Linux-Advocacy Digest #139, Volume #30 Thu, 9 Nov 00 13:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: KDE2 (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (Terry Porter)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: KDE2 (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
What does KDE do after all (DTZ)
Reg Ex ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Into the abyss of the WinTroll mind (Mike Raeder)
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup (Giuliano Colla)
Re: What does KDE do after all (Donn Miller)
Re: wtb: Old Digital DEC PDP-8 computer or software (Donn Miller)
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup (Giuliano Colla)
Can you love a platform without being a bigot? ("Jon Davis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[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, 9 Nov 2000 08:14:28 -0800
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8udv3g$2po$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:EIpO5.124873$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8uctuo$mi3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <6k7N5.13146$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:O76N5.123431$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Before we waste anymore time with your drivel,
> > > > > name the *nix tools that
> > > > > matches the feature list of Access.
> > > >
> > > > None of them match the non-portability, vendor lock
> > > > design goal of Access if that is what you mean.
> > >
> > >
> > > For a really interesting study of the whole vendor-lock
> > > proprietary mdb-format issue, check out the thread
> > > in comp.databases.ms-access beginning with this:
> > >
> > > http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=685029497
> > >
> > > It starts off innocently enough with:
> > >
> > > (Brinster:) "I have a .mdb file of subscribers from which
> > > I would like to extract all email addresses. I do not have
> > > Access...can I view the file or extract the info with some
> > > other program or utility?"
> >
> > Notepad would have worked unless it was encrypted or secured.
>
> Notepad? I never looked into MDB files before, but aren't they binary?
> I just checked MDB file in notepad, couldn't make a sense of it.
> I strongly believe that it's a binary file.
If you don't encrypt, the data is very visible with notepad.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2
Date: 9 Nov 2000 10:11:09 -0600
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keep up with the thread, Konqueror is NOT based on Mozzila. Gees, the
> guy was not sure and was asking for clarification and you fly off the
> handle!
I'm compiling KDE2 now. From what I'm seeing, Konqueror is using a (possibly
cleaned up) version of Mosaic. I'm seeing files like htmlparser, htmltoken,
and htmltokenizer.cpp. I saw similar names when compiling Mosaic years ago.
AFAIK, Mozilla doesn't share any code with Mosaic, but earlier (and possibly
present 4.76) versions of Netscape were.
There you have it. Not only do Konqueror and IE look alike, but they are
based on the same code (Mosaic). Well hell, how would you like to write a
web browser from scratch? :-)
As far as the earlier poster's claims, I think he's thinking of Galeon, which
is the GNOME browser. It uses Mozilla-embedded. I think Galeon uses the
Mozilla rendering engine, but AFAIK some stuff was left out, like the XML
stuff, I think.
If you think about it, Mosaic was truly the king of all browsers. Look at
how many browsers have some of its code: Lynx, IE, Konqueror, Netscape
4.76 and earlier. Of course, it doesn't support the new standards. But I
feel that the core html rendering engine, though dated, is pretty amazing
that it has stood the test of time.
- Donn
====== 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] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 09 Nov 2000 16:18:32 GMT
On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 15:58:48 GMT, Angular Turnip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux simply put is a piece of crap.
<big snip of worthless Wintroll nonsense>
Well well well, gues who it is .... hi "Claire_lynn/Steve/Heather/Amy":)
Its fake identity changing time again is it ?
>Richard
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 11 hours 20 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:28:35 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > In essence, they're still clinging to an 1970's 8-bit 8080's machine
>
> You *really* need to update your knowledge, Aaron.
> Unix still has buffer overflow problem.
> No computer could be remotedly administer in the 50s.
I never said that remote administration was possible in the 1950's.
However, how long did it take Microsoft to implement printer spooling,
something that was industry standard in the 1950's? Not until 1995.
Why is that?
> Windows 95 and upward can actually handle alternative applications per file
> type.
And your point is?
Unix NEVER had this problem to begin with.
> Windows 2000 can be remotedly administer.
ONLY if you pay extra money.
