Linux-Advocacy Digest #994, Volume #29 Wed, 1 Nov 00 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Clayton O'Neill)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Mark Lindner)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: solution to the Msoft problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:19:44 +1300
> > 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?
Neither. I personally would entangle an unrelated shitty-code-
base product in the shitty code base for the OS in order to drive those
mistakenly perceived as my competitors out of business.
Oh wait, that's not what I would do, that's what I should crucify someone
for doing.
> Please check pre-win95 days, there wasn't a registery then, see how much fun
> they had those days.
You might have missed the 'protected directory' part of the comment. So
many problems stemmed from any app being able to write to any part of the
disk it felt like, adding and removing stuff haphazardly from a myriad of
INI files.
> No-GUI, this I know that they are doing.
About goddamned time.
> I don't know why CLI shell from *nix is better than CMD.EXE, except maybe
> the lack of applications to it.
The power of the CLI (with proper tools) is simply amazing. I can't
explain it well enough to ensure you understand the full potential!
kill -9 `ps aux | grep httpd | cut -b 5-10`
Here's an example... kill all processes currently running called httpd.
(This is assuming that the ps command prints out the PID of the processes
in columns 5-10 of the output... I can't remember off the top of my head)
On top of that you can redirect both the stdout and stderr seperately or
simultaneously from literally any command (a far cry from the microsoft
command line, where <command> | more doesn't even work for some values of
<command>.
There are plenty more benefits, I'm just crap at iterating them!
> Fancy features?
HTML email, email that can execute automatically upon viewing (now how
does this have ANY useful application beyond writing virii?), ActiveX
which can execute native binary code from a webpage... yes please!
All 'fancy features' of little or dubious use.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Oracle say's Microsoft no good!
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 03:07:56 GMT
Pot -> Kettle = Black. Much as I dislike Microsoft, I distrust Oracle
for all the same reasons. Yet another company whose annual marketing
budget greatly exceeds their yearly R & D investment.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:22:45 +1300
> By your reasoning, lynx takes 10 minutes to load. :)
Hee hee hee =)
> Okay, not the same at all, but for crying out load, Opera is loading in 1 -
> 2 seconds, and it's *not* linked to the OS.
Ahh, now THAT is because Opera is the shiznit! I use 98lite+opera
fulltime for windows stuff these days.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clayton O'Neill)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 2 Nov 2000 03:26:32 GMT
On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 16:45:54 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Said Clayton O'Neill in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
|>On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 13:33:20 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>|Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
|>|>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%.
|>
|>And see, this is the fundamental disconnect. You believe this, and no one
|>else here does, probably because it's not true.
|
|But possibly because they simply don't wish to believe it, because it
|wasn't what they were taught. People are provided all sorts of
|slap-dash explanations about complicated technology, and quite often
|function well enough to become convinced their understanding is
|accurate, even when its pointed out that there are inconsistencies in
|practice.
Most of us don't believe what you believe because our experience directly
contradicts it and all the literature does also.
|It appears there are a number of people who work with Ethernet, but
|don't really understand what it is about Ethernet that leads to a
|"logarithmic response curve", a characteristic of Ethernets which is
|entirely unique and unlike all other LAN or WAN transmission
|technologies. It is not a matter of belief, but fact, nor is it simply
|IBM FUD based on an esoteric but unimportant fact.
The IBM paper that you keep referring to has been proven to be flawed by
multiple parties, read the following for at least one rebuttal of most of
what you've been spouting
ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/WRL/research-reports/WRL-TR-88.4.ps
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:30:25 +1300
> exactly how did Microsoft got to the point
> when
> > > windows is now? By making bad software?
> > > I somehow doubt it. Look at their record, please.
> >
> > I'd suggest YOU look at their record... find me one piece of software MS
> > has released that HASN'T been buggy as hell, security-flawed through the
> > roof, or even just a crash fest.
