Linux-Advocacy Digest #101, Volume #30 Tue, 7 Nov 00 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Shocktrooper")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Toon Afish")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Toon Afish")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:43:17 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8u6nvc$gc3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39ff63ae$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:39fe2f7b$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >"David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> >> At least within the government and military, we can't be towing
> ships
> > >> >> around harbors just because NT craps out. Now they've got
> something
> > >> >> worse to worry about. There is much more at stake not just here
> in the
> > >> >> US but around the world.
> > >>
> > >> >*sigh*
> > >>
> > >> >This old bit of FUD, again.
> > >>
> > >> >It wasn't NT that crapped out, you dolts, it was the database
> crapping out on
> > >> >a divide by zero. Apparently the guy running the database for
> the Navy
> > >> >thought it should behave like a pocket calculator and return
> zero. Some
> > >> >people never learn...
> > >>
> > >> You mean it was someone elses fault that the NT crashed -- and
> didn't have any
> > >> built-in way to recover from the error?
> >
> > >The APPLICATION (you know, a program) had an error in it. NT never
> crashed.
> > >There was nothing in the article that ever stated that the OS
> crashed (except
> > >some ignorant military guy they interviewed who said the whole thing
> crashed,
> > >but it was obvious he was speaking from ignorance).
> >
> > I don't know which vessel you are talking about, but the USS Yorktown
> was dead
> > in the water and towed into port -- and YES -- it was NT that
> crashed.
> >
>
> You are wrong. It *was* the database and not the OS.
>
> Just to rub your face in it...
>
>
> Excerpts from a report issues by the GCN...
>
> The full article may be found at
>
> http://www.info-sec.com/OSsec/OSsec_080498g_j.shtml
>
> begin exerpts...
Pst....
Hey Jon.
When he's frantically tossing himself to a froth over his fantasies of NT and combat
vessel's.. it's not very polite to point out
that his fantasy is just a fantasy... Let the poor boy verbally masturbate to his
satisfaction, okay?
--
How fast is YOUR computer?
Here is my nearly 3 year old Dell Dimension XPSR-400
Unreal Tournament, 1024x768@32bit color,
All visuals and sound quality on highest
Cityintro: Max: 96.95fps , Avg: 62.82fps
Wicked400: Max: 53.21fps , Avg: 39.93fps
Just imagine what a "twice as fast" G3 can do!
------------------------------
From: "Toon Afish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:51:00 -0500
I guess you don't really know the Windows system well at all, do you? You
seem to believe that remote admin of NT and/or 2000 boxes isn't possible?
Now that's funny!
So what is the connection to your salary and your original comment?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Toon Afish wrote:
> >
> > Based on what I read here, it beats the hell out of me. But how does
your
> > salary relate to your original comment? Is there some connection?
>
> Yes. Sitting at my desk, I can perform administration on machines
> downstairs...AND on machines in california and florida simultaneously.
>
> This means that all of those remote locations don't need anybody beyond
> basic operator skills.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the NT ranch...every site needs it's own NT babysitter.
>
>
>
> >
> > FWIW, I don't pay my Eunuchs admins any more than my MS admins. Same
job,
> > same BS, same pay. A competent network admin will get the job done
> > regardless of whether it's UNIX or Windows.
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Toon Afish wrote:
> > > >
> > > > George Custer felt the same way about all those Indians. All he
could
> > see
> > > > was savages. Now Gen. Custer and your brain have much in common.
Both
> > dead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And yet, I make 3x as much as Microcrash admins.
> > >
> > > Why is that?
>
>
> --
> 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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 10:00:47 -0500
MH wrote:
>
> This is rich..
>
> > > Let's avoid getting into a pissing war about applications. Lets talk
> > > about real serious (technical) limitations or problems with Linux.
>
> We really can't address the main problems if we're not going to include
> applications, now, can we Sir?
Yes we must. Whether or not something has applications has no impact on
its suitability to run applications.
Applications developers have to know some real hard facts:
The Windows market is glutted with applications and products, almost
every application has a suite of competition. SWB (Shrink Wrapped Boxes)
are expensive to get into stores.