Unix has had this capability since the very beginning of Unix networking...
EVEN allowing remote administration from NON-UNIX machines.
> Windows 2000 can be easily made cross platform.
Yeah, and I have several bridges around Manhattan for sale.
>
> You know, all those things that you keep tripping on.
>
> I would start in:
>
> www.linux.org
> www.microsoft.com
> www.bsd.org
> www.learn-how-not-to-be-an-idiot.com
> www.I-shall-be-a-troll-no-longer-.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.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE2
Date: 09 Nov 2000 14:37:31 -0500
On 9 Nov 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm compiling KDE2 now. From what I'm seeing, Konqueror is using a
> (possibly cleaned up) version of Mosaic. I'm seeing files like
> htmlparser, htmltoken, and htmltokenizer.cpp. I saw similar names
> when compiling Mosaic years ago.
I don't know if this means too much, those are not very original names
for classes/files. I'm not saying they're not from Mosaic, though.
> There you have it. Not only do Konqueror and IE look alike, but
> they are based on the same code (Mosaic). Well hell, how would you
> like to write a web browser from scratch? :-)
I sure wouldn't ;-)
> As far as the earlier poster's claims, I think he's thinking of
> Galeon, which is the GNOME browser. It uses Mozilla-embedded. I
> think Galeon uses the Mozilla rendering engine, but AFAIK some stuff
> was left out, like the XML stuff, I think.
Er.. nope. I am the earlier poster. I know Galeon and Konqueror. As I
said in a later post, I didn't really think Konqueror was built around
Mozilla, but a friend told me it was and I decided to ask.
In any case, Konqueror is a nice piece of software engineering if you
ask me. Considering how short its development has been, it is in a
very good shape so far :)
best regards,
Roberto
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:56:16 +1000
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:w8zO5.15245$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8udjbq$qfr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > > Do you've any clear idea on how to divide open file type & run
file
> > > types?
> > > > > Would *.doc be run file type?
> > > > > Would *.pl be run file type?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you think there is any correspondence between a file's
> > > > name and it's contents?
> > >
> > > Because that's the usual way to determine filetypes.
> >
> > Good grief! It is the way Windows does it. It is not
> > the right way, it is not the only way, and not even the
> > usual way except for one vendor's product which
> > seems to have a brainwashing effect.
>
> The fact that particular vendor has the most common product is what makes
it
> the "usual" way.
>
> > > > From email, things should be viewed,
> > > > not run, regardless of what the sender arbitrarily named them.
> > >
> > > Why only email ? How about the web ? Networks ? Floppy disks ?
> >
> > The web, of course - nothing but active-X treats web-retreived content
> > as trusted. Networks are up to you and your network administrator
> > as to how you trust what comes from them, and only you know about
> > the contents of your floppies. The point is that as soon as you
> > copy any of this stuff on your hard drive you lose track of the
> > source and the potential for trojans.
>
> Bingo. Noting that the difference between saving to the hard disk then
> opening it and opening it directly is largely one of semantics, especially
> when the default is *not* to open.
>
> > > > From the OS level, things should be handled according to
> > > > their contents and whether the file modes are set to be executable
> > > > or not.
> > >
> > > They should be handled by file *type*, for consistency.
> >
> > Just because a file is named something.pl should not mean
> > that I am ready for perl to execute it. When I want it
> > executable, I'll make it executable. And the contents
> > should specify the interpreter.
>
> Once again you confuse executing with opening. When making arguments
> against Windows, use Windows terminology.
>
> > > > > > > Open, in windows, equal Run for executables.
> > > > > > > Very simple. Right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But you aren't 'in' Windows, you are 'in' email.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which reside in windows.
> > > >
> > > > And should be consistent across platforms...
> > >
> > > Why ? I thought you Unix folk revelled in your "diversity".
> >
> > Not when the diversity includes insane insecurity.
>
> Which this doesn't.
>
> > > There is no reason whatsoever for a "window" in Unix to behave like a
> > > "window" in Windows. There *is* a reason, though, for icons to behave
> > > consistently within an operating system.
