Linux-Advocacy Digest #986, Volume #29 Wed, 1 Nov 00 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Linux is great (George Richard Russell)
PUNT! was Re: Ms employees begging for food (The Phantom Menace)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Mulligan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 13:22:29 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> No, it is the results of my research and experience, which I'm going to
>> >> have to point out is not limited to only examining the ethernet itself,
>> >> but dealing with the "whole network".
>
>> >Even the crappy ethernets we built using thicknet segments and Intel's
>> >crummy 911 repeater boxes between Xenix-286 systems and VAXes got better
>> >than 1 Mbps throughput on a shared ethernet. I don't care what your
>> >research and experience says, it's completely out of line with my
>> >experience.
>
>> No, it is just out of scope with your context. The *ethernet* gets more
>> than 1 Mbps *bandwidth utilization*. That isn't the same thing as
>> throughput.
>
>I'm sorry, you seem to be using normal technical terms in some way that makes
>no sense at all.
No apology necessary. I'm aware of the problem. They make perfect
sense, though its no surprise you're not familiar with the way I am
using them. Please, feel free to ask me for a more explicit definition
of any word which I'm using in a way you don't recognize clearly. I try
to be as accurate, consistent, and practical as I can, and considering
how rarely technical terms are used like that, its not rare at all that
it becomes an issue.
>With a 10 Mbps network, with two stations, I can get damn near 10 Mbps
>throughput.
Correct, so long as the entirety of the network which you must get
things through is only that one Ethernet.
>With many stations, I can get much more than 10% or 30% of
>the aggregate throughput. Just what exactly is this thing you say that
>you can only get 10% of out of Ethernet? And why should anyone care about
>it?
You say you can get much more than 10% or 30% aggregated throughput, but
the issues is the non-aggregated throughput. It takes a CSMA/CD
transmission channel (apart from the "point to point"
thought-experiment) roughly ten times longer to get an arbitrary amount
of data to the "other end" of the channel when the average utilization
is at 30% than it does when the utilization is 10%.
Anyone who wants to use the channel should care, and certainly anyone
responsible for ensuring it can be used should care. I don't think the
reasons are entirely non-obvious, though I will admit they are not the
typical way that the technology is explained to people.
>> The "30% rule", often misunderstood, apparently, is relevant to this
>> idea. What the 30% rule really means is that every time you want to use
>> the bandwidth of the ethernet (10 megabits, nominal) to support your
>> demand, there is a 30% chance there might not be enough.
>
>That's a really unique interpretation of the 30% rule. First of all, that
>would leave Ethernet 70% effective. Second, depending on the number
>of hosts (and, more importantly, their duty cycle) that figure could be
>anything from 1% to 99%...
No, you misunderstand the whole thing, which is not a "unique", merely a
correct, interpretation of the 30% rule. You have my sympathies if you
are only now becoming aware that you didn't understand the 30% rule to
begin with, but there's nothing I can really do about it, except point
out that your understanding is, indeed, flawed. You have gotten so far,
to your credit, to recognize that this atypical definition of the 30%
rule does "leave Ethernet 70% effective". By this token, an Ethernet
running at 10% utilization on average is 90% effective, and an Ethernet
showing 70% utilization is only 30% effective. The relationship between
demand and load, the logarithmic response curve I've been describing
(this is all much easier when I have a whiteboard) which identifies how
performance decreases exponentially as utilization increases linearly,
which results in these numbers explains:
a) Why I recommend "provisioning" Ethernets for 10% load on average,
b) The 30% rule, indicating as a rule-of-thumb that Ethernets averaging
over 30% should be partitioned, and
c) Why Ethernet was "never intended" to be implemented so as to support
greater than 50% bandwidth utilization of its 10 megabit transmission
rate.