Linux, on the other hand, offers a fresh environment with less
competition. Users are open to alternative distribution schemes.
It should be cheaper (and easier) to develop applications for Linux
because the tools are free, and you can look at the source.
So, we need to address any technical limitations that the platform may,
or may not, have so we can discuss how to get more applications.
Look at Netscape. Almost universally used on Linux, granted some small
percent of the people that use Linux use something like Lynx, but most
people use Netscape. Netscape has a near monopoly of Linux browser
market. The same thing could happen for a $79.00 digital camera, or an
$89.00 parport scanner. While these products would have heavy
competition in the Windows market with shrinking margins, the OEM could
charge a few bucks more and support Linux. We Linux users would be very
receptive to something that supports linux "out of the box" and would
pay a few bucks more for that option, on top of that, since GIMP is
free, there is no need to license a graphic program.
The OEM gets a good deal, higher margins, a new market, a more computer
literate userbase, etc.
The Linux user gets a good deal, stuff that works out of the box.
Everyone is happy.
>
> Besides, this is impossible to do in here. Any rational discussion on what
> linux may need only results in knee jerk defense. Read my recent post on
> cola. You've an inherent problem with linux in its almost completely
> malcontented, and fragmented user base. If the 'end lusers' main reason to
> be here is out of disdain for windows, then they are fringe to begin with.
> In the real world, people use their computer to get work done, not as an
> excuse for a holy war. You've got a real communication problem here. You'll
> agree on nothing, and you listen to nothing. The real world just don't wanna
> hear that shit. And furthuremore, in the great majority of cases, it is the
> linux user who will start the pissing war. Just read the posts in here for
> all the evidence you need. If you want serious discourse then physician heal
> thyself. Quit threatening to sue people on usenet because they question your
> authority as a spokesman for Pete's sake. Either you walk the walk and talk
> the talk, or, as Tony Kornheiser would say. "Shutup. No, really, just
> shutup".
First of all, lets just point out, "questioning my authority" wasn't the
issue, the point was I stated my qualifications for an opinion, and you
called my a liar, you have done this more than once. We can debate
whether or not I know something, that's fine I have been wrong before
and I will be wrong again, but to call me a liar in a public forum with
no reason, is wrong.
Back to Linux.. You say we are a userbase of malcontents. This may be
true, however that does not mean we do not want to do real work. Being a
malcontent is not a bad thing, it means we are not contented. All the
best developments in the world have come from the people not contented
with the status quo.
Linux works better than Windows, it is "easier to use" than Windows. It
is debatable as to whether or not it is "easier to learn" but that is a
whole discussion onto itself.
>
> > > What can Windows or Win2K do that Linux can not?
>
> Bottom line. Walk into any store that sells software, anywhere, and take a
> good look.
Those aren't things that Windows does. Those are things that software
developers produce for an environment. Linux could easily host just
about every one of those applications.
> Same thing with any school. What do you see? That's what windows does that
> linux can't.
I have read about schools going all linux.
> It is an open source problem with no easy solution. People want to get paid
> to stand behind something for years to come. Kids writing tight binaries, or
> a group of college students with a good application don't have those
> worries, and with good reason. Your problems here are obvious. You want
> linux to be something it's not and will never be while it's completely open
> source. Open source is fascinating, I'll grant you that. I liken it to Jack
> Nicholson's line in "As good as it gets" when asked how he writes "women so
> well". Same thing applies to open source. -- Think of commercial software
> then take away reason and accountability. How on earth can you expect to
> manage projects that are going to compete with the windows market with this
> very management spread out over the internet with no central controlling
> authority? I think what 'linux' has done is incredible. What redhat has
> done? Don't think so. What Corel has done? Nah. What KDE has done? Pretty
> cool. But......
Just curious, do you develop software for a living? The reason I ask is
because I do, and the things you point out are, IMHO, fundamentally what
is wrong with software today.