> >
> > There is a reason for a concept of trusted and untrusted content and
> > there is a long history that Windows products completely ignore.
>
> If the user trusts it, then it's trusted. Period. Much like Unix.
>
> > > > > That isn't what Outlook does by default either, it saves it to
disk,
> a
> > > > > perfectly safe action.
> > > >
> > > > No, that is the worst possible action - you no longer have any
> > > > reason not to trust the contents since you have blessed it into
> > > > the filesystem.
> > >
> > > So the way every mailer on earth works - by letting you save it - is
the
> > > "worst possible action".
> >
> > It is your choice.
>
> Our point precisely.
>
> > If you want to shoot off your foot you should
> > be allowed to.
>
> Really ? So far in this thread you've spent countless posts arguing you
> *shouldn't* be able to.
>
> > However, Windows prevents you from ever being
> > able to tell if the gun is loaded or not.
>
> Bullshit. Windows provides the same facilities for checking Unix does.
> Extensions, icons, the ability (the default !) to save to permanent
storage
> for examination.
>
> > > I used to think you were marginally objective. Now I see you're just
a
> > > "Microsoft did it == bad" nutcase.
> >
> > Once the file is on your disk, how do you expect *anything else* or
> > anyone else to ever know it came from an insecure source.
>
> THE SAME WAY YOU DO IN ANY OTHER OS.
>
> > You
> > are just dropping that loaded gun in a place where children play.
>
> With the safety on. Just like every other OS.
>
> > > > It doesn't matter what either of us think about it. We know exactly
> > > > what the result of this situation is - one disaster after another.
> > >
> > > And the three mouseclicks between opening it from the email and
opening
> it
> > > from the filesystem are going to matter to people like that ? Yeah,
> > right.
> >
> > It isn't the extra effort that matters, it is being able to know the
> > difference
> > between something safe and ordinary and something dangereous.
>
> Which is identical regardless of where the attachment is being opened
from.
>
> > > > When you put something in the filesystem with your permissions,
> > > > everything thereafter must assume that it is safe and you have
> > > > done all the checking you needed to assure that. There is no
> > > > longer any way to tell that you didn't create it in the first place.
> > >
> > > SO every mailer in the world that can handle attachments is broken ?
Or
> > are
> > > the Unix ones ok because Microsoft don't write them ?
> >
> > Every mailer that lets the attachment content execute it's choice of
> > interpreter whether it is a program known to be safe or not is broken.
>
> Funny, that's different to what you wrote the first time
>
> > That just happens to be the kind that Microsoft wrote.
>
> No, it does not.
>
>
------------------------------
From: DTZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What does KDE do after all
Date: 08 Nov 2000 17:15:46 +0100
I just went though the process of recompling the KDE sources (because
the binary RPMs got me into libc trouble). This went quite flawlessly,
except it took something like 12 hours to compile.
Then I played around with it a bit, everything looked quite nice, got
some crashes here and there, lots of noise from the harddisk but the
overall impression was "it's nice".
Then I thought to myself: I can compile a linux kernel within 20
minutes and it does multitasking, filesystems even handles my
soundcard, but what does KDE actually do ?
Okay, there are some application, which (unfortunately) only run under
KDE, and Konqueror is not too bad. But there are also quite a lot of
pre-KDE applications (which compile within minutes).
Is it for the 3D-widgets ? No, I don't think so, even Tk comes with 3D
widgets and compiles within less than an hour.
Is it for the common look and feel ? Well I remember, in the old days
there was the X resource database, that one could use to customize the
UI. This was occasionally quite difficult. But then again: writing a
resource file for ane existing application is still far less work,
that porting the thing to KDE.
Is it for the "themes" ? Well THAT really cannot be done with the X
rdb (at least not with running applications), but hey - this cannot be
all KDE is good for, especially because the earlier KDE versions did
not support themes at all.
It is for drag'n drop ? Again no, cannot be, there was drag'n drop
long time before KDE came up. Unfortunately there were a lot of
incompatible protocols, so drag'n drop between any two applcations
never worked. KDE has not changed this. It just added another protocol
to the zoo we already had.