>
> Never been able to crash MS-DOS 6.22
I can't crash DOS by USING dos commands, but I can most certainly crash
an MSDOS system in 2 seconds flat ;)
> Win2K has been thoroughfully been crash tested, isn't very buggy, and has
> very good security.
I disagree... Win2k is still BEING crash tested, in another of
Microsofts unofficial public betas (they usually call it the 'initial
release'). I wont consider Win2K crash tested until MS stops pumping out
critical updates...
Did anyone else find it amusing when the MS person claimed win2k would
never need patches and service packs? I nearly busted a gut laughing,
and then my left eyeball seriously fell out with humour at the release of
the critical update less than a day later....
> > For fun, my copy of excel likes to randomly crash when I change the
> > background colour on a cell.... I haven't found a reliable way of making
> > it crash (although not saving my work for about 30 minutes works like a
> > charm almost every fuckin time...)
>
> That wasn't what I asked, (about excel, it isn't MS that crash it if you
> don't save for 30 minutes, that is murphy :) )
I must concede on that point... I have had a linux app or two crash on
me when I hadn't saved anything. Luckily one of those apps was joe,
which dumps all unsaved files for you when it dies...
> I didn't ask about *good* software, I asked about *popular* software.
> They are neither the same nor anti teshas to each other.
A small miscommunication perhaps... what you actually said was "by
making bad software?", to which I would say "hell yes, that's what they
do".
------------------------------
From: Mark Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 03:32:28 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> I would say that you're a rare case. Practically everyone that I've talked
> to agrees that 2000 is (much) more stable than NT.
In response to my grips about problems, crashes, incompatibilities, lockups,
etc., Windows advocates always tell me I'm the rare case. I guess that makes
me the "common rare case." Somehow, I find it hard to believe that I am
somehow jinxed and that Windows fails more miserably for me than for anyone
else. Far more likely that I just have higher expectations from an OS than the
typical Windows user does. ;-)
> Windows wins hands down.
>
> When you are talking about pleasent of use, windows GUI is by far superior
> to any thing that linux or unix produced so far.
> If you are talking about other aspects of win vs *nix, then it's different
> answer for every aspect.
This is an aesthetic issue rather than an architectural issue. Personally I
think the Windows GUI looks like puke, but then again, I wasn't weaned on
Windoze from day 1, so I don't have the "It's what I've always used so I like
it more than anything else" syndrome (a common ailment among Windows users as
well as COBOL developers, it seems)...in fact the first time I touched Windows
was in my first job out of college, but within a few months I'd dumped the
Pee-Cee in favor of an Indigo workstation, because coming from a Solaris
background, I found that trying to develop code on a Windoze box was like
eating soup with a fork...no command-line tools, shit for a shell, no
scripting support (sorry, Batch files don't count)...no way to automate
anything for that matter...poor implementations of telnet, ftp, etc....
With Linux, you have a choice of GUIs, at least one of which is capable of
emulating the Windoze interface, with all its drab grey buttons and windows.
However, IMHO, a fully and properly-configured desktop that uses Enlightenment
+ GNOME makes Windoze, in comparison, look like the uninspired, drab piece of
vomit that it really is.
There may be a case for GUI consistency in Windows, but hopefully the
consistency of application UIs under UNIX will improve as Gnome/GTK+ become
standard (and assuming developers discipline themselves).
Cheers,
Mark
==============================================================================
Mark Lindner http://www.dystance.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==============================================================================
"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
-Horace Walpole
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 03:36:18 GMT
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NK3M5.12598$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fl2M5.17166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > Your point? I had two NT4 servers up longer than that between SP4
and
> > SP6.
> > > > They actually ended up at 370+ days and the down time was scheduled.
> > >
> > > Is that 370+ days without scheduled down time? Or 370+ days without
an
> > > unscheduled outage? If you have a regularly scheduled down time to
> > reboot
> > > once a week then it doesn't count.
> > >
> >
> > It was 374 days between scheduled down times for maintenance. No
> > unscheduled downtime, no reboots.