Since you're talking about the aggregate utilization, it makes no
difference whatsoever how many hosts you have or what kind of traffic
patterns they show, unless you're going to pretend you can "interleave"
frames efficiently on the channel by second-guessing individual
transmissions. Yes, the utilization of an ethernet can be any figure
from 1% to 99%, and as you correctly surmised, the efficiency of the
ethernet (in supporting an individual stations demands) can be said to
be the inverse percentage. Ergo, to use a channel which already has
over 50% utilization is to be satisfied with a channel that has an
efficiency of less than 50%.
>> The most I'm willing to be comfortable
>> with is a 10% chance that I won't have the bandwidth I need, because one
>> or more of the other transceivers sharing the media might also expected
>> they could use more than a small fraction of the bandwidth available in
>> supporting their loads.
>
>How can you possibly come up with this figure? You could have a network
>with mostly idle boxes that twice a day pump out 2 seconds of 100%
>utilization, or you could have two other boxes on the net always using 400
>megabytes per second between them. In the former case at any given time you
>have almost 100% chance of getting 10 Mbps. In the latter, almost 0%.
I come up with this figure for precisely these reasons. So that I don't
have to try to second-guess what individual boxes are doing, and when
they are doing it. All I have to do is double-check that utilization
averages 10% (that figure could be for a week, an hour, or a minute,
depending on your resources and tolerances) or less, and you'll never
have to worry about the difference between 10 megabits at 2%
utilization, and 10 megabits at 35% utilization in terms of whether they
will provide the service required by whatever arbitrary node, host, or
server which might be utilizing that Ethernet.
>> Unless you've got fewer than 10 devices on a
>> segment,
>
>Where does this "10 devices" come from?
100/10=10. To have the ability to ensure that each station has
sufficient throughput, you do the "simple math" thing. Unless you
understand how Ethernet works. You've gotten so far as to recognize the
variance of traffic patterns and the impact it can have, but you've
still not gotten to the point where you can do more than "divvy up the
bandwidth". That's not the way CSMA/CD works.
>I've had 2 devices on a segment use
>100% of the bandwidth for their own use, and I've had 100 devices on a segment
>doing mostly nothing most of the time. You *always* have to worry about
>utlization... and you still have to do that with switched networks: it doesn't
>matter if you have 3.2 Gbps aggregate bandwidth if it's all supposed to go
>to and from one port.
Why would you have to "worry about" utilization? It never goes over
100%, and that means you're getting your money's worth, right? You're
trying to step over into the realm of provisioning, but the simple
network model doesn't support provisioning on a complex network. You
waste time trying to convince yourself, for no reason and with no
results, that more bandwidth is the only way to improve things, but you
haven't the information which would have provided the answer to the
question "how much more bandwidth do you need" in a way which will
convince the people who write the checks.
You have to admit, there is a fundamental conflict in the standard
industry knowledge about how networks work, when the goal seems to
simultaneously to have as low a utilization as possible, as a sign of
success in properly running the network, and as high a utilization as
possible, which also proves the network is well run. Tell me, which is
it?
>And yes, you're better off if the average load is 30% than if it's 60%, or if
>it's 10% than if it's 30%. And, yes, in that sense the 30% rule is a useful
>guideline, but it doesn't mean what IBM claimed it mant and it doesn't mean
>that Ethernet is overengineered: any network that uses a shared resource
>instead of some intelligent packet routing mechanism is going to have the
>same kind of limitation...
You still don't understand what IBM pointed out (not "claimed"). It
isn't that you are "worse off" at 60% than at 30%. Its that you are
substantially more than twice as bad off at 60% than at 30%.
>and it doesn't matter if it's ethernet or token
>ring, you're not going to have as much point-to-point throughput if there's
>contention for the bandwidth (yeh, you don't get a collision, but now you
>have to sit back and twiddle your thumbs waiting for the token). And even
>on a switched network, there are shared resources to contend with.
