't mean that they imediately evil.
But it does mean they can be if they want to!! Apply Murphy's law to
that fact and sooner or later someone will!! How are software
companies any better than tire companies.
>> >And you either an idiot for not knowing it, or you know it and spreading
>> >FUD.
>> >
>>
>> Ignorance is bliss. Isn't it.
>
>For you, apperently it is.
>
ROFLOL!! You are the one that is out of blind trust giving
coorporations the ability to do anything they want to you without your
even knowing it.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 14:17:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Jason you asshole
Everyone can see who the a-hole here is, and it's you, letarded.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:18:30 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What are you talking about? My statement was that there is no evidence
to
> > suggest that there are more Linux boxes on the internet than Win2k
boxes.
> > And that is in fact true.
>
> There is plenty of evidence. Netcraft reports 3 times as many sites
> hosted by Apache than by IIS.
Oh, of course Apache only runs on Linux. Right?
> There is no reasonable argument that states that the ratio between "many
> to one" sites (multiple servers per site) and "one to many" (multiple
> sites per server) is vastly different across systems. Although I think
> that it is more likely that the "many to one" case weighs in Apache's
> side because it is almost trivial to manage a 100 apache servers behind
> a load balancer.
Ah yes, and there are oh so many of these running Linux. NOT. IF they're
that big, they're probably either running Solaris, Tru64, AIX, or NT/2000.
> Even if it is true that the "many to one" case is high on Apache's side,
> Netcraft looks at servers requested by users, because of this it is
> reasonable to conclude that this is a sampling of more "known" or
> popular sites, which tend to overlook the very little known or less
> traveled sites.
No, Netcraft searches all domains and hosts. It only lists the most popular
ones in it's listing of popular sites. The survey itself has no weight
regarding popularity.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 14:02:24 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8tnfcm$mds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > : "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > : news:iAbL5.5023$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > :> Linux seems to run several "domain squatter" sites, where they register
> > > :> hundreds or thousands of domains and direct them to the same server.
> > >
> > > : How did you discover that? Why do you think it is a statistically
> > > : relevant number compared to other systems?
> > >
> > > He doesn't. He's just too blind to see that the premise he uses
> > > to discredit the Netcraft survey causes his own argument to discredit
> > > itself too. If you can't tell from the outside which hostnames go
> > > to which physical boxes, then he can't make his claim that Linux has
> > > lots of domain squatters that map names to one box - his very own
> > > premise (that you can't tell from the outside) makes it impossible
> > > to know if this is going on or not.
> >
> > It's called "common sense". I know it's hard to comprehend as you
> > have none, but bear with me.
>
> Common sense, is neither. historically it has held, that the sun goes
> around the earth, that the earth is flat, that no man can go faster that
> 60 mph, if man were meant to fly, he'd have wings, and that a rocket
> could not move through space because thrust has nothing to push against.
According to people like you, it's also held that Linux is more secure,
stable, and quicker than Windows, which is also false. I guess I see your
point. How about if I say, "Commonly obtainable facts"?
> "Common Sense" is usually a bogus label put on dubious conclusions to
> add merit.
>
> >
> > Many web sites (I'd dare to say a large majority) out there are hosted.
>
> This is fair conclusion.
>
> >
> > Many hosting providers still use Unix/Apache. All of those hosting
> > providers have > 1:1 relationship between sites and servers (actually
> > closer to 100:1). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out
> > that a large majority of the Apache site are actually run from
> > a very small fraction of servers.
>
> Yes, but you are assuming that the "servers > sites" case is
> disproportionate across operating systems, in particular that NT does
> this more often. Just look at Fast and Google, these have 100s or 1000s
> of (Linux/FreeBSD) computers acting as web and/or application servers.
I didn't say servers > sites, I said sites > servers. It's easily
discernable that there are many more Apache sites (www.thissite.com) than
there are physical boxes or servers. It's somewhere on the average of
50-60:1 given the ratio that most hosting providers use.
Typically, corporations use IIS, so the ratio of sites > servers is actually
negative meaning that there are typically 2 servers to a site, or 1:2 or
1:3 meaning if you devide the Apache numbers by 50, and multiply the IIS
numbers by 2 or three, you'd be seeing much more useful numbers as to the
distribution and popularity of the various OSes.
Even more useful numbers would be the distribution of total requests over
each platform, I'd bet you'd see IIS holds a large majority of those as well
as most of those Apache sites are personal home sites or unfrequently
visited .org sites.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