I have seen products shipped because of marketing dates instead of
engineering goals. I worked at a company that was on the verge of going
out of business because it tried to manage software too tightly, and
ship on rigid dates. It fired engineers if they did not make their
dates. Management and accountability do not make good software. Talented
people with time and freedom make good software, no amount of business
school rhetoric will ever change this.
> If I'm paying nothing for something, I know what I'm ultimately getting. You
> just can't very easily change this capitalist way of consumer thought
> because you tell them it's better. Linux's only inroads to the desktop for
> as long as I can see are the same as they ever were. College geeks, hackers,
> and windows haters.
Capitalism, as it is currently practiced, is a recent development in the
USA. Back about 20 years ago, it wasn't so rabid. There was more sharing
and more charity. 20 years ago, a company was a valuable entity onto
itself, it employed people, it contributed to the community. These days
everything is a bottom line, and nothing more. I don't feel that this is
right, and most people don't think this is right. Sharing is a
human/community practice. Open Source/GNU software works this way. I
think the instincts for Open Source are more natural.
>
> > > What can Linux do that Windows or Win2K can't?
> Post very high uptimes due to the fact that it's still only being asked to
> do what it was very well designed to do.
<SARCASM> Yea, work </SARCASM>
>
> You folks in here act like the sort of applictions you're complaining about
> (and one minute want, the next minute don't, I might add) are trivial to
> write.
> You'll be the first to say something like "I saw Word's source code. What a
> mess! it's full of GoTo's", without ever taking a moment to realize the
> complexity of what this application is doing. You just know that it indeed
> will crash eventually, so you use that as the ulitmate litmus test for
> worthiness.
I have written applications on par with applications like Word. I wrote
(with a couple other people) a drag and drop Windows 2.1/3.0
presentation package. The company was Business and Professional
Software, Cambridge MA. Most of the core stuff was from a DOS/VMS
package, but I personally rewrote and checked every single line for
Windows 16 bit Medium model.
I worked on products for Microsoft while at Turning Point Software.
I know how to write software, I know what is involved in doing so. While
at Turning Point, the previous MS-Word team member (Sorry, I forget his
name) presented us with a file format he wanted to incorporate into our
framework. It compiled, little more. I finally got it into the product,
and doing the things that it was supposed to do, but it took a few days.
When we merged our source, I learned that I was the first one to
successfully get the code to work.
>I won't use another car analogy, but there a million of them to
> illustrate just how silly this stance is. Ask yourselves: how often does
> Notedpad or Wordpad crash? Now, how many GUI editors for Linux are there
> that provide the same functionality? Plenty, for sure. They don't crash
> either. Now, how many full-featured word processors are there for windows?
> Plenty. Look at that functionality, forget your opionion of whether a
> 'luser' needs that much is true or not.
I don't care so much about an application crashing, I just won't use
that application. It is a different matter to crash the OS.
> Now, where is that same application on linux? Is it as stable? Does it offer
> a programmable interface without requiring a 'luser' to have a CS degree?
> Will it interoperate properly with what (like it or not) most people use?
> Can it be extended, customized, and or embedded?
The first part of the statement you talk about enduser, in the last part
of the statement you talk about developers. End users don't care and
developers like source.
>
> > > Why isn't Linux suitable for the desktop?
>
> Should be self explanatory. Linux is really only a little closer to a usable
> desktop solution than it was this time two or five years ago. I don't mean
> desktop for a hacker. I mean a desktop that can compete for users of windows
> & mac. Even with a really good desktop, we can't discuss any further because
> you've excluded applications from the mix. BeOs is a great example. Great
> os, no apps. It will die as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow. Linux is
> surviving on price and price alone. If linux was $89 a box, you think people
> would have taken a second look? If so, you're dreaming. I came across redhat
> somewhere the other week for $19.95
> That's not a bad price, considering. __end luser thinking in Office Depot
> after stumbling across redhat for above price... "Now, where is that
> encyclopedia, dictionary, math tutor...oh , and my kid needs Word for
> school,...Mr. Salesman...could you help me find....."