Yes, but they don't have non-deterministic behavior as part of their
very design because their channel arbitration scheme relies on a random
interval to mitigate contention. It matters quite a bit if its a
CSMA/CD Ethernet or a token ring or any other type of transmission
channel technology. This also accounts for the point-to-point
(including switched) scenarios you've been using. Only shared media
mulit-station CSMA/CD Ethernet LANs exhibit this behavior.
>And damn, you've taken an awful complex way to say that... and brought up a
>lot of arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the point, each of
>which has lead to more noise and confusion.
No doubt due to the fact that that wasn't what I was saying, and you are
apparently unaware of the reality of the complex points I am making.
What you mistake for you noise is simply your own confusion. No, it
isn't simply a matter of a linear, or deterministic, relationship
between response time and channel utilization, as you seem to believe.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:25:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Ginn wrote:
>want to do, it would have made _my_ life much more difficult. Why do
>you want to cripple the machine for power users instead of newbies?
Never said I wanted to.
The point is, you'll have to use the console at some point,
unless your are completely happy with the setup and software
out of the box.
And if you are like that, perhaps an iMac would suit you more.
Linux will not ever be usable on the desktop without use of the
console. You can minimise console usage, but it will still need
to be learned.
>> Every few years, Unix gets another GUI. Its a shame the cli isn't
>> replaced / improved as often.
>
>
>So tell me George, how would you improve the CLI? Replacing it is not
>an option for some users; unless your intent it to tie one hand behind
>their backs.
Make it consistent. Make it informative. Choose a better set of
default behaviour. Remove some of the heritage resulting from
blindlt copying Unix. Improve interactive usage - less need for
escape characters, quoting and the like, just to delete files
with spaces / odd characters in the name. Make setting environment
variables the same across shells. Unify handling of files and URL's
- why have rcp/scp when you can just give cp a URL?
Using rm on a directory will smoke it
without needng to use -r
And I'll put n in umount
is that enough detail?
>My point is that Windows has just as many idiosyncracies as Linux,
>you're just used to them. There are still plenty of things you can't
>do with a GUI in Windows.
The counterpoint to that is of course to point at the Mac.
>Last night a friend of mine called me because his cable modem stopped
>working. So we spent an hour or so on the phone playing around with
>the limited set of diagnostic tools that Windows comes with. How I
>wished for a few of those arcane commands or a CLI at that point.
>Would have made diagnosing the problem a lot easier.
How?
Type this, not that, no you spell it like that, a backslash -
the one to the left of ther kbd, followed by a space - don't
press enter yet - you pressed enter, didn't you?
Trying to dictate command lines over the phone is a nightmare
I had to try and explain how to use rpm at the cli to
a novice - it was painfil and frustrating to do so.
All you wanted were diagnostic tools that worked. A GUI
interface would not have made them more or less effective,
but would make them easier to use for the newbie in the s*it
So that perhaps, they could have found the problem without
needing your help?
George Russell
------------------------------
From: The Phantom Menace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.flame
Subject: PUNT! was Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:15:26 GMT
There Be No Shelter Here for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Said Dennis O'Connor in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote ...
> >> It just so happens that I'm a highly paid networking consultant
> >
> >Ah, the old "I'm paid more so I know better" attitude.
>
> What can I say, its all I have for credentials.
>
> >Frankly, I do my best to avoid working for, working with,
> >or hiring people with this particular 'tude. I'm sure
> >many people here have direct experience with why.
>
> Me too, but generally because they expect it means I'll take their
> credentials seriously. All I'm asking is that you take my words
> seriously.
Watch those sneaky followup-to lines, loudmouth, or no one will take
you seriously, ever.
We don't want him, O'Connor. DYOFDW. Please read the FAQ. Beat it
before I get mean and annihilate the entire lot of ya.
[burp]
e-lectorate
--
"You've gotta rob to get rich in the Reagan era. The rich get
richer... and the poor don't get a fuckin thing."