>
> No new software installed? No IE update? What was the machine
> doing. The one I posted was a busy webserver. Before sp6a I
> couldn't keep an NT box running more than a month or so at a time
> even when I wasn't forced to reboot for some simple change.
>
This was a server running NTLM, IIS and it sat and span on it's own. Even
though many software installs request a restart most often they will run
fine without it. Being a server it didn't need IE updated. IIS Can be
restarted without stopping the system. As a newbie on NT Server in 1995 I
restarted often, once I started to understand the system, restarts become
less and less often.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: solution to the Msoft problems
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 03:26:59 GMT
A lot of the companies that could have benefitted from your suggested
solution have been driven to near insolvency by MSFT's anti-competitive
practices. Remember, this present DOJ action was not the first against
MSFT; there was a prior consent decree that MSFT agreed to and
subsequently ingnored. MSFT is more than just a ruthless competitor;
MSFT has repeatedly committed numerous criminal acts to ensure their
absolute monopolistic dominance of the desktop market. The corrective
actions proposed by Judge Jackson were, in fact, lenient considering the
degree to which MSFT went to eliminate competition. And you can bet your
bottom dollar that MSFT, like the proverbial leopard, won't change its
spots.
In other words, you're a day late and a dollar short. And pretty much
without clue when it comes to MSFT business practices.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 03:43:56 GMT
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tqocl$t78$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> > >Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > [...]
<snip>
> >
> > Actually, Ayende is mistaken. Windows 3.1 had a registry. It wasn't
> > used for very much, and didn't work precisely like the Win95/NT
> > registry, but it was there.
>
> It had? I wasn't aware of it.
> Anyway, it doesn't matter, most programs didn't use it.
> INI files where the way it went.
> And it went *badly*
>
The Win3x registry was very rudimentary and used almost exclusively by File
Manager to associate file types.
<snipped>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 22:58:57 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:VO0M5.2742$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Microsoft was a johnny-come-lately to the internet. The net was already
>> huge and everybody but Gates knew it was in the midst of an explosion,
>when
>> Gates finally abandoned the idea of having MSN actually compete with it.
>
>MS made a bet on older tech that had a history of making money -- the
>Compuserve model -- and they lost.
Did they? CompuServe, they lost. AOL didn't lose. Did MSN lose?
CompuServe, however, never bet on this older tech, the "CompuServe
Model". They were, in fact, adopting the Internet more thoroughly, in
the very beginning, much quicker than AOL. These days, its tough to
think of AOL without the Internet, or in any way other than as part of
the Internet. Through the years, they've become nothing more than a
"high-end low-function ISP". But they were the ones that *weren't* "an
ISP", in the beginning. They had something better than that silly old
Internet. You're right, it was the CompuServe model, so to speak. But
CompuServe was already trying to integrate it with the Internet.
Prodigy and Genie tried to hang on, as well. True, nobody tried to
maintain a separation from the web than MSN. (Only now, in the last few
months, are they finally marketing MSN as a portal.) AOL still provides
lots of "non-Internet" functionality, notably chat, and does optimize a
certain light-weight information delivery.
I think the irony is that CompuServe should have hung on harder, as they
had, in the end, a superior service, as well as a superior model. They
were somewhat hobbled by their previous success; their X.25 network cost
more to maintain than the growing ISP business took to build, and their
mainframe hosts were aging. But AOL users from both the high and the
low end would frankly be amazed at the quick, easy, and efficient access
to unbelievable amounts of information, more conveniently than can even
be matched today, using OzCIS and CompuServe. The kind of things
they're finally getting to provide real operational functionality now I
did faster and easier in WinCIM. Then, of course, the irresistible
force of the Internet hit the immovable object of the monopoly, and
things have been going down-hill ever since.
There's a lot more content, certainly. But, as routinely pointed out by
those who are trying to sell search engines, if nobody else, the
availability of content is not so much the issue as the accessibility of
information. I miss the practical benefits of OzCIS.