These applications will come, and are coming. Linux can compete because
it is free. Microsoft's monopoly can't squash free.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:45:14 GMT
"Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 7 Nov 2000 04:09:10 -0600, Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> |news:8u77je$vai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> |> In article <3a06de7b$0$32739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> |> "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |> > By the way, what is the maximum
> |> > partition size limit on Linux, and what is the maximum file size on
> |> 32bit
> |> > hardware?
> |>
> |> Assuming ext2:
> |>
> |> Max file size: 2GB, unless you use the "bigfile" patch.
> |> Max part size: 4TB
> |
> |4TB maximum FS size is quite decent, but 2GB filesize is hardly an
> |"enterprise scale" limit. Needs to mature a bit :)
> |
> |Released in 1993, NTFS's maximum file size is 16EB, which means "unlimited"
> |for all practical purposes.
>
>
> Please stop blaming the ext2 file system for the 2Gb limit.
You need a patch to fix it.
How easily available is this patch?
Do any distributions come with it enabled by default?
What are the downfalls of this patch?
Has it been thoroughly tested? Regression tested?
Filesystem drivers are Big Things, you can't have filesystem
corruption in an enterprise environment and ext2 already
has a bad name in that regard.
> ext2 supports 64bit file offsets for files.
>
> 2^10 = 1kb
> 2^20 = 1Mb
> 2^30 = 1Gb
> 2^40 = 1Tb
> 2^60 = 1Eb, I assume from what you say above. Can't remember myself.
>
> 2^64 = 16Eb. However, since file offsets need to be negative to
> allow stepping backwards in a file, maximum file size under ext2
> is _only_ 8Eb.
NT supports 16Eb so =P <grin>
> Out of interest, how many million dollars would even 1Eb of disk
> storage set you back at the moment?
Mmm... 1Eb... how many hours of Tivo would that be?
<SNIP: pricing and such of all the drives>
>
> The restriction to 32bit file offsets (and thus 2Gb file sizes)
> under Linux resides one step up the ladder from the file system
> code, in the VFS (Virtual File System) layer, and only affects
> Linux on 32bit architectures.
NT and 2000 on 32bit archs do not have this problem.
> Linux on 64bit architectures (Alpha, SPARC64) already has access
> to the full 8Eb.
> Kernel 2.4 (with the appropriate libraries) will/has removed this
> restriction on 32bit architectures as well.
Where is 2.4? Not released.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:47:29 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8u8rjo$8jq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3a07cf10$0$14378$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8u77je$vai$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <3a06de7b$0$32739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Just take filesystems, for
> > > > example. NTFS has features found in many other filesystems, like
> ext3,
> > > JFS
> > > > and XFS, but no single filesystem does all what NTFS does.
> > >
> > > What is it NTFS does that XFS or JFS doesn't?
> >
> > First, it is there.
>
> Uh? I had used XFS in 1996.
>
> If you mean "not there for Linux", then let's deal with something that
> is there, like ReiserFS, instead of with something that is not.
Is ReiserFS released yet?
Has it been thoroughly tested? IIRC, it's still an outsider and hasn't
been fully included in the major distributions (although SuSE has it? I
remember hearing one of them did now).
Has it been thoroughly tested in an enterprise environment or a
high-traffic database environment (where +2GB files would be most important)?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Toon Afish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:52:45 -0500
Does this apply to a sys admin who didn't even know that remote admin of
Windows machines was even possible?
By your own words, does this make you stupid?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron Lawrence wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:47:34, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Most are MILITANTLY ignorant....
> > >
> > > And anybody who CHOOSES to remain ignorant MUST be classified as
stupid.
> >
> > Hm good summary... however we all remain ignorant of many things, not
> > through choice but because we have lives to live. We cannot learn
> > everything.
>
> If your line of WORK is IT.....and you CHOOSE to remain ignorant of any
> system other than the point-click-crashware from MS, then you're a
> goddamn STUPID fuck.
>
>
>
> >
> > -----
> > aaronl_consultant_com
>
>
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