- NEW JACK CITY
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 13:33:20 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps the phrase 'configuration cost' wasn't clear. I was not
>> addressing the move from 10 to 100 meg, but the move from shared to
>> switched media. Perhaps those not intimately familiar with the
>> production and market of the time aren't aware that the move to switched
>> media had already begun, and found substantial success, before 100 meg
>> was created.
>
>I was there, Max.
Glad to hear it.
[...]
>But anyway, getting back to the subject. Now that you've explained (in another
>messages) which particular 30% rule yu're talking about...
[...]
>And on a switch you do?
Why are you insisting on turning this discussion into a "switched V.
shared" holy war? I'm trying to explain things, not blow smoke up
anybody's ass.
>Look, if I have a 16 port shared hub, and it's got 3 stations transmitting
>at 1 Mbps you're looking at a utilization of what, 30%?
More like, if you have 30% utilization, and you've got 3 stations
transmitting equally, you will find the throughput of each to be 1 Mbps.
But that would only hold true in this simplistic model you seem to be
hung up on, which entirely ignores the reality of the logarithmic
response curve which Ethernet exhibits. In the real world, if you had 3
stations transmitting 1 megabit per second on average, your utilization
would probably be well over 30%.
>If I have a switch,
>with a 300 Mbps backbone, now that's 1% utilization. If all 16 ports are
>talking at 10 Mbps you're still not much over 50% utilization.
>
>What a switch gives you is more bandwidth to throw around. Where you start
>seeing a slowdown changes. And they generally build them up so you can't
>ever get much over the same 30% even in worst case with no single port
>being a bottleneck.
If they use the simplistic model of networking which people
hyper-focused on a single LAN promote, then they generally build them in
all sorts of half-assed and broken manners. I don't know what you mean
by "start seeing a slowdown change" when you have "bandwidth to throw
around".
>> As I said, there is "configuration costs" which you are not considering.
>
>OK, give me some numbers. How much does this configuration cost cost me? And
>why?
More than you can measure, because you don't know how to measure it.
But it is reflected in the sum aggregate of how much less service you
can reliably get from your network than what you'd like to get, and
could get if you understood and took advantage of your configuration.
My theory is that this is almost impossible without a complex network
model.
>> You seem to be under the impression that I am arguing against switched
>> ethernet, or against shared media, or something.
>
>You seem to be arguing against everything, and taking both sides of the same
>argument in different places. And your 30% rule seems to change from place
>to place. Have I figured it out yet?
No, but you're obviously getting warm. I am arguing against the status
quo, where people seem far less knowledgeable and get far less practical
value when it comes to networks than they should be, to be trying to do
the things they expect their networks to be able to do. It does make me
something of a "devil's advocate", and quite contrary to almost any
"conventional thinking". There are many different ways of explaining,
approaching, and understanding the "30% rule"; if you have begun to
understand how my explanations change, without conflict or
inconsistency, and all describe the same basic principle, then yes,
indeed, you've figured it out.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 13:40:56 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ketil Z Malde in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>Argh. My bad, I meant layer *two*. Sigh. Oh well, one interesting
>product of that mistake, is that we apparently agree that switching on
>MAC addresses is simpler - for the administrator - than routing on IP
>addresses. Anyway, I'll ignore your rant against IP switching, since
>I basically think I agree.
No, true to my contrary nature, I can't agree with you there, either.
For one thing, I can't agree because I have no regard and no concern for
what is "simpler for the administrator". I would also say that,
depending on what you consider administration and what problems the
environment tends to exhibit, switching can be much more difficult and
time-consuming to maintain than routing.
>>> Well, going to switched is zero configuration cost, too, and 100Mbit
>>> shared might, as Peter da Silva has pointed out, be costly in terms of
>>> equipment. I'm unclear why the height under the ceiling matters at
>>> all.
>
>> No, not that configuration, either. ;-)
>
>Uh...configuration cost is money. Expensive money.