>It's not that they didn't know about it; they just went for the private
>net-with-a-gateway idea that Compuserve had proven. Unfortunately, they were
>several years too late.
Imagine a dark, quiet night in the country. Still but crisp, the air
buzzes and chirps with crickets, some frogs, and the occasional hoot of
an owl. A whisper that is barely noticed grows smoothly to a hum,
resolving into the distant sound of an approaching vehicle. The flicker
of pin-point shards of tiny headlights can be glimpsed, but the full
illumination of the short stretch of formerly quiet road which we behold
will wait until the enlarging sound signals that the pickup truck is
coming up over the inclined bend. On the short stretch of straight flat
road leading through the woods to the next hill which the multi-ton
pickup hurls down, now entirely revealed in the blinding light, stands a
small furry rabbit. Larger than some small furry rabbits, but still
seeming quite small, it is frozen, staring directly at the on-coming
metallic monster. The brief instant between the realization that
neither the truck, irresistible in its crushing power, nor the rodent,
alive but unmoving, can avoid their direct collision and the contact is
too short to reveal the harrowing fact that the rabbit appears to have
sharp, pointy teeth.
The moment after that is shocking in its brevity. The truck stops dead,
every erg of kinetic energy instantly converted into crushing force,
causing the pickup and its contents to be squashed flat. The rabbit,
having not budged an inch, looked around in that entirely mindless way
they have, shook its empty little head, and hopped away.
Now, that may have seemed pointless, even senseless, but it is a valid
attempt to artistically represent my thoughts on how the Internet, as
irresistible force, interacted with Microsoft, as immovable object.
Yes, what you said above was consistent with many people's observations.
Whether it is factually correct is inconveniently impossible to be sure
of, as it is a matter or interpretation as much as observation. But on
the whole, its simply mistaken. No, they didn't "just" go with a
different model. They blankly ignored the oncoming truck. They didn't
even try to play "catch up", frankly, which accounts for why it took
them three years to get people to use IE.
CompuServe had a gateway to the Internet, years before MSN did. They had
an email bridge, of course, for several years prior to that, which would
amount to as much to most people. But it wasn't a matter of MSN being
"the wrong model" or "too late". It was a matter of trying for years to
avoid doing what CompuServe themselves, as well as everyone else, had
already done: integrate with the Internet.
They did try, actually, but in their own way. The problem is, being a
monopoly, the only way they could try (and still maintain their monopoly
power) is anti-competitively. And they're watched too closely in that
sector to get anywhere. All it takes is a press release from some other
player to report that there "are concerns" that Microsoft is trying to
tie in ISP services directly with the OS. Everybody, even MS, is aware
that the case would be too clear, no courts would provide a safe harbor,
and the media would flay them alive. Because people wouldn't be
conflicted; "popular wisdom" is up to the challenge of instructing
people to recognize such a blatant attack on capitalism. So MS is left
mucking around with software stuff, and trying to keep their
anti-competitive bundling and promotion of IE separate from their
anti-competitive bundling and promotion of MSN.
Microsoft "missed the boat" on the whole Internet thing, and still does.
They're a monopoly and that's about as useless on the Internet as
anything can be. The very fact that the truck is still moving is
because the Internet routes around failures, not because of any action
which Microsoft takes, belatedly or otherwise, to take advantage of the
Internet through IE or MSN.
--
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: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 03:59:30 GMT
"Nils O. Selåsdal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KYTL5.210$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Do you have any idea how much damage an average user can cause
> > when they try to build a database app in days or weeks without
> > understanding database concepts? I don't think anyone wants to
> > encourage that.
> Then why isnt there such tool, for profesionals?
Professionals either cheat and do the screen layouts with the desktop
toys and then move the SQL to a real database, or they have the
high end design packages, or they just take the extra 10 minutes
to type in the data structure by hand and have complete control.