Is it for the component based architechture ? This is a point, but
immediately raises the next question: what does a component based
architechture do for me.
Please don't get me wrong: I have the deepest respect for what the KDE
developers did and I am very happy about it, because it gives Linux a
lot of publicity. Still some questions remain ...
--
In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates ?
-- Martin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reg Ex
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:07:53 GMT
I'm working w/ Regular Expressions and can't figure out how to find a
string while excluding a separate string.
For example,
if I use the regular expression c[^a]t, that will find 'ct' and 'cot',
but not 'cat'.
I want to say find an html file, but not html files within certain
directories. So \.html would find all the html files, but how do I
exlude files from the folder 'usr'.
I tried \.html\[^^usr^], but that didn't work.
Thanks!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:13:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
No-Spam wrote:
> Well well well, gues who it is .... hi "Claire_lynn/Steve/Heather/Amy":)
> Its fake identity changing time again is it ?
Is this crap being machine generated now? The plot never changes, its
like a travelling roadshow of a horrendous off-Broadway flop. "Tonight
only, the part of Linux will be played by our understudy Mandrake, who
will be temporarily replacing RedHat in the lead role while the latter
recovers from a sore throat."
Makes me want to throw rotten fruit at the author. Oh well, its
intermission time, I'm leaving.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Into the abyss of the WinTroll mind
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:35:14 -0500
Angular Turnip wrote:
> Bill Gates should include a free copy of Linux along with every copy of
> Windows he sells because once people try Linux for the first time, there
> will never be a second time. Linux in and of itself is the best reason
> to not use it.
>
> Linux is just plain complicated and lame.
Blah, blah, ad. nauseum. It's the same win-troll rubbish with that
can be answered with the same "You're just too fscking stupid to use a
computer" answer.
If these people want help, they shouldn't be so offensive. WinTrolls
want to complain about Linux, but they need to grow some netiquette
and add an "IMHO" in their posts somewhere.
Let's delve into the WinTroll mind-set. If they're having
so_much_trouble with Linux, just imagine the typical WinTroll dealing
with things other than Linux....
Guns
WinTroll: What!?! I bought the gun, and I bought the bullets,
whaddaya mean I have to load the gun!?! Okay, so I loaded the gun,
and you know what, it ran out of bullets.
Cars
WinTroll: Cars Suck! I took the car, shifted it into drive. And you
know what happened? It went forward and slammed into a wall! Why do
they have a "drive" gear if it's not going to drive for you!?! That's
why buses rule and cars suck! Cars are just too complicated!
Fishing
WinTroll: I have to put bait on the hook!?! I read how you do it, but
it's too complicated. Why can't hooks come with bait on them?
Food
WinTroll: I ordered a big steak. And you know what? I couldn't fit
it in my mouth. I complained to the waiter and he said I had to cut
it myself. Steaks suck!
Ballroom Dancing
WinTroll: I can't believe that people would do this. The waltz is so
lame. First off, you have to keep counting "1,2,3", and to make it
more complicated you have to move your feet, then you end up stepping
on your partners feet. This should just be easier.
Grocery Shopping
WinTroll: Grocery stores are such crap. I've been going over there
every week for *years*. And to think that they could figure out what
I want, put it in my trolley, and deliver it to me.
--
My Australian Shepherd is smarter than your honor student
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:29:22 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > Tell this to ebay.com and the NDA that Sun had them sign.
> >
> > I forgot a small detail:
> > what you didn't mention is that what you're referring to is
> > a hardware problem in the cache memory affecting approx. 1%
> > of Sun boxes, which are missing the sophisticated error
> > detecting software required to cope with such a problem.
>
> Honsetly, I can't tell.
> The point is that with win2k, you don't relay on one/two machines for
> anything.
> If one machine fail, then the other ones takes its place, seemlessly.
> And Win2K can cluster just as well as Solaris, and be remotedly administered
> almost as well.
>
> > How is implemented the sophisticated error-correction
> > software in Windows in order to cope with cache memory
> > errors?