>
>> The "30% ceiling" isn't a height; its a utilization statistic. I'm not
>> sure if you got that.
>
>Well, yes, but are you saying that you can get better utilization of a
>shared network than a switched one (i.e. more than 30% or whatever)?
No, I said, I think, that you can get better price/performance value
from shared media than switched LANs, despite the fact that switched
Ethernet, which is typically nothing but point-to-point Ethernet with
transparent bridging, can almost entirely ignore the 30% rule.
>If not, I don't see the point - yes, there's a limit to how much data
>you can push through a network, and topology doesn't change that
>number much - and I'd think it'd change in favor of switching, since
>there'll be less collisions.
That is what I meant by "configuration cost"; the cost of running the
configuration, maintaining and troubleshooting the topology, in contrast
to the simplistic "how much data you can push" metric, which generally
ignores such vital details. Far more than the cost of the boxes,
though, the cost of managing the network is determinant of whether
sufficient operational functionality is ever achieved to see a return on
investment.
>> Whatever.
>
>Whatever? I'm pointing out that for a large network you need to
>"switch" it, and adding a switch is easier and gives you a faster
>network, than segmenting with routers - and you "whatever" me?
Yes, because these particular examples of LAN implementations you
describe are not at all illustrative of the point I am making.
>I'm probably not getting your point.
>
>Why and when, exactly, is shared better than switched?
>And why does it have anything to do with utlization statistics?
Basically, it is better whenever you don't now "why and when, exactly"
which will be better. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 13:41:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Layer 3 switching" is simply a performance hack to speed up routing in the
>common case. If it's at layer 3, it's routing. I agree the terminology is
>stupid. That doesn't mean the hack isn't useful or that it doesn't work most
>of the time.
But neither does the fact that it is useful or works most of the time
make it worth the difficulties and expense (both initial and on-going)
which it incurs.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:40:19 GMT
"Bruce Scott TOK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> hahahahaha
>
> To me the thing came of age in 1994. Before Win95.
You mean, with HTML 1.0?
Before most people knew what a URL was?
Before movie posters had URLs with them?
I know that this is probably hard for you to believe, but I'd say that the
WWW didn't really mature until around early 1997, which is when magazines
*explaining* what the WWW actually was died out.
>From that point on, enough critical mass was there for it to be firmly set
in the public's minds.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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, 01 Nov 2000 18:42:04 GMT
"Roger Lindsj|" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tpctt$ikg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >What does word processor should do?
>
> Let you enter text, spellcheck, minor layout (typeface,
> flowcontrol). If I want something to actually look good I use Latex.
Hmmm... so Wordpad does enough then? Cool! It's free.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[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: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:52:11 GMT
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tl5ic$o9u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:8tcsku$8g4
> :> The distinction between server OSes and workstation OSes is a
> :> made-up one. It's a distinction that only MS has. For everyone
> :> else, they are the same OS - the only difference is the hardware
> :> typically used for the task. For example, the little blue-toaster
> :> SGI o2 (a workstation) runs Irix 6.5. So does a big parallel
> :> processor SGI server.
>
> : It's a license issue, not a technical one. Many companies, Including
AT&T,
> : SCO, Sun, etc.. have had "desktop" licenses and "server" licenses.
>
> But Chad was implicitly using the difference between server and client
> markets as an excuse for the difference between Windows flavors (for
> example, Win98 vs NT) In the Unix world, the differences you speak of are
> about licensing only - not a technical difference in the OS archetectures.
>
Actually it is also a feature issue. The feature packages are different for
server licenses for many UNIX vendors just like the differences between the
features in NT Workstation vs. Server. The differences between NT and Win9x
are present for a completely different reason since the development paths
are distinctly separate products, like DEC's VMS and OSF. Their differences
are targeted for different markets and are quite different from each other.
for me it is ludicrous that UNIX vendors seem to find a one size fits all
strategy useful. Most on size garments are ill fitting and uncomfortable.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