> > > How 'bout a good, solid RAD development environment for making entire
> > > applications including internationalization, project management,
> > > integrated source control, workgroup collaboration, etc. VB and VC++
> > provide
> > > this nicely. There are no competitors on Linux.
> >
> > Why do you need an integrated package for that? Don't your standalone
> > tools work well enough? Why would you want your source control
> > tied to a single language, let alone a single vendor's platform?
> Ehh.. because its EASIER to youse, and you get more productive?
And you are locked in to that particular package for the life of the
project, even when better ones become available.
> > Sure - tell us about the things that work cross-platform that you like
> > better on windows. The things that don't lock you into a single
> > vendor system in development with a single and odd concept
> > of objects.
> Why is cross platform such a goal? isnt getting thigs done fast, easy,
> correctly the goal?
Only if you are young enough that you haven't seen the preferred
platform change many times. And you haven't paid any attention
to history. It will happen again - just a matter of time.
> Linux is only cross platform in the unix world,
> not linux->windows f.eks...
Yes, windows is intentionally incompatible to try to lock
you in forever. Someday you may wish you had choices.
> > > If you need really handy text editors and command-line utilities,
> Windows
> > > has those and more. Linux is really irrelevant as there's nothing you
> can
> > > do on Linux that you can't do on Windows.
> Well dont think i can set up windows as a bridge between 2 ethernet
> segments...
Years ago there was software to do that under DOS, but then it
couldn't do anything else...
> > Except keep working for years without crashing or rebooting... And
> > build programs that will interoperate correctly with other platforms.
> So every program built on linux interoperate correctly with windows?
It can. The tools do not encourage or require you to use nonstandard
components as the windows tools do.
> I have only turned of /rebooted my win2k machine 3 times the last six
> months,
> one time because i went on vaication the other 2 for installing new
> hardware...
Yes, win2k is better in that way than any prior Microsoft product. But
most people haven't switched yet and there is still the issue of why
you continue to do business with the people who brought you the
earlier unstable versions.
> And programs crashes more often on my linux machine than on my win2k
> machine....
Why?
> And...
> i'd please like to access the public folders,address book,calendar on our
> Exchange server
Remeber what I said about being locked in? Someone sold their soul
to the devil there. If you had standard SMTP, POP or IMAP for
email and LDAP as the address book, you would have many choices.
> from my linux box...
> And a faster web browser.
> and some real filemanager(with Konquerer it helps but...)
I don't see much speed difference between Linux Netscape and
IE on windows but this may depend on your video card and how
well X handles it - and 4.x appears faster in general.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 23:12:11 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said chris ulrich in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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%.
>>T. Max Devlin
>
> You're simply incorrect.
[...]
> You may indeed sell lots of products by saying that you must subscribe
>10 times the bandwidth you expect to use, especially if your typical
>audience is a regulation sized PHB.
I don't sell products. And you can't "subscribe bandwidth" on an
Ethernet, that's the point. And I would call planning for 10 times the
bandwidth you expect to use in an industry where the amount of available
bandwidth grows exponentially every year to be a rather conservative
design. I would expect a modern enterprise to plan for at least 10
times what they "expect to use". Neither the pointy-haired bosses or
the engineers usually argue with that point.
>There is a reason dogbert the evil
>consultant typically avoids posting his sales pitch to usenet news;
>perhaps you should follow his example.
Well screw you, too. You're only going to get me to use the word
"engineer" like it means "moron" with bullshit like that.
> On the plus side, if you convince someone to buy ten times as much
>crap as they really need, chances are you will probably solve their
>problem or at least not cause new ones. Hardly good engineering, though.
Let me get this straight. By explaining why it is bad engineering to
"over-subscribe" Ethernets, I'm encouraging people to buy ten times as
much 'crap' as they need? Or is it simply your wounded pride as an
"engineer" that makes you so obstinate in understanding what I'm
explaining to you?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