> > I'd suggest you to read the full article referenced and
> > compare Sun attitude with MS attitude.
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/487061.asp?0nm=N13G&cp1=1
>
> "Sun initially required customers who reported the problem to sign a
> nondisclosure agreement because of the large quantity of internal technical
> information the computer."
>
> Allow me to express my opinion about this statement: pure bull.
> The way I see it, Sun tried to cover up the facts until it was too big to
> hold. Do you think that they suddenly don't care about the "large quantity
> of internal technical information" that they share?
I wouldn't swear either way.
>
> "(Sometimes a cosmic ray can be at fault.) [of the fault]" - It sound all
> too much like "Aliens has invaded the computer!"
> Please, spare me the SF. If it's a cosmic ray fault (exactly how, btw) build
> a protection against it.
Maybe you're not aware of the problem, but it's not SF. Just
give a look to a company which is providing service for that
sort of problems:
http://www.alphacounting.com/
When fast RAM came into production there was great rumour
about the alpha particle problem, and it appeared that you
couldn't reliably use a dinamic RAM unless you had enough
redundancy for single and double bit error correction. Then
memories without parity check became common, but I'm afraid
more out of commercial reasons.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: 9 Nov 2000 11:28:55 -0600
DTZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just went though the process of recompling the KDE sources (because
> the binary RPMs got me into libc trouble). This went quite flawlessly,
> except it took something like 12 hours to compile.
> Then I thought to myself: I can compile a linux kernel within 20
> minutes and it does multitasking, filesystems even handles my
> soundcard, but what does KDE actually do ?
Seems like this is one of the flaws of gcc 2.95.2. The C compiler itself is
pretty fast. But the C++ compiler is kinda sluggish, and on top of that, it
is a memory hog! I can't believe it. Even small c++ source files used up 64
megs + swap with C++. What the hell, is g++ written in java, or something?
Just kidding! It's not that bad. But g++ seems slower and a pig compared to
gcc.
- Donn
====== 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: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wtb: Old Digital DEC PDP-8 computer or software
Date: 9 Nov 2000 11:35:07 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you ever fixed a bug with a pair of scissors and scotch tape? Few
> of remember those wild and woolly days of computing, but they were fun,
> in a way the the new guys will never understand.
I remember back in the old days how we used to speed things up with a little
WD-40 between the gears. Yeah, the Babbage difference engine was clunky, but
it did its job.
- Donn
====== 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: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:40:33 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Tell this to ebay.com and the NDA that Sun had them sign.
> > > >
> > > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/graph/?host=www.ebay.com
> > >
> > > Downtime of ebay while using solaris?
> > > Downtime of ebay while using win2k?
> >
> > Can't tell, I made my homework, and ebay turned out NOT to
> > be using Sun, which I found quite amusing, in the light of
> > the fierce discussion which was going on. If you can locate
> > relevant data we may discuss the subject further.
>
> Um... perhaps you should do your research a little bit before
> claiming any victory.
I don't claim any victory. I don't have Sun shares, and I've
never seen a Sun box in my life. If they've purchased a bad
batch of RAM's, or have goofed in the design of the cache
memory, and caused customer headaches it's their business.
I only find it
a) Strongly amusing that MS advocates must resort to a
hardware problem to find a system reliability problem
similar (in behavior, but not in frequency) to that
experienced on MS software.
b) Mildly amusing what I've found.
>
> It's very well known (especially since the story of their
> Sun boxes spontaneously crashing made most of the major press)
> that ebay runs their backend database servers on Sun boxes.
>
> These are the boxes that puked regularly.
>
A Windows server box crashing is like a dog biting a man,
doesn't reach the press.
------------------------------
From: "Jon Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Can you love a platform without being a bigot?
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:00:04 GMT
Just FYI I found some free time to write another lame article, this time
about platform bigotry ... This one's not so good--not that either of the
previous articles were--but .. well, I'm interested in your feedback anyway.
http://www.planetspooge.com/Social/articles/-platformbigot.htm
Regards,
Jon Davis
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
